Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my bipartisan amendment to prevent human trafficking includes important language to prohibit discrimination against homeless children. The language should be familiar to most Senators here. It is nearly identical to what we voted for overwhelmingly as part of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization 2 years ago. It shouldn't be controversial. We should reaffirm our commitment to nondiscrimination. All children--all children--deserve our protection. We should not be picking and choosing, saying: This child deserves protection, this one doesn't. They all deserve our protection.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for her very, very strong statement. We sometimes talk about numbers and this and that. It is when you talk about real cases that we understand what we are talking about here. We are going to consider two amendments related to preventing human trafficking of runaway and homeless youth. Senator Cornyn's amendment speaks to this effort, but it is not a meaningful alternative to the comprehensive amendment that Senator Collins and I will offer. Our amendment No. 290, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, has the support of 30 bipartisan cosponsors. Senator Cornyn has said that no effort to end human trafficking can be complete without addressing the needs of runaway and homeless youth. I agree and that is why amendment No. 290 is so important. In fact, when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on this legislation last year, it received the vote of almost every single member, including Senator Cornyn. In our hearings since then, I have listened to the stories of survivors. Some have been in my office and some have been in the offices of other Senators, and they talked about this. So many of them begin the same way. They are a homeless or a runaway teen, scared, desperate for affection and a safe place to sleep, especially if they are somewhere in inclement weather. Traffickers know this. They prey on that desperation. They know there are so very few places these children can turn to. A recent survey found that one in four--now, think of this--homeless youth had been victims of sex trafficking or they have traded sex for survival needs such as food or a place to sleep. Just think of this. They are the age of our children or our grandchildren. This is a human issue. In fact, a survey found that 50 percent of homeless youth had been solicited for sex by an adult within 48 hours of leaving home. Just think of that--half of these homeless kids were solicited by an adult within the first 2 days of leaving home. I am talking about kids 12, 13, 14 years old. They have nowhere to go, but we can at least, through this legislation, make sure they have a safe place to turn. That is what our amendment does. Senator Cornyn's amendment is not a good alternative. The amendment I am offering assures that homeless youth providers are specifically trained to recognize victims of trafficking, address the unique trauma, and refer them to the appropriate care and services. It also lengthens the time they can stay in shelters or receive services. Look at what happens if they are forced back out of those shelters. How long does it take for traffickers to grab them? The amendment includes important new efforts to encourage family reunification and allows the person to define the people they consider family. This is particularly important as runaway children are often estranged from their parents. Senator Cornyn's amendment does not have the crucial nondiscrimination provision that is in my amendment. This language would prevent the discrimination against youth based on their race, their color, their religion, their national origin, their sex, their gender identity, their sexual orientation, or their disability. It is almost identical to a provision contained in the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which passed the Senate with 78 votes. It passed the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly and was signed into law. You may not like to think about this, but the reason this language is particularly important is because a growing number of these homeless and runaway youth identify as LGBT. Many, sadly, have been thrown out of their homes precisely for that reason. They have been rejected by their parents. No child should face that kind of isolation or rejection--no matter what. I am a parent. I am a grandparent. I find it heartbreaking that a child could be turned out of their home and then turned away by a service provider. We shouldn't allow organizations to take Federal funds and then turn their backs against these kids because of their race or their religion or whom they love. That is why I can't understand why the side-by-side amendment offered had the nondiscrimination protections for these children stripped from it. I urge all Senators to support my bipartisan amendment. I thank Senators Collins and Heitkamp for their steadfast and very strong support. We have to support the efforts of dedicated service providers. They make these programs work. We have to protect these kids. The most important thing is not being in a position where the only time we can act or is after someone has been trafficked. Let's prevent them from being trafficked in the first place. Prevention will cost money, but it is going to save lives, and it is going to prevent the far more costly effects of human trafficking. This is smart money--we ought to be able and ready to invest in our children. We have to include the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act in our efforts to prevent more of our kids from becoming victims. I have said it so many times on this floor that I almost grow weary of hearing myself saying it. I have prosecuted some of these cases. And it was nowhere near the problem, when I was a prosecutor, that it is today throughout this country. I still have nightmares from what we saw. This Senator hopes that someday, under this legislation, if we work hard enough, none of us will have these nightmares. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize the devil is always in the details. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Texas on the floor and I hope we are getting somewhere on trafficking. I appreciate the fact that this body, when we were doing the Violence Against Women Act, voted for the anti-sex trafficking amendment I proposed. And the majority of the Senators at the time voted for the final version of the Violence Against Women Act, which included anti- sex trafficking language, and that bill has been signed into law. We should continue on with this bill, which adds to what we did a couple of years ago. But I am concerned, as I have said many times, that we have held up Loretta Lynch because of this. I cannot see what the corollary is. My friends on the other side of the aisle told me, when they had to wait for 3 or 4 days for a Republican nominee on the floor to get confirmed, that it was too long. They would warn us of national security concerns. Well, Loretta Lynch has waited on the floor for a vote for 54 days. I want to put this in some context. Attorney General Holder waited 5 days. Attorney General Mukasey waited 2 days. Attorney General Gonzales waited 8 days. Attorney General Ashcroft waited 2 days. Attorney General Reno waited 1 day. Attorney General Barr waited 5 days. Attorney General Thornburgh waited 1 day. If we take those seven most recent Attorneys General and take all the time that they waited on the floor and add it all together, it comes to 24 days. Loretta Lynch has waited 54 days on the floor--more than twice as long as the seven most recent Attorneys General combined. Then we still have the Deputy Attorney General nominee, whose background is virtually the same as Loretta Lynch's. Both are highly respected prosecutors. Both have prosecuted matters involving the issues we are trying to stop here on the floor--terrorists, traffickers, and white-collar criminals. Once we are done with Loretta Lynch, we have to get her deputy confirmed. I hope both of these highly qualified women are confirmed soon. It has already taken too long. These delays create a morale problem in the Department of Justice-- one of our first lines against terrorists and organized crime. We have some superb men and women who work at the Department of Justice. Some came during Republican administrations, and some came during Democratic administrations. I have met many of these men and women, from both Republican and Democratic administrations, and I am so impressed by them and their dedication. Most of them could leave, go to a law firm, and make a lot more money, but they are dedicated to this country. It is demoralizing to them when we hold the position of Attorney General in limbo. We should stop. The Department of Justice is something we should, whenever possible, keep politics out of. Remember, too, it is not the ``Secretary of Justice,'' like we have the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Agriculture and so on--a member, as some might suggest, of the President's staff. This is the Attorney General of the United States. They represent you. They represent me. They represent everybody. I have often told a story about when I was a young law student at Georgetown. The then-Attorney General invited four or five students from different law schools to meet. He reviewed our grades, invited us in to actually spend an hour with him and encouraged us to come work with the Department of Justice. I remember one of the questions I asked that Attorney General. I said: If you are Attorney General of the United States and you are asked to prosecute somebody who is close to the President, what do you do? He said: Well, if they should be prosecuted, they would be treated the same as anybody else, and we would prosecute them as such. I declined the offer to go work at the Department of Justice. I was homesick and wanted to get back to Vermont. Both my wife and I wanted to get back. I wanted to practice law there, which I did, and I actually became a prosecutor. But I often thought of what the Attorney General said to me about his role. Subsequently a man in Illinois who was critical to the election of the next President ran afoul of the law and the same Attorney General signed off on his prosecution. When asked by some of his staff, ``Well, are you sure you are OK with this?'' he said, ``He committed a crime. He should be prosecuted. Even though I probably won't go to many family reunions for some time after doing this.'' This was, of course, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and the man he prosecuted was critical to the election of his brother John Kennedy as President. I always admired that he was willing to do that--that he put his duties as a prosecutor first ahead of any political