Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the Senate is passing bipartisan legislation that will protect employees who blow the whistle on criminal antitrust violations. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act is legislation that I have worked on with Senator Grassley for three Congresses now. This is the second Congress in a row that the Senate has passed it unanimously. The bill is an extension of my longstanding partnership with Senator Grassley on whistleblower issues. Our bipartisan bill provides meaningful protections to employees who blow the whistle on the worst forms of anticompetitive behavior such as price fixing. Whistleblowers play an important role in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement agencies to wrongdoing in a number of areas. They often take significant risks in making these disclosures and can be the target of retaliation. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who alert the company, Congress, or law enforcement of criminal activity. Senator Grassley and I modeled this legislation on the whistleblower protections we authored as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The protections are narrowly tailored and do not provide whistleblowers with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims. Last Congress, we made modest changes to the bill in the Judiciary Committee to improve the definition of a covered individual and to clarify that protections only apply to employees reporting criminal violations. This Congress, we made additional refinements in the Judiciary Committee to further clarify the scope of the bill. The protections in this bill build on recommendations from key stakeholders in a 2011 Government Accountability Office report to Congress. Consumers benefit from competitive markets and the antitrust laws serve to safeguard competition. By protecting those who would blow the whistle on criminal antitrust behavior, our bill will help facilitate the reporting of these kinds of violations. I urge the House to pass this bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of the bill from the National Whistleblowers Center be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the Congress focused on the U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement, it is not surprising that recent developments in Guatemala have not received the attention they deserve, either here or in the international press. I want to speak briefly about this as it should interest all Senators, particularly at a time when the governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are seeking significant U.S. funding to support the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle of Central America. The Cold War history of U.S. involvement in Guatemala is not one we can be overly proud of. The role of the United Fruit Company, the CIA, Guatemala's landholding elite, and others in orchestrating the removal of democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in 1954, the training and equipping of the Guatemalan military that carried out a scorched earth campaign against a rebel insurgency and the rural indigenous population in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and policies favoring the financial and political elite who perpetuated the racism, social and economic inequities, corruption, violence, and impunity that persist to this day, are all part of that collective experience. One of the vestiges of that period is the continuing harassment, vilification, death threats, and even malicious prosecutions of human rights defenders and other social activists. It is regrettable that Guatemala's authorities have failed to condemn or take effective steps to stop this pattern and practice of threats and abuse of the justice system. Yet while the 1996 Peace Accords that finally ended 36 years of armed conflict were, for the most part, not implemented, since then the United States has sought to help address the causes of poverty, inequality, and injustice in Guatemala. We have funded child nutrition and public health programs, bilingual education for indigenous children, efforts to reform and professionalize the police, prevent violence against women, strengthen the institutional capacity of the Public Ministry, locate and identify the remains of thousands of people who disappeared during the war and ended up in mass graves, support reparations for victims of the Chixoy massacres, protect biodiversity and preserve pre-Columbian archeological sites in Peten. The results of these efforts have been mixed, but they do signify a positive trend in our relations with Guatemala in recent years for which the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Inter- American Foundation, the Inter-American Development Bank, and others deserve credit. President Perez Molina also deserves credit for supporting the agreement to finance the Chixoy reparations plan, which some in his own government opposed. It is now essential that the agreement is implemented so the communities who suffered losses are compensated. The United States has also been a strong supporter of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, otherwise known as CICIG, which, in collaboration with the Office of the Attorney General, has played an indispensable role in investigations and prosecutions of cases of corruption, organized crime, and clandestine groups, as well as crimes against humanity and other human rights atrocities dating to the civil war. I commend the way CICIG Commissioner Ivan Velasquez and Attorney General Thelma Aldana are working together to address these issues. Each year since CICIG's inception in 2007, as either chairman or ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds U.S. foreign aid programs and as a former prosecutor and chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have included a U.S. contribution to CICIG. I have also twice supported the extension of CICIG when it was nearing the end of its mandate. Most recently, when President Otto Perez Molina indicated that he did not intend to renew CICIG's mandate, I argued that the weakness of Guatemala's justice system and the continuing high levels of corruption and impunity were compelling reasons to extend CICIG. I was gratified that earlier this year its mandate was extended until 2017. While Guatemala's justice system remains fragile, the partnership between CICIG and the Public Ministry has played a critical role in advancing the cause of justice in Guatemala. But Guatemala's problems are not unique. Honduras and El Salvador suffer from many of the same conditions--weak justice systems that lack credibility, rampant corruption, threats and assassinations of human rights defenders, journalists, and even prosecutors, and a history of impunity. I hope those governments look to CICIG as a model for how they could benefit from the technical expertise and independence of the international community to help address these deeply rooted problems. Simultaneous with President Perez Molina's decision to extend CICIG's mandate, the need for CICIG became even more apparent. As a result of its investigations, high-ranking officials in the Perez Molina government, including Vice President Roxana Baldetti and one of her top aides, as well as the President's chief of staff and other senior officials, have either resigned or been arrested due to allegations of bribery and other corruption related to customs and social security. In addition, a leading Vice Presidential candidate of the Lider Party has been implicated. This may only be the tip of the iceberg, as it is common knowledge that corruption is widespread in Guatemala. Such scandals involving powerful public figures are by no means unprecedented, as other Guatemalan officials--including a former President and Minister of Interior--have been implicated in such crimes and became fugitives from justice. But unlike in the past, these latest scandals have galvanized a diverse spectrum of civil society to join in peaceful public demonstrations over a period of several months calling for an end to corruption and impunity and for the resignation of the President who would be replaced by a transition government in accordance with Guatemala's Constitution. The timing of these protests is significant, as Presidential elections are scheduled for September 6 and speculation is rife as to whether or not President Perez Molina will serve out his term. The United States has a strong interest in democracy and justice in Guatemala, as well as a better life for the millions of Guatemala's citizens, particularly indigenous and other historically marginalized groups, who live in poverty. Many, with only a few years of formal education and no reliable source of income, including victims of ethnic discrimination, gangs and violent crime, have risked life and limb in search of opportunities in the United States. It is our hope that the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity, with complementary and balanced investments in governance, prosperity, and security, will begin to provide the economic opportunities and address these difficult social and law enforcement challenges in a sustainable way. I look forward to discussing these issues with our friends in the House of Representatives later this year. More immediately, it is important that the United States carefully calibrates its response to the popular demands for reform. What is happening in Guatemala today is both unique and encouraging in the way it has inspired and united, for the first time in Guatemala's history, indigenous and non-indigenous, both rural and urban groups, poor and middle class who previously did not share a common agenda. This has enhanced the prospects for real change in a country that has been plagued for two decades by the divisive, tragic legacies of the war and by powerful forces in government and the private sector resistant to change for generations. In this context, civil society requires support and protection, taking into account Guatemala's past history of repression and violence. I urge U.S. officials to make clear that the United States unequivocally supports the aspirations of Guatemalan civil society that is now struggling for the right of all the Guatemalan people to have transparent and accountable government, including honest and professional police and an independent judiciary. Guatemala is a country with an extraordinarily rich culture, natural resources, and human potential. But without respect for human rights and the rule of law and real change that provides for equitable economic opportunities and political representation, that potential will remain unfulfilled. It is long past time for an end to impunity, including for public officials who misuse their office to enrich themselves, their families, and their friends, and for a new era of effective governance, prosperity, and freedom from fear for all Guatemalans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to recognize Brendan J. ``Bren'' Whittaker, a distinguished public servant and recognized leader in conservation efforts in the New England Northern Forest region. In addition to his conservation work, Bren spent more than 45 years in the Episcopal ministry, leading a full-time parish. I know Bren first not as a priest, but as a dedicated public servant for more than 40 years. Bren has held many titles at every level of government, including town meeting moderator, town selectman, county forester, chairman of district 1 environmental commission, director of Vermont State Energy Office, Vermont Secretary of Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture FSA State Committee member and more. In addition to his schooling in theology, Bren studied forestry, and he holds degrees in both disciplines. In the early 1990s, I worked with New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman to establish the Northern Forest Lands Council, and Bren agreed to be part of that select group. He later joined the Vermont Natural Resources Council as Northern Forest project manager, and continues to work as a board member for conservation organizations in Vermont and New Hampshire. Bren served each post with distinction and has been deeply involved for nearly 40 years in the vast changes taking place across the Northern Forest. I have been pleased to continue working with Bren since his appointment to the USDA's Farm Service Agency State Committee in Vermont. Bren continues to serve as a selectman in Brunswick, VT, and operates a vegetable