Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see other Senators seeking the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to propound a unanimous consent request, but I should explain why. It is on the Freedom of Information Act, one of our Nation's most important laws. For nearly 50 years, FOIA has given Americans a way to access government information, ensuring their right to know what their government is doing. Today, the Senate is now poised to build on that important legacy with passage of the bipartisan Leahy-Cornyn FOIA Improvement Act. The FOIA Improvement Act will codify what the President laid out in his historic executive order in 2009. This legislation will require Federal agencies to adopt a ``Presumption of Openness'', and make it a priority of the people's interest in what their government is doing. Our bill will reduce the overuse of exemptions to withhold information where there is no foreseeable harm. It will make information available for public inspection, and make frequently requested documents available online. It will provide the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), with additional independence and authority to carry out its work. I believe this legislation reaffirms the fundamental premise of FOIA, that government information belongs to all Americans. Passage of FOIA will help open the government to more than 300 million Americans whom the government is supposed to serve. The bill is supported by 70 public interest groups that advocate for government transparency. The Sunshine in Government Initiative said the Leahy- Cornyn bill ``strengthens government transparency by limiting the ability of agencies to hide decades old documents from the public.'' We reported this legislation out of the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate with unanimous support. Ranking Member Grassley said the FOIA Improvement Act ``opens wide the curtains and provides more sunlight on the Federal Government.'' Senator Cornyn has been my partner for many years on government transparency and noted our bipartisan efforts ``open up the government and make it more consumer and customer friendly.'' I thank them both for their work on this legislation. Today I ask that the Senate pass S. 2520, the bipartisan FOIA Improvement Act of 2014. We often talk about the need for government transparency, and many also note how rare it is that Democrats and Republicans can come together on any legislation. Today, we can accomplish both of those things but time is running out. We drafted this bill in a bipartisan fashion after a long and thoughtful process of consultation. It has broad support from a range of stakeholders. I urge all Senators to support passage of this legislation today, so it can be taken up by the House, and sent to the President to be signed into law before the end of this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 605, S. 2520.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Freedom of Information Act is one of our Nation's most important laws. James Madison said the people ``must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.'' For nearly 50 years, FOIA has given Americans a way to access government information ensuring their right to know what their government doing. The FOIA Improvement Act advances this fundamental democratic principle. It is why I urge all Senators to support the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014, without delay. This legislation builds on what the President laid out in his historic Executive order in 2009 by requiring Federal agencies to adopt a ``Presumption of Openness'' when considering the release of government information under FOIA. Prioritizing the people's interest in what their government is doing, our bill will reduce the overuse of exemptions to withhold information where there is no foreseeable harm. It will make information available for public inspection and frequently requested documents available online. It will provide the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, with additional independence and authority to carry out its work. I believe this legislation reaffirms the fundamental premise of FOIA, that government information belongs to all Americans. Supporting these commonsense reforms will help open the government to the 300 million Americans it serves. The bill is supported by more than 70 public interest groups that advocate for government transparency. The Sunshine in Government Initiative, said the Leahy-Cornyn bill ``strengthens government transparency by limiting the ability of agencies to hide decades old documents from the public.'' At the Judiciary Committee's business meeting to consider this legislation, which was reported to the full Senate with unanimous support, Ranking Member Grassley said the FOIA Improvement Act ``opens wide the curtains and provides more sunlight on the Federal government.'' Senator Cornyn, my partner for many years on government transparency, noted our bipartisan efforts ``to open up the government and make it more consumer and customer friendly.'' I thank both Senators for their work on this legislation. We often talk about the need for government transparency, and many also note how rare it is that Democrats and Republicans can come together on any legislation. We have accomplished both with the FOIA Improvement Act. It was drafted in a bipartisan fashion after a long and thoughtful process of consultation. This week, we can pass this bill in the Senate and send it over to the House, where I am confident that it will pass, and send it to the President to sign before the end of the year. There is no reason to delay this