Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded back.

Mr. LEAHY. I withhold that request. I yield back my time.

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 five states, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. Following the Supreme Court's historic decision last month to not review decisions from several circuits striking down same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional, same-sex couples in 35 States and the District of Columbia are, or will soon be, able to marry. This is welcome progress. In modern America, no person should face discrimination based on the one they love. Despite this' tremendous progress, there is still more to be done. 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 in the remaining states that do not recognize marriage equality. 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 surviving spouses of copyright owners 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 Florida, 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. It is wrong for the federal government to deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed. Today I am introducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, a version of which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared Polis, 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 the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect their families equally. 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. It is time to fix these outdated laws once and for all. I urge the Senate to pass this important piece of legislation. 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 five states, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. Following the Supreme Court's historic decision last month to not review decisions from several circuits striking down same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional, same-sex couples in 35 States and the District of Columbia are, or will soon be, able to marry. This is welcome progress. In modern America, no person should face discrimination based on the one they love. Despite this' tremendous progress, there is still more to be done. 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 in the remaining states that do not recognize marriage equality. 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 surviving spouses of copyright owners 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 Florida, 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. It is wrong for the federal government to deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed. Today I am introducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, a version of which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared Polis, 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 the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect their families equally. 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. It is time to fix these outdated laws once and for all. I urge the Senate to pass this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a common reality that permeates the complex and colorful history of Latin America is large numbers of landless, impoverished people and small elites who control the majority of the land and the country's wealth, often exploiting its natural resources for personal gain. While the significant growth of the middle class in some South American countries over the past decade is encouraging, nowhere is the disparity of land ownership more pronounced than in Paraguay, a landlocked country of 6.5 million people that rarely receives the attention of the U.S. Congress. A few statistics tell the story. Some 80 percent of agricultural land in Paraguay is owned by just 1.6 percent of the landowners, and the 600 largest properties comprise 40 percent of the total productive land. Meanwhile, a third of a million small farmers have no land at all. It should surprise no one that 40 percent of the country's population lives in poverty and that land, wealth, and political power are concentrated in the hands of a few. The conflict over land in Paraguay, which dates back hundreds of years, has grown even worse due to the expansion of mechanized soy production, primarily for export. Government policies, including tax breaks, access to credit, and weak environmental and labor regulations, have favored large corporate farms which are often foreign owned, over local family farms that receive little if any government support. As we have seen in many other Latin countries, the Paraguayan Government has used the army, police, and judicial inaction or bias to protect the interests of the large landowners. The 35 year dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner ended in 1989. He ruled under a state of siege, imprisoned and tortured political opponents, and reportedly gave away or sold for a pittance 20 percent of the country's land to friends of his regime. Paraguay is slowly moving beyond the Stroessner years, but since 1989 more than 130 small farmers who have tried to defend their rights under the agrarian reform law have reportedly been killed. I mention this bit of history to put into context what happened on June 15, 2012. According to information I have received, on that day several hundred police officers forcibly evicted a group of about 60 landless farmers who were occupying an area known as Marina Kue in eastern Paraguay. In the ensuing violence, eleven farmers and six police officers were killed and others injured from the gunfire. There has apparently been no investigation of the conduct of the police, despite the existence of published reports about human rights abuses, but all the farmers were charged with crimes. This case offers the Paraguayan Government an important opportunity to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of the events of June 15, prosecute and punish those responsible for the killings and injuries of the farmers and police officers, and enable poor farmers in that community to acquire legal rights to land and put it to productive use to feed their families. I understand that the Paraguayan Government recently began working to reach an agreement with the affected communities regarding the land dispute prior to the beginning of the trial of the farmers later this month. This is encouraging news, and it could be a turning point if it results in a thorough, independent investigation and prosecution of those responsible and a just resolution of the dispute. Paraguay and the United States, while separated by more than 4,000 miles, share many interests. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations that funds U.S. foreign assistance programs, I have supported programs to help Paraguay strengthen its democratic institutions, promote efficiency and transparency, and promote equitable economic development. I also supported the funding for the Millennium Challenge Corporation's Threshold Program in Paraguay. There will be other ways the United States can help Paraguay build the capacity and accountability of its public sector, expand its economy, and sustainably manage its natural resources. Few things would do more to advance these goals, and improve social stability, than addressing what happened at Marina Kue and providing access to land for Paraguay's small farmers. I am aware that several other Members of Congress are sending a letter to President Horacio Cartes urging these steps, and I look forward to his response.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, more than 30 years ago, in the midst of Guatemala's civil war, the construction of a large hydroelectric dam on the Chixoy River resulted in destruction of 33 indigenous Mayan communities and the massacres of more than 400 villagers and other abuses by the Guatemalan army. The history of that tragedy is well known so I will not recount it here. Suffice it to say that a great injustice was committed. There was ample blame to go around between the Army, the World Bank, and Inter- American Development Bank that financed the dam, governments, including the United States, whose representatives on the banks' boards of directors voted for the construction, and subsequent Guatemalan Governments that failed to compensate the victims or punish those responsible. Last month, the Guatemalan Government and representatives of the communities culminated many months of negotiations with an agreement to implement the contents of the 2010 reparations plan, including individual payments and community development investments that will be financed over a period of years. The agreement was formalized at a public ceremony on Saturday, November 1, attended by Guatemala's President Otto Perez Molina, members of the communities, other government officials, and representatives of the multilateral banks and the United Nations. There are many who thought this day would never come, and I commend the commitment and patience of the members of the communities, particularly those who lost loved ones so many years ago, the Guatemalan officials who negotiated the agreement, President Perez Molina for his personal support, as well as key officials from the multilateral banks who played an indispensable role, and Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Moreno, who also took a personal interest. I also commend the U.S. Embassy officials and representatives of the Catholic Church who provided encouragement and support during this process. Finally, I want to acknowledge Guatemala's Ambassador to the United States and the U.S. Treasury Department officials who recognized the need to resolve this issue. This is a historic milestone that finally begins to right a grievous wrong, a wrong that was emblematic of the horrors of the armed conflict that engulfed Guatemala a generation ago. A great many innocent people lost their lives or their livelihoods in that war, and many of the key provisions of the 1992 Peace Accords remain unfulfilled. Until now, Chixoy was among the unfinished business, so this is a welcome and important step toward addressing the damages suffered by these communities. Yet I am as