Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there is a limited amount of time.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, I am worried in this country that we hear rhetoric that is dangerous, and it is time to stop. It shames the very nature of what America is. These are ideas that are wrong, and I would say they are deeply anti-American. My grandparents--my Italian grandparents, my Irish great-great- grandparents--heard some of this rhetoric when some in this country said they shouldn't come here: Don't allow these Papists into the United States; don't allow these Irish, who are opposed to the rule of Great Britain on their island, and they actually stood up and fought against Great Britain. The words back then, like some of the words today, come from a place of fear and hatred. I do not want to stand by quietly and see the victims of terrorism and torture be demonized just so people will have talking points for the local evening news. We are better than this. The bill my colleague, the junior Senator the from Texas, introduced an hour ago would prevent refugee protection for virtually all nationals of Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, regardless of how much they have suffered at the hands of terrorists and despots. Women fleeing gang rapes and children fleeing horrors we cannot even imagine would be closed off. A few weeks ago the world came together, stunned and heartbroken over the image of a 3-year-old Syrian child's lifeless body washed up on a Turkish beach. His tragic death focused our attention on the desperate plight of so many Syrians who have fled the horror of ISIS and Bashar al-Assad. We called it the humanitarian issue of the day. We called forth images of our Statue of Liberty and our proud history as a land of refuge for those fleeing persecution. I heard so many on this floor as well as from commentators in the news. Those who call now for us to slam our doors on even properly vetted Syrian and other refugees should remember that the people we will shut out are those very children who touched our hearts just weeks ago. Of course, we are horrified by what happened in Beirut and Paris, and we need an effective, thoughtful strategy for countering ISIS and other terrorist organizations. That is what we should be debating. What we have done so far is not working, and we should be talking about how more countries should be involved in this fight. ISIS is our enemy; the people fleeing ISIS are not. In fact, we have had discussions about other things that could be done. Somebody who is on a terrorist watch list but who is in this country legally can go to a gun show and buy all the automatic weapons they want, and they break no law. They can buy all the ammunition they want, and they break no law. They can go to the store, as did one of the greatest terrorists this country faced--the man who did the Oklahoma city bombing--and buy the components of a bomb, and they break no law. These are the things we ought to be discussing. I do not understand why Senator Cruz is on the Senate floor seeking unanimous consent to pass this bill. This very bill is on the Judiciary Committee agenda, and the committee is currently considering it and needed improvements to it. When the Senate Judiciary Committee debates this bill, we will have a lot to discuss. This legislation affects constitutional rights, and should be carefully vetted by the judiciary committee. Serious constitutional concerns have been raised by voices from across the political spectrum--from the National Review to the ACLU. Just yesterday I received a letter from former NRA president David Keene and Georgetown Law professor David Cole, in their roles with The Constitution Project. They urge opposition to this bill because it ``serves virtually no practical purpose, raises serious constitutional concerns, and would do nothing to keep America safe.'' These are strong words, and I take these concerns seriously. Rushing a bill to the floor when that very bill is already scheduled for consideration by the committee of jurisdiction is not a responsible approach to legislating. And when legislation involves something as fundamental as citizenship, we should give the judiciary committee an opportunity to consider and debate this bill before it is brought to the Senate floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several articles relating to the topic at hand.

Mr. LEAHY. I reserve my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a year ago today, in a nationwide address, President Obama announced a series of measures to improve our broken immigration system. He outlined efforts to focus scarce resources on identifying and deporting those people who pose a danger to our communities, to modernize our legal immigration system, and to provide temporary relief from the threat of deportation for hard-working, law- abiding members of our communities. For many, the President's announcement offered at last a hope for stability. It acknowledged the longstanding presence and contributions of immigrants to our country. But the President's announcement also underscored the real human consequences of the House of Representatives failing to allow a vote to reform our immigration laws. Importantly, it highlighted the impracticality of deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants. Many of them have strong family ties in the United States and a deep desire to become fully integrated in our country. They are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters. To suggest that we can simply remove them is unrealistic and it would conflict with fundamental American values. The President's Executive action is no substitute for legislation. He reminded critics of that very fact during his address, pointing out that the commonsense, responsible solution to the problems in our immigration system is to pass a comprehensive reform bill. A year later, the Republican-led Senate has failed to debate, let alone pass meaningful immigration reform. Instead, it has repeatedly taken up divisive and partisan proposals that do not reflect a desire to fix what we all agree is a broken system. These political gimmicks are not serious attempts to address an issue as important as immigration and could not be more different from what the Democratic-led Senate accomplished in 2013 when we passed a bipartisan immigration bill supported by 68 Senators. During the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, I convened multiple hearings, and we heard from 42 witnesses. Government officials and individuals representing a range of perspectives--including law enforcement, civil rights, labor, faith, business, and State and local governments--testified about the challenges confronting our current immigration system. We heard the powerful testimony of witnesses such as Jose Antonio Vargas and Gaby Pacheco who pressed the urgent need for immigration reform. The compelling stories of DREAMers, young immigrants brought to this country as children, who have grown up as Americans and have every desire to make meaningful contributions to their communities, continue to inspire. Many of them have qualified for the temporary relief provided by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program, which has established a path for them to become our next generation of teachers, engineers, public servants, and doctors. Our Senate-passed, comprehensive bill included the DREAM Act, an important measure that would have provided a long-lasting solution to the problems these courageous young individuals face, acknowledging that they deserve to be part of our Nation's future. The Senate-passed bill would have addressed many of the injustices in our current immigration system. It was a remarkable example of all that we can accomplish when we actually focus on the hard job of legislating. But the Republican-led House of Representatives blocked that effort. It stubbornly refused to even allow a vote on that bill. Given that lack of action, I understand the President's frustration and motivation. His Executive action was a response to what we all acknowledge is a broken system, but it is no substitute for comprehensive immigration reform. Following the President's