duties. I believe Loretta Lynch will do the same. Sometimes young law students can be very impressionable, but I have never forgotten that time sitting there with Attorney General Kennedy. I have never forgotten how I had to wrestle with the decision to turn down his offer, but it was a family decision and one I have never regretted. I went back to Vermont, and things turned out all right. I have had the privilege of representing Vermont for over 40 years in this body. But that conversation is something I will always remember. It is one of the reasons I went on to the Judiciary Committee. It is one of the reasons I took, when it was offered to me, the chairmanship of the Committee and it is one of the reasons why I am now ranking member. Incidentally, the men and women who work there, on both sides of the aisle, are brilliant lawyers, hard-working people. Kristine Lucius is my chief counsel, and I don't know a better lawyer anywhere than she is or anybody who works harder than she does. We have a lot of issues before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Grassley is my friend. We have been friends for over 30 years. I won't speak for him, but I suspect he would say we have things to get going to. So I hope we are able to get this trafficking matter taken care of and get the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General confirmed. In the last 2 years of President Bush's second term, Democrats had come back into the majority. I wanted to show that we would try to keep partisanship out, and as chairman, I had moved 15 of President Bush's judges through to confirmation by this time in his second term. We moved them far more rapidly than Republicans had toward the end of President Clinton's term. I am glad we have been able to confirm two judges this Congress. They were both judges from Texas whom I supported. I complimented the two Senators from Texas because of their work in picking candidates who would be judges first and foremost without reference to whatever political background they may have. I hope we can now start doing what we did with President Bush and confirm more. Let's stop making judges political. I am afraid that there could be good men and women who will decline the cut in pay and everything else to become a Federal judge if they think they are going to have to put their life on hold for 6 months or a year to get there--even more so for key positions such as Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and others in the Department of Justice. We can fight over political issues but this should be outside of that. The distinguished senior Senator from Texas was a judge and has a prosecutorial background. He and I have worked closely together on a number of issues--the Freedom of Information Act being one of them. And I suspect we will work together on a number of issues to come. Let's get past this roadblock and onto other things. I see him on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will be voting to confirm Judge George Hanks, who has been nominated to be a Federal district judge in the Southern District of Texas. Judge Hanks is just the second judicial nominee that we have voted to confirm more than 3 months into the 114th Congress. The slow trickle of confirmations that the new majority has allowed is undermining the functioning of our Federal courts and is hurting the American people. This past month, the Wall Street Journal wrote an alarming article about the backlog of civil cases in our Federal courts. One man interviewed for the article filed a Federal law suit in 2007 and is still waiting for his case to be heard. It is unconscionable that an American would have to wait 8 years and still not have his day in court. Unfortunately, it is not surprising given that at last count, there were more than 330,000 civil cases pending in our Federal courts. This is a record high and an increase of nearly 20 percent since 2004. There are steps the Republican majority should take to help our Federal courts better serve the American people. First, the Senate should confirm every single one of the nine judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar without further delay. Besides Judge Hanks, there are two other Federal district court nominees pending on the Executive Calendar, both from States with two Republican home State Senators. Both of those nominees were reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote. One of the nominees will fill a judicial emergency vacancy in Texas that has remained unfilled for more than 2 years. This type of neglect is unacceptable. In addition, there are five other nominees to the Court of Federal Claims and a nominee for the Court of International Trade. None of these nominees are controversial and they could easily be confirmed by a simple voice vote if Republicans would allow. After today's confirmation vote, there will be 53 vacancies on our Federal courts. But even if we filled every one of these vacancies, we still would have to address the growing needs of our co-equal branch of government that is struggling with heavy caseloads. Last month, the Judicial Conference of the United States, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, identified the need for adding 73 permanent judgeships, as well as converting 9 temporary district court judgeships to permanent status. The Senate should be working in a bipartisan manner to provide the Federal Judiciary with the resources it needs, including the addition of woefully-needed additional judgeships. The fact that today we are only voting on the second judicial nominee of this Congress shows that the delay and obstruction that we saw from Republicans in the first 6 years of the Obama administration has continued now that they control the Senate's agenda. One simply needs to look at the nomination of Loretta Lynch to understand how Republicans approach our constitutional role of advice and consent. Ms. Lynch is an eminently qualified nominee and enjoys broad support, yet her nomination has now been pending before the full Senate for 53 days. That is more than twice as long as all of the past seven Attorneys General combined: Richard Thornburgh, 1 day; William Barr, 5 days; Janet Reno, 1 day; John Ashcroft, 2 days, Alberto Gonzales, 8 days; Michael Mukasey, 2 days; and Eric Holder, 5 days. This delay is an embarrassment for the United States Senate. I agree with President Obama, who said last week that ``there are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far.'' The obstruction of this historic nominee has gone on far too long. It is long past time for the Senate Republican leader to allow Ms. Lynch a vote and allow the American people to be served by this outstanding public servant. The judicial nominee we are voting on today, Judge George Hanks, will fill a Federal district court vacancy in the Southern District of Texas. Since 2010, Judge Hanks has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas. Prior to joining the Federal bench, Judge Hanks was a Court of Appeals Justice for the First District of Texas from 2002 to 2010, and a judge on the 157th Civil District Court of Texas from 2001 to 2002. Before becoming a judge, he was in private practice for nearly a decade. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``Well Qualified,'' its highest rating. Judge Hanks is supported by his two Republican home State Senators and his nomination was unanimously approved by voice vote by the Judiciary Committee on February 26. He has strong qualifications and should be confirmed without further delay. I urge the Republican Leader to schedule votes to confirm the remaining judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar. None of the nominees are controversial. We should do our jobs and vote on their nominations so that they can start doing their jobs working for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Loretta Lynch's nomination to be Attorney General has languished on the Senate floor for 48 days. This unnecessary wait time is twice as long as the last seven Attorney General nominees combined. Under any standard, she is not being treated fairly. For nearly 7 weeks, she has waited for her confirmation vote to be scheduled by the majority leader. She has now earned the support to be confirmed, and if the leader would simply schedule her vote, this eminently qualified prosecutor could get to work as our next Attorney General. Last month, after Ms. Lynch's nomination had already been pending on the floor for weeks, the majority leader inexplicably chose to hold her nomination hostage until he got his way on a partisan provision in unrelated legislation. That Loretta Lynch is being denied a confirmation vote over human trafficking legislation is a cruel irony since she has a proven record of prosecuting child rapists and human traffickers. If Members want a prosecutor with a deep commitment to fighting human trafficking, then they should support Loretta Lynch. The American people deserve to know that while the majority leader said he would block a confirmation vote on Ms. Lynch until we passed unrelated legislation, the Senate has voted 74 times on other matters. If the Senate can vote on a Republican budget, legislation to increase payments to doctors, and on the confirmation of several other nominees, then of course we can and should vote on the nomination of our Nation's next chief law enforcement officer. There is simply no excuse. Every additional day that Ms. Lynch's nomination languishes on the floor is another day Senate Republicans fail to govern responsibly. This Congress, it took more than 3 months for Senate Republicans to schedule a vote on a single judicial nominee. And even though the Senate finally did confirm a district court nominee this week, nine more judicial nominees are waiting to be considered. This is no way to respect the dedicated public servants who have been nominated and no way to treat our coequal branches of government. The Republican leader has the opportunity to show the American people what we can do when we work together. He should call Loretta Lynch's nomination up for a vote without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, millions of Americans are racing against the clock to meet tomorrow's midnight deadline to file their taxes. In the closing hours of the 113th Congress, we came together to approve legislation to extend for 1 year, just 1 year, several tax credits that are essential to small businesses and middleclass families. A 1 year extension of these tax credits was surely welcomed by many, but such a short extension leaves in place the uncertainty needed by so many families and small businesses as they look ahead to the coming year to plan large purchases, expansions, new home purchases, or even a family vacation. I hope that Congress will tackle meaningful tax reform legislation this year, so that we can protect