Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, I spoke about Senate Republicans' virtual shutdown of the judicial nominations process since they took over the majority. Their refusal to respond to the urgent needs of our independent third branch is threatening to harm our justice system and rob the judiciary of outstanding public servants. One glaring example of this harm is the unnecessary delay of Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo, who was nominated last year to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania. Judge Restrepo 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. 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. 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, you would think the Senate would have confirmed Judge Restrepo months ago. Instead, he was nominated for a judicial emergency vacancy back in November 2014, and for 10 months since his nomination, he has been denied a vote on his confirmation. No Senate Democrat opposes a vote on his nomination. The only ones who are holding up his nomination are the Senate Republicans. I have heard Senator Toomey indicate his strong support, and that he would like to see Judge Restrepo receive a vote. I know Senator Toomey can be a fierce advocate for issues he cares passionately about, and I hope he will get a firm commitment from the majority leader to schedule a confirmation vote this week. In addition to Judge Restrepo's nomination, there are 12 other noncontroversial judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar waiting for a vote. All of them were approved by voice vote by the Judiciary Committee. There is no reason for Republicans to block these nominees. More than 8 months into this new year, Republican leadership has allowed votes on just six judicial nominees. By this time in 2007, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we had confirmed 29 judges nominated by President Bush. That is nearly five times more nominees than what this Republican majority has accomplished so far this year. Because of the Republicans' virtual shutdown of the confirmation process, judicial vacancies have increased by more than 50 percent--from 43 to 67. This is demonstrates an astounding neglect of the needs of our independent Third Branch. Instead of confirming Judge Restrepo and the 12 other noncontroversial judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar, Republicans are talking about another doomed vote on harmful legislation to block women's health care choices. Republicans had already forced a failed ``show vote'' to defund critical health services for women, spending 2 days on that unnecessary political exercise. Although Senate Republicans campaigned last year on the promise that they would govern responsibly if they won the majority, they continue to prioritize divisive issues that play only to their political base and yield no results for the American people. I am urging Republican leadership to reverse course. Confirm Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo without further delay, and then confirm the other 12 noncontroversial judicial nominees pending on our Executive Calendar.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United States has a proud and unique history as a nation of immigrants. Ever since our founding, we have been a beacon of hope for those seeking opportunity. Generation after generation, our Nation has greatly benefited from the entrepreneurial spirit that these newcomers bring with them. That is as true today as it was 200 years ago. Our Nation's history with immigration has not always been a story of acceptance. Newcomers have often faced resistance, isolation, discrimination and even racist opposition. Many of us here in this body know those painful stories from our own immigrant families--others here have felt the stinging words of bigotry themselves. My grandparents faced signs telling them to not bother applying for work because of their ancestry but those old stories are hard to imagine today. That is why it is so shocking to hear the steady rise in racist, xenophobic rhetoric coming from the Republican field of Presidential candidates. These statements are offensive and have no place in our national dialogue. Those who use such rhetoric are fear mongering for political gain. Even in today's hyped up political theater, this kind of language is unacceptable. It is hurtful, harmful, and just plain wrong. It is incumbent on all of us to speak out against this dehumanizing discourse. A topic as important as immigration is worthy of debate, but in an informed and thoughtful manner. This weekend, Steve Case, a co- founder of America Online, took a powerful stand in an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled ``Business Leaders Must Speak Out Against Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric.'' Two years ago, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I invited Mr. Case to testify before the committee when we were considering comprehensive immigration reform, and he has continued to be a leader on the issue. He is right to stand up, speak out, and call on all Americans to reject the ugly words we are hearing from too many political actors on one of the most pressing matters facing our country. The growing partisan rhetoric that attempts to equate immigrants with criminals and suggests we deport them en mass is both irrational and dangerous. It is time that they stop. The characterization of immigrants as criminals here to harm us and our communities is not just beneath the dignity of anyone who seeks to lead this Nation as President, it simply is not supported by the evidence. Anyone who listened to the extensive testimony that the Senate Judiciary Committee collected 2 years ago will know that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than those born in the United States. Many become job producers and the vast majority are hard-working members of our communities who support our economy and strengthen our neighborhoods. No less than Grover Norquist testified that ``Increased legal immigration will add millions of consumers, workers, renters, and others who will make our economy larger by working with Americans to produce more of the goods and services we demand.'' We must put an end to this destructive anti-immigrant rhetoric and find a way back to the constructive, bipartisan approach to reforming our immigration system. The Senate Judiciary Committee played a critical role in that effort and I am proud of the productive, respectful debates that marked our consideration of comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. Both Democrats and Republicans praised the process as fair and thorough. Bipartisanship was a priority, and of the 136 amendments we adopted in committee, all but 3 passed on a bipartisan basis. As a result of that remarkable effort, the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform with overwhelming support. If House Republican leaders had simply brought that bill up for a vote, it would have passed and been the law of the land. We would have taken an enormous step forward as a country to fix our broken immigration system. That bill is an example of all we can accomplish when we put aside hateful slogans and focus on our primary job of actually legislating. I hope that we will return to a bipartisan approach this Congress so that we can again pass legislation that strengthens our communities and our economy, improves our border security, and keeps families together. There is still strong support for meaningful immigration reform in the Senate, and that is what we should work on here in Congress. There is no excuse for continued inaction and scapegoating. The time for immigration reform is now.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention today to yet another outstanding Vermont business: Seventh Generation. Seventh Generation unveiled its line of environmentally friendly consumer household products more than 25 years ago. Today it has expanded to become one of the dominant businesses in this continuously emerging market. I have visited Seventh Generation many times, and I am consistently impressed with how the company continues to find new ways of expanding its business and offering Americans affordable and more sustainable alternatives to standard household products. Since 2011, Seventh Generation has seen its business grow year after year and has unveiled some 100 new products in the last 4 years alone. President and CEO John Replogle has reinvigorated the company, further defining its purpose and leadership in the competitive marketplace. Seventh Generation has long been a company that fosters the business principles and ideals that so many Vermonters value: to make products locally, to keep it sustainable, to leave no footprint, and make products accessible. From its Burlington offices that overlook the shores of Lake Champlain to the shelves of the retail giants now promoting its products, Seventh Generation is yet another Vermont company leading the way in corporate responsibility. I ask unanimous consent that the August 27, 2015, article from the Burlington Free Press entitled ``Seventh Generation: `Bursting at the seams' '' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to a situation I have spoken about previously, which is the ongoing crackdown by the Correa Government on what little remains of the independent media in Ecuador. One of the things we have come to expect is that the press--and civil society organizations that expose corruption and challenge the officially sanctioned version of reality--are the first casualties in countries whose leaders are determined to remain in power at any cost. Ecuador is a prime example. In 2013, President Rafael Correa issued a decree granting the government broad powers to intervene in the operations of nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, including dissolving groups on the vague grounds that they have ``compromise[d] public peace'' or have engaged in activities that were not listed when they registered with the government. A modified version of the decree, which maintains broad powers to close down NGOs, was adopted in August 2015. On September 7, Ecuador's Communications Ministry opened an administrative process to ``dissolve'' Fundamedios, an organization that monitors freedom of expression in the country. According to information publicly available, the government contends that Fundamedios engaged in political activities by publishing information critical of the government--information that would be protected speech in any democracy. Every politician knows that unfavorable press attention comes with the territory. Here in the United States we accept it as a necessary reality of a free press. But the Correa Government wants to punish an organization for publishing news and opinions it doesn't like. Silencing the press, like dismantling an independent judiciary, are hallmarks of dictatorship. History is replete with examples. Fundamedios, like other independent media and human rights defenders in Ecuador, has been a target of the Correa Government for years. Its members have been subjected to a pattern of harassment and persecution for nothing more than engaging in activities that are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As long as President Correa is in power it seems that the press and civil society organizations in Ecuador will be under assault. But while any president or prime minister with the backing of the police and the armed forces can wreak havoc on the institutions of democracy, history also provides any number of examples where, in the end, the public's demand for freedom of expression and government accountability prevailed. We are seeing that today in Guatemala, and I have little doubt that the tide will similarly turn against repression in Ecuador. Ecuador is a country blessed with wonderful people including unique indigenous cultures, with spectacular geography and extraordinary biological diversity, as found in the Galapagos Islands, and with magnificent colonial architecture. It is also a country with a history of military coups and fragile democratic institutions. It is regrettable that as President Correa solidifies his grip on power by silencing his critics, the country is taking on more and more of the characteristics of a police state. Fundamedios has a few days to defend itself before the Communications Ministry until a final ruling is issued. Let us hope that wisdom will prevail, that the forces of repression in Ecuador will withdraw, that the right of free expression will be reaffirmed, and that Fundamedios will be allowed to continue to operate. There is still time.