farm, roadside stand and seasonal restaurant supply business with his wife, Dorothy. I have touched on Bren's State and Federal public service, but his even greater contributions to his community may be through his ministry, as so eloquently enumerated in the article entitled Thanks to a Mentor and North Country Champion, written by Rebecca Brown, a member of the New Hampshire legislature and a student and friend of Bren. It was published in 2014 in the Littleton Courier. I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Brown's article be printed in the Record as a tribute to Brendan J. Whittaker's decades-long and continuing service to his neighbors, community, the States of Vermont and New Hampshire, and to the Nation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate's attention to the continued First Amendment advocacy of a Vermont journalist, Mike Donoghue of the Burlington Free Press. The Vermont Press Association has presented Mike with the prestigious Matthew Lyon Award, for his staunch advocacy of First Amendment rights. Mike is a talented and seasoned reporter, and in more than 40 years as a staff writer at the Free Press he has covered local, State and national news, as well as sporting events--all, with integrity and vigor. He has shown a steadfast commitment to truth-telling, to getting the facts, and getting them right, for the people of Vermont. While Mike has achieved noteworthy accomplishments and awards during his tenure at the Free Press, it is, especially, his work as an advocate and teacher of First Amendment protections that have drawn the distinction of the Matthew Lyon Award. He served two terms as president of the Vermont Press Association, where he worked to expand the use of cameras in Vermont courtrooms. As a founder of the Vermont Coalition for Open Government, he has provided testimony in front of the Vermont Legislature on a regular basis and on a variety of topics related to First Amendment rights. Mike not only is a veteran reporter and volunteer advocate but a dedicated educator as well. He is an adjunct professor of journalism at Saint Michael's College in Colchester--my alma mater--and he has trained young journalists throughout Vermont and New England as well as through the auspices of the New England Press Association, the New England Society of Newspaper Editors, and Investigative Reporters and Editors. His commitment to teaching and defending the tenets of the First Amendment led him to participate as a trainer in Ireland after the country passed its Freedom of Information Act in 1997. The Vermont Press Association each year offers the Matthew Lyon Award to an individual who has demonstrated an exceptional commitment to the First Amendment and to ``the public's right to know the truth in Vermont.'' It is named for Congressman Matthew Lyon, one of the foremost defenders of the Bill of Rights. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives on behalf of Vermont, as well as Kentucky, beginning in the 5th Congress. Congressman Lyon is known for his time in jail-- and subsequent reelection during his sentence--on charges of sedition in 1798 for his sharp criticism of President John Adams. Throughout his career, Mike Donoghue has worked tirelessly to promote accountability of public officials, and transparency in government agencies. As an earlier recipient of this same award, I will always feel a special kinship in these efforts with champions like Mike Donoghue. I ask unanimous consent that this announcement from the Vermont Press Association about Mike Donoghue's selection for this award be printed into the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate has approved landmark legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Since 2001, the failed policies of No Child Left Behind have unfairly burdened educators and administrators by holding students accountable for snap-shot academic progress. The Senate's bipartisan action today--an overwhelming vote of approval--is one step forward in the reversal of these troubling measures. The Every Child Achieves Act further highlights the Federal Government's crucial responsibility to ensure that students everywhere, across the country, have access to the resources they need for lasting academic success. Since 2001, I have heard from parents, teachers, students, policymakers, and administrators about the negative impact of No Child Left Behind. I voted against the legislation, as I did not agree, and still do not agree, with a one-size-fits-all approach to education. I was also disappointed with the bill's rigid Federal accountability measures, as I truly believe States and local education agencies deserve flexibility when it comes to how schools operate. The Every Child Achieves Act restores educational flexibility to the States, while safeguarding student access to resources, regardless of race, gender, financial status, and learning level. I am pleased that the bill takes into account the greater needs of students in rural areas, increases funding for early childhood education programs, and improves school safety measures. I am especially pleased with the bill's innovative assessment and accountability demonstration authority provision, which will allow Vermont to adopt competency and performance-based assessments that prove far more than how well a student can perform on a test on one given day. Of course, no bill is perfect, and this one is no different. I am disappointed that several amendments that would have improved the bill were not adopted. The Student Non-Discrimination Act, authored and filed as an amendment by Senator Franken, would have taken the important step of ensuring protections for students who face harassment and bullying simply because of their actual or perceived gender identity or sexual orientation. I was proud to cosponsor the amendment, and remain committed to revisiting this important discussion to ensure all children are protected against bullying and discrimination in our schools. It garnered a majority of support in the Senate; it should have been adopted. In a strong statement of support, the Senate came together in opposition against amendments on portability and private school vouchers, which would have unfairly redistributed title I funding from our Nation's highest need schools. I commend Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for their leadership throughout the debates, and for their tireless dedication to promoting educational reform that serves the needs of all students. We have come together, members on both sides of the aisle, to support the Every Child Achieves Act. Amid the partisan rancor, bipartisanship won the day, and the winners in this debate will be students in Vermont and across the country. As the House and Senate move to conference, I hope Congress will use this opportunity to promote the many measures included in the Senate's bill, which reflect the true needs of all students, educators, parents, and administrators.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad the Senate has turned today to the reauthorization of the programs under the Older Americans Act. For decades, this law has provided community assistance to seniors in underserved and rural areas across the country, but unfortunately, these programs have gone unauthorized since 2011. As our population ages, seniors face an increased need for community resources, which is what makes this bill so important. The Older Americans Reauthorization Act of 2015 will prioritize funding for crucial community and in-home services that offer the protection and reassurance for seniors requiring specialized care. The bill will reauthorize transportation assistance and home-delivered nutrition programs. It will also strengthen State grants for in-home caregiver support. Through the coordination of community and health care providers, the bill will improve disease promotion services and increase mental health awareness among elderly populations. Furthermore, the legislation will strengthen programs that prevent senior abuse, neglect, and exploitation by holding health facilities and adult care homes accountable for promoting excellent patient care. These programs have given seniors in Vermont and across the country the chance for independence and wellbeing long after retirement. This is not a partisan issue, but one we can all agree requires our dedication and support. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation and wish to thank Senators Murray, Alexander, Sanders, and Burr for making this issue a priority this Congress. I am pleased the Senate has passed this legislation, which will help to improve the livelihood of our Nation's seniors.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this important debate about how to improve our schools is an opportunity to ensure that children have access to equal educational opportunities. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students often face pervasive harassment and bullying in our schools. We must ensure that all children can attend school in a safe and healthy environment. That is why I am proud to support the amendment offered by Senator Franken. Similar to his bill on this topic, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, this amendment would instill core principles of basic civil rights in our Nation's schools. These are commonsense, fundamental rights that all Americans deserve, particularly children. No person--of any age-- should face discrimination because of their race, economic status, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or learning abilities. I have heard from countless Vermont parents about their children being bullied at school and online. I am reminded of the tragic story of Ryan Halligan, an Essex Junction student who took his own life at age 13 after being bullied for his physical appearance. After years of torment, the teasing Ryan endured turned into physical violence. Ryan was harassed online by one of his peers, who took private messages Ryan had sent and showcased them for other students in the school. Ryan was later publically shamed for what he thought was an innocent interaction between himself and a friend. No child should ever face the needless horror of harassment or bullying. Unfortunately, as many as 7 in 10 students who are, or are perceived to be, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender have been bullied or harassed. But unlike other forms of harassment in our schools, bullying based on gender identity and sexual orientation is often overlooked, and students and their parents have limited legal options to hold schools accountable for discriminatory treatment. The Franken amendment would extend Federal protections from discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived gender identity or sexual orientation. The amendment prohibits public school students from being excluded from educational programs on the basis of sexual identity and allows students to take civil action against such discrimination. It also ensures that students who file suit will not face retaliation of any kind. It is a sad reality that discrimination still exists in our country, and that Americans need the powerful anti- discrimination protection of our civil rights laws. But these abuses are happening in our schools, and children are suffering as a result. What is worse, LGBT youth who face bullying at school do not always have a sanctuary at home. A disproportionate and growing number of runaway and homeless youth are LGBT, often because their families have rejected them. We must ensure that these kids have a safe place to stay, because they are vulnerable to abuse and sexual exploitation while living on the street. That is why Senator Collins and I included a nondiscrimination provision in another key piece of legislation, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. This bill would ensure that no child in need of shelter is turned away based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. We cannot protect these children from every injustice they might face, but we should at least ensure that they will be safe in our public schools and federally funded shelters. I will continue to fight for these protections. I am proud of the many students in Vermont who have taken steps to prevent bullying in their schools and communities. In 2014, Rutland High School students were nationally recognized for their ``Positive Post-it'' campaign, in which small notes of praise and encouragement to fellow students were placed on windows and message boards