Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I have to object. The Senator has the right, of course, to file his amendment, but there is an amendment presently pending and it would have to be set aside. There is someone on this side who does not want it set aside, so I will object. Of course, the Senator can file his amendment, but the request, as I understand it, is to set aside the pending amendment. On behalf of several Senators on this side, I object.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this past weekend, Americans gathered in Selma, Alabama. They did that to mark the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. Many of us are old enough to remember that day when hundreds of brave men and women marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. There, they were savagely beaten because they dared to stand up for their right to vote--a right that we in Vermont take as inalienable. Their blood, their sweat, and their tears helped pave the way for the Voting Rights Act. They ultimately helped move our Nation toward what is supposed to be a ``more perfect Union.'' In commemorating the bravery of these foot soldiers for justice, we are reminded of what we can accomplish if we stand on principle and we come together, Republicans and Democrats, to do what is right. At a time when lawmakers seem far too polarized on the most important issues facing our Nation, I was encouraged to see leaders from both political parties join President Obama and Congressman Lewis, and so many others this weekend in Selma. President George W. Bush shared the stage with President Obama to honor the brave men and women who inspired the Nation and helped bring about historic change. I was proud to work with President Bush on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, along with the Republican Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Senator Specter. We can see them on each side of President Bush in this picture of the bill signing. We can see Congressman Sensenbrenner standing there and the late Senator Specter standing there. I was standing over here with my camera as one of the people who helped move the bill through. President Bush had invited me to attend and I took this photograph at the signing ceremony. I am going to give this photograph to President Bush because it is the only photograph where we can actually see his hand and his signature going down. That is because I was the only person with a camera, standing behind the President. I don't say that to praise my photographic ability; I say that to praise President Bush for signing the bill. In response to the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision--a decision where five members of the Supreme Court decided they had a far better idea than virtually all House Members and Senators--I have been working with Congressman Sensenbrenner on bipartisan legislation that would restore the Voting Rights Act. This is so that President Obama can sign a bill as President Bush did. Unfortunately, no Republican Senator has yet stepped forward to join me in introducing this legislation in the Senate. The Republican Party of 2006, along with their President, reached across the aisle to advance the cause of voting rights, saying they were not there for any particular party, they were there for all Americans. I am still hopeful the Republican Senate of 2015 will continue the bipartisan tradition that President Bush and Republican leaders did in 2006. The civil rights milestones we celebrate this month can't be just historical discussions to be talked about in a history class somewhere. The plain reality is that racial discrimination in voting still exists in this country. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that very fact in his opinion in Shelby, and he asked Congress to update the Voting Rights Act. I wish we had not had the Shelby decision--I think it was wrong on many counts--but the majority in the Supreme Court voted that way. I agree with the Chief Justice that it is time for us in the Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike--to act. In his inspirational speech in Selma on Saturday, President Obama noted that 100 Members of Congress had come to Selma to honor people who died for the right to vote. He then laid out a challenge by saying, ``If we want to honor this day, let that hundred go back to Washington and gather 400 more, and together, pledge to make it their mission to restore the Voting Rights Act this year. That's how we honor those people on this bridge.'' I agree with him. We should come together, as this body has done so many times before, to restore the Voting Rights Act and to reaffirm our steadfast commitment to equal protection under the law.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, in that same spirit, I urge all Senators to come together to confirm Loretta Lynch to be our next Attorney General and the first African-American woman ever to hold this position. The delay of her confirmation is unprecedented and unwarranted. It should end. It has been 121 days since President Obama announced his intention to nominate Ms. Lynch. Her nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis 11 days ago. In the last 30 years, no Attorney General nominee has waited longer than Loretta Lynch to receive a floor vote after being reported from committee. I think of what we did when President Bush was in the last 2 years of his Presidency. Democrats had just taken back the majority in the Senate. He nominated a person for Attorney General--actually a person I voted against--but I moved that person forward anyway because I felt the President of the United States deserved to have an Attorney General. I moved that person through in half the time we have had to wait for Loretta Lynch. Ms. Lynch has broad support from Democrats and Republicans across the legal and law enforcement communities. So there is no excuse. She shouldn't be treated differently than previous nominees. Actually, she should receive a vote tonight, along with the other nominees who are to be confirmed. She should not be treated any differently than President Bush's nominee. So in the wake of the bipartisan and inspirational celebration in Selma, let us come together to honor the difficult work of the Justice Department. Let's schedule a vote to confirm the first African-American woman to serve as Attorney General of the United States. Let us show the American people what we can do when we come together. Let us finally vote to confirm Loretta Lynch. I see the majority leader on the floor. I don't want to take his time. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a few minutes ago I was talking about why I had hoped that after 121 days we could finally have a vote on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General. She has been supported by leading Republicans and Democrats. She has been supported by Republicans and Democrats in law enforcement, especially in light of her very tough enforcement of terrorism laws. On the issue of abuse of public trust, she has prosecuted both Democrats and Republicans. I mentioned a few minutes ago that when George W. Bush was in the last two years of his term, he was a lameduck President and Democrats had just taken over control of the Senate. The President nominated Judge Mukasey to be Attorney General. Because I disagreed with Judge Mukasey on the question of torture, I told the President I would vote against him, but I also told him that any President has a right to at least have a vote on their nominees. I moved him forward in 53 days-- that is from the time his nomination was announced until he was confirmed. And that includes the time it took for the paperwork to get up here and the rest of the process. I put him through the committee, got him onto the floor, and he was confirmed in 53 days. Now we have been waiting 121 days for Loretta Lynch, who came to the Judiciary Committee with far more law enforcement background. I don't know what the difference is between this man, Judge Mukasey, who took 53 days and Loretta Lynch. In fact, I will give you another Attorney General nominee I also disagreed with and voted against, but who I, as chairman, helped bring to a vote. President Bush nominated John Ashcroft--a former Senator who had just been defeated--to be Attorney General. I put him through in 42 days--42 days from the time his nomination was announced until he was confirmed. Forty-two days. So Ashcroft went through in 42 days. Judge Mukasey went through in 53 days. Loretta Lynch has waited 121 days. I was involved with the nominations of these two men even though I disagreed with them. When Republicans took back control of the Senate there was another Attorney General in between who took 86 days. But for the two men when I was Chairman: 42 days for John Ashcroft; 53 days for Judge Mukasey. But Loretta Lynch has been waiting 121 days and still hasn't had a vote. Is it any wonder that people have concern about the U.S. Senate when she has to wait all that time just to get a vote up or down? Up or down, that is all we ask. So let's hope she can be scheduled, voted on and confirmed because with her record as a tough prosecutor, that is the sort of person I would like cracking down on terrorists, cracking down on those who defraud this country, cracking down on traffickers, as she has in the past. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I welcome the Senate's action today to confirm two well-regarded practitioners to important leadership positions charged with protecting and promoting intellectual property. Michelle Lee, who is nominated to serve as the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, will be the first woman and first Asian Pacific American to hold this position. She is also the daughter of immigrants who moved to this country and contributed to the growth of Silicon Valley through her father's career as an electrical engineer. Her historic nomination is an American success story, and it is fitting that she is confirmed today to lead the office that is home to countless stories of successful innovation and creation by Americans throughout the country. The USPTO has been without a Senate-confirmed director for more than 2 years, which is far too long for an office that is so important to our Nation's innovators and to our economy. Close to 600,000 patent applications and 450,000 trademark class applications are filed with the office each year. By serving America's innovators, the USPTO helps Vermonters and citizens across the country build their businesses and bring their inventions to the global marketplace. Ms. Lee is charged with leading this office at a time when too many bad actors are abusing the patent system. Something must be done to address misconduct by bad actors who are targeting everyone from small businesses in Vermont to larger companies that are crucial to our economy. Congress plays an important role in this discussion, and as I have said for the last 2 years, we must enact balanced reforms to ensure the patent system can thrive. While that discussion continues in Congress, the USPTO Director must ensure the policies we currently have in place work for the diverse patent community. Among those policies is carrying out the landmark reforms in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the greatest transformation to our patent system in over 60 years. This landmark law has helped simplify the process for patent approval, reduce backlogs at the USPTO, and harmonize our patent system with the rest of the world. The AIA sought to improve patent quality by creating new and more efficient administrative proceedings at the USPTO. Three years later, the USPTO has now received over 2,000 petitions for post-grant review. These measures are important to help businesses that fall into the crosshairs of overbroad patents. But improving the quality of patents also improves their value for inventors and investors, too. The USPTO is doing tremendous work to implement these new programs under Ms. Lee's current leadership as Deputy Director of the office. Because of the AIA, there are now four satellite offices around the country to make the USPTO more accessible to inventors and small businesses. The USPTO has strengthened its pro bono program and used its fee-setting authority created by the AIA to gain better financial independence. These are profound improvements, but strong leadership at the USPTO is needed to ensure the America Invents Act helps our patent system to thrive in the 21st century. As the USPTO's Deputy Director, Ms. Lee has proven to be thoughtful, balanced, and respectful of the diverse perspectives across the patent community. I look forward to continuing the Judiciary Committee's productive relationship with Ms. Lee and with the USPTO. I also welcome the Senate's action today to confirm Daniel Marti as the second Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, or ``IPEC.'' The IPEC was created by legislation I authored in 2008, the PRO-IP Act, which passed the Senate with unanimous support. In