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today we are going to vote on the nomination of Roseann Ketchmark. She has been nominated to be a Federal district judge in the Western District of Missouri. Now, this is only the sixth judicial nominee that we have voted on since the Senate Republicans took over the majority 8 months ago, so less than 1 a month. In fact, if we continue at this rate the Republican majority has established, the Senate this year will confirm the fewest number of judges in more than a half century--resulting in a judicial vacancy crisis. I am concerned because the Senate Republican leadership has refused to schedule timely confirmation votes for consensus judicial nominees which, I think, demonstrates an astounding neglect of the needs of our independent third branch, which borders on contempt. I am proud to be a lawyer. I have practiced both in the criminal and civil bars and served as a prosecutor. I have appeared before many different courts. I look at the men and women who have been on our courts, and I say: Here is an example of the way the judicial system should be--something every country in the world wants to emulate. But now, we are treating that third branch almost with contempt--with partisan contempt--and that is going to hurt the whole of the Federal judiciary. When Senate Democrats were in the majority, we worked hard to reduce the number of judicial vacancies to just 43--the lowest level since this President took office. This was accomplished through the unyielding efforts of then-Majority Leader Reid and Senate Democrats, who prioritized filling judicial vacancies so that our independent judiciary would be sufficiently staffed. Our success in reducing the number of judicial vacancies to such a level in 2014 was remarkable, given that we had begun the year with over 90 vacancies and the fact that Senate Republicans filibustered every single judicial nominee. Throughout President Obama's tenure, we have seen Senate Republicans consistently prioritize partisan politics over the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent. Their relentless obstruction over the last 6 years has resulted in an unacceptable number of vacancies--often hovering close to or exceeding 90. By the end of last year, the Senate made progress in reducing judicial vacancies to 43, but now we are seeing those gains reversed due to the Republicans' refusal to even schedule confirmation votes this year. In the 8 months since Republicans have been in the majority, judicial vacancies have increased by more than 50 percent. If Republicans keep on this dangerous course, we are heading to a judicial vacancy crisis. This is made worse by the fact that the number of Federal court vacancies deemed to be ``judicial emergencies'' by the non-partisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has increased by 158 percent since the beginning of the year. There are now 31 judicial emergency vacancies that are affecting communities across the country. I am going to show a couple of things. Republicans campaigned last year on the promise they would govern responsibly if they won the majority, but instead they have created divisive issues that play openly to their political base. One needs to look no further than the recent show vote to defund critical health services for women. I was in Vermont all last month. Everywhere I went--especially rural Vermont, where it is so difficult and so essential to get health care to women--they are asking: Why do the Republicans want to cut off the health care for women in rural parts of our country? Rather than spending 2 days in an unnecessary political exercise, the Senate should have voted to confirm the many judicial nominees pending on the calendar. In fact, rather than pushing bills to strip funding from local law enforcement for obeying the rules on immigration enforcement, we should be confirming judges to ensure our entire criminal justice system works for everyone. Let's give one example. The last 2 years of President Bush's tenure in office, the Democrats controlled the Senate. By this time, we had confirmed 26 of his judges. Now, with exactly the same situation, with Republicans controlling, they have only allowed five judges. What we did as Democrats for President Bush, we put through five times as many judges as Republicans have for President Obama. What you are seeing actually is we are going to politicize the Federal courts. Supporting and strengthening our Federal judiciary is not a Democratic or Republican priority; it is a fundamental and constitutional duty of the Senate that we all must share. In fact, the Senate Republican leadership's decision to shirk this body's constitutional duty of advice is doing the most harm to States with at least one Republican Senator. Of the 67 current vacancies that exist, 48 of them--or more than 70 percent--are in States with at least one Republican Senator. Texas, for example, has nine judicial vacancies. Seven of those nine are considered judicial emergencies. Incredibly, one of those district court positions has been vacant for over 4 years. A Fifth Circuit position in Texas has been vacant for more than 3 years. Pennsylvania and Alabama face similar crises. They have six and five current vacancies, respectively. Federal courts in several other States are grappling with extended vacancies. They desperately need to be filled. The length of time that some of these vacancies have remained unfilled is staggering. In Texas, none of these vacancies currently have nominees because the Texas Senators have been slow in providing recommendations to the President. A similar pattern can be seen with the Alabama vacancies, where two of the positions have been vacant for over 2 years, and another has remained vacant for over 1\1/2\ years. In Pennsylvania, there are six current vacancies and five nominees pending. Senate Republicans should be trying to move these nominees as expeditiously as possible. Of great concern is the treatment of Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo, who will fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Restrepo was unanimously confirmed 2 years ago by the Senate to serve as a district court judge in Pennyslvania. I have heard no objection to his nomination, yet it took 7 months just to get him a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. Judge Restrepo has strong bipartisan support from both Pennsylvania Senators, and he was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote. Once confirmed, Judge Restrepo will become the first Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania to serve on this court and only the second Hispanic judge ever to serve on the Third Circuit. No Senate Democrat opposes a vote on his nomination. Senate Republicans are the only thing holding up his nomination. I hope the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania will implore his leadership to bring this highly qualified nominee up for a vote. The continued delay of Judge Restrepo is a poor reflection on this body. In the Western District of New York, located in Buffalo, there is not a single active Federal district judge, even though it has one of the busiest caseloads in the country. And there are more criminal cases than in Washington, DC, Boston, Cleveland, and they don't have a single active judge because Republicans will not allow a vote, up or down, even though they have the majority. If you don't like the judge, you vote them down. They will not even allow a vote. I should note that the highly qualified nominee to serve in Buffalo was voted unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. They will not allow them to have a vote on the Senate floor. Look at this, how we brought vacancies down when we controlled the Senate, and now look at how they shoot up when the Republicans control the Senate. It makes no sense at all. In fact, as I said earlier, the Republican-controlled Senate allowed confirmation votes on just five judges--one, two, three, four, five. They have taken vacations, recesses, long weekends, and leave early--but we don't have time to vote on judges, which are normally unanimous votes anyway. We are going to vote on the sixth today. Whoop-de-i-ay. Good for us. My goodness gracious. It hasn't been this way before. As I said, when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the last 2 years of President Bush's term, I had put through 26 judges by now. The Republicans have only allowed five judges. This kind of partisanship is really wrong. In fact, it is on pace to be the lowest in recent history. President Eisenhower had 47 judges confirmed in his last 2 years in office; President Reagan had 85 judges confirmed his last 2 years in office; President Clinton had 73 judges confirmed his last 2 years in office; and President George W. Bush had 68 judges confirmed his last 2 years in office. This is a clear double standard that is being applied to President Obama's nominees. Republicans can provide some real leadership if the majority leader would go ahead and allow for a vote on all 14 of the judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar. All of these nominees have bipartisan support and were voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. Five of them would fill judicial emergency vacancies, including Judge Restrepo of Pennsylvania. Others would fill judicial emergencies in California, New York, and Tennessee. And the five nominees to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims have now been pending before the full Senate for a year or more. Today we are voting on the nomination of Roseann Ketchmark to fill a judicial vacancy in the Federal district court in the Western District of Missouri. She has spent her entire 25-year legal career as a prosecutor on both the State and Federal levels. Since 2001, Ms. Ketchmark has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Missouri. During her time in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Ms. Ketchmark has served in supervisory and management capacities as both the First Assistant U.S. Attorney and as the Executive Assistant Attorney. She began her legal career as an Assistant Prosecutor in Kansas City, MO, at the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office, and subsequently joined the Platte County Prosecutor's Office in Platte City, MO, as a First Assistant Prosecutor. Ms. Ketchmark has the bipartisan support of her two home State Senators, Senator McCaskill and Senator Blunt. She was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote more than 4 months ago. She has a strong background as a criminal prosecutor and I will support her nomination. The majority leader has spoken recently about his desire to avoid another Republican-led government shutdown. I agree, the American people deserve something better than obstructionist shutdowns. While the focus has been on the threat of Republicans shutting down the government over women's health services, the Senate Republicans have virtually shut down the judicial confirmation process. It is harming our justice system in the short and long term. I have spoken to a number of Republican Senators who realize this is wrong. These are the same Senators who came to me at the time of President Bush and asked: Can you move these judges, even though you are in charge? And I said, of course, we will. Some have come sheepishly and said: We are sorry we didn't return the favor. What I say is reverse course; I urge Senate Republicans to reverse course and realize the short-term partisan decisions are undermining the ability of the judicial system to serve our communities. Tonight's vote to confirm a district court nominee from Missouri is long overdue. I urge the Senate Republican leadership to schedule votes for the remaining 13 consensus judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar. They could all be done tomorrow morning in half an hour's time. I have been in the Senate longer than any Member of this body. I have been here in the majority and the minority, numerous times in both. I have been here with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, with the Republican leaders----