announcement, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Executive action program and heard the testimony of Astrid Silva. Hers is a fundamentally American story. It is similar in many ways to those of our parents and grandparents. It is a story of a family looking to find a better life. Astrid qualifies for the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program. And her parents would be eligible for the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA, program because her younger brother is a U.S. citizen. For more than 20 years, Astrid's family has been working hard and contributing to their local community. They are the kind of family we want to have as our neighbors and coworkers. Their stories remind us that their dreams, along with those of so many others affected by our dysfunctional immigration system, hang in the balance, and underscore the need for a permanent legislative solution. Some in Congress claim that the President's executive action undermined the prospect of achieving comprehensive immigration reform. But I remind them that the President's action--prompted by congressional inaction--is not an excuse for continued congressional inaction. We must keep working to find a permanent legislative solution that provides today's immigrants with an opportunity to prosper and contribute to our country. As families across the Nation gather next week around the table to give thanks, we will all count our family members and their security among our greatest blessings. Our fight for comprehensive immigration reform is at its core a fight to help reunite families and provide the security that we all want for our loved ones. I urge Republicans to return to the cooperative and bipartisan approach of 2013 and work on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The American people support immigration reform. It is the right thing to do, and it should not be delayed any longer.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have championed the EB-5 Regional Center Program for many years. I have done so because I have seen its ability to generate investment and create jobs in distressed communities. But the program is facing some pressing challenges. Reports of rampant fraud and abuse raise serious concerns and threaten to cripple the program's integrity. The incentives Congress established to invest in high unemployment and rural communities are also routinely abused, undermining a core objective of the program--to spur growth and create jobs in underserved areas. The Regional Center Program is set to expire on December 11. It should be reauthorized, but we should not extend it blindly. There is bipartisan consensus that the program is in dire need of reform, and we cannot squander this opportunity. I have long sought reforms to the Regional Center Program. Last Congress, my EB-5 amendment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform provided the Department of Homeland Security additional authority to revoke suspect regional center designations or immigrant petitions. It also provided for increased reporting, background checks, and securities oversight. My amendment was unanimously approved in the Judiciary Committee, but unfortunately the improvements it contained have all had to wait, as the House of Representatives failed to allow a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last Congress. In the past year, only more concerns have emerged. In January, I joined Senators Grassley, Corker, Johnson, and others in requesting that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, audit the EB-5 program. The GAO report released in August detailed fraud vulnerabilities within the program and questioned its economic impact. Separate reports from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis and Office of the Inspector General highlighted additional issues that need to be addressed. I am also troubled by the fact that the incentives Congress created to promote EB-5 investment in rural and high unemployment areas have been rendered meaningless. Investors are provided a discount if they choose to invest in rural or high unemployment areas, known as targeted employment areas or TEAs. At present, however, the most affluent neighborhoods in the country routinely qualify as TEAs by selectively stitching together otherwise unrelated census tracts. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Johnson rightly described this practice as gerrymandering. I do not suggest that affluent areas should not benefit from EB-5; they should. But they should not qualify for incentives intended to benefit high unemployment and rural areas. These areas typically do not have access to significant capital and often struggle to create jobs. Secretary Johnson himself called for significant reforms to strengthen the Regional Center Program. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee last April, he asked for authority to quickly act on criminal and national security concerns, additional protections for investors, enhanced reporting and auditing, improved integrity of TEAs, increased minimum investment amounts, and more. I have now worked for over 2 years to develop legislation that would provide a necessary overhaul of the Regional Center Program. In June, I was joined by Chairman Grassley in introducing this reform-oriented legislation, S.1501. Since then, Chairman Grassley and I have worked with House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte on a bicameral bill based on S.1501. This bicameral bill would provide the Department with the authorities and investigative tools necessary to address national security concerns and fraud. The reforms include further expanding background checks, conducting a more thorough vetting of immigrant investors and proposed investments, and providing for the ability to proactively investigate fraud, both in the United States and abroad, using a dedicated fund paid for by certain program participants. The bill would provide greater protections for investors and clarity and shorter processing times for project developers. It would also raise minimum investment thresholds so more money goes to the communities that need it. And it would help to restore the program to its original intent, by ensuring that incentives to invest in distressed and undercapitalized areas are restored. Such reforms would answer the concerns raised by Secretary Johnson, the Department's inspector general, the GAO, and others, instilling both confidence and transparency in the program. I believe these reforms would result in a secure EB-5 program that creates American jobs and promotes economic growth throughout our country. We cannot continue to leave the Department ill-equipped to administer this job creation program. We know what is needed to fix it. And we should fix it now.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is irrefutable evidence, with more accumulating all the time, that humans have altered not just the weather of a region, but the climate of our entire planet. From flooding felt across the country to extreme temperatures from north to south and east to west, these severe events are happening more and more frequently. Droughts are proliferating, wildfires are bigger, and more expensive, tropical storms and hurricanes are more intense. You can look no further than the damage wrought in Vermont in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene--a storm that had greatly weakened since first making landfall, but still so powerful as to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to our small State. It was enough to convince many Vermonters of the reality of climate change as they watched roads washed away and iconic covered bridges yanked out of the footings that had supported them for generations. The science and the data by now are clear that human activities are a factor in the climate change that is unfolding all around us and in every corner of the globe, but common sense alone should tell us, as we look about us and see all of the carbon and pollution that is being pumped into our thin and fragile atmosphere, that all of these human activities are contributing factors. We must address the root causes of climate change, and that is