Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, hard-working Americans deserve more than living paycheck to paycheck, worrying about having to choose between paying an electric bill or putting healthy food on the table. This appropriations law ends a year of continuing budget uncertainty and extends tax credits for millions of hard-working families. We have kept out harmful riders that would have undermined everything from Wall Street reform to clean air and water laws. There are many steps forward in this bill for Vermonters and all Americans, but we need stronger steps. We need to carry this into the new year and strengthen it, to help lift the middle class and to protect the most vulnerable among us. We need much more progress in creating well-paying jobs in rural areas like Vermont, not just in the Nation's urban centers. We need to do more to protect Social Security and Medicare and other programs in the safety net. We need to do more to make college affordable for students and families. This bill will let Congress begin the new year with focusing on America's middle class, taking stronger steps to help working families. By standing together, Senate Democrats have made it possible to cancel the harmful sequester and to lift caps to make investments possible that will make a difference in communities across Vermont--from cleanup efforts on Lake Champlain, to ramping up our fight against opioid addiction, to equipping our police officers with lifesaving bulletproof vests. This omnibus spending bill is good news for my home State of Vermont, too. It includes important funds for the EPA's Lake Champlain Geographic Program, which will be critical as Vermont and the EPA take on ambitious new work and regulations to address water quality and phosphorus levels in Lake Champlain. As much as Vermonters and millions of visitors to our State enjoy Lake Champlain, we know that business as usual simply will not cut it. We need serious action, measurable work on the ground, and strong Federal resources in order to make real progress to clean up Lake Champlain. That is why I made supporting the EPA's geographic programs a top priority for fiscal year 2016. That this final bill maintains the strong Federal investments that were made last year reflects a real partnership among Federal, State, and local partners. The omnibus makes essential investments to help States and local municipalities fight the scourge of opioid and heroin addiction, which continues to devastate too many communities. Vermont has been a national leader in calling attention to this problem and bringing together communities to find solutions. This spending package includes a number of programs that will continue to support those efforts. We know that it will require strong Federal support to join State and local efforts to address this heroin crisis. In particular, this omnibus package includes funding for the Anti-Heroin Task Force Program that began last year to provide support to State law enforcement efforts like those of the Vermont Drug Task Force in dismantling supply chains trafficking heroin into our States. Because we know that enforcement alone cannot solve this problem, this bill also includes increased funding for grants to expand medication assisted treatment programs, and funding to distribute lifesaving naloxone to prevent overdoses. It offers continued support for drug court programs that prevent individuals suffering from addiction from needlessly entering our criminal justice system and instead helps set them on a path towards treatment and recovery. I am proud to support for funding these critical programs that provide a lifeline to communities struggling to eliminate this opioid crisis. This omnibus bill will grow jobs in Vermont and across the country. When I walk down the street in Montpelier or talk to people at the grocery store in Waterbury, I hear too many stories from Vermonters who are working two, even three jobs to make ends meet. Congress needs to do more to spur job growth, and I believe this bill will make a measurable impact. The heart and soul of Vermont's economy are our small businesses. In fact, over 90 percent of the employers in Vermont are small businesses, employing more than half of all Vermonters that work in the private sector. So naturally, the Small Business Administration, SBA, and the programs it supports are critically important to ensuring that Vermont businesses have access to the capital they need to expand. Year after year, we see all sectors of the Vermont economy utilizing SBA programs from manufacturing, to agriculture, clean energy, and even craft brewing. Vermont Precision Tools in Swanton, which manufactures high- quality burs for the medical device industry, is one such example. Pete's Greens, a certified organic vegetable farm that has been a leader in Vermont's agricultural renaissance, is another. This past year, the SBA had its highest level of lending in Vermont, backing more than $53 million in loans. This omnibus bill will ensure that Vermonters have access to just as much capital in 2016. Another critical source of capital for Vermont's businesses has been made possible through the Treasury Department's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, CDFI. Community Capital of Vermont is one of our State's organizations that have leveraged CDFI funds and the SBA's microloan program to help neighborhood businesses--such as Barrio Bakery in the Old North End of Burlington, Patchwork Farm Bakery in Hardwick, Liberty Chocolates in Montpelier, and Bent Hill Brewery in Randolph. This year we were able to increase funding for the CDFI program, while also increasing access to healthy food and expanding work in rural areas. Vermont is a northern border State, and the connection we share with our Canadian neighbors is an important one for our cultural and economic identity. Senators from neighboring States know well that some communities have experienced unique economic challenges, and that is why we worked together to create the Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC. I appreciate their support and joining with me to increase the NBRC budget to $7.5 million for the coming year. In the short time the commission has existed, it has helped companies like Superior Technical Ceramics in St. Albans develop a plan to increase their exports; the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund is helping grow Vermont's wood products sector; an industrial park in Franklin County has received funds for improvements to entice Canadian companies to expand in the United States; and--a jewel of the Northeast Kingdom-- Willoughby Lake, will have increased amenities resulting in more travel and tourism. As a result of the Bipartisan Budget Act Congress approved in October, critical funding was restored to the HOME program, which helps States and communities preserve existing and produce new units of affordable housing. The Senate-passed Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill decimated the HOME program, providing a paltry $66 million. Because of the Bipartisan Budget Act, in fiscal year 2016, the HOME program will receive $950 million--an increase of $50 million over 2015 funding--which will help every State, including Vermont, address critical housing needs. The National Institutes of Health, the Nation's leading medical research hub, will receive a $2 billion increase in funding, which will benefit research institutions like the University of Vermont. The bill continues to support community health centers that will be funded at just over $5 billion next year. In Vermont alone, 11 federally qualified community health centers with 56 delivery sites provided care over the past 2 years to nearly 200,000 patients. These health centers employ over 900 people. The omnibus reauthorizes for 3 years the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and provides needed funding to support it. Early next year, I hope Congress will redouble its efforts to ensure that this critical conservation program--which supports projects in every State, in every corner of our country--receives permanent authorization and full funding--all at no expense to the taxpayer. Important, too, is that this omnibus rejects efforts by industry giants to block Vermont's Act 120, which requires the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Vermonters support their law, because they believe--as do I--that consumers have the right to know what is in the food they are eating. An omnibus spending bill is no place to make national policy that undermines carefully crafted laws at the state level. As ranking member of the Department of State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to thank Chairman Lindsey Graham, Chairwoman Kay Granger, and Ranking Member Nita Lowey for the way they worked with me and my staff to reach agreement on the State and foreign operations title of this omnibus bill. Their expertise was invaluable in producing a bill that provides funding for important diplomatic, development, security, and humanitarian priorities of the United States and that reflect our Nation's values. Division K of the omnibus, for the Department of State and foreign operations, provides a total of $52.7 billion in discretionary budget authority. This funding helps protect U.S. personnel, including our diplomats, working overseas; funds programs to combat trafficking in persons, wildlife poaching, and drug smuggling; provides historic levels of funding to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases that threaten hundreds of millions of people around the world; supports key allies in countering ISIL and other terrorist organizations; provides funds to promote renewable energy and protect the environment; and funds relief programs for refugees and other victims of conflict and natural disasters. These are just a few examples. Division K also includes important provisions to ensure transparency, combat corruption, and prevent assistance to and encourage accountability for those who would misuse U.S. assistance by violating human rights or engaging in corruption or other financial crimes. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes increased funding for agent orange remediation and health and disability programs in Vietnam; the Leahy War Victims Fund to assist innocent victims of war, clear unexploded bombs in Southeast Asia and other parts of the world; and educational and cultural exchange programs including the amount requested for the Fulbright exchange program. In addition, authority is provided to help threatened scholars around the world find academic institutions where they can continue their work in safety. The bill also supports programs that directly benefit Vermonters, including the amount requested for the Peace Corps and funding above the amount requested for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to support additional sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes and the Lake Champlain Basin. I am disappointed that a provision I authored, which was included in the Senate bill, to enable the U.S. to provide technical assistance to support investigations, apprehensions, and prosecutions of those who commit genocide and other crimes against humanity, was not included. There are also some things that I wish were not in this bill, including a provision carried from last year that would weaken limits on carbon emissions from projects financed by the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. No bill is perfect, and we will undoubtedly revisit these and other issues next year. I have heard from many Vermonters concerned that controversial policy provisions were to be included in this final spending bill. While I am grateful this final bill does not include many of the poison pill policy riders included in the House and Senate passed bills--measures that would have eroded health care services, repealed Dodd-Frank, and threatened key environmental protections, among other issues--I am concerned that it includes a giveaway to Big Oil by lifting the decades-long ban on crude oil exports. While I understand that, in exchange for lifting the ban, the omnibus is free of several proposed policy riders that would undermine Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act regulations and extends several environmental and renewable energy tax measures, I share the concerns of many environmentalists that lifting this ban will result in increased oil development and we could see higher gasoline prices in New England. I am disappointed that the omnibus includes two policy riders that will further wear away transparency and accountability in our campaign finance system. These provisions will only promote the spending of dark money in Federal elections and further erode the trust of the American people in their political system. I am also disappointed that the omnibus is being used to jam cyber security information sharing legislation through Congress. This is not the way to pass major legislation, particularly one that threatens to significantly harm Americans' privacy rights. This new version of the cyber security information sharing bill--which was negotiated behind closed doors by leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees--rolls back a number of significant consumer and privacy protections that were included in the Senate-passed bill and over which the Judiciary Committee has primary jurisdiction, including language that could affect the scope of liability protections and that would expand Federal preemption of State FOIA and transparency laws. These changes are dangerous and unnecessary. Congress should have been given an opportunity to study, debate, and vote on a bill of this magnitude under regular order--not choose between this bill and a government shutdown. I hope that, when the Senate returns next year, we can consider legislation to mitigate the potential harm of this legislation. Of course, with this omnibus spending bill, the Senate will consider the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes, PATH, Act. Last year, in the closing days of Congress, I opposed a 1-year, retroactive extension of expiring tax credits, not because I do not support those credits, but because our small businesses, middle-class families, and entrepreneurs need more certainty. The PATH Act provides that in some instances through 2016 and in other instances with permanency. I am pleased that the PATH Act extends permanently the earned income tax credit, EITC, and the child tax credit, CTC. These credits have helped Vermont families recover from the recession. Vermont was one of the first States in the nation to supplement federal EITC dollars. In 2013, low-income families in Vermont received an estimated $2,400 in State and Federal tax credits that year. For the many families who qualify for these programs, these credits provide a significant increase in take-home pay. This not only has the potential to lift families out of poverty, it also motivates many to return to the workforce. While I would have preferred that these extensions be paired with an indexing proposal, extending permanency to them is welcomed news for millions of American families. The PATH Act also supports small businesses by encouraging hiring, promoting investment in low-income areas, promoting domestic renewable energy development, and encouraging research and development. I am grateful that the bill includes a permanently extension of the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. I have long championed this deduction. It helps organizations like the Vermont Food Bank and encourages donors to support food shelfs across the country. Finally, I am deeply disappointed that, despite bipartisan, bicameral agreement, needed reforms to the EB-5 regional center program were not included in this final bill. On Tuesday evening, just hours before the bill became public, congressional leaders inexplicably decided to extend the EB-5 program without any reform. The program was given a free pass despite broad, bipartisan agreement that it is in urgent need of an overhaul. Time and again, concerns have been raised about the regional center program's susceptibility to fraud, its lack of oversight and transparency, and the rampant abuse of its incentives to invest in underserved communities--undermining a core premise of the program. Homeland Security Secretary Johnson, the Government Accountability Office, and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General have all raised concerns. While the program's flaws are obvious to anyone paying attention, the necessary fixes are as well. I have long worked to improve the regional center program, and my EB-5 amendment to the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill in the last Congress was unanimously approved in the Judiciary Committee. This Congress, I authored far-reaching reforms with Chairman Grassley and House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers. We had the support of by far the largest trade association representing the EB-5 industry, as well as the civil rights community. We pushed hard to include our reforms in the omnibus, but some congressional leaders inexcusably rejected these vital reforms. We have a comprehensive, bipartisan reform bill that the chairmen and ranking members of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees support. These reforms would address the many troubles that plague this program, including increasing oversight and transparency, protecting investors, and promoting investment and job growth in underserved communities as Congress always intended. We cannot again squander this opportunity. We should act on our bill when we return in January to ensure integrity and to demand ongoing oversight of the program.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today is an important day for two reasons. One, it is a sad day because it was just a few years ago today when a dear friend, Senator Dan Inouye, died--one of my closest friends and former President pro tempore and senior Member of this body. It is also a good day because it marks one year since the release of Alan Gross from a Cuban prison where he had spent 5 years. During that time he lost more than 100 pounds, he lost five teeth, his mother died, his mother-in-law died, his brother-in-law died, and he missed his daughter's wedding. I worked for years to help obtain Alan Gross's release and the return of the remaining members of the so-called Cuban Five, who had served more than 15 years in U.S. prisons. Scott Gilbert, Alan Gross's lawyer, did an outstanding job, traveling countless times to Cuba. He skillfully advocated on Alan's behalf with Cuban and U.S. officials. My foreign policy adviser, Tim Rieser, went down several times to boost Alan Gross's morale, visiting him in prison and bringing him messages. My larger purpose, like my good friend from Arizona Senator Flake, who has been a real partner in this, was to finally put the Cold War behind us and to start looking forward to a new era. Like Senator Flake and many others, I was convinced that such a step would be widely embraced by the U.S. business community, by religious groups, by academia, the scientific community, the media, and Americans across the political spectrum. I also knew it would be welcomed around the world, including in countries where people believe in democracy and human rights as strongly as we do. I remember when an ambassador from a South American country came up to my wife Marcelle, saying: We have always respected the United States but also we respected Cuba, and your relationship with Cuba was like a stone in our shoe. Now, by restoring relations with Cuba, you have removed the stone from our shoe. He, like so many others, recognized that Alan Gross's release ushered in a new day in United States-Cuba relations. I will never forget on August 14, standing there when our flag was raised at the U.S. Embassy in Havana, listening to our national anthem played, and I heard Cubans standing just outside the gates of the Embassy cheering when the American flag went up. It was a deeply moving experience to be there on a swelteringly hot day. We had 54 years of a failed, punitive policy that achieved none of its objectives. President Obama and President Raul Castro wisely decided it was time to chart a new path. The reaction of the people of the United States and Cuba has been overwhelmingly positive. Even some of Cuba's most vocal critics of the Castro government have welcomed this new opening. Which brings me back to Alan Gross. He had every reason to be a bitter defender of U.S. sanctions, but instead he strongly supported the new policy of engagement. He has never expressed anything but warmth and admiration for the Cuban people. Contrast that with the small handful of Members of Congress who continue to defend a discredited policy of isolation that has been repudiated by large majorities of their own constituents, denounced by every other government in the hemisphere, and which even they acknowledge it has not succeeded. Their answer is to keep it in place, even opposing efforts by the State Department to improve security and staffing at the U.S. Embassy in Havana, to which the Cuban Government has agreed. I ask that you to look at this photograph of Alan Gross and his wife. I took this just minutes after he was told he was going home. Senator Flake, Congressman Van Hollen, and I were there to pick him up. This is not the face of a bitter man. When I took this picture, I thought as I pressed the shutter that this is the face of a man who knows we can have different days. I am not so naive to think that reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba is going to result in the rapid transformation of Cuba into a democracy. Cuba's leaders are steadfast believers in a repressive political system that has enabled them to hold power unchallenged for more than half a century. Their economic policies have been a disaster, resulting in daily hardships for the Cuban people. You can see it whenever you travel to Cuba. While the Cuban Government blames its economic problems on the U.S. embargo, no one seriously believes that, although it is undeniable that the embargo has exacerbated the hardships. It is also undeniable that support for the embargo in the United States, from the business community to the human rights community, has evaporated. I wonder how many Members of Congress know that in the past 5 years the Government of Cuba, while blaming us for the embargo, has imported more than $1 billion in U.S. agriculture and medical products. American exports mean American jobs. There would be a lot more exports if we got rid of the embargo. Right now it is punishing American workers, as well as Cubans. Why are we also punishing half a million Cuban entrepreneurs who already work in the private sector and are no longer dependent on the government? Why not support the private sector in Cuba as we do everywhere else in the world? Why not open the United States to the emerging Cuban market? I think it is past time to replace vindictiveness and personal family grievances with what is best for the American people. I have condemned the Cuban Government's arrest and imprisonment, after unfair trials, of individuals that have done nothing more than peacefully protest against the government's repressive policies. At least two of them were among the 53 who were released as part of our agreement a year ago. Eleven others released earlier still cannot travel freely. But Cuba's leaders cannot stop the tide of history any more than any of us can. The majority of Cubans were not even born at the time of the 1959 revolution. They have very different priorities and aspirations than those who overthrew Batista's corrupt, abusive regime. Cuba is changing in ways that will mean more freedom and more engagement in the world, and more economic opportunities. During the past 12 months, the Obama administration has taken historic steps to implement the new policy. After so many decades, when U.S.