throughout the school. These young students at Rutland High School should be commended for reminding us all that bullying and discrimination have no place at school. Students across the country are doing their part and we must do ours as well. Last month, the Supreme Court issued two consequential and historic rulings protecting the basic rights of all Americans to marry and to access housing free from discrimination. Our Nation has come a long way but our work must continue. All Americans, especially our children, deserve the same Federal protections. We have the opportunity to extend this simple principle of basic fairness to children across this country and make our schools safe places for all children to learn. I hope all Senators will support this important amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate has passed the bipartisan Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015, which will extend for another 7 years the anti-trust exemption permitting colleges and universities to collaborate on issues of need-based financial aid. I worked on this legislation with Senators Grassley and Lee. Together we crafted an approach to reauthorize this exemption which earned the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee just last week. This anti-trust exemption allows colleges and universities that admit students on a need-blind basis to collaborate on the formula used to determine how much families can pay for college. Without congressional action, this exemption will expire at the end of September. Congress first enacted this exemption in 1994 and this will be the third time we have acted to reauthorize it. It is important for Congress to carefully review anti-trust exemptions to ensure that they continue to serve the public interest. In this case, our review led us to conclude that one particular provision should sunset because it has never been used by colleges and universities. The need for this slight modification underscores why I am skeptical of permanent anti-trust exemptions. Requiring those who benefit from exemptions to the anti- trust laws to come to Congress and justify renewal ensures that they do not become a blank check for anti-competitive behavior. I would contrast the limited renewal the Senate has passed today with the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a permanent anti-trust exemption that the insurance industry has enjoyed since 1945. I have worked for years on a bipartisan basis to repeal that law precisely because marketplace conditions can change significantly over a 7-year period, not to mention the 70 years since McCarran-Ferguson was enacted. We should learn from our experience with today's bill. Our bipartisan and bicameral bill serves an important goal--allowing covered universities to focus their resources on ensuring the most qualified students can attend some of the best schools in the country, regardless of income. I am proud that Middlebury College in Vermont is one of those covered schools. I also appreciate the efforts of the bill's sponsors in the House, Congressmen Smith and Johnson. I urge the House to pass our bipartisan bill this week.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my dear friend, the senior Senator from Kansas, is going to speak next, but he has graciously allowed me to have the very few minutes I asked for, and then he will be recognized as soon as I give my statement. (The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 222 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, it is not a cold. There are a few more pollens in the air that we Vermonters are not used to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has been referred to as the ``keeper of the Nation's conscience'' and ``the people's court.'' This court was created by Congress approximately 160 years ago and embodies the constitutional principle that individuals have rights against their government. As President Lincoln has said, ``It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals.'' That is what this court does. It allows citizens to seek prompt justice against our government. The court's jurisdiction is authorized by statute, and it primarily hears monetary claims against the U.S. Government deriving from the Constitution, Federal statutes, executive regulations, and civilian or military contracts. The fact that the Court of Federal Claims is an article I court, as opposed to an article III court, does not render any of the cases that it hears any less significant. For example, the court has presided over such important cases as the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and the World War II internment of Japanese Americans. It also presides over civilian and military pay claims and money claims under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. The takings clause under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides: ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' As a result of this court's jurisdiction over takings' claims, it considers cases such as the auto bailout suits against General Motors and Chrysler--companies who were required to terminate agreements with franchisees as a condition of receiving Federal bailout money. The court also resolves disputes that critically impact the environment and our economy, such as those involving the taking of wetlands to create solid waste landfills and disputes over water and drainage rights by agricultural landowners. Last week, the chief judge of the court sent a letter informing the Senate that despite the court's shortage of judicial officers, its caseload continues unabated. She wrote that ``[t]he statutory requirements dictating deadlines for certain types of cases unique to our court, including government contract disputes--some of which involve national defense and national security--remain in effect. The dollar amounts in dispute in our currently pending cases, which are often an indication of the complexity of the underlying issues, are in the billions of dollars. At least three different cases on the court's pending docket reflect a demand for damages greater than forty billion dollars.'' This is no ordinary court. The Senate Republicans' insistence on delaying the confirmation of qualified nominees to the Court of Federal Claims harms its ability to resolve issues of national importance in a timely and just manner. Since February 2013, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has been operating with several vacancies. Only 11 of the 16 seats on the court are occupied by active judges. We could have a court working at full strength if we confirm the five pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. All five of them were all nominated more than a year ago and have twice been voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. I have heard no objections to any of the five nominees to this court. There is no good reason to delay filling these vacancies. This is especially the case because the nominees before us are superbly qualified. One of the nominees, Armando Bonilla, would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a seat on the court. He is strongly endorsed by the Hispanic National Bar Association. He has spent his entire career--now spanning over two decades--as an attorney for the Department of Justice. He was hired out of law school in the Department's prestigious Honors Program, and has risen to become the Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department. Armando Bonilla's story is that of the American dream. The son of a Cuban immigrant and Cuban-American father, Armando Bonilla has told the story of his mother's flight from Havana with his aunt and his grandmother. He has told the story of his ``Ti Mario,'' who eventually disappeared trying to help other exiles. And he has told the story of his father, who dropped out of high school but would subsequently serve the country by joining the Marines and would ultimately take on several jobs to support Armando and his sister. As Mr. Bonilla has beautifully described, his father ``exemplified the most outstanding qualities of the Hispanic culture and Hispanic people: the selfless sacrifice, the steely resolve and unbridled optimism and the genuine pride in an honest day's work--all toward the cause of improving the lives of the next generation.'' Mr. Bonilla should be confirmed without further delay. Another nominee, Jeri Somers, retired with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force. She 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. Armando Bonilla and Jeri Somers are just two of the five nominees that Senate Republicans have been obstructing. These are two individuals that have done right every step of the way in their careers and are willing to serve on this important court. They have dedicated the majority of their careers in service to our Nation. They deserve better than the treatment they are receiving now. During the Bush administration, the Senate confirmed nine judges to the Court of Federal Claims--with the support of every Senate Republican. So far during the Obama administration, only three CFC judges have received confirmation votes. That is nine CFC judges during the Bush administration to only three so far in the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the disparity in treatment of these nominees by Senate Republicans is not surprising. More than half a year into this new Congress, the Republican leadership has scheduled votes to confirm only five district and circuit court judges. This is in stark contrast to the 25 district and circuit court judges confirmed by July 13, 2007, when the shoe was on the other foot and Democrats had regained the Senate majority in the seventh year of the Bush administration. That is 25 district and circuit court judges under a Democratic majority compared to 5 under the Republican majority. That is five times as many judges confirmed under a Democratic majority with a President of the opposite party than today's Senate Republican majority. It is up to the majority leader now to treat President Obama's judicial nominees fairly. I ask that he schedule votes this week on the five Court of Federal Claims nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. I ask unanimous consent that a recent post to The Hill's Congress Blog by Professor Carl Tobias on the need to fill the vacancies on U.S. Court of Federal Claims be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week more than 25 million Americans watched the U.S. women's soccer team win for the third time soccer's most coveted title--the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup. This thrilling victory was the most widely viewed women's soccer game in our Nation's history. Americans are proud of this impressive victory, and we applaud these world-class athletes for their contributions to our Nation's legacy. Anybody walking down the road by our farm house the night of the soccer game--we had our windows open--would have heard Marcelle and I screaming with joy at the victory. But as the celebrations fade, we should all be troubled by the way FIFA discriminates against some of the teams that compete in the World Cup. The U.S. women's team will receive $2 million for winning the Women's World Cup. The 2014 men's World Cup winner was awarded $35 million. In fact, men's teams that lost in the first round of the 2014 men's World Cup were awarded $8 million--four times more than the champion U.S. women's team. The reason for this extreme disparity? Gender. So today, I am introducing a Senate resolution that calls on FIFA to immediately eliminate this discriminatory prize award structure. Opponents of equal prize awards in sports point to revenue as the reason behind this disparity. But revenue should not be and cannot be accepted as a means for discrimination. In fact, they ought to ask this: How many people watched the women's soccer team? Most teams would give anything to have that viewership. The 24 women's teams that took part in FIFA's tournament are role models--not just to women and girls but to men and boys across the globe. The World Cup champions should be rewarded for their performance, for their grit, and for their teamwork, rather than devalued for their gender. Nelson Mandela, a person I met often and admired, once said: ``Sport has the power to change the world.'' Well, sports bring us together in our communities and on the global stage. They remind us what we have in common, they inspire us to dream, and they push beyond every boundary. This weekend, millions of people watched American tennis star Serena Williams win the women's final at Wimbledon, marking her sixth championship at the All England Club. The next day, Serbian tennis star Novak Djokovic won the men's final on the very same court. Both of these athletes competed against the very best players in the world, and they were awarded the very same amount of prize money for their impressive victories. This is because Wimbledon chose to be on the right side of history in 2007 by ensuring pay equity for female and male athletes. For years, tennis champions such as Billie Jean King and Venus Williams fought for equal treatment for the future champions of their sport. I hope the story of the American Women's World Cup champions not receiving fair treatment will inspire more people to join the fight for equal prize awards. With the resolution I introduce today, let the Senate be on record in support of fair treatment for all World Cup champions as we urge FIFA to change its policy, just as the All England Club did years ago. The fight for gender equality continues and is a fight worth winning. In 2009, I proudly voted for passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify the statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination. And I supported Senator Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, which would ensure that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. We have had a lot of civil rights fights in our Nation's history. The battle for true equality has persisted for too long. Let's join together. Let's send a powerful message of equality to those who aspire to one day become a champion. Equal pay for equal work should no longer be an ideal, but instead the reality for all.