Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as much as I hate to disagree with my dear friend from California, I will on this amendment. I don't like to see unnecessary exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act. Today I offer an amendment to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act that would remove from the bill an overly broad and wholly unnecessary new FOIA exemption. That new exemption to our Nation's premier transparency law was added without public debate and in a closed session by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Any amendments to the Freedom of Information Act should be considered openly and publicly by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has exclusive jurisdiction over FOIA--not in secret by the Senate Intelligence Committee. I expect that much of the information to be shared with the government under CISA would be protected from disclosure to the general public. A thorough committee process, including consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would have made clear that the vast majority of sensitive information to be shared under this bill is already protected from disclosure under existing FOIA exemptions. This includes exemption (b)(4), which protects confidential business and financial information; exemption (b)(6) which protects personal privacy; and exemption (b)(7), which protects information related to law enforcement investigations. In case there is any doubt that this information would be exempt from disclosure, the underlying bill already makes clear that information provided to the Federal Government ``shall be considered the commercial, financial, and proprietary information'' of the entity submitting the information. Commercial and financial information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to exemption (b)(4), and additional protections are unnecessary. The comprehensive exemptions already in law have been carefully crafted to protect the most sensitive information from disclosure while prohibiting the Federal Government from withholding information the public is entitled to. Creating unnecessary exemptions will call into question the existing FOIA framework and threaten its twin goals of promoting government transparency and accountability. The new FOIA exemption in the cyber bill also includes a preemption clause that is overly broad and sets a terrible precedent. As drafted, it applies not only to FOIA, but to all State, local, or tribal disclosure laws. By its very terms, this provision applies not just to transparency and sunshine laws, but to any law ``requiring disclosure of information or records.'' Because this broad preemption of State and local law has not received careful, open consideration, there has not been adequate consultation with State and local governments to consider the potential impacts. Such a sweeping approach could impact hundreds of State and local laws and lead to unintended consequences. Amending our Nation's premier transparency law and preempting State and local law deserves more public debate and consideration. If we do not oppose this new FOIA exemption, then I expect more antitransparency language will be slipped into other bills without the consideration of the Judiciary Committee. Just a few months ago, I was here on the Senate floor fighting against new FOIA exemptions that had been tucked into the surface transportation bill, and I have no doubt I will be down here again in the future fighting similar fights. But an open and transparent government is worth fighting for. I believe in transparency in our Federal Government, and I believe that FOIA is the backbone to ensuring an open and accountable government. I urge all Members to join me in this effort and vote for the Leahy amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank my colleague. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to thank my dear friends, Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Senator Sanders, and Senator Grassley for their comments, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to serve with them. I thank the members of the Senate for this opportunity to make a very few observations about this personal milestone. You know, the Senate offers both great opportunities and responsibility for both Senators from Vermont and all who serve here. We have a chance, day after day, to make things better for Vermonters and for all Americans. We can strengthen our country and ensure its vitality into the future. We can forge solutions in the unending quest throughout this Nation's history to form a more perfect Union. I cast my first vote in this Chamber in 1975 on a resolution to establish the Church Committee. The critical issues of the post- Watergate era parallel issues we face today--proof of the enduring fact that, while the votes we cast today address the issues we face now, problems will persist, threats will continue, and improvements to the democracy we all revere can always be made. I think back on the 15,000 votes I have cast on behalf of Vermonters. A lot of them come quickly to mind today--some specific to Vermont and some national and some global--writing and enacting the organic farm bill, the charter for what has become a thriving $30 billion industry; stronger regulations on mercury pollution and combating the effects of global warming; emergency relief for the devastation caused by Tropical Storm Irene; adopting price support programs for small dairy farmers; fighting for the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans; supporting the Reagan-O'Neill deal to save Social Security; nutrition bills to help Americans below the poverty line; bipartisan--strongly bipartisan--campaign reform in McCain-Feingold; the bipartisan Leahy- Smith Act, on patent reform; reauthorizing and greatly expanding and strengthening the Violence Against Women Act; opposing the war in Iraq, a venture that cost so many lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars. The Senate at its best can be the conscience of the Nation. I have seen that when it happens, and I marvel in the fundamental soundness and wisdom of our system every time the Senate stands up and is the conscience of our Nation. But we cannot afford to put any part of the mechanism on automatic pilot. It takes constant work and vigilance to keep our system working as it should for the betterment of our society and the American people. And we can only do it if we work together. 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. I will never betray it, and I will never take it for granted. Reflecting on the past 15,000 votes reminds me about 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 my friends, the two leaders, for their remarks, my respected Senate colleague, Senator Sanders, my friend, Senator Grassley, with whom I've served a long time. I appreciate my friendship with them and have appreciated my friendship with other leaders, including Senators Mansfield, Byrd, Baker, Dole, Lott, and Daschle, and lifelong gratitude to my former colleague, Senator Stafford, a Republican, who took me under his wing and guided me. And I am privileged to serve now--I mean, our whole Vermont delegation is here: Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, and myself. Not many other States could do that and fit all of them in this body. And lastly I remember what a thrill it was to tell my wife, Marcelle, when I cast my first vote. And now 40 years later, I can still tell her about the 15,000th vote, and she knows, she and our children and grandchildren are the most important people in my life. I do not want to further delay the Senate's work today, and I will reflect more on this milestone later. I thank you for your friendships that have meant more to me and my family than I can possibly say, and I look forward to continuing serving here. Thank you very, very much. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in today's digital age, many Americans live their lives online. We communicate via email, use photo sharing and social networking Web sites, store documents in the cloud, and access our private financial and medical information through the Internet. The amount of sensitive electronic data that we create and store on the Internet is staggering and will only continue to grow. We know that cyber security is an important component of protecting our critical infrastructure. A cyber attack targeting the electric grid in the Northeast, for example, could have dire effects during a cold Vermont winter. I know that Vermonters care about cyber security, and Congress must act responsibly to strengthen our ability to defend against cyber attacks and breaches. But I also know that Vermonters care deeply about their privacy and civil liberties, and I believe just as strongly that whatever Congress does in the name of cyber security must not inadvertently undermine the privacy and security of Vermonters and all Americans. For years, Congress has seemed singularly focused on the private sector's desire for voluntary information sharing legislation. While improving the flow of cyber threat information between the government and private sector is a laudable goal that I support, it is not a panacea for our cyber security problems. Information sharing alone would not have prevented the major breaches of the past year, such as the breach at the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, or the breaches at Sony, Home Depot, or Anthem. Narrowly tailored legislation to facilitate the sharing of technical, cyber threat data could be beneficial, but the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill lacks certain basic safeguards and threatens to significantly harm Americans' privacy. That is why I have heard from a number of Vermonters who oppose the bill and that is why consumer advocacy organizations, privacy and civil liberties groups, and major technology companies like Apple, Dropbox, and Twitter all vocally oppose the bill. The technology companies know firsthand the importance of ensuring our cyber security, and they oppose this bill because they believe it does little to improve our cyber security and would ultimately undermine their users' privacy. For months, I have worked with Senator Feinstein to improve this bill. She has been receptive to my concerns, and I appreciate that many of the revisions that I suggested are now incorporated into the managers' amendment. The managers' amendment now makes clear that companies can only share information for cyber security purposes, which is an improvement from the original legislation. It also prohibits the government from using information shared by private companies to investigate routine crimes that have nothing to do with cyber security. And it removes a completely unnecessary and destructive new exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, which had the potential to greatly restrict government transparency. These are significant improvements, and I am thankful to Senator Feinstein for working with me to incorporate them into the bill. Unfortunately, the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill still has major flaws. This bill overrides all existing legal restrictions to allow an unprecedented amount of data--including Americans' personal information--to flow to the government without adequate controls and restrictions. It needlessly requires all information shared with the government to be immediately disseminated to a host of Federal agencies, including to the NSA. It fails to adequately require companies to remove irrelevant personal information before sharing with the government. The bill contains broad authorizations that allow companies to monitor traffic on their networks with liability protection and employ ``defensive measures'' that may cause collateral harm to innocent Internet users. The bill also continues to include another unnecessary FOIA exemption that will weaken the existing FOIA framework. Proponents of the bill have attempted to assuage many of these concerns by arguing that sharing under this bill is voluntary, and if companies do not want to share information with the government or use the authorities in the bill, they do not have to. This bill may be voluntary for companies, but it is not voluntary for consumers. American consumers have no say on whether their information is shared with the government and ends up in an NSA or IRS database. They may have no recourse if a company needlessly monitors their Internet activity or inappropriately shares their personal information with the government. Rather than limiting the dissemination of information in order to protect the private and proprietary information of Americans and American businesses, this bill goes in the wrong direction by giving companies more liability protection and more leeway on how to share our information. The most effective action Congress can take to improve our cyber security is to pass legislation that requires companies to take greater care of how they use and protect our data, not less. And we should pass my Consumer Privacy Protection Act to require companies to protect our personal information and help prevent breaches in the first place. The cyber security legislation before us today does nothing to address this very real concern, so I cannot support it. I fear that this bill will significantly undermine our privacy, and I urge Senators to vote against passage.