Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are going to be voting soon, but I wanted to comment. I hope that Democrats and Republicans can rise above party to come together to protect our precious right to vote. I know, in Vermont, we do that. We make it very clear that voting is a right. Everybody can vote. We try to make it as clear and open as possible. People can be in jail for a crime; they still have a right to vote. We do not take it from anybody. You can vote right until the last minute. You can get absentee ballots. As a result, we have an overwhelming vote in Vermont--one of the highest percentages in the country. Some suggest, well, you do it to favor one party or the other. I just point to the last election. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor are elected separately in our State. We elected a Republican as Governor and a Democrat as Lieutenant Governor. It went back and forth like that all the way across the ballot. It is just an example that we just want people to vote. And the timing right now couldn't be more urgent. In the wake of the Supreme Court's Shelby and Brnovich decisions, dozens of States are trying to restrict access to the ballot for tens of thousands of Americans, even millions of Americans--minority voters, the elderly, rural voters, student voters, the disabled, and others. These are the people we protect in my State. The threats to the voting rights of any American are threats to all Americans. Indeed, they are threats to America, itself. I am glad the Senate has taken much-needed action this week on the Freedom to Vote Act. It is a vital piece of legislation. It establishes commonsense rules of the road for voting procedures and ensures equal access to the ballot box for all Americans. This bill is a compromise version of the original S. 1, and I note it reflects good faith efforts to broaden support for the legislation here in the Senate. I look forward to supporting this legislation on the floor. I can only hope it doesn't fall prey to the knee-jerk partisanship we have seen all too often lately in the Senate. I am also proud to have recently introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. That is a bill I have long championed and sponsored. This legislation would restore the core pillars of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that have been gutted by the Supreme Court's damaging and strange Shelby and Brnovich decisions. But it also would provide critical protections to Native American communities across the country, including Alaska Native communities. This bill would fundamentally restore the Justice Department's powers to oversee and prevent harmful discriminatory changes to voting laws and procedures. How can anybody stand up and say, ``I am a proud American, but I am going to let some of these legislative bodies do things that will stop other Americans from voting''? If you are a proud American and really mean it, then you want every single American--I don't care what their political party is, they should be able to vote. I am working extremely hard to build bipartisan support for this bill, which--especially the past few Congresses--has been overwhelmingly bipartisan. I am optimistic we can arrive at a good bipartisan compromise that can serve as a starting point for continued bipartisan discussions here in the Senate. You wouldn't know it if you listened to the partisan sound bites and Twitter wars in the modern media era, but this goal--protecting our right to vote--was never a partisan issue. Our hero, a man I loved and was proud to serve with, John Lewis, once said: We all know this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American one. Well, truer words haven't been spoken. John Lewis was absolutely right. This is an American issue. If you believe in democracy, you believe in the right for everybody to vote. For those of us who run for elected office, I have always fought in Vermont to make sure everybody could vote, knowing that there were some sections of the State where there may be a majority voting against me. I have always insisted everybody be able to vote. That is democracy. The core provisions of the act have been reauthorized five times-- five times. Every single time it was with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in Congress. Republicans and Democrats alike voted for it. President Nixon, President Reagan, President George W. Bush proudly signed Voting Rights Act reauthorizations into law. Those Presidents-- Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George W. Bush--spoke of the profound importance of the landmark law for our democracy. In fact, just to show how it goes, the most recent Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 2006--you know what the vote was in the U.S. Senate: 98 to 0. Some people feel we couldn't get a vote like that to say the sun rises in the East. But the fact is, every Republican, every Democrat said we need this to make sure Americans vote. It is not a case of saying Democrats vote or Republicans vote or Independents vote; it is Americans vote and we want all Americans to. You know, the toxic partisanship of American politics today has sadly obscured what has united us across party lines for so long. The belief that protecting our right to vote--the very right that gives democracy its name--that is bigger than party or politics. It is the belief that a system of self-government--a government of, by, and for the people-- is one that is worth preserving not only today, but for generations to come. It is the belief the government exists to serve the will of the people, not the other way around. If I can just wear my hat as dean of the Senate--one who has been privileged to serve here all these years--I ask Senators, let's get back to doing things the way we have always done them: reaching across the aisle in good faith, meeting each other in the middle, legislate to protect the rights of the American people. Even after all these years, I still have faith the Senate can serve as the conscience of the Nation. I believe it can shine a light on the path forward even on the most difficult, seemingly insurmountable issues. I believe we can do that again now on the fundamental issue of voting rights. So let's get to work. Our democracy--indeed our country as we know it--may very well depend upon it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Middlebury College, in my State of Vermont, is known worldwide as an outstanding educational institution. What is less well-known is that the college is also a leader in addressing climate change. The college first became carbon neutral not by simply purchasing carbon credits, but by doing the hard work of actually becoming carbon neutral, including the implementation of 123 individual efficiency projects that are collectively saving the college nearly $1 million a year. With that work complete, they set about securing their energy entirely from renewable sources--first, with one of the largest biodigesters in Vermont and, now, with a 5 megawatt solar array, that will provide 30 percent of the college's electricity. The project includes energy storage, which will benefit the electric grid by spreading out when the power enters the grid. Perhaps more importantly, that stored energy will also serve as a source of emergency power for a nearby hospital, Porter Medical Center. The project also involves two Vermont companies: Encore Renewable and Green Mountain Power. Earlier this month, it was an honor to join the groundbreaking for the project, where Middlebury College President Laurie Patton shared her vision for how to get to a better climate future. All should read her impressive remarks at the event, and I ask that a copy of them be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, these days, it is not uncommon for people to frequently change careers, companies, or job paths. At one iconic Vermont entity, though, Vermont Creamery, president and chief executive officer Adeline Druart has dedicated more than 17 years to growing and expanding the company's product line and brand. She was recently featured on the Positive Enterprise Podcast, and hers is a story in which all Vermonters can find pride and motivation. The cheese and butter that Vermont Creamery produces is some of the best in the world. As a Certified B Corporation, Vermont Creamery follows a long Vermont legacy of investing in environmental sustainability, local supply chains, and worker satisfaction. These investments have clearly paid off. In 2017, Vermont Creamery was acquired by Land O'Lakes, a century-old farmer-owned cooperative, and has continued on an impressive path of conscious growth. With Land O'Lakes' support, Vermont Creamery has expanded its facilities nearly 40 percent and is now a recognizable brand in grocery