-Cuba relations were frozen, the progress in the last year has been breathtaking. Talks are underway between both governments on a wide range of issues, including one wrapping up last night on resuming direct mail and air service, but also on law enforcement cooperation and property claims. Senator Flake, who has been such a leader on this--he and I have introduced legislation, cosponsored by 45 other Democrats and Republicans, to end restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba. Those restrictions don't exist for travel to any other country, including North Korea and Iran. If our bill were called up for a vote, and if we listened to the American people, it would pass easily. This year the Senate Appropriations Committee passed, with bipartisan majorities, a similar travel amendment by Senator Moran and me and two other amendments to facilitate U.S. agriculture exports and shipping to and from Cuba. In contrast, the House of Representatives adopted half a dozen provisions offered by just one Member that would turn back the clock. I have no doubt that the path begun by President Obama and President Raul Castro is the right one for the people of both countries, and that the dwindling few who continue to try to stand in its way will fail. History is not on their side. Rather than continue to cling to a policy that was misguided from its inception and that did nothing to help the Cuban people, they should respect the will of their constituents and the Cubans on whose behalf they erroneously claim to speak. It was only 12 months ago that Senator Flake and I walked up the gangplank onto the President's plane with Alan and Judy Gross. I took many photographs that day, and our son-in-law, Lawrence Jackson, one of the President's photographers, was also there recording it for posterity. Look at how much has been accomplished in those 12 months for the benefit of the people of Cuba and the United States. It has done more for the reputation of the United States and its influence in this hemisphere than has been done in the past half century. I ask unanimous consent that a chronology of those accomplishments prepared by the Engage Cuba coalition be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I hope that before another year passes the Congress will finally recognize that it too has a responsibility to respect the will of the people, to end the embargo and to stop interfering with the right of Americans to travel. And that exposing the Cuban people to our ideas, our principles, and our products is the best policy for the future. I see my dear friend, the Senator from Arizona, on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we close the book on the first session of the 114th Congress, our attention is on the thousands of pages in the omnibus spending bill. But as the Republican leadership rushes to spin the press about what the Senate has accomplished in their 12 months in the majority, there is one Senate responsibility that should not get lost in the noise. That is our responsibility to equip our coequal branches of government, the Federal judiciary and the executive branch, with the confirmed public servants that both branches need to serve the American people. Senate Republicans began the year by filibustering the nomination of the first Black woman to be nominated for the position of Attorney General of the United States. No other Attorney General nominee in our history has been met with a filibuster. That did not stop Republicans from holding up Loretta Lynch's nomination longer than the last seven Attorneys Generals combined. Our Nation's top law enforcement official deserved better treatment, but the fight to get her a confirmation vote previewed how difficult it would be to get votes scheduled on other crucial nominees. Republicans have blocked confirmation votes for the people nominated to serve as Ambassadors to some of our closest allies. They have blocked consideration of nominees who would help keep our country safe from terrorist threats, including a Treasury Department nominee who would lead an office that investigates terrorist financing. By the end of this week, Senate Republicans will have also earned the dubious distinction of matching the record for confirming the fewest annual number of judicial nominees in more than half a century. Too many Americans who have sought justice in our Federal courts this year have instead found delays and empty courtrooms because of Senate Republicans' obstruction on judicial nominees. I am concerned that Republicans' treatment of our third branch risks politicizing it and diminishing the role that it was designed to play in our system of government. For the first 6 years of President Obama's tenure in office, Senate Republicans pulled out every stop to obstruct confirmations on judicial nominees--systematically filibustering nominees and abandoning the Senate's tradition of confirming consensus judicial nominees before long recesses. While I was hopeful they would change course once they assumed the majority, they have instead taken their obstruction to unprecedented heights by virtually shutting down judicial confirmations. Over the course of the entire year, Senate Republicans have allowed judicial confirmation votes for only 11 nominees. In stark contrast, when Senate Democrats were in the majority during the seventh year of the Bush Presidency, we confirmed 40 judges that year--more than triple the number of judges confirmed this year. The Senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the President's nominees. It is part of the core duties we must fulfill as Senators, and a fully functioning Federal judiciary is dependent on us meeting this obligation. I have urged the Republican leaders to allow confirmation votes on the uncontroversial judicial nominees before the end of the year. We have 19 judicial nominees still pending on the floor. Each of these nominees was voice voted out of the Judiciary Committee, and each has the support of their home State Senators. Traditionally, the Senate has confirmed such consensus nominees at the end of a session, but Republicans have repeatedly refused to do so during the Obama Presidency. This is the seventh year in a row that Senate Republicans are rejecting the Senate's practice of consenting to confirmation votes at the end of a session. At the end of 2009, Senate Republicans left 10 judicial nominees on the Senate floor without a vote. At the end of 2010 and again in 2011, Senate Republicans left 19 judicial nominees pending on the calendar as they left town. In 2012, it was 11 judicial nominees, and in 2013, it was nine that Senate Republicans left pending on the floor. Last year, Senate Republicans attempted to block 12 nominees on the floor in December. Fortunately, because Leader Reid took seriously the Senate's duty to fill judicial vacancies and filed cloture on those nominees, we were able to get those nominees confirmed. In each of the last 2 years of the George W. Bush administration when Democrats were in the Senate majority, we confirmed all of President Bush's judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar in December before we left for the year. Contrast that with this year when Senate Republicans are leaving 19 judicial nominees pending on the floor as they head home. The Republicans' double standard for President Obama's nominees will force the Senate to spend time next year doing work that should have been completed by now. For example, for the 19 nominations Senate Republicans left in 2010 and again in 2011, it took nearly half the following year in each case for the Senate to confirm these nominees. Perhaps Senate Republicans' real intent is to just run out the clock on the Obama administration--but these delays are not procedural abstractions without real world consequences. For the judicial nominees who have already made a commitment to public service in the Federal judiciary, the obstruction means they must continue to wait and keep their professional lives on hold wondering if the Senate will do its job. The consequences for the judges currently serving in the Federal judiciary, as well as the litigants seeking justice before them, are also very real. Senate Republicans' treatment of judicial nominations has resulted in a dramatic increase in judicial vacancies this year. Since Republicans took over the majority in January, judicial vacancies have increased by more than 50 percent--from 42 to 66. These vacancies impact communities across America, and it is doing the most harm to States with at least one Republican Senator. Of the 66 current vacancies that exist, 47 of them--or more than 70 percent--are in States with at least one Republican Senator. Of critical concern is the fact that judicial vacancies deemed to be ``emergency'' vacancies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts have more than doubled this year. These vacancies represent judicial districts where caseloads are unmanageably high, leading to lengthier delays for parties before those courts; yet, as we leave for the year, 9 of the 19 nominees pending on the floor that Senate Republicans refuse to confirm are judicial emergency vacancies in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Jersey, Iowa, New York, and California. In addition to the article III nominees, there are five nominees to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims who were nominated well over a year ago. Each of these nominees was unanimously voice voted out of Committee last year and again this year. The Court of Federal Claims has been referred to as the ``keeper of the nation's conscience'' and ``the People's Court'' because it allows citizens with claims against the government to promptly seek justice. It is critically important that we confirm the five pending nominees to this court. However, they continue to be blocked by a single Republican Senator--the junior Senator of Arkansas. Senator Cotton claims to have concerns that the court's caseload is not high enough and that the court should simply depend on senior judges coming out of retirement to hear cases. A recent letter to the committee from the chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims, however, indicates that only one of the nine senior judges is willing to be recalled for full-time duty and the other three would only agree to be recalled on a limited basis. Furthermore, the court's overall caseload has increased by 9 percent over the last year. No member of the Judiciary Committee raised caseload concerns when these nominees were unanimously approved by voice vote last year or again this year. There is no good reason for Senator Cotton to deprive Americans across the country of a fully functioning Court of Federal Claims by blocking the five highly qualified nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote. These nominees include Armando Bonilla, a Cuban American who has devoted his entire career to public service at the U.S. Department of Justice; Jeri Somers, an African-American woman who spent over two decades serving as a judge advocate general and as a military judge; and several others who would contribute to our justice system. As these nominees approach the 2-year mark of waiting for the Senate to take up their confirmations, I urge Senator Cotton to consider these well-qualified nominees on their merits. I have heard some suggest that Republicans' glacial pace on judicial confirmations is political retribution for the change to Senate rules regarding nominations. This obstruction, however, does not hurt U.S. Senators--it hurts the American people. Behind the statistics on Republican obstruction--the number of nominees languishing without votes on the Senate floor, the rising number of judicial vacancies, and the dramatic increase in emergency vacancies--are the experiences of real people in our justice system--individuals and small businesses seeking justice in our Federal courts who end up waiting for years for overburdened courts to hear their claims. The national press, including the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, has highlighted the devastating effects of the high number of judicial vacancies. The Wall Street Journal interviewed one of the Federal judges in a California district where a judgeship went unfilled for almost 3 years. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said, ``Over the years I've received several letters from people indicating, `Even if I win this case now, my business has failed because of the delay. How is this justice?' And the simple answer, which I cannot give them, is this: It is not justice. We know it.'' Senate Republicans' obstruction on judicial nominees has also had another effect; it has halted the enormous progress needed in making the Federal judiciary better reflect the citizenry it serves. This progress increases public confidence in our justice system. I am proud of the fact that there are more women and minorities than ever before serving on our Federal bench. Yet, as we conclude this session, the Senate is leaving several nominees of color with outstanding qualifications on the floor without votes. This includes Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo, who was nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy in the third circuit well over a year ago. When he is eventually confirmed, he will be the first Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania on the third circuit. Judge Restrepo has the strong support of the Hispanic National Bar Association and has bipartisan support from his home State Senators, Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. Senator Toomey has said not only that he strongly supports Judge Restrepo's confirmation, but that he also recommended him to the President. Despite this overwhelming support for his nomination and the emergency vacancy that needs to be filled urgently, Republican leadership recently skipped over Judge Restrepo on the Executive Calendar to confirm a district court nominee from Tennessee for a nonemergency judgeship. In addition to Judge Restrepo, Senate Republicans are adjourning for the year with four exceptional African-American district court nominees and an exceptional Hispanic district court nominee held up on the floor. Two of the African-American nominees--Waverly Crenshaw and Edward Stanton--have been nominated to district court positions in Tennessee. Both have the support of their home State Republican Senators and were unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. The three other nominees of color--Justice Wilhelmina Wright to the District of Minnesota and John Vazquez and Julien Neals to the District of New Jersey--are all nominated to judicial emergency vacancies. All have the support of their home State Senators, and all were voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. The only reason all of these nominees could not be confirmed this week is that Senate Republicans would not allow it. While there is no reason not to hold votes on these nominees today, I am glad that Republicans have consented to a bipartisan plan to confirm five well-qualified judicial nominees in the 5-week period after we return in the new year. Because of this agreement, the Senate will be on pace in the first 2 months of next year to confirm almost half the number of nominees it took us this entire year to confirm. Under the agreement, the Senate will hold confirmation votes for Judge Restrepo as well as four district court nominees: Justice Wilhelmina Wright to the district of Minnesota; John Vazquez to the district of New Jersey; Judge Rebecca Ebinger to the southern district of Iowa; and Judge Leonard Strand to the northern district of Iowa. Four of these nominees are nominated to fill emergency vacancies, and three are nominees of color. This agreement allows for good progress that the Senate must continue to build on, so that we reduce judicial vacancies to ensure that Americans can seek timely justice in our courts. Federal judges serve an essential role in communities across the Nation. In 2 weeks, the Chief Justice of the United States will issue his end-of-year report. His predecessor often noted in such reports the impact of unfilled judicial vacancies on the functioning of the third branch. I hope that such a core resource matter will again be addressed in the upcoming report because the Republican majority's treatment of nominations this past year has been an historic disappointment. I hope that, in the new year, the Senate will make progress on the judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee as well as on additional nominees that we receive from the President. I was glad to hear the majority leader's remarks this week that he does not believe there should be a cutoff point for confirming qualified judicial nominees in an election year. The majority leader has been consistent on this view, and I commend him for it. In July 2008, the Senate Republican caucus held a hearing solely dedicated to arguing that the Thurmond rule does not exist. At that hearing, the senior Senator from Kentucky stated: ``I think it's clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.'' Similarly, the Senator from Iowa, my friend who is now serving as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, stated at that hearing that the Thurmond rule was in his view ``plain bunk.'' He said: ``The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president's term.'' That was certainly the case when Democrats were in the majority in the last 2 years of the George W. Bush administration. I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee then, and I can tell you that Senate Democrats confirmed 22 of President Bush's judicial nominees in the second half of 2008. The American people deserve to have judicial vacancies in their communities filled. Hard-working Americans across this country are counting on us to do our jobs as Senators. Our constituents call our offices and meet with us to let us know how they feel about the legislative issues before us. They should not also have to ask us to fulfill the bare minimum of our constitutional duties, such as the duty to consider nominees in a timely manner to keep the third branch of government fully functioning. I sincerely hope the new year will bring a new approach from Senate Republicans and that we can move forward to confirm all of the pending judicial nominees without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for more than 235 years, the United States has served as a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions coming to our shores seeking a better life. Ours is a nation founded upon the ideal of freedom, and throughout our history, there have been moments when this most fundamental ideal has been challenged. The complicated history of our Nation is not without its dark moments, but at every turn, we have sought to recommit ourselves to our basic ideals and principles, always moving to be a more inclusive society. Today, as some continue to espouse hate-filled views that demonize those of a certain faith, we need thoughtful voices to speak out and remind us all of what we stand for as Americans. In his column this weekend in the Rutland Herald, veteran journalist Barrie Dunsmore did just that. He reminded us that in the wake of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, our own government rushed to judge Japanese Americans and imprisoned them in internment camps out of fear they sought to do us harm. This was a deplorable response to a national tragedy that remains a stain on our history. Mr. Dunsmore reflected on how this fear was perpetuated by news media professionals who enabled these scare tactics through their reporting and the response by some elected leaders who also promulgated this fear through their own actions. Fear is what drove the racist and unconstitutional response to Japanese Americans in the wake of the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941. And fear is what is encouraging some to recklessly hurl suspicion on Muslim Americans today in the wake of a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA, and unrest around the world. As Americans, we must categorically reject the divisive and corrosive rhetoric of fear that only serves to undermine us as a nation. Americans cannot let themselves be coerced by the politics of fear today. If we do, then the terrorists and extremists will have won. Terrorists want us to be afraid, and they want us to be a nation divided. Groups like ISIS actively promote the narrative that Muslims are not welcome in the United States, and the xenophobic, hateful rhetoric espoused by some today plays into our enemies' hands. It also demeans us as a democratic nation founded on the principles of freedom, equality, and liberty. We should not let our country be defined by irresponsible fear-mongering. We are better than that. Columns like the one written this weekend by Barrie Dunsmore are important reminders of just how far we have come as a nation. We cannot turn back now, and we cannot turn against our fellow Americans now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Barrie Dunsmore's column from Sunday, December 13, 2015, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to celebrate the success of another Vermont business, Danforth Pewter, which this year celebrates 40 years of producing quality, hand-crafted pewter products. Danforth Pewter--owned and operated by Fred and Judi Danforth--opened for business in 1975 in Woodstock, VT. What started as a family business operating in a milk house in an old dairy barn has expanded to a workshop and flagship store in Middlebury and a network of retail stores in Burlington, Waterbury, and Woodstock, VT, and in Colonial Williamsburg, VA. This rich history of Danforth Pewter, however, dates back more than two-and-a-half centuries, when Thomas Danforth II opened his pewter shop in Middletown, CT in 1755. Generations of Danforths followed in the patriarch's footsteps until 1873. A century later, Fred Danforth and his wife, Judi, also an artist, rekindled the family tradition and, following in the footsteps of his great-great-great-great-great- grandfather, reopened what is today a thriving business with a reputation for quality that extends far beyond the Green Mountains of Vermont. Fast forward to today, and the Danforth pewterer legacy lives on. Using the same techniques to cast pewter today as were originally used by Thomas Danforth II is an even greater testament to the longevity of fine craftsmanship and the quality of the goods produced at Danforth Pewter. Every time Marcelle and I visit Danforth Pewter, we are impressed by the time and effort that goes into each piece. We shared the quality of this craftsmanship in 2008 when we shared palm stones crafted at Danforth Pewter with other delegates at the 2008 National Convention. Whenever we are in Middlebury, Marcelle and I try to stop in the store and see what new pieces are available. Our home in Vermont is dotted with Danforth Pewter pieces, and many hold special memories for us. These pieces are part of what makes our house in Vermont truly our home. The Burlington Free Press recently ran an article highlighting the long history of Danforth Pewter, punctuated with images of some of the company's most historic pieces. I ask unanimous consent that this December 11, 2015, article entitled ``Inside the world of Danforth Pewter' '' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for just a moment?