what the administration's Clean Power Plan, bolstered by the rules for new and existing power plants, will do. Today, we won't vote about how to support our roads and bridges. We won't vote to further advance educational opportunities for young children. We won't vote on ways to keep our government--of the people, for the people--open. Rather, we are summoned to heed the call of pressure groups, wealthy corporations, and moneyed interests and vote on a resolution of disapproval that denies the impact and the causes of climate change. These challenges under the Congressional Review Act fail to recognize the true cost of carbon pollution. The Clean Power Plan sets clear and flexible rules that signal to the marketplace that we cannot continue to spew harmful carbon pollution without limit. It finally puts an end to the free lunch for the fossil fuels industry. These rules offer commonsense solutions that will not only address climate change, but will protect Americans' health with cleaner air. They will also unleash the creativity and inventiveness of American entrepreneurship and support investments in new technology. They will further set the stage for our vibrant and job-rich energy future. The flexibility in these rules means that States and companies will be able to decide the best ways to reduce their carbon emissions, whether through gains in efficiency and new technologies or through an increased use of natural gas or renewable fuels. Vermonters are encouraged by these rules and about the Clean Power Plan--not only because together these proposals move the country forward to finally address climate change, but also because the plan and rules recognize the important work that Vermont and other Northeast States have been doing for the last decade through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, to cap carbon emissions and offer credits to cleaner producers. In Vermont, we can breathe easier knowing that under these rules, we will have less pollution blowing into the State from power plants in the Midwest. The majority in the Senate would rather roll back some of the most meaningful environmental initiatives of our time, rather than help to improve the health of Americans across the country. The science is clear: Failing to address climate change will lead to more dangerous and costly extreme weather events and threaten the health and well- being of our families and our communities. We must stop putting the interests of polluters above public health. It is time to stop putting the future of our planet and of generations to come in danger and to act now to halt the devastating effects of climate change. Let us move beyond the energy policies of the last two centuries and move forward toward America's energy future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on the nomination of LaShann Hall to be a Federal district judge in the Eastern District of New York. She was nominated over a year ago, and her nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote more than 5 months ago. Ms. Hall is an outstanding African-American attorney who will fill a judicial emergency vacancy. There is no reason Senate Republicans should have delayed her confirmation for this long. The Senate this week should also vote on the next nominee on the calendar, who was nominated on the same day over a year ago as Ms. Hall. Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo will be the first ever Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania on the third circuit. Judge Restrepo has strong bipartisan support from his home State Senators, Senator Toomey and Senator Casey, and there is an urgent need to fill the emergency vacancy on the third circuit to which he has been nominated. I have heard no objection to his nomination, and Senator Toomey has said he not only strongly supports Judge Restrepo's confirmation, but he also recommended him to the President. I hope the majority leader will finally schedule his vote this week. In the 11 months that the Senate has been under Republican control this year, the Senate has only voted to confirm nine judges. 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 refused to alleviate the urgent needs in those States. It does not have to be this way. When Senate Democrats were in the majority during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency, we had already confirmed 36 judges by this same time. We made sure that we fulfilled our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to ensure that the American people had a fully functioning Federal judiciary. Senate Republicans' obstruction has caused judicial vacancies to pile up across the country. Since Senate Republicans took over the majority at the beginning of the year, judicial vacancies have increased by more than 50 percent. The number of ``judicial emergency'' vacancies since Senate Republicans took the majority has risen by a stunning 158 percent. The American people deserve better. We should follow well-established Senate precedent by confirming all consensus nominees before the end of the year. Each of the judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. And each has the backing of their home State Senators, including Republican Senators. In fact, the next nominee after Ms. Hall and Judge Restrepo is Travis McDonough who has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the Eastern District of Tennessee. Next week will mark the 1-year anniversary since Mr. McDonough was nominated, but it appears there is no relief in sight as his nomination continues to be held up by Senate Republicans, despite the strong support he has from his home State Senators, Senator Alexander and Senator Corker. I see no reason why he and the rest of the nominees pending should not be confirmed before we recess at the end of the year. As the New York Times put it in an editorial last Friday urging confirmation votes on all pending judicial nominees, ``With each day that passes without a vote on Judge Restrepo and other nominees, Republicans undermine the justice system, and the biggest victims are ordinary Americans who cannot count on fully functioning courts.'' I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Shortly we will begin voting on LaShann Hall to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She is currently a partner at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, in New York, where she has practiced since 2010. She was previously in private practice at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. She has the support of her two home State Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand. She was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote on June 4, 2015. I urge my fellow Senators to support her confirmation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this year, I voted in opposition to the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. Since the Senate last voted on the fiscal year 2016 NDAA, Congress has passed and the President has signed the new Bipartisan Budget Act, which raised the discretionary caps on spending across the government, averted a default, and provided a path forward on appropriations. The Bipartisan Budget Act also enabled authors of the NDAA to fix a gimmick that called for spending from overseas contingency operations, OCO, funding to meet requirements that should have been supported by the Department's base budget. I remain concerned, however, that, in order to meet the new caps, budgetary authority had to be cut from this bill. Specifically, I do not believe that readiness funds for the Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserves should be slashed at the same time that many in this body are demanding more soldiers be sent to places like Eastern Europe. This authorization bill will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unneeded and ineffective missile defense programs, for example, while cutting the training and preparation funds for the men and women we send overseas. The bill also makes significant changes to the defense acquisition system and, inexplicably, cuts key provisions to support the National Guard that enjoyed support in both the Senate and the House. But perhaps most importantly, I am