hardworking families, hold corporations accountable, incentivize environmental protections, and encourage charitable giving. So today, ahead of Tax Day, I am introducing three commonsense proposals, S. 930, S. 931, and S. 932, that will provide reasonable tax credits for such things as surplus food donations, art donations, and preservation of our historic buildings in communities and villages across the country. The bipartisan Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Extension Act expands upon a proven and effective tax incentive to encourage businesses and farms to donate surplus food to their local food banks. A 2011 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that demand on food banks across the country has risen dramatically during and since the recent economic recession, with more than 50 million Americans living in food insecure households. Despite this, as much as 40 percent of the food that is produced, grown and transported in the United States goes unused as some businesses find it too costly to donate the excess food, amounting to 70 billion pounds of wasted food each year. The Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act addresses this by permanently extending the same tax incentives to donate food now available to corporations to all businesses, including small businesses, farmers, ranchers and restaurant owners--many of whom often have large amounts of fresh food to donate. Since the most recent extension of this tax incentive through 2013, the restaurant industry alone experienced a 137 percent increase in the pounds of food donated. This bill--cosponsored by Senators Cochran, Stabenow, McCain, Casey, and Blunt, is supported by many organizations including Feeding America, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Restaurant Association, Hunger Free Vermont, and the Vermont Food Bank. The Artist-Museum Partnership Act was first introduced in 2000. This legislation would preserve cherished art works for the public by allowing artists to take a fair market deduction for works they donate to museums, libraries, colleges and other public institutions. Under current law, artists that donate their created work may only deduct the cost of supplies, while a collector of the same work that donates it to qualified charitable institutions is allowed to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the donated work. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work. Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since the law was changed with respect to artists, fewer and fewer of them have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions, while the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. The Artist-Museum Partnership Act would restore the law to pre-1969 and allow artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions to be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayers or collectors who donate such works follow. The Artist-Museum Partnership Act is supported by such organizations as the Association of Art Museum Directors, American Alliance of Museums, Americans for the Arts, League of American Orchestras, OPERA America, Dance/USA, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, the Vermont Arts Counsel, and the Shelburne Museum. Finally, the Historic Downtown and Preservation and Access Act would create a refundable tax credit for the installation of fire sprinklers and elevators in older, multi-use buildings in historic downtowns. Each year fire destroys hundreds of vulnerable historic buildings that serve as the anchors of America's vibrant villages and downtowns, in many cases resulting in injury or loss of life. The Historic Downtown and Preservation and Access Act creates a 50 percent refundable tax credit capped at $50,000 to encourage the installation of upfront but costly sprinkler systems in order to help prevent the loss of life, reduce property damage, and decrease Federal expenditures on rebuilding efforts after these fires. This bill also incentivizes the installation of elevators in order to encourage the use of upper story office, retail, and housing space in historic downtown buildings that would otherwise go unused due to inaccessibility. The new refundable tax credit, modeled after the State of Vermont's highly successful downtown historic tax credit, would allow private entities with little tax liability and nonprofits alike to install these important property and life-saving devices in historic buildings. Congress must have a meaningful debate about how we can best reform, simplify, and streamline our complicated tax system. These are just a few of the proposals I hope Congress will consider in this debate. It is time we start working to incentivize programs that stand to best help our communities, rather than protect the wealthiest among us from paying their fair share.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, millions of Americans are racing against the clock to meet tomorrow's midnight deadline to file their taxes. In the closing hours of the 113th Congress, we came together to approve legislation to extend for 1 year, just 1 year, several tax credits that are essential to small businesses and middleclass families. A 1 year extension of these tax credits was surely welcomed by many, but such a short extension leaves in place the uncertainty needed by so many families and small businesses as they look ahead to the coming year to plan large purchases, expansions, new home purchases, or even a family vacation. I hope that Congress will tackle meaningful tax reform legislation this year, so that we can protect hardworking families, hold corporations accountable, incentivize environmental protections, and encourage charitable giving. So today, ahead of Tax Day, I am introducing three commonsense proposals, S. 930, S. 931, and S. 932, that will provide reasonable tax credits for such things as surplus food donations, art donations, and preservation of our historic buildings in communities and villages across the country. The bipartisan Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Extension Act expands upon a proven and effective tax incentive to encourage businesses and farms to donate surplus food to their local food banks. A 2011 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that demand on food banks across the country has risen dramatically during and since the recent economic recession, with more than 50 million Americans living in food insecure households. Despite this, as much as 40 percent of the food that is produced, grown and transported in the United States goes unused as some businesses find it too costly to donate the excess food, amounting to 70 billion pounds of wasted food each year. The Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act addresses this by permanently extending the same tax incentives to donate food now available to corporations to all businesses, including small businesses, farmers, ranchers and restaurant owners--many of whom often have large amounts of fresh food to donate. Since the most recent extension of this tax incentive through 2013, the restaurant industry alone experienced a 137 percent increase in the pounds of food donated. This bill--cosponsored by Senators Cochran, Stabenow, McCain, Casey, and Blunt, is supported by many organizations including Feeding America, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Restaurant Association, Hunger Free Vermont, and the Vermont Food Bank. The Artist-Museum Partnership Act was first introduced in 2000. This legislation would preserve cherished art works for the public by allowing artists to take a fair market deduction for works they donate to museums, libraries, colleges and other public institutions. Under current law, artists that donate their created work may only deduct the cost of supplies, while a collector of the same work that donates it to qualified charitable institutions is allowed to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the donated work. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work. Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since the law was changed with respect to artists, fewer and fewer of them have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions, while the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. The Artist-Museum Partnership Act would restore the law to pre-1969 and allow artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions to be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayers or collectors who donate such works follow. The Artist-Museum Partnership Act is supported by such organizations as the Association of Art Museum Directors, American Alliance of Museums, Americans for the Arts, League of American Orchestras, OPERA America, Dance/USA, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, the Vermont Arts Counsel, and the Shelburne Museum. Finally, the Historic Downtown and Preservation and Access Act would create a refundable tax credit for the installation of fire sprinklers and elevators in older, multi-use buildings in historic downtowns. Each year fire destroys hundreds of vulnerable historic buildings that serve as the anchors of America's vibrant villages and downtowns, in many cases resulting in injury or loss of life. The Historic Downtown and Preservation and Access Act creates a 50 percent refundable tax credit capped at $50,000 to encourage the installation of upfront but costly sprinkler systems in order to help prevent the loss of life, reduce property damage, and decrease Federal expenditures on rebuilding efforts after these fires. This bill also incentivizes the installation of elevators in order to encourage the use of upper story office, retail, and housing space in historic downtown buildings that would otherwise go unused due to inaccessibility. The new refundable tax credit, modeled after the State of Vermont's highly successful downtown historic tax credit, would allow private entities with little tax liability and nonprofits alike to install these important property and life-saving devices in historic buildings. Congress must have a meaningful debate about how we can best reform, simplify, and streamline our complicated tax system. These are just a few of the proposals I hope Congress will consider in this debate. It is time we start working to incentivize programs that stand to best help our communities, rather than protect the wealthiest among us from paying their fair share.