creating this position, our goal was to take a comprehensive approach to intellectual property enforcement within the U.S. government, to ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs, and that agencies are working together efficiently. The first IPEC, Victoria Espinel, built a strong record in this position, and I am confident Mr. Marti will do well continuing this important work. The protection of intellectual property is important to our Nation's creators, artists, inventors, and businesses alike. Whether one is a filmmaker whose work is being copied and distributed online without permission, or a family-owned business in Vermont that discovers knock- off copies of its products being sold at half the price, intellectual property theft harms innovators across the country. It also harms consumers, as we have learned from the repeated, devastating stories of victims who inadvertently purchased counterfeit medicines or other products not knowing they were of dangerously low quality. The IPEC plays an important role coordinating law enforcement and industry efforts to address these pressing issues. Nowhere is this work more important than in addressing counterfeiting and infringement in the online world--a complex, global problem that requires creative, thoughtful solutions. Just last month, leading advertising networks announced a new initiative to help ensure that they avoid inadvertently supporting websites that serve no legitimate purpose other than to traffic in stolen content and property. Search engines have now acknowledged that they, too, have a responsibility to help address illegal activity online. I hope Mr. Marti will renew the IPEC's work to support and encourage these voluntary initiatives, and will continue these efforts with other actors who drive so much of the online economy. Every business that operates in the Internet ecosystem has a role to play. Mr. Marti is currently the managing partner of the Washington, DC office of Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP. A graduate of Georgetown University and Emory University School of Law, he has spent his entire legal career specializing in intellectual property law, with a focus in trademark law and the protection of intellectual property both domestically and internationally. I look forward to continuing the Judiciary Committee's productive relationship with Mr. Marti and the IPEC office. Last year, Senator Grassley and I sent a letter to President Obama urging him to nominate a candidate to fill the IPEC position, which has been vacant for over 18 months. I chaired a confirmation hearing for Mr. Marti in December in the hope that the Senate would move swiftly with his confirmation this year. With Mr. Marti's confirmation today, the IPEC office can return fully to its important work.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nearly 4 months ago--not 4 weeks ago but 4 months ago--President Obama announced his intention to nominate Loretta Lynch to be our country's next Attorney General. I had the privilege of attending that White House ceremony. In fact, I took this photograph at the ceremony. But as I took it, I was mostly moved by what Ms. Lynch explained. She said she was excited about the challenge of becoming our Nation's chief law enforcement officer. She noted with obvious admiration that the Department of Justice is the only Cabinet Department named for an ideal. Think of that. The Department of Justice. It is named for the ideal of justice. We know from Loretta Lynch's long public service career that she aspires to make that ideal a reality. She will when she becomes Attorney General of the United States. As U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, she brought countless terrorists and cyber criminals to justice. She obtained convictions against corrupt public officials from both political parties. She fought tirelessly against violent crime and financial fraud. Her record shows as Attorney General she will effectively, fairly, and independently enforce the law. As many people have said, she is a prosecutor's prosecutor. Her record of accomplishment goes beyond just that. It goes to who she is as a person. It is bolstered by the faith and values instilled in her by her family. The Judiciary Committee was honored to have her proud father, the Reverend Lorenzo Lynch, with us not only at both days of the historic hearings in January, but also last Thursday as the committee considered his daughter's historic nomination. When Loretta Lynch was a young child, Reverend Lynch bravely opened his church to students and others to organize lunch counter sit-ins in North Carolina. He taught his only daughter that ``ideals are wonderful things, but unless you can share them with others and make this world a better place, they are just words.'' Every one of us who has ever been in public service ought to listen to that. The fact that she has dedicated the majority of her career to public service reaffirms that she has lived those ideals of justice in the service of others. Last week, the committee reported her nomination favorably with a bipartisan vote. I wish the vote had been unanimous. I suspect that if the President who nominated her had been a Republican, she would have been confirmed by now. But in the sixth year of this administration, perhaps there is no one who can be confirmed unanimously, because those Republicans who are opposing Ms. Lynch are not doing so based on her record. They are opposing her because they disagree with a decision that President Obama made and that she played no part in. That is not treating her fairly. One need only look at her supporters to know how nonpartisan her nomination really is. Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI and a Federal judge, has written: [I]n in 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. I know Judge Freeh very well. He is a man of total integrity. He would not say this unless he strongly believed it. The current New York Police Commissioner, who was appointed by a Democrat, and a former New York Police Commissioner, appointed by a Republican, both strongly support her nomination. Even prominent Fox News hosts have praised Loretta Lynch's work as a prosecutor. Bill O'Reilly has called her a hero for her prosecution of a child rapist. Megyn Kelly, of Fox, has described Ms. Lynch as a ``straight shooter'' for her service as a Federal prosecutor, especially for her crackdown on gang crime and terrorism. Ms. Lynch also has broad support from law enforcement, fellow prosecutors, civil rights groups, and numerous other prominent individuals. I ask unanimous consent to have a list of letters in support of her nomination printed in the Record following my remarks. Nobody else is seeking the floor. I ask unanimous consent to go beyond the 10 minutes allotted, up to 3 extra minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. In January, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for nearly 8 hours. She has now responded to nearly 900 questions for the record. I have been here 40 years and I have a hard time remembering somebody who has answered so many questions. The witnesses invited by Republicans to speak on this, not a single one of them actually opposed her nomination. In fact, I asked all of the outside witnesses: If anybody here opposes her nomination, would you please raise your hand. Nobody did. Despite this, some voted no--some Republican Senators voted no on her nomination in committee. Some of these Senators opposed her because she would not renounce the President's Executive action to keep immigrant families together. They are attacking her for this. They blame this on her. But they fail to acknowledge that if the Republican leadership in the House had just allowed a vote on the immigration reform that passed the Senate, then the President would not have been compelled to act. Very hard-working Republicans and Democrats came together in this body to pass by a 2-to-1 margin an immigration bill. Most people felt it would pass the House of Representatives had it been allowed to come to a vote. But the Speaker determined not to let it come to a vote. You cannot then say: We are not going to vote on anything, but, oh, by the way, we are not going to let the President do what Presidents have always done in the absence of legislation, take executive action. Now we all agree that we have problems in our immigration system. We all agree that we need legislation to fix it. The President is not going to do that. Congress has to do it. We have to stand up and vote for or against changes. But to blame the Attorney General nominee for this is simply unfair. To blame her because the House of Representatives will not vote on immigration is not fair. Ms. Lynch played no part in the President's decision to set the prosecutorial priorities of the administration. As a Federal prosecutor in New York, no one has claimed that Ms. Lynch has failed to enforce the law. There is no legitimate reason to delay her vote any longer. In fact, there are a whole lot of people in prison today who wish that she had not enforced the law. But if they were guilty of crimes, she enforced it, whether Republicans, Democrats--no matter who they were--and with quite a few terrorists-- she enforced the law. She put them in prison. So we should examine Loretta Lynch's nomination based on her record, her accomplishments, her extraordinary character. I call on the Republican Leader to schedule an immediate vote on Loretta Lynch's confirmation. Vote yes or vote no. But this confirmation has been pending for 116 days--116 days. We have had several breaks--some of our constituents call them vacations--during that time. Let's take a day or so and vote on her. Let's not deprive the American people of even one more day of having Loretta Lynch as their Attorney General. Let's vote to confirm this superb woman, this superb nominee for Attorney General, this nominee who believes that justice is an ideal, that all of us, no matter what our political party, should ascribe to. I told her father how moved I was to watch his pride as she was before our committee for confirmation, I said, the pride was well earned because of the example he set to her as a child, to face up to all obstacles and overcome them. Well, let's not have the Senate set an obstacle that she cannot overcome. Let's have a vote. Let's put her in there as Attorney General, for the good of the country, not of any political party, but for the good of the country. This is not the Attorney General of the President. This is not the Attorney General of the Members of this body. This is the Attorney General of the United States. It is the Attorney General for 300 million Americans. Let's give 300 million Americans the Attorney General they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this weekend the United States will mark the 50th anniversary of the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. Those of us who are not old enough to remember 50 years ago have read the history. Those of us who were old enough at that time saw what happened at that historic march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge five decades ago. Scores of courageous Americans refused to be silent about the need for equal protection under the law. This was a case where their blood, sweat, and tears helped move our Nation toward a more perfect union. One of those who actually shed blood--in fact, nearly died on that march for freedom and equality--is one of my closest friends in Congress, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia. Last Thursday I was so proud when Congressman Lewis came to the Senate Judiciary Committee room to see a vote on the historic nomination of Loretta Lynch to serve as our next Attorney General. He said he was compelled to come because this was no ordinary markup and this is no ordinary confirmation. When the Senate finally confirms her, Loretta Lynch will be the first African-American woman to serve our country as Attorney General. She is extraordinarily qualified for the job. The letters and testimony I have received from law enforcement and both Republican and Democratic prosecutors attesting to how good she is, are amazing. I urge the Senate to consider her nomination immediately and confirm her this week. She has waited much longer than any modern nominee ever has for this position. But as I urge her confirmation, I cannot help but reflect on the fact that Ms. Lynch's confirmation will be another step toward realizing Dr. Martin Luther King's dream that people in our country would be judged by the content of their character. Loretta Lynch's life epitomizes that dream. She was born in Greensboro and was raised in Durham, NC. She is the daughter of a fourth-generation Baptist preacher and a school librarian. I have met Reverend Lynch. He is an amazing and inspiring man. Her parents instilled in her the American values of fairness and equality, even when those around them were not living up to those values. Ms. Lynch has spoken about riding on her father's shoulders as a