mindful as others that in many respects this agreement is only the beginning. The task ahead is to ensure its implementation, which will be the responsibility of the current and future Guatemalan Governments, the multilateral banks that have pledged to redirect some of their own resources to this effort, and all those who care about Guatemala's past, present, and future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of Saturday's ceremony formalizing the agreement, provided by the Guatemalan Embassy in Washington, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I see my good friend, the senior Senator from Texas, on the floor, and I am about to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4323. Before I do, Senator Cornyn has been very interested in this. This is the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act. I have been working with Debbie Smith since her bill was first introduced in 2001. He is probably one of the few Senators who was here with me at that time when I first supported it. It is to improve access to rape kits, testing, and services for survivors of sexual assault. Senator Cornyn has been a strong supporter. I know he also supports the Justice for All Act as well, something he cosponsored, and the distinguished Republican leader has. I would like to get them all passed. I realize one Republican--not the Senator from Texas--is objecting to passing the Justice for All Act, and I don't want to pit one against the other. Because at least this one expires this month, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4323, which was received from the House.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will continue to work with the distinguished senior Senator from Texas on the Justice for All Act. Ninety-nine Senators agree to pass it and only 1 is objecting. It requires a rollcall vote when we come back in November. I hope we can have that rollcall vote perhaps in a timely rotation. And with 99 Senators who say they support it, the 1 Senator who has been blocking it can vote against it. But those of us who have been in law enforcement know how important it is. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as Members of Congress prepare to head back to their home States, it is important to note that the 113th Congress does not end this week, or for that matter, on November 4. We still have a significant amount of unfinished business that must be resolved before the year's end, and the American people expect and deserve our commitment to getting that work done. I strongly support Majority Leader Reid's decision to reconvene the Senate shortly after the elections so that we can complete work on a number of bipartisan bills that can and should be enacted this year. We were sent to the Senate by our constituents to do the work of the American people, and those responsibilities will not diminish after the election--no matter what the results. When the Senate returns in November, I will continue to urge swift consideration and passage of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, S.2685. This is a bipartisan bill that makes important reforms to the government's surveillance authorities, while providing the intelligence community the operational flexibility it needs to keep our country safe. That is why the bill is supported not only by the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General but also by a broad coalition of privacy and civil liberties groups, the technology industry, and Members of Congress from across the political spectrum. There is no excuse for not considering it in November. If Senators want to vote against the bill, they have every right to do so, but the American public deserves to know where we stand on the issue of the bulk collection of innocent Americans' phone records, and the intelligence community deserves some measure of predictability and certainty. I also hope that the Senate will, without further delay, take up and pass the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, S.822, and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013, S. 933. Both of these bills are noncontroversial and were reported with overwhelming support by the Judiciary Committee. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act strengthens the rights of crime victims and improves access to postconviction DNA testing to protect the innocent and improve safety in our communities. It is a common sense bill that improves the justice system for everyone involved. That is why Senator Cornyn and Senator McConnell are both cosponsors of the bill and why it has the support of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley. Despite this support from the key Republican leadership in the Senate, legislation to reauthorize the Justice for All Act--originally signed into law by President George W. Bush--is being blocked on the Republican side. Such obstructionism is unwarranted, and the Senate should at least be allowed to bring this bill up for a vote. Republican obstruction of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act is similarly unwarranted and must stop. Just this week, we remembered and mourned the senseless killing of 12 people 1 year ago at the Navy Yard, just a few blocks from the Capitol. Such horrifying acts of violence have become far too common, and each serves as a painful reminder of the perils faced by law enforcement every day. During the brutal firefight at the Navy Yard, a Metropolitan Police Department officer was struck in the chest. His bulletproof vest stopped the bullet. The officer was then able to return fire and take down the gunman, finally bringing an end to the violence. Members of Congress often speak passionately about the need to stand with law enforcement. It would seem beyond dispute, then, that no officer should have to serve without protective vests. This is why Congress has historically acted in unison to support the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program, which has enabled over 13,000 law enforcement agencies to purchase over 1 million vests. Protective vests are credited with saving the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. Today, every Democratic Senator stands ready to reauthorize this lifesaving program. Yet a few Senate Republicans are blocking it. It is past time for our actions to match our rhetoric. If Republicans claim to stand with law enforcement, then surely they should stand with them when it matters most. I urge all Senators to help pass this bill as soon as we return. There are several additional priorities of law enforcement that have bipartisan support and should receive consideration in the remaining weeks of the year. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Second Chance Reauthorization Act. I thank the broad bipartisan list of cosponsors for working with me to reduce recidivism and make our communities safer with this legislation. Communities of faith are calling on the Senate to move forward and pass this important bill and I hope we will hear their call. This Congress we also have an opportunity to reduce dangerous prison overcrowding while actually improving public safety. The relentless growth of our Federal prison population threatens not only the safety of prison staff and inmates but also the budgets of the very law enforcement programs that keep us safe. This growth is driven by inflexible and unfair drug mandatory minimums--a problem that we in Congress created, and only we can fix. The bipartisan Smarter Sentencing Act would modestly reduce some nonviolent drug mandatory minimums and help to preserve essential funding for law enforcement agencies and victim services. This bill would save the government money, a fact confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office just this week, and it deserves the Senate's full attention. By the end of the year, the Senate must consider and pass S. 2454, the Satellite Television Access Reauthorization Act, STELA. This law provides satellite television carriers with the necessary rights to retransmit distant television programming to consumers. If Congress does not act by the end of the year to reauthorize the distant signal license, approximately 1.5 million consumers will lose access to the broadcast television programming that they currently receive. This is particularly important in rural areas like Vermont, where many Americans rely on satellite for their television providers. Congress should act responsibly and prevent serious disruption to these consumers. Congress also should pass reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, to bring our privacy laws into the 21st century. The Leahy-Lee ECPA Reform Act updates our digital privacy laws to keep pace with new technologies, protect civil liberties, and provide guidance to law enforcement. Congress should act swiftly to pass this bill. Finally, the Senate is not the only Chamber that needs to get right back to work after the election. I have spoken at length before about the need for the House to allow a vote on the Senate-passed immigration bill. I hope that once they return to Washington, the House Republican leadership will finally put election year politicking and pandering aside and simply allow a vote on S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. That bill passed the Senate more than a year ago on a strong bipartisan vote, and the urgent need to pass this practical legislative fix for our broken immigration system increases with every passing day. It would immediately spur our economy and take away the pressing need for the President to act through Executive order. The House should also consider and pass S. 42, the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2013, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent almost a year ago. Senator Grassley and I came together to draft the bipartisan Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act to improve the enforcement of our Nation's antitrust laws and extend whistleblower protections to employees who report criminal violations of the antitrust laws. These include violations that are particularly harmful to consumers, such a price fixing. Again, this is a noncontroversial, bipartisan bill that can and should be passed overwhelmingly. There is no reason--political or otherwise--for the House of Representatives to delay its enactment. After the upcoming elections, I plan to return to Washington to get back to the work of the people. That is why the voters of Vermont elected me, and that is what I swore an oath to do. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I intend to continue our work on nominations and oversight, as well as the legislative business pending before the Committee. I hope that the full Senate and the House will similarly press forward without delay to complete work on the array of bipartisan bills that are ripe for consideration and passage. There is simply no reason to delay or obstruct action on these bills, and no reason to further exacerbate the perception held by many Americans that Congress cannot work together to accomplish anything. I know that we can work together to pass these bills, but it will require the cooperation and commitment of all Senators. I know that Vermonters--and all Americans-- are counting on us to get the work done.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to go into recess, Senate Republicans are refusing to allow confirmation votes on the more than 20 judicial nominees who will now be stuck in limbo for months. There is no good reason why the Senate cannot confirm these nominees before the recess other than wholesale obstruction of a co-equal branch of government's nominees. The Senate Republicans' baseless obstruction includes blocking from consideration nominations made to their home States. Right now, there are five nominations pending to fill judicial emergency vacancies in Kentucky and Georgia, which have gone unfilled for years. The Republican Senators from these States have come out in strong support for the nominees from their respective States. Yet the Republican leadership refuses to agree to schedule votes on these or any other nominations. This is simply delay for delay's sake. Currently on the Senate Executive Calendar are qualified nominees to fill Federal trial court vacancies in Kentucky, Georgia, the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Missouri. All but two of the nominees were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. I wonder what the constituents of these States think is causing this delay? I can assure you it is not Senate Democrats. This Republican pattern of refusing to confirm noncontroversial, consensus nominees has gone on for the duration of this Presidency. I have sought to remind my fellow Senators that their refusal to confirm these nominations prior to an extended recess is an unfortunate departure from Senate tradition. Time and again I have urged Senate Republicans to stop their obstructive practices and delay tactics. And once again, I am disappointed to see partisanship and senseless obstruction continue to keep the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty of advice and consent. It is true that since the beginning of this year we have reduced the vacancies on our Federal courts from 92 to 59, but no Senator should believe that our work is done. Even if we were to confirm the more than 20 judicial nominees currently pending on the Senate floor, the Federal judiciary remains significantly understaffed. The Judicial Conference has identified the need for 91 new judgeships in some of America's judicial districts and circuits with the highest caseloads. Last year, Senator Coons and I introduced the Federal Judgeship Act of 2013 to enact these recommendations into law. The timely administration of justice should not be a partisan issue. It is an issue that affects all Americans, and the Senate should take it seriously by passing this bill. The recommendations of the Judicial Conference underscore the need for the Senate to fulfill its obligations to the Federal judiciary and the American people. I have heard some Republican Senators claim the opposite by citing the total number of judicial confirmation under this President. It is true that the Senate has now confirmed 278 of President Obama's circuit, district, and U.S. Court of International Trade nominees, compared to 254 confirmations at the same point in the last administration. Yet these numbers are meaningless without providing their proper context. These confirmations were sorely needed. There remain 59 vacancies on the Federal bench--far more than the 45 vacancies at this point during the Bush administration. There are an additional 25 announced future judicial vacancies on our Federal courts that will also need to be filled in the coming months. If you care about providing our co-equal branch of government with the resources it needs to serve its constitutional role, then it is important to look at the number of vacancies that still exist and how long some of them have remained empty. Vacancies remain high not because of a failure of Senate Democrats or President Obama to make judicial confirmations a priority. These vacancies persist because of the endless obstruction of partisan Republicans who take every opportunity they can to shut down the important work of the Senate. Last year, no longer content to block individual judges, Senate Republicans attempted a wholesale filibuster of three nominees to the D.C. Circuit, without even considering their qualifications. Then, instead of confirming the consensus judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar prior to the end of the congressional session, Republicans forced the President to renominate each nominee and for the Senate Judiciary Committee to report them again this year. In 2014, Senate Republicans have proceeded to filibuster each and every judicial nominee. The Senate has taken 62 cloture votes on judicial nominations so far this year, amounting to well over 400 wasted hours that the Senate should have been spending considering legislation to help the American people. Never before has the Senate seen the systematic filibuster of every judicial nominee or such unfair treatment of qualified, consensus nominees. The Senate should act quickly to confirm the judicial nominees pending on the Senate floor. Because Republican obstruction will prevent us from finishing our work before the elections, we must return to session as soon as possible after the elections in November to complete our important work. The American people deserve courts capable of providing access to swift justice, not empty courtrooms and delays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on a continuing resolution to fund the Federal Government from October 1 to December 11. This vote should not be necessary. There is no good reason why we are not voting on fiscal year 2015 appropriations bills to fund the government the way we used to rather than a continuing resolution that keeps the government on autopilot despite many new and compelling needs. Chairwoman Mikulski of the Appropriations Committee and her counterpart in the House, Chairman Rogers, have made this argument as well as any two people could. It is unacceptable that the Congress, which has the power of the purse, fails to use that power in a responsible manner. Passing annual appropriations bills should be a priority for both parties, and I hope that between now and when this short-term CR expires, we can do our job and finish work on those bills which were reported by the Appropriations Committee months ago--and send them to the President. Nine months ago, when the fiscal year 2014 omnibus was enacted, no one anticipated the Ebola epidemic which has infected thousands of people and today threatens all of Africa, thus, there is little funding available to combat it. The Defense Department, USAID, CDC, and others are scrambling to reprogram funds from other important programs. Nine months ago, no one envisioned the surge in young migrants from Central America, and so the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are reprogramming funds. But it is not nearly enough to address the horrific gang violence and endemic poverty in those countries that are contributing to the flood of refugees across our border. Nine months ago, did anyone here predict that ISIS would be routing units of the Iraqi army, beheading Americans, and seizing control of territory? Did anyone foresee Russia's intervention in Ukraine? Did anyone foresee that we would be sending U.S. military advisors to Nigeria to help track down hundreds of school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? There is no money in the budget for any of this, so we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bills have been reported out of committee with strong bipartisan support. Let's debate them. Senators can offer amendments. We can vote. That is what we should be doing instead of kicking the ball down the road for another 2\1/2\ months. Obviously, we all recognize the need to keep the Federal Government operating. As much as I disagree with this approach, I would vote for the continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown. But this vote does far more than that. It authorizes the President under title 10 of the U.S. Code to provide training and weapons to Syrian rebel forces. In other words, we are authorizing U.S. military intervention in Syria's civil war which for the past 2 years the administration has strongly advised against and doing so by tacking that authority onto a short-term spending bill to keep the government operating. As much as I believe the United States should support the fight against ISIS and as much as I commend the President and Secretary Kerry for their efforts to build a coalition to that end, I am not convinced that the President's plan to intervene in Syria can succeed. There are too many unanswered questions about the composition, intentions, allegiances, and capabilities of the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian rebels who, like the Iraqi militias that openly admit to atrocities, are accountable to no one. There is too little clarity about the White