Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will vote to defeat the filibuster against the nomination of Cheryl Krause to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Her nomination has the strong bipartisan support of Pennsylvania Senators, Senator Bob Casey and Senator Patrick Toomey. The American Bar Association has unanimously given her their highest rating of ``well qualified.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee reported her unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate this past April, nearly 3 months ago. Ms. Krause should already have been confirmed and be at work for the American people. Instead, Senate Republicans continue to filibuster qualified, uncontroversial nominees who in previous years would have been confirmed without any delay. This is deeply unfair to all Americans seeking access to justice and to the judicial nominees who, like Cheryl Krause, have had distinguished careers in the law. Of the 54 judicial nominees filibustered this year, 30 have been confirmed unanimously, without a single vote against them. These filibusters are undeserved, and should stop. Ms. Krause has worked in private practice for over a decade, including as a partner at Dechert LLP and a shareholder at Hangley, Aronchick Segal, & Pudlin. Her work has focused on complex criminal defense matters in securities fraud, antitrust, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. She has also taught courses on appellate advocacy, cyber crime, and judicial decisionmaking at University of Pennsylvania Law School and Stanford Law School. Professors from both universities have written in strong support for her nomination, and I ask consent that these letters be included in the Record. From 1997 to 2002, Ms. Krause served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, where she distinguished herself as the lead prosecutor in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Before becoming a prosecutor, she worked as an associate at the prestigious firm of Davis, Polk, & Wardwell and as a law clerk at Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP. After graduating with honors from Stanford Law School, she served as a law clerk to Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1993 to 1994 and to Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1994 to 1995. Her commitment both to the practice of law and to her community in Philadelphia has been admirable. In 2011, as part of partnership between Dechert LLP and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Ms. Krause brought a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of over 1,000 autistic students within the school district of Pennsylvania challenging the school district's transfer of these students from school to school without adequate notice to parents. After 2 years of litigation, Ms. Krause was successful, and the district court required the school district to redevelop its policy. Ms. Krause has also helped to launch the Philadelphia Project, a program that provides legal services to families of children with disabilities in the school district of Philadelphia. She is well qualified to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Her record of accomplishments is unquestionable, as is her dedication to the rule of law and the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the filibuster against this excellent nominee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, one year ago tomorrow, the Senate came together to pass historic legislation to reform our broken immigration system. We did so with a strong bipartisan vote and after weeks of exhaustive work. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act would unite families, spur the economy, and help protect our borders. Above all else, this historic legislation would create an immigration system that is worthy of our American values. Today, our system does not reflect the values we hold as a nation. It is devastating that after 1 year, the House has yet to pass desperately needed immigration reform. The cost of inaction is all around us, from the millions of workers who are forced to live in the shadows without fully contributing to our economy, to the foreign-born students who are taking their skills overseas when they graduate instead of investing their talents here, to the uncertainty that continues to plague our agricultural and dairy industries because of unstable work visa programs. Families are being torn apart by deportations, and visa applicants around the world find themselves stuck in limbo because of our lengthy visa backlogs. However, nowhere is the cost of inaction more evident than in the faces of the young children sleeping on cold floors in detention centers on our border. The humanitarian crisis at the border is growing, and we have a moral duty to address it. I was glad this body came together last year to support my bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which included important new provisions to improve the treatment of unaccompanied children at our border. This vital legislation, signed into law as part of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 provides additional advocates and support for the unaccompanied youngsters who come to our border often fleeing violence and abuse in their country of origin. I was proud when the Republican-controlled House voted overwhelmingly to support these important protections for unaccompanied minors. But they address just one piece of a rapidly growing problem. To truly address the crisis we are seeing today, the Republican House must act to pass bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform. Those Republican critics who claim we must first secure our border before the House will vote on immigration reform should actually read the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act that the Senate passed last year. The bill would double the number of Border Patrol agents and authorize the completion of a 700-mile wall at the southern border. This language was a Republican demand during Senate consideration of the legislation. While I did not agree with it, I voted to authorize this so-called border surge because I supported the broader reform that would do so much for the families and DREAMers who contribute to the fabric of this Nation. Border security measures take up an entire title of the legislation, allocating billions of dollars to border security in addition to the considerable expenditures already authorized by existing law. Those measures are reinforced by ``triggers'' that must be satisfied before undocumented individuals may apply for permanent residence under the bill. These issues were hard-fought in the Senate, and the result was legislation that dramatically reshaped the landscape for border enforcement. So I say again, those who claim we must secure our border before passing immigration reform should look at the bill this Senate passed with broad bipartisan support a year ago. Americans have seen too much inaction in Washington. The issue before us is too important to simply put off for another time. Just as House Republican leaders set aside partisanship to do what is right by passing the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act, they should again recognize that a majority of the Chamber supports passing comprehensive immigration reform. Immigration reform should not be held back due to partisan caucus rules that say only legislation supported by the majority of Republicans can be considered. All Members, Democrats and Republicans, should have the courage to vote. House Republican leaders cast aside partisanship and showed their courage last year by bringing the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act to the floor. They should do so again today. Legislating is about making tough choices. It is not about standing on the sidelines and complaining that this solution is not perfect. It is about supporting efforts that move this country forward. The bipartisan legislation we passed had the support of businesses, community and faith leaders. It received support from groups ranging from the chamber of commerce and Americans for Tax Reform to law enforcement, university presidents, civil rights groups, and community advocates. Voices from across the Nation and the political spectrum came together in support of enacting long-overdue reforms. I have been privileged to serve in this great body for nearly four decades because of the trust of the people of Vermont. In my time here, I have rarely seen such commitment to an issue as I did last year to comprehensive immigration reform. What was initially a proposal from the so-called Gang of 8 went through an