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the Senate was in recess, Loretta Lynch, the nominee to be our next Attorney General, announced that her office brought charges against two residents of Queens, NY, for conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction and plotting a terrorist attack on American soil. U.S. Attorney Lynch continues to work tirelessly to protect our Nation, but the Senate Republican leadership continues to play politics with our law enforcement and has prevented the Senate from fulfilling one of our most essential constitutional duties--the duty to provide advice and consent on Presidential nominations. The same baseless political obstructionism that has stalled Ms. Lynch's nomination has also led to the Senate's failure to confirm a single Federal judge so far this year. As one of the country's top Federal prosecutors, Loretta Lynch has an unparalleled record of keeping Americans safe from dangerous criminals and terrorists. This includes the successful prosecution of six individuals for their roles in a 2009 Al Qaeda plot to attack the New York subway system, the convictions of four terrorists who plotted an attack on John F. Kennedy Airport, and the conviction of a terrorist who sought to detonate an explosive device at the New York Federal Reserve. Despite her distinguished record of service, the Republican leadership is trying to use Ms. Lynch's nomination for political gain. This is not how the Senate should be treating a nomination of such importance to law enforcement and our national security. It has now been more than 5 months since President Obama announced the nomination of Ms. Lynch to be Attorney General. Her nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support in February, yet it has been pending before the full Senate for 46 days. That is nearly twice as long as all of the past seven Attorneys General combined: Richard Thornburgh, 1 day; William Barr, 5 days; Janet Reno, 1 day; John Ashcroft, 2 days, Alberto Gonzales, 8 days; Michael Mukasey, 2 days; and Eric Holder, 5 days. This historic delay is an embarrassment for the Senate. In January, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for nearly 8 hours and she responded to nearly 900 written questions. Not a single witness invited by Republicans opposed her nomination. When Republicans stalled consideration of Ms. Lynch's nomination in committee, Democrats noted the unnecessary delay and raised concerns about filling this vital position. The assistant Republican leader dismissed this as ``faux outrage.'' But in November 2007, that same Senator complained that a 7-week process on the Mukasey nomination threatened our national security. He issued a press release stating: It is imperative that the president has his national security team at full strength and the unnecessary delay of Judge Mukasey's nomination has prevented that. He deserves an immediate up-or-down vote by the full Senate. Similarly, in early October 2007--just 3 weeks after Mr. Mukasey's nomination was announced, the Republican leader criticized me for not yet having set a hearing date, saying that Democrats should ``not hold Judge Mukasey hostage while they play partisan games.'' This is the same Republican leader who is now holding Ms. Lynch's nomination hostage and who has kept her nomination languishing on the floor for nearly twice as long as the past seven Attorneys General combined. No one can deny that Ms. Lynch is eminently qualified for the job. The Republican leader should schedule a vote on Ms. Lynch's nomination today. She has the votes to be confirmed, and a vote on this highly qualified nominee is long overdue. The Majority must stop playing political games with our law enforcement. We should also be voting on all 10 judicial nominees who have been pending in the Senate since last year, two of whom just passed the 1- year mark since they were first nominated. Tonight, we will consider just one of those nominees. Once confirmed, Alfred Bennett will fill a ``judicial emergency'' vacancy in the Southern District of Texas that has been empty for more than 2 years. There is no good explanation why it has taken us nearly 7 months to vote on his nomination, nor is there a good reason for why we are not voting on the other two pending nominees to district court vacancies in Texas. There are still two Fifth Circuit vacancies and seven other Federal district court vacancies in Texas for which there are no nominees. Texas has two times the number of Federal court vacancies of any other State, and these vacancies account for one-third of the judicial emergency vacancies on our Nation's courts. I urge the Texas Senators to work with the President so that we can receive nominees for those vacancies as soon as possible. Despite promises to govern responsibly, the Republican majority has continued to obstruct when it comes to judicial vacancies. When Senate Democrats were in the majority, we confirmed 15 of President Bush's district and circuit court nominees by April 2007. We confirmed 68 judges during the last 2 years of the Bush administration, building on a record I established at the very beginning of the Bush Presidency when 100 judges were confirmed in the 17 months that I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The fact that it has taken more than 3 months into the 114th Congress for the Republican majority to schedule a vote on a single judicial nominee is disconcerting, especially because all four of the district court nominees who have been languishing on the Senate floor were recommended to President Obama by their two Republican home State Senators. Judge Alfred Bennett, whom we are voting to confirm today, is currently the presiding judge on the 61st Civil District Court in Houston, TX. From 2010 to 2011, he served as the administrative judge of the Harris County Civil District Courts. Judge Bennett has presided over 8,400 cases, 640 jury trials, and 550 bench trials. Prior to becoming a judge, he was in private practice for a decade and litigated a range of civil matters. Judge Bennett has the support of both his Republican home State senators, Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote on February 26. He has strong qualifications and should be confirmed. I urge the Republican majority to schedule votes to confirm the remaining judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar. None of the nominees are controversial. We should do our jobs and vote on their nominations so that they can start doing their jobs working for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are now three months into the new Congress with Republicans in the majority. The Republican reign thus far has been defined by an attempt to shut down the Department of Homeland Security; a refusal to even allow a floor vote on an eminently qualified nominee for Attorney General; and the decision to inject a partisan abortion fight in what is otherwise an uncontroversial bill to build on our efforts to combat human trafficking. On top of all of this, the Senate Republican Leadership has been unwilling to bring up for a vote any of the judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar. Not one. The refusal by the Senate Republican leadership to schedule votes on any Federal judges is completely contrary to historical precedent. This is also in stark contrast to the way Democrats treated President Bush's judicial nominees. During the Bush administration we were able to reduce overall judicial vacancies from 110 down to 28. 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 of the Judiciary Committee during the last 2 years of the Bush administration and continued to hold regular hearings on judges and we confirmed 68 district and circuit court judges in those last 2 years. The Senate must continue to fulfill its constitutional obligation of advice and consent. The fact that we are in the last 2 years of this presidency does not mean our work is done. In the last 2 years of the Clinton administration, 73 judges were confirmed, and in the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, 83 judges were confirmed. I have heard Senate Republicans state that 11 of the judges confirmed in the lame duck last year should count towards confirmations this year. That is a bizarre claim. Prior Congresses have always confirmed consensus nominees prior to long recesses. And Senate Democrats were only forced to do so because Republican obstruction had left judicial vacancies close to or exceeding 90 through the first 6 years of this President's tenure. In comparison to the current treatment of judicial nominees, by the end of March 2007, the new Senate Democratic majority had scheduled votes on and confirmed 15 of President Bush's district and circuit court nominees. The refusal to schedule a vote on a single judicial nominee this year comes despite the fact that four of these nominees have languished on the Senate floor for a month and were recommended to President Obama by their two Republican home State Senators. Three of these pending nominees will fill district court vacancies in Texas, two of which have been designated by the non-partisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts as ``judicial emergency'' vacancies. I would urge the current Assistant Republican Leader, who represents Texas, to work to schedule votes to fill those vacancies. I would also urge the junior Senator from Texas, who has now announced his intent to run for President, to urge his Leadership to schedule a vote to fill those vacancies. We started this Congress with 44 judicial vacancies, including 12 vacancies deemed judicial emergencies. Today, there are 55 vacancies, including 23 judicial emergency vacancies. Let us not go back to the first 6 years of this presidency when vacancies consistently hovered around 90. The Democratic majority worked hard to reduce those vacancies so that our justice system could function effectively. The Republican majority needs to put partisanship aside and schedule votes on these consensus judicial nominees. Filling the current vacancies is necessary but not sufficient. Last week the Judicial Conference of the United States, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, identified the need for adding 5 permanent judgeships to the courts of appeals, and 68 permanent judgeships to the district courts, as well as converting 9 temporary district court judgeships to permanent status. This Senate should be working to provide the Federal Judiciary with the resources it needs, including the addition of more judgeships. I urge the Republican leadership of this body to schedule votes on the current pending nominations before we break for the 2-week recess. Let us show respect to the independent Federal judiciary of this country and let's get these nominees to work for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations has a long history of bipartisanship. Over the years, I have served as either chairman or ranking member, and I am pleased that cooperation between Republicans and Democrats is as strong today as it has ever been. I want to commend Senator Graham, the chairman of the subcommittee, who has been a passionate defender of the budget for international affairs as a key component of our national security strategy. He understands that