concerned that, in this new version of the bill, Congress failed to reconsider the ill-advised restrictions on detainee transfers from Guantanamo Bay that are contained in this NDAA--restrictions that President Obama cited as one reason for his veto of the original version of the bill last month. I opposed passage of that conference report in part because it contained a needless prohibition on transferring detainees to the United States for detention or trial, and it imposed unnecessary restrictions on transferring detainees to foreign countries. Rather than working to address these misguided provisions, Republicans in Congress have evidently decided to stand in the way of finally bringing this terrible chapter to a close. They are making a grave mistake. For over a decade, the detention facility at Guantanamo has been a stain on our national reputation and served as a recruitment tool for terrorists. Guantanamo is also a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars, costing approximately $3.4 million per year to maintain a single detainee--an astonishing amount of money that could be repurposed to keep our men and women in uniform safe. Closing Guantanamo is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do, and I am deeply disappointed that these restrictions have been included. That is why I was proud to cosponsor an amendment filed by Senator Feinstein to strip these troubling provisions from the bill. The bill does include an extremely significant provision: the McCain- Feinstein antitorture amendment. Last year, Senator Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee did this country a great service in exposing the CIA's horrific practices under the Bush administration. The McCain-Feinstein amendment is a major step toward finally bringing to a close that dark, shameful chapter in our Nation's history. This provision finally codifies in statute the interrogation standards in the Army Field Manual--not just for military personnel, but for intelligence agents as well. It will clearly define acceptable interrogation practices and will hopefully ensure that America never engages in torture again. Providing certainty for the Department's men and women and their families, as well as for military planners, is very important, and in significant ways, this bill accomplishes that. While this bill has shortcomings I hope we can address in the near future, I have given my support to its adoption and will only add that, in advance of Veterans Day and every day the men and women who serve and protect us deserve nothing less than the thanks of a grateful nation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after finally scheduling a few confirmation votes on Federal judges last month, Senate Republicans have reverted back to holding up the confirmation process for no good reason. The American people and the entire Federal justice system depend on the Members of this body to fulfill our constitutional duty of providing advice and consent on judicial nominees. This senatorial duty is one we cannot neglect. However, that is exactly what has happened since Senate Republicans took over the majority this year. I had hoped that last month's judicial confirmation votes were an indication that Senate Republicans were finally ready to make progress on the backlog of well-qualified and uncontroversial nominees awaiting their confirmation vote. But again, this week, there is no sign of when the next judicial nominee will receive a vote. This is no way to lead the Senate. When Senate Democrats were in the majority during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency, we had already confirmed 34 judges by this same time. I have heard Republicans trying to justify their slowdown on judicial nominations by claiming they should somehow receive credit for 11 judges confirmed at the end of the last Congress. That excuse holds no water. It is well-established Senate precedent that all pending consensus nominees should be confirmed before the end of a year. And even if we added those 11 judges to the 9 confirmed this year, that would still bring us to only 20--which is a far cry from the 34 Democrats confirmed in the last 2 years of the Bush administration. The process of confirming judges is about ensuring that the American people have a fully functioning judiciary. Instead, 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. Equally alarming is the fact that the number of judicial emergency vacancies since Senate Republicans took the majority has risen by 158 percent. These vacancies impact communities across America, and it is doing the most harm to States represented by at least one Republican Senator. Of the 66 current vacancies that exist, 48 of them--or more than 70 percent--are in States with at least one Republican Senator. We should take action right now and hold confirmation votes on the 21 judicial nominees pending on the floor. The next pending district and circuit court nominees--who will both fill judicial emergency vacancies--were nominated 1 year ago, yet both are still awaiting the majority leader's action to simply schedule their confirmation votes. The next district court nominee on the Executive Calendar is LaShann Hall, an outstanding African-American woman who has been nominated to serve in the Eastern District of New York. And directly following that nomination is Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo who, when confirmed, will be the first ever Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania on the third circuit and only the second Hispanic judge to serve on the third circuit. Judge Restrepo has strong bipartisan support from his home State Senators, Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. At Judge Restrepo's hearing, Senator Toomey stated that ``there is no question [Judge Restrepo] is a very well qualified candidate to serve on the Third Circuit'' and underscored the fact that he recommended that the President nominate Judge Restrepo. Although there is an urgent need to fill the emergency vacancy on the third circuit, the Republican leadership has refused to hold a confirmation vote. All Democrats support this nominee. I hope Senator Toomey will seek a firm commitment from his Republican leadership to schedule a vote this week for Judge Restrepo. In addition to Judge Restrepo, a number of these pending nominees have the support of their Republican home State Senators. Just last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted out two Iowa nominees recommended to the President by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. However, if Republican obstruction continues and if home State Senators cannot persuade the majority leader to schedule a vote for their nominees soon, then it is unlikely that even highly qualified nominees with Republican support will be confirmed by the end of the year. No Senator has raised a single objection to any of the 21 judicial nominees pending on the floor. Each one was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote, and each has the backing of their home State Senators, including Republican Senators. Senate Republicans have no excuses left. I hope the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania and the other Republican Senators will implore their leadership to schedule votes on the judicial nominees pending on the floor without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is no right that is more fundamental to a democracy than freedom of expression. When this right, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is threatened or curtailed, dictatorship is the predictable result. Regrettably, that is what we see happening in Egypt today. Like others here, I received word this morning that Hossam Bahgat, an Egyptian journalist and one of that country's prominent human rights defenders, has been detained and may be charged in military court. He is apparently accused of publishing false news related to an article about an allegedly foiled military coup. According to information I have received, an October 13 article by Mr. Bahgat described the military prosecution of 26 officers and 2 Muslim Brotherhood members for allegedly planning to overthrow the government. The next day, the same