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will vote on the nomination of Lawrence Vilardo to be a Federal district judge in the Western District of New York in Buffalo. He was first nominated in February, and his nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote over 5 months ago on May 6. There is no reason why this highly qualified nominee should have waited so long for a vote. Despite having one of the busiest caseloads in the country, with more criminal cases than Washington, DC, Boston, or Cleveland, there is not a single active Federal judge in that district. The court has been staying afloat only through the voluntary efforts of two judges on senior status who are hearing cases in their retirement. It is about time that we confirmed Mr. Vilardo to this vacancy. Next week marks the 11th month that Republicans have been in the majority in the Senate. During that time, only nine judicial nominees have been confirmed. 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. The glacial pace at which Republicans are currently confirming judicial nominees is an inexcusable failure to carry out the Senate's constitutional duty of providing advice and consent. It also has real and dire consequences for hard-working Americans who seek justice but instead encounter lengthy delays in the Federal court system due to empty courthouses and overburdened courts. We can and should take action right now to alleviate this problem by holding confirmation votes on the rest of the 13 judicial nominees pending on the floor. A number of these pending nominees have the support of their Republican home State 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 those from Tennessee and Pennsylvania. And last week, we had a hearing for two Iowa nominees, who I expect to be reported out of the Judiciary Committee soon as well. None of these nominees are likely to be confirmed by the end of the year if Senate Republicans continue at this historically slow pace. No Senator has raised any objections to the judicial nominees pending on the floor. Every single one was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. Each has the backing of their home State Senators, including Republican Senators. These nominees are outstanding, accomplished legal professionals who are ready to serve in our justice system. They have devoted time away from work and their families to go through the rigorous nominations process. More than half of the pending Federal district and circuit court nominees would fill vacancies deemed to be ``judicial emergencies'' by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Instead of working to ensure that all Americans have access to our Federal courts, Senate Republicans continue to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominees in a misguided effort to score political points against the President. The number of empty judgeships has increased by more than 50 percent since Republicans took over the majority. Their obstruction is reversing the hard-earned progress Senate Democrats made last Congress to drastically reduce the number of judicial vacancies. Making matters worse, 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 with at least one Republican Senator. Of the 66 current vacancies that exist, 49 of them--or more than 70 percent--are in States with at least one Republican Senator. One of those vacancies is an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania. Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo is nominated to fill the vacancy, and he 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. Once confirmed, Judge Restrepo will be the first Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania to ever serve on this court and only the second Hispanic judge to serve on the Third Circuit. There is absolutely no reason to delay a vote on Judge Restrepo's confirmation; yet his nomination has been pending on the floor for over 3 months. Since he was first nominated, Judge Restrepo's nomination has been pending for a staggering 348 days. The national president for the Hispanic National Bar Association, which strongly supports Judge Restrepo's nomination, wrote last week in the Huffington Post about the inexcusable delay in his confirmation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Contrast Senate Republican's treatment of Judge Restrepo with President Bush's nominee to the third circuit, Judge Thomas Hardiman, who was nominated in the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency. Judge Hardiman was confirmed in nearly half the time Judge Restrepo has been waiting, taking only 183 days from nomination to his confirmation. Furthermore, it took only 7 days for Judge Hardiman to receive a confirmation vote once he was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Restrepo has been pending on the floor for 109 days-- 15 times longer than Judge Hardiman. I hope the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania will implore his leadership to bring this highly qualified nominee up for a vote without further delay. Let us then turn to votes on the rest of the 12 pending judicial nominees without further delay. Shortly we will begin voting on Lawrence Vilardo to fill a judicial vacancy in the Federal District Court for the Western District of New York. Since 1986, he has practiced as a named partner at the law firm of Connors & Vilardo, L.L.P., in Buffalo, NY. He previously practiced at Damon & Morey, in Buffalo, NY, from 1981 to 1986. The ABA standing committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Vilardo ``well qualified'' to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, its highest rating. He has the support of his two home State Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote on May 6, 2015. I will vote to support his nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it seems as though every week, the American people learn of yet another data breach in which Americans' sensitive, private information has been stolen by cyber criminals or foreign governments. This is a critical national security problem that deserves action by Congress. But our actions must be thoughtful and responsible, and we must recognize that strengthening our Nation's cyber security is a complex endeavor with no single solution. According to security researchers and technologists, the most effective action Congress can take to improve our cyber security is to require better and more comprehensive data security practices. That is why earlier this year, I introduced the Consumer Privacy Protection Act. That bill requires companies to utilize strong data security measures to protect our personal information and to help prevent breaches in the first place. Companies that benefit financially from gathering and analyzing our personal information should be obligated to take meaningful steps to keep it safe. But rather than taking a comprehensive approach that addresses the multiple facets of cyber security, the Republican majority appears to be focused entirely on passing the Senate Intelligence Committee's cyber security information sharing bill. While legislation to promote the sharing of cyber threat information could, if done right, be useful in improving our cyber security, it is a serious mistake to believe that information sharing alone is the solution. Information sharing alone would not, for example, have prevented the breach at the Office of Personnel Management, nor would it have prevented other major breaches, such as those at Target, Home Depot, Anthem, or Sony. Instead of ensuring that companies better safeguard Americans' data, this bill goes in the opposite direction, giving large corporations more liability protection and even more leeway on how to use and share our personal information with the government--without adequate privacy protections. Also troubling is the fact that the Republican majority has been intent on jamming this bill through the Senate without any regard for regular process or opportunity for meaningful public debate. Only last year, the Republican leader declared his commitment to ``a more robust committee process'' and plainly stated that ``bills should go through committee.'' But the bill was drafted behind closed doors by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and it has not been the subject of any open hearings or any meaningful public debate. The text of the bill was only made public after it was reported to the Senate floor, and no other committee of jurisdiction--including the Judiciary Committee--was allowed to consider and improve the bill. The Judiciary Committee was prevented from considering this bill even though it contains numerous provisions that affect matters squarely within our jurisdiction. First and foremost, the bill creates a framework of information sharing that could severely undermine Americans' privacy. The bill also overrides all existing law to provide broad liability protections for any company that shares information with the government. It also overrides important privacy laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, over which the Judiciary Committee has long exercised jurisdiction. CISA even amends the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, and creates new exemptions from disclosure. This is just the latest attempt by the majority leader to bypass the Judiciary Committee and jam a bill through the Senate that contains provisions within the jurisdiction of the committee. The bill reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee includes a broad and unnecessary FOIA exemption. FOIA falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee and changes affecting this law should not be enacted without full and careful consideration by the Judiciary Committee. This important transparency law certainly should not be amended in closed session by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Shortly after the text of the bill was released, I shared with Chairman Grassley my concern that the Judiciary Committee should also consider this bill. He assured me that there would be a ``robust and open amendment process'' if this bill were considered on the Senate floor. But only a few weeks later, the Republican leadership--with Chairman Grassley's support--attempted to jam the Intelligence Committee's bill through the Senate as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, without any opportunity for meaningful debate. Republicans and Democrats joined together to reject the majority leader's effort to force the cyber security bill onto the NDAA. Despite this rebuke from both sides of the aisle, just a few weeks later, the majority leader again attempted to jam the bill through the Senate in the final days before August recess, without any serious opportunity to debate and offer amendments. The majority leader's actions have been part of a consistent disregard for regular order. He has talked about providing an opportunity for fair debate, but at the same time, he has used all procedural mechanisms to stifle process on this bill. Yesterday afternoon, the Senate moved to consideration of this bill--but then not even 2 hours later, the majority leader moved to end debate. That speaks volumes about whether the majority leader is really interested in a full and open debate, and it is not how the U.S. Senate should operate--particularly when it comes to a bill with such sweeping ramifications for Americans' privacy. Senator Feinstein, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, has consistently said that the Senate ``should have an opportunity to fully consider the bill and to receive the input of other committees with jurisdiction in this area.'' She has worked hard to improve the underlying bill with a managers' amendment that addresses a number of my concerns, particularly in regard to FOIA, limiting the sharing of information for cyber security purposes only, and ensuring that the bill would not allow the government to use information to investigate crimes completely unrelated to cyber security. I appreciate these improvements, and Senator Feinstein's efforts to include them in the bill. But again, this bill still has some serious problems and requires a full, public debate. The bill still includes, for example, a FOIA exemption that I believe is overly broad and unnecessary. In July, the Department of Homeland Security wrote a letter to Senator Franken stating that in their view the bill raises significant operational concerns and certain provisions threaten to severely undermine Americans' privacy. Last week, the Computer & Communications Industry Association--an organization that includes Google, Facebook, and Yahoo!