the use of military power is often an insufficient-- indeed inappropriate--way to solve problems or protect our security. There are times when the use of military force is necessary, but diplomacy and development can be a cost-effective investment to avoid the far more costly and dangerous deployment of U.S. troops. Earlier today, the subcommittee heard testimony from five outstanding private sector witnesses on this very subject--Bill Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Ben Affleck, co-founder of the Eastern Congo Initiative; ADM James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, former Commander of U.S. Southern Command, and current dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University; Scott Ford, founder of Westrock Coffee Company and the Rwanda Trading Company; and John Megrue, chairman of Apax Partners U.S., chairman of Born Free, chairman of the Business Leadership Council for a Generation Born HIV Free, and a director of Millennium Promise and of Grameen America. Each of these witnesses made a compelling case for increased funding for the international affairs budget. They gave inspiring examples of how partnerships between the U.S. Agency for International Development and civil society organizations in poor countries have brought dramatic improvements to the lives of local people, and more open and stable societies. In a world that is perhaps more dangerous and unpredictable as any time since World War II, we have a chance to help promote economic growth and political stability, and in doing so build sustainable foreign partners. It is therefore ironic that today we were presented with an amendment, offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky, to slash the international affairs budget by nearly 50 percent for the purpose of bolstering defense spending, even though the Pentagon is among the strongest supporters of diplomacy and development. Fortunately that amendment was resoundingly defeated by a vote of 96 to 4. At just 1 percent of total Federal spending, this account cannot and should not serve as a bill payer for other priorities. Nor will reducing foreign assistance benefit our military. In fact, the opposite is true, and I commend Senator Graham for calling today's hearing in order to explain why. I ask unanimous consent that an October 21, 2014 op-ed by retired Gen. Anthony Zinni and retired ADM James Stavridis, entitled Fighting Extremism Requires Foreign Aid, Too be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one great responsibility that distinguishes the U.S. Senate is our constitutional role of advice and consent. We have a solemn duty to consider nominees for positions of great importance to the Nation, some of which are lifetime appointments. Every day that the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General awaits a floor vote is another day the Senate fails to function as it should. The Attorney General is our Nation's top law enforcement official. The position is critical to protecting our national security and our most cherished civil rights. It is a position of honor and one that deserves respect. And even though Senators have not always agreed with the President's choice, there used to be a mutual respect for the position and the process of filling it. That proud history is being debased here in the Senate today. The Republican majority has turned this vital position--and the highly respected nominee--into a bargaining chip to be leveraged for political gain. This is not how to treat a position of such importance to law enforcement and our national security. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I did not support the nomination of Michael Mukasey, the choice of President George W. Bush. But I did not obstruct the process or deny the Senate a vote. To the contrary, we treated the position and the nominee with the historic respect they both deserve. Judge Mukasey received a floor vote just 2 days after he was reported from committee and he was confirmed just 53 days after his nomination was announced. That process stands in sharp contrast to that of Ms. Lynch. It has now been 28 days since she was reported out of committee and 137 days since her nomination was first announced. The treatment of this excellent nominee is beneath the dignity of this body. In January, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for nearly 8 hours and she responded to nearly 900 written questions. Not a single witness invited by Republicans opposed her nomination. When Republicans stalled consideration of Ms. Lynch's nomination in committee, Democrats noted the unnecessary delay and raised concerns about filling this vital position. Senator Cornyn dismissed this as ``faux outrage.'' But in November 2007, Senator Cornyn complained that a 7-week process on the Mukasey nomination threatened our national security. He issued a press release stating: It is imperative that the president has his national security team at full strength and the unnecessary delay of Judge Mukasey's nomination has prevented that. He deserves an immediate up-or-down vote by the full Senate. Loretta Lynch's nomination has now been pending more than 19 weeks. Where is the outrage now? Where is the concern for the President's national security team to be at full strength? Similarly, in early October 2007--just 3 weeks after Mr. Mukasey's nomination was announced, the Republican leader criticized me for not yet having set a hearing date, saying that Democrats should ``not hold Judge Mukasey hostage while they play partisan games.'' That was after 3 weeks. We are now on week 19 for Ms. Lynch--that is more than six times as long and Senator McConnell has openly linked her confirmation to partisan politics by linking her vote to demands on legislation. Senate Republicans' handling of the nomination process for the Nation's top law enforcement officer has been disgraceful. And all of this after Senate Democrats agreed not to process her nomination during the lameduck because the current majority leader reassured us that she would be treated fairly. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. No one can deny that Ms. Lynch is eminently qualified for the job. No one can deny that her nomination is a historic one. No one can deny that her record safeguarding our Nation from terrorists and criminals is beyond reproach. And no one can deny--based on the objective numbers-- that she is being treated worse than her predecessors. Ms. Lynch has been treated unfairly compared to previous Attorneys General nominees by whatever metric one chooses. Republicans are holding back a top Federal prosecutor who has an unparalleled record keeping Americans safe from terrorists. During her tenure as U.S. attorney, the Eastern District of New York has prosecuted significant terrorism cases. This includes the successful prosecution of six individuals for their roles in a 2009 Al Qaeda plot to attack the New York subway system; the convictions of four terrorists plotting to attack John F. Kennedy Airport; and the conviction of a terrorist who attempted to detonate an explosive device at the New York Federal Reserve. Rudy Giuliani, the former Republican Mayor of New York and a proud law-and-order conservative, urged the Senate last week to end the delay and to confirm Ms. Lynch. He said: This woman is entitled to confirmation: not as a woman, not as a man, but as a highly qualified candidate . . . Loretta Lynch is more than qualified. She's overqualified to be attorney general. My friend Louis Freeh, former Director of the FBI and Federal judge, has written that ``[i]n my twenty-five years of public service--23 in the Department of Justice--I cannot think of a more qualified nominee to be America's chief law enforcement officer.'' He has further stated that ``Ms. Lynch is an atypically non-political appointment for that office, a career professional without any political party ties or activity.'' If we do not confirm Ms. Lynch before the upcoming recess, her nomination will be pending before the full Senate for 46 days by the time we return on April 13. That is nearly twice as long as all of the past seven Attorneys General combined: Richard Thornburgh, 1 day; William Barr, 5 days; Janet Reno, 1 day; John Ashcroft, 2 days, Alberto Gonzales, 8 days; Michael Mukasey, 2 days; and Eric Holder, 5 days. This delay is an embarrassment for the U.S. Senate. I am concerned that the Senate will have to file a cloture motion and vote to overcome a filibuster of Ms. Lynch's nomination. This would be unprecedented and unwarranted. No Attorney General nomination in our history has ever been met with a filibuster. We have never needed a cloture vote for an Attorney General nomination. It appears that Senate Republicans want to make history for all the wrong reasons. It is time to stop playing politics and lead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as negotiations continue in Havana between the Colombian Government and the FARC rebels, I want to speak briefly about some recent information that is reason to be both encouraged and cautious about the future. Over the course of the 50-year armed conflict, antipersonnel landmines and other unexploded ordnance have maimed and killed thousands of Colombians, mostly innocent civilians living in rural areas. To its great credit, the Colombian Government signed the international treaty banning antipersonnel mines years ago, but the FARC continued to use them. Then, a little over 2 weeks ago, on March 7, the Colombian Government and the FARC reached an agreement for the removal and destruction of these indiscriminate weapons. The two sides have agreed to request the organization Norwegian People's Aid to lead and coordinate the implementation of this effort, which will prioritize areas where the population faces the greatest risk. The agreement provides for surveys, verification, and other mechanisms to ensure its effective implementation. This is long overdue, and I commend both sides for taking this step. It will not only save lives; it will help to build confidence for the implementation of a comprehensive peace agreement if one is reached. While officials of both Colombia and the United States like to portray Plan Colombia, the 5-year initiative that has stretched on for 15 years and cost more than $9 billion in U.S. aid as an unparalleled success, the reality is mixed. On the one hand, there have been significant achievements. Many Colombians are safer today than a decade ago, the army and police are more professional, and the economy has improved significantly. The negotiations to achieve a comprehensive peace agreement between the government and the FARC, for which President Santos deserves our strong support, are making progress, although difficult issues, particularly relating to justice and accountability, remain. A separate but related issue that needs to be addressed