publication printed the article in English under the title, ``A coup busted?'' For this, Mr. Bahgat is being investigated by military prosecutors and could face 1 or more years behind bars. According to Mr. Bahgat's article, which was based on the indictment in that case, authorities had summoned or arrested most of the defendants in April. Some of the detained officers alleged that they were tortured during interrogations inside military intelligence headquarters. Eight of the officers and the two Muslim Brotherhood leaders who were prosecuted in absentia were sentenced to life in prison, Mr. Bahgat reported. The rest were sentenced to between 10 and 15 years. Lawyers for Mr. Bahgat have reported that military prosecutors are investigating him for allegedly violating articles 102 and 188 of the penal code, both of which are minor, vaguely worded offenses that concern the publication of false news. Article 102 allows the prosecution of anyone who ``intentionally broadcasts false or tendentious news, data, or rumors, or propagates subversive propaganda, if this is liable to disturb the public security, spread terror among the people, or harm the public interest.'' It provides for an undefined period of detention and a fine of up to 200 Egyptian pounds, US$25. Article 188 allows prosecution of anyone who ``with ill intent publishes false news, data, or rumors, or forged or fabricated papers, or falsely attributed to others, if this is liable to disturb the general peace or provoke panic among the people or harm the public interest.'' It provides for detention of up to 1 year and a fine of up to 20,000 Egyptian pounds, US$2,490. According to Human Rights Watch, Mr. Bahgat was not the first journalist to report on the alleged military coup. In a statement, Mr. Bahgat's lawyers stated that he had no criminal intent and that other media outlets had previously reported the verdict. It is well established that civilians should not be prosecuted in military courts, yet that is what is happening to Mr. Bahgat. In October 2014, President al-Sisi greatly expanded military court jurisdiction for a period of 2 years, allowing the military prosecution of civilians for crimes that occur on ``public'' or ``vital'' property. Since then, Egyptian media outlets and human rights groups have reported that thousands of civilians have been charged in military courts, many of them for acts related to protesting and the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt's military courts operate under the authority of the Ministry of Defense, not civilian judicial authorities. According to human rights groups, they typically deny defendants the rights accorded by civilian courts, including to be informed of the charges against them, the right to a lawyer, and to be brought promptly before a judge following arrest. This is particularly concerning given the pattern of abuse of detainees in Egypt. As a former prosecutor who has served as both chairman and ranking member of our Judiciary Committee, I have spoken many times about the importance of an independent judiciary. Nowhere is this needed more today than in Egypt, where sham trials, some lasting only a few minutes, followed by sentences of death or life in prison, are common. I hope the Egyptian Government will see the wisdom of proceeding no further in its attempt to silence reputable journalists like Mr. Bahgat. Sometimes the news is favorable; sometimes it is unfavorable. That is the way life is, and it is not for government officials-- whether elected or unelected--to decide what their citizens should read.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving with several hundred Senators in this body over the years I have been here, and Senator Grassley has been a very special friend during that time. He has represented the voices of Iowans for nearly three and a half decades. I think we have been friends for that three and a half decades. When I think of Senator Grassley--12,000 votes, hundreds of hearings, countless tweets, and probably four dozen sweater vests later--he is the same down to earth Iowa farmer who visits every one of the State's 99 counties every year. He is also the Iowa farmer who, when Vermont was hit with terrible flooding a few years back, was the first person to contact me to say, ``Vermont stood with Iowa when we were hit with a natural disaster. Iowa now stands with Vermont.'' He and I have worked together, and we have had a productive relationship that spans those decades. On the Judiciary Committee, we take our leadership responsibilities seriously. We have both made sure that, both as chairman and ranking members, that every Senator has a chance to be heard. We have found ways to come together on meaningful legislation. We enjoy each other's company. We are able to kid each other, as I did on his recent birthday. But more importantly, we do what I was told to do when I first came to the Senate, and I am sure what Senator Grassley was told when he did--we keep our word. We have always kept our word to each other. It also helps that we both married above ourselves. His wonderful wife, Barbara, and my wife, Marcelle, are very close friends. They sometimes say that they belong to that special club that nobody wants to join, that of cancer survivors. Senator Grassley's willingness to listen and hard work was most recently on display in the Judiciary Committee, as we hammered out an important compromise on sentencing reform which brought the left and the right together--both parties together. I think every single Senator complimented his leadership. And I must admit I was grateful for Senator Grassley's comments last week when I, too, crossed a voting milestone. He said we have been good friends and hoped we could cast many more votes together. I share that hope and congratulate my friend on this achievement. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since January 2015, President Abdulla Yameen of the Maldives has increasingly cracked down on dissent within his own party and the political opposition, presided over the erosion of judicial impartiality, and put increasing pressure on civil society. The arrest of former president Mohamed Nasheed, who was convicted in a widely condemned trial that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad described as containing ``flagrant irregularities'', and who remains imprisoned today, is indicative of the current situation. That is why today I am introducing, together with a bipartisan coalition of 13 other Senators, a bill expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the Maldives should immediately release former president Nasheed and all other political prisoners in the country, and guarantee due process for, and respect the human rights of, all of the people of the Maldives. The United States and the Maldives have common interests in maritime security, commerce, and addressing climate change. But we also expect our partners to respect the fundamental rights of their people, including those who disagree with the government's policies, and to uphold the basic principles of justice. I thank the cosponsors of this legislation for their support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since January 2015, President Abdulla Yameen of the Maldives has increasingly cracked down on dissent within his own party and the political opposition, presided over the erosion of judicial impartiality, and put increasing pressure on civil society. The arrest of former president Mohamed Nasheed, who was convicted in a widely condemned trial that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad described as containing ``flagrant irregularities'', and who remains imprisoned today, is indicative of the current situation. That is why today I am introducing, together with a bipartisan coalition of 13 other Senators, a bill expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the Maldives should immediately release former president Nasheed and all other political prisoners in the country, and guarantee due process for, and respect the human rights of, all of the people of the Maldives. The United States and the Maldives have common interests in maritime security, commerce, and addressing climate change. But we also expect