--voiced serious concerns that the bill fails to protect users' privacy and could ``cause collateral harm'' to ``innocent third parties.'' And this week, major tech companies such as Apple, Dropbox, Twitter, and Yelp have vocally opposed the bill citing concerns for their users' privacy. The latest version of the bill contains a number of improvements that I and other Senators have been fighting for, and I am glad to see that we are making progress. But we still have work to do on this bill, and the Senate must have an open and honest debate about the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill and its implications for Americans' privacy. I agree that we must do more to protect our cyber security, but we must be responsible in our actions. Legislation of this importance should not be hastily pushed through the Senate, without a full and fair opportunity for Senators to consider the ramifications of this bill. Unfortunately, by moving so quickly to end debate, it appears that the majority leader is trying to do just that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will finally vote on the nomination of Judge Ann Donnelly to be a Federal district judge in the Eastern District of New York. She was first nominated for this judicial emergency vacancy nearly a year ago, back in November 2014. She was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote over 4 months ago on June 4, but since then she has been blocked from receiving a vote on the Senate floor. Senator Schumer has twice sought to secure a vote for Judge Donnelly through unanimous consent requests in July and September, but was blocked by Republicans both times. No substantive reason was given for this obstruction, which is hurting both our justice system and the people who seek justice in those courts. Judge Donnelly is not the only New York nominee ready for a vote today on the Executive Calendar. LaShann Hall, a partner at a prominent national law firm, was nominated to the other judicial emergency vacancy in the Eastern District of New York last November as well. She was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote at the same time as Judge Donnelly, and she is still awaiting a vote. Also waiting for a vote is Lawrence Vilardo, who has been nominated to the vacancy in the Western District of New York in Buffalo. The Western District of New York has one of the busiest caseloads in the country and handles more criminal cases than Washington, DC, Boston, or Cleveland; yet there is not a single active Federal judge in that district, and the court is staying afloat only through the voluntary efforts of two judges on senior status who are hearing cases in their retirement. Despite these circumstances, Republicans continue to hold Mr. Vilardo's nomination up as well. There is no good reason why these two other noncontroversial New York nominees could not be confirmed today. The same goes for the rest of the noncontroversial judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar. In the Judiciary Committee, I have continued to work with Chairman Grassley to hold hearings on judicial nominees. We will hold a hearing tomorrow for four more judicial nominees. But the pattern we have seen over the last 9 months is that, once nominees are voted out of committee and awaiting confirmation on the floor, the Republican leadership refuses to schedule votes. So far this year, we have only confirmed seven judges. That is not even one judge per month. Some Republicans claim that this is reasonable, but by any measure, it is not. By this same point in 2007, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and we had a Republican President, the Senate had already confirmed 33 judges. At this current rate, by the end of the year, the Senate will have confirmed the fewest number of judges in more than a half century. This pattern is especially egregious in light of the rising number of judicial vacancies. In fact, as a direct result of Republican obstruction, vacancies have increased by more than 50 percent, from 43 to 67. That means there are not enough judges to handle the overwhelming number of cases in many of our Federal courtrooms. Additionally, the number of Federal court vacancies deemed to be ``judicial emergencies'' by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has increased by 158 percent since the beginning of the year. There are now 30 judicial emergency vacancies that are affecting communities across the country. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights recently issued a memorandum documenting the real life impact of the Senate Republicans' obstruction on the judicial confirmation process. Three States where communities are most hurt are Texas, Alabama, and Florida. Texas, for example, has nine judicial vacancies--with seven of them deemed to be judicial emergencies. Incredibly, one of the district court positions has been vacant for over 4 years, and a fifth circuit position in Texas has been vacant for more than 3 years. The memorandum reports that, in the Eastern District of Texas, the delays caused by the vacancy in that court has placed greater pressure on criminal defendants to forego trials and simply plead guilty to avoid uncertain and lengthy pretrial detentions. That is not justice. Similarly, Alabama has five current vacancies that remain unfilled, and Florida has three. These rising vacancies are leading to an unsustainable situation in too many states. As Chief Judge Federico Moreno of the Southern District of Florida noted, ``It's like an emergency room in a hospital. The judges are used to it and people come in and out and get good treatment. But the question is, can you sustain it? Eventually you burn out.'' I urge the majority leader to schedule votes for the 14 other consensus judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar without further delay. If the 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 leader's own party want confirmed. Let us work together to confirm nominees and help restore our third branch to full strength. Shortly we will begin voting on Judge Ann Donnelly to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Since September 2014, she has served as a judge on the New York County Supreme Court. Judge Donnelly previously presided on the Kings County Supreme Court from 2013 to 2014 and in the Bronx County Supreme Court from 2009 to 2013. Prior to becoming a judge, she worked at the New York County District Attorney's Office for 25 years as an assistant district attorney, senior trial counsel, and as chief of the Family Violence Child Abuse Bureau. 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 will vote to support her nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the first time in more than 2 years, the Senate is turning its attention to an issue related to our broken immigration system. But in stark contrast to the comprehensive, hopeful legislation last reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the majority is simply scheduling a show vote today on a divisive, partisan proposal that has not even been considered in the Judiciary Committee. What a difference a change in leadership makes. There are few topics more fundamental to who we are as a Nation than immigration. A consistent thread through our history is the arrival of new people to this country seeking a better life. Immigration has been an ongoing source of renewal for America--a renewal of our spirit, our creativity, and our economic strength. Two years ago, the Senate reaffirmed its commitment to these ideals when we approved S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. That legislation, which was supported by 68 Senators from both parties, would have meaningfully improved our great country by making our communities safer, strengthening our economy, improving border security, and keeping families together. It was a remarkable, bipartisan effort that was made better through the extensive amendment process in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was an example of all that we can accomplish when we actually focus on the hard job of legislating. The bill we are considering today could not be more different. This legislation is not bipartisan. It does not reflect a desire to meaningfully improve what we all agree is a broken immigration system. Instead, this bill is, as the New York Times editorialized on Saturday, ``a class-action slander against an immigrant population that has been scapegoated for the crimes of a few, and left stranded by the failure of legislative reform that would open a path for them to live fully within the law.'' Those who support this bill point to a tragedy that captured our attention this summer. Any time an innocent person is killed, we have an obligation to understand what happened and try to prevent similar tragedies in the future. We all feel that way about the senseless and terribly cruel death of Kate Steinle. Her death was avoidable. Our system failed, period. And it is heart-wrenching that such a beautiful, young life was taken by a man who should never have been free on our streets. We are motivated to do something in the wake of her death. Just as we are motivated to act in the wake of the senseless killings of nine men and women attending a Bible study class in Charleston, SC. Or the nine innocent people brutally murdered at an Oregon community college. These are moments that demand leadership. We should roll up our sleeves and start to address the problems that led us here. We should address gun violence and the criminals who threaten our safety instead of characterizing entire immigrant communities as criminals. Unfortunately, it does not appear that we will be given that chance. Rather than marking this legislation up in Committee with input and amendments from both sides, the bill before us was yanked off of the Judiciary Committee agenda once the majority leader decided to bring it straight to the floor. Others can speculate about what motivated the timing of today's vote. What we know for sure is that this action goes against precisely what the majority leader promised last year when he said that ``[b]ills should go through Committee. And if Republicans are fortunate enough to gain the majority next year, they would.'' It is disappointing that he has broken his promise on legislation of such importance. If this bill were to become law, it would create two new mandatory minimums and cost us millions of dollars that we do not have. This would deny funding for critical services in local communities and do nothing to fix the broken immigration system we have today. At a time when the Judiciary Committee is engaged in a thoughtful, bipartisan effort to reform our criminal justice system and save taxpayers money in the process, it makes no sense to forgo that process for considering this immigration bill. If we are really trying to make our communities safer, we should listen to the police officers and law enforcement officials who dedicate their lives to that very mission. We should listen to domestic violence advocates who say the approach in this partisan bill will have a dangerous effect on the lives of women and children at risk. They are telling us this bill will make our communities less safe. It will undermine the trust and cooperation between police officers and immigrant communities. It will damage efforts to prevent crime and weaken their ability to apprehend those who prey on the public. That is why the National Fraternal Order of Police is opposed to policies that would be implemented by this bill. It is why the National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women opposes this bill. It is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors opposes this bill. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Fraternal Order of Police and the National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women be printed in the Record. I agree with Senator Heller, who noted: ``For two years we haven't had a discussion and so all the sudden we're going to bring up an immigration issue and not talk about the bigger issue.'' The problems plaguing our immigration system demand that we respond thoughtfully and responsibly. We can do better. We owe it to the American public to do better. I urge Senators to vote against cloture on this partisan bill that will not make us safer.