extensive committee and floor process to allow every Senator to offer their input. The result was an historic bill supported by 68 Senators from both sides of the aisle. I congratulate those Senators for their hard work to pass this historic legislation. They share my belief that the status quo is not an option. President Obama, who has called the crisis at the border an ``urgent humanitarian situation,'' knows that maintaining the system we have in place today is not an option. We need a long-term plan to address the many problems in our immigration system and to ensure that in the future we have the tools to address crises like the one we are seeing now. That solution lies in passing the Senate immigration bill. There is still time this year to accomplish meaningful and historic reform. I urge Republican leaders in the House not to waste another day and to bring up the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wish to call attention to a recent decision by the Ecuadoran Government to issue a permit for oil drilling in the Yasuni reserve in the Amazon region. This should raise alarm bells in the international community for a number of reasons. It was not long ago that President Correa was supporting a lawsuit against Chevron, citing contamination that resulted from oil exploration by Texaco, the previous owner of the wells, in the Amazon region of Ecuador. That case, while fraught with allegations of corruption and ethical violations, shone a spotlight on the undeniable environmental damage, water contamination, and health problems associated with those oil wells, as well as on the rich biodiversity and indigenous populations in that region. But the Correa administration has now backstepped, deciding to allow the state-run oil company Petroamazonas to begin exploratory drilling. Given the history, one can only be concerned about the threat this poses to one of the most biologically diverse regions in the world and the people who live there. I am also disappointed by the circumstances leading up to the decision to begin oil production. Having failed in its far-fetched attempt to elicit contributions from the international community in exchange for halting plans to drill in the reserve, the Correa administration is moving ahead with this ill-conceived project. In other words, if someone else won't pay to prevent the Ecuadoran Government from potentially despoiling their own forests, they will drill there themselves despite the grave problems that occurred in the past. Nobody questions Ecuador's need for energy. Nobody doubts Ecuador's right to drill for oil. But we all have a responsibility to protect areas especially rich in biodiversity for future generations. We also have a responsibility to respect vulnerable indigenous cultures. While no country, including the United States, can claim perfection in environmental stewardship, we need to collectively learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday in Maputo, Mozambique, representatives of many of the 161 countries that have joined the treaty banning the production, stockpiling, export, and use of antipersonnel landmines convened the third review conference in the 15 years since the treaty came into force. The impact of that treaty, once ridiculed as a naive dream by many in the U.S. defense establishment, has been extraordinary. The vast majority of landmine use and production has stopped. New casualties have dropped significantly. Many countries have cleared the mined areas in their territories. Of the 35 countries that have not yet joined the treaty, including the United States, almost all abide by its provisions. We can be proud that the United States has been the largest contributor to programs to clear mines and to help mine victims. Those programs have saved countless lives. In fact, the Leahy War Victims Fund was first used in Mozambique. But I remember during the negotiations on the treaty how officials in the U.S. administration at the time urged, even warned, their counterparts in other countries, including our NATO allies, against signing the treaty. In the end, every member of NATO except the United States joined it. Some in our government said it was a meaningless gesture that would accomplish nothing. I think they resented that other governments, especially Canada, and nongovernmental organizations from around the world could achieve something outside the U.N. negotiation process, which had utterly failed to address this problem. Instead, the treaty has already accomplished more than most people expected, thanks to the extraordinary advocacy of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and three-quarters of the world's governments, many of whose people have suffered from the scourge of landmines. But the problem is far from solved. There are still thousands of deaths and injuries from mines each year, and most are innocent civilians. Twenty years ago this week, in a speech at the United Nations that inspired people around the world, President Clinton called for a global ban on antipersonnel mines. I was proud of President Clinton for doing that, but his Presidency, his administration, was outmaneuvered by the Pentagon, and it failed to join the treaty. Then, during the 8 years of the last Bush administration, nothing happened. In fact, during those years, the White House reneged on some of the pledges of the Clinton administration. When President Obama was elected, I thought we would finally see the United States get on the right side of this issue. After all, we fought two long wars without using antipersonnel mines. All our NATO allies and most of our coalition partners have banned them. But that has not happened. Now we rightly condemned, and I do condemn, the Taliban for using victim-activated IEDs, which are also banned by the treaty, but we still insist on retaining our right to use antipersonnel mines. Eighteen years ago, President Clinton charged the Pentagon to develop alternatives to antipersonnel mines. Instead, the Pentagon has fought every attempt to get rid of these indiscriminate weapons, even if they do not use them. As I have said many times, no one argues that antipersonnel mines have no military utility. Every weapon does. Poison gas has a military utility, but we outlawed it a century ago. Are we incapable of renouncing, as our closest allies have, tiny explosives that are the antithesis of precision-guided weapons, weapons we have rightly not used during two long wars, weapons that kill children and innocent civilians, and weapons that should bring condemnation to anybody using them? We talk about the importance of avoiding civilian casualties. We all believe in that. We have seen how civilian casualties can turn a local population against us. We do not export antipersonnel landmines. We do not use them. We can drive a robot on Mars by remote control, but we say we cannot solve this problem. It begs credulity. This is not an abstract issue. This girl is who I am talking about. I have met countless people like her. She is lucky. She survived, even though without hands and legs. Many others like her bleed to death. I have been to clinics in poor countries where, instead of soccer balls, they make artificial limbs like these. We support them with the Leahy War Victims Fund. I am glad we can help, but I wish there was absolutely no need for that. I visited a young girl in a hospital after the Bosnia war. Her parents had sent her away so she could be safe. The war ended. The soldiers returned home. She was running down the road calling out to her parents, and she stepped on a mine. Both her legs were blown off. The war was over, but not for her. We recently sent people to that part of the world after flooding. Why? Because thousands of landmines still in the ground had washed up and moved around. Schoolchildren now face the danger again, because even though they had mapped where the landmines were that was before the floods. As in the past, the White House hides behind their failure to act by pointing at North Korea. Who is not concerned about North Korea? But are we so dependent on antipersonnel landmines that we cannot develop war plans to defend South Korea without them? I reject that just as former commanders of our forces in South Korea rejected it long ago. Last week, after a cursory 2-minute debate that inaccurately described the landmines in the Korean DMZ as U.S. mines, which they are not, and that inaccurately asserted, based on erroneous press reports, that the White House is about to join the mine ban treaty, which it is not, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee adopted by voice vote a prohibition on the use of funds to implement the treaty. The amendment's