stores across the country. In 2020, the company supported our community through the pandemic, donating 12,000 pounds of food to hungry Vermonters, providing hazard pay to their employees, and advocating for universal childcare for Vermont's working families. They also converted their Websterville-based facility to run on 100-percent renewable energy. And these changes have only underlined their belief that consciously crafted products made with the best ingredients just taste better. Today, the beloved Vermont Creamery makes the No. 1 best-selling goat cheese in the country. Adeline Druart is responsible for so much of this impressive growth. In the early 2000s, Adeline, then a student from France, came to Vermont Creamery to complete an internship for her master's degree. She just couldn't stay away. Adeline worked her way up the ranks at the creamery, before being named president and CEO in 2015. In that role, she has shown exactly what tenacity and hard work, when paired with a people-first approach to business, can do. The mother of two young sons, Adeline has reinforced Vermont Creamery's original family- oriented culture while steering the company's growth. She is an inspiration to me, and I am so proud that she calls Vermont home. Vermont is home to some of the finest agriculture, wood-based, and other products in the country. We feature many of these at the annual Taste of Vermont here in Washington, a tradition I hope to return to next year. At the helm of so many of these Vermont companies are people like Adeline. It is in these hard-working and creative leaders that we can find great hope for Vermont's economic recovery and vibrant future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and Senator Cornyn be able to complete our remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just want my colleagues to know that the Senate Appropriations Committee, yesterday, released nine appropriations bills. They allocate important resources and they help to address the pressing priorities of America's families and communities, but they also promote U.S. national security. For more than a decade, this country has underinvested in our children, in our infrastructure, in science, and in public health. Frankly, that means we underinvested in our future. These bills include historic increases to educate our Nation's children, to combat climate change, promote affordable housing, and improve healthcare. I am proud of the work of the committee in producing these bills, and I commend each of the subcommittee chairs for their commitment to America's future. Now, the bills comply with the topline spending allocation contained in the fiscal year 2022 budget resolution passed by both the House and the Senate earlier this year. So you combine this with the three bills reported from the Appropriations Committee in August, the bills provide a 13-percent increase for nondefense discretionary programs and a 5-percent increase for defense programs compared to what fiscal year 2021 enacted. The 5-percent increase for defense programs, that is consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, which was reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and it passed the House last month again with overwhelming bipartisan support. The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill makes long overdue investments to help care for and educate our Nation's children, including doubling the funding for Title I-A grants to local educational Agencies. That program I mentioned is the foundation of Federal support to schools across this country. It also increases funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by 23 percent, and Head Start by 11 percent. We do this to provide high-quality childcare and education to working families across the Nation. It provides a 24-percent increase over last year for the Centers for Disease Control. That is done to strengthen U.S. public health infrastructure. We know we have to do that in the wake of a global pandemic that has created terrible problems in that area. The Commerce, Justice, Science bill provides historic funding levels for the Department of Justice Violence Against Women Act programs. That is a 48-percent increase over the last fiscal year. It is the largest appropriation for the Violence Against Women Act since its creation. The Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development bill includes significant increases to reduce homelessness and improve housing conditions and increase affordability--something that touches all 50 of our States. The Interior bill includes significant resources to promote conservation, to preserve our natural infrastructure, and to protect our Federal lands. And we made climate change front and center when drafting these bills, and each contains new and critical funding to help combat this challenge. For example, for the first time ever, we invested $54 million in a new Climate Conservation Corps; and we provide historic increases, 46 percent over last year, for EPA's air and climate program. And, for the first time in 4 years, the U.S. will contribute to the Green Climate Fund and the Clean Technology Fund, rejoining the international fight-- it has to be an international fight--against climate change. We had a global retreat with the last President. The United States is standing up again and is back in the game. We also make historic investments in medical research. I don't know anybody who doesn't want us to always improve our medical research. It ensures that America remains on the cutting edge of advanced medical science and research. So we put a 6-percent increase for the National Institutes of Health, and $2.4 billion to create the first ever Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, and that is because of the President's bold and promising proposal to accelerate the pace of breakthroughs in medicine. And, finally, the bills contain critical funding increases for mental and behavioral health services and to combat substance abuse--something that is a problem in every single State. These funds are desperately needed, as we saw the rates of anxiety and depression soar during the COVID-19 pandemic and drug overdose deaths are expected to reach their highest levels to date. Now, these are just some of the highlights of the important programs funded in the nine bills we released yesterday. They make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans, especially after the tough year and a half we faced with COVID-19. These bills demonstrate the good work we can do with a topline in fiscal year 2022 budget resolution, which was passed by the Senate and the House earlier this year. Now, I wish we could have followed regular order and done these bills in committee, but our Republican colleagues said they would prevent any additional consideration of bills until we have a negotiated topline. I cannot and will not allow that to stop our work. It would be irresponsible. We need to move the ball forward. In posting these bills, we show the American people what we are for. Now, some on the other side of the aisle may characterize these bills as partisan. That is simply not true. In the spirit of comity and bipartisanship, which is the tradition of our Appropriations Committee, we worked hard to accommodate the funding priorities of all Members, both Democrats and Republicans. And the posted bills reflect that effort with many, many, many of the priorities of Republicans and many of the priorities of Democrats. I am proud of the work of this committee in producing these bills, but our job is not done. The Federal Government is existing under and operating under a continuing resolution only until December 3. Time can go by very quickly around here. Between now and then, it is imperative that we make progress on negotiating a topline--one that is bipartisan and bicameral--so we can enact these bills into law. I think we struck the right balance with the bills we produced and made public this week. As with everything in Congress, we rarely end where we begin. So I look forward to working with Chair DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, and Vice Chairman Shelby to move this process forward with the goal of enacting all 12 bills by December 3. If we fail to do that, then we face a long-term continuing resolution, which would lock in outdated spending priorities that will not serve the American people, will not meet the challenges of today, and, unfortunately, will not contain those things that both Republicans and Democrats have asked and were submitted and included in the bills that we have put in. I know that my friend and colleague from Texas is waiting to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is really with hope, pride, and optimism that I rise today to honor the legacy