child to their church, where students organized peaceful protests against racial segregation. The freedom songs and the church music that went hand-in-hand with those protests undoubtedly made up the soundtrack of her childhood. The Judiciary Committee was honored to have her father, Reverend Lorenzo Lynch, with us not only at both days of her historic hearing in January but also with us last Thursday as the Committee considered his daughter's nomination. Throughout Loretta Lynch's life, those who encountered her intelligence and tenacity have not always been prepared to accept her and her impressive accomplishments. But each time they didn't accept it, the content of her character has shone through and led her to even greater heights. In elementary school, administrators did not believe that Loretta Lynch could score as high has she did on a standardized test. They demanded that she retake the test. She did, and she scored even higher the second time. In high school she rose to the very top of her class, which would have made her the first African-American valedictorian. School administrators, however, decided that even though she had earned the title, it would somehow be too controversial. So, they decided she must share the honor with two other students, one of whom was white, even though she was the one who scored the highest. This didn't hold her back. She kept going forward. She went on to graduate with honors from Harvard College and then earned her law degree from Harvard Law School. This has been the story of Loretta Lynch's life. While some are not ready to embrace her distinction, she just marches forward with grace to prove that she is even stronger and more qualified than her detractors can imagine. Even though she was required to be better than those who were holding her back, she didn't let that stop her. She just kept going forward. She has dedicated the majority of her remarkable career to public service and we are fortunate as a nation that she wants to continue to serve. The President of the United States announced that Loretta Lynch would be nominated to be our Nation's chief law enforcement official on November 8th. Right after this announcement, Senate Republicans made clear that despite the urgent challenges facing this country, they would object to even begin consideration of her nomination during the lame duck period. So Loretta Lynch's historic nomination waited. As she prepared for her confirmation hearing, she stayed focused on her current position and continued to lead a dedicated team of prosecutors to bring terrorists and serious criminals to justice in New York. Ms. Lynch was finally called before the Judiciary Committee at the end of January. She had more poise and credibility than any nominee I have seen in my four decades in the Senate. Any reasonable observer of her hearing, which lasted almost 8 hours, would conclude that she was beyond impressive and that she possesses the leadership, intellect, and wisdom needed to help keep our country safe. After the hearings, Republicans submitted an unprecedented number of written questions to Ms. Lynch, even though every member had been allowed ample time to ask live questions at her hearing. Even members who had already publicly declared that they opposed her confirmation continued to submit scores of questions. But now, 114 days have passed since Ms. Lynch was nominated. She has been made to wait longer than any one of the previous five Attorneys General--five Attorneys General in both Democratic and Republican administrations. And for what reason? So that those who have already said they oppose the nomination can try to score additional political points? When Ms. Lynch is told she must continue to wait longer than any of the modern Attorneys General, that she must wait for her confirmation vote, I am reminded that those dedicated to the fight for civil rights have long heard their detractors tell them: Just be patient. We can't give you your rights yet. Just be patient. Just wait your turn. Well, come on. No Member of this body--of either party--would ever stand for anyone saying: Notwithstanding your qualifications, wait your turn. Ms. Lynch grew up hearing her family's stories about the Jim Crow South. She knows the meaning of injustice. She would never compare the partisan political games being played with her nomination to the epic struggles her family faced. But as we in this Chamber reflect this week to honor those Americans who marched in Selma and the role our Department of Justice played in the civil rights movement, it should not be too much to ask just how much longer Loretta Lynch has to wait. How much longer does this woman have to wait before she can become the next U.S. Attorney General? In these perilous times, our Nation deserves to have its chief law enforcement officer considered without further delay. At the Judiciary Committee's markup last week, Senator Durbin spoke passionately about the ``solemn, important, and historic moment'' before us in considering Ms. Lynch's nomination. His comments were moving, and they appealed to our responsibility as Senators to uphold the Constitution and provide advice and consent on the President's nominees. We can do so this week by confirming Loretta Lynch. We have played politics with too many things already in the young days of this 114th Congress. From the spending bill the House Republicans refused to take up to fund the Department of Homeland Security, to the nomination of this highly qualified woman to serve as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, we can no longer put national security at risk just for the sake of a few talking points or a second or two on a television program. So I call on my friend, the majority leader, to simply set a date for her confirmation. Do not leave the American people wondering if this extremely qualified woman will get a timely vote. Treat her like every previous Attorney General nominee. The Nation faces too many challenges to play politics with this important nomination. Too long some in this body have told her: You have to wait. You have to wait your turn. You have to wait. No, she has proven her qualifications. She shouldn't have to wait any more than those who went before her. Set an up-or-down vote. Let's confirm her nomination. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week marked the end of Francis Brooks' tenure as the sergeant-at-arms of the Vermont State House. The position of sergeant-at-arms is one of great importance, playing a pivotal role in maintaining the order and decorum that Vermonters have come to expect of their State government. It is a job that demands a comprehensive understanding of the people who conduct the important work within the building, and the building itself. Francis Brooks has served the people of the city of Montpelier in a number of roles. He taught chemistry and physics at Montpelier High School for 32 years; he was a State legislator for 25 years; and he has volunteered with the Montpelier Fire Department for 40 years. This level of dedication alone is worthy of appreciation and respect, but Francis's service did not stop there. For the last 7 years, Francis has served his State as sergeant-at-arms. I have fond memories of the Vermont State House. My parents owned the Leahy Press, located just across the street, and now home to the Vermont Arts Council. From our early years and onward, my brother and sister and I were always encouraged by our parents to pay attention to what happened within those walls and to respect the building for what it represented. As a young boy I rode my bicycle through the halls of the capitol in Montpelier, sometimes wandering into the private office of the Governor, where he sat from behind his desk peering down at me. Francis upheld what I treasure most about our State's capitol--an open and welcoming building for all Vermonters. He has not only overseen the preservation and safety of the Vermont State House, but he has encouraged the public to use the space to enhance our community through events like the Farmers Night Concert Series, the U.S. Academy Nominations Ceremony, public discussion forums like the Opiate Conference, statewide high school debate competitions, and the continued involvement of young people in our State's political system through the legislative page program. Every year, Francis chose 30 eighth graders to serve at the Vermont State House in 6-week periods. Upon these students' successful completion of the program, Francis would send them to apply for the U.S. Senate page program--and I was always impressed by the quality of students who represented Vermont in the Nation's Capital. Marcelle and I thank Francis Brooks for the several decades of selfless loyalty he has shown to Montpelier and to the State of Vermont. In a 2011 interview with a Vermont newspaper Seven Days, Francis described the role of the sergeant-at-arms by saying, ``If the inside of the [State House] is considered a town, then I'm the town manager.'' Vermont is lucky to have such an inspiring, well-grounded and selfless public servant.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Marcelle and I met Arlene and Alan Alda on a trip with Senator Lloyd Bentsen. We had dinner together but I had a chance to talk to Alan Alda about our mutual Italian heritage. Later I told my Italian-American mother how nice a couple they were. She said, basically, what would I expect? With an Italian background, they would have to be nice. The New York Times recently ran an article about this remarkable couple, focusing on her prolific writing, and his acting and writing, but especially their ability to maintain a wonderful marriage and a sense of life. I wanted to make sure my fellow Senators and anybody else who reads the Congressional Record would read this profile. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the New York Times entitled ``There's Always Room for Rum Cake.''

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, somebody asked me a little while ago, shouldn't we be voting on the mishmash on Homeland Security that the House of Representatives sent over because of the immigration matters in it. I reminded them that the Senate in the last Congress voted by a 2-to- 1 margin, on a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill which we sent to the House of Representatives and the Speaker refused to bring the bill up. It probably would have passed. Had it passed, it would have been signed into law and President Obama would not have issued any Executive orders. There would be no need to. We had everything from border security, which Republicans and Democrats voted for, to minors and the DREAMers, which Republicans and Democrats voted for. In fact, we had hundreds of hours of hearings and markups. We had around 140 amendments that were brought up, and I would call for one Republican amendment and one Democratic amendment. We went back and forth day after day, night after night. We did 140 or 141 amendments. All but one of them passed by a bipartisan vote. We then had dozens of amendments on the floor, all of which passed with bipartisan votes. The final bill got 68 votes. We have done the work on immigration. Let's not play games and endanger the needed funding for the Department of Homeland Security at a time when we face all kinds of dangers in this country. Let's not close down Department of Homeland Security on a made-up mission of doing something for immigration. We passed an immigration bill. They could take out the draft of that old bill, vote it up, and vote it down. Sixty-eight Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, voted for it. Let's bring up something similar. Let's have a real debate. Let's have amendments. Let's go to immigration. Then in the meantime, let's pass the Department of Homeland Security bill. Millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted even today as they prepare for a shutdown, not knowing whether these tactics are going to close down the Department, that major part of our government, or not. They have to spend the money. That is money wasted, to say nothing about the job that's not being done. I refer to my speech about Groundhog Day because we have seen this one. Our friends across the way in the Capitol closed down the government before. In just 2 days, unless Congress acts, the doors at the Department of Homeland Security, one of the country's primary national security agencies, will shutter. Unless we act, 30,000 workers will be furloughed without pay. Another 130,000 will be asked to work in defense of our nation's security, without pay. This is another needless, made-in-Washington crisis. We find ourselves here today because of the House's initial failure to act for more than a year and a half on bipartisan legislation that the Senate passed to help fix our broken immigration system. The House's inaction forced the President to do what he could through the executive authorities available to him. Those actions are welcomed. But they are not permanent, legislative fixes. Now, because Republicans