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have all been deeply shaken by the horrific tragedies in Charleston and Roseburg and by all the mass killings that now occur with alarming regularity. The American people overwhelmingly support commonsense reforms that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and dangerous individuals; yet in response to mass shootings, too often Congress slips into a familiar cycle of shock, sorrow and, ultimately, inaction. Some in Congress pretend that there are no solutions; others claim that any restriction aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people represents an affront to the Second Amendment. They are wrong. Many, many Americans have had enough. We will not be satisfied by those who only offer their sympathies. And we will not be lulled into inaction. While I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress, we addressed gun violence head-on. In the wake of the horrifying and senseless murder of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT, I and all Democratic members on the committee resolved to pass sensible reforms to protect our communities. We were moved by the powerful words of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords calling on us to act, and we reported out legislation that would punish criminals who traffic in firearms and would close background check loopholes. This included my bipartisan legislation to prevent criminals from using straw purchasers who exploit weak background check laws in order to funnel firearms to criminals. Our efforts were strongly supported by the American public, but Senate Republicans blocked these commonsense reforms on the Senate floor. It has been more than 3 months since Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee called for a hearing in the wake of the tragedy in Charleston, SC. I hope the majority will soon schedule this hearing so that we can have a constructive discussion on gun violence that has shaken too many communities and too many families. But if we truly want to make a difference, we must work together to build consensus around solutions to gun violence. I will work with anyone interested in preventing these tragedies, and I will soon reintroduce my legislation to strengthen our straw purchasing and firearm trafficking laws. Like many Vermonters, I grew up with firearms, and I have enormous respect for the freedoms the Second Amendment protects. None of the concepts put forward by the Democratic caucus threaten the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. But American lives are threatened when our laws do not protect them. This need not be a partisan issue, and we must work together. Our country desperately needs meaningful reform now. The toll that gun violence takes on our communities is too great. It is past time for Congress to act. The American people should not have to wait until the next tragedy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this week the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Cardin, spoke about the opportunity for the United States and Sri Lanka to expand economic and security cooperation and the need for accountability for war crimes and reconciliation between ethnic and religious factions in that country. I want to join him in expressing support for the aspirations of the Sri Lankan people for reconciliation, justice, and equitable economic development. Last week the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution which, if faithfully implemented, could be the basis for a meaningful and long overdue international role in Sri Lanka to hold accountable those involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity during that country's brutal civil war. After so many false starts, so many investigations and reports that documented widespread atrocities by both sides in the conflict, including rape, arbitrary detention, torture, the use of child soldiers, summary executions, shelling of civilians, and forced disappearances were ignored; and after recommendations to bring those responsible to justice were ignored, the U.N. resolution affirms that the Sri Lankan Government needs to put in place a judicial mechanism with international participation. The resolution refers to the recent report by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which documented horrific abuses by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and LTTE rebels and the government's failure over decades to punish those responsible. Among the report's key recommendations is the establishment of a special court ``integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators'' with an independent Sri Lankan investigative and prosecuting body. No other mechanism would have the credibility and independence to deliver real justice. Let me repeat that because it is so important: No other mechanism would have the credibility and independence to deliver real justice. The refusal of past Sri Lankan Governments to accept this premise and to recognize that no one, including the armed forces, is above the law, is why so far no one has been held accountable. To its credit, President Maithrapala Sirisena's government cosponsored the resolution, which was presented initially to the U.N. Human Rights Council by the United States, United Kingdom, Montenegro, and Macedonia. The resolution, regarding a ``credible judicial process,'' ``affirms the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the Special Counsel's office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defense lawyers, and authorized prosecutors and investigators.'' Having cosponsored the resolution, the government should establish without delay a special tribunal that brings together international investigators, prosecutors, and judges with Sri Lankan counterparts who are protected from outside pressure and intimidation, as well as a program to protect witnesses. The United States could provide assistance for such an effort. The government will also need to ensure that violations of international law, including war crimes, disappearances, torture, and the concept of command responsibility, are incorporated into Sri Lankan law, so that charges brought reflect the severity of the crimes and target those most responsible. I have spoken previously about President Sirisena's initial accomplishments, including the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the constitution, which curtails the extensive powers enjoyed by the Executive and vests more power in the parliament, limits the Presidential term to 5 years instead of 6, and allows the President to hold office only for two terms instead of an unlimited number of terms. Unlike the previous government, which persecuted its critics and locked up after sham trials journalists who exposed corruption, President Sirisena has taken steps to reaffirm freedom of the press. Under the previous government, Sri Lanka's judicial system was politicized and corrupted. The new government is taking steps to reestablish the independence of the judiciary, which is fundamental to any democracy. And, as has been reported, the Government of Sri Lanka has accepted many recommendations to improve the human rights situation, including a repeal of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act and reforms to the Witness and Victim Protection Law, both long called for by victims' rights groups. The government has agreed to accelerate the return of lands confiscated by the security forces; to end the military's involvement in civilian activities in the country's north and east; to investigate allegations of attacks on civil society, the media, and religious minorities; and to work toward devolution of authority from Colombo, consistent with the 13th amendment to the constitution. President Sirisena has sought to erase the worst excesses and abuses of his predecessor and put his country on a path to reconciliation and prosperity. For this he deserves our support. The sooner the government makes good on these commitments, the better, as the Sri Lankan people have waited a very long time for a government that is serious about reconciliation, which means addressing the ethnic, religious, social, economic, and political divisions and inequalities that were at the root of the conflict. The U.N. resolution is far from perfect. It has been pointed out that it lacks adequate provisions for international oversight of implementation of its terms. The resolution only calls for an oral update from the High Commissioner in June 2016 and a written implementation report in March 2017. The United States should not wait until next June to report to Congress on the government's progress in complying with the terms of the resolution. Despite its shortcomings, the U.N. resolution points the way forward. A great deal of work lies ahead. More than 6 years have passed since the war ended. Physical evidence has been lost or destroyed, people's memories fade, and witnesses die. But the Sri Lankan people, and particularly those who suffered grievous losses in the war, should take solace from the fact that the international community has not forgotten them and that their own government may be ready to take the necessary steps to restore accountability and the rule of law to Sri Lanka.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, imagine a successful and popular program that saves our special natural places, such as parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, and forests. Imagine further that this is accomplished not with tax dollars, but with royalties paid by companies that extract oil or minerals from our public lands. What is not to love about a program like that? Now imagine that some in Congress want to kill or weaken that program. In fact, its charter just expired on October 1. For 50 years, a bipartisan commitment has promoted the preservation of our national parks, forests, and refuges and the vistas that are so iconic in our national identity. But today we find ourselves yet again in the midst of a made-in-Washington crisis that devalues this history of shared commitment, replacing it with the misplaced ire of those who do not understand its profound, community-driven impact on the land and on our economy. On September 30, the authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, America's most successful conservation and recreation program, was allowed to expire. Founded on the principle of balancing the depletion of certain natural resources by conserving other resources, the fund uses revenues from royalties of offshore oil and gas extraction to support the conservation of our land and water, a symmetry that conservation advocates have praised. More to the point, the fund is supported at no cost to taxpayers. Similarly, congressional inaction allowed the Historic Preservation Fund--also a budget-neutral program with longstanding bipartisan support--to lapse. Together, these twin programs represent key commitments to protecting our Nation's historic resources and lands for future generations. For 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has supported the creation of parks and refuges, but it has also filled in plots of land at risk of loss through development in our national parks to create a seamless park system that is easier and more cost-effective to manage. It has provided resources to local communities to achieve otherwise cost-prohibitive conservation projects in small towns. It supports community playgrounds and maintains trails, while fostering and protecting our innate appreciation of the world around us, and it accomplishes all of this while being a boon to local economies. In Vermont more than $123 million in LWCF grants have supported hundreds projects over the last five decades, and the benefits can be seen across every county in the Green Mountain State. These grants back an economy of outdoor recreation supporting 35,000 jobs, generating $187 million in state tax revenue and $2.5 billion in retail sales in Vermont alone, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. On top of this, an estimated 545,000 people hunt, fish, and enjoy the wildlife of the Green Mountain State every year--a stunning number that nearly matches our State's entire population. In addition to local recreation projects, the LWCF in Vermont has supported the creation of our State's only national park, the Marsh Billings Rockefeller National Historical Park. It has helped to add 100,000 acres to the Green Mountain National Forest, to establish the Conte National Wildlife Refuge, and to forever preserve large swaths of the Appalachian and Long Trails. These are treasures today, preserved for future generations. Across the country, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been valued as America's premier conservation program--an outgrowth of what has been called ``America's Best Idea,'' the creation of our National Park System. It has drawn strong bipartisan support for half a century, even as the political atmosphere has become more divisive. I recently led a bipartisan coalition of 53 Senators representing every corner of the Nation in asking for a short-term extension of the LWCF and a commitment to work to permanently authorize and fund the program. We sent a similar letter calling on Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Reid to support permanent funding for the program, which was followed by a similar bipartisan letter from members of the House to Speaker Boehner. But despite this strong bipartisan and bicameral support, there are those who seek to throw this longstanding, commonsense program out the window, shutting down one of the few reliable sources that fund conservation work across the country, a truly devastating bid that threatens our land and water and our local economies. It makes no sense. Several times last week, opponents of the widely popular LWCF objected to extending its authorization, claiming that the fund was used to purchase privately held land from landowners. But that is precisely what the fund is intended to support: the purchase of land from willing sellers interested