of an icon of the civil rights movement, a hero of democracy, and a dear personal friend of mine: John Lewis. More than anything, John Lewis was a man of action. Where he saw suffering, he tried to end it. Where he saw injustice, he tried to correct it. Where ``good trouble'' was needed, he showed up for it. The most fitting way to honor the legacy of John Lewis is to take action ourselves--the action that he would have. So it is with pride today that I introduce the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021. It is a vital piece of legislation to restore the landmark Voting Rights Act. Now, this legislation is the culmination of many months of tireless work across the Halls of Congress, back and forth between the House and the Senate. But that is exactly what Congressman Lewis would have wanted to see. That work began by building the record and telling the story of the current conditions for voters across the country. But what did that record show? A shocking picture. Empowered by the Supreme Court's damaging 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, States across the country have been advancing and enacting sweeping voter suppression efforts to make it more--not less-- difficult for American citizens to participate in their own democracy. Can you imagine that--making it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy? And today, tens of thousands of Americans are being disenfranchised under the guise of State law. And it is no coincidence that certain communities consistently bear the brunt of these suppression schemes across the country. Throughout our history, we have worked to make our democracy ever more inclusive, not exclusive. With each generation, we have sought to empower millions more to be equal participants in America's system of self-government. So make no mistake: This tidal wave of voter suppression effort seeks to bend the arc of equal justice and equal rights backward. We should not allow that to stand. Action in Congress is desperately needed. The House answered the call from Congressman Lewis and others to protect our precious, almost sacred right to vote, and they passed a bold version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act earlier this year. Today, in the Senate, we will be introducing a version of that bill that should get the votes needed to restore the Voting Rights Act. This legislation addresses the Court's 2013 and 2021 decision. This should be advanced here. It should be passed by the House, and it surely would be signed into law. And there is no reason for delay. This legislation addresses the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision by restoring the Justice Department's preclearance powers to prevent States from enacting discriminatory voting changes. The legislation limits the harms caused by the Supreme Court's Brnovich decision earlier this year by enshrining a private right of action and clear factors with which voters can bring lawsuits against attempts to disenfranchise them. Fundamentally, this legislation seeks to ensure that the Justice Department possesses the tools it needs to protect the right to vote for all Americans, regardless of party or race or creed or background. Now, you wouldn't know by listening to the partisan rancor of today's politics, but this goal--protecting our right to vote--has never been a partisan issue. John Lewis once said: ``We all know this is not a Democratic Republican issue. It is an American one.'' Truer words haven't been spoken. We should remember that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act on a bipartisan basis is the way we have always done it. The core provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been reauthorized five times. Remember that, five times. Every time, this has been done with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. It was signed by President Nixon. It was signed by President Reagan. It was signed by President George W. Bush. They all signed the Voting Rights Act reauthorizations into law. They knew the profound importance of the landmark law for our democracy. In fact, the most recent Voting Rights Act reauthorization was in 2006. And do you know what the vote was in the U.S. Senate? Ninety-eight to zero. And many Senators still serving today, both Republican and Democrat, voted to support that legislation. The toxic partisanship of American politics today has obscured what has, for decades, united us across party lines. This is the belief that protecting our right to vote--the very right that gives democracy its name--is bigger than party or politics. It is the belief that a system of self-government--a government of, by, and for the people--is one that is worth preserving for generations to come. It is the belief that government exists to serve the will of the people, not the other way around. And that, Mr. President, is what I believe. And so, today, I hold the memory of John Lewis--of his advocacy, of his passion, of his zealous belief to our better angels--to urge all Senators, regardless of party, to join me in restoring and reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act gives us that opportunity. Congressman Lewis, I know, would have wanted us to come together and find a path forward to addressing the many threats facing Americans' foundational right to vote. I will tell you what he would not have accepted. He would not have accepted inaction. So let's try to live up to the memory and the example of John Lewis--a heroic man of action, one of my dearest friends in my years in the Congress. And I know he is watching over us. Let's make him proud.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is really with hope, pride, and optimism that I rise today to honor the legacy of an icon of the civil rights movement, a hero of democracy, and a dear personal friend of mine: John Lewis. More than anything, John Lewis was a man of action. Where he saw suffering, he tried to end it. Where he saw injustice, he tried to correct it. Where ``good trouble'' was needed, he showed up for it. The most fitting way to honor the legacy of John Lewis is to take action ourselves--the action that he would have. So it is with pride today that I introduce the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021. It is a vital piece of legislation to restore the landmark Voting Rights Act. Now, this legislation is the culmination of many months of tireless work across the Halls of Congress, back and forth between the House and the Senate. But that is exactly what Congressman Lewis would have wanted to see. That work began by building the record and telling the story of the current conditions for voters across the country. But what did that record show? A shocking picture. Empowered by the Supreme Court's damaging 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, States across the country have been advancing and enacting sweeping voter suppression efforts to make it more--not less-- difficult for American citizens to participate in their own democracy. Can you imagine that--making it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy? And today, tens of thousands of Americans are being disenfranchised under the guise of State law. And it is no coincidence that certain communities consistently bear the brunt of these suppression schemes across the country. Throughout our history, we have worked to make our democracy ever more inclusive, not exclusive. With each generation, we have sought to empower millions more to be equal participants in America's system of self-government. So make no mistake: This tidal wave of voter suppression effort seeks to bend the arc of equal justice and equal rights backward. We should not allow that to stand. Action in Congress is desperately needed. The House answered the call from Congressman Lewis and others to protect our precious, almost sacred right to vote, and they passed a bold version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act earlier this year. Today, in the Senate, we will be introducing a version of that bill that should get the votes needed to restore the Voting Rights Act. This legislation addresses the Court's 2013 and 2021 decision. This should be advanced here. It should be passed by the House, and it surely would be signed into law. And there is no reason for delay. This legislation addresses the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision by restoring the Justice Department's preclearance powers to prevent States from enacting discriminatory voting changes. The legislation limits the harms caused by the Supreme Court's Brnovich decision earlier this year by enshrining a private right of action and clear factors with which voters can bring lawsuits against attempts to disenfranchise them. Fundamentally, this legislation seeks to ensure