is the Ministry of Defense's proposed military justice reforms. I am among those, including the Department of State, who have expressed concern that these legislative and constitutional proposals could be interpreted to permit the transfer of certain human rights crimes, including false positives, to the military courts which lack the credibility or capacity to impartially investigate and adjudicate them. The Colombian Government needs to resolve this matter as soon as possible in a manner that eliminates any ambiguity about the authority of the civilian courts over such cases. Despite Plan Colombia's achievements, much of the past decade and a half was plagued by massacres, kidnappings, land seizures, and other crimes by paramilitaries, the Colombian army, and the FARC and ELN rebels, for which a very small fraction of the individuals responsible have been brought to justice. Corruption was rampant during the administration of President Uribe, and life today for millions of Colombians remains one of poverty, violence, and displacement. Human rights defenders, social activists, and trade unionists continue to be threatened and assaulted or killed with alarming frequency. According to a recent report of the International Red Cross, violations of international humanitarian law in Colombia increased by 41 percent in 2014. There were 814 alleged breaches of international humanitarian law, an increase of 258 from 2013. During the past year, Human Rights Watch released reports documenting numerous new cases of disappearances, killings, sexual violence, and other atrocities by the FARC and successor groups to paramilitaries in the mostly Afro-Colombian areas of Tumaco and Buenaventura. In these two municipalities on the Pacific coast, more than 28,000 residents were reportedly forced to abandon their homes due to violence in 2014 alone, according to government data. These findings illustrate that despite progress in the peace talks they have yet to bring tangible improvements in the lives of many Colombians who continue to suffer horrific abuses with impunity. The landmine agreement has the potential to help change that. And, of course, a peace agreement that results in the disarmament of the FARC and their renunciation of drug trafficking would be a historic achievement of immense benefit to the Colombian people. But while it would signify an end to the armed conflict it would only be the starting point for rebuilding the country, especially rural communities that suffered the worst of the violence and displacement. That is a process which will take years. It is widely understood that any peace agreement between two warring parties, neither of which can win on the battlefield, requires compromise. At the same time, lasting peace will require access to justice, particularly for victims of the worst crimes. Impunity is at the root of the Colombian conflict: few criminal investigations result in convictions, and human rights or other political crimes of violence and corruption are rarely prosecuted. If a peace agreement is reached I believe the United States should strongly support it--with an emphasis on strengthening Colombia's weak judicial institutions, including holding accountable those responsible for war crimes. No democracy can survive without transparent, competent, independent judicial institutions that protect the rule of law and deliver justice when basic rights are violated. If Colombia has the trained investigators, prosecutors, judges and most importantly, the political will to end impunity, the country will finally be able to leave the worst of its past behind.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tucked away in the mountains, hills, and valleys of Vermont is a widely recognized, vibrant college campus that also happens to be my alma mater--Saint Michael's College. To students, faculty, staff, and alumni alike, the Saint Michael's community is almost like a family: once you become a part of it, it becomes part of your life. Later this year, one of our campus's family members--Marilyn Cormier--will leave the grounds of Saint Michael's, retiring after nearly 33 years of dedicated service to the college. Marilyn is known to many, and all who have worked with her have admired her tenacity, her love for Saint Michael's, and her commitment to the institution she has called home for over three decades. I will miss her. In 1982, Marilyn traveled halfway around the world from her home in Sri Lanka and landed at Saint Michael's. She started working in the Office of Academic Affairs, ultimately becoming the director of government and community relations and the secretary of the board of trustees, the position from which she will retire. Marilyn's passion for connecting the academic community of Saint Michael's with surrounding Vermont communities and communities across the country and abroad has made her a valued mentor to students and faculty alike. St. Mike's could not have had a more effective ambassador, champion, and problem-solver than Marilyn has been in this crucial role. Her energy is only matched by her creativity and her clear, sharp focus on what matters. Marilyn's considerable talents also benefited the Vermont Council on World Affairs, an organization headquartered at Saint Michael's College. As a member of the board of directors, Marilyn has connected students with cross-cultural opportunities throughout Vermont and across the globe. In 2012, Marilyn helped to organize a delegation of representatives visiting the French city of Honfleur. It was a treat for both Marcelle and me to be a part of that special visit. Over the years, I have crossed paths with many people connected to Saint Michael's, from public figures in the Nation's Capital, Vermont and across the country, to visitors in my office, to members of my own staff. One constant in each of these encounters is the praise they have for Marilyn for her work in helping so many students achieve their goals. She has empowered students to become leaders in their communities. I know these are commitments that will continue, even as Marilyn prepares for this exciting next chapter in her life. Saint Michael's is a special place that many visit and come to call home. So it has been for Marilyn Cormier. Marcelle and I wish our dear friend all the very best.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to point out that we are completing another brisk ski season at one of Vermont's fabled slopes, Mount Snow. This year marks the 60th anniversary of winter sports at Mount Snow, and while the temperatures dropped well below zero for many weeks, outdoor enthusiasts of Vermont and from far beyond have descended on Dover, VT, to embrace Mother Nature's challenge, and they have enthusiastically embraced the joys and challenges of our gorgeous mountainous terrain. Mount Snow was born in the 1950s as Alpine skiing solidified itself as a popular American sport. It has been a vital contributor to the economies of Vermont and New England ever since. Since its birth as one of Vermont's go-to ski slopes, Mount Snow has been an innovator and a pioneer, staying ahead of the industry and adding features to the resort that are now commonplace at ski areas throughout our country and the world. As Mount Snow enters a new phase in its development, its future will include state-of-the-art advancements with a new ski lodge to meet skier needs and an expanded snowmaking infrastructure to ensure snowmaking is available across the mountain. As the closest mountain to Boston and New York City, these improvements will only encourage more people to choose Vermont as their primary destination for skiing and riding. I want to congratulate the entire team at Mount Snow for 60 years of great and vibrant winter activity, and I look forward to all they have planned for the future. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Manchester Journal sketching Mount Snow's history and planned growth be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this year marks the 75th anniversary of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., one of the great civil rights organizations in the Nation's history. Seventy-five years ago, Thurgood Marshall established LDF or the ``Inc. Fund''--as it was commonly known then--as a separate legal entity. The efforts of the men and women of this organization throughout the years have transformed our Nation for the better. I am grateful for the leaders who have dedicated their lives to the perennial effort to move this country toward a more perfect union. I would extend a special thanks to Sherrilyn Ifill, the current president and director-counsel of LDF; Leslie Proll, the director of the Washington, DC, office; and Debo Adegbile, the former acting director-counsel of LDF. Their dedication is emblematic of the hard-working staff of the Legal Defense Fund. Most of us know about LDF's work to dismantle segregation in the historic Brown v. Board of Education case, but the organization's advocacy for civil rights extends far beyond litigating groundbreaking cases. The grass roots leaders of LDF have also helped achieve greater racial justice through its legislative efforts, including working with members from both sides of the aisle in Congress. The Legal Defense Fund has contributed its knowledge and expertise on issues such as voting rights, equal employment access, fair housing, education and criminal justice, and their efforts have resulted in legislation and policies that have improved the lives of millions of Americans. This year, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the march from Selma as well as the 75th anniversary of LDF, I once again urge my fellow Senators to join our effort to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act that were gutted by the Supreme Court's narrow majority in Shelby County v. Holder. The best way to honor civil rights heroes such as Thurgood Marshall, and all the men and women of LDF, is to enact real and meaningful legislative reforms that advance the principles of equality for which those individuals dedicated their lives.