legislation, which has broad support from a range of stakeholders, costs very little to implement and will improve access to government for all Americans. I urge the Senate to pass the FOIA Improvement Act now, without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate has acted to ensure that law school students can gain valuable experience providing legal assistance to inventors before the United States Patent and Trademark Office--USPTO. This legislation is a clear win-win: students will gain tangible, hands-on experience in a vital area of the law, and inventors and small businesses will receive valuable legal assistance with their patent and trademark applications. By promoting innovation and helping creators turn their inventions into reality, the American public benefits from the results. The USPTO plays a key role in driving the engine of our economy. Close to 600,000 patent applications and 450,000 trademark class applications are filed with the Office each year. I am proud that Vermont routinely ranks among the most innovative States that have the highest patents per capita 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. Three years ago, Congress came together to pass the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, the greatest transformation to our patent system in over 60 years. We worked for 6 years to pass this legislation to bring our patent system into the 21st Century. It helped simplify the process for patent approval, reduced backlogs at the USPTO, harmonized the U.S. patent system with the rest of the world, and improved patent quality. Importantly, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act also contained key provisions to help inventors when they appear before the USPTO; something this law school clinic legislation builds on today. Because of the America Invents Act, the USPTO now has four satellite offices around the country to make the Office more accessible to inventors and businesses. The USPTO's pro bono program is expanding nationwide to provide resources to individuals who appear before the Office without counsel. The Patent Ombudsman for Small Businesses provides patent filing support and services. The Law School Clinic Certification Program established by this legislation expands the USPTO's strong efforts to support inventors and small businesses, while training our next generation of lawyers in how this important agency operates. After 6 years of a successful pilot program run by the USPTO, it is time to pass this legislation and make the program permanent. Representative Hakeem Jeffries should be congratulated for his work on this bill in the House. I thank my fellow Senators for joining me in support of this sensible program and continuing our work to support innovators in our home States and across the Nation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today we will vote to confirm Lydia Griggsby to serve on the Court of Federal Claims. I thank the Majority Leader for filing cloture on her nomination. She should have been confirmed several months ago but Republicans refused to consent to a vote on her nomination for no good reason. Lydia was nominated on April 10 of this year. She had a hearing on June 4 and was reported out of committee by a unanimous voice vote on June 12. She is completely noncontroversial and exceptionally well qualified to serve on this court. It should not have taken 6 days, let alone 6 months, for the Senate to approve her nomination. Despite this unnecessary delay, I am pleased that we finally ended the filibuster and will confirm her today. Lydia has served on my Judiciary Committee staff since 2006 and currently serves as my chief counsel for Privacy and Information Policy. In this position, she has worked across the aisle on important legislation to promote accountability and transparency. Before coming to the Judiciary Committee she served on the Senate Ethics Committee. I recommended Lydia to the President for this position because I know her intellect and good judgment will make her a fine judge. Before Lydia came to work in the Senate, she served in the Justice Department and tried several matters before the Court of Federal Claims. When she is confirmed, it will most certainly be the court's gain and the Judiciary Committee's loss. I will miss her wise counsel and I wish her all the best. Madam President, I yield back all time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have long worked to pass legislation to bring additional transparency and accountability to the government. I do so again today by calling on all Senators to support the Death in Custody Reporting Act, a bill that has moved multiple times through the Senate Judiciary Committee and should pass the Senate without further delay. This is about an open and fair government. The Death in Custody Reporting Act requires that local and Federal law enforcement officials report deaths that occur while people are held in their custody, including those that occur during arrest. Nothing more. Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that hundreds of police-related deaths are unaccounted for in Federal statistics. I ask that the article, ``Hundreds of Police Killings Are Uncounted in Federal Stats,'' be made part of the Record. The details of the article are unacceptable. The Justice Department should have an opportunity to analyze the data and see what we can learn from it. And the American people deserve the same. This important opportunity for needed transparency comes at a time when many Americans are losing faith in our justice system. We are having an important conversation about the loss of human life in communities across the country. Here we have an opportunity to instill some measure of accountability, and hopefully begin to restore some measure of trust in these communities. This legislation, sponsored by Congressman Bobby Scott, overwhelmingly passed the House last year in a bipartisan vote. We reported the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a similarly strong bipartisan vote, with Ranking Member Grassley speaking in strong support of the legislation. Currently, every single Senate Democrat is in support of its passage, but a handful of Senate Republicans are not yet convinced. It is my hope that they soon reconsider, and we can send this legislation to the President for signature without delay. The American people would expect as much.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't know of anybody seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of Vermont's longest-serving journalists, Sam Hemingway, recently retired after a distinguished 37- year career with the Burlington Free Press. His career at the paper spans a period of our State's history filled with interesting stories, and Sam covered so many of them. During the course of those many years Sam captured the pulse of Vermont, whether through his personalized columns or his probing reports. Sam's institutional memory was a rich and vital resource for the newspaper and for his readers. His writing talents, his reporting skills and his ability to make personal connections will be sorely missed. Marcelle and I join all Vermonters in extending all best wishes to Sam and his family as they begin a new chapter in their lives. I ask that this Burlington Free Press article sketching Sam's tenure and retirement plans be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont is a farming State: dairy, livestock, vegetables or fruit, farms across Vermont are known for their innovative and sustainable approaches to farming and food production. The dairy industry in particular is known throughout Vermont, and far beyond. Dairy cows are a familiar sight for those who live in or visit our State, and Vermont farms have been recognized both domestically and internationally for their dairy-based products. The cheese-making tradition in Vermont dates back to the early 1900s, when Vermont dairy farmers sought uses for their surplus milk. Since those early days, many farms have developed methods for artisanal cheese production. Recently, Jasper Hill--a celebrated farm in Greensboro Bend, VT--won international recognition at the World Cheese Awards in London, when its Bayley Hazen Blue cheese won the award for the ``World's Best Unpasturized Cheese.'' Besting more than 2,600 submissions, Jasper Hill's award-winning blue cheese also took home a Super Gold award. Six other cheeses produced by Jasper Hill also won awards. And two other Vermont cheese makers--Grafton Village Cheese and the Vermont Creamery--were also recognized. Some might skip over a story about the World Cheese Awards. But in Vermont, we take pride in the products we produce from the livestock nurtured and raised on Vermont's rich land. Farming remains a fabric of our American story, and in Vermont, it is a tradition that has spanned generations. Congratulations to the Cellars at Jasper Hill, to Grafton Village Cheese, and to the Vermont Creamery for their recent recognitions. They represent the quality and high standards that are a hallmark of the Vermont brand. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a story recently featured about these dairies on Vermont Public Radio be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will take just about a minute. I know we are waiting for others to come. I have heard some of the discussion on the floor and in the hallways about Thanksgiving. On Thursday, when I sat down with my family over Thanksgiving dinner, I thought about our history and how my grandparents came to Vermont from Italy, my great- grandparents from Ireland, and my wife's family from the Province of Quebec in Canada. We, similar to most Americans, are a family of immigrants. It is that rich melting-pot history that makes our country so special, so strong. Thanksgiving is a good time to celebrate and honor that strength. Far too many immigrant families today, however, live in fear--fear of being torn apart, of losing a mother or father or sister or brother, to deportation. Bringing peace to those families is one of the things that most motivated me last year during the long debate on immigration reform. Both Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber praised the fair and thorough process that we had in the Judiciary Committee on the immigration bill. We had 6 hearings featuring 42 witnesses. We debated bipartisan legislation a total of 37 hours over a 3-week period. We considered 212 amendments, and we adopted 136 of them--all but 3 on a bipartisan basis. The full Senate then debated the bill and approved it by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. But that effort was not good enough for Republican leaders in the House. They would not even allow a vote on the bill. Today, they are batting zero when it comes to addressing the broken immigration system. They now complain that the President is acting alone, but he is not. The American people support immigration reform. That is why President Obama acted. His actions are legal, but they are only a temporary fix. Congress must still act. The Republican House leadership has chosen to hold hearings attacking the President's actions, rather than simply stepping up and allowing a vote on a bill to solve the problem. Time is running out and they are wasting it on political antics. I hope that they use the remainder of this month to take up and vote on the comprehensive bill we sent them more than a year and a half ago. I applaud the President's action to keep families together. That is why next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will again turn to the issue of family unity. I have asked Astrid Silva, whose remarkable story President Obama began to tell last week, to come and share the rest of her story and what the President's actions will mean to her family. The fact is we have done the work for an immigration bill. Why won't the Republicans at least vote--vote yes or vote no. We did, and I applaud those Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who stood and voted. Let the House act. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senate leader is still on the floor, I thank him for his comments on the immigration bill. I would note he was kind to talk about hundreds of hours. I may not have spent that, but a whole lot of other Senators did--and that bill would not have been on the floor and would not have been voted on without the leadership of the Senator from Nevada. He made sure there was a calendar, that there was time, and that he would keep the Senate in session while we had rollcall after rollcall. We had 136 amendments that were adopted in committee, and more than a dozen were considered on the floor. But we passed that bill by a 2-to-1 margin. The Republicans and Democrats joined together, and I applaud the leader for what he did. I would tell one short story. Not long after that I was in Oregon, north of Portland, and went to a farming area. I went to church on a Sunday. My brother-in-law was saying the mass. He is fluent in Spanish. There were hundreds and hundreds of workers--these are all taxpayers, hardworking people. They make the community and they make the economy of the area. I was introduced at the end. They all stood, raised their hand, and asked blessings on me and on the Senate for what we had done because it gave them hope for themselves and their families. As long as I live, I will remember that, and I would hope--knowing at that time that we had enough votes, or enough votes to pass it in the House, I would call on the House leadership to do the right thing, allow it to come to a vote. Let Republicans and Democrats, everybody who does speeches on immigration, let them do what Senator Reid had us do in the Senate, actually vote yes or vote no. Let them do the same-- vote yes or vote no, and let the blessing the people gave for us in the Senate also be a blessing for those in the House.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as we know, tonight President Obama is going to speak to the American people about reforming our broken immigration system. I had dinner with him last night, and we talked about this. I think it is generally expected that he will announce what he can do to address some of the problems that are tearing families apart, dragging the U.S. economy down and risking our national security. For 2 years the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives refused to even allow a vote on the Senate's bipartisan bill. Because of that, I understand and appreciate why the President is going to act. There are currently 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, but everybody knows we are not going to round up and deport 11 million people. It just can't be done. Even if it could be done, it would be totally un-American and against everything that we stand for. These are, after all, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters. They are not a number. They are real people. And the President's action will acknowledge that. It is a necessary step in an effort to bring people out of the shadows, focus scarce enforcement resources on those who actually pose a threat, and bring some stability to those who are hardworking, law-abiding members of our community. I would much rather have people who are taxpayers and know they are here legally, so we can concentrate on those who aren't. That is what the President wants to do. President Obama knows there is no substitute for legislation. President Reagan and President Bush used a similar type of Executive order. It is a temporary and incomplete solution because legislation has to be passed. We have to step up and fix the broken immigration system once and for all, as we did in the Senate when Republicans and Democrats came together last year. But to those who say we should wait for Congress to act, I think we have waited long enough. We have been waiting now for 511 days since the Senate passed immigration reform. That is 511 days, during which time the Republican- controlled House of Representatives could have taken up our bill-- either voted for it or voted against it. The least they could do is vote. Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' I think about what my friend and the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Edward Kennedy, said in the summer of 2007. We had comprehensive immigration reform before the Senate. It was being blocked by the Republicans. He said: A minority in the Senate rejected a stronger economy that is fairer to our taxpayers and our workers. A minority in the senate rejected America's own extraordinary immigrant history and ignored our nation's most urgent needs. But we're in this struggle for the long haul. Senator Kennedy was right. That is why Democrats and Republicans came together to pass an immigration bill out of the Senate. I just ask why, 511 days later, has the Republican-controlled House refused to either vote for it or vote against it? We held days of hearings and lengthy, extensive markup sessions. We worked late into the evenings debating the bill. Many of us worked weekends. I remember, because I was there. We considered hundreds of amendments. More than 300 amendments were filed. We adopted 136 of them. All but three were adopted with both Republican and Democratic votes. What was initially a proposal from the so-called Gang of 8 became, through the committee process, the product of 18 Members from both sides of the aisle. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended this improved bipartisan bill to the full Senate. It wasn't exactly the bill that I would have written, but it was a fair and reasonable compromise. It reflected the deliberative process at its best, and I felt honored to bring the bill to the floor. But look what happened. Sixty eight of us voted to pass it, and the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives will not even bring it up for a vote. To this day, the Republican leadership in the House is batting zero when it comes to truly addressing the broken immigration system. The President is not acting alone. The American people support immigration reform. Remember that. The American people support immigration reform. A bipartisan majority of the Senate has endorsed action. It is the House of Representatives that is out of step. Our system is not going to fix itself. We know this. It should be no surprise that the President has decided to use his authority to make our country safer, stronger, and more humane. If Republicans really, truly want congressional action on reform, they can take action today and allow a vote on the Senate-passed bill. I hope that every Member of the Republican Party who says that what the President is doing is terrible will also ask when House Republicans are going to vote one way or the other on the Senate's bill. Our bill would make everything the President is doing unnecessary. Remember that. The President has the legal authority to take this action. Every President since Eisenhower has exercised this authority. Some, such as President George H.W. Bush, did so on a sweeping scale. We make laws in Congress. The President sets enforcement policies. He clearly has the power to take the scarce resources we have given him and identify and deport those people who pose a danger to our communities, and he can limit the deportation of those who are law-abiding, tax-paying members of the community. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Next week, millions of families in this country will gather around a table to give thanks for the many blessings they have received. I know my family and I and our children and our grandchildren will. The President's actions will be counted among those blessings for the millions of loved ones who worry that their mother, father or grandparents could be deported at any moment. The security the President's action will give these families on Thanksgiving is powerful and indispensable. For some, it is about something even more urgent. It is about seeking safety. While I applaud the President's announcement today, I remain deeply disappointed by his decision to build a large new detention facility to hold vulnerable women and children fleeing violence in Central America. Many of these individuals are asylum seekers, not criminals, and their ongoing detention is unacceptable. I urge him to revisit this policy. The action the President will announce today is going to draw criticism from those who sought to stop immigration reform at every turn. As a grandson of immigrants, I say that after years and years of obstruction, the President is right to take action. I am married to a woman who is the daughter of immigrants. At the heart of it all, this is about keeping America's communities strong and vibrant. We benefit from immigration. That has been our history. Let it be our future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on five outstanding judicial nominees to our Federal district courts. I thank the majority leader for filing for cloture on these nominees so we can clear the backlog that still remains on our executive calendar as we move toward the end of the 113th Congress. After we vote on these nominees today, however, we will still have 21 judicial nominees pending on the executive calendar to serve on district courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. The five nominees the Senate will vote on today are all well- qualified lawyers and there should be no controversy about their confirmation. Four of these nominees: Pamela Pepper to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Brenda Sannes to the Northern District of New York, Madeline Arleo to the District of New Jersey, and Wendy Beetlestone to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were reported by the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote and have the support of their home State senators. The fifth nominee, Victor Bolden, who has been nominated to the District of Connecticut, also has the strong support of his home State Senators, Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Murphy. Mr. Bolden's credentials are impeccable. Since 2009, he has served as corporation counsel for the city of New Haven, CT. Prior to joining city government, Mr. Bolden served as general counsel and assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. He has also served in private practice as an associate and counsel at the law firm of Wiggin & Dana in New Haven, CT. After graduating from Harvard Law School, Mr. Bolden began his legal career at the American Civil Liberties Union as a staff attorney and as the Marvin Karpatkin Fellow. During