House's intentions, particularly when there is talk of unilateral air attacks against ISIS by U.S. forces inside Syrian territory. There has been too little discussion of the potential consequences of this strategy for the brutal Assad regime which also opposes ISIS, for the anti-ISIS coalition, or for Iran's or Russia's ability to expand their influence in that region. We have been assured that recipients of U.S. military equipment are vetted and that the use of the equipment is monitored. Yet we have seen U.S. military vehicles and weapons worth millions of dollars in the hands of ISIS and other anti-American groups in Iraq and Libya. Who can say who else has gotten their hands on them, or that the weapons we provide the Syrian rebels will not be used against innocent civilians or end up in the hands of our enemies? The House resolution we are voting on addresses this issue narrowly, requiring vetting only as it relates to association with terrorists or Iran. It says nothing about vetting for gross violations of human rights, as would be required for assistance for foreign security forces under the Leahy Amendment. The administration says we need to defeat ISIS. I don't disagree. ISIS is a barbaric enterprise that has no respect for human life and poses a grave threat to anyone it encounters, including Americans. Yet that is what the previous White House said about Al Qaeda. A dozen years and hundreds of billions of dollars and many American lives later, Al Qaeda is a shadow of what it once was but is far from defeated. Since 9/11, numerous offshoots of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have proliferated not only in South Asia but throughout the Middle East and into east and north Africa. And one of those groups, formerly affiliated with Al Qaeda, is ISIS. Some say ISIS is worse than Al Qaeda. If ISIS is defeated, who comes next? Not long ago the President said the sweeping 2001 authorization for the use of military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks should be repealed. Yet the White House recently cited it as a basis for attacking ISIS. Alternatively, the White House says the President has the authority he needs under the 2002 authorization for the use of military force to defeat Saddam Hussein. No objective reading of those resolutions supports that conclusion. Yet here we are about to embark on another open ended war against terrorism, albeit, thankfully, without U.S. ground troops. We can help combat ISIS, and we must, but the Governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others in that region--some of which have vast wealth--need to show they share that goal at least as much as we do, not just by their statements but by their actions. They should take the lead. We can support them, although Saudi Arabia, besides being a major oil supplier, has one of the world's most repressive governments and Saudi charities have been a steady source of revenue for extremist groups. One has to wonder whether such alliances help or hurt us in the long run. I have thought hard about this. It is far from black and white. I deeply respect the President. In the end, he may be right. But I worry about the slippery slope we may be starting down in the thick of a sectarian civil war. I am not prepared--on a stop-gap, short-term spending bill containing authority drafted by the House of Representatives, in the waning hours of the day of adjournment, and with no opportunity for amendments--to endorse a policy that will involve spending hundreds of millions and almost certainly billions of dollars over multiple years to train and arm Syrian fighters who may or may not share our goals or values, not in a part of the world where past U.S. military interventions with similarly vague goals involving similarly questionable allies have consistently turned out very differently from the Pollyannaish predictions of former Pentagon and White House officials. Time and again we have been assured of relatively quick and easy success, only to pay dearly over the course of protracted, costly wars that fell far short of their lofty goals and unleashed forces of hatred that no one predicted. Year after year, the administration asked Congress for billions of dollars to support former Iraqi President Malaki's government. Yet the White House now concedes that his sectarian policies and the widely reported abuses of the Iraqi army that the U.S. trained and equipped were a cause of the resentment and divisions that contributed to the rise of ISIS and threaten to break Iraq apart. The Iraq war was a disaster for this country. The families of Americans who gave their lives or were grievously injured will suffer the consequences for many years to come. It caused lasting damage to our national reputation and to the image and readiness of our armed forces. Yet I worry that other than trying to avoid another costly deployment of U.S. ground troops, we have learned little from that fiasco. The Middle East is no place to intervene militarily without a thorough understanding of the history and the centuries-old tribal, religious, and ethnic rivalries that have far more relevance than anything we might think we can achieve. Does that mean there is no role for the United States in that part of the world? Of course not. But rather than set goals that may or may not be realistic but will almost certainly have profound and potentially dangerous unintended and unanticipated consequences, let's have a real debate that thoroughly considers all the options, all the costs, all the pros and cons. This is far too important a decision to be dealt with in such a cursory manner. So I will vote no, with the hope that in November or December we will revisit this issue and have the real debate we are avoiding today.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Next year, the Nation will celebrate the 95th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women, at long last, the right to vote. The result of more than four decades of advocacy from such giants of the women's equality movement as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the amendment was merely a first step in advancing women's rights. Since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, there has been considerable progress in the march for gender equality. The President's Commission on the Status of Women, established by President Kennedy and directed by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, in part led to formation of the National Organization for Women. NOW's core issues include two on which this Congress has been rightly focused: ending violence against women, and promoting economic justice. The country last week celebrated the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark law shined a light on the scourge of domestic violence and improved the criminal justice system's response to these cases. Last year, Congress again came together to reauthorize and strengthen VAWA to address the evolving needs of domestic and sexual violence victims, and to ensure that those protections are available to all victims, regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, race or gender. The VAWA reauthorization law, which I was proud to author, was just one example of how we must continue to build on the historic work of past years in advancing equal rights and opportunities for American women. And earlier this week, the Senate yet again tried to move forward with legislation to address pay equality. Building on more than 50 years of progress, starting with the Civil Rights Act, which barred employment discrimination based on race and gender, and on the heels of the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act would take a significant step toward ensuring a balanced and equal environment for women in the workplace. Unfortunately, for the fourth time, partisan objections have prevented the Senate from advancing this legislation to hold employers accountable and to protect employees from retaliation for discussing their salaries with colleagues. Vermont has adopted its own Equal Pay Act, making it illegal for employers to offer anything less than equal pay for equal work. Still, in Vermont, where 22,000 households are headed by women, the yearly gender pay gap is nearly $6,000. More needs to be done, and we can do better. This year, Vermont will mark two important anniversaries. Thirty years ago, Vermont voters sent the first woman in our history to the State House to serve as Governor. Madeleine Kunin, a trailblazer in Vermont, served for 6 years as Governor, before becoming a Deputy Secretary of Education in the Clinton Administration. As a child, she fled the threat of the Holocaust, leaving Switzerland with her family for the hope and promise of America. She returned to the country that she had been forced to flee when President Clinton appointed her to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland. She continues to lead and inspire as an author, educator, mentor to women in politics, and tireless advocate for women's rights. Later this year, the Vermont Women's Fund will celebrate 20 years of supporting women, both in the workplace and at home. The Fund helps women overcome economic hardships to live secure and successful lives. The Fund guides young women to opportunities in nontraditional career paths and propels future leaders to reach their goals. As we well know, when women are given an equal opportunity, their achievements are elevated. When women are given equal opportunities, they thrive and often rise to the top. When women are given a fair shot, their contributions at home, in the workplace and in our communities make us all better. The Vermont Women's Fund, with its diverse and representative council, works to establish and preserve that progress for Vermonters. In the nearly 95 years since the Nation came together to belatedly extend the right to vote to women, we have made considerable strides in advancing gender equality. More than two dozen women lead Fortune 500 companies, an achievement once viewed as unattainable to young women entering the workforce. Women have risen to some of the highest ranks in our government. Women now comprise a majority of students enrolled in college. In Vermont, we are proud of our history in advancing women's rights. Leaders like Madeleine Kunin, and programs like the Vermont Women's Fund, are shining examples of why Vermont is a leader in this social progress for women and our entire society. And we are proud to be a national leader in the advancement of women. Congress, and the country, can learn and benefit from Vermont's trailblazing example.