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Loretta Lynch, the nominee to be our next Attorney General, has now been awaiting a vote on the Senate floor for 25 days. I have spoken many times about her historic nomination, her inspiring family, and her passion for the highest callings of public service. Last week, a distinguished group of bipartisan law enforcement officials came together to call for the confirmation of Loretta Lynch. These individuals have dedicated the better part of their careers to protecting the American people, and they conveyed how important it is to have the Senate confirm the chief law enforcement officer in the country. One of those individuals is my friend, Louis Freeh, former Director of the FBI and a Federal judge. Director Freeh wrote to the committee in support of Loretta Lynch that ``[i]n my twenty-five years of public service--23 in the Department of Justice--I cannot think of a more qualified nominee to be America's chief law enforcement officer.'' He has further stated that ``Ms. Lynch is an atypically non-political appointment for that office, a career professional without any political party ties or activity.'' Loretta Lynch is also supported by the current New York police commissioner, who was appointed by a Democrat, and a former New York police commissioner, who was appointed by a Republican. She has earned the support of former U.S. attorneys from both Republican and Democratic administrations. She has the support of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, and many, many others. There is a very obvious reason for the bipartisan support Ms. Lynch has received--her qualifications are simply beyond reproach. She has been confirmed by the Senate twice before to serve as the top Federal prosecutor based in Brooklyn, NY. Those who have worked with her over the course of her 30-year career described her as ``even-handed,'' ``apolitical,'' and believe she ``will be a strong independent voice at the helm of the Department of Justice.'' Under her leadership, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York has brought terrorists to justice, obtained convictions against both Republicans and Democrats in public corruption cases, and fought tirelessly against violent crime and financial fraud. Her record shows that as Attorney General, Ms. Lynch will effectively, fairly, and independently enforce the law. Many Americans are starting to wonder why she is being held up so long in light of her sterling record and in light of the very serious law enforcement challenges that we face in communities across the country. Unfortunately, the Republican Senate leadership is holding Ms. Lynch's nomination hostage to their political agenda and that does not reflect well on the Senate or their leadership. President Obama announced the nomination of Ms. Lynch more than 4 months ago. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination with bipartisan support 25 days ago. As of today, her nomination has been pending on the Senate floor longer than all of the past seven Attorneys General combined: Richard Thornburgh, 1 day; Bob Barr, 5 days; Janet Reno, 1 day; John Ashcroft, 2 days; Alberto Gonzales, 8 days; Michael Mukasey, 2 days; and Eric Holder, 5 days. This delay is an embarrassment for the Senate. The excuses for holding up her nomination continue to mount and each excuse rings hollow given the importance of the position to which she is nominated. First, the President and Senate Democrats were warned last November that we should not move Ms. Lynch's nomination during the lameduck period last Congress. Senate Republicans claimed that she would be treated fairly if we waited. In fact, the current majority leader issued a statement last November, proclaiming that ``Ms. Lynch will receive fair consideration by the Senate. And her nomination should be considered in the new Congress through regular order.'' As a result, we acceded to their request. However, treatment of her nomination has not been fair when compared to her predecessors. Despite Senate Republicans' request that we not move her nomination in the few weeks remaining in the lameduck session, they now assert in the press that if this nomination was so important, then the President and Senate Democrats should have processed it during that very time of transition. Sometimes you can only shake your head at what is said to excuse their delay. This nomination is for the top law enforcement officer in the Nation. It should not just be important to Democrats. It should be important to Republicans as well. It is important to all Americans. I can remember when Judge Mukasey was nominated by President Bush to be Attorney General. From the date of announcement to confirmation, it took 53 days. Judge Mukasey received a floor vote just 2 days after he was reported from committee. And these were some of the remarks made by Senate Republicans at that time: ``We should stop playing partisan political games with this nomination. The Justice Department is too important for this type of stuff.'' ``Forty days into the partisan wilderness is more than enough. We should confirm Judge Michael Mukasey without further delay.'' There were expressions of outrage against Democrats after just 40 days. Contrast that to Ms. Lynch, who has now been waiting 135 days. Her nomination has been pending on the floor for 25 days whereas Judge Mukasey received a vote in 2 days. Where is the outrage from my fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle now? Second, the majority leader announced 2 weeks ago that he would finally schedule a vote on Ms. Lynch's nomination last week. However, instead of doing so, the majority leader changed his mind and acted as if the Senate could not consider legislation and executive nominees at the same time. Now he has announced that she will not have a confirmation vote until after the Senate has concluded its debate on the human trafficking bill. The Senate often debates legislation and votes on nominations at the same time. Over the last week and a half, we voted on six other executive nominations while we were on the human trafficking bill. None of those executive nominations is more important than this one. The top law enforcement officer in the land is not a negotiating chip that any party should use for leverage. That is not how we respect the role that law enforcement officials play in our system of government. What made the delay announced last Sunday more confounding is the fact that Loretta Lynch has a proven track record of prosecuting human trafficking and child rape crimes. Over the course of the last decade, her office has indicted over 55 defendants in sex trafficking cases and rescued over 110 victims of sex trafficking. Ms. Lynch and her office have used the tools that Congress has provided them to bring traffickers to justice. In United States v. Rivera, the prosecutors in her office utilized the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to help them obtain a conviction against an owner of several New York bars for his role in a sex trafficking and forced labor ring. The evidence at trial established that the defendants recruited and harbored scores of undocumented Latin American immigrants, and forced them to work as waitresses at the owner's bars. The owner and his accomplices used violence, including rapes and beatings, as well as fraud and threats of deportation, to compel the victims to work and prevent them from reporting the illegal activity to police. Because of the leadership Ms. Lynch showed in making such cases a priority, the bar owner was sentenced to 60 years in prison. I am proud of the Senate's work to get the Trafficking Victims Protection Act reauthorized 2 years ago as part of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. We passed those laws with strong bipartisan support because we avoided unnecessary political fights, listened to the survivors, and responded to what they said they needed. I wish the Republican leadership would do the same on Senator Cornyn's trafficking bill. Unfortunately, it is many of the same Senators who voted against the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Violence Against Women Act who have injected a divisive partisan fight here--over the objection of the very survivors they wish to help. It is this unnecessary fight that has stopped an otherwise bipartisan bill. And now, many of those same Senators are using this unnecessary conflict--a conflict they created--as an excuse not to move Loretta Lynch's nomination. So instead of working together to confirm a nominee with a proven commitment to stopping human trafficking, and instead of passing antitrafficking legislation that will help the survivors of this terrible crime, Senate Republicans have refused to do either one this month. Loretta Lynch was recently named one of ``New York's New Abolitionists'' by the New York State Anti-Trafficking Coalition for her leadership in combating human trafficking. She has told members of the Judiciary Committee that human trafficking would be one of her top priorities if confirmed as Attorney General. And now, in the name of supporting human trafficking victims, Senate Republicans are blocking her nomination. That makes no sense. If we want to show our commitment to ending human trafficking, we should remove the unnecessary, partisan language from the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act--language that is not in the House-passed bill--and confirm Loretta Lynch without further delay. It is time to stop delaying and making excuses. It is time to stop playing politics with our law enforcement and national security. There is only one holdup to Ms. Lynch's nomination to be Attorney General, and that is the party that the American public has entrusted to govern the Senate. I ask that she receive a confirmation vote this week so that she can get to the peoples' work as our next Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Maine, my neighbor in New England. We actually still have some debates on this floor. We had an important one yesterday. Someone called it a ``C-SPAN moment.'' It was a focused and memorable discussion of a significant issue now before the Senate. It was an honest discussion about what is at stake in the debate we are having right now. The core question is how we are going to support the survivors, in what every Senator agrees is a heinous and deplorable crime. Late yesterday, Senator Feinstein spoke with powerful clarity about why the Hyde amendment has no place in what we are trying to do here, particularly when this legislation we are debating does not involve taxpayer funds. The Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund included in S. 178 is funded by a special assessment fine collected from convicted sex traffickers. It is intended to help survivors rebuild their lives. Now, whether taxpayer dollars should be used to ensure the full range of health care options available to this very vulnerable population is an important debate. We will have that another day. But the application of the Hyde amendment when zero taxpayer dollars are involved is unprecedented. It represents a very significant change in Federal policy. When asked why the Hyde amendment has resulted in such an outcry, Senator Feinstein said simply but powerfully: Because of what this legislation is. This legislation is about the raping . . . of young girls. Senator Feinstein is right. I encourage everyone to go back and watch her moving remarks that got right to the heart of this debate. These are children who have been bought and sold like animals. They have had every choice taken away from them. Now, if they survive, if they escape, we