sponsor even claimed that the one thing--the only thing--stopping a North Korean invasion is U.S. antipersonnel mines. Balderdash. Did the Pentagon tell them that? Of course not. I wonder how many, if any, Members of that subcommittee have even read the treaty. One would think, 61 years after the Korean war, that the Pentagon would not still be arguing that the defense of South Korea depends on tiny, indiscriminate explosives that would pose a threat to U.S. forces if we counterattacked. It makes you wonder. This country, with the most powerful army, that spends far more money on its armed forces than any country in the world, has to rely on antipersonnel landmines? Oh, come on. President Obama can still put the United States on a path to join the treaty, but time is running out. It will require some revision of our Korea war plans. That can be done in a manner that protects the security of South Korea and our troops. It needs to be done, because without the participation and support of the United States, the most powerful Nation on Earth, no international treaty can achieve its potential. I commend the participants at the Maputo review conference. I regret the United States is there only as an observer, as it has been since the Ottawa process began 18 years ago. We sit on the sidelines as though we have no role in this. What a missed opportunity, what a stain on the country that should be the moral leader. The next review conference is in 2019, the 25th anniversary of President Clinton's speech. What an anniversary it would be if that next review conference were held in Washington, with the United States attending as a party to the treaty. I ask unanimous consent that a June 22 article in the Boston Globe and a June 23 article in the New York Times on this subject be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, is this the Crawford nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. Let me say he is strongly supported by both Senators from Vermont, and I might say also by the people of Vermont. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the Senate today for voting on the confirmation of Leon Rodriguez to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. This is a vital leadership position within the Department of Homeland Security, responsible for administering and processing asylum and refugee applications, immigration benefits, and naturalization and visa petitions, including the EB-5 Regional Center Program. Mr. Rodriguez's confirmation comes at a critical time. Nearly 1 year after the Senate's historic vote on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, House Republicans have failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and have maintained a status quo that leaves our immigration system in tatters. We are now seeing the human cost of this inaction, as tens of thousands of young, unaccompanied alien children flood our Southwest border. Many of these children fled their homes to escape unimaginable violence, only to endure a harrowing journey and, once here, yet another humanitarian crisis. House Republicans must act to fix our broken immigration system, as we did in the Senate 1 year ago this week. Until then, our borders will be undermanned, our immigration courts overwhelmed, our economy will lag, and millions of people who have lived and worked in our country for years will be left in limbo. Although he will face these extraordinary challenges, I am confident that Mr. Rodriguez will ably lead USCIS. He currently serves as the Director for the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He previously served as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Prior to joining the administration, Mr. Rodriguez was the county attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland. Before that he was in private practice here in Washington. He has vast leadership and management experience, spanning both public and private practice, and often intersecting with issues of national origin and immigration status, making him extremely qualified to lead USCIS effectively. Mr. Rodriguez understands the need for both a comprehensive and compassionate response to the humanitarian crisis facing children seeking refuge in our country. With parents who fled an oppressive regime in Cuba, and grandparents who fled anti-Semitism and poverty in Turkey and Poland before that, Mr. Rodriguez understands the challenges and remarkable potential of immigration, both for the immigrant and for our country. This process begins with the fair, swift adjudication of asylum, refugee, and visa petitions. Mr. Rodriguez also understands how important the USCIS-administered EB-5 jobs program is to States like Vermont. This important economic program has transformed parts of our State, providing much-needed capital and creating jobs. I have spoken to Mr. Rodriguez about the challenges facing the program, including long application processing delays that have threatened to undermine important projects. He is committed to working with us in Congress to strengthen the program and make it permanent. He has the strong support of law enforcement, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association, as well as a coalition of 37 Latino organizations from across the country. I too support Mr. Rodriguez. I was proud to advance his nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. He is uniquely suited to lead this important office, and I look forward to seeing the progress to come at USCIS.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased, although not surprised, with the latest news that Vermont's children rank as the healthiest. Recent data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that Vermont ranks at the top or near the top of the list on a variety of metrics, including a child's access to health care, and percentage of children who exercise regularly. We all know that healthy habits begin in childhood, and Vermont has worked for years to ensure that all Vermont children have access to healthy beginnings. Vermont has long been a trailblazer on health care, particularly for children. Recognizing that access to health care for children and pregnant women is critical to a healthy society, Vermont created the Dr. Dynasaur Program in 1989 to help families who could not afford health insurance but could not qualify for Medicaid. The program was such a success, Governor Howard Dean expanded Dr. Dynasaur in 1991 to cover all children and teens. Governor Dean's success with the program and leadership on the issue paved the way for Congress to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. Vermont has taken other steps as well to ensure all children can grow up healthy. In addition to having one of the lowest rates of uninsured children, Vermont has worked hard to give children access to healthy meals at school. Vermont brings local food into schools and teaches children about healthy eating through the Farm to School Program. And in order to make sure all children have access to school meals, Vermont gives those eligible for reduced-price lunches those meals for free. By working in a coordinated fashion across agencies and with advocacy groups, Vermont reaches out to children in need to help those families receive access to health care, nutrition assistance, and other vital safety net programs. Unfortunately, there are still some troubling national trends related to children's health of which Vermont is not immune. Larger serving sizes and greater access to junk food combined with sedentary lifestyles have contributed to the steady rise in childhood obesity rates. Additionally, we are seeing a rise in the number of children living in poverty and without consistent access to nutritious food and health care. If we fail to reverse these trends, we are setting our children up for health problems that will last well into adulthood. We must continue to support the efforts of our States and so many families who are trying to help their children make healthy choices. Instead of working to undermine the efforts we have made to ensure children can eat nutritious meals in school or to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or reducing eligibility in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Program or other nutrition programs, we should be working together to ensure all American children have the chance to succeed. Vermont has shown tremendous leadership in this area, and I hope we can all learn from its model. I ask unanimous consent that the following Washington Post article, ``Best state in America: Vermont, for its healthy kids,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join with several Democratic Senators to