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tomorrow we will mark Constitution Day--a day set aside to reflect on our Nation's charter and how it has shaped what it means to be American. On September 17, 1787, George Washington, James Madison, and their fellow Framers made the momentous decision to sign the Constitution and send it along to the American people for ratification marking a new beginning in our Nation's profound experiment in democracy. As important as the original charter continues to be, the Founders did not design it to be immutable. One of its most notable features is article 5, which established the process for improvement in the form of constitutional amendments. This key provision rooted in both intellectual humility and constitutional faith--ensured that our Nation's constitutional journey would not conclude in Philadelphia in 1787. Instead, it would continue to unfold in the decades and centuries that followed, tasking each generation of Americans with improving the charter in order to build ``a more perfect Union.'' Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, our Constitution has been amended 17 times. These changes have helped to make the Constitution the revered document it is today. As I have noted on previous Constitution Days, Americans must celebrate not just the original Constitution of Washington, Madison, and the founding generation, but the whole Constitution, including its 27 amendments. This is all the more important as we approach a key set of anniversaries--the 150th anniversaries of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which many scholars have rightly described as our nation's ``Second Founding.'' Ratified by President Lincoln and his generation after the Civil War, these Second Founding amendments transformed our original charter-- ending slavery, banning racial discrimination in voting, and elevating liberty and equality to a central place in our constitutional order. Perhaps most importantly, these amendments gave Congress the authority it needed to protect the civil rights of all Americans--authority that we have used to pass landmark civil rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before our Nation marked the original Constitution's bicentennial in 1987, Congress established a commission led by Chief Justice Burger to organize a national celebration. Americans from across the political spectrum came together in a spirit of unity and pride to honor the founding generation's profound achievements. With the 150th anniversary of the second founding, President Lincoln and his generation deserve the same. It is deeply saddening to me that the anniversary of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments coincides not with such a celebration, however, but with what can be called nothing short of an attack on the principles of equality and liberty they protect. The Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder and the wave of recent State laws undermining the right to vote demonstrate a dangerous erosion of these monumental Amendments that provide us the tools we need to build a fairer, freer, and more equal society. Tomorrow, as we celebrate the signing of our Constitution 227 years ago, I hope we also reflect on the unfinished work ahead that is necessary to live up to the core principles enshrined in our Nation's charter--including those of the second founding. The racial tensions exposed by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO are not new, but they should serve as a clear reminder that our work is not done. I am heartened by the national dialogue that has been sparked by that young man's tragic death, and it is my sincere hope that we can harness that energy, directing it not toward greater distrust and divide but toward meeting the challenge to build ``a more perfect Union'' left to us by our Founders.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as one who had the privilege of being a prosecutor, I have great faith in our criminal justice system and the men and women who have dedicated their lives to making it work. Sometimes mistakes are made, and those mistakes have catastrophic consequences. They can mean an innocent person spends his or her life in prison, or worse, is executed. They mean a guilty person remains free--able to victimize again. When mistakes are made, lives are destroyed. We would like to think these kinds of mistakes are few and far between, but they happen all the time. Just this month we saw that two innocent men in North Carolina were exonerated. They had served 30 years behind bars for a crime they did not commit. One of those men had been sentenced to death. Can you imagine being in a prison and having those steel doors close every day all the while knowing you are there--perhaps never to leave until you die--for a crime you never committed? But even worse, you know that the person who committed the crime is out free. Can you imagine that? I know some of these people. I have talked with them. I know it and can just begin to understand what gnaws at them when they are behind bars for a crime they didn't commit, knowing that the person who committed the crime is out free to do it again. Henry Lee McCollum and his half brother Leon Brown were teenagers. They were arrested in 1983 for a heinous crime--the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. They were interrogated for hours, and then these two mentally disabled teens gave false confessions. They were ultimately convicted of a crime they did not commit. While these innocent men sat behind bars, the unthinkable happened--the real offender went on to rape and murder another young girl. These men have lost so much. They were not there when their mother or grandmother died. They have never married or had children. Mr. McCollum had to be placed in isolation every time another inmate was taken to the execution chamber to keep him from harming himself in his distress. It was only this year when a cigarette butt left at the crime scene was finally tested for DNA that their names were cleared and the real perpetrator identified. That critical DNA test was made possible by the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, which is part of the Innocence Protection Act that I wrote more than 14 years ago. I was proud to be there with President Bush when he signed it into law as part of the Justice for All Act of 2004. The program was named for a man whom I consider my friend, Kirk Bloodsworth. Kirk was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime he did not commit. He was the first person on death row to be exonerated by DNA evidence. He had been convicted on eye witness identification, even though he made it very clear he wasn't anywhere near where this happened. Do my colleagues know that when they finally exonerated him and identified who the real person was, there was someone at the prison who said, Oh, yeah, we have that guy locked up for another crime. Boy, they do look alike, don't they? Unfortunately, hundreds of others have gone through the same hell Kirk lived through. Well over 300 Americans have been exonerated using DNA testing. But then I wonder how many others are going to have to suffer before we act. The U.S. attorney in Washington, DC, announced last Thursday he will launch a conviction integrity unit following five recent exonerations. Similar programs exist in Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Jose, and Detroit. This underscores the fact that mistakes can happen all too often. Any good prosecutor fears the possibility of a mistake happening because usually prosecutors are going to get convictions. They want to make sure they prosecute the right person. Unfortunately, though, there are some who have been willing to accept less than adequate evidence or ignore the fact that no real effort was made to find all of the adequate evidence. For example, we are just beginning to understand the scope of the systemic errors committed by hair and fiber analysts at the FBI crime lab in the 1980s and the 1990s. I know as a young prosecutor I relied on that FBI crime lab. Now we find there were errors and they were hidden and covered up--errors involving the question of the convictions of 2,600 defendants, including 45 on death row. In a separate inquiry involving the same FBI unit, more than 60 death row convictions were potentially tainted by agent misconduct. Those statistics are bad enough, but according to the Justice Department's inspector general, three of those defendants were executed before their attorneys were notified of the misconduct. One of them would not have been eligible for the death penalty without the FBI's flawed work. Whether someone is for or against the death penalty, it should shock our conscience. It is unacceptable. We may have executed an innocent man. I will hold the FBI accountable. I will demand they take the necessary steps to ensure that such a systemic failure never occurs again. I know the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, shares my outrage about this situation. So it is against this backdrop of these shocking cases that I come to the floor and urge the Senate to take swift action. Let us reauthorize the Justice for All Act, which includes the post-conviction DNA testing program that is a lifeline to the wrongfully convicted. There is nothing partisan or political about ensuring we have the right person behind bars and we are not locking up an innocent person. That is an issue both Republicans and Democrats agree on, and that is why the Justice for All Act has the support of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and as I said cosponsored by me and Senator Cornyn. Justice is the bedrock of our great country. Our Founders understood that a government's legitimacy is eroded every time an innocent person is sent to prison for a crime he did not commit. They sought to protect against this erosion by enshrining fundamental protections for the accused in our Bill of Rights. While those protections are critical, they are not fail-safe. We have to do more. Lives are in the balance. Lives are in the balance. The dozens of exonerations made possible by the Justice for All Act are testament enough to its value. Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown are just the latest examples. The injustice they survived--and the fact that North Carolina nearly executed an innocent man--should dispel any doubt this legislation is needed. It is time for the Senate to pass this bipartisan Justice for All Reauthorization Act. First giving appropriate notice to both leaders, I will be asking unanimous consent that we take it up and pass it. I see my distinguished colleague and friend on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind, heartfelt words of the distinguished majority leader when speaking about Tommy Boggs-- Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr. Many of us knew him well. I was at Georgetown law school with Tommy, and we often talked about those days and the friendships we had, and so many people who we knew are still in this town. I think of him walking down the hall, and we would see each other and start grinning or laughing. Whoever his client was would wonder what we were laughing about. It was usually something that happened in our law school class from 30, 40 or 50 years ago. He was very, very effective. He was very good. He had an easygoing attitude that somehow cloaked the fact that he had a first-class mind. He had an encyclopedia knowledge for facts. As someone who deals with Members of Congress, he had one unfailing attribute that made him successful. He always told the truth even if it was something one didn't want to hear, and he always kept his word. He was a good friend.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have heard from many Vermonters concerned about the threat posed to our democracy by recent Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws. Just as opponents of campaign finance reform in the past described a parade of horribles that would occur if we strengthened campaign finance protections, today we again hear those exaggerations from the other side of the aisle. Some Republicans have falsely asserted that this resolution would somehow repeal the First Amendment and would even result in the banning of books. That is pure hyperbole. Restoring the role that Congress and the States have traditionally had to set reasonable limits on how much a corporation or a millionaire can spend to influence an election is simply not the equivalent of prohibiting an individual from speaking out on a candidate. The constitutional amendment before the Senate does not ban or proscribe anything. It restores the ability of future States or Congresses to set reasonable limits if they decide to act but of course those limits would be guided by the American peoples' desire for such laws. Over the course of this debate, we have heard Senators talking as if the First Amendment is absolute. Most Americans can see right through this. They know that the First Amendment does not protect child pornography; or obscenity; or statements that incite imminent lawless action; or defamation or slander; or speech integral to criminal conduct; or fraudulent speech or perjury. And they know that the First Amendment is not violated when laws restrict even political speech by regulating the reasonable time, place, and manner of demonstrations or protests. The idea that any future law on campaign contributions and expenditures that has an incidental effect on speech somehow renders it the equivalent of censorship is just not a serious argument. The Framers of our fundamental charter anticipated that it would need to be amended from time to time. The story of our how our Constitution has been amended over the years is a reflection on our democracy. It is a story of inclusion and expansion of our representative democracy. The 14th and 15th Amendments, for example, guaranteed equal protection of the law for all Americans, and ensured that all Americans have the right to vote regardless of their race. The 17th Amendment gave Americans the right to directly elect their representatives in Congress in the wake of concerns that corporations were corrupting state legislatures to choose Senators beholden to them. The 19th Amendment's expansion of the right to vote to women and the 26th Amendment's extension of the vote to young people made ours an even more representative democracy. Those who oppose the amendment before us have made some outlandish claims. One of them was that we cannot consider this amendment because in their view it would be the first time that changes were made to the Bill of Rights. What is interesting is that opponents to previous constitutional amendments also claimed that they should not be adopted because they impacted the Bill of Rights. In the June hearing that I chaired before the Judiciary Committee, Professor Jamie Raskin testified that ``the people have been forced to amend the Constitution multiple times to reverse reactionary decisions of the Supreme Court that freeze into place the constitutional property rights and political privileges of the powerful against the powerless.'' The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, stripping the absolute individual ``property rights'' that white slave masters had enjoyed under the Fifth Amendment as found by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision in 1857. Similarly, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment completely blocked and made illegal any future compensation of slave masters for the confiscation of their vested ``property rights'' in their slaves. Not only did the 14th Amendment strip slave masters of their ``property,'' it also made it impossible for them to seek restitution under the Fifth Amendment. Opponents to the 13th and 14th Amendments felt that their rights, granted by the Bill of Rights, were being undermined but history showed that those Amendments were necessary to move this great Nation toward a more perfect union. The amendment before the Senate would restore the First Amendment. It would not repeal it. It would, however, overturn several Supreme Court decisions that have distorted the First Amendment. If we fail to do so, many of us are concerned that corruption will flourish and our democracy will be distorted away from the needs of hard working Americans. Millions of Americans have called on Congress to restore the First Amendment so that our democracy will be protected against corruption and so that everyone's voices can be heard in our democratic process. I have served in the Senate for almost 40 years and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee for nearly 10. It is a rare moment for this Senator to acknowledge that the threat to our democracy is so significant that it warrants an amendment to our Constitution. I applaud the Vermonters who have taken action on this issue. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in voting for cloture and passage of this important constitutional amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, over the past several months the world's attention has been focused on the Russian invasion of Crimea and fighting in the eastern Ukraine, the explosion of violence in Gaza, the flood of migrant children from Central America, and the horrific death and destruction in Iraq and Syria. In each of these places vast numbers of innocent people have suffered terribly, and our own policies and capability to respond have been severely tested. Yet one of the most urgent, difficult, and frightening challenges facing the world today is not the result of armed conflict or ethnic or religious extremism. It is the world's first Ebola epidemic, and it poses a potentially devastating threat to Africa and people everywhere. Before the August recess we were preparing to receive dozens of African heads of state to Washington. At that time, Doctors Without Borders and other nongovernmental organizations had been ringing alarm bells for weeks about the worsening Ebola outbreak in West Africa. But the World Health Organization and governments, including our own, were slow to respond to what was viewed as a manageable, localized public health problem, rather than a crisis that could spin out of control. No longer. Infections and deaths in Liberia and Sierra Leone are increasing rapidly, with exponential acceleration in these countries and potentially in neighboring Guinea. Official reports may be only a piece of the picture. The ability of these countries to locate, diagnose, isolate and treat patients, trace and monitor contacts, and safely bury the dead cannot possibly keep pace. Unfortunately, the lack of urgency exhibited by much of the international community was exacerbated by budget cuts at the World Health Organization, for which there is ample blame to go around. After the 2009 global financial crisis, WHO's budget dropped by roughly 1 billion dollars, nearly 25 percent of their budget today. By the time of the current Ebola outbreak, staff levels at WHO had been cut by 35 percent, and their ability to prepare for and respond to health emergencies suffered accordingly. Today, the Ebola crisis has the full attention of the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USAID, President Sirleaf of Liberia, and other governments. They recognize that unless aggressive, coordinated actions are taken immediately, there will soon be tens of thousands of cases, the disease will spread into much of Africa, and it will be an ongoing global threat for many years to come. The challenges are immense: weak government institutions; dysfunctional public health systems that cannot conduct reliable disease surveillance