Mr. LEAHY. I see nobody else seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent for another 3 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. I have been here with both Republican and Democratic leadership of this body, Republican and Democratic Presidents. I have never, in 41 years, seen the Federal judiciary treated in such a cavalier, mean-spirited and, I would say, irresponsible fashion. I know most Senators want to do the right thing. Let's start doing it. This Third Branch of government should be treated with respect. If you have a person who is not competent who is nominated, then vote them down, but if they are competent, let's have a vote on it. Let's not have this. You are not going to find good men and women to agree to serve on the Federal bench if they think they are going to be delayed for partisan reasons for a year or more at a time. We can do better. We are all proud of our Federal judiciary. It is the best in the world, but this kind of partisanship could turn it into one of the worst in the world. This Senator does not want to see that happen. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak further on this subject, but I see no other Senators seeking the floor. While I do appreciate the opportunity to be here, I must admit that, looking at the weather and live views of Vermont this morning, I will look forward to the time we complete our work because after the last vote of this week, I will be on the first flight I can get on and look forward to being in Vermont. I will miss all of you, of course, but not so much I want you all to come and join me. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last time that I speak in this Chamber about the Iran nuclear agreement. I listened to some of the hearings on this subject in both the House and the Senate, last week, and I want to provide a bit of my perspective on the challenge before us. I was a law student in Washington during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. My wife and I were living probably 2 miles from the White House, and we were paying very close attention to what might happen. Afterward, as more of the history came out, we realized that some of President Kennedy's top advisers and Members of Congress pushed for a military attack on Cuba--actually, a military attack against the then- Soviet Union. A war between the two nuclear superpowers would have at the very least risked the annihilation of both countries. Fortunately, President Kennedy had the thoughtfulness, patience, and fortitude to resist the pressure to go to war. It is not easy to stick with the long road of tough negotiations when many are clamoring for a military solution rather than negotiations. It is the same today as it was back in the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today we are considering an agreement at the end of such negotiations between the United States and our allies, and Russia, China, and Iran to curb an illicit nuclear program that threatens the Middle East and the world. I know from my conversations with the President and with Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz how difficult this was. I also know from my conversations with them that they were prepared to walk away rather than settle for a bad deal. But based on what I have heard so far, this is not a bad deal. There are aspects of the agreement that I and others have legitimate questions about, but we already know a lot about it. We know that prior to negotiations, Iran's nuclear program was hurtling forward despite multinational sanctions. I remember back in September of 2012, I had been named the Senate delegate to the U.N., and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke. He warned that Iran was within months--months--of producing a nuclear bomb. Well, whether or not that was accurate then, it certainly is not accurate if this agreement is implemented. We know negotiations succeeded in freezing Iran's nuclear development in place, and now we have an agreement to roll back Iran's program. We know that this is the most rigorous monitoring and inspection regimen ever included in a nonproliferation agreement. Actually, I think it is a lot more rigorous than many observers predicted it would be. We know that without this deal, the monitoring and the onsite inspections would go away, and so would support for the international sanctions we painstakingly built. Remember, it took years for us to put together a coalition of other countries to impose the sanctions. Many of them did so at great economic cost to their own economies, but they stuck with us because they thought we would negotiate in good faith and that diplomacy could succeed. If we walk away now, many of these countries are going to say: OK, you are in this by yourself. The United States can impose sanctions, but they will be nowhere near as effective as they were when we joined you. We know that the sanctions reprieve in this agreement is limited and reversible. It is structured so that many sanctions remain in place, sanctions in which other countries have joined us. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, we and our partners can revoke the limited relief and we can impose additional sanctions. Some criticized this agreement within minutes of the agreement being announced. They are long on scorn, but they are short on alternatives. Again, I remember that speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu years ago when he warned that Iran was just months away from building a nuclear weapon. Today, people are expressing concern about what may happen 15 years from now, not a few months from now. They ignore the fact that if Congress rejects this agreement, Iran can immediately resume its development of highly enriched uranium. Iran can build a nuclear weapon in far less than 15 years. I would ask, is that the alternative they support? Or is it another war in the Middle East, which our senior military leaders say could spiral out of control and at best would delay the resumption of Iran's nuclear weapons programs by 2 to 3 years, after which it would not be subject to international inspections? Some of the most vociferous critics of this agreement reflexively supported sending American troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. We did this after having hearings and meetings in which the Vice President of the United States implied that Iraq was involved in the attack on 9/11 and made it very clear that they had weapons of mass destruction. I voted against that war because I read the intelligence files, and they were very clear that there was no credible evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and it was very clear that they had nothing to do with 9/11. That colossal mistake killed or maimed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and by now has cost more than $2 trillion and the meter is still running-- $2 trillion. It is the first time in this Nation's history when we went to war on a credit card; we didn't enact a tax to pay for it. Even unpopular wars, like Vietnam and Korea, were paid for. Is it the critics' alternative to reject this agreement and then somehow convince the other parties to it--Russia, China, and the rest of the P5+1--to impose even stronger multilateral sanctions? Have they bothered to ask officials in any of those governments what the chances of that would be? Certainly the statements those officials have made make it very clear that those chances--to use a precise expression--are zilch. I am as outraged as anyone by Iran's support of terrorism, its arbitrary arrests and imprisonment of Americans, its denial of due process, its use of torture and other violations of human rights, and its summary executions of political opponents, just as I object to similar abuses by many countries we deal with every day. But as horrific as Iran's behavior is, it pales compared to the havoc Iran could wreak if it obtains a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran could commit acts of terrorism that dwarf by thousands or even millions of times over those it engages in today. There is simply no comparison. A workable agreement doesn't just buy more time, it can also buy more opportunities. In Iran, the impetus for reforming its hostile and destabilizing foreign policy comes from the Iranian people. For decades, the Iranian middle class has been smothered--first by a revolution that crushed their aspirations and then by a regime that imposed the harsh consequences of its own criminal behavior on the Iranian population. Ordinary Iranians overwhelmingly do not want an empire; they want more economic opportunities, freedom of expression, and to reengage peacefully with the world. With this agreement, the Iranian middle class can continue to be a factor in future negotiations. It is well understood that in the Congress, we agree or disagree, we debate, and we vote. That is one of the reasons I wanted to be a Member of this body. Ideally, we do so in a manner that reflects the respect each of us owes to this institution. For a nation of over 300 million Americans, there are only 100 of us who have the privilege at any given time to serve in this body. We are but transitory occupants of the seats the voters have afforded us the opportunity to occupy. In carrying out our responsibilities, we should do our best to live up to the standards of those who created what we take pride in calling the world's oldest democracy. I mention this because, as I said earlier, I listened to portions of the hearings in the various House and Senate committees on the Iran nuclear agreement at which the Secretaries of State and Energy testified. Presumably, they were asked to testify because the members of those committees had questions and concerns about those agreements and wanted to hear the witnesses' responses. However, rather than a respectful, substantive exchange, what has too frequently occurred has been an embarrassing display of political theater. What we have heard is a series of speeches often containing assertions or accusations that are either contradicted by the actual words of the agreement or without factual basis, and then they are followed by questions the witnesses were unable to answer because when they tried, they were interrupted or told the time had expired. Many Vermonters have talked to me about those hearings. They were often embarrassing to watch, and they did a disservice to the American people who deserve to know that their representatives are engaged in a substantive, in-depth exchange of views on the hugely important issue of how to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I have questions myself because, short of unilateral surrender by one party, every agreement involves compromise. That is as true for international diplomacy as it is for the Senate. Neither side gets everything it wants. Anyone who suggests that was a possible outcome here is fooling themselves or, even worse, deceiving the voters who sent them here. The President has been unwavering in his insistence that the goal of this agreement is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I commend him for his vision and resolve. I have spoken with him at length about this. I will say to my colleagues what I said to the President. It is now up to Congress to carry out its oversight responsibility. We can strive to make this work, keeping in mind the vital national security interests at stake for our country and for our allies, or we can impulsively sabotage this chance. But we should engage in this process in a manner that enhances the image of the U.S. Senate and that affords those in our government who spent years forging this agreement the respect and appreciation they deserve. Mr. President, there have been many thoughtful articles and opinion pieces written about the Iran nuclear agreement. I am sure there will be many more. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record one of those articles, authored jointly by Eric Schwartz and Brian Atwood, two former Assistant Secretaries of State.