the Judiciary Committee executive business meeting where Mr. Bolden's nomination was considered, the ranking member commented that he was troubled by the nominee's views on racial classifications and his advocacy on affirmative action. The ranking member also noted that he did not agree with the nominee's criticisms of the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Finally, the ranking member criticized Mr. Bolden because he argued the nominee ``took a narrow and legally incorrect view of individual rights under the Second Amendment in an amicus brief in Heller.'' The committee voted to report Mr. Bolden's nomination favorably on a 10-to-8 party-line vote. Let me address each of the issues raised by Ranking Member Grassley. First, in cases where Mr. Bolden has advocated for a specific position in which a Senator may disagree, Mr. Bolden was representing a client and not expressing his own personal views. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have stated repeatedly that attorneys should not be equated with the position of their clients. Our legal system is predicated upon zealous advocacy for both sides of an issue or matter. Without this, our justice system would not function. Victor Bolden understands the difference between the role of an advocate versus the role of a judge. In response to a question for the record from Senator Grassley on applying Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedents, Mr. Bolden testified: ``I am fully committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect, regardless of any personal feelings I might have.'' Second, not only has Mr. Bolden testified under oath about this distinction, but he has shown that he would apply and implement orders from a higher court. In Ricci v. DeStefano, Mr. Bolden represented the city of New Haven as corporation counsel. In that case, several White firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city of New Haven in 2003, alleging racial discrimination after the city threw out the results of an exam used for promotion of the city's firefighters. The test results had shown that White firefighters had outperformed minority applicants. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against New Haven and held that the city's abandonment of the test results constituted intentional discrimination against the White firefighters. Mr. Bolden subsequently helped ensure that the city complied with the Court's order and defended the decision against collateral attacks. To his credit, Mr. Bolden did such an outstanding job of ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's decision that the named plaintiff-- firefighter Frank Ricci--wrote a letter strongly supporting Mr. Bolden's nomination. Let me quote some of this letter: It was apparent to me from our initial dealings whether as a plaintiff or union representative that the Mayor had made a great choice in the selection of the new Corporation Counsel. Although Victor represented the City and therefore would be naturally presumed an adversary it never felt that way. Through the remainder of the litigation from the U.S. Supreme Court decision to the final judgments Victor displayed and has always displayed the attributes one could hope for in a jurist. He's always conscious that there are real people affected by decisions that are made but he is also very deliberate in those decisions with an unwavering commitment to the law. Victor is a consummate professional with unquestionable integrity. These observations are not limited to me but have been the topic of many discussions between me and others, including those inside and outside the fire service. I cannot think of anyone who would make a finer addition to our federal judiciary than him. And I could not have a greater honor than to write this correspondence supporting that. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full letter of support. Third, Mr. Bolden's criticisms of the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder in a 2013 editorial were shared by a substantial number of legal scholars and Senators, including me. As I have said, the Shelby County decision was a dreadful decision and wrongly decided. A narrow majority of the Court decided to substitute its own judgment over the exhaustive legislative findings of Congress showing that racial discrimination in voting still occurs. Instead, the Court chose to effectively strike down the heart of the Voting Rights Act by holding that the coverage formula for preclearance was outdated. I authored a bipartisan bill along with Congressmen Sensenbrenner and John Lewis on this, but to this date, not a single Senate Republican has signed on. In short, I believe that Victor Bolden's views on voting rights are well within the mainstream. Nevertheless, Mr. Bolden has stated for the Record that he ``would faithfully apply Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent'' on the issue. Lastly, Mr. Bolden has been criticized for authoring an amicus brief on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in District of Columbia v. Heller. At the time Mr. Bolden authored the amicus brief, the controlling precedent in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence was United States v. Miller, which did not hold that there was an individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a ``well regulated Militia.'' Accordingly, the brief that Mr. Bolden filed actually cited to Supreme Court precedent that was controlling on the issue at the time. Now that the Supreme Court has decided Heller, Mr. Bolden has testified under oath that he ``would faithfully apply the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and other Second Amendment jurisprudence'' and all other areas of the law. Senators should not vote against Mr. Bolden for advocating on behalf of a client using the applicable Supreme Court precedent at the time. I have heard that some Senators have been continuing to distort Mr. Bolden's record on the Senate floor during his cloture vote. I can only hope that these distortions and fabrications are dismissed as they rightly should be. Mr. Bolden is an outstanding nominee and a substantial majority of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has also rated him ``well qualified.'' I wholeheartedly support this nominee and would strongly urge my fellow Senators to do the same.