should not put limits on what health services they can seek. I stand with the survivors of these crimes. I stand with Senator Feinstein. This is a line we should not cross. Human trafficking victims are often not treated as rape victims. Too often these young girls are treated as prostitutes, even though they had no choice in it. That is a fact we are trying to change, but we cannot ignore the reality that many of these girls are put through our juvenile justice system and prosecuted as criminals, rather than treated as victims. It is easy for some to claim that there is a so-called ``rape exception'' to the Hyde restriction but the reality is that for the survivors of this terrible crime, the rape exception feels more like an overwhelming bureaucracy. In many States, victims are forced to jump through hoop after hoop to qualify for the exception. They have to obtain police reports or certifications from State agencies. They have to relive the details of their trauma again and again. One State even requires the Governor to approve any exception. Another State refuses to recognize the rape exception at all. The easiest, most appropriate solution here is to simply remove the Hyde restriction so that survivors can make their own health care decisions. That is what the survivors are asking us to do. That is what the professionals who work with human trafficking survivors are asking us to do. Yesterday, my friend, the senior Senator from Texas, argued that the inclusion of the language was routine, that this does not change the status quo at all. Well that is simply not accurate. The Hyde amendment is about keeping taxpayer dollars out of the abortion debate. We may have different opinions on the issue, but that is not what we are talking about here. The money at issue in this bill is not taxpayer dollars, it is money collected from sex traffickers. The bottom line is that the offender- financed fund created in this bill relies on zero taxpayer dollars. So if you want to maintain current practice, you have to remove this provision. The House bill, that passed unanimously almost 2 months ago, does not contain this expansion of the Hyde amendment's reach. It does not apply the Hyde amendment to nontaxpayer dollars. If Speaker Boehner could find a way to bring the House together and pass this bill without injecting abortion politics into the discussion, then why can't we do that in the Senate? Senator Feinstein is right. We have amendments we need to consider if we can simply get past this stalemate, but she is also right that the issue at stake is too important to turn our back on. This is not a provision we can just ignore and dismiss as the status quo. But I believe, as Senator Feinstein and others have said, we can find a path forward. The path forward should not be one that expands restrictions on the health care choices of human trafficking survivors. These survivors--many are 12 or 13 years old--let's not put further hurdles in front of them. Let's not push for a political agenda on either side. The Hyde amendment will appear on taxpayer-funded matters, as it usually does. That is one thing the Appropriations Committee will face. We are not talking about taxpayer dollars here. We are not talking about taxpayer dollars. This would be like reaching into a State and saying: Oh, by the way, you have people who have raised money for a particular organization, not taxpayer dollars, but we in Congress are going to restrict what you can use that money for. Well, we do not do that. The reason we do not do it is because our involvement is with taxpayer dollars. If we want to go and appropriate money in this area, that is the time to bring up the issue. The Appropriations Committee--I have served on that Committee for almost 40 years--we handle that issue there, but not here. What is the pending parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Is there a vote scheduled?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time and ask unanimous consent that the vote begin now.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion regarding the pending bill. I thought again I would emphasize what Senator Feinstein said earlier, which was so good, and I hope people will listen to her words. I would just follow on to that to say my good friend--and he is my friend--the distinguished senior Senator from Texas has suggested that we make the funds collected from traffickers subject to the appropriations process to get around this impasse, but that does not solve the problem. The pending legislation came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, an authorizing committee that does not appropriate funds. We should be telling appropriators that we believe services to trafficking victims are important by authorizing funds. As the most senior member of that Appropriations Committee I can tell you that this is an important process that results in real money for victim services. It is a process that works well. Under Democratic leadership of the Senate Appropriations Committee, total appropriations for trafficking victims' services more than doubled from $28.1 million in FY2014 to $58.1 million for FY2015. Senator Cornyn's proposal to simply funnel fees collected from traffickers through the appropriations process still presents the same problem--this is not taxpayer money, and subjecting it to the Hyde amendment would expand the amendment's reach to an offender-financed fund meant for women and children who should have all options available to them when it comes to health services after being sexually exploited. I would quote what the House Republican author of this bill, Congressman Poe, said today: We passed a bill. The Senate should take it up and pass it. That could be done immediately. I don't think there would be anybody trying to block it. The Republican House of Representatives passed this bill unanimously. We could take up and pass it, and not waste 2 weeks of having this dance on the floor, vote after vote, which both sides know isn't going anywhere. The easiest and best thing to do is to remove the Hyde restriction so survivors can make their own health care decisions. I will not do it again today, but I put into the Record letters and statements from hundreds of people--survivors' organizations and the people they represent--and they have said: Let us make our own health care decisions. Now, to argue what my friend from Texas says, that the inclusion of this language is routine and it does not change the status quo at all, is not accurate. In fact, that is probably why, I suspect, a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives--who support the Hyde amendment--did not include it in the House version of the bill. The Hyde amendment is about keeping taxpayer dollars out of the abortion debate. Now, we can have different opinions on the issue, but that is not what we are talking about here. The money at issue in this bill is collected from sex traffickers. The bottom line is the offender-financed funds raised in this bill rely on zero taxpayer dollars. Maintaining the current practice, if that is what you want to do, means removing the provision. Maybe we ought to listen to some of the leadership on the Appropriations Committee and how they feel about this. They are not the ones asking to do this. The Appropriations Committee is not asking us to turn them into some kind of a superauthorizing committee, and we should not put them in that position. I hope cooler heads will prevail and come together on this. I think it will be very easy for both sides who do want to stop sex trafficking to come together, and pass this bill. Then, let us also take the steps to correct what has been a shameful position in the U.S. Senate and confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. She has waited on the floor much longer than the four men who preceded her put together. This woman has waited longer than those four men before her put together, and yet everybody applauds her as a superb prosecutor. We talk about sex trafficking, and she is about the only person we have seen in here as a nominee who has actually prosecuted sex traffickers. Let's get on with the job. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity in the 40 years I have been in the Senate to lead with others of both parties many efforts to help support victims--crime victims, domestic violence victims, victims of child abuse, and human trafficking victims. One of the things I have learned during that time is we have to pay attention to what the survivors tell us when they tell us what they need. None of us have walked in their shoes. We can offer advice, but we can't second-guess them. We can't assume we know best. Our job is to listen and try to help them rebuild their lives. If we would all just stop the political rhetoric and listen, the message from these survivors is clear. Earlier this week, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women--this, incidentally, is a coalition of thousands of organizations representing millions of survivors of domestic and sexual violence--wrote: We write today to express our deep concern about the controversy of inserting the Hyde provision into the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The House passed a version of that Act that did not include this new Hyde provision and we ask the Senate to the do the same. I agree with them. I worked very closely with this group for more than 2 years as we drafted the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. They are some of the most dedicated advocates I have ever worked with and I listen to what they say. I believe they are showing us the way forward. The House version of the very bill we are debating today does not contain the unnecessary destructive provision that wreaks such havoc here. Speaker John Boehner found a way to bring the House together-- Republicans and Democrats--and passed a bill without injecting abortion politics into the discussion. Now, if that deeply divided body can do it, I would assume we can do it here in the Senate. Some are being very casual about the divisive partisan provision that Senate Republicans injected into this Senate bill. They call it boilerplate. Well, it is not. It places limitations on the health care services victims can use as they access money collected from the very people who trafficked them. We are not talking about taxpayers' money. We are not talking about taxpayers' dollars. We are talking about traffickers' money. This is the money traffickers would pay in fines. Criminals have already taken away so many choices for these young women and girls, and we shouldn't be taking away their right to make their own health care choices. We certainly should not require these survivors to have to prove they were raped. That is offensive. It is wrong.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator for a question.