that the Justice Department possesses the tools it needs to protect the right to vote for all Americans, regardless of party or race or creed or background. Now, you wouldn't know by listening to the partisan rancor of today's politics, but this goal--protecting our right to vote--has never been a partisan issue. John Lewis once said: ``We all know this is not a Democratic Republican issue. It is an American one.'' Truer words haven't been spoken. We should remember that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act on a bipartisan basis is the way we have always done it. The core provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been reauthorized five times. Remember that, five times. Every time, this has been done with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. It was signed by President Nixon. It was signed by President Reagan. It was signed by President George W. Bush. They all signed the Voting Rights Act reauthorizations into law. They knew the profound importance of the landmark law for our democracy. In fact, the most recent Voting Rights Act reauthorization was in 2006. And do you know what the vote was in the U.S. Senate? Ninety-eight to zero. And many Senators still serving today, both Republican and Democrat, voted to support that legislation. The toxic partisanship of American politics today has obscured what has, for decades, united us across party lines. This is the belief that protecting our right to vote--the very right that gives democracy its name--is bigger than party or politics. It is the belief that a system of self-government--a government of, by, and for the people--is one that is worth preserving for generations to come. It is the belief that government exists to serve the will of the people, not the other way around. And that, Mr. President, is what I believe. And so, today, I hold the memory of John Lewis--of his advocacy, of his passion, of his zealous belief to our better angels--to urge all Senators, regardless of party, to join me in restoring and reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act gives us that opportunity. Congressman Lewis, I know, would have wanted us to come together and find a path forward to addressing the many threats facing Americans' foundational right to vote. I will tell you what he would not have accepted. He would not have accepted inaction. So let's try to live up to the memory and the example of John Lewis--a heroic man of action, one of my dearest friends in my years in the Congress. And I know he is watching over us. Let's make him proud.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we will have before us a substitute amendment identical to H.R. 5305, which we will be voting on today. H.R. 5305 is the House-passed continuing resolution, except that the provision raising the debt ceiling has been removed because Republicans continue to block raising the debt ceiling. But the stop-gap measure really keeps the government funded through December 3. It provides $28 billion to help States that have been ravaged by hurricanes and wildfires. It provides critical assistance to Afghan refugees who fled the Taliban in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Many of those refugees have worked with American forces and helped us. So I urge all members to vote for it. But I agree with the majority leader that it is shameful we can't reach an agreement today to raise the debt ceiling and protect the full faith and credit of the United States. If Republicans don't want to vote to protect the full faith and credit of the United States, if the Republicans don't want to vote for the money that pays for the programs that they had supported under Donald Trump, well, then, stand out of the way and Democrats can raise the debt ceiling. Over and over, the last few days, we heard from Members on the other side of the aisle speak about the importance of passing a continuing resolution that contained disaster relief to help hurricane-ravaged States, like Louisiana and Texas. They are pleading for help. Well, we are about to pass a CR that provides that help. I have always taken the position that if there is a disaster in any State, that we should all come together to provide assistance because we are the United States of America; it is not just one State. Whether it is my State of Vermont or Texas or any other State, we can provide the assistance. But they may go home and say: Hey, we voted to get money, disaster relief for our hurricane-ravaged States. Somebody is going to say: Well, wait a minute, where does the money come from to help recover and build if the U.S. Treasury is literally out of money? In other words, they have a position where they can vote for something that would be popular back home, and it is kind of like ``the check is in the mail.'' We are not going to give you any money for it, but, boy, we are going to speak about how important it is to help. Many Senators here today want to provide a billion dollars to fund Israel's so-called Iron Dome, even though Israel has not spent the money we have already given them. Well, we will pass a bill to do just that. But if there is no money in the U.S. Treasury to pay the bills, it is nothing but an empty promise to one of our closest allies. We are voting on a blank check. According to the Treasury Department, we are going to reach the debt ceiling in 18 days. Now, I say that because we ought to know what we are not voting on. What we are not voting on--as the majority leader pointed out, we are not voting on the debt ceiling. We could say: Oh, we are helping hurricane-ravaged areas; oh, we are making others happy with things we vote for, but we are not voting for the money. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, once that happens, we run out of money to pay our men and women in uniform. We all support our men and women in uniform. We are just not going to put in the money to pay them. We can't send out Social Security checks. Find a Senator in this place that would say they are against Social Security. But to put the money in for it, they are not ready to do that. Just saying: Oh, we all support our veterans. Of course, we do. We are just not going to put the money in to support them. For the first time in history, the U.S. will default on its debt. The economy will take such a hit that it will take years to recover. Millions of people will be out of work. Bills will not be paid. Watch the stock market go down faster than we have ever seen and millions of Americans' lifetime savings will be at risk. Oh, we are for all of those--we just--you are on your own. Now, the Republican Party is playing political games with U.S. economy and with people's livelihoods, and it is shameful. Senator McConnell said he would not provide a single Republican vote to raise the debt ceiling. It is interesting because most of this debt was incurred under a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Senate. But as irresponsible as it is for the Republican leader to say we won't vote to pay for the debt that we incur, we, on the Democratic side, are prepared to show what leadership looks like and do it all on our own. We are willing to pass this with Democratic votes. But the Republicans continue to filibuster. If we don't resolve the debt issue in the coming days, make no mistake where the blame lies: squarely at the feet of the Senate Republicans. When we go back and say all these wonderful things we have done for you in the continuing resolution, but we are not going to pay for it-- we need to pass the CR today, of course, to avert a government shutdown tomorrow. A government shutdown, as we know from those in the last administration, wastes billions, accomplishes nothing. But it is also essential not only to pass the continuing resolution, but to unite and pass the debt limit extension, or there is not going to be money in the Treasury--no money to pay for the funding of this bill for American families, for the elderly, for our troops. Now, prior to the final passage, we will have a series of three amendment votes. With only 13 hours for the government set to shut down--13 hours and a few minutes--any one of these amendments could peril the continuing resolution. They are controversial. They could complicate House passage. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on all three amendments and an ``aye'' vote for final passage. Any one of those things in those three amendments, bring them up as legislation somewhere else, but don't shut down the government because you didn't get your political amendments. Amendment No. 3830 (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3830.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up all remaining amendments, in order, with respect to H.R. 3505 en bloc, and ask that they be reported by number.

