Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Leahy- Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. It is deplorable that in the wealthiest country in the world, 1.6 million teenagers live on the streets because they have no home. We know that those who do not have a safe place to sleep at night are particularly vulnerable to being exploited and trafficked. A recent study found that nearly one in four homeless young people have been victims of trafficking or sexual exploitation. We often talk about human trafficking as an international problem, but the sad truth is that it is a major problem right here at home. It is time we provide the resources to help protect our children from this very real threat. The Runaway Youth Act, first signed into law in 1974, has proven essential to providing the basic services and resources that runaway and homeless youth need, and our continued support is vital. Thirty- nine percent of the homeless population is under the age of 18, and the average age at which a teen becomes homeless is 14.7 years old. Think about that. The average teen living on the streets is not even old enough to drive. These young people represent our country's future and its optimism, and as a father and a grandfather, I believe that we must do more to address the needs of the 1.6 million homeless youth in our country. Teens run away and become homeless for myriad reasons. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study found that 46 percent of homeless youth had run away because of physical abuse and 17 percent because of sexual abuse. Nearly 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBT and report leaving home because of a lack of acceptance. By including a new provision that prohibits grantees from denying services based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the homeless youth, this bill takes important new steps to make sure that we are meeting the needs of this growing and particularly vulnerable population. No young person should be turned away from these essential services. We have made great strides in recent years in our efforts to combat human trafficking. Most recently, we reauthorized the comprehensive Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a bipartisan bill I introduced and was proud to see enacted as part of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. And last year, we saw historic levels of funding for victims of trafficking, an urgently needed increase that I was proud to support as the most senior member of the Appropriations Committee. But we must not forget the importance of investing in prevention efforts as well, and I was disappointed that Congress failed to pass the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. If we are to make a real difference to end modern day slavery, we must protect those who are most vulnerable and prevent the exploitation in the first place. We cannot simply focus on ending demand and arrest our way out of this problem; we must eliminate the conditions that make these children so vulnerable. That means investing in stable housing and support services for more kids in need; we are not doing enough. I hope that we can finally enact this meaningful bill in 2015. In addition to the dangers of human trafficking, homeless youth are at greater risk of suicide, unintended pregnancy, and substance abuse. They are less likely to finish school, more likely to enter our juvenile justice system, and are often ill-equipped to find a job. The services authorized by this bill are designed to intervene early and encourage the development of successful, productive young adults. I have heard from dozens of service providers from across the country, including in my home state of Vermont, that these programs work. I am proud to say that last year, 95 percent of youth receiving services from the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs were able to exit to a safe living situation upon their completion of programming. Without the programs funded through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, hundreds of thousands of children would be left on the street and vulnerable to exploitation. Congress has an opportunity to respond in a meaningful and historic way. I thank Senators Collins, Booker, and Ayotte for working with me on this legislation and for joining me as original cosponsors. We have the chance to make a real difference by passing the Runway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. Every day we wait is another night too many children are sleeping on the streets.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Leahy- Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. It is deplorable that in the wealthiest country in the world, 1.6 million teenagers live on the streets because they have no home. We know that those who do not have a safe place to sleep at night are particularly vulnerable to being exploited and trafficked. A recent study found that nearly one in four homeless young people have been victims of trafficking or sexual exploitation. We often talk about human trafficking as an international problem, but the sad truth is that it is a major problem right here at home. It is time we provide the resources to help protect our children from this very real threat. The Runaway Youth Act, first signed into law in 1974, has proven essential to providing the basic services and resources that runaway and homeless youth need, and our continued support is vital. Thirty- nine percent of the homeless population is under the age of 18, and the average age at which a teen becomes homeless is 14.7 years old. Think about that. The average teen living on the streets is not even old enough to drive. These young people represent our country's future and its optimism, and as a father and a grandfather, I believe that we must do more to address the needs of the 1.6 million homeless youth in our country. Teens run away and become homeless for myriad reasons. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study found that 46 percent of homeless youth had run away because of physical abuse and 17 percent because of sexual abuse. Nearly 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBT and report leaving home because of a lack of acceptance. By including a new provision that prohibits grantees from denying services based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the homeless youth, this bill takes important new steps to make sure that we are meeting the needs of this growing and particularly vulnerable population. No young person should be turned away from these essential services. We have made great strides in recent years in our efforts to combat human trafficking. Most recently, we reauthorized the comprehensive Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a bipartisan bill I introduced and was proud to see enacted as part of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. And last year, we saw historic levels of funding for victims of trafficking, an urgently needed increase that I was proud to support as the most senior member of the Appropriations Committee. But we must not forget the importance of investing in prevention efforts as well, and I was disappointed that Congress failed to pass the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. If we are to make a real difference to end modern day slavery, we must protect those who are most vulnerable and prevent the exploitation in the first place. We cannot simply focus on ending demand and arrest our way out of this problem; we must eliminate the conditions that make these children so vulnerable. That means investing in stable housing and support services for more kids in need; we are not doing enough. I hope that we can finally enact this meaningful bill in 2015. In addition to the dangers of human trafficking, homeless youth are at greater risk of suicide, unintended pregnancy, and substance abuse. They are less likely to finish school, more likely to enter our juvenile justice system, and are often ill-equipped to find a job. The services authorized by this bill are designed to intervene early and encourage the development of successful, productive young adults. I have heard from dozens of service providers from across the country, including in my home state of Vermont, that these programs work. I am proud to say that last year, 95 percent of youth receiving services from the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs were able to exit to a safe living situation upon their completion of programming. Without the programs funded through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, hundreds of thousands of children would be left on the street and vulnerable to exploitation. Congress has an opportunity to respond in a meaningful and historic way. I thank Senators Collins, Booker, and Ayotte for working with me on this legislation and for joining me as original cosponsors. We have the chance to make a real difference by passing the Runway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. Every day we wait is another night too many children are sleeping on the streets.