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, we are finally, finally going to vote on the nomination of Kara Farnandez Stoll to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She is superbly qualified, and once confirmed, she will be the first woman of color to serve on the Federal Circuit. She has the strong endorsement of the non-partisan Hispanic National Bar Association as well as from the Federal Circuit Bar Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association. In its letter of support to the Judiciary Committee, the Hispanic National Bar Association, HNBA, wrote that their due diligence has confirmed that Ms. Farnandez Stoll ``maintains the highest ethical and professional standards. She is also competent and hardworking. Her litigation experience, commitment to public service, and temperament make her an ideal candidate for a court appointment.'' I could not agree more. So why did it take so long for the Republican leadership to schedule a confirmation vote for this uncontroversial, highly qualified, and historic nominee? The President nominated Ms. Farnandez Stoll last year--nearly 8 months ago. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported her nomination to the full Senate more than 2 months ago. There is no good reason why her confirmation vote has been stalled over and over again. Unfortunately, the Republican majority's treatment of Ms. Farnandez Stoll's nomination is more pattern than aberration. Six months into this new Republican-led Congress that was supposed to move forward on things and the Senate has only confirmed a handful of judges. In fact, it has been more than 6 weeks since a vote was even scheduled by the majority leader for a single judicial nominee. This glacial pace of confirmations is a dereliction of the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees. Many are concerned that such treatment threatens the functioning of our independent judiciary. We have 11 other consensus judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar in addition to Ms. Farnandez Stoll. No one can credibly claim that the majority's slow pace in scheduling confirmation votes is due to a lack of nominees. This group includes another nominee who has received the strong support of the HNBA--Armando Bonilla--one of five pending nominees to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, CFC. Like Ms. Farnandez Stoll, Mr. Bonilla's confirmation will be an historic milestone--when confirmed he will be the first Hispanic judge to hold a seat on the CFC. In less than 48 hours, the Judiciary Committee is expected to report out another HNBA-endorsed nominee, Luis Felipe Restrepo, who will fill a judicial 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 Pennsylvania. I have heard no objection to his nomination, yet it took 7 months just to get him a hearing. 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. If Senate Republicans had an issue with any of the pending nominees or if they sought time to debate them on the floor, some of the delay might be understandable. But no Senator has spoken in opposition to any of the pending nominees. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported all 11 of them by voice vote. Instead of receiving timely consideration of their nominations, however, these uncontroversial nominees have not been treated fairly by the Senate majority. There is a different way to lead. In the last 2 years of George W. Bush's term, Democrats came into the majority. Some thought we would slow up his judges. We did not. I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee during those last 2 years of President George W. Bush's administration and we confirmed 68 district and circuit court judges during that time. In fact, by this time in the seventh year of the Bush administration, the Democratically controlled Senate had confirmed 21 judges--including 18 district and 3 circuit court judges. Compare that to this seventh year of the Obama administration under Republican control, in which the Senate has thus far confirmed just four district court judges this year. Just four. Now this is outrageous. It hurts. It politicizes the Federal bench. It hurts the rules of law in this country. So under a Democratic majority with a Republican President, we confirmed five times more judges than the Senate Republican majority has allowed under their control of the Senate for a Democratic President. The disparity of treatment is clear, and it is wrong. Incidentally, that is the same way we did it when Democrats took over control of the Senate during the last 2 years of President Reagan's term. We moved judges at a much faster pace than anything Republicans have allowed us to do under President Obama. This is wrong. This is petty partisanship that hurts our independent judiciary. We are not asking for anything special but we are saying it would be nice if Republicans treated Democrats the same way we treated them. We should also not forget the rising number of judicial vacancies in our Federal courts. At the start of this Congress, there were 44 vacancies, including 12 vacancies deemed ``judicial emergencies'' by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. That number has climbed to 63 vacancies, including 27 ``judicial emergency'' vacancies on our district and circuit courts. The vast majority of these vacancies are concentrated in States with at least one Republican home State Senator. Of particularly concern are four circuit court ``judicial emergency'' vacancies: two in Texas, one in Alabama, and one in Kentucky. Each vacancy has been left open for well over a year, including one in Texas that has remained vacant for almost 3 years. All Senators know that it is our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees. When it comes to filling vacancies on the Federal courts in our State, we have unique insight into our States' legal communities to share with the President before he makes a nomination. Americans expect us to do our jobs and in the Senate that includes ensuring their access to the Federal courts. I urge all Senators to work with the President to fill the growing number of judicial vacancies in their States. We will at least make some small progress today as we finally take up Ms. Farnandez Stoll's nomination. Her extensive experience on issues that come before the Federal Circuit will serve the court well. She is currently a partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, a law firm specializing in intellectual property law. Ms. Farnandez Stoll also teaches as an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Before practicing law, Ms. Farnandez Stoll was a patent examiner in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Ms. Farnandez Stoll received her B.S. in electrical engineering from Michigan State University in 1991 and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law School in 1997. Upon graduating from law school, she served as a law clerk to Federal Circuit Judge Alvin Schall. I trust that her background and the reputation she has earned in the legal community will serve her well as she begins this new chapter.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the end of this year, Congress will say farewell to Dr. James Billington, a dear friend who, for the last 28 years, has dedicated his life to ensuring that the Nation's most prominent library is an unparalleled resource for all who visit, either in person or online. Since his nomination by President Reagan in 1987 and subsequent confirmation by the United States Senate, Dr. Billington has led the Library of Congress into the digital era, and expanded its relationships internationally and with the private sector. For almost three decades, Dr. Billington championed the National Digital Library program, which made millions of rare and one-of-a-kind historical and cultural documents readily available to the public. The National Digital Library was a colossal undertaking and one that students and scholars alike will utilize for many years to come. In 1990, Dr. Billington created the James Madison Council, an advisory panel that serves as a liaison between the Library and the business community. The Council was the Library's first national private-sector advisory and support group, and has since helped to fund more than 360 projects. Dr. Billington's devotion to the growth and development of the Library of Congress has helped bring a national treasure into the 21st Century and improve access for people all over the country and the world. Dr. Billington has also worked to expand the Library of Congress' online resources by collaborating with Russian libraries to establish a major bilingual website. He later completed similar joint projects with the national libraries of Brazil, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Egypt. Dr. Billington spearheaded efforts to create the World Digital Library, which was successfully launched in April 2009. Today, the site contains cultural materials from all 193 countries in the United Nation's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, with commentary in seven languages. As the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Billington led a delegation to Tehran, Iran, in October 2004, making him the most senior U.S. government official to visit Iran in 25 years and furthering his international leadership. Throughout his 42 years in public service in Washington, Dr. Billington has collaborated on numerous programs such as the Veterans History Project, highlighting the great accomplishments of countless Americans through oral histories, the National Book Festival, and the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. Dr. Billington's brilliance, devotion, and vision throughout his career is unparalleled and incredibly appreciated. Marcelle and I were happy to welcome Dr. Billington to Vermont in 2012, to celebrate the sesquicentennial of the historic Land Grant College Act, authored by Vermont Senator Justin Morrill in the 1800s. Like Justin Morrill, Dr. Billington and I share a profound regard for the importance of Federal investment in access to education. I have deeply appreciated Dr. Billington's commitment to preserving and advancing the incredible resource that is the Library of Congress. Marcelle and I both thank him for his service and wish he and his wife Marjorie well as he begins this new chapter.