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we began this year with a new Republican majority in the Senate promising to govern responsibly. Unfortunately, this promise has so far proven hollow. Beginning with the shameful treatment of the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General, the Republican leadership has used excuse after excuse to keep the Senate from voting on those nominated to serve in our justice system. It took 4 months for the Republican majority to schedule a vote on a single judicial nomination. So far this year, the Republican-controlled Senate has allowed confirmation votes on just five judicial nominees. The slow trickle of confirmations is a dereliction of the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees. Since the beginning of this year, 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. There are now 31 judicial emergency vacancies that are affecting communities across the country. Many are concerned that this obstruction threatens the functioning of our independent judiciary, as Juan Williams recently pointed out. I ask unanimous consent that his column in The Hill titled ``The GOP's judicial log jam'' be printed in the Record. There is a different way to lead. Similar to the balance of power today, in the last 2 years of the George W. Bush administration the Democrats were in control of the Senate. And by this time in 2007, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we had confirmed 26 judges. In contrast, this Congress, the Republican majority has confirmed just five judicial nominees appointed by President Obama. That is more than five times more judges confirmed under a Democratic majority with a President of the opposite party than today's Senate Republican majority. The delay and obstruction is occurring even though all 14 of the current judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar have bipartisan support and were voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. These nominees are highly qualified and deserve better treatment from Senate Republicans. Of great concern is the treatment of Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo, who will fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania. Judge Restrepo was unanimously confirmed 2 years ago by the Senate to serve as a district court judge. I have heard no objection to his nomination. Yet it took 7 months just to get him a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. He has strong bipartisan support from the two Pennsylvania Senators, and was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote. 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. He has the strong endorsement of the nonpartisan Hispanic National Bar Association, HNBA. At his 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'' and underscored the fact that he recommended Judge Restrepo to the White House. Senator Toomey then described Judge Restrepo's life story as ``an American Dream story'' recounting how Judge Restrepo, born in Medellin, Colombia, came to the United States, became a U.S. citizen, and rose to the very top of his profession by ``virtue of his hard work, his intellect, his integrity.'' Given his remarkable credentials, recent Senate confirmation, and strong bipartisan support, you would think this Chamber would have confirmed Judge Restrepo months ago. No Senate Democrat opposes a vote on his nomination. Senate Republicans are the only thing holding up his nomination. I know Senator Toomey can be a fierce advocate for issues he cares passionately about, and I hope he will get a firm commitment from the majority leader on a date for a vote on his confirmation. The continued delay on such a qualified judicial nominee is a poor reflection on this body. I ask unanimous consent that a recent column by Carl Tobias in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review titled ``Confirm Judge Restrepo'' also be printed in the Record. Another eminently qualified nominee who is also strongly supported by the HNBA is Armando Bonilla. Mr. Bonilla has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a seat on that court. Mr. Bonilla 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 in the Department's prestigious Honors Program, and has risen to become the Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department. Despite these outstanding credentials, the junior Senator from Arkansas objected to a request to vote on his nomination, along with any of the four other nominations to the Court of Federal Claims. These CFC nominees have been waiting for more than 10 months for a vote, and were twice voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote. Those who serve in this body understand that no one Senator can stop a judicial nominee from being confirmed. One Senator can stop a unanimous consent agreement, but not a vote. The delay and obstruction of the 14 judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar, including Judge Restrepo and Mr. Bonilla, is at the hands of the Republican leadership and in the hands of the other Republican Senators, who have allowed their leadership to delay these accomplished jurists and prosecutors, even when it hurts their own constituents. Republican leadership can still reverse course and lead responsibly. Although they have only allowed 5 judicial nominees to be confirmed this year, they can make immediate progress by moving to confirm the 14 nominees pending on the Executive Calendar. They should schedule a vote for outstanding nominees like Judge Restrepo and Mr. Bonilla. They should schedule a vote for the pending judicial nominees from Missouri, California, New York, and Tennessee. In the last 2 years of President Bush's tenure, the Democratic majority moved 68 district and circuit judges through the process to confirmation. In the last 2 years of President Reagan's tenure, a Democratic majority confirmed 85 judges. Let us go back to treating the Federal judiciary like the coequal branch that it is and hold confirmation votes on the nominees before us. There is no reason for the double standard based on who is in the majority. We made it clear we would not do that with President Reagan and President Bush. We should uphold the same standard for President Obama. I hope that we return to the regular order that existed for the nominees of past administrations and clear the Senate Executive Calendar of consensus nominations before the upcoming recess. The time to act on the 14 consensus judicial nominations pending before the full is Senate is now.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have traveled to the Dominican Republic and Haiti and am familiar with the history of racial tensions between the population of Haitian migrants and Dominicans of Haitian descent and other citizens of the Dominican Republic. These problems are by no means unique to these two neighboring countries, nor are there easy solutions. In addition to race there is competition for land, social services, and jobs. But while this situation should not be oversimplified, the way the Dominican Government is dealing with it is unfortunate. In a September 2013 Dominican Constitutional Court ruling the citizenship of more than 200,000 people--mostly Dominicans of Haitian descent--was summarily revoked, and they lost access to education, health care, and other essential social services, as well as their basic rights. Since that ruling the Dominican Government has threatened to enforce strict and prejudicial immigration laws. Many affected residents live under constant fear of deportation, and according to the United Nations nearly 20,000 have already fled the country in the past month, putting the island on the brink of a mass refugee crisis. By threatening to deport Haitian migrants and Dominicans of Haitian descent, the Dominican Government is on a path that not only disregards fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, but may provoke a reaction that makes the situation worse. Even as we are already seeing the consequences of the threat of mass deportations, following through with such a policy would likely greatly exacerbate tensions in the Dominican Republic and create a regional diplomatic and humanitarian crisis. Haiti, impoverished and still recovering from the devastating 2010 earthquake, does not have the capacity to handle the sudden arrival of thousands of homeless, jobless, Dominicans. The United States, with 319 million people spread across 50 States is among the most ethnically and racially diverse countries in the world. The challenges this has posed for our own democracy over the past two centuries are well known. We have not always handled these challenges as we should have. I hope the Dominican Government will learn from our experience and recognize the need to reverse course and reaffirm the legal status and rights of these people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are now 7 months into the 114th Congress, and our Nation is faced with many challenges. Less than 1 year ago, the American people were promised that if Republicans took control of the Senate, our focus would be on committee-reported bills and promoting bipartisanship. Leader McConnell pledged not to fill the amendment tree and instead to allow for an open amendment process when bills were brought to the floor. These promises have already been broken and this week we will likely see them broken again. We are just a few days before the first debate for the many Republicans seeking their party's nomination for President. Given the crowded stage, they have already resorted to attention-getting attacks designed to excite the most extreme right wing of their base. It should surprise no one then that at the top of the Senate's agenda this week is a bill that would jeopardize the health and well-being of women across the country. I spoke in opposition to this misguided, partisan effort last week. It is disappointing that instead of using the few remaining weeks before the end of the fiscal year working to reach an agreement on how to fund the government, we are considering ideologically-driven legislation to bar funding for Planned Parenthood health centers. This issue is unfortunately all too familiar. A few years ago, a small but vocal minority nearly shut down the Federal Government over a provision prohibiting funding for Planned Parenthood. Thankfully, we prevailed in the end, removing the rider and assuring women's access to vital health care. I hope the Senate makes the right choice again today. This latest attack on women's health is fueled by an extreme organization that is in the process of releasing surreptitiously recorded videos, which the group heavily edited in a misleading way to suggest wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. The Attorney General is currently reviewing the matter, and I have every confidence that if there is credible evidence to warrant an investigation of any of the parties involved in the videos, the Justice Department will act. The bill before the Senate today would affect the lives of millions of American women, men, and young people who trust and depend on Planned Parenthood for their basic health care needs, including annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings. Last year in Vermont, Planned Parenthood centers provided critical primary and preventive services to over 16,000 patients. In a small State like Vermont, this impact cannot be overstated. Proponents of this bill argue that if we defund Planned Parenthood, women will find care at other health centers. This is simply not the case. Planned Parenthood centers overwhelmingly serve populations in rural and medically underserved parts of the country where access to health care, especially for low-income individuals, is difficult. In fact, over 90 percent of Vermont's Planned Parenthood centers are located in rural or medically-underserved areas. Many women in my State describe Planned Parenthood as their primary source of health care. What this partisan bill would do is force the women in Vermont who have trusted Planned Parenthood for their health care to try to find another doctor where few are available, or, more likely, go without care at all. That undermines all of our efforts to strengthen our Nation's health care system, and ensure access to care for everyone. Planned Parenthood health centers are eligible for Federal funds in two ways, and under the Hyde amendment, funds cannot be used for abortion services except in very limited circumstances. First, Planned Parenthood centers can receive Federal grant funding through title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only Federal grant program dedicated to offering people comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. President Nixon was instrumental in enacting this legislation, and it has long been supported by lawmakers and Presidents of both parties. It cannot be emphasized enough that title X was a remarkable breakthrough in women's health care. The second way Planned Parenthood receives Federal funding is through Medicaid reimbursements, when women using Medicaid choose a Planned