in the House are angry that the President acted where they would not, they are threatening the functions of the very agency that helps protect our borders, our airspace, our waterways, and our communities. Every State in this country will be affected by a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. In the midst of a fiercely cold winter, when the Northeast has been devastated by life-threatening storms, we put at risk important recovery resources available through FEMA. We put at risk counterterrorism efforts and analysis of critical intelligence, as we continue to mount and improve our national security in the face of unprecedented violent threats from enemies overseas. It is appalling that in the face of reports that terrorists want to target such domestic sites as the Mall of America, some in Congress are playing petty politics with the vital operations of the Department of Homeland Security. A short-term continuing resolution will not solve this problem. A continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security recognizes neither the evolving threats to our Nation's security, nor the continuing stresses on our immigration system. A continuing resolution for the Department will tear immigrant families apart, rather than support keeping them together. A continuing resolution will not support an increase of $400 million for the Department. It will freeze FEMA resources at their current levels. And let's remember one key fact that I do not hear these reckless voices in Congress acknowledging: The funding bill we should be considering--the Shaheen-Mikulski bill--already is a compromise bill. It is far from perfect. For example, I strongly oppose the new funding for family detention. Incarcerating women and children fleeing violence runs contrary to our long history as a nation that offers refuge to those most in need. Nonetheless I am prepared to support the bill, because it will help State and local communities with disaster recovery, with law enforcement activities, and will support our national security and counterterrorism efforts. The Shaheen-Mikulski bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations between Republicans and Democrats in both the Senate and the House. But for the President's executive actions in November, it would have been included in the omnibus spending bill that was signed into law last year. Now we are on the brink of a potential shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. This is a fabricated crisis. The solution is simple. The Senate should approve the Shaheen-Mikulski bill, send it to the House, and end this stalemate. The House should promptly consider the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration legislation approved overwhelmingly by the Senate in 2013. If there is another debate to be had about fixing our immigration system, let's have that debate. But let's stop holding the operations of one of the Nation's key national security agency captive, while asking tens of thousands of hardworking Americans--including more than 2,500 Vermonters--to either work without pay or take an unpaid leave of absence. This is not the way to run a country. Unlike in so many other questions facing our country, the solution to this contrived disaster is easy. Members of Congress just need to have the courage to act. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 5 years ago, the President signed into law the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act. This law has made improvements to our school lunch program by making healthy food choices a reality for students nationwide. One of the best ways to help students make healthy choices is to teach them about their food and how it is grown. That is why I championed the inclusion of funding for a farm-to-school grant program, which was included in the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act. The program has had tremendous success and interest nationwide, and has awarded grants in 42 States--showing the reach and diversity of farm- to-school. In order to improve upon this successful program and expand its reach, I am glad to be joined today by Senator Cochran, and Representatives Fudge and Fortenberry in the House, to introduce the Farm to School Act of 2015. We all know that hungry children cannot learn. Studies have shown that healthy nutrition in a young person's diet is crucial to cognitive ability and better health in the long run. With food insecurity on the rise, more than 30 percent of all children in the United States struggle with obesity, resulting in poor health, and learning and behavioral difficulties at school. The school meal program has made tremendous strides in recent years to ensure not only that children have access to meals throughout the school day, but that those meals are nutritious. The Farm to School program has given children and schools across the country the tools to craft farm-fresh, healthy, and delicious meals that students enjoy. The Farm to School grant program offers support to farmers and local economies, while teaching kids about nutritious foods and where they come from. The program has helped schools across the country meet the new nutrition standards by offering children local, fresh produce that tastes great. Just as importantly, the program has a strong educational component, making our school cafeterias an extension of the classroom, giving students an opportunity to learn about nutrition, well-balanced meals, and even how to grow the food themselves. In Vermont, I have seen first-hand how farm to school efforts have better connected children with the food in their cafeteria. Students participate in school gardens, sustainability projects, and taste tests for new school menu items. The Burlington School Food Project created a half-acre Healthy City Youth Farm, connecting schools to the farm by engaging individuals in local agricultural production. Organizations in Vermont such as Vermont Food Education Every Day, now the Northeast regional leader of the National Farm to School Network; Shelburne Farms; and the Northeast Organic Farming Association have been able to expand their programs to link more farms to the classroom throughout Vermont. Farm to school is equally crucial to farmers and ranchers, who currently receive only 16 cents out of every dollar spent on food. The program opens another market to them to sell their locally grown and locally harvested goods. By incorporating farm fresh products in school meals, children learn the importance of where their