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize Aaron Goldberg, Jeffrey Potash and the greater Ohavi Zedek community for their tireless efforts in relocating a treasured artifact in our State's Jewish community. For nearly two decades, the historically significant Shul Mural--a 105-year-old rare mural--has sat hidden behind the walls of Chai Adam Synagogue in Burlington's north end district. In May, after years of careful restoration and planning, the mural was safely moved to its new home, where it will finally be displayed to honor a prominent period in our State's Jewish history. Burlington's Jewish history dates back to the mid-1880s, when a large influx of Lithuanian Jews traveled from Eastern Europe to settle in Vermont. Ohavi Zedek Synagogue was established in 1885 by the Lithuanians, and has since remained a thriving community stronghold for Burlington's Jewish population. In 1889, the Chai Adam Synagogue was created by a group of Orthodox Jews previously aligned with Ohavi Zedek. It is here the Shul Mural was created. Stretching floor-to-ceiling, the Shul Mural depicts two lions and the Ten Commandments, two iconic symbols in the Jewish faith. The Shul Mural, painted by Ben Zion Black, uses a rare artistic style, one that dates back to before World War II and was prevalent in wooden synagogues across Eastern Europe. At that time, vast murals of iconic, hand-painted images sprawled entire walls and ceilings to capture the imagery held in Jewish Torah readings. The Shul Mural presents a rare folk design mixed with modern painting techniques, yet little is actually known about its genre, as most of these works were sadly destroyed during the Holocaust. In 1939, Ohavi Zedek and Chai Adam rejoined, and the old Chai Adam was sold and used as retail space and later a rug store. It was here that Adam Goldberg, a volunteer and historian of Ohavi Zedek Synagogue, discovered the mural. Through the years, the Shul Mural sat uncovered and ill-preserved, until 1986 when the space was renovated to an apartment complex, and Mr. Goldberg along with Ohavi Zedek archivist, Jeffrey Potash, pleaded with the new owner to cover the mural with a false wall so that it would not bear further decay. Over two decades later, when the apartment building was again sold in 2012, its new owner, Steven Offenhartz, agreed to donate the mural to Ohavi Zedek. The false wall that had covered the Shul Mural for more than 20 years was lifted, and the construction team worked with Constance Silver, a conservator from Brattleboro, to stabilize and recover what was lost. At that point, decades of deterioration had taken their toll, and the once vibrant paint began to dull and flake away. Piece by piece, Constance reinforced and restored the painting. On May 6, 2015, after decades in hiding, the mural was successfully transported to Ohavi Zedek where it will be cleaned and further restored. The hard work and dedication of the entire team with the support of Burlington's community--which raised over $400,000 to support the restoration and transportation of this historic piece of art--made this incredible feat possible. Adam Goldberg, Jeffrey Potash, Steven Offenhartz, Constance Silver, and the many other members of the Ohavi Zedek and greater Burlington community should be congratulated for their support and dedication to protecting and restoring one of our State's most significant treasures. This important piece of Burlington's Jewish history will finally be on proper display for all to enjoy. I ask unanimous consent that that an article on the Shul Mural from the Burlington Free Press be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor the memory of a longtime journalist and true friend, Norman Runnion, who passed away in a Vermont hospital last month at the age of 85. Norm was many things to many people, but as they say of those in the newspaper business, he had ink coursing through his veins. Norm was born into a news family and he loved to tell stories of his early days spent in newsrooms, watching his father work the trade. But when tragedy struck home--Norm's father was killed after falling under a train--the younger Runnion dedicated himself to the profession. From his gritty beginnings working the night cop beat on Chicago's South Side, Norm worked his way up as a reporter and editor with United Press International, covering the biggest stories of the day, including the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Warren Commission report. By the mid- 1960s, Norm made the wise decision to ply his skills in Vermont and settled in at the Brattleboro Reformer. He soon made his way to the managing editor post, where he earned deep respect from his community and his State over the next two decades. When newspapers lost a bit of luster for Norm, he turned to the seminary and became an Episcopal priest, further dedicating his life in public service. In retelling the path of his colorful news career, Norm suggested that fate led to his successes. ``I was really incredibly lucky,'' he told a younger reporter who he once mentored. ``Everywhere I went was one after another of the biggest news stories of the world. Those were the most monumental news stories of my generation.'' I believe it was far more than luck that made Norm Runnion the talent that he was. It was devotion to a trade that he believed was worthy of that commitment. And his readers were incredibly lucky for that. I feel fortunate to have spoken with Norm shortly before his passing. Although weak, his spirit was still very much evident. In honor of that spirit, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a remembrance of Norm Runnion, which appeared on VTDigger.org.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to recognize two distinguished public servants who are leaving their positions at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO,--Margaret ``Peggy'' Focarino, Commissioner for Patents, and James D. Smith, Chief Administrative Patent Judge. Both have played critical roles in bringing the USPTO into the 21st century by working tirelessly to implement the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the most comprehensive update of U.S. patent law since the 1950s. The patent system is one of the cornerstones of our economy. It drives innovation, growth, and job creation. This country has been fortunate to have dedicated leaders such as Ms. Focarino and Mr. Smith in key positions at this crucial Agency. Peggy Focarino became Commissioner for Patents in 2012, where she has been instrumental in developing and implementing administrative changes made by the Leahy-Smith act. Working collaboratively with all stakeholders in the patent community while implementing this law is a hallmark of her tenure as Commissioner for Patents. As someone who worked for nearly 6 years to pass comprehensive patent reform legislation, I can attest to the fact that it is not easy to bring all of these stakeholders together and build consensus. The provisions she worked to implement include the transition to first-inventor-to-file and the USPTO's fee-setting authority, but her work encompassed a number of other aspects of the Leahy-Smith act as well. Ms. Focarino's impressive tenure as Commissioner for Patents likely did not come as a surprise to anyone who followed her rise within the USPTO. She started at the Agency in 1977 as a patent examiner. In 1997, she was promoted to the senior executive service. Throughout her almost 40 years at the USPTO, she distinguished herself as a leader within the Agency, receiving the Department of Commerce Silver Medal for Leadership in 2010. She also received American University's School of Public Affairs Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership in 2010. While the USPTO will continue to do important work without her, there is little doubt that her leadership will be missed. James Smith also played a key role in the implementation of the Leahy-Smith act. Mr. Smith became the Chief Administrative Patent Judge in 2011. During his tenure, Mr. Smith worked to implement the postgrant review proceedings the law established. Thanks to Mr. Smith's leadership at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, these postgrant proceedings have been successful in providing low-cost alternatives to litigation for reviewing the patentability of issued patents. His strong and varied background in the private sector, including time spent working on intellectual property issues at large companies and law firms, served him well as he helped the USPTO implement these essential components of the Leahy-Smith act. It is always difficult to see good public servants leave their roles. Ms. Focarino and Mr. Smith can look back proudly at their record of public service and point to meaningful accomplishments that have improved the U.S. patent system. I wish them both the best in their new endeavors.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this year marks the 50th anniversaries of the March from Selma to Montgomery and the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act. Passage of the Voting Rights Act was the result of the blood, sweat, and tears of so many brave Americans who marched for justice--and the decades-long work of countless other men and women committed to seeing our country live up to its promise of equality and justice for all. Their actions transformed our Nation. On this 50th anniversary year, we pay special tribute to their legacy, but there is still work to be done. Each generation must contribute to the fight for equality. Each of us must answer the call to move this Nation toward a more perfect union. In the coming weeks there will be continued celebrations of the passage of the original Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, two years ago, the Supreme Court voted to dismantle a core piece of that vital legislation. In Shelby County v. Holder, five Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Under Section 5 of the Act, the Federal government has the authority to examine and prevent racially discriminatory voting changes from being enacted before those changes disenfranchise voters in covered jurisdictions. By striking down the coverage formula that determined which States and jurisdictions were subject to Federal review, the Court effectively gutted Section 5. And in holding that the formula was based on outdated information, the Roberts Court disregarded thousands of pages of testimony and evidence from nearly 20 congressional hearings held when the law was reauthorized in 2006. Within weeks of the Supreme Court's devastating ruling, Republican governors and State legislatures exploited the Shelby County decision. Several States with a documented history of racial discrimination in voting implemented sweeping laws that disproportionately suppressed the voting rights of minorities, the elderly, and young people. For example, Texas immediately implemented the most restrictive photo identification law in the country. Although, a Federal judge found the law to be an ``unconstitutional poll tax'' that could disenfranchise up to 600,000 voters and disproportionately impact African Americans and Latinos, the law was allowed to disenfranchise voters this past election. In North Carolina, the Republican legislature and Republican governor passed a far-reaching bill that restricted its citizens' right to vote. The bill cut early voting down from 17 days to 10 days, eliminated teenagers' ability to preregister before their 18th birthday, and eliminated same day voter registration. It also enacted a strict photo identification requirement, which is currently being challenged in court. These are just a few of the numerous discriminatory voting restrictions that have been enacted since Shelby County was decided. We cannot sit by as the fundamental right to vote is systematically undermined. We must not retreat from our commitment to civil rights and the great accomplishments we celebrate this year. As my friend Congressman John Lewis has stated, voting ``is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union.'' Similarly, in 1962, Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered a speech at the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston--the scene of the horrific tragedy last week--where he noted that voting rights was the key to achieving the American dream for all. Their statements are as true today as they were fifty years ago, and that is why we must do all we can to protect that right for all Americans. I challenge anyone to claim that racial discrimination no longer exists. Even Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged in the Shelby County decision that ``voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.'' The Court further said that Congress may respond with legislation based on current conditions. The bill we introduce today, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015, is that response. It reflects the very