our partners to respect the fundamental rights of their people, including those who disagree with the government's policies, and to uphold the basic principles of justice. I thank the cosponsors of this legislation for their support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Republicans continue to object to requests for unanimous consent on basic things we should be able to do in a bipartisan manner here in the Senate. In addition to my request about gender discrimination, Republicans have previously objected to unanimous consent requests to allow votes on noncontroversial judicial nominees with bipartisan support to fill vacancies in our Federal judiciary. These requests are not remotely controversial; yet the Republicans continue to obstruct for obstruction's sake. Since the Republicans took over in January, their leadership has allowed only nine judges to be confirmed. A few district court judges have been confirmed in the last few weeks, but this recent increase in activity is in sharp contrast to their inaction all year. When Senate Democrats were in the majority during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency, we had already confirmed 34 judges by this point--nearly four times more judges than Republicans have confirmed this year. Republicans have tried to justify their poor record by accusing Senate Democrats of scheduling votes for 11 judges during the lameduck session last December. They suggest that those 11 confirmations under last year's Democratic majority should somehow be counted towards this year's confirmation numbers. First, it is well-established Senate precedent to approve all pending consensus nominees before the end of a year. And second, even if we did ignore reality and count these 11 judges towards the Republicans majority's record, that would only bring their count up to 20 confirmations this year. That is still far behind the 34 nominees that Democrats confirmed in the last 2 years of the Bush administration. The glacial pace in which Republicans are currently confirming uncontroversial judicial nominees is a failure to carry out the Senate's constitutional duty of providing advice and consent. We should be responding to the needs of our Federal judiciary so that, when hard- working Americans seek justice, they do not encounter the lengthy delays that they currently face today. Because of Republican obstruction, judicial vacancies have increased by more than 50 percent since they took over the majority this January and caseloads are piling up in courts throughout the country. We can and should take action right now to alleviate this problem by holding confirmation votes on the 16 judicial nominees pending on the floor. A number of these pending nominees have the support of their Republican Senators; yet they continue to languish on the calendar without a vote. If Republican obstruction continues and if home State Senators cannot persuade the majority leader to schedule a vote for their nominees soon, then it is unlikely that even highly qualified nominees with Republican support will be confirmed by the end of the year. These are nominees that members of the majority leader's own party want confirmed, including several from Tennessee and Pennsylvania. Last week, we had a hearing for two Iowa nominees. I expect they will be reported out of the Judiciary Committee soon. We also have nominees from Massachusetts, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Maryland who are waiting for their confirmation hearings. None of these nominees are likely to be confirmed by the end of the year if Senate Republicans continue at this historically slow pace. I hope Republican Senators will implore their leadership to vote on the pending judicial nominees without delay for the sake of the American people who seek justice before those courts.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the proud parent of a wonderful daughter and the proud grandparent of three wonderful granddaughters, like so many others, I was proud of the U.S. Women's National Team and their historic World Cup victory. I was even more proud on Tuesday when I saw them at the White House with President Obama. I know all Americans are so proud, as well as honored. The reason why so many Americans are proud of it is that earlier this year, with more than 25 million Americans watching, this electrifying group of athletes led the United States to a record third World Cup title. We all cheered, but then along with a lot of other Americans, I was surprised to learn that the U.S. Women's National Team--even though there were enormous receipts from the TV coverage of this--received $2 million for winning the Women's World Cup. The 2014 Men's World Cup winners were awarded $35 million. When the women won, it was $2 million. When the men won, it was $35 million. To make it even worse, the men's teams that lost in the first round of the 2014 Men's World Cup were awarded $8 million. In other words, if you lose and are a man, you get $8 million. If you are a woman and you win, you get $2 million. That is really not acceptable. I cannot imagine anybody finding it acceptable. I wanted to raise some awareness of this. I introduced a Senate resolution calling on soccer's international governing body, FIFA, to eliminate its discriminatory prize awards structure. It highlights the gross pay disparity in their award structure and calls for immediate change. All Democrats support this call. I have heard some opponents of an equal prize awards structure in sports who say: Oh, no, we must pay men more than women. They point to revenue as the reason behind this disparity. Revenue cannot be accepted as a means for discrimination. Awards should not be determined by gender. That is why major sporting events, including the U.S. Open Tennis Championships and Wimbledon changed their prize award structure to assure that both female and male athletes are treated with the same dignity and respect they deserve. This proud father and grandfather feels that my sons and my daughter should be treated the same and my grandsons and granddaughters should be treated the same. In fact, it is why the U.S. Women's National Team was rightly honored with a Ticker-Tape parade and magazine covers for each player and their head coach by Sports Illustrated. These athletes, recognized at the White House on Tuesday, are global icons. Not just here in America but around the world they are recognized. They are role models to young athletes and fans everywhere. This includes fans such as 13-year-old Ayla Ludlow. She wrote to President Obama and the First Lady after the Women's World Cup. She said: ``It makes me mad that people do not treat girls equally.'' I agree. It is time to recognize all athletes for their contributions-- not make women second-class citizens. By taking an overdue but important step toward pay equity, we send a resounding message not just to women and girls but also to men and boys around the world. Equal pay for equal work should not be an ideal we talk about, but a reality. The men's teams that lost in the 2014 Men's World Cup was awarded $8 million. The women's team, which was watched worldwide as they won, was awarded $2 million. The men's team that did win was awarded $35 million. I cannot imagine anybody who could stand up for that kind of disparity and treat men so much differently and so much better than women. These are athletes who worked hard from the time they were young to be the best of the best. They made America proud. But I think we make America a little ashamed if we do not stand up and say: We want women treated the same as men. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 222, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration--this is the resolution calling on FIFA to pay the same; and that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last night we passed resolutions, and here we are talking about taking 30 seconds out of our busy, busy schedule. Of course, we were in a quorum call for a few hours today. We could take 30, 50, or 82 seconds out of the 100 hours or so we will spend during the month sitting here doing nothing and pass a resolution that calls for the equal treatment of male and female athletes. If we cannot even do that, is it any wonder that the approval ratings of the Senate are in the tank? If we cannot even pass a nonbinding resolution, how can we ever achieve real pay equity for women? What is the real objection? We are simply urging for the equal treatment of female athletes. Treating people differently solely because of their gender is unacceptable. It sends a terrible message to mothers, daughters, and granddaughters across the globe. As I said, every single Democrat supports this resolution. I am very disappointed that the Republicans are blocking it. I will leave after saying one more thing. The women's team won to international acclaim, and they were awarded $2 million. The men's teams that lost in the first round was paid $8 million. The men's team that won was awarded $35 million. Wimbledon knows better. The U.S. Open Tennis Championships said enough is enough. Women should be treated the same as men. A 13-year-old girl wrote to the President and said: ``It makes me mad that people do not treat girls equally.'' Well, I have a granddaughter who will be 13 in December. How do I speak to her? How do I tell her that the U.S. Senate--which is sort of waiting around here and has not done anything today--is unwilling to take 10 seconds, 30 seconds, 50 seconds to say: Let's treat women athletes the same as men. I thank my Democratic colleagues for supporting this legislation. I hope my Republican colleagues will change their minds and say: Let's treat female athletes the same as male athletes, especially since the World Cup organization made a fortune on TV rights. They certainly made a heck of a lot more money on those TV rights while the women were winning than they were making when the men's team lost, but the men's teams that lost in the first round were still paid $8 million. They made four times more than the women who won the championship were paid. It is sexist, and it is wrong. In this day and age we need to stop treating women as second-class citizens. I do not want my daughter treated that way. I do not want my granddaughters treated that way. I do not want the women in Vermont treated that way. I do not want women anywhere in this country to be treated that way. I want to say to that 13-year-old girl who is angry because of the unfair treatment of girls: I am sorry the U.S. Senate would not stand up for you, but I, and others, stand up for you, and I always will. Let us hope someday the Senate stands up for you too. We can see how busy we are at this time. There is not a single Senator on the floor, except for the distinguished Presiding Officer, of course, and so I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for months, Democrats have called on Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House to work with us to avert the economic crisis that default would have wrought on this country. With our backs against the wall, congressional leaders and the White House have reached an agreement to not only raise the debt ceiling--ensuring that our government can pay its bills--but to limit the devastating impacts of sequestration for the next 2 years. This agreement is far from perfect. This deal uses funding identified and supported by the Senate to extend the critical highway trust fund. The trust fund has limped along, one short-term extension after another, for far too long. Despite the progress made on advancing a 6- year authorization, we will now have to move back to square one to find a way to pay for it. I am as concerned now as I was in July that we are stealing from ourselves by selling off strategic oil preserves at a time of low prices when we purchased at a time of high prices, and I am deeply concerned that this deal raids the Crime Victims Fund of $1.5 billion. Democrats and Republicans alike have long supported the Crime Victims Fund--unique in that it comes not from taxpayer dollars, but from penalties and fines paid by the criminals themselves. This fund was set up to be a dedicated resource to help victims of crime. Given the ongoing level of unmet need in that community, it is simply unacceptable that this fund was raided to pay for unrelated things. This one-time rescission must not become a new precedent. We cannot turn our backs on the victims of crime. Nonetheless, I support the Bipartisan Budget Act. It is the product of compromise that will offer a measure of stability and help pave the way for an omnibus appropriations bill to keep our government open past December 11. But this is only the first step. While we will avert a calamitous default next week, we now must undertake the difficult process of crafting an omnibus spending bill that will meet our financial obligations and properly invest our resources. We have come together--across the aisle and across Congress--to support this budget deal. Let's not squander those bipartisan efforts in the next phase by derailing the appropriations process with needless partisan policy riders intended to do nothing more than score political points.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know there is a 10-minute limit; however, I do not see anyone else seeking the floor, so I ask unanimous consent to continue for 15 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is really a personal speech. I was very grateful for the indulgences of my fellow Senators who allowed me yesterday to make a few observations after I cast my 15,000th vote. I would like to elaborate a bit more. I have never lost sight of what a great opportunity and responsibility the Senate affords this Senator from Vermont, day after day, to make things better for Vermonters and for all Americans, to strengthen our country and ensure its vitality on into the future, to forge solutions in the unending quest begun by the founders of this country to form a more perfect union. Over the last 40 years, I have been blessed to be able to serve with some of the giants of the Senate: Mike Mansfield, Howard Baker, Robert Byrd, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Bob Dole, George Mitchell, and my mentor when I came here, then-senior Senator from Vermont, Senator Bob Stafford. I would note that I became the only Democrat ever elected from my State. Senator Stafford was really ``Mr. Republican'' in Vermont. And I wondered what the relationship would be. He immediately took me under his arm and guided me and worked with me, and there wasn't a day that went by that we didn't consult and I didn't gain from his wisdom and experience. There are so many others. Marcelle and I have made close friendships on both sides of the aisle, like Senator John Glenn and his wife Annie, who were Democrats, and Senator Cochran and Senator Lugar, Republicans. I had the privilege and have had the privilege to serve with more than 370 Senators in all from different walks of life and every corner of this Nation, these different backgrounds, different stories, and different life experiences, both parties. And this has made this institution the greatest deliberative body in the world. I cast my first vote in this Chamber in 1975. It was a resolution to establish the Church Committee. The critical issues of the post- Watergate era parallel issues we face today. I also had a front-row seat, a bit part in an historic effort, initiated by a Democrat--Senator Mondale of Minnesota--and a Republican--Senator Pearson of Kansas--to change the Senate's earlier cloture rule, which had been abused for decades in thwarting the will of clear majorities of the American people on such crucial issues as civil rights reforms. That project might not sound difficult, but changing the way the Senate operates is something akin to trying to change the weather. Late--actually very late one night--in a lengthy, difficult debate-- and we sometimes went around the clock--Senator Mondale and Majority Leader Mansfield enlisted me, the most junior Senator, to play a role. They asked me to stay on the floor one night around 2 in the morning to take the gavel as the Presiding Officer. They expected that a lot of tight rulings were coming up. I felt so honored, but I did feel the honor drain away as Senator Mansfield explained, no, no, they just needed somebody big, 6-foot-3, 200 pounds, and who was still awake, to be