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope both Senators and Members of the other body listened to what the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois just said. We all extol the virtues of Main Street America-- small towns, big towns. I think of the businesses I go into every time I am home in Vermont. These are hard-working people. They are people who support the Little League, the Boy Scout troops, help with all the various charitable drives. And they're being treated unfairly. What the Senator from Illinois said is absolutely right. There are two different issues. Let's start leveling the playing field. Let's start worrying as much about the citizens of our own community, the people who make our communities work, as we do about some conglomerate that none of us ever see, and our communities never see. So I am proud to say I strongly support what the Senator from Illinois has done. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many talented Vermonters support local agencies charged with ensuring the safety of Vermont communities throughout the State, each and every day. Today I would like to recognize one such department--the Grand Isle County Sheriff's Department, which received two national Highway Safety Awards at last month's annual gathering of the International Association of Chiefs of Police in Chicago. Grand Isle County lies in the northwest reaches of Vermont, covering five towns and 85 square miles of land. It is actually a chain of islands surrounded by the waters of Lake Champlain, with commanding views of the Adirondacks to the west and the Green Mountains to the east. Its communities swell with summer visitors who come to enjoy the ``beauty spot'' of the islands. While it is a rural area, Grand Isle County is also home to the busy Route 2 corridor that links the United States and Canada, a critical transportation route for commerce between the two countries. As such, Grand Isle provides unique challenges for Sheriff Ray Allen and his 13 sworn deputies who work to protect the safety of its visitors and residents while ensuring that traffic is not impeded. The Grand Isle Sheriff's Department was one of only three small sheriff agencies to be recognized with the National Law Enforcement Safety Challenge award, as noted by the Burlington Free Press. The award cited the department's excellence in traffic safety, with specific focus on impaired driving and speeding violations. Sheriff Allen's department was also honored with the National Sheriffs' Association's Top Traffic Safety Award, sharing that distinction with the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office. These two awards are a notable achievement for a small department and in no small part due to Sheriff Allen's strong leadership. Sheriff Allen is the type of law enforcement officer who cares deeply about the communities he serves and the department he represents. Sheriff Allen was sworn into office in 2011, following 20 years of service as a deputy sheriff. When he is not tending to highways, he is tending to the family's well-known apple orchard. On the Grand Isle Sheriff's Department Web site, Sheriff Allen cites ``the great working relationship with Local, State and Federal agencies'' that his department enjoys. This, we know, does not happen by accident, and such cooperation is a trademark of successful policing. ``We will strive to build upon the confidence and trust the citizens of Grand Isle County have placed upon us by developing strong relationships with the community and providing high quality, cost effective law enforcement services.'' This is Sheriff Allen's pledge, and one supported by those who work with him. With these awards, Sheriff Allen has done just that. He has made his department and his community proud. Congratulations, Sheriff Ray Allen.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want other Senators to be aware of information I received about Ecuadorian National Assembly member Lourdes Tiban, a prominent and respected leader of Ecuador's indigenous people. As an indigenous leader, Ms. Tiban has become one of the most outspoken advocates for freedom of expression, indigenous rights, and social rights in Ecuador. Not surprisingly, this has made her the target of verbal attacks by President Rafael Correa. Earlier this year, Ms. Tiban was beaten by unidentified assailants as she was walking to work. The assault was filmed and then shared online by government supporters who posted humiliating comments. This isn't the first time that Ms. Tiban has been physically assaulted. She is the victim of two other similar incidents which I am told have not been properly investigated. It is regrettable that, instead of vigorously investigating this latest attack against Ms. Tiban, a National Assembly member from President Correa's political party has brought a criminal case for libel against her. This is believed to be in retaliation for Ms. Tiban's claim that government supporters were responsible for targeting her, presumably in an attempt to silence her and remove her from the National Assembly. Ecuador is a country where judicial independence is seriously compromised. I have spoken about this several times, and it has been well documented by the Department of State, the United Nations, and human rights organizations. It is also illustrated by the fact that the Council of the Judiciary, with the power to appoint and remove judges, is comprised of five former officials of the Correa administration. It is likely that the criminal investigation against Ms. Tiban could result in an unjust conviction. We should condemn these attacks on freedom of expression, political rights, and the rights of indigenous people, and we should defend judicial independence which is fundamental to democracy in Ecuador and throughout the hemisphere. Lourdes Tiban has devoted her legislative efforts to protecting human rights for her people, and I am confident that she will continue to do so as she is not easily intimidated. She has my support and the support of others who believe in the principles of democracy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, whistleblowers serve an essential role in providing transparency and accountability in the Federal Government. It is important that all government employees are provided with strong and effective avenues to come forward with evidence of government abuse and misuse. To ensure that whistleblowers feel comfortable speaking up when they discover wrongdoing, it is also imperative that they are afforded protections from retaliation. That is why Senator Grassley and I are joining together to introduce the Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``FBI'', Whistleblower Protection Enhancements Act of 2015. Current FBI policies do not go far enough to protect whistleblowers. In March, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing that highlighted a number of serious problems facing whistleblowers at the FBI. We received testimony about the lack of protections for employees who report waste, fraud, or abuse to their direct supervisors. We also heard instances of the FBI failing to comply with regulatory requirements when conducting retaliation investigations, and that adjudication of contested cases can take years. One former employee, Michael German, testified in detail about how he was forced to end his distinguished career at the FBI after he disclosed to Congress serious deficiencies in the agency's handling of counterterrorism investigations. He chose to do this after making a protected whistleblower disclosure at the FBI that went nowhere while the retaliation continued. The concerns expressed at the hearing echo concerns that were identified in two recent reports on the FBI whistleblower framework, one by the Department of Justice and the other by Government Accountability Office. Clearly the status quo is unacceptable. Congress should extend to FBI whistleblowers the same level of protection that is afforded other Federal employees who speak out about waste, fraud, or abuse. That is what Senator Grassley and I seek to do today with this bill. Our legislation closely tracks the protections contained in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Importantly, we extend whistleblower protections to FBI employees who blow the whistle to supervisors in their chain of command. This common sense fix is crucial to protect those employees who dare to speak up and report concerns to their superiors. The bill also provides clear guidance on the investigation and adjudication of retaliation claims. Investigations will now be handled solely by the Office of Inspector General, rather than sharing this responsibility with the Office of Professional Responsibility. This will provide much needed clarity and consistency in the process. Contested cases will now be adjudicated by Administrative Law Judges instead of by the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management. Under this new process the Administrative Procedures Act will apply, ensuring a hearing on the record and strong procedural protections for all parties. This bipartisan bill will help to ensure that FBI employees are able to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, or abuse at the FBI and not face personal repercussions for doing so. I urge the Senate to act quickly to take up and pass this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, whistleblowers serve an essential role in providing transparency and accountability in the Federal Government. It is important that all government employees are provided with strong and effective avenues to come forward with evidence of government abuse and misuse. To ensure that whistleblowers feel comfortable speaking up when they discover wrongdoing, it is also imperative that they are afforded protections from retaliation. That is why Senator Grassley and I are joining together to introduce the Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``FBI'', Whistleblower Protection Enhancements Act of 2015. Current FBI policies do not go far enough to protect whistleblowers. In March, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing that highlighted a number of serious problems facing whistleblowers at the FBI. We received testimony about the lack of protections for employees who report waste, fraud, or abuse to their direct supervisors. We also heard instances of the FBI failing to comply with regulatory requirements when conducting retaliation investigations, and that adjudication of contested cases can take years. One former employee, Michael German, testified in detail about how he was forced to end his distinguished career at the FBI after he disclosed to Congress serious deficiencies in the agency's handling of counterterrorism investigations. He chose to do this after making a protected whistleblower disclosure at the FBI that went nowhere while the retaliation continued. The concerns expressed at the hearing echo concerns that were identified in two recent reports on the FBI whistleblower framework, one by the Department of Justice and the other by Government Accountability Office. Clearly the status quo is unacceptable. Congress should extend to FBI whistleblowers the same level of protection that is afforded other Federal employees who speak out about waste, fraud, or abuse. That is what Senator Grassley and I seek to do today with this bill. Our legislation closely tracks the protections contained in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Importantly, we extend whistleblower protections to FBI employees who blow the whistle to supervisors in their chain of command. This common sense fix is crucial to protect those employees who dare to speak up and report concerns to their superiors. The bill also provides clear guidance on the investigation and adjudication of retaliation claims. Investigations will now be handled solely by the Office of Inspector General, rather than sharing this responsibility with the Office of Professional