real, current conditions that Americans face when trying to participate in our democracy. We have heard from Americans across the country whose voting rights have been diminished and suppressed since the Shelby County decision. We have also heard from numerous voting rights experts and civil rights leaders who have called for strong legislation that would fully restore the protections gutted by the Court's decision. The legislation we are introducing today responds to those calls from the grassroots and the community leaders on the ground who are today's foot soldiers for justice. This bill also represents the hard work and commitment of civil rights organizations like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Native American Rights Fund, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the National Congress of American Indians, LatinoJustice, the Advancement Project, and many others. I thank all of these organizations and the tireless individuals who have helped us shape this legislation. This bill is a voting rights bill for all Americans. It is a bill for the next generation, and helps protect the legacy of the previous generation who fought so hard five decades ago for these voting rights protections. Under this bill, all States and local jurisdictions are eligible for Section 5 protections under a new coverage formula, which is based on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years. Significantly, the 25-year period ``rolls'' or continuously moves to keep up with ``current conditions,'' as the Supreme Court stated must be a basis for any new coverage provision. States that have repeated and persistent violations will be covered for a period of 10 years, but if a State establishes a clean record moving forward, it emerges from preclearance coverage. In addition, the existing bailout provision would still be available so that States or local jurisdictions that establish a clean record can also emerge from coverage. The bill also establishes a nationwide, targeted preclearance process for a limited set of voting changes that have historically been found to discriminate against minority voters. For example, a racially diverse county that seeks to change a single-member district seat into an at-large seat will require preclearance because that kind of change has historically been used to marginalize minority voters. Racial gerrymandering, annexations that dilute minority voting strength, strict photo identification requirements, reduction of multilingual voting materials, and the elimination of polling locations in jurisdictions that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse, will also receive greater scrutiny under this bill. Our bill would also improve the Voting Rights Act to allow Federal courts to bail-in specific jurisdictions where the effect of a particular voting change is to deny citizens their right to vote. Under this provision, a Federal court could subject to preclearance any State or local jurisdiction that the court determines violated the Voting Rights Act or any other Federal law that prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The bill we introduce today will also ensure that voters are made aware of changes in laws affecting their right to vote. Justice Brandeis once observed that sunlight is the best disinfectant and I believe that applies here as well. Transparency is a strong deterrent to voting discrimination. Under our bill, the public must be notified of late-breaking changes to standards and voting procedures in Federal elections. Information on polling place resource allocation for Federal elections must also be made public, including information about accessibility for persons with disabilities. Finally, information on changes to electoral districts must be made available to the general public. This includes demographic information, to prevent racial gerrymandering, impermissible redistricting, and infringement on minority voters at the Federal, State and local levels. The bill makes other commonsense improvements, such as amending current law to allow the Attorney General to request Federal observers in those jurisdictions where racial discrimination in voting remains a serious threat. It revises the preliminary injunction standard for voting rights actions to recognize the principle that oftentimes, obtaining relief after the election has already concluded is too late to vindicate the individuals' voting rights. Thus, such temporary relief may be obtained where the complainant raises a ``serious question'' that--on balance--the hardship the voting change imposes on the complainant outweighs the hardship imposed upon the state or jurisdiction. In addition, this bill addresses the unique challenges that Native American and Alaska Native voting populations encounter by: allowing for more accessible polling locations and voter registration agencies; permitting absentee voting where polling locations are too remote; and ensuring ballots are translated into all written Native languages where current law already requires bilingual voting materials. We are introducing this bill today because the persistent and evolving forms of voting discrimination require a strong response. I am proud to be joined by so many lawmakers from both sides of the Capitol and all parts of the country. I am joined by Senator Durbin, who worked with me in 2006 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. We are also joined by Senator Coons, Leader Reid, all Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee, and many others. In addition, the House of Representatives is today introducing a companion bill, led by my friend John Lewis and leaders of the House Tri-Caucus--Representative Terri Sewell of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative Linda Sanchez of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Representative Judy Chu of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. I hope that Senate Republicans will join us soon as well. The Voting Rights Act has always been bipartisan. In 2006, when we last reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, I worked closely with the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees-- former Senator Arlen Specter and Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. Past reauthorizations have been signed into law by Republican presidents. Yet over the past year, I have not found a Republican in the Senate willing to join me in proposing a meaningful reinstatement of voter protections. In marking the 50th anniversary of the march in Selma this past March, President Obama issued a call to action on the Voting Rights Act. He observed that: ``One hundred members of Congress have come here today to honor people who were willing to die for the right to protect it. If we want to honor this day, let that hundred go back to Washington and gather four hundred more, and together, pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year. That is how we honor those on this bridge.'' I agree with the President. The best way we can honor those individuals and the countless others who gave so much to make this a more perfect union is not with platitudes or long overdue symbolic gestures. No, we must act--just as they did. We must continue to agitate, to organize, to educate, and to build momentum so that this legislation becomes law. This bill, just as the Voting Rights Act before it, is necessary if we believe in a democracy that reflects our ideals of equality and justice. This legislation will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and advance the principles of those who marched a generation ago. Much attention is focused on the Supreme Court this week as it is poised to hand down decisions that will affect millions of Americans. The decisions of those nine women and men will impact the security of our health care, the sanctity of our marriages and the quality of the air we breathe. What the Supreme Court does matters. Its decisions affect us all. Nowhere in recent years has that been more clear than in its Shelby County decision. That destructive ruling made the fundamental right to vote vulnerable. It is long past time for Congress to respond with meaningful action.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the PATENT Act with a strong bipartisan vote. As the Senate continues to consider this important, balanced legislation aimed at curbing abusive patent litigation practices, it is critical that the court of appeals that considers patent claims be at full strength. Legislation alone cannot solve the problems facing Main Street businesses from abuses of the patent system; we also need dedicated judges, such as Kara Farnandez Stoll, on the bench to faithfully apply the law. Ms. Farnandez Stoll was first nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit more than 7 months ago. Her hearing was held more than 3 months ago and 2 months ago she was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated her ``well qualified'' to serve on the Federal circuit--its highest possible rating. The Hispanic National Bar Association, the Federal Circuit Bar Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association strongly support her confirmation. Once confirmed, Ms. Farnandez Stoll will be the first woman of color to serve on the Federal circuit. Yet her nomination has been languishing on the Senate Executive Calendar. Nearly 6 months into this new Congress, the Republican leadership has scheduled votes to confirm only 4 district court judges. We have not confirmed a single judge this work period. Not one. This is simply unacceptable. In addition to Ms. Farnandez Stoll, there are 11 other consensus judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. The other nominees pending on the calendar include five U.S. Court of Federal Claims, CFC, nominees. We are well past the 1 year anniversary of when each were first nominated and are closing in on the anniversary of all five having had hearings before they were first reported unanimously out of committee. The five CFC nominees were again reported out of committee unanimously at the beginning of this year. We have heard no opposition to any of these nominees, yet they have been in limbo for months and months because the Republican leader has refused to schedule a vote. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims is where our citizens go to seek redress against the Federal Government for monetary claims. The cases this court hears include claims of unlawful takings of private land by the U.S. Government without proper compensation under the fifth Amendment, claims of veterans seeking disability benefits for combat-related injuries, and vaccine compensation claims. We are debating trade policy in the Senate, yet the nomination to fill one of four current vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade--CIT--has sat idle on the Senate Executive Calendar for months. Like the CFC nominees, the CIT nominee had a hearing last year, was favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote last Congress, and again earlier this year. Also pending on the calendar are nominees to fill vacancies on the Western District of Missouri, the Western District of New York, and three nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies--two on the Eastern District of New York and one on the Eastern District of California, all but one of whom were first nominated last year. There is nothing keeping the Senate from confirming all 12 nominees-- nothing, except for the mindset of delay for delay's sake, which is unfortunately the hallmark of the majority's leadership on judicial nominations. The Senate has a duty to consider judicial vacancies no matter which party holds the majority. In the 17 months I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years in office, the Senate confirmed 100 Federal circuit and district court judges. I also served as chairman during the last 2 years of the Bush administration and we confirmed another 68 district and circuit court judges. In contrast to the 4 district judges we have confirmed this year, when the Democrats were in an equivalent position in the 7th year of the Bush administration, we had confirmed 18 judges--including 15 district and 3 circuit court judges--by June 24, 2007. That's 18 judges under a Democratic majority compared to 4 under the Republican majority. That is nearly five times as many judges confirmed under a Democratic majority with a President of the opposite party than today's Senate Republican majority. Nevertheless, the