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during the closing days of the 112th Congress, and for the duration of the 113th Congress, I had the privilege of serving the Senate as the President pro tempore. It of course was a great honor, and a humbling one, to serve the Senate and to represent Vermont in this position. With this designation, because of the matter of presidential succession procedures, I was assigned a security detail. I have spoken before about the outstanding work of the U.S. Capitol Police, and about how much Marcelle and I appreciate the sacrifices they made in the course of their service. Today I want to thank the Vermont State Police for their outstanding service and steadfast support during my time as President pro tempore. With their extensive and comprehensive knowledge of Vermont's unique landscape and communities, the Vermont State Police coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police and provided essential guidance, information and support. I thank them for their professionalism and dedication. I would like to thank in particular Lieutenant Garry Scott who commands the Traffic Safety Unit of the Vermont State Police Department; Corporal Owen Ballinger, who was an integral part of the everyday operations; Sergeant Teresa Randall; Sergeant Mark Perkins; Sergeant Trevor Carbo; Trooper Jerry Partin; and Trooper Dustin Robinson. These law enforcement officers were able to blend the requirement of a full security detail in unobtrusive ways that enabled us to go about our daily lives and to perform our responsibilities. These dedicated and courteous officers went above and beyond the call of duty, and for that Marcelle and I are infinitely grateful. I also thank Colonel Thomas L'Esperance and Lieutenant Colonel Matt Birmingham for their constant support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is a delight to call the Senate's attention to an outstanding Vermonter who was recently recognized for his work to help Vermonters who have struggled with social and economic injustice. Since 1997, the Burlington Free Press has invited readers to nominate a Vermont resident to be recognized as Vermonter of the Year. Those nominated are among the best doers and visionaries the Green Mountain State has to offer, and each nominee has made a difference in his or her community. Previous winners have included philanthropists, college presidents, a former Governor and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. On the eve of the New Year, the Burlington Free Press named Hal Colston the 2014 Vermonter of the Year. Hal is a resident of Winooski and certainly deserves this honor. Since relocating to Vermont 25 years ago, Hal's dedication to social, economic, and racial justice has served his community well. He has maintained a steadfast voice for those unable to be heard on their own. Hal is well known for his entrepreneurial spirit, and he has successfully created and led numerous nonprofit initiatives. In announcing Hal's selection, the Free Press aptly calls him a ``serial do-gooder.'' He received national recognition after founding Good News Garage, which enables individuals and families to move away from poverty by providing reliable transportation. Similarly, he recognized that those in poverty are often without the support networks necessary to move beyond such vulnerable circumstances. As a result, he established NeighborKeepers, an organization that focuses on building supportive community networks that direct families toward the resources they need to succeed. Today he leads the Partnership for Change, a diverse group of community stakeholders seeking to remodel the Burlington and Winooski School Districts by establishing a student- centered learning system. As communities work to overcome the challenges of poverty and individuals pursue more prosperous lives for themselves and their families, it is the passionate dedication to serve by leaders such as Hal Colston that makes the greatest difference. In recognition of Hal Colston's service, I ask unanimous consent that Aki Soga's article from the December 31, 2014, edition of the Burlington Free Press be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute to explain the States rights amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 30.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this will be set aside in a moment. First, I wish to note that my amendment is simply to make sure that if people have appeals on actions under this law, they be able to appeal in the courts within their jurisdictions and not have to trundle their way to Washington, DC. Too many people think Washington has the answers to everything. My amendment simply says it is a States rights issue. It says the appeals will be in courts within their districts. That is a simple explanation. I spoke earlier on the floor, and I will speak more when the amendment comes up.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank the senior Senator from Illinois for what he said about my dear friend Senator Wendell Ford. I was fortunate to come here to the Senate the same year that Senator Ford did. We were different in age, and I must say, different in experience. He had a lot more experience than I did, and I relied on his experience and his help. We traveled together, and we talked together so often. He had the unfailing characteristic of the best of the Senators--both Republicans and Democrats. He always kept his word. He was always very honest and direct with you. If he made a commitment, you could go to the bank with it. I remember the night we had a dinner for his retirement. There was a dozen of us that came in that year. There were only four left and three were retiring that night--Wendell Ford, John Glen, and Dale Bumpers. It was wonderful to listen to the three of them reminisce about the Senate. I said to Wendell Ford at that time: Save me a seat on that lifeboat as you are leaving. I thought how lonely it would be without him. Fortunately, I have a good friend like the senior Senator from Illinois to fill the void. But Wendell Ford had probably more knowledge and sense of politics-- not just knowledge but sense--of how to work things out, how to get liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats together, than most people ever have. He had a raspy voice, but he was good natured, with a sense of humor. And when I go back through the people I have met, the 300 or more Senators I have had the opportunity to serve with, I think of Wendell Ford as one who epitomizes what a Senator should be. I had talked to him just a few months ago. I will speak more about him later on, but I think the Senator from Illinois has given probably as good a description of this wonderful man as any of the rest of us might, and I thank him for that. I yield the floor. Quorum Call I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. That is correct. I will probably need about 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his usual courtesy, and I appreciate it. As the most senior Member of this body, I have served in both the majority and minority numerous times, under three Democratic Presidents, four Republican Presidents, and Democratic