Mr. LEAHY. We obviously have these amendments, so we will have them in order to be voted on. I call them up to have them all before us. I can assure you that the three amendments that I have referred to, I will strongly oppose them because, were they to pass, we would not be able to get the continuing resolution done, the government will be closed, billions of dollars goes out the window, and we would not have done our job. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Cotton Amendment short changes critical assistance provided to Afghan parolees that is included in the underlying bill and it should be defeated. It shortens the length of time that we provide refugee assistance to thousands of Afghan men and women who fled to the U.S. to escape the wrath of the Taliban--financial assistance, medical care, emergency housing, mental health care, job placement services, the things that they desperately need to begin their new lives in the U.S. For some, this would mean benefits for only a matter of months, and then they are on their own. This is not nearly sufficient for them to get on their feet in a new country. Especially when many of them came here with nothing. Many of these men and women were critical U.S. partners during the war in Afghanistan, putting their lives at risk along with our men and women in uniform. We cannot turn our backs on them now. The amendment also limits their ability to apply for a driver's license. A driver's license is vital to successful integration in this country--to securing a job, to getting an education, to starting a small business. This is especially true outside of urban areas and without public transit, where many are likely to resettle. This should not even be a debate. I urge a no vote on the Cotton Amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3833

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, families across the country are frustrated, and so am I. People are doing everything they can to end this pandemic, only to see some Republicans trying to prolong it with bills like this. We are fighting a highly contagious virus. It has killed over 685,000 people in our country. And that that number is only going to keep going up if people don't get vaccinated, and variants like Delta will continue to spread, undermine our economy, and take lives. We need to end this pandemic, and getting people vaccinated is one of the most important things we can do to accomplish that. So why would we pass an amendment that weakens one of our strongest tools to get people safely through this crisis? I urge all of my colleagues to stand with people across the country who have been following the public health guidance, and who are ready for this pandemic to an end, by voting against this dangerous, counterproductive amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3831

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, you know, this amendment has no business whatsoever being in a CR which has to be enacted by 12 midnight tonight. It may make a great sound bite or political ad, but it is not good policy. It is not a thoughtful solution to the many complicated reasons that we fail to enact budget resolutions or appropriations bills precisely on October 1. We all have serious policy disagreements that lead to inaction or delay. Let's debate those policies. Threatening to withhold pay or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with the structural issues, but it would do one thing. It would make sure that we had only multimillionaires in the House and Senate. It is a dangerous precedent and potentially corrosive influence of public policy. Let's stop the political posturing. If you want this, do it as a freestanding bill, under regular order, by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The CR is not the place for it. I urge a ``no'' vote. Vote on Amendment No. 3832

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senators who stayed with us to make sure we could get a good continuing resolution passed, which we are about to do. I just want to thank everybody and urge--it will be a voice vote, but shout ``yes'' on this next vote. Thank you. I yield the floor, and I yield back the time on both sides.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it was with great pride that Americans across the country tuned in this summer for the return of the Olympic Games. I want to take a moment to celebrate the achievements of one Vermonter who traveled to Tokyo, Japan, to represent our Nation--and our State--in these celebrated games. Elle Purrier St. Pierre represented the United States in the 1500-meter run at the 2020 Olympic Games. This was Elle's first turn as an Olympian, and she certainly made her mark, qualifying for the final in the 1500-meter, in which she crossed the line in 10th place. Elle is a Vermonter in the truest sense of the word. She grew up working on her family's dairy farm in Montgomery Center, a town of less than 800 people along the Canadian border. During her freshman year of high school, she stumbled onto the Richford High School track team, initially skeptical of long-distance running. Nonetheless, her raw talent and grit quickly became clear, and she went on to become one of the most decorated high school runners in State history. In college, she ran for the University of New Hampshire, where she garnered 11 NCAA Division One All-American titles and a championship victory in the indoor mile her senior year. Upon graduation in 2018, Elle signed with New Balance to run professionally. Although she has only run professionally for 3 years, she has set new national records in the indoor 1-mile and 2-mile distances. In June, Elle won the 1500-meter at the U.S. Olympic Trials, breaking the Olympic Trial record and securing her spot on the U.S. Olympic team in the process. Elle sailed through the qualifying rounds of the 1500, made it through to the finals where she competed against the strongest and fastest runners in the world. While her friends and family could not join her in Tokyo, they and so many others gathered in the Richford High School cafeteria in the early hours of the morning to watch each of her races live. Even as her success as a professional runner has taken her across the globe, her Vermont roots remain strong. Elle still considers Montgomery Center her home, where she lives with her husband, Jamie, who is also a dairy farmer. On September 25, Elle was celebrated at a welcome home parade through the town of Richford. Throngs of fans cheered her on as she took her well-deserved victory lap. It is hard to overstate how proud we Vermonters are of Elle. She is only the second Vermonter to compete in the Olympics for track and field. At only 26, I am sure we will see more from Elle in the future. I am very excited how Elle continues to perform in the years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the article ``Welcome Home, Elle! Richford Community Hosts Parade in Honor of Home-Town Olympian Elle Purrier St. Pierre,'' published in the St. Albans Messenger, be printed in the Record. Welcome Home Elle! Richford Community Hosts Parade in Honor of Home- Town Olympian Elle Purrier St. Pierre (By Ruthie LaRoche) On Saturday, Sept. 25, Elle Purrier St. Pierre walked beneath the American Flag, hoisted high on the Richford Volunteer Fire Department's ladder truck as part of a Welcome Home parade held in her honor. This August, Purrier St. Pierre represented the United States of America, racing in the women's 1500 meter at the 2021 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Japan. Purrier St. Pierre walked just steps behind a white and red heifer draped in the Stars and Stripes, the community she represented with pride, cheering and waving as she passed. A little while later, Purrier St. Pierre stood on a podium, the crowd of parade-goers now encircling her, listening in rapt attention as she spoke of her journey to the Olympic stage. Many knew her story well, but I'm sure there were portions very few knew, and it was the unknown story that made the community support so much more special. ``Representing the United States of America on the Olympic and world stage has been one of the highest honors of my life so far,'' said Purrier St. Pierre. ``Competing at the Olympics is the epitome of sports, and wearing those three letters (USA) across my chest was one of the best feelings I've ever had.'' Purrier St. Pierre