reintroduce the DISCLOSE Act, renewing--for the third time--our fight to curtail some of the worst abuses resulting from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Republicans mounted filibusters of this commonsense bill when it was first introduced in 2010 and then again when it was reintroduced in 2012. This was the case even though Republicans claim to support disclosure. Earlier this month, I chaired a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to repair the damage done by Citizens United and a series of other flawed Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws. At this hearing, even Floyd Abrams, the noted First Amendment attorney who testified against the proposed amendment argued that he supported greater disclosure. And yet, Republicans have already filibustered this bill twice and are likely to continue filibustering it. I am hoping that Republicans have come to their senses after seeing how Citizens United has allowed unlimited, undisclosed money to pollute our elections. Since that decision, our elections have been defined by corporations and billionaires spending vast amounts of secret money to influence elections. In the 2012 election cycle, spending from undisclosed sources exceeded $310 million, a massive increase from the $69 million from undisclosed sources in the previous presidential election cycle in 2008. And this number will only increase. No one doubts that. While states like Vermont and Congress continue their heavy lift of passing a constitutional amendment to address the flawed Supreme Court decisions that have gutted our campaign finance laws, the Senate can take more immediate action today. By passing the DISCLOSE Act, we can restore transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a crucial step toward restoring the ability of Vermonters and all American voters to be able to speak, be heard and to hear competing voices, and not be drowned out by powerful corporate interests. We know disclosure laws can work because they do work for individual Americans donating directly to political campaigns. When you or I give money directly to a political candidate, our donation is not hidden. It is publicly disclosed. Yet those who oppose the DISCLOSE Act are standing up for special rights for corporations and wealthy donors that you and I do not have. Recently, the Washington Post documented a trend whereby politically active organizations manipulate and use their tax-exempt status to keep its donor lists private even though these organizations are pouring millions of dollars of undisclosed money into our elections. The increase of secret money can only harm our political process. The DISCLOSE Act would fix this problem. This bill would require any organization spending money on political ads, including 501(c)(4)s and Super PACs, to disclose donors who had given $10,000 or more. This is a commonsense transparency measure that everyone should be willing to support. When the race is on for secret money and election campaigns are won or lost by who can collect the largest amount of unaccountable, secret donations, it puts at risk government of, by and for the people. In a democracy, our ballots should be secret not massive corporate campaign contributions. Disclosure of who is paying for election ads should not be kept secret from the public. Vermont is a small state. It would not take more than a tiny fraction of the corporate money flooding the airwaves in other states to outspend all of our local candidates combined. I know that the people of Vermont, like all Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending. I hope that Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable corporate campaign spending will join us to take up this important legislation. I hope Republican Senators will let us vote on the DISCLOSE Act and help us take an important step to ensure the ability of every American to be heard and to be able to meaningfully participate in free and fair elections.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, is one of our Nation's most important laws, established to give Americans greater access to their government and protect their ability to hold government accountable. In keeping with my commitment to support this law and expand its mission, today I join with Senator John Cornyn to introduce bipartisan legislation that will improve the implementation of FOIA. I have sought for decades to make our government more open and transparent. Senator Cornyn has been an important partner in these efforts, and our collaboration has resulted in the enactment of several improvements to FOIA: the OPEN Government Act, the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade; the OPEN FOIA Act, which increased the transparency of legislative exemptions to FOIA; and the Faster FOIA Act, which responded to the concerns of FOIA requestors and addressed agency delays in processing requests. The FOIA Improvement Act we are introducing today will make additional improvements to the law. It will enshrine into law the presumption of openness that the President laid out on his first day in office. He said, ``The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' Our bipartisan legislation will require that Federal agencies consider the public interest in the disclosure of government information before invoking a FOIA exemption. It will provide additional independence for the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, created by the OPEN Government Act in 2007, and reduce the overuse of Exemption 5 to withhold information by adding a public interest balancing test. There has been significant progress in improving the FOIA process over the years, but I am concerned that the growing trend towards relying upon FOIA exemptions to withhold large swaths of government information is hindering the public's right to know. According to the OpenTheGovernment.org 2013 Secrecy Report, Federal agencies used Exemption 5 more than 79,000 times in 2012--an incredible 41 percent increase from the previous year. This does not exemplify the presumption of openness that we expect from our Government, and that is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing the FOIA Improvement Act today. Both Democrats and Republicans understand that a commitment to transparency is a commitment to the American values of openness and accountability, and to the public's right to know what their government is doing. I value the strong partnership that I have formed with Senator Cornyn on open government matters. Ensuring an open government should be a nonpartisan issue, and I invite all Members to support the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join with several Democratic Senators to reintroduce the DISCLOSE Act, renewing--for the third time--our fight to curtail some of the worst abuses resulting from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Republicans mounted filibusters of this commonsense bill when it was first introduced in 2010 and then again when it was reintroduced in 2012. This was the case even though Republicans claim to support disclosure. Earlier this month, I chaired a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to repair the damage done by Citizens United and a series of other flawed Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws. At this hearing, even Floyd Abrams, the noted First Amendment attorney who testified against the proposed amendment argued that he supported greater disclosure. And yet, Republicans have already filibustered this bill twice and are likely to continue filibustering it. I am hoping that Republicans have come to their senses after seeing how Citizens United has allowed unlimited, undisclosed money to pollute our elections. Since that decision, our elections have been defined by corporations and billionaires spending vast amounts of secret money to influence elections. In the 2012 election cycle, spending from undisclosed sources exceeded $310 million, a massive increase from the $69 million from undisclosed sources in the previous presidential election cycle in 2008. And this number will only increase. No one doubts that. While states like Vermont and Congress continue their heavy lift of passing a constitutional amendment to address the flawed Supreme Court decisions that have gutted our campaign finance laws, the Senate can take more immediate action today. By passing the DISCLOSE Act, we can restore transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a crucial step toward restoring the ability of Vermonters and all American voters to be able to speak, be heard and to hear competing voices, and not be drowned out by powerful corporate interests. We know disclosure