Responsibility. This will provide much needed clarity and consistency in the process. Contested cases will now be adjudicated by Administrative Law Judges instead of by the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management. Under this new process the Administrative Procedures Act will apply, ensuring a hearing on the record and strong procedural protections for all parties. This bipartisan bill will help to ensure that FBI employees are able to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, or abuse at the FBI and not face personal repercussions for doing so. I urge the Senate to act quickly to take up and pass this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will approve landmark legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Since 2001, the failed policies of No Child Left Behind have unfairly burdened students, families, educators, and administrators by holding students accountable for snap-shot academic progress. The overwhelming support in Congress for these reforms will reverse the one-size-fits- all approach to education that did not work for Vermont and so many schools across the Nation. This bill gives States more flexibility to ensure that schools are supporting every student, while maintaining the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure that students everywhere have access to the resources they need for lasting academic success. Since 2001, I have heard from parents, teachers, students, policymakers, and administrators about the negative impacts of No Child Left Behind. I voted against the legislation as I did not agree--and still do not agree--with a one-size-fits-all approach to education. I was also disappointed with the bill's rigid Federal accountability measures, as I truly believe States and local education agencies deserve flexibility when it comes to how schools operate. The conference report we will consider today reflects the positive changes to the law that the Senate overwhelmingly supported in July. The agreement restores educational flexibility to the States, while safeguarding student access to resources, regardless of race, gender, financial status, and learning level. I am pleased that the bill takes into account the greater needs of students in rural areas, increases funding for early childhood education programs, and improves school safety measures. I am especially pleased with the bill's innovative assessment and accountability demonstration authority provision, which will allow Vermont to adopt competency and performance-based assessments that prove far more than how well a student can perform on a test on one given day. And while States will design their own system to improve struggling schools, the conference agreement also includes Federal safeguards to protect civil rights and to provide resources for students at the greatest risk. We are 8 years overdue for a rewrite of No Child Left Behind. I am pleased that we have come together, Members on both sides of the aisle, to support the Every Student Succeeds Act. This bill truly reflects the needs of all students, educators, parents, and administrators; and I urge all Senators to support its passage. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to express my strong support for the Every Student Succeeds Act. This legislation is a major step forward in taking the responsibility of educating our children back from Washington and giving it to the States. Senator Alexander and the Republican majorities in Congress have been successful working in with parents, teachers, and school districts in putting together a bipartisan elementary education reform bill that would restore the role of States in creating accountability standards, testing requirements, and other education policies that best fit the needs of students in local public and charter schools. One of the most important pieces of this bill is that it would effectively end Common Core once and for all by allowing States to develop their own education standards. For far too long, Federal bureaucrats in Washington have tied the hands of States and parents by mandating one-size-fits-all education policies such as Common Core that have failed America's students. Let me be clear: I strongly support education standards that make Arizona students prepared to compete in this global economy. But these standards should be developed by Arizona's State and local education officials in consultation with parents of Arizona schoolchildren. This bill would do just that. The Every Student Succeeds Act would also end the Federal test-based accountability system that was established by the No Child Left Behind Act. No longer would these required Federal tests be the sole measure of educational success. States will now be allowed to use testing along with other measures of accountability such as attendance, teacher performance, and other student achievement and school performance metrics when developing accountability systems. In addition to helping take control of elementary education back from Washington, this bill includes provisions that would strengthen charter schools. I am proud of the fact that Arizona is home to some of the best charter schools in the Nation. According to the Arizona Charter School Association, over 190,000 Arizona students have access to more than 600 charter schools, giving Arizona parents more educational choices for their children. I am also proud of the fact that BASIS Charter Schools in Scottsdale and Tucson are the first and third-ranked charter schools in America, according to U.S. News & World Report. I am also pleased that the Every Student Succeeds Act includes language I offered on the Senate floor in July that would enhance educational choice and expand access to high-performing schools for student in Arizona and across the nation. Specifically, this provision would let Arizona and other States propose how they could use limited Federal education funds to replicate and expand access to high-performing charter, magnet, and traditional public schools for low-income students--in other words, education options that are proven to provide the best-quality learning environments for Arizona children. Right now, public funds meant to help low-income students are largely reserved for poor-performing schools, failing the children who are most in need. We must give Arizona and other States the ability to direct these funds to develop high-performing charter, magnet and traditional public schools which have been proven to be successful. The provisions I offered give Arizona the ability to show how they can do just that, while paving the way to give parents the freedom to choose which schools are best for their kids. The Every Student Succeeds Act also includes measures that would offer additional support for rural schools in Arizona by providing more flexible use of Federal funding and maintaining the authorization of the Small, Rural School Achievement Program, SRSA, and the Rural and Low Income School, RLIS, program. The bill also helps States support English learners by providing resources to establish strong English proficiency programs to enable these students to meet high education standards. I am proud of the strong progress that Arizona students are making in the classroom. According to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, Arizona students are making significant progress compared to students in other States. In a recent op-ed in the Arizona Republic, former Arizona Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan and the Foundation for Excellence in Education's Matthew Lander wrote, ``[w]hile the national NAEP news this week was grim, with flat scores in fourth grade reading and declining scores in all three subjects, Arizona students bucked that trend by notching gains in three of the four tests.'' They went on to highlight Arizona's success, stating ``Arizona's charter-school students . . . matched the scores for the highest-scoring states on the 2015 NAEP. On eighth grade mathematics, for instance, Arizona charter students scored in a statistical dead heat with Massachusetts, the highest scoring of the 50 states.'' I am extremely proud of the success we are seeing in Arizona elementary education, but more needs to be done to ensure our students have the best opportunities by increasing educational choice and enabling States and school districts to expand and replicate high- performing schools. Every American has an obligation to help prepare the next generation for the future, and this bill is a step in the right direction. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senate Democrats are proposing important legislation to help combat the threat of ISIS and to keep Americans safe. It would strengthen the security of the Visa Waiver Program and close the terrorist gun loophole. I am a cosponsor of these efforts. We need to respond to the threat of ISIS--wherever it exists--and we need to work with our international partners to combat this barbaric terrorist group. The President has adopted a limited and necessary military response. We stand here, elected by our constituents to give weight to their voices in our democracy. I hear from Vermonters every week concerned about the threat of ISIS. I also hear their concerns about further expanding what has been an unending war. It is time for Congress to weigh in with more than just talking points and heated rhetoric. Congress has a duty to debate what further military role the United States should take in combating ISIS. Before we send our men and women into harm's way, Congress should vote on a new, limited authorization for the use of military force. We should sunset any new authorization of military force and require Congress to renew and reauthorize its authority. The ill-fated war in Iraq cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and has left the region no more safe and secure than when it started more than a decade ago. Congress can't make that mistake again. I support strategic, authorized military efforts to dismantle ISIS, but just as I opposed the war in Iraq, I will not support a blank check that perpetuates unending war.