spoke of her time in Tokyo and the thoughts of home that buoyed her up from half a world away ``These Olympic Games were different than most, but they were still astounding and historic. I tried to embrace the challenges brought on by the pandemic but found myself feeling very isolated throughout the experience,'' said Purrier St. Pierre. ``I spent many days alone since no friends or family members were allowed to travel to Tokyo. I was trying to mentally and physically prepare to compete against runners who were the best in the world.'' Purrier St. Pierre was preparing to compete in the most significant race of her career ``I knew I had prepared well for many years, but I'd be lying if I didn't say it wasn't extremely daunting. Something that helped me regain my courage was remembering the great country, state, and community I was representing,'' said Purrier St. Pierre. ``I was thousands of miles away, but I felt the love from this place and all of you. That love and support helped me persevere through the games.'' On the team bus in Tokyo, Purrier St. Pierre received a message from home that brought tears to her eyes ``I was on my way to the track to make my Olympic debut; I opened my phone and saw a picture of the American flag hanging from the Richford fire truck high above Main Street, and I immediately began to cry,'' said Purrier St. Pierre. ``I cannot begin to explain how much your compassion and support through this experience has meant to me.'' As she took the track, Purrier St. Pierre thought of the community behind her. ``I was racing for way more than myself; I was racing for all the people that got me there and hoping to inspire the next young generation in this great community,'' said Purrier St. Pierre. ``I was humbled to see the Franklin County community come together to support one of their own; I could read your messages, see your signs, and watch in awe as you all showed up to the Richford High School gym to cheer me on.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the recent decision by the National Jurisdiction Sentencing Court in Honduras to acquit Honduran nationals Edwin Espinal and Raul Alvarez. Both men were found to have been falsely accused of aggravated property damage, aggravated arson, and the use of homemade explosives, charges for which it turned out the government had no credible evidence. Espinal and Alvarez spent 19 months in a maximum-security prison awaiting trial. They were reportedly subjected to harsh conditions, including receiving only 2 hours of sunlight per month. Despite being accused of common crimes, special courts created to try members of organized criminal networks presided over the process, including a judge located at a military base. It took 4 years for a court to rule on their case and to finally absolve them of charges that were determined to be without merit. Espinal and Alvarez, like dozens of other protesters, were arrested during the 2017 electoral turmoil that culminated in the reelection of current President Juan Orlando Hernandez. Their case was used as a means to silence protesters and stifle discussion of the democratic process and the need for transparent elections. Edwin Espinal is a human rights defender who has faced political persecution since 2009. He is not alone. Many human rights and environmental defenders, as well as independent journalists in Honduras, have suffered threats, arbitrary arrests, beatings, and assassinations by Honduran police or others acting on their behalf. I and others here have repeatedly voiced our concerns with the Honduran Government's misuse of the judicial process to silence dissent. Bringing charges with no credible evidence and holding social activists and other critics in prison and subjecting them to lengthy criminal processes undermines due process and erodes public confidence in the integrity of the police and the courts. I am also concerned with the lack of due process in the case of the eight imprisoned water defenders from Guapinol that has dragged on for years. And like many, I am waiting for the official sentencing hearing of Roberto David Castillo, the convicted coauthor of the murder of Honduran environmentalist and indigenous activist, Berta Cceres. With another election just around the corner in Honduras, I urge the Honduran Government to support a free and fair electoral process, as well as freedom of expression, association, and assembly for all Honduran citizens. And I hope that the Honduras' next leaders will reject the corrupt practices and impunity of the past and support an independent judiciary, uphold the rule of law, hold the police and other public officials accountable when they abuse their authority, and restore the faith of the Honduran people in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 10 years ago this month, Congress worked on a broad bipartisan basis to pass the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the biggest change to the United States patent laws in half a century. The patent system exists to create incentives that promote the progress of science and the useful arts for the benefit of the public. Our whole economy depends on a working patent system that reinforces high-quality patents while ensuring that poor-quality patents cannot throw a wrench into the gears. Today, I am proud to introduce, alongside Senator Cornyn, the bipartisan Restoring the America Invents Act to ensure that the improvements we made to maintain high patent quality in the Leahy- Smith Act continue to work as Congress intended. One of the challenges we confronted 10 years ago was that too many invalid patents were being issued. Instead of rewarding true innovation, these patents were being used to indefinitely extend monopolies, quash competition, and harm American consumers. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, brand-name drug companies would artificially extend a drug's patent term by patenting minor and insignificant changes to the underlying product. In other industries, entities that did not even make products would buy up tens of thousands of questionable patents covering simple and obvious actions like doing business on the internet, and they would sue thousands of small businesses that sold innovative products online. One of the biggest accomplishments of the Leahy-Smith Act was that it empowered members of the public to challenge a patent's validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--PTO--directly, providing a faster, less expensive, and more accessible avenue than litigation in the courts. These proceedings, called inter partes review and post-grant review, have been wildly successful. According to one economic impact study, in one 5-year period, the Leahy-Smith Act saved the U.S. economy $2.64 billion in litigation costs alone, with more than $1 billion more in added personal income for Americans. The Leahy-Smith Act's new proceedings have been used thousands of times and have had the aggregate impact of improving the quality of patents in our patent system. Unfortunately, over time and especially during the last administration, the PTO has limited the availability of these proceedings beyond what Congress intended. The PTO began routinely declining to hear challenges brought by members of the public, even when those challenges met timing requirements, met all other statutory criteria, and would have likely succeeded on the merits. In 2020, roughly one in five challenges was summarily denied proceedings by the PTO, undermining the intent of the Leahy-Smith Act. Furthermore, whether a patent is valid should not depend on which party is in the White House or what individual is in charge of the agency. During the last administration, there was reported nontransparent meddling by the PTO Director in the work of the administrative patent judges who were making inter partes and post- grant review decisions. While the Supreme Court has recently held that the PTO Director should have the last word on patentability decisions, the public deserves to know when decisions are being made by dedicated civil servant judges and when they are being made by the politically appointed Director. This bill fixes both problems and generally restores the Leahy-Smith Act to what Congress intended 10 years ago. It requires institution of inter partes review petitions that meet the statutory criteria and further encourages district courts to stay litigation when