and response; lack of roads and other basic infrastructure; ethnic and political divisions in societies recovering from war; misconceptions about the disease and low levels of literacy; and inadequate and uncoordinated international aid. While the epidemic is finally beginning to receive the attention it deserves, it is spiraling out of control. Huge numbers of cases are overwhelming local capacity to isolate and treat patients, trace their contacts, and safely bury the dead. The cost of personal protection gear is exorbitant and there is an acute shortage of trained people. Also, the secondary effects of this crisis are increasingly apparent. Food insecurity is worsening and the economies of these countries, already fragile, are facing collapse as imports and exports are plummeting. We and others have the knowledge and tools to contain and control this disease if cases are quickly isolated and contacts identified, but actions to date have not been well coordinated and have not always addressed the most urgent needs. Just as for a raging wildfire, the focus should be on deploying all available resources to provide immediate support for urgent needs identified on the front lines to stop its spread, while there is time. It will require mobilization of the type and complexity as occurred after the Haiti earthquake. In West Africa, that means immediately scaling up staff, transport, isolation and treatment capacity, infection control including personal protective equipment for health workers, funding through rapid and flexible funding mechanisms, training and supervision, laboratory services, communications resources, and management and logistics support. There is nothing new about this approach. But it is required on a far larger scale than was used to control Ebola outbreaks in the past. The situation today is grave, but we can prevent many of these deaths. And as we do so we need to help build stronger public health systems that can contain future disease outbreaks. Past efforts to build capacity have clearly been woefully inadequate. As public health systems in these countries have been overwhelmed by Ebola, patients suffering from malaria, TB, pneumonia, and other illnesses are unable to get treatment. We should all pay tribute to the courageous public health workers who have risked their lives--and in many cases, lost their lives--trying to save others from this terrible disease. It is inspiring to read the stories of nurses and doctors, and those who dig the graves and bury the dead, who have labored on as their colleagues have died, who live with the daily reality that at any moment they could be next. They are as brave as any soldier on the front lines of battle. I also want to commend President Sirleaf, her Minister of Defense, and others who have tried their best to deal with this unprecedented emergency in the face of woefully inadequate resources. The United Nations says that $600 million is needed immediately to fight this disease. The United States has already provided tens of millions of dollars. USAID announced another $75 million last week. The White House has requested additional funding for CDC, which would bring the U.S. contribution to over $250 million. The Department of Defense announced that it will provide logistical, laboratory, and other support. The World Bank has pledged over $200 million. Other governments are also coming forward, as are private donors. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently pledged $50 million to enhance response efforts and accelerate research on potential treatments and vaccines. The Congress has a role to play, and I am hopeful that as additional funds are needed we will act responsibly and provide them. I am a cosponsor of S. Res. 541, which recounts the history of this outbreak and the steps that are urgently needed to control it. I commend Senators Coons, Durbin, Menendez and others who introduced it. This is not a partisan or political issue. It is a public health issue, a moral issue, and one that should unite us all to do what is necessary to defeat this epidemic.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate passed a resolution recognizing the life and career of Senator Jim Jeffords. This Vermont icon passed away over the August recess, nearly 8 years after concluding a decades-long career in public service. That career, marked by historic moments on the national stage, was one in which Vermont came first. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Burlington Free Press, ``Tributes pour in for Vermont GOP giant Jeffords,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Jim and I came to Washington together in 1975, he to represent Vermont as our lone Member in the House of Representatives, and I as Vermont's first Democratic Senator. But our years working together go back further, to the days when I was a State's attorney in Chittenden County, and he the State's attorney general. Our families knew each other. Marcelle and Liz knew each other well, having both attended Cathedral High School in Burlington. Both Jim and I would readily acknowledge that our wives were the hearts and souls of our families. That longtime relationship served us and Vermont well when Jim came to the Senate in 1989. Together, we worked to protect Vermont's dairy farmers, to preserve Vermont's celebrated natural landscape, and to give Vermont a strong and powerful voice in Washington. I joined many Vermonters in celebrating Jim's life last month in his home town of Rutland. Our sympathies are with his children Laura and Leonard, and his grandchildren. Jim was a humble man, a Vermonter through and through, and a true friend. His legacy is that he held Vermont in his heart, and worked to advance the best interests of his constituents on the national stage. For that, this Vermonter will join many others in simply saying, ``Thanks, Jim.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Vermont has always been a farming State, and it is the dairy, livestock, vegetable, and fruit farms to which we owe thanks for the open pastures and spectacular vistas that Vermonters and all those who visit our State cherish. None is more beautiful than Meeting House Farm in Norwich, owned by Deb and Jay Van Arman. The farm, located on a hill outside of the village, with an expansive view down the beautiful Connecticut River Valley, has been in the family since Deb's and her brother David Pierce's grandparents arrived in a Sears, Roebuck & Company wagon from Quechee in 1914. On Saturday, August 2, Deb, Jay and David hosted a centennial reunion for a grateful crowd of family and friends who came from as far as California, Holland and South America. The reunion was a celebration of farming, family, and community for those who grew up on or visited the farm over the years. They shared stories of haying and collecting maple sap with Deb and David's father ``Bub,'' riding the tractor and collecting eggs, and sitting around the kitchen table sharing one of their mother Janet's bountiful meals. Janet ran a day care at the farm for local children and later became Norwich's beloved town clerk. The dairy herd was sold in the 1980s, but the haying goes on. There are goats and Deb's big vegetable garden, and half a dozen Holstein cows from another farm graze the hillside. Meeting House Farm represents the best of Vermont, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the Pierce-Van Arman family for keeping it a farm all these years. I ask unanimous consent that an article about the centennial on the front page of the August 3rd Valley News be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached documentation from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are going to hold our first vote relevant to S.J. Res. 19 later today, so let me speak about that for a few minutes. It is a constitutional amendment. It is something rare here, but this would restore to Congress and the States the authority to set reasonable limits on contributions and expenditures in our elections. The amendment would also allow Congress and the States to distinguish between natural persons and corporations when shaping legislation regarding the financing of elections. Both the States and the national government have exercised this power for a long time in a responsible way until a narrow majority of Supreme Court justices ignored history, and, worse than that, they ignored the Court's own precedent. These Court opinions have now eviscerated campaign finance laws, and they have invited corruption into our political system. If we do not respond, we will continue on a path back to the days when only the wealthy few had access to our government. If we do not respond, corruption will flourish and hard-working Americans will lose any remaining faith they have in their elected officials. So I believe it is time to restore some sanity to our campaign finance laws but also to restore the true meaning and intent of the First Amendment. I came to the Senate in January 1975, in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Americans were voicing concerns about the integrity and honesty of their elected leaders. They were concerned about the corrupting influence of anonymous money flowing into elections. The public's confidence in our democratic institutions was at a low point, so Congress passed the 1976 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. As a freshman Senator--in fact, the junior most Member of the Senate--I was proud to vote for this law. Decades later Democrats and Republicans again came together in 2002 to pass the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It targeted the use of soft money donations and the unlimited spending that could be done anonymously, used to finance attack ads before an election. Just as we did in the wake of Watergate, our bipartisan effort recognized the need to pass important campaign finance reforms to protect our democracy from corruption and to preserve access to our popular democracy. But it appears today that many of our elected officials and a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court no longer even