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, a distinct honor was bestowed upon Vermont Army National Guard Specialist Skylar Anderson and, by extension, the Vermont National Guard. I want to recognize this milestone. After graduating from a rigorous program at the 164th Regimental Training Institute in North Dakota, Specialist Anderson became the first female soldier in the country to be awarded a military occupation specialty as a combat engineer. In this position, she will enrich the capabilities of our Guard, bringing new skills and expertise to her work. While this is an impressive honor on its own, she did this while managing a full workload. While serving in the Vermont National Guard, she is a student at the University of Vermont. Specialist Anderson has clearly earned this recognition through her hard work and dedication. Opportunities to serve in our military, whether soldier or sailor, airman, or marine, should be available to the best and brightest, regardless of gender, and Specialist Anderson has shown young women around the country that gender integration in the military is very real. Just last week, the Secretary of Defense declared all positions in the U.S. armed services open to females, removing artificial restrictions so that the United States can have the very best serving, like Specialist Anderson. As a Vermonter, I am especially proud of her achievements, and I am also appreciative of the members of the Vermont National Guard who supported her throughout the process. I ask unanimous consent that an article about Specialist Skylar Anderson published by National Guard Online be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on the nomination of Travis McDonough to be a Federal district judge in the Eastern District of Tennessee. He was nominated over a year ago, and his nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote nearly 5 months ago. Despite having the support of his home State Republican Senators, Mr. McDonough's nomination has nevertheless been held up by Republican leadership for no good reason. I will further note that, while Mr. McDonough's vote is long overdue, Republican leadership has skipped over Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo--who is ahead of Mr. McDonough on the Executive Calendar. I recall Republican leadership promising regular order when they took over the majority, so they should explain how skipping over a consensus and eminently qualified nominee with bipartisan support is following regular order. Judge Restrepo was nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy in the third circuit over a year ago. If confirmed, he would be the first ever Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania on the third circuit. Judge Restrepo has the strong support of the Hispanic National Bar Association and has bipartisan support from his home State Senators, Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. Senator Toomey has said not only that he strongly supports Judge Restrepo's confirmation, but that he also recommended him to the President. I cannot explain why Senate Republicans are not allowing Judge Restrepo to be confirmed today. As we approach the end of the year, the Senate Republican majority is coming closer and closer to matching the record for confirming the fewest number of judicial nominees in more than half a century. While most Senators I have served with over the last 40 years would shudder at this fact, the current Republican leadership seems content to accomplish as little as possible when it comes to confirming nominees to our third branch of government. In the 11 months that Republicans have controlled the Senate, only 11 judges will have received a confirmation vote, including today. When Senate Democrats were in the majority during the seventh year of the Bush Presidency, we had already confirmed 36 judges by this point. We should take action right now and hold confirmation votes on the 19 other judicial nominees pending on the floor. Confirming the remaining 19 nominees would fulfill a basic duty of the Senate and would result in a total of 30 judicial nominees confirmed this year. That number is still short of the 36 nominees that Senate Democrats confirmed at the same point of the George W. Bush administration, but it would mark a significant effort by this Senate to reduce vacancies. There is no reason not to do this. All 19 of the nominees were voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote, but Republicans still refuse to bring them up for a vote. This obstruction has resulted in needless delays for hard-working Americans who seek justice in our Federal courts. Currently pending on the Senate floor are nominees who would fill judicial emergency vacancies in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Jersey, Iowa, New York, and California. Senate Republicans have not responded to the urgent needs of those States to the detriment of their own constituents. Throughout his tenure, President Obama has worked with Senators to have the Federal judiciary better reflect the people they serve. Today there are more women and minorities than ever before on the Federal bench. This is an accomplishment that helps ensure the public's confidence in their court system. Unfortunately, that meaningful progress has slowed down under the Senate's Republican control. Today, several nominees of color with outstanding qualifications are being held up for no good reason, including Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo. Senate Republicans are also holding up four exceptional African- American district court nominees and an exceptional Hispanic district court nominee. Two of the African-American nominees--Waverly Crenshaw and Edward Stanton--have been nominated to district court positions in Tennessee. Both have the support of their home State Republican Senators and were unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote; yet they continue to wait for the majority leader to schedule their votes. The three other nominees of color being held up-- Wilhelmina Wright to the District of Minnesota, and John Vazquez and Julien Neals to the District of New Jersey--are all nominated to judicial emergency vacancies. They also all have the support of their home State Senators and were voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. In addition to the article III nominees, five nominees to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, who were all nominated more than a year ago, continue to be held up by a single Republican Senator--the junior Senator of Arkansas. The Court of Federal Claims has been referred to as ``the People's Court'' because it allows citizens to seek prompt justice against our government. Of the five nominees, one is a Cuban American who has devoted his entire career to public service at the U.S. Department of Justice; another is an African-American woman who spent over two decades serving as a judge advocate general and as a military judge. All five were voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote, but Senator Cotton continues to object to any of them receiving an up-or-down vote. He claims to have concerns with the caseload, but a recent letter from the chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims to the Judiciary Committee has indicated that only one of the nine senior judges is willing to be recalled for full-time duty, and the other three would only agree to be recalled on a limited basis. Moreover, the court's overall caseload has increased 9 percent over the last year. There are no good reasons for Senator Cotton to continue blocking these nominees. They deserve to have their confirmation votes scheduled. Senators can vote for or against them, but they should not be denied a simple up-or-down vote. In a letter dated December 2, 2015, from the American Bar Association to Majority Leader McConnell, the president of the ABA states that ``our courts are unfortunately worse off today than they were at the start of this Congress.'' The letter urges the majority leader to schedule votes on the confirmation of all the article III judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The process of confirming judges is about ensuring that the American people have a fully functioning judiciary. Because of Republican obstruction, judicial vacancies have increased by more than 50 percent since they took over the majority, and caseloads are piling up in courts throughout the country. Judicial emergencies have more than doubled since the beginning of this year. I am concerned that the Republican leadership's refusal to confirm judicial nominations this year is undermining the judicial branch and harming the American people who seek justice. I urge Senate Republicans to conclude this year by showing leadership and by scheduling confirmation votes on the remaining judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hate to say this to my good friend from Kentucky, but this is a bumper sticker kind of amendment. It says it would keep us secure, but it would even stop tourists from visiting this country for at least 30 days. Let's say you have a relative who is dying in this country, you will have to call them up and say: Don't die for at least 30 days so I can come over and say goodbye to you. It stops some of our closest allies in the Middle East. Jordan is probably our closest ally, and this legislation would stop us from issuing visas there. It doesn't make us safer. It kills our tourist industry, it damages our economy, but most importantly it makes it look to the rest of the world like we are cowering in our shoes. I don't want to do that. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that there is going to be a request for a 60-vote margin on this vote. If my understanding of that is correct, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters take great pride in our historic downtowns and small communities. In our cities and towns, we have a culture of getting things done--and finding a way to accomplish our shared goals. That is why, like many Vermonters, I have been frustrated with the back-to-back short-term patches to keep our highway trust fund afloat. I have consistently advocated for a long-term solution that will give States the ability to move forward with building and repairing roads, bridges, and byways; to promote rail safety and transit and to invest in the critical infrastructure that supports our cities and towns; to enable interstate and intrastate commerce; and to create jobs for American workers. The time to pass a plan for long-term transportation funding has finally come. The FAST Act will bring stability where, for too long, there has been uncertainty. This bill ensures that Vermont will receive the funding it needs, more than $1.1 billion over the next 5 years, to allow Vermonters to move forward on infrastructure projects that have been waiting in the wings. In Vermont, the construction season is short and the need is great, and a series of stopgap measures to kick the can down the road was never the right answer. I am pleased there will finally be the stability needed for Vermont and all States to move forward to bolster our country's infrastructure. This legislation also reverses changes made to the Federal Crop Insurance program, which was a careful balance first struck in the farm bill, sending a clear message that we should not thoughtlessly tamper with the farm bill until its next expiration in 2018. And while I am glad that the harmful Freedom of Information Act exemptions that we eliminated in the Senate bill remain out of this conference report, I am concerned that a new exemption was added. Nowhere is the free flow of information more important than when the safety of every Vermonter and every American is at stake. We Vermonters know that, in a democracy, demanding 100 percent of what you want and refusing to negotiate effective compromise is a formula for stalemate and paralysis. As a result, Vermonters know that to actually get something done, compromise is a must, and we have advanced the ball a long way down the field. This legislation provides stability to move our infrastructure forward to support our economy. It supports safety provisions to protect the well-being of those traveling America's highways and rails. Frankly, to facilitate the thriving communities, commerce, and economic growth that we want and need, we should be doing far more to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. This process should not be reduced to ``searching under sofa cushions''--as some have described it--to scrape together the budget to pay for the vital roads and bridges that are so important to us in so many ways. But with this bill, we finally are providing our States and communities with longer lead times to plan and accomplish this work on our infrastructure, and that signals at least a flicker of progress. We have had enough kicking the can down the road and generating year after year of uncertainty. It is time to bring stability and certainty back to our infrastructure and transportation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England marked its 50th anniversary with a well-attended gathering in South Burlington, VT. The event came less than a week after the deadly tragedy at a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado. The weight of that tragedy, more than 2,500 miles away from Vermont, was evident as those in the crowd bowed their heads in a moment of silence as the names of victims were read. But this South Burlington gathering also illustrated the depth of support for an organization that plays a critical role in health care for women of all ages throughout Vermont, throughout