a parallel proceeding at the PTO will resolve the same validity issues. The stay factors in this bill are intended to put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of a district court stay, preventing duplicative proceedings, and protecting patent owners from having to repeatedly defend their patents. The Restoring the America Invents Act further imposes transparency. The PTO Director must provide a separate written opinion when overriding part or all of a decision of administrative patent judges, and the PTO Director may not interfere in any way in the judges' initial decisionmaking. The public and any reviewing court should get to see the judges' decisions first, before any political actor might change the outcome. This bill further clarifies other aspects of the Leahy-Smith Act. It clarifies the intent of the Leahy-Smith Act that the PTO can address, in inter partes review proceedings, certain clear instances of invalidity: double patenting, where applicants amass dozens of patents covering trivial iterations of an already-patented drug or other product; and admissions by the patent owner, in the patent itself, that someone else first came up with the invention. It clarifies that, when patent owners want to amend their patent claims during these post- issuance proceedings, the PTO must fully examine and vet those claims before issuing them. Likewise, the bill prohibits the PTO from issuing new claims to a patent that are essentially the same as existing claims, addressing the problem of patent thickets. And the Restoring the America Invents Act addresses multiple related proceedings pending at the PTO, specifying that the PTO must decide ahead of time how to proceed, to avoid conflicting outcomes from separate parts of the agency. This is in addition to the agency's ongoing obligation to make rules addressing common situations, such as under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 316(a)(4). The PTO should study frequent scenarios and determine whether new regulations are needed to address them. Fundamentally, we need to address why the PTO issues invalid patents in the first place. But when these invalid patents have already been issued, they need to be addressed on the back end. On this 10th anniversary of the Leahy-Smith Act, I am proud to introduce this bill-- the Restoring the America Invents Act, that will restore the patent system so it can continue to accomplish its goals into the next decade and beyond, reinforcing high-quality patents while ensuring that poor- quality patents don't disrupt the American economy, costing Americans untold sums in unreasonable drug costs and overly inflated prices generally. I am excited to work alongside Senator Cornyn, on a bipartisan basis, to pass this important piece of legislation. The Founders envisioned the patent system to promote the progress of science and the useful arts for the benefit of the public. It is time to get back to the Founders' vision. I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this critical legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 10 years ago this month, Congress worked on a broad bipartisan basis to pass the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the biggest change to the United States patent laws in half a century. The patent system exists to create incentives that promote the progress of science and the useful arts for the benefit of the public. Our whole economy depends on a working patent system that reinforces high-quality patents while ensuring that poor-quality patents cannot throw a wrench into the gears. Today, I am proud to introduce, alongside Senator Cornyn, the bipartisan Restoring the America Invents Act to ensure that the improvements we made to maintain high patent quality in the Leahy- Smith Act continue to work as Congress intended. One of the challenges we confronted 10 years ago was that too many invalid patents were being issued. Instead of rewarding true innovation, these patents were being used to indefinitely extend monopolies, quash competition, and harm American consumers. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, brand-name drug companies would artificially extend a drug's patent term by patenting minor and insignificant changes to the underlying product. In other industries, entities that did not even make products would buy up tens of thousands of questionable patents covering simple and obvious actions like doing business on the internet, and they would sue thousands of small businesses that sold innovative products online. One of the biggest accomplishments of the Leahy-Smith Act was that it empowered members of the public to challenge a patent's validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--PTO--directly, providing a faster, less expensive, and more accessible avenue than litigation in the courts. These proceedings, called inter partes review and post-grant review, have been wildly successful. According to one economic impact study, in one 5-year period, the Leahy-Smith Act saved the U.S. economy $2.64 billion in litigation costs alone, with more than $1 billion more in added personal income for Americans. The Leahy-Smith Act's new proceedings have been used thousands of times and have had the aggregate impact of improving the quality of patents in our patent system. Unfortunately, over time and especially during the last administration, the PTO has limited the availability of these proceedings beyond what Congress intended. The PTO began routinely declining to hear challenges brought by members of the public, even when those challenges met timing requirements, met all other statutory criteria, and would have likely succeeded on the merits. In 2020, roughly one in five challenges was summarily denied proceedings by the PTO, undermining the intent of the Leahy-Smith Act. Furthermore, whether a patent is valid should not depend on which party is in the White House or what individual is in charge of the agency. During the last administration, there was reported nontransparent meddling by the PTO Director in the work of the administrative patent judges who were making inter partes and post- grant review decisions. While the Supreme Court has recently held that the PTO Director should have the last word on patentability decisions, the public deserves to know when decisions are being made by dedicated civil servant judges and when they are being made by the politically appointed Director. This bill fixes both problems and generally restores the Leahy-Smith Act to what Congress intended 10 years ago. It requires institution of inter partes review petitions that meet the statutory criteria and further encourages district courts to stay litigation when a parallel proceeding at the PTO will resolve the same validity issues. The stay factors in this bill are intended to put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of a district court stay, preventing duplicative proceedings, and protecting patent owners from having to repeatedly defend their patents. The Restoring the America Invents Act further imposes transparency. The PTO Director must provide a separate written opinion when overriding part or all of a decision of administrative patent judges, and the PTO Director may not interfere in any way in the judges' initial decisionmaking. The public and any reviewing court should get to see the judges' decisions first, before any political actor might change the outcome. This bill further clarifies other aspects of the Leahy-Smith Act. It clarifies the intent of the Leahy-Smith Act that the PTO can address, in inter partes review proceedings, certain clear instances of invalidity: double patenting, where applicants amass dozens of patents covering trivial iterations of an already-patented drug or other product; and admissions by the patent owner, in the patent itself, that someone else first came up with the invention. It clarifies that, when patent owners want to amend their patent claims during these post- issuance proceedings, the PTO must fully examine and vet those claims before issuing them. Likewise, the bill prohibits the PTO from issuing new claims to a patent that are essentially the same as existing claims, addressing the problem of patent thickets. And the Restoring the America Invents Act addresses multiple related proceedings pending at the PTO, specifying that the PTO must decide ahead of time how to proceed, to avoid