in seeing land protected rather than developed. Often these land deals include land exchanges, thus ensuring that the Nation's most sensitive lands are not developed, while ensuring that other working lands remain privately owned. Too often we see these deals evaporate because the funding is not there. This is why we need to ensure the fund is permanently authorized and fully funded. These projects should not slip away, as we have seen in Vermont and other parts of the country, because of a fundamental misunderstanding of how the fund operates and how it is supported. We have watched conservation funding wither across the country while developments encroach our precious national parks and while the real threat of climate change draws closer and closer. Now is not the time to break a commitment to conserve our natural resources, our heritage, and the legacy we will hand to our children and grandchildren. We must value and protect our heritage by renewing the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the Senate took up the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, I opposed it. I did not believe that the Senate had fully debated some of the most consequential provisions of the bill. But a majority of the Senate allowed that bill to move forward, and now we have a compromise before us that is a step even further backward. The biggest but by no means only problem with this bill is, of course, the overseas contingency operations account, which has been turned into an escape hatch for defense spending over Budget Control Act caps. Those caps imposed by the Budget Control Act--across defense and nondefense spending--were intended to force Congress to the table to realistically address fiscal concerns. Today, those caps are hurting defense spending, though not nearly as much as they are devastating domestic spending. Other problematic sections are related to Bush-era detainees kept at Guantanamo Bay. The new Guantanamo restrictions contained in this conference report are a needless barrier to efforts to finally shutter that detention facility. The bill would continue the unnecessary ban on constructing facilities within the United States to house Guantanamo detainees and the counterproductive prohibition on transferring detainees to the United States for detention or trial. Even more troubling, this year's NDAA would undo the important step taken by Congress in 2013 to streamline procedures for transferring detainees to foreign countries. Section 1034 of this year's bill would reimpose onerous, unnecessary, and unrealistic certification requirements that must be satisfied before transferring detainees to third countries--a step in exactly the wrong direction. Transfers should be accelerating, not slowing down. As long as Guantanamo remains open, it will continue to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and tarnish America's historic role as a champion of human rights. Maintaining the detention facility at Guantanamo is also a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars. We spend an astonishing amount at Guantanamo--a single detainee costs approximately $3.4 million per year to maintain--at a time when budgets are tight and that money is needed elsewhere; yet this conference report does not even include the cost-saving measure from the Senate bill that would allow detainees to be brought to the U.S. on a temporary basis for medical treatment. Closing Guantanamo is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do, and I strongly oppose the unnecessary statutory restrictions in this conference report. The concerns with this conference report do not end with Guantanamo Bay. Massive changes to our procurement system that will recreate stovepipes we eliminated with the Goldwater-Nichols reforms and adjustments to benefits given to men and women who serve and have served in order to pay our bills are just two examples. But what's not included is significant, too. There are several provisions related to the National Guard that enjoyed strong Senate support and yet were stripped in this so-called compromise, most inexplicably a provision I authored to better account for the requirements placed on the Guard. A similar provision was included in the House-passed bill. Rather than compromising between the two as the rules call for, both were simply dropped from the bill. It is too bad that, in exchange for these controversial provisions, good policy will be left behind. This NDAA would have promoted the bipartisan National Guard State Partnership Program Enhancement Act to strengthen the State Partnership Program, which leverages unique National Guard capabilities and relationships to bolster our national security agenda around the world, at pennies on the dollar. This would have been a considerable improvement. I want to recognize Senator McCain's efforts to ensure that the conference report includes the McCain-Feinstein antitorture amendment. That provision would codify in statute the interrogation standards in the Army Field Manual--not just for military personnel, but for intelligence agents as well. Last year, Senator Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed the CIA's horrific practices under the Bush administration. The McCain-Feinstein amendment is the next step toward ensuring that America never tortures again. If this bill does not become law, the Senate should take action to make the McCain-Feinstein amendment law this year. Every year, the National Defense Authorization Act provides an opportunity for Congress to support our men and women in uniform and align our national security priorities with our fiscal obligations. This bill falls far short, and I cannot give it my support.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize the achievements and contributions of a remarkable educator, a personal friend, and a celebrated leader in my home State of Vermont. For decades, David Wolk has successfully distinguished himself as an educator and public servant to the people of Vermont. Now in his 11th year as president of Castleton University, formally known as Castleton State College, David likes to call Castleton ``the small college with a big heart.'' As the longest serving president in its history, he has increased the college's involvement in the community and has expanded the university's commitment to civic engagement and service among students and faculty alike. His personal commitment to his hometown of Rutland, VT, is evidenced through his service as a former State senator and current role as a local justice of the peace. As David has emboldened Castleton's primary mission to serve Vermonters, the institution has forged new partnerships and expanded its opportunities to reach far beyond its footprint in Rutland County. David's leadership is currently enabling the Castleton Polling Institute, which conducts surveys for Vermont politicians and media outlets, to expand to a national audience. Meanwhile, the Castleton Center for Schools continues to serve hundreds of Vermont educators by offering advanced continuing education opportunities each summer. Under his leadership, Castleton athletics has expanded from 12 sports at his inauguration to 27 varsity offerings, enabling Vermont students to play Division III sports. Most recently, David has provided the vision and guidance for Castleton to undergo its own transformation as the college seeks to grow its prestige and opportunities as newly named Castleton University. David held a distinguished career in education even before stepping foot at Castleton. He served as chief of policy for former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and as the Vermont commissioner of education. Dedication to his native community of Rutland may also be witnessed by his impressive resume as a school principal, superintendent of the Rutland City Public Schools, a guidance counselor and teacher, and a college instructor. He has also served as a member of numerous boards, including the Vermont Business Roundtable, the Vermont Public Education Partnership, and the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation. In recognition of these achievements, he received the 2009 Eleanor M. McMahon Award for Lifetime Achievement from the New England Board of Higher Education. If his career is not inspiration enough, David's commitment to family surely is. The proud father of four children, David led his family through the celebration of the life and legacy of his wife, Diane, when she passed away this summer, nearly a decade after being diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's. A lifelong educator herself, Diane and David, together, gave more to their community than most. And David's compassion and commitment to Diane leaves a lasting impression on those of us who call him a friend. Marcelle and I admire him. In recognition of David Wolk's service and resiliency, I ask unanimous consent that Terri Hallenbeck's article from the August 26, 2015, edition of Seven Days be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, each year, it is with great pride that I participate in a reception here on Capitol Hill to showcase some of the best products conceived, developed, and produced in Vermont. One such company featured at the annual Taste of Vermont event is King Arthur Flour, where, for 225 years, generation after generation has produced quality cooking and baking ingredients. A firm that was born in Boston more than two centuries ago, in 1984 then-owners Frank and Brinna Sands moved King Arthur Flour to Norwich, Vermont, and the company has become a staple in Vermont's business community. In the 1990s, the Sands made the decision to sell their company to their employees. The returns have been considerable, and the company has seen growth ever since. In ways that are typical of Vermont businesses, King Arthur Flour has evolved into a quality company offering quality products to its customers. The company's business model reflects one that is committed to its customers, its employees, the environment, and its community, even offering employees 40 hours of paid volunteer time to give back. Those commitments are backed up in its status as a certified B Corporation, a designation that independently recognizes the company's social sustainability and environmental performance standards. From breads to cakes, cookies to pies, King Arthur Flour's products have become staples in bakers' kitchens across the country, including in the Leahy kitchen, where Marcelle regularly shares her recipes with our grandchildren. In fact, many of our visits to the Upper Valley include a detour to King Arthur's terrific cafe where all of their superb products are available. It is yet another example of a tried and true Vermont-based company, revolutionizing and enticing the market with its quality products. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an August 28, 2015, article from the Burlington Free Press recognizing King Arthur Flour's ``225 years of baking history.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past weekend, I learned of the untimely passing of Doug Kendall, founder of the Constitutional Accountability Center. Doug was a true visionary who helped transform how the American public views our Constitution. Despite a recent movement to interpret our founding charter in a cramped manner that too often leaves our most vulnerable populations unprotected, Doug was able to serve as a forceful counterweight and guardian of an inclusive, progressive, and faithful understanding of our National Charter, based on both the text and history of the document. Under his leadership, the Constitutional Accountability Center revitalized the debate over the original understanding of the Constitution. Doug refused to cede the intellectual ground of originalism and textualism to conservative advocates. Significantly, the organization he founded was defined as much by its scholarship as its effective advocacy. Doug made myriad contributions to the world of law and policy, but I will point out just two. First, I asked him to testify in March 2010 before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC because I knew that no one could better articulate the harm that the decision would cause to our democracy. As he eloquently testified before the Committee, ``Since the Founding, the idea that corporations have the same fundamental rights as `We the People' has been anathema to our Constitution. . . . Corporations do not vote, they cannot run for office, and they are not endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. `We the People' create corporations and we provide them with special privileges that carry with them restrictions that do not apply to living persons. These truths are self-evident, and it's past time for the Court to finally get this right, once and for all.'' While the Court was unable to get it right in Doug's lifetime, I believe his views will come to be vindicated in time. Second, this past year, I introduced a joint resolution with Senator Mike Lee of Utah, celebrating the sesquicentennial or the 150th anniversary of the 13th Amendment, which, along with the 14th and 15th Amendments, make up our Nation's ``second founding.'' The second founding, which has served as the bedrock and inspiration to procuring equality for racial minorities and women, has too often been overlooked by the general public and constitutional scholars. Doug and his organization were the intellectual driving force behind advancing this important resolution. His contributions to the world of law and policy will be sorely missed. As accomplished as he was as an advocate and scholar, Doug was an even better person. My staff met with him countless times and always came away inspired by his intellect and humanity. An article in the Washington Post from January 2008 about the historic endorsement that then-candidate and Senator Barack Obama received from Senator Ted Kennedy noted that Doug was there with his then 8-year old daughter, Miracle. Doug had pulled Miracle out of her elementary school that day so that she could experience the historic nature of the President's candidacy and the bridge between former President Kennedy and future President Obama. He stated in the article that he wanted his daughter, Miracle, to be inspired. What she will come to know--if she does not already--is that her father's life and his accomplishments have helped to inspire a new generation. Doug Kendall has reminded us about the ever-more inclusive story that is reflected in our Constitution. His life was cut short, but his vision--like the Constitution itself--will continue to endure and inspire. The Nation has lost a true patriot with his passing.