laws can work because they do work for individual Americans donating directly to political campaigns. When you or I give money directly to a political candidate, our donation is not hidden. It is publicly disclosed. Yet those who oppose the DISCLOSE Act are standing up for special rights for corporations and wealthy donors that you and I do not have. Recently, the Washington Post documented a trend whereby politically active organizations manipulate and use their tax-exempt status to keep its donor lists private even though these organizations are pouring millions of dollars of undisclosed money into our elections. The increase of secret money can only harm our political process. The DISCLOSE Act would fix this problem. This bill would require any organization spending money on political ads, including 501(c)(4)s and Super PACs, to disclose donors who had given $10,000 or more. This is a commonsense transparency measure that everyone should be willing to support. When the race is on for secret money and election campaigns are won or lost by who can collect the largest amount of unaccountable, secret donations, it puts at risk government of, by and for the people. In a democracy, our ballots should be secret not massive corporate campaign contributions. Disclosure of who is paying for election ads should not be kept secret from the public. Vermont is a small state. It would not take more than a tiny fraction of the corporate money flooding the airwaves in other states to outspend all of our local candidates combined. I know that the people of Vermont, like all Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending. I hope that Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable corporate campaign spending will join us to take up this important legislation. I hope Republican Senators will let us vote on the DISCLOSE Act and help us take an important step to ensure the ability of every American to be heard and to be able to meaningfully participate in free and fair elections.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, is one of our Nation's most important laws, established to give Americans greater access to their government and protect their ability to hold government accountable. In keeping with my commitment to support this law and expand its mission, today I join with Senator John Cornyn to introduce bipartisan legislation that will improve the implementation of FOIA. I have sought for decades to make our government more open and transparent. Senator Cornyn has been an important partner in these efforts, and our collaboration has resulted in the enactment of several improvements to FOIA: the OPEN Government Act, the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade; the OPEN FOIA Act, which increased the transparency of legislative exemptions to FOIA; and the Faster FOIA Act, which responded to the concerns of FOIA requestors and addressed agency delays in processing requests. The FOIA Improvement Act we are introducing today will make additional improvements to the law. It will enshrine into law the presumption of openness that the President laid out on his first day in office. He said, ``The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' Our bipartisan legislation will require that Federal agencies consider the public interest in the disclosure of government information before invoking a FOIA exemption. It will provide additional independence for the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, created by the OPEN Government Act in 2007, and reduce the overuse of Exemption 5 to withhold information by adding a public interest balancing test. There has been significant progress in improving the FOIA process over the years, but I am concerned that the growing trend towards relying upon FOIA exemptions to withhold large swaths of government information is hindering the public's right to know. According to the OpenTheGovernment.org 2013 Secrecy Report, Federal agencies used Exemption 5 more than 79,000 times in 2012--an incredible 41 percent increase from the previous year. This does not exemplify the presumption of openness that we expect from our Government, and that is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing the FOIA Improvement Act today. Both Democrats and Republicans understand that a commitment to transparency is a commitment to the American values of openness and accountability, and to the public's right to know what their government is doing. I value the strong partnership that I have formed with Senator Cornyn on open government matters. Ensuring an open government should be a nonpartisan issue, and I invite all Members to support the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, next month Col. Michael Colburn, who is the director of the U.S. Marine Band, will retire after nearly 30 years with this history-rich and venerated organization. We like the Marine Band, of course. My son is a Marine. But it is especially nice because Colonel Colburn is a native Vermonter, and his appreciation for the band, known worldwide as ``The President's Own,'' began decades ago when the then-12-year-old euphonium-playing St. Albans native met a principal in the band while at summer band camp in Vermont. In 1987, Colonel Colburn joined ``The President's Own'' as a euphonium player and ultimately became the band's director, a post he has held for the last decade. His tenure has taken him around the world and back again. He has played for Presidents and foreign dignitaries, at state dinners and inaugurations and regular performances that thousands have witnessed in Washington at the Marine Barracks during the weekly parades. I have represented the Green Mountain State of Vermont in this Chamber longer than anyone in the history of our State. So you can imagine my enthusiasm when I see a Vermonter here in Washington and all the more so when I have the opportunity of capturing an image such as this, of Colonel Colburn conducting ``The President's Own'' during the January 2013 inauguration of President Obama. I was standing up on the stand when the President was being inaugurated and took that picture of Colonel Colburn. Of course, the whole world was watching the Colonel and watching the President. I join with the proud citizens of Vermont and the people of a grateful nation in thanking Colonel Colburn for his service and his many, many memorable performances conducting ``The President's Own,'' following in the footsteps of John Philip Sousa and making his own giant footsteps for others to follow. I wish him the very best as he begins the next chapter of his career as the director of bands at the University of Indianapolis. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an interview with Colonel Colburn published in the Marine Corps Times in February.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the judges that fill the two Federal district court seats in my home State have an extraordinary impact on the lives of Vermonters. So when I learned that one of my dearest friends, Judge William Sessions, was to take senior status after 18 years of distinguished service on the Vermont district court, I took seriously my responsibility to act swiftly to identify a candidate to recommend to President Obama for nomination. I worked with Senator Sanders, Representative Welch, and the Vermont Bar Association to convene a nonpartisan merit commission to find highly qualified candidates. So I again thank the nine members of the nonpartisan Vermont Judicial Selection Commission, under the leadership of Peter Van Oot, for the time, effort, and insight they invested in the screening process. We are fortunate in our small State of Vermont to have so many highly qualified lawyers in the field of applicants willing to serve in such a demanding post. There were a number of highly qualified people. After being vetted and recommended to me by the commission, I recommended Justice Geoffrey Crawford to President Obama. I told the President I was not surprised that after the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary finished its vetting, they gave him their highest rating of unanimously well qualified. Justice Crawford has significant criminal and civil experience. He was a Vermont trial court judge for 11 years and recently became an Associate Justice on the Vermont Supreme Court. He formerly was a partner in a Burlington law firm. Justice Crawford earned his B.A., cum laude, from Yale University and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School. Following law school he served as a law clerk to Judge Albert Coffrin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. I did not know Justice Crawford personally before this process, but when I did meet him I was struck by his brilliance, compassion, and humility. Justice Crawford earned a stellar reputation in Vermont's legal community, and also from those who had appeared before him, as a careful jurist who understands the effects that legal rulings have on people's lives. I have no doubt that once confirmed he will bring that same understanding and impartiality to the Federal bench. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported Justice Crawford's nomination unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate. Justice Crawford, like the three other nominees we will vote on today, has been nominated to fill an emergency vacancy. He is a qualified uncontroversial nominee with the full support of his home state Senators. He and the three other nominees deserve to be confirmed without delay. I thank the majority leader for bringing these nominations up for a vote and urge Senators to vote to defeat these filibusters and get these nominees working for the American people in courthouses around the Nation. Justice Geoffrey Crawford will serve Vermont well as a Federal district judge, and I look forward to his confirmation. Madam President, I don't see anyone else at the moment, so I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nominations of three judicial nominees to serve on the U.S. districts courts: Judge Salvador Mendoza, to serve in the Eastern District of Washington, Staci Yandle, to fill an emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Illinois, and Judge Darrin Gayles, to fill an emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Florida. Each of these nominees has the support of their home State Senators, and each was reported over a month ago with unanimous or nearly unanimous approval of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. None of these qualified nominees deserved to be filibustered yesterday, and should be confirmed without delay. The confirmation of these nominees will be historic milestones for diversity on the Federal bench. If confirmed, Judge Mendoza would be the first Latino to serve on the Federal bench in the Eastern District of Washington. The confirmation of Staci Yandle would make her the first African-American woman ever to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois, as well as the first openly gay Federal judge to serve in Illinois. And, if confirmed, Judge Gayles would be the first openly gay African-American man judge to ever serve on the Federal bench. It is important that the Federal bench reflects the diversity of the American people, and we should be proud of the progress we are making today. Judge Salvador Mendoza has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Judge Mendoza has served since 2013 as a Washington State superior court judge in Benton and Franklin Counties. He previously served as a judge pro tempore in Benton and Franklin Counties from 2002 to 2013. In 2002, he helped start the Benton-Franklin Juvenile Drug Court program, a treatment-based program intended to be an alternative to full criminal prosecution. Before his time as a judge, he worked in private practice as the president and managing attorney of Mendoza and Johnson, P.S. from 2002 to 2013. He served as vice president at Haney and Mendoza, P.S. from 1999 to 2002. After graduating from law school, he served as assistant attorney general in the Washington State Attorney General's Office from 1997 to 1998, and as the deputy prosecuting attorney in the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office from 1998 to 1999. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably with near-unanimous bipartisan support to the full Senate on April 3, 2014. Staci Yandle has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Staci Yandle has worked since 2007 in private practice as a sole practitioner, and since 2010 as counsel for the Farrise Firm P.C. She previously served as a partner at The Rex Carr Law Firm from 2003 to 2007 and as an associate at Carr, Korein, Schlichter, Kunin, Montroy, Glass & Bogard from 1987 to 2003. She worked as an adjunct professor at the St. Louis University School of Law from 1991 to 2000, teaching courses in trial advocacy and civil practice. From 1992 to 1996, she served as a member of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Staci Yandle has been active in her community, providing pro bono legal services to indigent clients on issues ranging from tenant disputes to personal injury claims. She has the support of her home State Senators, Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination favorably with near-unanimous bipartisan support to the full Senate on April 3, 2014. Judge Darrin Gayles has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He has served since 2011 as a Florida State judge on the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, and previously served as a county judge in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida from 2004 to 2011. Prior to becoming a judge, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida from 1999 to 2004, an assistant district counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1997 to 1999, and as an assistant State attorney in the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office from 1993 to 1997. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination by voice vote to the full Senate on May 8, 2014. I commend the majority leader for bringing the nominations of these three nominees up for a vote. With yesterday's cloture votes, the Senate has voted on cloture for judicial nominees 50 times so far this year. This is more than all the cloture votes on judicial nominees during the two preceding administrations combined. This level of partisanship is meritless, and only serves to weaken the Federal courts and the American justice system. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting to confirm these qualified nominees, and allow them to get to work for the American people. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr President, in recent months, we have seen an outpouring of public support for maintaining meaningful open Internet rules. Americans are speaking loud and clear--they want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider. I agree, which is why today I am proud to join my friend in the House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission FCC, to ban pay-to-play deals on the Internet. Since FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler began a proceeding to consider new open Internet rules, nearly 300,000 Americans have commented on his proposal. They are concerned that the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications in order to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in the online world. A pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out their competitors. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry that its access to consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet companies should have the same protections that allowed a company like Vermont's Dealer.com to become a thriving success. Such arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. If the FCC clears the way for pay-to-play deals, whole swaths of the Internet could become functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today and we must act to ensure that it does not come to pass. The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, which I am introducing with Congresswoman Matsui today, is straightforward. It requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open Internet rules as an excuse for the FCC to not take any action that will protect consumers and innovators. The FCC should act now to ban these deals. I appreciate that Chairman Wheeler is asking whether they should be banned outright in the current open Internet proceeding. The overwhelming response from the American people is that they should be. The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates outside of the Beltway, and with good reason--most Americans interact with the Internet as part of their daily lives. The issue of how we protect and promote an open Internet is crucial to our culture and our economy. I want to make sure that stakeholders from outside of Washington have an opportunity to show policymakers and regulators here that their decisions will have a significant impact throughout the country. That is why I am holding a Judiciary Committee field hearing on July 1 at the University of Vermont. There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue. I urge the Senate to pass this constructive legislative response. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr President, in recent months, we have seen an outpouring of public support for maintaining meaningful open Internet rules. Americans are speaking loud and clear--they want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider. I agree, which is why today I am proud to join my friend in the House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission FCC, to ban pay-to-play deals on the Internet. Since FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler began a proceeding to consider new open Internet rules, nearly 300,000 Americans have commented on his proposal. They are concerned that the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications in order to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in the online world. A pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out their competitors. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry that its access to consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet companies should have the same protections that allowed a company like Vermont's Dealer.com to become a thriving success. Such arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. If the FCC clears the way for pay-to-play deals, whole swaths of the Internet could become functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today and we must act to ensure that it does not come to pass. The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, which I am introducing with Congresswoman Matsui today, is straightforward. It requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open Internet rules as an excuse for the FCC to not take any action that will protect consumers and innovators. The FCC should act now to ban these deals. I appreciate that Chairman Wheeler is asking whether they should be banned outright in the current open Internet proceeding. The overwhelming response from the American people is that they should be. The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates outside of the Beltway, and with good reason--most Americans interact with the Internet as part of their daily lives. The issue of how we protect and promote an open Internet is crucial to our culture and our economy. I want to make sure that stakeholders from outside of Washington have an opportunity to show policymakers and regulators here that their decisions will have a significant impact throughout the country. That is why I am holding a Judiciary Committee field hearing on July 1 at the University of Vermont. There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue. I urge the Senate to pass this constructive legislative response. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, of the many global challenges we face, protecting the environment should find support in all corners of the world. Similarly, we should support those who work on behalf of the environment. Unfortunately, in some countries, environmental activists are threatened and imprisoned. Such is the case in Russia, where, in the shadow of the Olympic Games in Sochi this past winter, Suren Gazaryan and Evgeny Vitishko were ruthlessly harassed by government officials for their investigative work on the large-scale construction of Olympic facilities that caused significant environmental damage to protected lands. Both were convicted in 2012 of damaging a fence in a forest near the city of Krasnodar, a charge they both deny, and sentenced to 3 years in a labor camp, suspended. Mr. Gazaryan, a recipient of the prestigious 2014 Goldman Prize for grassroots efforts to protect and enhance the environment, has sought political asylum in neighboring Estonia. Evgeny Vitishko, however, was not fortunate enough to escape and is still paying the price for his work. On February 12, a Russian judge, upholding a decision that Mr. Vitishko violated a curfew clause in his parole agreement, ordered him to serve his 3-year prison sentence. Perhaps not coincidentally, this came as he and his organization, Environmental Watch of the North Caucasus, were preparing to release a report on the damaging effects of construction in Sochi. I want other Senators to know of Mr. Gazaryan and Mr. Vitishko, and hope that calling attention to them and their work might cause the Russian authorities to recognize that their responsibility is to uphold the law and protect the environment on behalf of the Russian people, not to persecute Russian citizens who have the courage to do so themselves.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on June 12, 1967, during a period of significant political and racial tension in our Nation, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia that overturned laws banning interracial marriage. This decision ushered in a transformative moment in American history. As we approach the first anniversary of another landmark Supreme Court decision in the Windsor case, we should remember the foundational work that was laid when the Supreme Court came together nearly 50 years ago to uphold the civil rights of all Americans to marry the person they love. In writing for the majority in Loving, Chief Justice Earl Warren declared ``the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.'' My wife Marcelle and I had been married just 5 years at the time, and on that June day, we were overwhelmed with pride and joy for the many couples affected by this historic decision. Now married for over 50 years, I cannot bear to imagine a world where I would have been prohibited from marrying the person I love because of something beyond my control. As I reflect on the landmark Loving decision, I am filled with pride for my home State. Throughout history, Vermont has taken a leadership role in America's journey to build a more just society. Vermont was the first State in the Union to outlaw slavery, and Vermonters offered shelter to runaway slaves seeking refuge while in transit to Canada-- serving as one of the last stops on the Underground Railroad. Vermont was also the first to adopt universal manhood suffrage, regardless of property ownership. It is because of this history that it is not surprising that Vermont has been at the forefront of our Nation's march toward marriage equality: Vermont was the first State to provide civil unions back in 2000, and on April 7, 2009, Vermont once again led the Nation by granting marriage equality for the first time through democratically elected officials on a bipartisan basis instead of through the courts. This is not to say that it was easy. The initial move toward civil unions fomented heated debate among Vermonters and throughout the Nation. But several courageous leaders, such as the late Republican U.S. Senator from Vermont Bob Stafford, showed us the way, and their advocacy for equality was powerfully moving. Like many Vermonters, I listened to advocates, friends, and neighbors who reminded me that love and commitment are values to encourage and not to fear. I continue to be inspired by the inclusive example set by Vermont. Five years ago Vermont's State Legislature passed the Marriage Equality Act, which provided marriage equality for all Vermonters. Since then, more than 3,700 same-sex couples have married in the State of Vermont, 19 States and the District of Columbia have marriage equality, and the Supreme Court has decided a landmark case on the issue of same-sex marriage. One year ago this month, the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of Federal law as ``only a legal union between one man and one woman.'' The Court concluded that the law deprived couples of equal liberty as protected by our fifth amendment. All Americans deserve equal justice under the law, and Marcelle and I celebrated this important decision, which honored the Loving decision and pushed the Nation farther on its path toward equality. In 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision, Mildred Loving reflected on her life and weighed in on the issue of marriage equality. She said: Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the `wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have made civil rights a priority of our Committee's agenda and a priority in the Senate. I often hear from those who think that the struggle for civil rights is over--that this issue is one for the history books. If only that were true. If only every American could marry the love of their life and have that union recognized. If only hate groups stopped targeting communities based on their sexual orientation, race, religion, or national origin. If only racial discrimination in voting was a thing of the past, but it is not. We must keep up the fight on our path toward a more perfect union. This month we celebrate and honor the real love behind both the Loving and Windsor decisions. Their fight to be with the one they loved spans decades, but their lessons stand the test of time. They are the kinds of Supreme Court rulings that future generations will point to when they consider the Supreme Court's most notable decisions. The march toward equality must and will continue until all individuals-- regardless of sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, race, ethnicity, religion, or disability--are protected and respected, equally, under our laws.