the Chair for those rulings, in case tempers flared. Sometimes a Senator is no more than a conscious body in the right place at the right time. But among those 15,000 votes I have been proud to cast on behalf of Vermonters, some were Vermont-oriented, some national, some global: the organic farm bill, the charter for what has become a thriving $30 billion industry--I fought for years for that and got it through with bipartisan support; stronger regulations on mercury pollution and combating the effects of global warming; emergency relief for the devastation caused by Tropical Storm Irene. In that case, Senator Grassley, who spoke on the floor yesterday--I recall the morning after that storm, flying around the devastated State of Vermont. The first call I got was from Senator Grassley saying, ``You Vermonters stood with us. We will stand with you.'' How much that meant, based on relationships that were built over the years. We adopted price support programs for small dairy farmers. We fought for the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. I remember supporting the Reagan-O'Neill deal to save Social Security--President Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. We fought for nutrition bills to help Americans below the poverty line, joined by people like Bob Dole and George McGovern. Bipartisan--strongly bipartisan--campaign reform in McCain-Feingold. The bipartisan Leahy- Smith Act on patent reform was the first reform in 50 years. I worked with Mike Crapo from Idaho to reauthorize and greatly expand and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. I was proud to oppose the war in Iraq, a venture that cost so many lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars. Serving on the Armed Services Committee in April of 1975, I became the first and only Vermonter to cast a vote to end the war in Vietnam, and by a one-vote margin, we cut off authorization for the war. Every significant legislative success I have had has been achieved through the often slow process of methodically building bipartisan coalitions. A breakthrough in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week in beginning to come to grips with criminal justice reform is a fresh example of this and so was enactment this summer of the electronic surveillance reforms in our USA FREEDOM Act. I would remind everybody, we are not alone in this body. Legislative work in a democracy in large part is the art of compromise. Compromise is essential in assimilating and digesting competing points of view and competing interests, which are all the more diverse in a large and heterogeneous nation like ours. We are not just some small nation made up of just one particular class of people. The remarkable strength of the United States is that we have people who came here from all over the world and made us a strong nation. And I think we Senators keep faith with our core values as we listen to the perspectives of others. Insisting on our way or no way at all is a surefire recipe for stalemate, to the great detriment of the entire Nation and the people we represent. As Winston Churchill once said: ``The maxim, `nothing avails but perfection,' may be spelled shorter: PARALYSIS.'' Some measure of self-restraint is essential for a legislative body in a democratic republic like ours to function. Louis Brandeis once said, ``Democracy substitutes self-restraint for external restraint. It is more difficult to maintain than to achieve.'' He was right. Self- restraint in a democracy is not an easy virtue. In the previous Congress, as President pro tempore, I had the pleasure of accompanying Chaplain Barry Black to the podium as he offered the morning invocation. I like to think--maybe it is more that I like to hope--that some of his inspiration rubs off on us, at least a little, each day. One morning years ago, for instance, he said: ``Give them (the Senators) the stature to see above the wall of prideful opinion.'' We can each point to each other, the other 99, and say: See, that is for you. We have to remember it is for us, too, each one of us. I was talking, my wife Marcelle and I, last night about 15,000 votes. It didn't seem possible when I came here as a junior Member of the Senate. I also know there is a lot more work to do. I hope we can restore the bipartisan campaign finance reform that so many in this body--Republicans and Democrats--supported. I hope we can restore the historic and foundational Voting Rights Act. I hope we continue to fight to support our farmers, who give us food security and are the very fabric of this country. We are a nation that can feed ourselves. I think we should fight against government overreach in the wake of national security threats. Sometimes going into all our private matters is itself a national security threat. We should do more to support our veterans and their families. When they come back from war, we should continue that support. We should expand education opportunity for all. My family came to Vermont in the 1850s. I became the first Leahy to get a college degree and my sister, the second one. We hope our children and grandchildren will have the same educational opportunities. We should rebuild the American middle class and offer helping hands to lift all Americans out of poverty. We should fund our roads and bridges. We build roads and bridges in other countries in wars where they sometimes get blown up. Let's build some in our own country where we need them. We should pass appropriations bills, not continuing resolutions. Pass them every year, each year. It is a lot of work, but not an insurmountable goal. It will take good will and bipartisan cooperation to achieve them. We 100 Senators should never forget that we are but the public face of an institution that is supported by thousands of hard-working staff, our office aides and policy experts--my own, of course, among the best in the Senate--the Capitol Police, the folks who keep order and help to showcase this great building to millions of tourists, and those bright and dutiful Senate pages in the well of this Chamber, all of them are part of the Senate family. The Senate at its best can be the conscience of the Nation. And I have seen that happen over the years when we've risen up together and expressed the conscience of the Nation. And I marvel in the fundamental soundness and wisdom of our system every time it does. We can't afford to put any part of the mechanism on automatic pilot. It takes constant work and vigilance to keep our society working. It is easy for politicians to appeal to our worst instincts and to our selfishness. Political leaders serve best when they appeal to the best in us, to lift our sights, summon our will, and raise us to a higher level. I still get a thrill every time I walk in this building and walk out on this floor, knowing the history of this place, just knowing I am going to be a part of that history. Senators have come and gone, but I have had one partner through these 15,000 votes: my wife, Marcelle. We came here in 1975 with three wonderful children: Kevin, Alicia, and Mark. Alicia was here in the Chamber yesterday representing her husband, Lawrence, and their children. And I remember my parents and Marcelle's parents visiting often. I remember how much they enjoyed visiting here, seeing what we are doing. But I think they especially wanted to visit their three grandchildren. Well, now I look at our grandchildren--Roan, Francesca, Sophia, Patrick, and Fiona--and I understand how my parents felt. I am so grateful to my fellow Vermonters for the confidence they have shown in me. It is a measure of trust that urges me on and which I will never betray or take for granted. As I have reflected on these 15,000 votes, it reminds me of the significance every time we vote, why I feel energized about what votes lie ahead, and how we can keep making a difference. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for his forbearance. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one moment?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida and I have been friends for decades. To get this praise from a man who served with distinction as a Congressman, a Senator, and an astronaut means a great deal to me. I thank him.