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this month, the Senate passed a resolution recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month and celebrating Hispanic Americans as dedicated public servants in the highest levels of government. These great Americans include a Supreme Court Justice, 3 U.S. Senators, 34 members of the House of Representatives, and 3 members of the President's Cabinet. I commend the U.S. Senate for passing this resolution celebrating Hispanic heritage, but we should be doing much more than approving a resolution. We should be working on a bipartisan basis to pass comprehensive immigration reform, as the Senate did last Congress under a Democratic majority. At the same time, the Senate should immediately confirm the several judicial nominees supported by the nonpartisan Hispanic National Bar Association. There are three outstanding Hispanic judicial nominees that are currently pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar: Luis Felipe Restrepo, nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy in the Third Circuit; Armando Bonilla, nominated to a judicial vacancy in the Court of Federal Claims; and John Michael Vazquez, nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy in the district of New Jersey. A fourth, Dax Lopez, has been nominated to a judicial vacancy in the Northern District of Georgia, and is still awaiting a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. These dedicated public servants are eager to serve, but they have been blocked by the Republican leadership's virtual shutdown of the judicial confirmation process since they took over the majority in January. More than 8 months into this new Congress, the Republican leadership has allowed just six votes for judges. At this rate, the Senate this year will confirm the fewest number of judges in more than a half century. Luis Felipe Restrepo, Armando Bonilla, John Michael Vazquez, and Dax Lopez all deserve an up or down vote by this Senate. Judge Restrepo was nominated last year to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania. If confirmed, Judge Restrepo would be the first Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania to ever serve on this appellate court and only the second Hispanic judge to serve on the Third Circuit. He was unanimously confirmed 2 years ago by the Senate to serve as a district court judge. During his tenure as both a Federal district court judge and as a Federal magistrate judge, he has presided over 56 trials that have gone to verdict or judgment. He is superbly qualified, and I have heard no objection to his nomination. Despite his outstanding credentials and experience, it took the Republican majority 7 months just to schedule a hearing in the Judiciary Committee for this qualified nominee. Judge Restrepo has bipartisan support from both Pennsylvania Senators and was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote. He has the strong endorsement of the nonpartisan Hispanic National Bar Association. At his confirmation hearing in June, Senator Toomey stated that ``there is no question Judge Restrepo is a very well-qualified candidate to serve on the Third Circuit.'' Senator Toomey described Judge Restrepo's life story as ``an American dream'' and recounted how Judge Restrepo came to the United States from Colombia and rose to the top of his profession by ``virtue of his hard work, his intellect, his integrity.'' I could not agree more. Given his remarkable credentials, wealth of experience, and strong bipartisan support, the Senate should have confirmed Judge Restrepo months ago. Instead, for 10 months since his nomination back in November 2014, he has been denied a vote on his confirmation. No Senate Democrat opposes a vote on his nomination. He is being denied a confirmation vote by Senate Republican leadership. No one doubts that he will be confirmed once Majority Leader McConnell schedules his vote. I have heard Senator Toomey indicate his strong support and that he would like to see Judge Restrepo receive a vote, but I have yet to see him ask for a firm commitment on a vote. The people of Pennsylvania are no doubt wondering when this longstanding and emergency vacancy on their appeals court will be filled. Another outstanding public servant is Armando Bonilla, who was first nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims back in May 2014. If confirmed, Mr. Bonilla would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a seat on that court. He is strongly endorsed by the Hispanic National Bar Association. He has spent his entire career, now spanning over two decades, as an attorney for the Department of Justice. He was hired out of law school into the Department's prestigious Honors Program and has risen to become an associate deputy attorney general in the Department. Armando Bonilla's background is also one that reminds us of the American dream. The son of a Cuban immigrant and Cuban American father, Mr. Bonilla has told the story of his mother's flight from Havana with his aunt and his grandmother. He has told the story of his uncle, ``Tio Mario,'' who eventually disappeared trying to help other exiles. And he has told the story of his father, who dropped out of high school, but served our country by joining the Marines and took on several jobs to support Armando and his sister. As Mr. Bonilla has beautifully described, his father ``exemplified the most outstanding qualities of the Hispanic culture and Hispanic people: the selfless sacrifice, the steely resolve, and unbridled optimism and the genuine pride in an honest day's work--all toward the cause of improving the lives of the next generation.'' Mr. Bonilla should be confirmed without further delay. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has been operating with several vacancies since February 2013. Only 11 of the 16 seats on the court are occupied by active judges. We could have a court working at full strength if we confirmed Mr. Bonilla and the other four nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. All five of them were nominated more than a year ago and have twice been voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. There is no good reason to delay an up-or-down vote for these uncontroversial nominees. John Michael Vazquez was nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy in the district of New Jersey in March. He has been a public servant for both the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey and as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in the District of New Jersey. During his tenure in the U.S. attorney's office, Mr. Vazquez handled a wide array of Federal investigations and prosecutions while serving in the general crimes unit, the major narcotics unit, the terrorism unit, and the securities and health care fraud unit. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Vazquez ``Well Qualified'' to serve as a district judge, its highest rating. He also has the support of his two home State Senators, Senators Menendez and Booker. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. There is no reason why Mr. Vazquez, along with Judge Restrepo and Mr. Bonilla, should not be confirmed today. Each of the outstanding Hispanic judicial nominees pending on the floor will be confirmed overwhelmingly if Majority Leader McConnell will simply schedule a confirmation vote. Over the past 7 years, the Senate has acted to confirm some outstanding Hispanic American judicial nominees. President Obama nominated the first Latina to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the first Latino circuit judges in three circuits: Alberto Diaz on the fourth circuit, Adalberto Jordan on the 11th circuit, and Jimmie Reyna on the Federal Circuit; and has already appointed 35 Hispanic Americans to serve on the Federal bench, more than any other president in history. But this record does not mean that the Senate should shut down any further confirmations as some in the majority may desire. The Senate has an obligation to vote on judicial nominees in regular order and to consider them fairly based on their individual merit. A recent report from The Brookings Institution dated September 18, 2015, confirms that the Republican obstruction on judicial nominees is unprecedented in recent history. It states: ``Senate Republicans' aggressive slowdown in judicial confirmations so far in 2015 . . . are contrary to the confirmation records in the final two years of the other two-term presidencies since 1961--Ronald Reagan, William Clinton, and George W. Bush.'' And a recent report by the Alliance for Justice, dated September 17, 2015, notes that ``the burgeoning vacancies are the result of playing politics with judicial selection. And the victims are the people and businesses who cannot access courts to seek justice and the judges who must shoulder the burden of increased caseloads and fewer resources.'' I urge all Senators to read these reports as well as a recent story in the Associated Press that highlights the real consequences of Senate Republicans' judicial blockade. The story highlights a case brought by Latino migrant farmworkers for wage theft in Federal district court in eastern California. I ask unanimous consent that the Associated Press article be printed in the Record. The workers have waited more than 3 years to learn whether they can proceed with their claim. As years go by, the workers' attorney worries that her clients will have moved and be impossible to reach if and when she is able to recover their stolen wages. This is another heartbreaking example that justice delayed is effectively justice denied. The Senate, however, can act right now to alleviate the considerable backlog of cases in the Eastern District of California by confirming the noncontroversial pending nominee for this court, Federal Magistrate Judge Dale Drozd. Judge Drozd was voice voted out of the Judiciary Committee in June, and there is no reason why we cannot vote today on his confirmation. The Republican leadership's virtual shutdown of judicial confirmations has only served to undermine the judicial branch and harm the American people. I urge Senate Republicans to change course and lead responsibly. The Senate should immediately turn to the confirmation vote of Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo and then schedule confirmation votes for the other 15 judicial nominees, including Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Vazquez, without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President here we are again: with just 6 days until the Federal Government has to close its doors, we find ourselves faced with another manufactured crisis. Two years ago, it was defunding the Affordable Care Act. Congress has voted nearly 60 times on that so far, all of which failed. In the meantime, more than 17 million Americans who had no health insurance have obtained health insurance. Four years ago, it was the same issue Republicans are pushing today: defunding an organization that provides health care to millions of women across this country. With the vote to defund Planned Parenthood now behind us--for the second time in as many months--it is time to move forward to pass a clean, short-term continuing resolution and get to work addressing the real challenge before us: ending sequestration. We've said it before, and it bears repeating: sequestration was never supposed to become the status quo. Its cuts are so extreme and so draconian that imposing it will hurt programs across the board, impacting every American. Sequestration neglects police