and Republican majorities. Throughout that time, I learned that the Senate can be productive. The Keystone Pipeline legislation we are considering today, though, is not one of those productive topics. I hoped we would begin the 114th Congress by showing the American people that Congress is putting the needs of hard-working American families over those of powerful special interests, from job creation to charting a sustainable energy future for this country. We ought to be considering legislation that supports the highway trust fund. That would create tens of thousands of jobs across the country. We should be considering tax legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time. The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from North Dakota for his usual courtesy shown earlier. Unfortunately, I had a nose bleed, and I had to stop my speech. I think I am not used to the elevation--the altitude of the Senate--but after over 40 years I should be. I was saying earlier, I had hoped we begin this 114th Congress by showing the American people that Congress is putting the needs of hard- working American families first. I wish we were considering legislation to support the Highway Trust Fund. That supports tens of thousands of jobs around the country in every one of our States. I wish we were considering tax legislation to bring investments to our small local businesses and encouraging energy efficiency in construction and investment. I wish we were finding places to support the educational pursuits of our children. I would like to maintain our status as a premier leader on the world stage. Instead, we are considering legislation that puts Canadian tar sands--which are intended for export, not to be used in the United States--as our priority. The pipeline will support 35 permanent jobs-- just 35--not hundreds, not thousands--35. I would like to be considering legislation that creates thousands of jobs. It is hard not to question whether the new Senate majority is truly focused on the needs of hardworking Americans. Some who support the legislation claim the pipeline is truly ``shovel ready.'' They claim the project has been thoroughly studied and analyzed, and that the Administration sat for 6 years with no decision on the permit. Even before the Nebraska Supreme Court recently released its decision on the location of this pipeline, the Republican leadership said this should be our priority even ahead of that decision. The decision did not clarify lingering questions about the process. In fact, the majority of the justices said the decision to circumvent the public process and block Nebraskans' ability to raise concerns about the pipeline was unconstitutional. Four of the seven justices said that it is unconstitutional under State law. But in their state procedure, you need a supermajority of 5 of the 7 justices to halt this project, so the landowners' appeal was rejected. What bothers me is not only that the majority opinion is being ignored in Nebraska but that the legislation approved last week by the House in consideration here would remove consideration of all appeals. You have to take them out of local Federal courts and put them before the DC Circuit. In other words, if you are in a State where this pipeline goes through your community and you have a question, you would have to make an appeal to the DC Circuit. What that is saying is that Congress believes that Washington knows best. Frankly, the people in my State of Vermont--and I suspect in States across the country--would prefer to trust the courts in their States. We ought to be showing the American people that Congress cares more about the public process and the public's access to their courts, than about the wishes of foreign special interests. That is why I have offered an amendment that would strike the judicial review provision and restore the role of local federal district courts in reviewing challenges arising from the Keystone Pipeline. The majority leader promised an open debate and open amendment process. I appreciate that. I certainly have concerns about circumventing what would be normal court procedure and the President's approval process, and I want to be able to address that. But more than that, I hope this debate can be an open and honest conversation, not about a pipeline that supports special interests but about the direction in which our country is moving on sustainable energy, on job creation, and on issues as fundamental to all Americans--Republicans or Democrats--as who will have access to our courts. Will it just be special interests or will it be the American people? I prefer the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on January 12 in Saudi Arabia a prominent human rights lawyer, Mr. Waleed Abu al-Khair, was handed a 5-year extension to his 10-year prison sentence. Mr. Abu al-Khair, who is the founder and director of the watchdog group Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, was also fined, banned from travel outside the county for 15 years after his release, and his websites will be shut down. What were the crimes that brought about this sentence? He was charged with harming the kingdom's reputation and insulting judicial authority, among other violations related to his non-violent activism. This case and others like it certainly have harmed the kingdom's reputation, and insulted its judicial system, but the fault is not Mr. Abu al-Khair's. After years of defending human rights activists as a legal advocate in Saudi courts, he was called in front of a terrorism tribunal at the end of 2013 for a trial that from its earliest days was declared a farce by human rights organizations. This was not the first time Mr. Abu al-Khair was made a target of the justice system, having first faced trial in 2011 for signing a petition that called for government reform. During the fifth hearing in front of the terrorism tribunal he was jailed mid-trial under the January 2014 antiterrorism law, which covers verbal acts that harm the reputation of the state. Mr. Abu al-Khair was eventually sentenced to 10 years for his activism amid growing international condemnation of Saudi repression. His decision not to disavow his beliefs led to this week's further sentencing. Unfortunately, Mr. Abu al-Khair's case is not unique. As more Saudis have begun to speak out against government repression, the monarchy has responded by escalating its crackdown on dissent, including by using the already dubious terrorism tribunal system to punish human rights defenders. It is ironic that while Saudi officials condemned the brutal killings of journalists at Charlie Hebdo, and their Ambassador attended the rally in Paris, their Justice Ministry was preparing to carry out the first of 1,000 public lashings of Raif Badawi. Like the cartoonists, Mr. Badawi has been accused of insulting Islam, and like them and his former lawyer, Mr. Abu al-Khair, he was simply exercising his nonviolent right of freedom of expression. Needless to say, his persecution has drawn an international outcry, including by many of those who joined the Saudi government in denouncing the attacks in Paris. The United States and Saudi Arabia have long been strategic allies, and we want that relationship to continue. But the fundamental right of free expression cannot be a casualty of convenience. The injustices I have described must be addressed. Not only do these actions violate the Saudi government's stated policy and its commitment as a member of the UN Human Rights Council to protect human rights, but they are a flawed strategy for discouraging dissent. Ominously, as we have seen in many countries, they may cause critics of the government to resort to violence to achieve their goals. I urge the Saudi government to release Mr. Abu al-Khair and Mr. Badawi and dismiss the spurious charges against them. This kind of repression and barbarity have no place in the 21st century.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will close a tax loophole that allows companies to write off the punishment they receive for corporate wrongdoing. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of court- ordered punitive damages paid to victims as an ``ordinary'' business expense. For the victims of extreme corporate misconduct, there is nothing ordinary about this. It is simply wrong. This tax loophole allows corporations to wreak havoc and then write it off as a cost of doing business. That undermines the whole point of punitive damages. Punitive damage awards are designed to punish the wrongdoers and to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Sadly, our country's history is replete with examples of serious corporate misconduct that resulted in injury and death to American citizens, but through our civil justice system and the thoughtful deliberations of our Nations' juries, this misconduct is not only punishable by assessing punitive damages, it has led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. Unfortunately, our current tax laws shield the worst corporate misconduct. The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers Act would change that by making a simple fix to our tax code. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and 11 Americans were killed in the worst oil spill in American history. That same year, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In 2009 and 2010, Toyota recalled more than 10 million vehicles because of a faulty acceleration system that has been linked to at least 31 accidents and 12 deaths, and recently admitted to misleading the public about these dangers. Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. Vermonters and all Americans deserve to have companies such as these held accountable for their actions. Why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize corporations who deserve to be punished? In 1994, a jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions which caused the Valdez spill that devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. The role of the jury is enshrined in our Constitution, and nothing is more fundamental to the American justice system than our trust in the judgment of those who serve on them. Rather than accept this reality, Exxon paid its cadre of lawyers to fight the jury's measure of accountability all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2008, after 14 years of appeals, an activist majority on the Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages, reducing Exxon's punitive damages to $500 million. Adding insult to injury to the victims of the oil spill, Exxon was then able to use the federal tax code to write-off the punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is not how the system should work and it is long past time for Congress to fix it. I have previously supported legislation by Senator Whitehouse to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Exxon, and I am disappointed that not a single Republican joined this commonsense effort. If we cannot get bipartisan support to ensure corporations pay the highest possible price for actions that cause serious harm to health and public safety, I hope we can at least agree that American taxpayers should not have to subsidize their misconduct once a jury has determined they should be punished. The Obama administration requested eliminating this tax deduction in its 2014 budget proposal. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that ending this deduction loophole will result in increased revenues of $355 million over 10 years. Members who have devoted so much of their focus to reducing the Federal deficit should support my legislation. Anyone who cares about protecting consumers should agree that extreme corporate misconduct should not be treated in our tax code simply as a cost of doing business. Right now, the new Republican majority in Congress is pushing legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Despite being billed as the safest pipeline in history, the existing Keystone pipeline has spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. This has a familiar ring: Before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers were safe. I do not support Congress bypassing the environmental appeal process to fast-track further construction of the Keystone pipeline, which poses considerable safety and environmental risks. But anyone who does want this pipeline should at a minimum consider the communities and families who would be affected by its construction, and in the event of a spill, they should make sure taxpayers are not subsidizing the damage. This speaks to our basic notions of justice and fair play. I hope all Senators will join me to end tax write-offs for corporate wrongdoers. When companies can write off a significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. Corporate misconduct should no longer be treated as a cost of doing business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to publicly thank U.S. attorney Tristram Coffin for his service to Vermont and our country. I have known Tris for decades, and I am proud that Vermont has been served by someone as thoughtful and fair as Tris. I join my fellow Vermonters in thanking him for his service to our State. Tris earned his undergraduate degree from Wesleyan University and his law degree from Columbia University. He worked for me as a staff attorney on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1991 to 1994 before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney in Vermont's civil division from 1994 to 1998 and in their criminal division from 1996 to 2006. He then worked in private practice in Burlington with the firm of Paul Frank & Collins, P.C. In 2009 I recommended Tris for the vacant U.S. attorney position, and he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in August 2009 to be Vermont's 36th U.S. attorney. Throughout his time as U.S. attorney, Tris has demonstrated thoughtful leadership in partnering with State and local law enforcement agencies and Vermont communities on a wide range of issues, including efforts to confront the crisis of heroin and opioid addiction. In September 2010 he convened a timely and constructive symposium in the State house in Montpelier to discuss the problem of opiate drug abuse. Impressed by his work, last year I invited Tris to deliver testimony at a Judiciary Committee field hearing in Rutland examining community solutions to the opioid crisis. At that hearing, I was moved by the dedication and passion Tris has brought to developing partnerships with Vermont schools to raise awareness and focus on prevention. Vermont is a safer and better place because of dedicated public servants like Tris. I commend Tris for his years of service to the Green Mountain State and wish him the best in his future endeavors. He is a friend I treasure.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will close a tax loophole that allows companies to write off the punishment they receive for corporate wrongdoing. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of court- ordered punitive damages paid to victims as an ``ordinary'' business expense. For the victims of extreme corporate misconduct, there is nothing ordinary about this. It is simply wrong. This tax loophole allows corporations to wreak havoc and then write it off as a cost of doing business. That undermines the whole point of punitive damages. Punitive damage awards are designed to punish the wrongdoers and to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Sadly, our country's history is replete with examples of serious corporate misconduct that resulted in injury and death to American citizens, but through our civil justice system and the thoughtful deliberations of our Nations' juries, this misconduct is not only punishable by assessing punitive damages, it has led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. Unfortunately, our current tax laws shield the worst corporate misconduct. The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers Act would change that by making a simple fix to our tax code. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and 11 Americans were killed in the worst oil spill in American history. That same year, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In 2009 and 2010, Toyota recalled more than 10 million vehicles because of a faulty acceleration system that has been linked to at least 31 accidents and 12 deaths, and recently admitted to misleading the public about these dangers. Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. Vermonters and all Americans deserve to have companies such as these held accountable for their actions. Why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize corporations who deserve to be punished? In 1994, a jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions which caused the Valdez spill that devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. The role of the jury is enshrined in our Constitution, and nothing is more fundamental to the American justice system than our trust in the judgment of those who serve on them. Rather than accept this reality, Exxon paid its cadre of lawyers to fight the jury's measure of accountability all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2008, after 14 years of appeals, an activist majority on the Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages, reducing Exxon's punitive damages to $500 million. Adding insult to injury to the victims of the oil spill, Exxon was then able to use the federal tax code to write-off the punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is not how the system should work and it is long past time for Congress to fix it. I have previously supported legislation by Senator Whitehouse to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Exxon, and I am disappointed that not a single Republican joined this commonsense effort. If we cannot get bipartisan support to ensure corporations pay the highest possible price for actions that cause serious harm to health and public safety, I hope we can at least agree that American taxpayers should not have to subsidize their misconduct once a jury has determined they should be punished. The Obama administration requested eliminating this tax deduction in its 2014 budget proposal. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that ending this deduction loophole will result in increased revenues of $355 million over 10 years. Members who have devoted so much of their focus to reducing the Federal deficit should support my legislation. Anyone who cares about protecting consumers should agree that extreme corporate misconduct should not be treated in our tax code simply as a cost of doing business. Right now, the new Republican majority in Congress is pushing legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Despite being billed as the safest pipeline in history, the existing Keystone pipeline has spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. This has a familiar ring: Before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers were safe. I do not support Congress bypassing the environmental appeal process to fast-track further construction of the Keystone pipeline, which poses considerable safety and environmental risks. But anyone who does want this pipeline should at a minimum consider the communities and families who would be affected by its construction, and in the event of a spill, they should make sure taxpayers are not subsidizing the damage. This speaks to our basic notions of justice and fair play. I hope all Senators will join me to end tax write-offs for corporate wrongdoers. When companies can write off a significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. Corporate misconduct should no longer be treated as a cost of doing business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2015. Once enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the immensely successful grant program that provides matching funds for State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase protective vests for officers serving in the field. Our Nation needs no additional reminders of the dangers faced by law enforcement officers each and every day. Far too often we have grieved as officers are killed in the line of duty. In 2014 alone, 126 men and women serving in law enforcement lost their lives. Although protective vests cannot save every officer, they have already saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. Vests dramatically increase the chance of survival when tragedy occurs. I have met personally with police officers who are living today because of a bulletproof vest, and they will attest to the fact that the vests provided through this program are worth every penny. No officer should have to serve without a protective vest. Yet we know that, for far too many jurisdictions, vests can cost too much and wear out too soon. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program helps to fill the gap. Since it was first authorized in 1999, it has enabled more than 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase more than one million bulletproof vests, including more than 4,000 vests for officers in Vermont. As these officers have helped to protect our communities, these grants have helped to protect them. Unfortunately the authorization for this grant program lapsed in 2012. We must not delay any longer in reauthorizing this program This bill also contains a number of improvements to the grant program. It provides incentives for agencies to provide uniquely fitted vests for female officers and others. It also codifies existing Justice Department policies that grantee law enforcement agencies cannot use other Federal grant funds to satisfy the matching fund requirement, and they must also have mandatory wear policies to ensure the vests are used regularly. Protecting those who serve has historically been a bipartisan effort in Congress. Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell and I worked together to create this program more than 15 years ago. It was so successful that, in the past, it was reauthorized with a voice vote. It was the right thing to do, it saved lives, and that was enough for both Democrats and Republicans. This is not a partisan issue, and I am pleased that Senator Graham is the lead cosponsor of this measure. Senators Coons and Blunt are also original cosponsors of this bill. The law enforcement community speaks with a single voice on this issue. And I am proud that this bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, National Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Tactical Officers Association, and Sergeants Benevolent Association. There are very few bills that can so directly affect and improve the safety of those who serve and protect our communities. This program saves lives, and I am hopeful that all Senators--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--will join us now to ensure its swift reauthorization.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when Sarah Kenney decided to volunteer with the Women's Rape Crisis Center in Burlington, VT, in 1997, she may not have realized just how that experience would shape nearly two decades of her life. There, in cramped offices furnished with old futons, she recalls, ``I fell in love with the passion of the place.'' That passion led Sarah to the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, where she has spent the past 13 years advocating to end such violence and to raise public awareness about the abhorrent crimes that account for roughly half of all homicides in Vermont in any given year. Over the years, Sarah has been a trusted and valuable partner in my work to strengthen support for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, including the successful reauthorization and expansion of the Violence Against Women Act so that it better protects all survivors. Her understanding of the legislative process, combined with her ability to work with all sides, have been the hallmark of her effective advocacy. Sarah has also spent much time at the Vermont State House, testifying on legislation to strengthen protections against victims of crime across our State. Sarah will be leaving her post as the Vermont Network's Associate Director of Public Policy this month, to take on a new advocacy role as Deputy Director at Let's Grow Kids in Burlington, where she will use her tremendous skills on behalf of bettering children's lives. I am proud to note that Sarah holds a bachelor's degree in political science from my alma mater, St. Michael's College. Her contributions are too many to list here, but her work in shaping policy has undoubtedly resulted in stronger protections for women and families in Vermont and across the Nation. In my 40 years in the U.S. Senate, I have worked with many advocates who are passionate about the work they do. I can say that Sarah's passion and commitment make her one of the best. She is superbly effective in turning advocacy into action. In Vermont, we are fortunate to have an organization such as the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and even more fortunate to have someone of Sarah's talents advocating on behalf of victims. It has been an honor to work with someone whose commitment to a cause is so distilled and focused. The Vermont Network will miss Sarah's many talents, but Vermont's children have just gained a passionate advocate. I wish Sarah and her family all the best in her new role.