Republican majority continues to make excuses for their continued obstruction and delay on confirming President Obama's judicial nominees. Their excuse is that the Democratic majority was able to confirm those 18 judges by this date in 2007 only because those nominees were held over from the previous year. What the Republicans fail to note is that 6 of the 18 judges confirmed by June 24, 2007 first had their hearing in 2007, were reported out of committee without needless delay, and were confirmed promptly. We began this Congress with 38 district and circuit court vacancies, including 12 vacancies deemed ``judicial emergencies'' by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. While 38 is the lowest number of vacancies during the entire Obama administration, it is still higher than the low of 28 district and circuit court vacancies during the Bush administration, which was achieved due to Democratic cooperation. There are now 55 district and circuit court vacancies, including 27 that have been deemed ``judicial emergency'' vacancies. Of the 55 vacancies, 41 are in States with at least one Republican home State Senator. Of great concern to the timely administration of justice are four circuit court vacancies that are ``judicial emergencies''--two in Texas, one in Alabama, and one in Kentucky--that have each been vacant and without nominees for well over a year, including one Texas circuit court vacancy that has been vacant for nearly 3 years. These 3 States alone also account for 12 district court vacancies without a currently pending nominee, half of which are ``judicial emergency'' vacancies. While I know that the senior Senator from Texas, who is also the assistant republican leader, likes to say that it is the President who ``has to nominate the judges,'' we are all well aware of the central role home State Senators have in making recommendations to the President to fill vacancies in our States. I urge all Senators to work meaningfully with President Obama to get these vacancies filled. As we head into July 4 recess, the Senate Republican leadership should be allowing us to clear the calendar of the 12 noncontroversial consensus judicial nominees to let them get to work for the American people. I would remind the current majority leader of his floor remarks from June 2008, the last year of the Bush administration when Democrats held the majority in the Senate: On the issue of judicial confirmations, my good friend the majority leader and I discussed this matter publicly at the beginning of this Congress, and we agreed that President Bush, in the last 2 years of his term, should be treated as well as President Reagan, Bush 41, and President Clinton were treated in the last 2 years of their tenures in office because there was one common thread, and that was that the Senate was controlled by the opposition party. I hope he stays true to the words he spoke when the shoe was on the other foot. I urge the majority leader to immediately schedule a vote for Kara Farnandez Stoll and the CFC and CIT nominees so they can get to work serving the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this year marks the 50th anniversaries of the March from Selma to Montgomery and the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act. Passage of the Voting Rights Act was the result of the blood, sweat, and tears of so many brave Americans who marched for justice--and the decades-long work of countless other men and women committed to seeing our country live up to its promise of equality and justice for all. Their actions transformed our Nation. On this 50th anniversary year, we pay special tribute to their legacy, but there is still work to be done. Each generation must contribute to the fight for equality. Each of us must answer the call to move this Nation toward a more perfect union. In the coming weeks there will be continued celebrations of the passage of the original Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, two years ago, the Supreme Court voted to dismantle a core piece of that vital legislation. In Shelby County v. Holder, five Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Under Section 5 of the Act, the Federal government has the authority to examine and prevent racially discriminatory voting changes from being enacted before those changes disenfranchise voters in covered jurisdictions. By striking down the coverage formula that determined which States and jurisdictions were subject to Federal review, the Court effectively gutted Section 5. And in holding that the formula was based on outdated information, the Roberts Court disregarded thousands of pages of testimony and evidence from nearly 20 congressional hearings held when the law was reauthorized in 2006. Within weeks of the Supreme Court's devastating ruling, Republican governors and State legislatures exploited the Shelby County decision. Several States with a documented history of racial discrimination in voting implemented sweeping laws that disproportionately suppressed the voting rights of minorities, the elderly, and young people. For example, Texas immediately implemented the most restrictive photo identification law in the country. Although, a Federal judge found the law to be an ``unconstitutional poll tax'' that could disenfranchise up to 600,000 voters and disproportionately impact African Americans and Latinos, the law was allowed to disenfranchise voters this past election. In North Carolina, the Republican legislature and Republican governor passed a far-reaching bill that restricted its citizens' right to vote. The bill cut early voting down from 17 days to 10 days, eliminated teenagers' ability to preregister before their 18th birthday, and eliminated same day voter registration. It also enacted a strict photo identification requirement, which is currently being challenged in court. These are just a few of the numerous discriminatory voting restrictions that have been enacted since Shelby County was decided. We cannot sit by as the fundamental right to vote is systematically undermined. We must not retreat from our commitment to civil rights and the great accomplishments we celebrate this year. As my friend Congressman John Lewis has stated, voting ``is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union.'' Similarly, in 1962, Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered a speech at the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston--the scene of the horrific tragedy last week--where he noted that voting rights was the key to achieving the American dream for all. Their statements are as true today as they were fifty years ago, and that is why we must do all we can to protect that right for all Americans. I challenge anyone to claim that racial discrimination no longer exists. Even Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged in the Shelby County decision that ``voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.'' The Court further said that Congress may respond with legislation based on current conditions. The bill we introduce today, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015, is that response. It reflects the very real, current conditions that Americans face when trying to participate in our democracy. We have heard from Americans across the country whose voting rights have been diminished and suppressed since the Shelby County decision. We have also heard from numerous voting rights experts and civil rights leaders who have called for strong legislation that would fully restore the protections gutted by the Court's decision. The legislation we are introducing today responds to those calls from the grassroots and the community leaders on the ground who are today's foot soldiers for justice. This bill also represents the hard work and commitment of civil rights organizations like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Native American Rights Fund, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the National Congress of American Indians, LatinoJustice, the Advancement Project, and many others. I thank all of these organizations and the tireless individuals who have helped us shape this legislation. This bill is a voting rights bill for all Americans. It is a bill for the next generation, and helps protect the legacy of the previous generation who fought so hard five decades ago for these voting rights protections. Under this bill, all States and local jurisdictions are eligible for Section 5 protections under a new coverage formula, which is based on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years. Significantly, the 25-year period ``rolls'' or continuously moves to keep up with ``current conditions,'' as the Supreme Court stated must be a basis for any new coverage provision. States that have repeated and persistent violations will be covered for a period of 10 years, but if a State establishes a clean record moving forward, it emerges from preclearance coverage. In addition, the existing bailout provision would still be available so that States or local jurisdictions that establish a clean record can also emerge from coverage. The bill also establishes a nationwide, targeted preclearance process for a limited set of voting changes that have historically been found to discriminate against minority voters. For example, a racially diverse county that seeks to change a single-member district seat into an at-large seat will require preclearance because that kind of change has historically been used to marginalize minority voters. Racial gerrymandering, annexations that dilute minority voting strength, strict photo identification requirements, reduction of multilingual voting materials, and the elimination of polling locations in jurisdictions that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse, will also receive greater scrutiny under this bill. Our bill would also improve the Voting Rights Act to allow Federal courts to bail-in specific jurisdictions where the effect of a particular voting change is to deny citizens their right to vote. Under this provision, a Federal court could subject to preclearance any State or local jurisdiction that the court determines violated the Voting Rights Act or any other Federal law that prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The bill we introduce today will also ensure that voters are made aware of changes in laws affecting their right to vote. Justice Brandeis once observed that sunlight is the best disinfectant and I believe that applies here as well. Transparency is a strong deterrent to voting discrimination. Under our bill, the public must be notified of late-breaking changes to standards and voting procedures in Federal elections. Information on polling place resource allocation for Federal elections must also be made public, including information about accessibility for persons with disabilities. Finally, information on changes to electoral districts must be made available to the general public. This includes demographic information, to prevent racial gerrymandering, impermissible redistricting, and infringement on minority voters at the Federal, State and local levels. The bill makes other commonsense improvements, such as amending current law to allow the Attorney General to request Federal observers in those jurisdictions where racial discrimination in voting remains a serious threat. It revises the preliminary injunction standard for voting rights actions to recognize the principle that oftentimes, obtaining relief after the election has already concluded is too late to vindicate the individuals' voting rights. Thus, such temporary relief may be obtained where the complainant raises a ``serious question'' that--on balance--the hardship the voting change imposes on the complainant outweighs the hardship imposed upon the state or jurisdiction. In addition, this bill addresses the unique challenges that Native American and Alaska Native voting populations encounter by: allowing for more accessible polling locations and voter registration agencies; permitting absentee voting where polling locations are too remote; and ensuring ballots are translated into all written Native languages where current law already requires bilingual voting materials. We are introducing this bill today because the persistent and evolving forms of voting discrimination require a strong response. I am proud to be joined by so many lawmakers from both sides of the Capitol and all parts of the country. I am joined by Senator Durbin, who worked with me in 2006 