New England, and throughout our country. The Planned Parenthood Association of Vermont began in 1965 when a small but active band of women gathered at the Unitarian Church in Burlington. Within the next 3 years, Maine and New Hampshire also established family planning centers, and by the mid-1980s, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England was formed. In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood centers around Vermont provided vital primary and preventive services to over 16,000 patients. In a rural State like Vermont, the need for health care providers in remote areas is acute. More than 90 percent of Vermont's Planned Parenthood centers are located in rural or medically underserved areas. Many Vermonters describe Planned Parenthood as their primary source of health care. In just one example, without the services that Planned Parenthood provides, thousands of low-income women in Vermont would lose their ability to have regular cancer screenings that could save their lives. Over five decades, Planned Parenthood has weathered many challenges that include ensuring the safety of its own health care providers. In the aftermath of 9/11, more than 500 anthrax threat letters were sent to Planned Parenthood locations and other reproductive health care providers; yet it seems unimaginable that we are here in December 2015, in the U.S. Senate, once again debating whether to defund an organization that does so much to ensure the health and well-being of women across the country. In August I spoke in opposition to this misguided, distortion-filled, partisan effort. I said at the time that the issue was unfortunately all too familiar. With the critical issues that face us today, why are we spending our time and energy on this ideologically driven effort to bar funding for women's health centers? I am saddened that we are even talking about this provision today, not even 1 week since a gunman stormed that Planned Parenthood in Colorado and caused such carnage. This is shameful, and it is cynical. It is time for the mean-spirited assault on women's health care to end. I was heartened by the supporters, both women and men, who turned out to mark the 50th anniversary of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England this week in South Burlington. They included the next generation of young women who have been ``passed the torch'' to stand up for their rights to health care and reproductive freedom. They are committed to making sure Planned Parenthood will be around for another 50 years--and they give me hope. Let us not turn our backs on them by turning back the clock.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, like many Senators, I have followed the appalling situation facing citizens of the Eastern Congo, where armed groups have fought for years over control of minerals and territory, pillaging, raping, and killing civilians in the process. The innocent people who struggle to survive in the midst of this violence and destruction rely on subsistence agriculture, as well as raising crops for export; yet their own government makes it doubly difficult. For decades, coffee was an important agricultural export from Eastern Congo. But after years of armed conflict, official coffee exports have reportedly decreased by over 80 percent from peak levels 30 years ago. The majority of this coffee is produced by smallholder farmers, most of whom are women, and for whom coffee is a significant source of income. Today a consortium, including the Eastern Congo Initiative, the Howard Buffett Foundation, and Starbucks Coffee Company, are trying to help Congolese farmers by revitalizing the industry. Needed infrastructure has been built, a supply chain is in place, and America's largest coffee company has provided a reliable buyer. This is a welcome and worthwhile effort to improve the lives of people in rural Congolese communities that should have the support of the Congolese Government. Despite this collective effort, Congolese coffee farmers are being crippled by oppressive taxes that make their coffee uncompetitive in the global marketplace. While Congo's official export tax rate is 0.25 percent, many export officials reportedly continue to levy taxes of 7.5 percent, which is the previous rate. In addition, there are often informal tax levies that charge another 3 to 8 percent. These excessive taxes force exporters to pay smallholder farmers less for their coffee, with the result that farmers smuggle their crop into neighboring countries. The livelihoods of these farmers and the success of the Eastern Congo Initiative-Buffett-Starbucks joint venture are put at risk by the Congolese Government's actions. I want to yield to Senator Graham, who has traveled to Africa and observed the challenges facing small farmers like those I have mentioned.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, who chaired a hearing earlier this year when we heard compelling testimony about this subject. I ask my friend from Delaware, the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, who has traveled to Africa many times, including this year with President Obama, to discuss how this situation in the Eastern Congo relates to the requirements of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as you can see, there is bipartisan support for these coffee farmers who face oppressive economic constraints that limit their ability to be competitive in the marketplace and earn a decent living. I join my colleagues who have spoken on this issue today in urging the Congolese Government to address these concerns for the benefit of its people.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, my neighbor in New Hampshire. I also want to thank Senator Warren for her leadership on a matter of great importance to millions of Americans. In October, Social Security beneficiaries received some upsetting news. I know it is upsetting to a lot of Vermonters, as I have talked to them in grocery stores, on street corners, and even coming out of church on Sunday. For the third time in 40 years, the Social Security Administration announced that in 2016, Social Security payments will not include a cost-of-living increase. Unless Congress acts, seniors and others who receive Social Security benefits will not see an additional dime in payments in the new year. For the nearly two-thirds of beneficiaries who depend on Social Security for at least half of their income, and for the 24 percent of those where Social Security is the sole source of income, this news is not just distressing, it is devastating. I will not take the time here, but I could tell so many stories of what Vermonters have told me, and I share their concerns. In order to address this issue, I am proud to stand with thousands of Vermonters and millions of Americans to support Senator Warren's bill to provide Social Security recipients, those who receive disability benefits, and veterans, among others, a one-time payment next year. This payment would be equivalent to the average increase of 3.9 percent-- incidentally the same pay increase top CEOs in the United States saw last year. Many in Congress have turned a blind eye to the problems facing Social Security, arguing the idea that we as a country cannot possibly afford to spend resources on our seniors, but every year hard-working Americans subsidize billions of dollars in tax subsidies for corporate CEOs. By no longer allowing corporations to receive tax deductions for performance pay packages for their executives, we could give a one-time emergency payment to our Nation's seniors, and we could increase the solvency of the Social Security trust fund without adding a penny to the deficit. It is a win-win. It is a matter of priorities. Are we as a country going to support the millions of Americans who depend upon Social Security to make ends meet? Or are we going to continue to allow the country's top CEOs, whose average salary in 2014 topped $16 million each, to continue to rake in billions of dollars thanks to the performance pay tax loophole? The choice should be clear. If these CEOs want to make more money, fine, but don't do it using a special tax loophole. Social Security is an immensely important program, one that has helped millions of Americans stay out of poverty once entering retirement. This program has always represented a strong commitment to our Nation's seniors. Ever since Ida May Fuller of Vermont received the first Social Security check issued, vulnerable seniors have had a safety-net to fall back on in retirement or to supplement individual retirement savings or pensions. Support for this bill represents a continuing commitment to our Nation's seniors and also those with disabilities in an uncertain economy. I hope we can redouble our commitment to seniors, veterans, and those with disabilities in this country by passing this important legislation. It is the least we can do. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the realignment toward Asia has focused our attention on partnerships with countries in the region. We share political, economic, security, and humanitarian interests, creating complex and multidimensional relationships. But our commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights must continue to be a foundation for our relations with these countries, as with others around the world. We must continue to advocate for open societies where dialogue and dissent are encouraged and where security forces are professional and accountable. At the same time, we cannot ignore history. Fifty years ago, under the guise of a state-sanctioned Communist purge, hundreds of thousands of Indonesian men, women, and children were murdered. Many more were rounded up and led to concentration camps where they were imprisoned, and many were tortured by the security forces of a dictatorial and brutal regime that had the backing of the United States. It has been widely recognized as one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th century, but efforts to establish a truth and reconciliation commission to come to terms with these crimes have stalled at every turn. The atrocities are still not recognized or discussed by the Indonesian Government, and the perpetrators were long celebrated as heroes for their actions. The United States should lead by example in acknowledging this tragic history and reaffirm that human rights are at the forefront of our strategic relationships in Indonesia and beyond. As the most senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I have supported conditions on foreign assistance, including requiring recipient countries to protect freedoms of expression and association, respect the rule of law and due process, reform their judicial systems and security forces, and strengthen other key elements of a democratic society. Through the ``Leahy Law,'' I have sought to encourage reform of Indonesia's military and police forces, promote cooperation with civilian authorities, and hold human rights violators accountable. I have also supported efforts to demilitarize West Papua and stop the human rights violations associated with the militarization of that island. Unfortunately, while Indonesia has made important economic and political strides since the systemic repression of the Suharto years, impunity for the horrific crimes of the 1960s and during the final years of the independence struggle in East Timor remain glaring examples of unfinished business that are inconsistent with a democratic society based on the principle that no one is above the law. We need to recognize the role of our own government in this history, declassify relevant documents, and urge the Indonesian Government to acknowledge the massacres and establish a credible truth and justice mechanism. I ask unanimous consent that a poignant opinion piece on this subject that was published in the New Yorker on September 29, 2015, be printed in the Record.