Parenthood provider as their doctor. The federally supported services offered by Planned Parenthood are the core of their work and mission. Despite the misleading and blatantly false statements of some ideologically-driven advocates, more than 90 percent of the care Planned Parenthood health centers offer is preventive care like cancer screenings, annual checkups, and contraception. As noted by several observers over the weekend, the irony is that defunding Planned Parenthood would result in more unintended pregnancies, and probably more abortions. Should we walk back from the remarkable progress we have made as a nation in women's health? Of course not. But I am concerned that we still see this same irresponsible attack surfacing again and again. It is 2015. It is time for the mean-spirited and ideological assaults on women's health care to end. The arrogance and shortsighted attitude of a minority has put at risk the lives and health of millions of women. Does this Congress care more about what looks good on a bumper sticker or what matters in the daily lives of real people? My wife Marcelle is a cancer survivor. We were lucky. We had good health care and the ability to pay the bills when she got sick. Others are not so lucky. Without the services that Planned Parenthood provides, thousands of low-income women in Vermont would lose their ability to have regular cancer screenings that could save their lives too. That we are even considering the elimination of these health services to America's women is shameful. What a travesty it would be to gut health services that have literally meant the difference between life or death, health or grave illness, to countless American women. This bill is merely an effort to score political points at the expense of women's health. I hope the Senate rejects this irresponsible, partisan legislation. I urge the Senate majority leadership to return to its promise that it would lead this Chamber responsibly and act through regular order.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will approve a comprehensive, 6-year authorization for our Nation's transportation systems. It will give our States and local communities the ability to plan for investments in the critical infrastructure that supports our cities and towns, enables inter- and intrastate commerce, and creates jobs for American workers. This bill is far from perfect; I have strong concerns about the lack of safety measures in this bill. The battle on whether to allow mammoth tractor trailer trucks--the equivalent of wheeled eight-story buildings--to drive alongside all the other motorists on some of our roads will come up again in the fall and so I will continue to fight to put safety first. I am concerned that this bill will undermine the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act. And I am concerned that, while we have before us a needed 6-year authorization, this transportation bill is funded only through 2018. I hope that as the Senate and the House conference a long-term transportation authorization bill, these concerns will be adequately addressed. It is regrettable that some in Congress, for several years now, have done their utmost to undermine what used to be strong bipartisan support for responsible and timely reauthorizations and funding of the highway trust fund and our transportation infrastructure. The result has been a continuing era of stop-gap, short-term fixes, which hobble State and local transportation planning and which impose unending uncertainty on their vital work. How short-sighted, and how irresponsible. We must get back to that kind of consensus, and that kind of forward-thinking action. A series of short-term patches do not provide States like Vermont-- where the construction season is short, and the infrastructure needs are many--with the certainty they need to make needed repairs to the bridges, roads and byways that keep business moving and connect our rural towns and villages. This legislation, however, is the result of compromise on all sides. This bill protects the MAP-21 funding formula, which will benefit Vermont and maintain a level stream of Federal funding for Vermont. I am also pleased the bill includes a 20 percent revenue provision dedicated to highway and transit growth, despite previous attempts to decrease it to 6 percent. I am also gratified that, in working with the relevant committee chairs, we were able in this final bill to remove unnecessary and harmful exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, which remains the public's first line of defense in the right to know what their government is doing. Nowhere is the free flow of information more important than when the safety and wellbeing of every Vermonter--of every American--is at stake. The House of Representatives now has an opportunity. They can kick the can down the road, beyond this year, or they can get to work, to devise a meaningful, reasonable long-term transportation authorization bill. Short-term authorizations will not adequately address our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. After investing billions of dollars in infrastructure development overseas, it is well past time to invest right here at home, in our own people and their communities, and in our own country. We need this certainty, and we need it now.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we celebrate a true milestone in our Nation's history, and we mark this reminder that basic health insurance is not a privilege for the wealthy, but a right, for every American. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, establishing the Medicare and Medicaid programs. For 50 years, these two programs have offered health care and economic security to millions of Americans and their families. The debate over the right to basic health insurance began in the 1940s with President Harry Truman. At a time when just one in eight seniors had health care and were earning less than $1000 on average annually, President Truman sought to create a safety net to meet the needs of a growing population. It may be difficult for all of us in the generations of Americans born since that era to fully understand today, but before Medicaid and Medicare, when private health insurers could still discriminate against individuals based on their health, many seniors were either denied coverage entirely or priced out of health insurance. And for Americans living in poverty, health care was simply out of reach. The Social Security Amendments of 1965 offered a path forward. Today, Medicare and Medicaid cover a combined 110 million Americans, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income Americans and their families. From cancer screenings to hospital coverage, yearly well- visits, flu vaccinations, pediatric dental care and caregiver support, Medicare and Medicaid provide access to the basic health care services that all Americans deserve. And what a dramatic and tangible difference that has made and continues to make in the lives of millions of people. Through the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid took a step further. States that expanded Medicaid under the law saved nearly $2 billion in health care costs while extending coverage to many, many more Americans. Closing the coverage gap known as the ``donut hole'' saved seniors on Medicare $15 billion in health care costs--a savings to seniors of $28 million in my home State of Vermont alone. The Affordable Care Act strengthened Medicare for future generations, extending the trust fund an additional 13 years as a result of savings to the program. It is worth remembering as well that in the early years of Medicare and Medicaid, as these programs were established and went through some growing pains, public opinion at first was tentative in supporting these major reforms. Over time, public support for and appreciation of the benefits of these programs has grown significantly. We can see some parallels in the way public opinion about the Affordable Care Act has continued to grow, as its benefits have become more widespread and more apparent in our daily lives. As we celebrate this important anniversary, I hope we all will remember how far these programs have come and commit to keeping them strong for future generations. Strengthening Medicare and Medicaid is an economic investment in the well-being of our country, and I will fight for these programs for my children and my grandchildren. I am proud to celebrate an anniversary marking the Federal Government's promise of providing reassurance and stability for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. I look forward to celebrating the success of Medicare and Medicaid for generations to come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California. I am sure I won't take that long. Planned Parenthood Mr. President, I will speak further on the efforts to defund health services for women later on, but I am concerned about those Senators who are attacking women's health with a renewed effort to eliminate health centers that thousands of Vermonters rely on every day. Across the country we have millions of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood health centers for lifesaving preventive treatments and care, including annual exams, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings and counseling. These clinics are the primary source of health services for many women. Eliminating Federal funding for Planned Parenthood health centers would deny women access to these critical services. They will force women to find medical care elsewhere or, more devastatingly--or more probable--to simply go without. The partisan bill that was introduced yesterday in the Senate is the latest attempt to score political points. It is bumper sticker politics at its worst. Needlessly jeopardizing the health care of millions of Americans who depend on these preventive care services is a bid to rally a base that is as irresponsible as it is offensive to this Senator. I know women in Vermont who tell me they go for their health care, their cancer screening, to the Planned Parenthood centers because they feel they have people they feel comfortable with. They can bring their daughters, their children there. They know they are going to be cared for. They know people will care for them. They don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats, they are women who need health care, and I will strongly oppose the effort that is going to be before us in this body to cut off health care for women. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Thune, chairman of the commerce committee, regarding the DRIVE Act and the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. I want to thank Chairman Thune for working with me to remove four provisions in the DRIVE Act aimed at carving out information from disclosure under FOIA, three of which were in titles of the bill falling under the commerce committee's jurisdiction. The removal of these four provisions is reflected in the second-degree amendment filed by Senator Inhofe, amendment No. 2533, to the McConnell substitute amendment. FOIA is our Nation's premier open government law and the foundation on which all our sunshine and transparency policies rest. It remains an indispensable tool for Americans to obtain information affecting public policy, consumer safety, the environment, and public health. The Freedom of Information Act 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.