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for nearly a year now, Americans across the country have made their voices heard on the critical issue of how we protect an open Internet. Their message has been loud and clear--they want meaningful rules that protect the Internet as a platform for free expression and innovation. Consumers want to see the online space as we have always known it, as a place where the best ideas and services can reach users on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider. Last Congress I joined with my friend in the House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to ban ``pay-to-play'' deals on the Internet. Today, I am pleased to once again join with her to reintroduce this important bill. When we originally introduced this legislation last June, nearly 300,000 Americans had commented on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's open Internet proposal. That number alone would have been an impressive level of public engagement. Since that time, however, the number of public comments filed at the FCC has swelled to nearly 4 million. As the comments show, consumers are concerned that without meaningful rules the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications for them to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in the online world. Like an overwhelming number of the public, I have grave concerns that a pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out their competitors, stifling competition online. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry that its access to consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet companies and retailers should have the same protections that allowed a company like the Vermont Country Store to become a thriving online success. Pay-to-play arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. A pay-to- play Internet could result in whole swaths of the Internet becoming functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today, and the FCC or Congress must act to ensure that it does not come to pass. The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act is straightforward. It requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. These are simple rules to preserve the equal platform we know online today. This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open Internet rules to undermine the FCC's important work to craft open Internet rules that will protect consumers and innovators. To the contrary, this bill sets out important policy positions that the FCC should adopt in its current consideration of open Internet rules. The FCC should not hesitate to act at its February meeting to ban these deals outright. The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates in homes and businesses across the country. I spent significant time last year listening to voices outside of Washington, particularly those of Vermonters, so that I could hear firsthand about the impact the Internet has had on small businesses and consumers. The Judiciary Committee held two hearings on this issue, including one in Vermont, where I heard exactly these kinds of stories. These are not people looking for a handout or special treatment--these are entrepreneurs and consumers who simply want the Internet to remain an equalizing tool regardless of where you live or how deep your pockets are. There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue to protect innovation and competition online. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for nearly a year now, Americans across the country have made their voices heard on the critical issue of how we protect an open Internet. Their message has been loud and clear--they want meaningful rules that protect the Internet as a platform for free expression and innovation. Consumers want to see the online space as we have always known it, as a place where the best ideas and services can reach users on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider. Last Congress I joined with my friend in the House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to ban ``pay-to-play'' deals on the Internet. Today, I am pleased to once again join with her to reintroduce this important bill. When we originally introduced this legislation last June, nearly 300,000 Americans had commented on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's open Internet proposal. That number alone would have been an impressive level of public engagement. Since that time, however, the number of public comments filed at the FCC has swelled to nearly 4 million. As the comments show, consumers are concerned that without meaningful rules the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications for them to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in the online world. Like an overwhelming number of the public, I have grave concerns that a pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out their competitors, stifling competition online. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry that its access to consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet companies and retailers should have the same protections that allowed a company like the Vermont Country Store to become a thriving online success. Pay-to-play arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. A pay-to- play Internet could result in whole swaths of the Internet becoming functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today, and the FCC or Congress must act to ensure that it does not come to pass. The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act is straightforward. It requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. These are simple rules to preserve the equal platform we know online today. This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open Internet rules to undermine the FCC's important work to craft open Internet rules that will protect consumers and innovators. To the contrary, this bill sets out important policy positions that the FCC should adopt in its current consideration of open Internet rules. The FCC should not hesitate to act at its February meeting to ban these deals outright. The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates in homes and businesses across the country. I spent significant time last year listening to voices outside of Washington, particularly those of Vermonters, so that I could hear firsthand about the impact the Internet has had on small businesses and consumers. The Judiciary Committee held two hearings on this issue, including one in Vermont, where I heard exactly these kinds of stories. These are not people looking for a handout or special treatment--these are entrepreneurs and consumers who simply want the Internet to remain an equalizing tool regardless of where you live or how deep your pockets are. There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue to protect innovation and competition online. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen remarkable progress in one of the defining civil rights issues of our era--ensuring that all lawfully married couples are treated equally under the law. In 2011, when I chaired the first Congressional hearing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, only 5 States, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. With today's lifting of Florida's unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban, couples in 36 States and the District of Columbia now have the freedom to marry. This is welcome progress, and I hope we will see similar advancements in even more States this year so that all Americans can marry the one they love. Despite this tremendous progress, there is still more to be done to ensure that no person faces discrimination based on who they marry or wish to marry. As I said when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``All couples who are lawfully married under state law, including in Vermont, should be entitled to the same Federal protections afforded to all other married couples.'' Court challenges will continue this year in the remaining States that do not recognize marriage equality. But in Congress, there are several steps we can take immediately to help ensure our Federal laws treat all marriages equally. Surprisingly, the Copyright Act, which protects our Nation's diverse creative voices, still bears vestiges of discrimination. A provision in the Act grants rights to the surviving spouse of a copyright owner only if the marriage is recognized in the owner's State of residence at the time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his or her partner in Vermont or California is not a ``spouse'' under the Copyright Act if they move to Michigan, Georgia, or one of the other States that do not currently recognize their marriage. Congress should close this discriminatory loophole to ensure our Federal statutes live up to our Nation's promise of equality under the law. As the Supreme Court recognized in striking down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, it is wrong for the Federal Government to deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed. Today I am reintroducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, which I introduced in the Senate last Congress and which a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared Polis plans to reintroduce in the House of Representatives soon, amends the Copyright Act to look simply at whether a couple is lawfully married--not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright owner dies. It will ensure that the rights attached to the works of our Nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians, painters, photographers, and other creators pass to their widows and widowers. Artists are part of the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect their families equally. When I introduced this bill last year, it failed to get the support of a single Republican in the Senate. I hope that in this Congress, Republicans will consider joining this effort to correct these remnants of discrimination in our Federal laws. On the issue of marriage equality, the arc of history is at long last bending towards justice, so that all Americans one day will be free to marry the one they love. Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws governing the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs which also contain remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in our country. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen remarkable progress in one of the defining civil rights issues of our era--ensuring that all lawfully married couples are treated equally under the law. In 2011, when I chaired the first Congressional hearing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, only 5 States, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. With today's lifting of Florida's unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban, couples in 36 States and the District of Columbia now have the freedom to marry. This is welcome progress, and I hope we will see similar advancements in even more States this year so that all Americans can marry the one they love. Despite this tremendous progress, there is still more to be done to ensure that no person faces discrimination based on who they marry or wish to marry. As I said when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``All couples who are lawfully married under state law, including in Vermont, should be entitled to the same Federal protections afforded to all other married couples.'' Court challenges will continue this year in the remaining States that do not recognize marriage equality. But in Congress, there are several steps we can take immediately to help ensure our Federal laws treat all marriages equally. Surprisingly, the Copyright Act, which protects our Nation's diverse creative voices, still bears vestiges of discrimination. A provision in the Act grants rights to the surviving spouse of a copyright owner only if the marriage is recognized in the owner's State of residence at the time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his or her partner in Vermont or California is not a ``spouse'' under the Copyright Act if they move to Michigan, Georgia, or one of the other States that do not currently recognize their marriage. Congress should close this discriminatory loophole to ensure our Federal statutes live up to our Nation's promise of equality under the law. As the Supreme Court recognized in striking down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, it is wrong for the Federal Government to deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed. Today I am reintroducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, which I introduced in the Senate last Congress and which a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared Polis plans to reintroduce in the House of Representatives soon, amends the Copyright Act to look simply at whether a couple is lawfully married--not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright owner dies. It will ensure that the rights attached to the works of our Nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians, painters, photographers, and other creators pass to their widows and widowers. Artists are part of the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect their families equally. When I introduced this bill last year, it failed to get the support of a single Republican in the Senate. I hope that in this Congress, Republicans will consider joining this effort to correct these remnants of discrimination in our Federal laws. On the issue of marriage equality, the arc of history is at long last bending towards justice, so that all Americans one day will be free to marry the one they love. Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws governing the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs which also contain remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in our country. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, we will vote on the nomination of Ms. Sarah Saldana to serve as Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, where she will lead the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, office. Ms. Saldana has been considered and favorably reported by both the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. A native of South Texas, Ms. Saldana is the youngest of seven children. Inspired by her mother's emphasis on education, Ms. Saldana went to college and graduated from law school. She established a successful career as an attorney in private practice before becoming a Federal prosecutor. In 2011, with the support of her home State Senators from Texas, the Senate unanimously confirmed her as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas, and she became the first Latina U.S. attorney in the State's history. In this position, Ms. Saldana has earned a reputation as a tough but fair prosecutor. Throughout her career, she has demonstrated a firm and unequivocal commitment to enforcing the law, and she has pledged that she will maintain that commitment if confirmed to lead ICE. At her hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee in September, Senator Cornyn introduced Ms. Saldana and vouched for her qualifications, stating: ``If respect for the rule of law is our standard . . . we would be hard-pressed to find a person more qualified to enforce the law than Ms. Saldana.'' I agree. Ms. Saldana has made clear that, if confirmed, she will ``faithfully execute all immigration laws, including those laws that [she] or the President disagree with.'' Some want to use Ms. Saldana's nomination as an opportunity to attack President Obama's Executive action on immigration, but that is not the issue we are considering today. There is no evidence that she was involved in either the House's refusal to allow a vote on the Senate- passed comprehensive immigration reform bill or the President's decision to take what steps he could in the wake of the House's refusal to act. The vote before us concerns Ms. Saldana's qualifications to lead ICE, and she has proved that she is more than capable of executing the duties of the position. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been without a Senate-confirmed leader for more than a year. If Senators want our immigration laws enforced, they should focus on filling this key leadership position. There is no question that Sarah Saldana is qualified to lead the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. I urge Senators to vote to confirm her to this important law enforcement position at the Department of Homeland Security without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, a House-passed bill that extends a limited and narrow set of expired tax credits and deductions, and includes the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, ABLE Act. Once again, Congress has waited until the eleventh hour to address tax credits that expired nearly a year ago. Once again, this has resulted in needless confusion for families and businesses who have been unable to plan and unable to grow, given the uncertainty of the outcome of these credits. I heard from Vermonters over the last year concerned about the expiration of these credits--and the pending expiration of dozens of more tax credits that benefit hardworking, middle-class families. Congress has a responsibility to do its part to provide certainty within the Tax Code to ensure families in Vermont and across the country have the predictability they need to make financial decisions. While I support extending these tax credits, I cannot support an effort that once again simply kicks the can down the road and leaves for the next year the unfinished business of this Congress. I am disappointed that, earlier this year, Republicans in the Senate squandered an opportunity to consider a more comprehensive package that would have benefited small businesses, researchers, the environment, and middle-class families. I have been deeply disappointed in the process, which has left us with a choice between bad: passing the House bill; and worse: not doing anything. This legislation revives more than 55 expired tax deductions from 2013, and while I agree these are important provisions, I cannot support this bill on principle. We cannot continue to retroactively fix problems Congress carelessly and irresponsibly creates, without addressing the same tax provisions that will expire in just a few short weeks from now, only to have the same fight next year. It is time we have a meaningful, full debate about tax reform, and how Congress can ensure that our Tax Code reflects the needs of all Americans, not just those who are the wealthiest among us. Included in this patch bill is the important ABLE Act, which allows those with disabilities to plan for their futures by creating tax-free savings accounts. I have strongly supported this legislation, and continue to do so. This legislation creates opportunities for individuals with disabilities to save for college or retirement or other living expenses and opens doors for families across the country. The House of Representatives held two votes last week related to taxes: one on the extenders package, and one on the ABLE Act. If the Senate were allowed to do so, I would cast my vote in strong support of the ABLE Act. I asked Vermonters to elect me as their representative in the Senate because I wanted carry their voices to the decision centers in Washington. I strongly believe in the best of what the Senate has been, should be, and can once again become. There are many Vermonters, and people across the country, who are counting on us to provide comprehensive, long-term solutions to our country's problems. I hope that in the new Congress we can work together instead of kicking the can down the road, yet again. We were elected to find solutions, not excuses.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been 10 months since the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions favorably reported the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy to serve as Surgeon General of the United States. While this seat sat vacant, our Nation has suffered through concerns and divergent information about the possibility of an Ebola outbreak and is on the cusp of what is predicted to be a difficult flu season. It is past time to move forward and confirm this nomination. The Surgeon General is the Nation's chief medical officer and plays the role of chief medical information ``explainer'' for all Americans. There is a vast amount of information available about how to best take care of your health and the health of your family. The Surgeon General has the authority to distill the best research to present a clear message on effective disease prevention and health promotion. As the health policy advisor to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Surgeon General plays an important role in proactively addressing the many public health issues that face Americans. With an aging population and chronic diseases such as diabetes on the rise, this is a key position in the effort to improve the overall health and wellbeing of the American people. Unfortunately, this nomination has been stalled for months due to comments Dr. Murthy made in the context of the school shootings in Newtown, CT. Dr. Murthy referred to gun violence as an ``important public health issue'' but also acknowledges that the causes of gun violence are ``complex and multi-faceted.'' He urges Congress ``to develop a comprehensive national plan to stop gun violence.'' While there is significant disagreement over firearm regulations in our country, we should all be able to agree that reducing gun violence, and the devastating effects it can have on our communities, is a priority. Many doctors' groups treat gun violence as a public health concern and believe it is a relevant and important issue to discuss with patients. Dr. Murthy testified in his confirmation hearing before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that he does ``not intend to use the Surgeon General's Office as a bully pulpit for gun control. That is not going to be my priority.'' Dr. Murthy further explained that his ``concerns with regards to issues like gun violence have to do with my experience as a physician, seeing patients in emergency rooms who have come in with acute injuries; but also seeing many patients over the years who are dealing with spinal cord injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other chronic complications from gun violence.'' I am a gun owner myself, and I and have enormous respect and appreciation for the freedoms the Second Amendment protects. However, I do not believe that gun violence, and the injuries and fatalities that result from it, is a problem we can simply ignore. On average, more than 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States. From 2000 to 2010, more than 335,000 people were killed by guns in the United States. This is an issue about which we must be able to have an honest discussion. Dr. Murthy's impressive background as both a hospitalist attending physician and instructor in medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital at Harvard Medical School, and his background as the founder and president of Doctors for America make him well qualified to serve as our Nation's Surgeon General. I hope his nomination is confirmed today.