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. We are also joined by Senator Coons, Leader Reid, all Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee, and many others. In addition, the House of Representatives is today introducing a companion bill, led by my friend John Lewis and leaders of the House Tri-Caucus--Representative Terri Sewell of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative Linda Sanchez of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Representative Judy Chu of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. I hope that Senate Republicans will join us soon as well. The Voting Rights Act has always been bipartisan. In 2006, when we last reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, I worked closely with the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees-- former Senator Arlen Specter and Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. Past reauthorizations have been signed into law by Republican presidents. Yet over the past year, I have not found a Republican in the Senate willing to join me in proposing a meaningful reinstatement of voter protections. In marking the 50th anniversary of the march in Selma this past March, President Obama issued a call to action on the Voting Rights Act. He observed that: ``One hundred members of Congress have come here today to honor people who were willing to die for the right to protect it. If we want to honor this day, let that hundred go back to Washington and gather four hundred more, and together, pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year. That is how we honor those on this bridge.'' I agree with the President. The best way we can honor those individuals and the countless others who gave so much to make this a more perfect union is not with platitudes or long overdue symbolic gestures. No, we must act--just as they did. We must continue to agitate, to organize, to educate, and to build momentum so that this legislation becomes law. This bill, just as the Voting Rights Act before it, is necessary if we believe in a democracy that reflects our ideals of equality and justice. This legislation will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and advance the principles of those who marched a generation ago. Much attention is focused on the Supreme Court this week as it is poised to hand down decisions that will affect millions of Americans. The decisions of those nine women and men will impact the security of our health care, the sanctity of our marriages and the quality of the air we breathe. What the Supreme Court does matters. Its decisions affect us all. Nowhere in recent years has that been more clear than in its Shelby County decision. That destructive ruling made the fundamental right to vote vulnerable. It is long past time for Congress to respond with meaningful action.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United States has long been a safe and welcoming home for those fleeing persecution around the world. The refugees and asylum seekers who join our communities help to create new businesses, build more vibrant neighborhoods, and enrich us all. They are also a reminder of our history as a nation of immigrants and our American values of generosity and compassion. Saturday marks World Refugee Day, and to honor it we must renew our commitment to the ideal of America as a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses abroad. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. Ongoing political struggles and military conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa are dislocating large populations. Too many are without their families or safe places to find refuge. Some, though far too few, have been able to flee and rebuild their lives. Peter Keny, one of the ``Lost Boys'' of South Sudan, is one of those inspiring refugees who escaped a civil war in his home country and has rebuilt his life in my home State of Vermont. He is just one of thousands of refugees Vermonters have welcomed over the years. Peter was 19 when he came to Burlington in 2001, and in the years since he has learned English, completed high school, and is earning a college degree. In describing his voyage to the United States and ultimately to Vermont, Peter told ``The Burlington Free Press'' that arriving here ``was like a dream come true.'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article, ``A Found Man Returns to South Sudan.'' I am proud of Vermont's long history of supporting refugees by opening its communities, schools, and homes to those in need. It is not always easy, but it is a powerful example of our belief in the most basic ideals of human dignity and hope, and our commitment to responding to the suffering of others. We are fortunate to have remarkable organizations like the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program leading the effort with its decades of experience and award-winning volunteer program, and the tremendous legal advocacy provided by the Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates. The hard work of these and other organizations and the daily welcoming gestures of Vermonters all over the State have made Vermont a role model for the rest of the country. On this year's World Refugee Day, it is also important to acknowledge that there is more that we as a country can and must do. I remain deeply concerned about the administration's expanded family detention policy. The women and children it is placing in prolonged detention have fled extreme violence and persecution in Central America. They come seeking refuge from three of the most dangerous countries in the world, countries where women and girls face shocking rates of domestic and sexual violence and murder. Here in the United States, we recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, a law we hold out as an example of our commitment to take these crimes seriously and to protect all victims. The ongoing detention of asylum- seeking mothers and children who have made credible claims that they have been victims of these very same crimes is unacceptable. I again urge the administration to end the misguided policy of family detention. We must also do more to address the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Almost 4 million Syrians are officially recognized as refugees by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The vast majority of these are women and children, including hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 5. The United States traditionally accepts at least 50 percent of resettlement cases from UNHCR. However, we have accepted only approximately 700 refugees since the beginning of the Syrian conflict, an unacceptably low number. Congress also plays an important role. Soon I will reintroduce the Refugee Protection Act to improve protections for refugees and asylum seekers and provide additional support and improvement to the national resettlement program and groups such as the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program. This bill, which I have long championed with Representative Zoe Lofgren, reaffirms the commitments made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and will help to restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world. As we pause to take stock on World Refugee Day, let each of us reflect on what this great country means to those escaping persecution. Let us now and always live by and burnish the light of Lady Liberty's torch, our eternal beacon of hope to those struggling to breathe free.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week Egyptian government investigators working on behalf of a judge who is overseeing a 4-year-old case against international and Egyptian nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, visited the main office of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, or CIHRS, and asked for registration and financial documents. The investigators reportedly tried to pass off an informal search warrant as legal cover, but CIHRS staff made clear they couldn't search the office without an official one. The investigators left, but their message was clear: a new crackdown is on the way. According to information I have received, CIHRS is the second organization to receive such a visit this year. The same investigators previously visited another organization, the Egyptian Democratic Academy, and looked into their activities and funding sources. Four members of the academy have since been banned from leaving Egypt. Some Senators may remember this case: it is the same one that led to the conviction of 43 foreign and Egyptian NGO workers, including 16 Americans, in 2013. The fact that the Egyptian authorities have decided to resuscitate this old case against these NGOs shows that President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's administration is confident that it can silence critical voices with little international objection. Since the 2011 revolution, the government has made several efforts to replace a harsh 2002 law on associations--unevenly implemented under former President Hosni Mubarak--with even more draconian regulations, including a draft law that would have given the government and security agencies effective veto power over NGO boards of directors, foreign funding, and very existence. Although a new law has yet to be passed, the authorities have previously raided or detained staff from respected organizations such as the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights. I am deeply concerned with the reinvigoration of this 4-year-old case and the message it sends about Cairo's intent to restrict independent NGOs. I am similarly concerned with recent press reports alleging that the authorities have disappeared a significant number of young people, some of whom later died, in a coordinated campaign, activists say, to silence dissent. Such actions, if true, are deplorable and are no way to effectively combat terrorism and related insecurity. Support for a strong and flourishing independent civil society is a critical part of any pluralistic society, but we are seeing the reverse in Egypt. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations which provides assistance for Egypt, I am dismayed by the al-Sisi government's rejection of basic freedoms, whether it is the right to express oneself or the right to assemble. Such repressive tactics are not likely to contribute to greater security or stability in Egypt--instead they are likely to do just the opposite.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining again with Senator Grassley in introducing the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act, legislation that will provide protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement agencies pricefixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harms consumers. This bill includes changes that we made in the Judiciary Committee last Congress, which enabled it to pass the Senate unanimously. Senator Grassley and I have long worked together on protecting whistleblowers, and this legislation continues those efforts. Whistleblowers are often instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement agencies to wrongdoing in a variety of areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward and deserve to be protected from retaliation. Congress should encourage employees with information about criminal antitrust activity to report this information. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act does exactly that by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle on illegal behavior such as pricefixing. This legislation is modeled on whistleblower protections that Senator Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The protections are narrowly tailored and do not provide whistleblowers with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims. Last Congress, we made modest changes to the bill in the Judiciary Committee to improve the definition of a covered individual and clarify that protections only apply to employees reporting criminal violations. The protections in this bill build on recommendations from key stakeholders in a 2011 Government Accountability Office report to Congress. The antitrust laws offer critical protections for consumers that promote free enterprise. By extending whistleblower protections to this area of the law, this bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal antitrust violations do not go unreported. This bill passed the Senate unanimously last Congress. I urge the Senate to pass it again.