Mr. LEAHY. I also want to draw particular attention to Section 32003, related to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's, FMCSA's, compliance, safety, and accountability system, CSA. The CSA system is designed to evaluate the safety and compliance performance of motor carriers by using data from inspections, crashes, compliance reviews, and the Federal motor carrier census to come up with a safety measurement system, SMS, score for each motor carrier in seven behavior analysis and safety improvement categories, BASICs. It is my understanding that these scores are currently available to the public via FMCSA's Web site. It is also my understanding that, as originally drafted, this bill would have prohibited FMCSA from making these scores available to the general public via its Web site or via a FOIA request while FMCSA evaluates and reforms the methodology underlying these scores. I have serious concerns about removing this information from public view, even for a short period of time. The safety score is one of the tools we give consumers and other stakeholders to help fully evaluate motor carriers. While I prefer that these scores remain easily accessible on FMSCA's Web site for the general public while the methodology is reviewed, it is critical that the scores remain available under FOIA. Even if the scores are removed from the Web site while the methodology is reviewed, under the provision, they will remain available to law enforcement and regulators for use in overseeing the industry. For this reason alone, as well as many others, we should not withhold that information from public scrutiny. Moreover, the Judiciary Committee did not review this new proposed exemption and has not had time to fully consider the potential effects of this exclusion. I thank Senator Thune for working with me to remove this FOIA exemption. Originally the bill language stated that none of the score information ``may be made available to the general public (including through requests under Section 552 of title 5, United States Code [the FOIA statute]).'' The Inhofe second degree amendment strikes the phrase ``including through requests under Section 552 of title 5, United States Code'' in its entirety. Under the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, no new FOIA exemption under 5 U.S.C 552(b)(3), is effective unless it specifically cites to 5 U.S.C 552(b)(3). Removing the citation to the FOIA statute makes clear that, while the scores may no longer be routinely published and easily accessible to the general public via FMSCA's Web site until they have been reviewed and reformed, the scores are still subject to disclosure pursuant to a FOIA request, unless an existing exemption is found to apply.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to recognize and commend Colonel Thomas L'Esperance for his noteworthy career with the Vermont State Police, which will conclude next month with his retirement. One of the strongest voices in Vermont law enforcement for the past 28 years, Colonel L'Esperance has dutifully served the public and sought to protect his fellow Vermonters as an invaluable member and leader in Vermont. He rose through the ranks of the Vermont State Police after beginning his career as a detective trooper with the Brattleboro barracks in 1987, and has since assumed new and challenging roles within the force. He has contributed to Vermont's public safety and helped to combat crime by serving as a detective trooper, the Southern Vermont Drug Task Force field supervisor, director of the Bureau of Criminal Investigations, and, since 2009, as the director of the Vermont State Police. Colonel L'Esperance has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues throughout his career for his unwavering dedication and ability to empathize with those whom he serves and protects. In recent years, Vermont has faced immeasurable challenges in combating the cycle of heroin and opioid abuse. In 2014, I called on Colonel L'Esperance to testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee field hearing in Rutland, VT, about this very challenge. Colonel L'Esperance graciously and with expertise provided testimony on the harmful effects of addiction in the State of Vermont, and on the challenges facing Vermont's law enforcement community in combating such abuse. His testimony was exemplary, not only because of his firsthand experience with this critical policing and public health issue, but also because of the colonel's personal commitment to eliminating this destructive epidemic from our State. I thank Colonel L'Esperance for his powerful testimony and for the great work he has done throughout his career in fighting criminal activity in our State. While his retirement from the position of Vermont State Police director will be a loss for the force and for the State of Vermont, I am confident that Colonel L'Esperance will bring the same level of excellence to the next chapter of his career. Colonel L'Esperance will no doubt continue to serve others with integrity and with the highest regard for the public's safety. I am proud of Colonel L'Esperance for his exceptional work with the Vermont State Police, and I am grateful for all of his efforts in improving the safety and wellbeing of Vermonters.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters--like many Americans--are frustrated. They are frustrated when they see short-term patches that do not make investments in our crumbling infrastructure. They are frustrated with seeing meaningful policy advance, while Congress bickers over how to pay for it--and at what expense to other critical programs. Passing a long-term authorization to make needed improvements to our aging roads and bridges is a matter of common sense. It is a matter of safety. And quite frankly, for us in Congress, it's our job. After 11 short-term extensions over the course of 3 years, Congress finally approved MAP-21 in 2012. Now, two short-term extensions later and faced with another expiration deadline, we have a choice: another patch, or pass a meaningful, long-term transportation authorization that will give our States the ability to build and repair roads, bridges, and byways, to promote rail safety and transit, and to invest in the critical infrastructure that supports our cities and towns, enables interstate and intrastate commerce, and creates jobs for American workers. The time to pass a plan for long-term transportation funding is now. Vermonters take great pride in our historic downtowns and small communities. In our cities and towns, we have a culture of getting things done. We find a way to accomplish our shared goals. But, when those shared goals rely largely on a Federal funding stream that is unreliable at best, and uncertain at worst, it makes it impossible to double down on the investments needed to keep the cars, buses, and trucks moving on our roads. We can invest in bridges and roads overseas. We do it all the time. We decided to spend a couple of trillion dollars in Iraq. We didn't use any offsets; we just put it on the credit card. As one Vermonter said to me back home: We spend billions upon billions of dollars to build roads and bridges over there, and then they blow them up. Why don't we spend a little bit of that money here at home, and we will take care of those roads and bridges? As much as we invest in bridges and roads overseas, we must do so right here at home. Look at this bridge show in this picture I have in the Chamber. It is located in East Montpelier, just about 5 miles from where I was born. It was built in 1936--the year my parents were married. It is in dire need of repair. Weather, the sometimes very harsh Vermont climate, age, and traffic volume--more than 4,400 vehicles cross it per day, 10 percent of which are trucks--have led to the deterioration of the bridge. It is one of nearly 300 long and short bridges in Vermont that have been deemed structurally deficient. The East Montpelier Bridge remains open--at least for now. It will be replaced in 2018, with a price tag of $7.3 million, about 2 minutes' worth of the money we wasted in Iraq. It is an issue of safety. It is an issue of economic certainty. It is a commonsense investment that has been delayed for too long because resources are far too scarce. I am willing to bet the same could be said of all 50 States represented in this body. We all agree that a long-term transportation bill means safe bridges, paved roads, and completed railways. But it also encourages innovative projects that incorporate public health, environmental, and social incentives. Look no further than Burlington, VT. A picturesque town nestled on the shores of Lake Champlain, it is home to a variety of innovative entrepreneurs and businesses, from high-tech hubs to specialty food producers. As our businesses and communities grow, Vermonters depend on safe and reliable modes of transportation to keep them connected. Church Street is a pedestrian-only street that welcomes locals and visitors to enjoy the many vibrant shops and restaurants. As businesses begin to sprawl beyond the limits of Church Street and settle into new homes along Pine Street, the city has invested in safe modes of travel to ensure accessibility. The Bike Path Rehabilitation Project and the Safe Streets Collaborative are projects that consider the needs of the community as a whole--either in a vehicle, on foot, or pedaling. Main Street--the heart of any Vermont downtown--is home to small businesses and services such as post offices, grocery stores, medical offices, and banks. In a rural State such as Vermont, investing in our infrastructure extends beyond bridges and roads. It is sidewalk repair. It is establishing crosswalks. It is widening roads to provide for parking, and it is installing such basic things as street lighting, refuse receptacles and landscaping. After many years of economic decline in downtown Barre--one of our larger cities--the city's Main Street was left with empty storefronts and lonely streets. The community introduced the Big Dig--a multiyear effort to revitalize Main Street and City Hall Park. With funding sourced from Downtown Transportation Grants and Federal funding sourced through the Agency of Transportation, 200 State employees were able to relocate into a new office building in the heart of downtown. Look at the before and after pictures. The differences are stark. These are the kinds of Federal investments, coupled with investments from States and towns, that can revitalize communities across the country. This project brought life back into Main Street. Businesses filled vacant office spaces, restaurants opened their doors, and the sidewalks welcomed locals and visitors alike. The transportation funding went beyond just improving the physical infrastructure; it was an investment in the health and economy of the community. The highway trust fund is not just about infrastructure; it is about jobs--jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. Earlier this year, I met with Jeff Tucker, the president of Dubois & King. D&K is a Vermont owned and based consulting engineering firm which employs 100 people, including about 80 Vermonters. Jeff's frustration was clear: short-term highway trust fund extensions paralyze the ability of States and municipalities to plan. Jeff's company provides high quality engineering jobs with an average annual salary of over $71,000. These jobs come with full benefits--health care, paid vacation, sick and holiday paid time off and retirement packages. A significant portion of his business includes transportation-related engineering projects that originate from the Vermont Agency of Transportation. The Vermont Agency of Transportation creates a statewide plan based on the State's known Federal transportation funding share--something the agency has not been able to count on in a long time. There are thousands more examples of businesses around the country hampered in the same way. In a State like Vermont, a short-term construction season paired with a short-term funding stream is a terrible combination, for both the State and the companies that provide these services. Now the Senate is debating how to move forward with a long-term investment in our roads and bridges and railways. It is an important debate. There is a lot about this policy proposal that I support. I share the concerns, however, of many that it will undermine the safety of riders, bikers, and pedestrians. The policy is not perfect, but how we pay for it should also be considered. The highway trust fund has been supported for the most part by a user-fee driven system. Our roads and byways need our attention, but a long-term extension of this authorization, paid for by robbing from other critical programs, is as unsustainable as a network of short-term patches. America is starving for real, certain infrastructure investment. The highway trust fund cannot limp forward on a continued series of short- term extensions. Our country's progress is being stalled, and it is time we start building for our future. Judicial Nominations Mr. President, last week the junior Senator from Arkansas objected to a request to vote on any of the five nominations to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. They have been waiting for 10 months for a vote. He did not want to debate the merits of any of these eminently qualified nominees. I think the junior Senator is dusting off the Republican playbook from the last Congress to try to do to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims what he could