and fire departments, national parks, highways and bridges, airports, public health and education; and abandons promises made to our veterans and men and women in uniform. Allowing sequester-level spending bills to become law for the next fiscal year, which the President has rightly said he will not do, would be an abdication of our sworn responsibilities as Members of Congress. We must pass a clean, continuing resolution; we must negotiate a new deal to end sequestration, and we must pass appropriations bills that reflect the urgent needs of our country, not a political score card. Last weekend, my wife, Marcelle, and I were fortunate to join hundreds of Vermont women at the 19th Annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference in Randolph, VT. I have sponsored this conference each year in an effort to help Vermont women of all ages and generations take advantage of the economic opportunities available to them. From emerging entrepreneurs or those transitioning their careers, thousands of participants have been drawn to the conference over its nearly two decade history. Sequestration puts at risk the ability of small businesses to access loans and counseling from the Federal Government, which helps spur and strengthen our economy. Sequestration will cut critical workforce investment programs that help young workers, dislocated workers, and veterans find permanent employment. Sequestration reverses the progress we have made in recent years to restore our economy and create jobs. The economic harm of sequestration is, of course, not all that is at stake. As Senators in both parties have pointed out, sequestration hurts our national security and the readiness of our Armed Forces. Sequestration hurts our roads, our infrastructure, and our public transit systems and will deeply impact our affordable housing supply. Sequestration makes maintaining our commitment to our veterans, including a generation of disabled veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, nearly impossible. What's more, to meet the requirements of sequestration, we are poised to rob from such vital needs as job training programs and preschool development grants. The bottom line is this: sequestration was never intended to happen. But relying on budget gimmicks, as the Senate's defense spending bill does, while nearly zeroing out critical programs for low-income Americans, as the Senate's transportation and housing bill does, creates more problems. Republican leaders have waited too long to come to the table to negotiate relief from sequester-level spending caps. By passing this clean, short-term continuing resolution, we can get to work now--immediately--to negotiate a new deal that builds on the 2013 Murray-Ryan deal and keep the doors of our government open. We have now had the pointless debate over defunding Planned Parenthood. Let's move on. Let's not manufacture another crisis that puts millions of jobs on the line and hurts Americans in every state of this country. We were elected to represent our constituents. The voice from Vermonters is clear: it is time to get our work done.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week marked an important milestone in the campaign to rid the world of antipersonnel landmines. On September 17, Mozambique, where two decades ago an estimated 200,000 unexploded landmines were left over from a brutal 15-year civil war, became the first country with large-scale mine contamination to have all known minefields cleared. While accidents due to unknown mines and other unexploded ordnance in Mozambique will occasionally occur in the future as they still do in Europe 70 years after World War II, the number is a tiny fraction of what it once was, and it will continue to decline. The State Department recognized this milestone in a statement, which included the following: Since 1993, when Mozambique emerged from decades of conflict as one of the world's most landmine-affected nations, the United States has been proud to partner with the people of Mozambique, investing more than $55 million toward improving the safety and security of local communities though the U.S. Conventional Weapons Destruction program. Through that partnership--which includes the international donor community and humanitarian demining organizations--we have worked diligently to safely clear landmines and unexploded ordnance, prevent injuries through community outreach and education, and provide medical and social services to survivors of accidents involving these legacies of past conflicts. I have spoken many times in this Chamber about these indiscriminate weapons, which are triggered by the victim, whether a soldier or an unsuspecting child. They linger for days, weeks, years, and even decades after armed conflicts end. They destroy lives as well as livelihoods, making fields unworkable and roads impassable, crippling the economies of already impoverished communities. In recent years the United States has made important contributions to the worldwide eradication of landmines, and I have long supported funding for the State Department's humanitarian demining programs and for assistance for mine victims through the U.S. Agency for International Development's Leahy War Victims Fund, but the job is far from done. The painstaking work of HALO Trust and other dedicated organizations and individuals in Mozambique demonstrates what is possible. We used the Leahy War Victims Fund there, starting back in 1989, to provide artificial limbs, wheelchairs, and rehabilitation for victims of mines. Melissa Wells, our outstanding Ambassador to Mozambique at the time, was a strong supporter of that program. Thousands of people have regained their mobility as a result. My wife Marcelle, a registered nurse, traveled to Mozambique and visited some of them more than two decades ago. With this declaration, Mozambicans can live with far less fear of being maimed or killed while working in their fields, walking to school, or just stepping outside of their homes. This is a time to commend the people and Government of Mozambique and the courageous deminers, as well as those who have helped the victims of mines rebuild their lives. But as one who has worked to stop the use of landmines ever since my legislation to halt U.S. exports of these weapons was first enacted back in 1992, I must emphasize that landmines continue to threaten innocent people in many other countries. We have come a long way since 1994 when President Clinton, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, called on all countries to rid the world of landmines. But we have not yet achieved that goal, and we should rededicate ourselves to eliminating this scourge from the Earth. The best way for the United States to do that is to join the 162 signatories to the Ottawa Treaty banning the production, use, export, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year I expressed my grave concern about the Government of Azerbaijan's harassment and imprisonment of human rights defenders, journalists, and other civil society activists. Since then, the state of human rights in Azerbaijan has further deteriorated amid condemnation from President Obama and officials of other governments, as well as the European Union and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I, too, wish to reiterate my dismay at the mistreatment of these brave individuals, and call for the release of all political prisoners in Azerbaijan, including Leyla and Arif Yunus. Imprisoned and denied access to justice for over a year, Leyla and Arif Yunus are examples of the many activists and critics of the government whom President Ilham Aliyev seeks to silence. Their arrest last year coincided with the release of their report on politically motivated detentions, and since then their health has reportedly suffered significantly. Recently they were sentenced to 8\1/2\ and 7 years in prison, respectively, and face further prosecution. Leyla and Arif Yunus, and all other political prisoners in Azerbaijan including journalist Khadija Ismayilova, who on September 1 was sentenced to 7\1/2\ years, should be freed immediately. In addition, and in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights to which it is party, the Government of Azerbaijan, which recently chaired the Council of Europe, should uphold the provisions of its own constitution and end the persecution of civil society members, journalists, and political activists who are guilty of nothing more than peaceful expression.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are about a week away from the deadline to keep the Federal Government open. Our National Highway System, which at one time was a matter of great pride, will soon run out of money. The nominations of 16 consensus judicial nominees that came out of committee with bipartisan support are languishing on the Senate floor. We're not allowed to have a vote on the Senate floor about them even though, in many cases, they are courts with judicial emergencies. There is still strong support in the Senate for passing meaningful immigration reform as we did 2 years ago by a 2-to-1 margin, Republicans and Democrats. Now, those are just a few of the pressing issues that the Senate should have been working on this month. Instead, the Senate Republican leadership has wasted 2 weeks on political show votes. And with a government shutdown looming, Senate Republicans plan to use this week to continue their relentless attack on women's health care. Republicans brought us to this brink just 2 years ago, and, once again, they are trying to use Americans' access to health care as leverage in a fight over funding the Federal Government. This time, though, Republicans also seem intent on holding hostage the constitutional rights of women as part of this political exercise. Frankly, what I hear when I go home is the American people, including women across this country, have had enough. It is incredible to me that, in 2015, we are debating Federal funding for one of the Nation's largest and most trusted providers of basic health care. For nearly 100 years, Planned Parenthood has provided women's health care and has enjoyed the leadership and support of great Americans like the civil rights leader, Rosa Parks, who was a member of the organization's board of advocates. Over 90 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides are preventative, including annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings for millions of American women, men, and young people. It is these preventive services and only these preventive services that are paid for with Federal funds. Republicans are focused on abortion services that are not paid for with Federal dollars and are otherwise only a very small part of what Planned Parenthood does. Republicans say it is because of recently released videos that purport to show wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. But these surreptitiously recorded videos were heavily edited in a misleading way and generated by an organization formed with an agenda to end safe and legal abortion in our country. In reality, this partisan debate is nothing more than an opportunity for Senate Republicans to wage their personal opposition to a woman's decision to access safe and legal abortions in this country. They are entitled to their own beliefs. But missing from these arguments are the stories of women across this country whose health and lives are at stake when politicians play doctor and tell women they cannot make their own health care decisions. That is exactly the situation we face with the bill the Senate will vote on today, which puts women's health at risk by imposing a nationwide ban on abortions at 20 weeks or more and criminalizing the doctors who care for them. The bill before us is as unconstitutional as it is extreme. Federal courts have repeatedly struck down similar State 20-week bans as unconstitutional. Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision permanently blocking Arizona's 20-week-ban law. And this bill makes no exception where the health of the woman is at risk. The exceptions it does include are severely limited. It is only if a woman's health has deteriorated to the point at which she might die is she allowed to have an abortion under the bill's exception for a woman's life. The bill's so-called rape exception is, in reality, an overwhelming bureaucracy requiring survivors to jump through hoop after hoop, such as filing police reports or going to mandatory counseling. We should not be forcing these survivors to relive their trauma again and again before they can access abortion services. How many incest victims do you think are going to be able to do that, going through all these bureaucratic hoops? Doctors providing safe abortion care who fail to comply with all of the bill's requirements would face up to 5 years of jail time. Now, it has all these dangerous provisions, but you know what is even more shocking? This bill has had no committee process in the Senate. There have been no Senate hearings on this bill, not one single Republican chairman of any committee in the Senate has held a hearing. There has been no debate in the Judiciary Committee. We've not had a chance to hear from women and doctors about the care this bill would criminalize. I know last Congress, the current majority leader, who is a friend of mine, repeatedly urged the Senate to follow ``regular order'' on all legislation. On this bill, there was no regular order. It was brought straight to the floor. This is not a political point; it is about what process in this body represents. It gives Senators the opportunity to grapple with the real impact of legislation like this. That is what was lost here. In Vermont, I witnessed the devastating effect of restricting women's access to safe and legal abortion. I say this, Mr. President, because I am the only Member of the U.S. Senate who has ever prosecuted somebody in an abortion case. When I was a young prosecutor in Vermont, I was called to a hospital to see a young woman who nearly died from hemorrhaging caused by a botched abortion. She was unable to obtain a safe abortion in my state because it was illegal. I prosecuted the man who had arranged for her unsafe and illegal abortion that nearly killed her. Don't talk about hypotheticals. I saw the tragic impact that the lack of safe legal abortion care had on women and families in my state, and so I talked to doctors about challenging Vermont's law. In that case, Beecham v. Leahy, the conservative Vermont Supreme Court called out the hypocrisy of a statute whose stated purpose was to protect women's health, rightly asking, ``Where is that concern for the health of the pregnant woman when she is denied the advice and assistance of her doctor?'' One year before Roe v. Wade, the Vermont Supreme Court, all members of it were Republicans, ruled that protecting women's health required access to safe and legal abortion services, ensuring that women in our state would no longer be subjected to back alley abortions. We should not forget that this history was once reality for so many women in our Nation. That is why I supported our Vermont Supreme Court's decision that we should not deny women's health by denying access to safe and legal abortion services. As we consider the bill before us today, we should also remember what Beecham v. Leahy and, a year later, when Roe made clear which should be crystal clear for all of us here today in 2015, abortion is an extremely difficult and personal choice. And if we truly want to reduce abortions--as I do, and I suspect most of us do, maybe all of us do--we should be making sure that family planning services are universally available. We should support organizations like Planned Parenthood that can provide family planning services, especially in rural areas and elsewhere where they might not be available, because that, in itself, will lower the number of abortions. I oppose the bill pending before us. I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will do the same. And this Senate, which I love, ought to turn away from show votes and start leading responsibly so that we can avoid yet another government shutdown with billions upon billions of dollars that would be wasted. Now, some want a shutdown because they think it might help their campaigns or their press availability. None of them are going to tell the press when they have that shutdown how many billions of dollars of taxpayers' money they waste by doing it. So let us remember again, the Vermont Supreme Court, at that time a very conservative Supreme Court, in the case of Beecham v. Leahy, when they called out the hypocrisy of a statute whose stated purpose was to protect women's health, said, ``Where is that concern for the health of the pregnant woman when she's denied the advice and assistance of her doctor?'' Let's stop the show voting; let's stop playing for whatever group we want to raise money from for a campaign or for the Presidency by forcing a shutdown. And let's think about the taxpayers of this country which are going to try to force a shutdown, then let's put a dollar figure on it and say how much the grandstanding cost. It will cost into the billions and billions of dollars and makes this great nation look foolish around the world. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today is the final day of the 60-day congressional review period that was established in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. By supporting that legislation the Senate voted to consider three possible outcomes: no action, a resolution of approval, or a resolution of disapproval. Republicans brought a resolution of disapproval before the Senate and it failed not once, not twice, but three times. The agreement memorializes the commitments of the countries whose governments signed it. It will now go into force, and it is the solemn responsibility of each of the signatories to the agreement to fulfill their commitments. However, many Republicans, as if singing from the same sheet of music, have suggested that because this nuclear agreement with Iran is not a formal treaty, and because Congress did not expressly approve the agreement as opposed to defeating successive attempts to disapprove it, the deal will not continue into the next presidential administration. That is false. There is a long history of international agreements signed by Republican and Democratic presidents that have longevity far beyond a single administration. If that were not the case, if the only way to negotiate commitments between countries was through the formal treaty process, our diplomacy would be in dire straits today. In fact, most international agreements are not treaties, yet they govern international relations on a wide range of critically important issues, from trade to public health to taxation to navigation, the list goes on and on. If those who are now suggesting otherwise were correct, agreements signed one year, often after protracted negotiations to resolve matters of great complexity, would automatically become null and void soon thereafter. What would be the point? I doubt there is a Republican or Democratic administration in the history of this country that would subscribe to such an unworkable and illogical notion. We asked the Department of State for examples of recent non- proliferation agreements that have carried on through more than one administration. It did not take long to get an answer. They include: the Helsinki Final Act, the Vienna Document, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. There are countless other examples of international agreements negotiated throughout our history, by Presidents of both parties that have never received formal congressional approval. They continue in effect unless explicitly repudiated. To suggest that they automatically expire, or are no longer in effect, after the end of the administration that negotiated the agreement, would cause incalculable disruption to our international relations and global security. In this case, that would mean that on January 21, 2017, Iran could immediately restart its nuclear weapons program and refuse international inspections. It is absolutely clear that the Iran agreement can and is designed to remain in force beyond the Obama administration. The Senate has also spoken on this issue. For these reasons, and historical precedent, it will continue in effect.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we celebrate the 228th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Some elected officials talk about their love of ``the Constitution and the Bill of Rights''. That specific phrasing is interesting in that it somehow implies that the Constitution does not itself include the Bill of Rights, which of course it does. But it contains much more than those original 10 amendments. Each year, I remind Americans that we must celebrate not just the original Constitution of Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and the Founding generation but the whole Constitution, including its 27 amendments. This includes the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which many scholars have rightly described as our Nation's Second Founding. The Senate commemorated the Sesquicentennial or the 150th anniversary of the Second Founding earlier this year when the Senate passed a resolution raising awareness about this series of amendments, which provided the country with a new birth of freedom. Ratified by President Lincoln and his generation after the Civil War, these Second Founding amendments transformed our original charter--most fundamentally--by elevating the principle of equality to a central place in our constitutional order. This year, the Supreme Court once again upheld the Constitution's promise of equality when it ruled that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution protects the right of each American to marry the person they love, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Because of that ruling, LGBT children all across America will grow up knowing that they can love without fear, and that they are equal citizens of this great Nation. Although the Constitution provides us with the promise of equality, we must never forget that it is up to all of us to advance and protect that intrinsic American value of equality. Each generation must do its part. This is true whether it is racial equality, gender equality, or equality based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. We have come a long way in each of those areas, but we continue to have work to do. On racial equality, too many of our citizens continue to face racial discrimination in voting. As a result of the Supreme Court's dreadful ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, Americans across the country are now vulnerable to racially discriminatory voting laws that restrict the franchise without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. On this 50th anniversary year of the March in Selma and of the Voting Rights Act, we must do all we can to restore and enhance the protections of that landmark legislation. On gender equality, we continue to see women being paid less than men for doing the same job. We also continue to see partisan attacks on women's health care choices. From legislation blocking these choices to efforts defunding critical health services for women, we clearly have a long way to go to ensure gender equality. And while LGBT Americans are now able to marry the person they love, they continue to experience discrimination in other aspects of their lives. Achieving full equality means that LGBT individuals should be able to provide for their families without fear that they will be fired from their jobs or denied housing. It means that a restaurant should not be able to refuse to serve an LGBT couple because the owner disapproves of that couple's relationship. New civil rights laws are needed to protect LGBT Americans so they can live their lives free from discrimination. We must uphold this promise of equality for the vulnerable and the voiceless as well. We are a nation of immigrants with a long, proud history of opening our doors and welcoming people from around the world. After all, the Statue of Liberty has long proclaimed America's welcome: ``Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . . . Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.'' That is what America has long stood for and what we should continue to represent. Instead, I have seen ugly partisan rhetoric about changing the 14th Amendment of our Constitution to remove birthright citizenship specifically to target immigrants. We should be a nation that embraces and lifts our most vulnerable, not a nation that acts out of spite or malice. We must also fight for the voices of all Americans and not just corporations or the wealthy few. Our country has flourished because we have worked hard to ensure that more, not fewer, Americans can take part in the democratic process. Instead, our campaign finance laws have been eviscerated by a Supreme Court that views money as speech and refuses to place any limits on the ability of the wealthy and special interests to drown out hard-working Americans. The Court has also irrationally limited the definition of ``corruption'' in our campaign finance laws to just bribery. But unlike a narrow majority of the Court, the public understands that corruption is not just bribery; rather, corruption is the idea that money buys access and influences our democracy for a wealthy few. This cannot be allowed in our democracy. The size of your bank account cannot and should not determine whether and how the government responds to your needs. We must act to restore the First Amendment and to preserve those protections to ensure that all voices can be heard in the democratic process. Constitution Day is an occasion to celebrate our founding charter and the historic democracy it has caused and fostered. It is also a time to reflect on what we are doing as citizens to uphold the promises that the Constitution has provided. I encourage all Americans to mark this day by reading the whole Constitution and celebrating how it reflects the great progress we have made to become a more inclusive and stronger democracy.