conflicting outcomes from separate parts of the agency. This is in addition to the agency's ongoing obligation to make rules addressing common situations, such as under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 316(a)(4). The PTO should study frequent scenarios and determine whether new regulations are needed to address them. Fundamentally, we need to address why the PTO issues invalid patents in the first place. But when these invalid patents have already been issued, they need to be addressed on the back end. On this 10th anniversary of the Leahy-Smith Act, I am proud to introduce this bill-- the Restoring the America Invents Act, that will restore the patent system so it can continue to accomplish its goals into the next decade and beyond, reinforcing high-quality patents while ensuring that poor- quality patents don't disrupt the American economy, costing Americans untold sums in unreasonable drug costs and overly inflated prices generally. I am excited to work alongside Senator Cornyn, on a bipartisan basis, to pass this important piece of legislation. The Founders envisioned the patent system to promote the progress of science and the useful arts for the benefit of the public. It is time to get back to the Founders' vision. I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this critical legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the most ubiquitous technologies in the world today is the cell phone. According to Pew Research, a stunning 97 percent of Americans own some sort of mobile device. These devices are critical to our everyday lives, keeping us connected to one another while also serving as a gateway to entire sectors of our economy. Most Americans probably do not realize that they are holding a piece of Vermont in their hands every time they use their phone, but thanks to engineers at GlobalFoundries in Essex Junction, every cell phone in the world contains a chip manufactured in my home State. Today, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of one of those engineers, Anthony ``Tony'' Stamper of Burlington and thank him for his contributions to the global innovation ecosystem from his corner of Vermont. Tony retired this summer from GlobalFoundries after 30 years of semiconductor engineering at the Essex facility. During Tony's celebrated career, he has been responsible for over 500 patented inventions, making him one of the world's top 100 most prolific inventors of all time. Tony's leadership at GlobalFoundries has helped keep Vermont at the forefront of an ever-changing industry for over 70 years. In 2015, GlobalFoundries acquired IBM's Essex plant and their talented workforce. Thanks to Tony and Essex innovators like him, the Vermont GlobalFoundries facility leads the industry in manufacturing radio frequency power semiconductors. While Tony has been a prolific inventor, U.S. Patent No. 6,310,300 is one of his most notable inventions. It solved the significant problem that the space between an insulation layer and a metal wire in a chip would degrade over time. He and his team members created a barrier layer that prevented degradation and allowed for much smaller metal wires on the chip, hence much smaller chips. The invention has been used in every chip produced in the last 20 years. Tony is not only an accomplished inventor but has repeatedly led teams of engineers to utilize these inventions to create leading edge products for high-speed computing and mobile communications. Tony has been a dedicated mentor and teacher to a new generation of inventors, which led him to be nominated for the GlobalFoundries Diversity and Inclusion Inventorship Champion Award. He knows that collaboration is the key ingredient to successful innovation and has fostered that kind of environment in all of the invention teams he has led. Tony's story shows that innovators can thrive anywhere in the country, not just in Silicon Valley. I know his fellow engineers, who have relied on his expertise over the years, will feel his absence and miss him dearly. As he embarks on this next exciting part of his life, I want to acknowledge Tony's work and thank him for his decades of service to Vermont and the industry. Marcelle and I join his friends at GlobalFoundries and wish him the best of luck.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize the incredible impact of Farm to School programs in Vermont and across the country and the great work of Vermont students, their schools, and their broader communities to improve access to healthy food options. Since 2000, Vermont Food Education Every Day--FEED--has facilitated collaboration between schools and farms in Vermont, helping cafeterias to source meals locally and working with schools to institute curricular and cocurricular programming to educate students on local food systems. In 2010, I was proud to author the national Farm to School Program in the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act. Since then, Vermont FEED and its Farm to School programs have become a national benchmark, with Farm to School programs now operating in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. A few weeks ago, I had the chance to speak with students from Harwood Union High School about their Farm to School program. For the past 15 years, Harwood has sourced its food locally and worked with Vermont FEED to develop opportunities for students, teachers, and staff to connect with local farmers beyond the cafeteria. For 5 years, Harwood's student-led Farm to School Club has coordinated educational programming, farm visits, and recipe competitions to help students and staff to experience local agriculture and the Vermont food system. Even through the COVID-19 pandemic, the Harwood Farm to School Club adapted its programming by shifting to virtual tours of local farms and at-home recipe contests. As a truly Vermont-grown initiative, I have always been proud of the impressive adoption of Farm to School programs in communities nationwide. In April, I reintroduced the Farm to School Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would increase mandatory funding for the Farm to School Grant Program, ensuring that more schools, students, and farmers can take advantage of the program. And every year in the annual appropriations process, I have worked to increase discretionary funding for this popular program. The Farm to School Club at Harwood serves as a testament to the importance of community engagement and the educational, economic, and nutritional benefits of Farm to School programs. The club was recently featured in an article published by Seven Days, and I ask unanimous consent that the article, ``Vermont Leads National Farm-to-School Movement, and Harwood Union High School Demonstrates How'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize the iconic Vermont Lake Monsters and their championship victory in the team's first season as members of the Futures Collegiate Baseball League. The Vermont Lake Monsters have seen various iterations over the years, and the determination, grit, and resilience of the team's players, coaches, staff, and fans are clear to all Vermonters and fans of the team. The Lake Monsters began in 1994 with establishment of the Vermont Expos, a minor league baseball team affiliated with the Montreal Expos. When the Montreal Expos moved to Washington, DC, and became the Nationals, the Vermont Expos changed their affiliation and their name, becoming the Lake Monsters in 2004 and affiliated with the Oakland Athletics. When Major League Baseball elected to shrink the minor league in 2019, the Lake Monsters sadly lost their affiliation. The loss of affiliation and the prospect of the closure of the Lake Monsters were devastating for the baseball community in Vermont. Luckily, the Lake Monsters seized the opportunity to join the Futures Collegiate Baseball League, bringing the team back to Centennial Field in Burlington after a 2-year hiatus. Quickly, a new coaching staff was hired, and a roster filled. The Lake Monsters returned to Centennial Field on May 21, beginning a fantastic season run that brought them to a championship title on August 20.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know the speeches on the other side have gone a little longer than we expected, so I ask unanimous consent that I have time to complete my statement on the continuing resolution and national debt, which will be relatively short.