not do to the DC Circuit. The caseload statistics of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims--as in other courts--have increased and decreased at various times. This does not mean that one Republican should be permitted to put up a wholesale blockade of nominees to a specific court preventing every single one of them from being considered on their merit by the full Senate. Furthermore, in contrast to the assertions made by the junior Senator for Arkansas, the number of new cases filed with the court since 2007 has actually increased by 13.4 percent. Early in the last Republican administration, there was discussion about the caseload of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, but no Senate Republican voiced concern then. In fact, during the Bush administration, the Senate confirmed nine judges to the CFC--with the support of every Senate Republican. Only three CFC judges nominated by President Obama have received confirmation votes. This is the same double standard that Senate Republicans tried to apply to President Obama's D.C. Circuit nominees, when they filibustered and refused to permit any of President Obama's three pending D.C. Circuit nominees from receiving a vote last Congress. Not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee raised a concern about the CFC's caseload either during the committee hearings on these nominations last year or during the committee debate last year or this year. In blocking these five nominees, the junior Senator from Arkansas ignores the Senate Judiciary Committee's unanimous votes on these nominations in 2014 and again this year. He also disregards the chief judge who speaks on behalf of the entire court and the five past presidents of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association who have urged the Senate to fill these vacancies. In 2003, the now-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee engaged in a debate on the caseload of this court. He said then: ``I feel it is unfair to these Court of Federal Claims nominees to deny them a seat by bringing up this point at this late date.'' I hope that the junior Senator from Arkansas will heed these words and remove his objection to an up or down vote on these nominees. If he personally does not believe these judges need to be confirmed, he can certainly vote against them. The fact is that all five of these nominees are impeccably qualified. One of the nominees, Armando Bonilla, would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a seat on the court, but the junior Senator from Arkansas objected. The nominee is strongly endorsed by the Hispanic National Bar Association and 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 in the Department's prestigious Honors Program, and has risen to become the Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department. Another nominee, Jeri Somers, retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, but the junior senator from Arkansas objected. The nominee spent over two decades serving first as a Judge Advocate General and then as a Military Judge in the U.S. Air Force and the District of Columbia's Air National Guard. In 2007, she became a Board judge with the U.S. Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and currently serves as its vice chair. Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Somers are just two of the five nominees being blocked from consideration by one Senator. Both of them have dedicated the majority of their careers in service to our Nation. They deserve better than the treatment they are receiving from this Senate. I urge the Senate majority leader to move to confirmation votes on these well qualified nominees without further delay. Since President Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, I am afraid Republicans have made it their priority to obstruct nominations put forward. More than half a year into this new Congress, the Republican leadership has scheduled votes to confirm only five judicial nominees. Let me contrast that with the last 2 years of President George W. Bush's tenure. Democrats had taken over the Senate majority. If we treated Republican President Bush that way the new Republican Senate majority is treating Democratic President Obama only five judges would have been confirmed by today in 2007. Instead, we confirmed 25 district and circuit court judges by July 23, 2007. Let me say that again because I want to make it clear that we would not play politics with judges because they are supposed to be outside of politics. By this time in the last 2 years of President Bush's term, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we had moved 25 judges through the process to confirmation. Today's Republican leadership has allowed only five of President Obama's judicial nominees to be confirmed. In the last 2 years of President Bush's tenure the Democratic majority moved 68 district and circuit judges through the process to confirmation. And today, we find Republicans objecting to even considering highly qualified men and women to these judgeships. In the last 2 years of the Reagan term a Democratic majority confirmed 85 judges. Twenty-five by this time in 2007, 68 in all during the last 2 years of President Bush's term. Only five for President Obama. Seventeen by this time in the last 2 years of President Reagan's term, 85 in all. Only five for President Obama. You know all this does is politicize the Federal judiciary. They are an independent branch of government. The Senate ought to be confirming them. Let's not have a double standard. We made it clear we would not do that with President Reagan and President Bush. We shouldn't do it with President Obama. It is up to the majority leader and the Senate Republicans to demonstrate that they are not applying a double standard that is solely driven by who occupies the White House. The Senate should be confirming these long delayed U.S. Court of Federal Claims nominees and then proceeding to nine other judicial nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. I see my good friend on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, the Supreme Court took a significant step towards a more perfect union when it ruled that every American has the right to marry the person they love and have that lawful marriage recognized. It was a victory for love and justice over bigotry and intolerance. This historic milestone should be celebrated, but we must remember that the journey is not complete. The Fourteenth Amendment's principles of liberty and equality safeguard all couples' right to marry, and also serves as a bulwark against discriminatory treatment in the other aspects of everyday life, including where we live, where we work, and our interactions with the government. While LGBT Americans are now able to marry the person they love, they continue to experience discrimination in many other aspects of their lives. Achieving full equality means that LGBT individuals should be able to provide security for their families without fear that they will be fired from their jobs or denied housing. It means that a restaurant cannot refuse to serve an LGBT couple because the owner disapproves of that couple's relationship. These are not abstract concepts. In our country today, LGBT Americans continue to experience discrimination, and it must end. In a June 27 article in the New York Times, entitled ``Next Fight for Gay Rights: Bias in Jobs and Housing,'' the author Erik Eckholm provides clear documentation of such discrimination. A landlord in East Nashville, TN, refused to rent his apartment to two women in a loving relationship after he learned of their partnership because it made him ``uncomfortable.'' He refused their rental application even after they offered to raise the rent by $150. A transgender individual was fired from her job as an industrial electrician because, according to her boss, her identity was becoming ``too much of a distraction,'' in spite of the fact that she was doing ``great work.'' If such discrimination were based on race, religion, sex, or national origin, these individuals would be protected under Federal law. But because Federal civil rights law, as well as many state and local laws, do not provide explicit protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, these individuals continue to experience discrimination without any legal protection. Their stories show us that LGBT Americans continue to be treated as second class citizens in their daily lives. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Equality Act. The bill would amend existing Federal law to provide explicit civil rights protections for LGBT individuals. This non-discrimination bill would ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under Federal law in the same way that race, sex, religion, national origin, and disability are also protected classes. The result would be to protect LGBT individuals against discrimination in public accommodations, federally-funded programs, employment, housing, education, credit, and other aspects of daily life. This is the kind of equality and security that all American families should enjoy. I am proud that Vermont was one of the first States to pass a comprehensive law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 1992, and also passed a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in 2007. All Vermonters are protected from discrimination in employment, places of public accommodation, housing, credit, and other services. This is what we need on the Federal level as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article referenced above be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, the Supreme Court took a significant step towards a more perfect union when it ruled that every American has the right to marry the person they love and have that lawful marriage recognized. It was a victory for love and justice over bigotry and intolerance. This historic milestone should be celebrated, but we must remember that the journey is not complete. The Fourteenth Amendment's principles of liberty and equality safeguard all couples' right to marry, and also serves as a bulwark against discriminatory treatment in the other aspects of everyday life, including where we live, where we work, and our interactions with the government. While LGBT Americans are now able to marry the person they love, they continue to experience discrimination in many other aspects of their lives. Achieving full equality means that LGBT individuals should be able to provide security for their families without fear that they will be fired from their jobs or denied housing. It means that a restaurant cannot refuse to serve an LGBT couple because the owner disapproves of that couple's relationship. These are not abstract concepts. In our country today, LGBT Americans continue to experience discrimination, and it must end. In a June 27 article in the New York Times, entitled ``Next Fight for Gay Rights: Bias in Jobs and Housing,'' the author Erik Eckholm provides clear documentation of such discrimination. A landlord in East Nashville, TN, refused to rent his apartment to two women in a loving relationship after he learned of their partnership because it made him ``uncomfortable.'' He refused their rental application even after they offered to raise the rent by $150. A transgender individual was fired from her job as an industrial electrician because, according to her boss, her identity was becoming ``too much of a distraction,'' in spite of the fact that she was doing ``great work.'' If such discrimination were based on race, religion, sex, or national origin, these individuals would be protected under Federal law. But because Federal civil rights law, as well as many state and local laws, do not provide explicit protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, these individuals continue to experience discrimination without any legal protection. Their stories show us that LGBT Americans continue to be treated as second class citizens in their daily lives. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Equality Act. The bill would amend existing Federal law to provide explicit civil rights protections for LGBT individuals. This non-discrimination bill would ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under Federal law in the same way that race, sex, religion, national origin, and disability are also protected classes. The result would be to protect LGBT individuals against discrimination in public accommodations, federally-funded programs, employment, housing, education, credit, and other aspects of daily life. This is the kind of equality and security that all American families should enjoy. I am proud that Vermont was one of the first States to pass a comprehensive law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 1992, and also passed a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in 2007. All Vermonters are protected from discrimination in employment, places of public accommodation, housing, credit, and other services. This is what we need on the Federal level as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article referenced above be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, although we are still a year and a half from the next presidential election, our perpetual campaign cycle already seems to be in full swing. Among the many troubling trends we are seeing is the rise of ``independent'' super PACs that support candidates. These super PACs are supposed to operate completely independent from the candidates' campaigns, but no one believes this to be true. It is the worst kept secret in America. A July 6, 2015, article in the Washington Post entitled ``It's bold, but legal: How campaigns and their super PAC backers work together'' documents just how easily these super PACs and campaigns coordinate their messages and skirt the rules. As the author notes: For the first time, nearly every top presidential hopeful has a personalized super PAC that can raise unlimited sums and is run by close associates or former aides. Many also are being boosted by nonprofits, which do not have to disclose their donors. The boldness of the candidates has elevated the importance of wealthy donors to even greater heights than in the last White House contest, when super PACs and nonprofits reported spending more than $1 billion on federal races. Although they are not supposed to coordinate directly with their independent allies, candidates are finding creative ways to work in concert with them. Five years ago, in Citizens United v. FEC, five justices on the Supreme Court departed from principles of judicial restraint and decided to overturn an act of Congress under the broadest grounds possible. In so doing, they overruled a century of practice and decades of doctrine. The Court declared that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend endlessly to finance and influence our elections. This precedent then led to another court decision-- SpeechNow.org v. FEC--in the D.C. Circuit that resulted in the creation of the super PAC. Super PACs are supposed to be independent expenditure-only committees, and may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to advocate for or against political candidates. But nobody believes that they truly act independently. That is why I am introducing the Stop Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Act today. This bill would end the sham practice of presidential candidates boldly and shamelessly exploiting our campaign finance laws by coordinating with allegedly independent super PACs. First, the bill codifies a definition of what constitutes ``coordination'' based on Supreme Court case law to make it more difficult for coordination to occur. Second, it prohibits outside groups from skirting the coordination provisions by stating that they cannot simply create a ``firewall'' and claim that the there is an independent division that is making independent expenditures. Third, it prevents single-candidate super PACs from acting as an arm of the candidates' campaign. It does this by including factors of when a super PAC should be deemed a ``coordinated spender.'' Once the super PAC falls into this category, the super PACs expenditures are then considered to be ``coordinated expenditures'' and the super PAC is subject to Federal contribution limits and prohibitions. Under existing law, coordinated expenditures are defined as also being in-kind contributions and are subject to the PAC contribution limit of $5,000 per year. The penalty for any person who knowingly violates the coordination provisions of this act is a civil fine that is three times the amount of the coordinated expenditures involved in excess of the applicable contribution limit. The act also imposes joint and several liability on any director, manager, or officer of an outside spending group for any unpaid penalties by the group violating the coordination rules. Lastly, the bill prohibits candidates and their agents from raising money for super PACs by prohibiting the raising of funds for any super PAC or political committee that is not subject to Federal contribution limits and reporting requirements. This bill would provide real rules and put into place some regulations that would make it more difficult for these super PACs to coordinate with candidates. The issue of how our politics are paid for is an issue that is important to the American people, and it is also important to Vermonters. We have always remained steadfast in our belief that our democracy should not be for sale, and that the size of your bank account should not determine whether or not the government responds to your views or needs. This bill I introduce today is an incremental measure that would help eliminate the sham of single-candidate super PACs and provide some real rules to a process in which the American public is becoming more cynical about every day. I hope that my fellow Senators from both sides of the aisle will support this modest measure. I understand why Vermonters are outraged by the devastating effects of Citizens United and its progeny. In recent years I have held several hearings to highlight the damage that Citizens United has done to our political process. Last summer, I led the charge in the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider a constitutional amendment to restore the ability of lawmakers at both the Federal and State levels to rein in the influence that billionaires and corporations now have on our elections. The amendment would also have made clear that corporations are not people. Although Senate Democrats were able to vote the constitutional amendment out of the Judiciary Committee, Senate Republicans filibustered the amendment on the floor and refused to allow it an up-or-down vote. I will continue to do all I can to reverse the devastating effects of Citizens United and its subsequent decisions. This bill is one step towards addressing one of the problems that has resulted from those decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article referenced above be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, although we are still a year and a half from the next presidential election, our perpetual campaign cycle already seems to be in full swing. Among the many troubling trends we are seeing is the rise of ``independent'' super PACs that support candidates. These super PACs are supposed to operate completely independent from the candidates' campaigns, but no one believes this to be true. It is the worst kept secret in America. A July 6, 2015, article in the Washington Post entitled ``It's bold, but legal: How campaigns and their super PAC backers work together'' documents just how easily these super PACs and campaigns coordinate their messages and skirt the rules. As the author notes: For the first time, nearly every top presidential hopeful has a personalized super PAC that can raise unlimited sums and is run by close associates or former aides. Many also are being boosted by nonprofits, which do not have to disclose their donors. The boldness of the candidates has elevated the importance of wealthy donors to even greater heights than in the last White House contest, when super PACs and nonprofits reported spending more than $1 billion on federal races. Although they are not supposed to coordinate directly with their independent allies, candidates are finding creative ways to work in concert with them. Five years ago, in Citizens United v. FEC, five justices on the Supreme Court departed from principles of judicial restraint and decided to overturn an act of Congress under the broadest grounds possible. In so doing, they overruled a century of practice and decades of doctrine. The Court declared that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend endlessly to finance and influence our elections. This precedent then led to another court decision-- SpeechNow.org v. FEC--in the D.C. Circuit that resulted in the creation of the super PAC. Super PACs are supposed to be independent expenditure-only committees, and may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to advocate for or against political candidates. But nobody believes that they truly act independently. That is why I am introducing the Stop Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Act today. This bill would end the sham practice of presidential candidates boldly and shamelessly exploiting our campaign finance laws by coordinating with allegedly independent super PACs. First, the bill codifies a definition of what constitutes ``coordination'' based on Supreme Court case law to make it more difficult for coordination to occur. Second, it prohibits outside groups from skirting the coordination provisions by stating that they cannot simply create a ``firewall'' and claim that the there is an independent division that is making independent expenditures. Third, it prevents single-candidate super PACs from acting as an arm of the candidates' campaign. It does this by including factors of when a super PAC should be deemed a ``coordinated spender.'' Once the super PAC falls into this category, the super PACs expenditures are then considered to be ``coordinated expenditures'' and the super PAC is subject to Federal contribution limits and prohibitions. Under existing law, coordinated expenditures are defined as also being in-kind contributions and are subject to the PAC contribution limit of $5,000 per year. The penalty for any person who knowingly violates the coordination provisions of this act is a civil fine that is three times the amount of the coordinated expenditures involved in excess of the applicable contribution limit. The act also imposes joint and several liability on any director, manager, or officer of an outside spending group for any unpaid penalties by the group violating the coordination rules. Lastly, the bill prohibits candidates and their agents from raising money for super PACs by prohibiting the raising of funds for any super PAC or political committee that is not subject to Federal contribution limits and reporting requirements. This bill would provide real rules and put into place some regulations that would make it more difficult for these super PACs to coordinate with candidates. The issue of how our politics are paid for is an issue that is important to the American people, and it is also important to Vermonters. We have always remained steadfast in our belief that our democracy should not be for sale, and that the size of your bank account should not determine whether or not the government responds to your views or needs. This bill I introduce today is an incremental measure that would help eliminate the sham of single-candidate super PACs and provide some real rules to a process in which the American public is becoming more cynical about every day. I hope that my fellow Senators from both sides of the aisle will support this modest measure. I understand why Vermonters are outraged by the devastating effects of Citizens United and its progeny. In recent years I have held several hearings to highlight the damage that Citizens United has done to our political process. Last summer, I led the charge in the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider a constitutional amendment to restore the ability of lawmakers at both the Federal and State levels to rein in the influence that billionaires and corporations now have on our elections. The amendment would also have made clear that corporations are not people. Although Senate Democrats were able to vote the constitutional amendment out of the Judiciary Committee, Senate Republicans filibustered the amendment on the floor and refused to allow it an up-or-down vote. I will continue to do all I can to reverse the devastating effects of Citizens United and its subsequent decisions. This bill is one step towards addressing one of the problems that has resulted from those decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article referenced above be printed in the Record.