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will finally act to send legislation to the President's desk that will ensure that Vermonters and 1.5 million Americans across the country will continue to receive satellite television programming at the end of the year. The legislation reauthorizes the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA, which creates a distant signal statutory license to receive broadcast television signals via satellite. This legislation is the product of four committees in the Senate and House. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I worked with Senator Grassley on the copyright aspects of this legislation to focus on preventing disruption to consumers. Because of our work together, the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported its portion of this bill on June 26 and all of these provisions are in the bill the Senate will pass today. Sending this bill to the President shows the American people that Congress can come together in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to pass legislation. Vermonters who rely on the distant signal license for their broadcast programming can rest easy today knowing that their existing television stations will not disappear from their screens come December 31. Over the years I have worked on the Judiciary Committee to ensure that all Vermonters have access to Vermont broadcast television stations. In previous reauthorizations, including STELA's most recent reauthorization in 2010, I have made it a priority to ensure that every Vermont satellite subscriber has the option to watch Vermont-focused programming. Local broadcast stations play an important role in informing and fostering a sense of community. This is particularly true in a small State like mine. I am proud to have made sure that residents in every corner of Vermont will continue to have a choice to see Vermont news. The Judiciary Committee portion of this legislation reauthorizes the distant signal license for another 5 years. It is narrowly crafted to ensure that consumers do not see any disruption in service, but also designed to make sure that content holders who are paid royalties under this license continue to receive an annual cost of living adjustment beginning from the rate that is currently in place. The distant signal license is important to consumers. I recognize, however, that compulsory licenses do not always reflect the true market value of the content that is being licensed. The mechanisms to modestly increase the rate when appropriate remain in place. Through the Senate Judiciary Committee process, I worked with Senator Durbin, who offered a non- controversial amendment to expand the carriage of low power television stations on cable systems. I was happy to support this amendment because improving the reach of these stations so that more viewers can see them will help to expand the diversity of voices available on cable. That is as important in Burlington, VT as it is in Chicago. I share the concerns of several Senators who wanted this legislation to do more to promote competition. It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives would not agree to the Senate's stronger language in this regard, but I was willing to compromise because the threat of letting the law expire was too great. The language in the bill we will pass today is better than what was in the original House bill. Overall, this legislation is a win for viewers in Vermont and across the country. I look forward to the President signing it into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words of the majority leader. He and I have been friends for decades. He worked with me and was in touch with me throughout the recent effort on the NSA reform bill, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014. He knew we had cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, from across the political spectrum. This was an effort to do what was best for America and do it at a time when we would not be under urgent deadlines. Several of the authorities we were trying to amend expire on June 1 of next year. We had a piece of legislation that began in the House of Representatives by a Republican chairman. We added to the bill in the Senate. There was a very clear signal from the House of Representatives that if we had passed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 here in the Senate, they would have taken it up and passed it. We would be enacting legislation that would improve not only the security of Americans, but also the privacy and individual liberties of Americans. And we would not do it under a deadline. So it was unfortunate last night that there was a partisan effort to stop it. There was some of the worst fear- mongering I have heard on this floor in 40 years. But I say this as more of a way to thank the distinguished majority leader for his steadfast support.

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