acknowledge the corrosive influence of unfettered, anonymous money flowing in to fund our elections. Anonymous money--somebody can try to buy an election, and they do not even have to put their fingerprints on it. They just spend the money. They can say it is the Committee to Bring Honesty and Openness to Government even though it might be funded by a group who wants just the opposite. Over the last decade a slim majority of the Supreme Court has issued one dreadful campaign finance decision after another. In fact, in 2010, in a 5-to-4 ruling--five Republicans on the Supreme Court--in Citizens United, the Court reversed a century of precedent by declaring that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend endlessly to finance and influence elections. In effect, they said corporations were people. I have said this many times before, and sometimes people chuckle, but stop and think about it. This country elected General Eisenhower as President. If you really listen to what the Supreme Court said, we could elect General Electric to be President or General Motors to be President. In this past year the same five Justices held that aggregate limits on campaign contributions are now somehow a violation of the First Amendment. In other words, if you are running in a local election somewhere where people would normally spend $300 or $400, but it is critical because that local board may decide what the tax policy of a big corporation might be in that community, they could say: OK, people running the board are going to spend $300 or $400 each. We will just put $1 million in to elect a different board that will give us a $10 million tax break. The Court's radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment contradicts the principles of freedom, equality, and self-government upon which this Nation was founded. The consequence of the Court's opinions is that a small, tiny minority of very wealthy individuals and special interests are drowning out the voices of hard-working Americans and skewing our electoral process. What they are saying is: I have millions of dollars. I have a voice in elections. You? You are just an average hard-working man or woman, and you do not have any voice. The expressed justification for time-honored campaign finance laws has been a genuine concern about the corrupting influence of money in politics. But despite this well-founded concern, Justice Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United nonsensically confined corruption to mean only quid pro quo corruption or bribery. In doing so, these five Justices discarded what our very Founders understood to be the meaning of corruption. They have also rejected the definition of corruption upon which this Court has historically relied. As recently as 2003 when the Court initially upheld the McCain-Feingold Act before striking much of it down later, the Court stated: In speaking of `improper influence' and opportunities for abuse' in addition to `quid pro quo arrangements,' we [have] recognized a concern not confined to bribery of public officials, but extending to the broader threat from politicians too compliant with the wishes of large contributors. In fact, I look at the distinguished Presiding Officer--a man who served with such great distinction as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia--and I think about the jury verdict handed down last week against another former Republican Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it reminds us that when elected officials grant political favors in exchange for gifts and money, it certainly threatens the functioning of our democracy. What Justice Kennedy and those who joined with him fail to recognize is that more subtle forms of corruption are also corrosive and undermine public confidence. Way back in the last century, we changed the Constitution to allow the direct election of Senators. One of the motivating factors was that in one State--at that time the legislatures appointed Senators--in one State, one major corporation in the mining industry so controlled the legislature that it picked who were going to be the Senators. We changed that because we said everybody should have a voice. States and future Congresses should be able to recognize that corruption extends to the idea that money--particularly unregulated campaign contributions--buys access and influences the political process in disproportionate ways for a wealthy few. This ``pay to play'' notion is corrosive to our democracy. The size of your bank account should not determine whether and how the government responds to your needs. The government should be there for all Americans, not just the most wealthy. Vermonters understand this. They have led the way by speaking out forcefully about the devastating impact of these Supreme Court decisions. So we ought to start listening to our constituents. We ought to vote to protect our democracy against corruption. We ought to restore democracy for all Americans. Some have argued that money is speech so we should not allow the States or Congress to limit any spending in our elections. As Justice Stevens said in his testimony before the Rules Committee, ``while money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive the same constitutional protection as speech itself.'' This is exactly right. I have also heard the argument that this proposed amendment would silence nonprofit advocacy groups like the NAACP and the Sierra Club because it allows Congress and the States to distinguish between corporations and actual individuals. Do not believe it. Until Citizens United, prohibitions on corporate and union political spending were the norm at the Federal level and in many states. Those prohibitions never stopped nonprofit groups from engaging in vigorous issue advocacy. Nor would this amendment. Moreover, I have received a letter of support signed by both the NAACP and the Sierra Club, among many others, that openly advocate for this proposed amendment. If this proposed amendment would have the potential effect of silencing their organizations, why would they support it? For those who claim the threat of these Supreme Court decisions is not sufficient to warrant a constitutional amendment, let's get the facts straight. Even incremental measures to simply increase the transparency of the flood of money pouring into our elections have been repeatedly filibustered by Republicans. In fact, many of us have tried for years to pass a law to require greater transparency and disclosure of political spending. I have tried to practice what I have preached. I have disclosed every cent ever contributed to me, including one time for one for about 40 or 50 cents. It cost us more to disclose it than what it was, but I wanted people to know exactly who had contributed to my campaign. We tried to have that kind of disclosure. Republicans have repeatedly filibustered that legislation, known aptly as the DISCLOSE Act. The statutory approach would allow the American people to at least know who is pouring money into the electoral system. It is bad enough that they can pour in an unlimited amount of money, but we ought to at least know who is doing it and why they are doing it. I hope we will be able to convince enough Republicans to join this effort to overcome the Republican filibuster of a modest transparency bill. But because the Supreme Court based its rulings on a flawed interpretation of the First Amendment, a statutory fix alone will not suffice. Only a constitutional amendment can overturn the Supreme Court's devastating campaign finance decisions. Our proposal to amend the Constitution simply restores the ability of future lawmakers--Republicans and Democrats--at both the Federal and State levels to rein in the influence that billionaires and corporations now have on our elections. It is necessary to restore the First Amendment so all voices can be heard in the democratic process, whether you are a millionaire or not, and it is vital to ensure that corruption does not flourish. I hope Senators will join with me on this vote. I do not see anybody seeking recognition. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will finally vote on the confirmation of Jill Pryor of Georgia to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Her nomination has been pending in the Senate since February 2012--more than two and one-half years, which is longer than any other currently pending judicial nominee. She received the American Bar Association's highest rating of unanimously well qualified and has the support of both of her Republican home State Senators--Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson. Rather than vote to confirm her before the August recess, some Senate Republicans continued their senseless obstruction to keep the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty of advice and consent by filibustering her nomination for the sake of delay. Despite this unyielding partisan strategy, the Senate has made great strides to fill vacancies on courts around the Nation. This year the Senate has confirmed 61 nominees to the circuit and district courts and in doing so, it has hit an historic milestone for diversity on the Federal appeals courts. More women and people of color are serving on the Federal appellate bench than ever before. Today I am happy that we will add to this laudable record with yet another well-qualified nominee. From the outset, President Obama has understood that our Federal courts should reflect the diverse communities that it serves. He has nominated more women and more lawyers of color than any previous President in American history. Since the first day of the Obama administration, former Senate staffer Christopher Kang has worked with home State Senators to implement President Obama's goal of finding judicial nominees who not only embody the necessary integrity, intellect, and commitment to the rule of law, but who are also drawn from diverse backgrounds. I urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Jill Pryor of Georgia and to agree to votes on the remaining district court judges on the calendar without delay.