food comes from. The program links the classroom with the farm to engage students in the importance of farming and contributing to the local economy. The Farm to School Act of 2015 would build upon these successes and expand the program's scope by increasing the funding for the program to $15 million per year. The bill also recognizes the importance of growing the program to include preschools, summer food service program sites, and after school programs. Improving childhood nutrition is a goal we all share. Small changes in eating habits by children will result in lifelong health benefits for generations to come. The Farm to School program empowers children and their families to make healthy choices now and in the future. As the Senate begins considering reauthorizing the child nutrition bill this year, I look forward to including these improvements in the Farm to School program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 5 years ago, the President signed into law the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act. This law has made improvements to our school lunch program by making healthy food choices a reality for students nationwide. One of the best ways to help students make healthy choices is to teach them about their food and how it is grown. That is why I championed the inclusion of funding for a farm-to-school grant program, which was included in the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act. The program has had tremendous success and interest nationwide, and has awarded grants in 42 States--showing the reach and diversity of farm- to-school. In order to improve upon this successful program and expand its reach, I am glad to be joined today by Senator Cochran, and Representatives Fudge and Fortenberry in the House, to introduce the Farm to School Act of 2015. We all know that hungry children cannot learn. Studies have shown that healthy nutrition in a young person's diet is crucial to cognitive ability and better health in the long run. With food insecurity on the rise, more than 30 percent of all children in the United States struggle with obesity, resulting in poor health, and learning and behavioral difficulties at school. The school meal program has made tremendous strides in recent years to ensure not only that children have access to meals throughout the school day, but that those meals are nutritious. The Farm to School program has given children and schools across the country the tools to craft farm-fresh, healthy, and delicious meals that students enjoy. The Farm to School grant program offers support to farmers and local economies, while teaching kids about nutritious foods and where they come from. The program has helped schools across the country meet the new nutrition standards by offering children local, fresh produce that tastes great. Just as importantly, the program has a strong educational component, making our school cafeterias an extension of the classroom, giving students an opportunity to learn about nutrition, well-balanced meals, and even how to grow the food themselves. In Vermont, I have seen first-hand how farm to school efforts have better connected children with the food in their cafeteria. Students participate in school gardens, sustainability projects, and taste tests for new school menu items. The Burlington School Food Project created a half-acre Healthy City Youth Farm, connecting schools to the farm by engaging individuals in local agricultural production. Organizations in Vermont such as Vermont Food Education Every Day, now the Northeast regional leader of the National Farm to School Network; Shelburne Farms; and the Northeast Organic Farming Association have been able to expand their programs to link more farms to the classroom throughout Vermont. Farm to school is equally crucial to farmers and ranchers, who currently receive only 16 cents out of every dollar spent on food. The program opens another market to them to sell their locally grown and locally harvested goods. By incorporating farm fresh products in school meals, children learn the importance of where their food comes from. The program links the classroom with the farm to engage students in the importance of farming and contributing to the local economy. The Farm to School Act of 2015 would build upon these successes and expand the program's scope by increasing the funding for the program to $15 million per year. The bill also recognizes the importance of growing the program to include preschools, summer food service program sites, and after school programs. Improving childhood nutrition is a goal we all share. Small changes in eating habits by children will result in lifelong health benefits for generations to come. The Farm to School program empowers children and their families to make healthy choices now and in the future. As the Senate begins considering reauthorizing the child nutrition bill this year, I look forward to including these improvements in the Farm to School program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate will vote later today on the confirmation of Dr. Ashton Carter to fill a critically important Cabinet position, that of Secretary of Defense. I think we all know Dr. Carter is a dedicated and distinguished public servant. He has actually been confirmed twice, unanimously, to two senior positions at the Pentagon. He has been recognized as a four-time recipient of the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal, and he has been awarded the Defense Intelligence Medal. I have no doubt the vote today in support of Dr. Carter will be overwhelmingly favorable. The Defense Department faces important, timely, and difficult decisions in the coming months and years. They have to learn how best to balance what we know are our fiscal constraints with not only existing but emerging international challenges. Dr. Carter served as the day-to-day financial officer of the Pentagon, so he is one of the few people who understand the complexities of the Pentagon's budget. I believe that Dr. Carter will build upon the fine work of Secretary Hagel to chart a path toward fiscal accountability while maintaining the kind of military capabilities we need to face current global threats. Dr. Carter is receiving his confirmation vote just over a week after he testified before the Armed Services Committee and two days after his nomination was reported to the full Senate, and that swift action is commendable. But I want to contrast how his nomination was handled as compared to Loretta Lynch's for Attorney General.