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, tomorrow, the Senate will vote to proceed to a bill that I am proud to cosponsor, to allow students to refinance their student loans at lower interest rates. We must take this commonsense approach to allow those with student loans to take advantage of historically low interest rates. It should go without saying that student loan costs should not rise so high that students cannot repay. Yet in recent years, average college tuition rates have climbed faster than inflation, far outpacing student financial aid. Since 1985, the cost of attending college has risen by 559 percent, and last school year alone, instate tuition and fees at public 4-year institutions were on average 8.3 percent higher than in the previous year. Debt caused by student loans has surpassed the level of credit card debt in the United States. In Vermont, there are 99,000 people with Federal student loans representing more than $2 billion in debt. This not only affects those borrowers and their families, but it has a devastating effect on the economy as a whole--particularly in the housing market. Student loan debt is preventing many would-be first- time home buyers from saving enough to afford a down payment. High student loan debt, combined with the housing lending climate, has left many unable to secure a mortgage. Experts are worried that the high level of student loan debt is one of the reasons the housing market has been slow to recover. This bill would help those suffering with the burden of student loan debt by offering them the opportunity to refinance at lower interest rates. We offer refinancing options to businesses, homeowners, and even local governments. These options should be available to students, too. The legislation would help roughly 25 million borrowers keep up with their student loan payments by allowing them to refinance at the same rates that new borrowers receive. Combined with the Executive action announced this week by President Obama to give more students the ability to cap monthly payments, this bill is an important step toward relieving the student debt burden so many Americans face. I regularly hear from Vermonters about their struggles to afford a college education, and their concerns about student loan debt after they graduate. Many students are forced to take on significant debt, and too often are not able to complete college because of soaring costs. For those students who do go on to graduate, record student loan debt has made getting ahead in today's job market an insurmountable challenge for some students. Students who might otherwise choose to work in the public sector or other historically lower paying jobs like primary health care or teaching professions must make professional choices based solely on their level of debt. Unfortunately, along with the pressure from student loan debt has come an increase in default rates among borrowers, which will affect a student's financial stability for decades. I have always firmly believed in the importance of a college education. I was the first Leahy in my family to graduate from college. Every young person should have the chance to pursue higher education. Education is a path out of poverty, a road to personal growth, and an access ramp to professional accomplishment and economic security. Everyone wins when access to education expands. Each opportunity for a young American to earn a college education is also an opportunity for the Nation's future. Our country's ability to compete in the global marketplace in the future depends on our children's ability to finance their education. This does not need to be a partisan issue and should be one where we can find widespread agreement. I urge every Senator to help us move ahead to support our students, their futures, and our country's future. This issue deserves to be debated in the Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when Vermonters contemplate the history of our great State, many think fondly of our former State archivist, Gregory Sanford. With his flowing gray beard and quick wit, Gregory is a noted scholar on all things relating to Vermont's history and culture. Gregory retired from his post as the Vermont State archivist in 2012. The appreciation of the extent of Gregory's intellect and influence is not limited to Vermonters. His impressive career was recently chronicled in Archival Outlook, a publication of the Society of American Archivists. Throughout his career, Gregory Sanford served as a critical resource for journalists, legislators, town moderators, and anyone else searching to put today's events into historical context. He brought excitement to the daunting but essential task of preserving State records. It was his vision, passion, and ability to anticipate the myriad of ways that technology would alter the job of State archivist that set Gregory Sanford apart. As the Archival Outlook piece notes, Gregory spent his career imagining innovative solutions to difficult problems with limited resources. During his years as State archivist, Gregory was also an ambitious author who worked to explain how our laws affect the lives of everyday Vermonters, often invoking colorful analogies to do so. His regular column, ``Voices from the Vault,'' never lacked for detail or readership. In short, Gregory brought history to life, and worked tirelessly to preserve it, which is precisely why this profile of Gregory Sanford is entitled, ``The Sense of Wonder.'' My State of Vermont is so fortunate for his many contributions, and I ask unanimous consent that the Archival Outlook article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Grassley to introduce legislation to reauthorize for another 5 years expiring provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA. This law provides satellite television carriers with the necessary rights to retransmit distant broadcast television programming to households that are otherwise unable to receive local signal over- the-air. 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 are currently receiving. The compulsory copyright license system for satellite television has been successful in promoting competition in the video marketplace. Consumers across the country benefit from having nationwide competitors to cable. Rural consumers, including many in Vermont, rely on a healthy satellite industry that is able to provide service to customers where cable is unable to reach. Congress has helped to facilitate the growth of the satellite industry by providing it with a mechanism to clear the rights to broadcast television content, which remains among the most popular. Senator Grassley and I are continuing what has always been a bipartisan partnership on satellite television legislation. I worked with Senator Hatch in 1999 to establish a permanent license allowing satellite carriers to retransmit local television content to consumers. That license has had an important impact on competition in the video market. In 2010, I worked with Senator Sessions on STELA. Satellite television legislation should never be partisan--it should be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together and demonstrate to the American people that we can act responsibly and prevent serious disruption to consumers. The bill we are introducing today is a narrow approach. We are extending the current system for another 5 years, while also making some minor technical corrections to the existing statutes. This bill may not please all stakeholders. Some would like Congress to use this legislation as a vehicle to enact significant changes to the current system that governs the relationship between broadcast television stations and distributors. Others would prefer that Congress not act at all and simply allow this license to expire. My focus is on the consumers who stand to lose access to broadcast television content in the event that Congress is unable to pass a bill by the end of the year. This bill will ensure that they are not left in the dark come December 31. Our legislation is one half of what the Senate will have to do in order to ensure that 1.5 million consumers are able to maintain the broadcast television signals that they are currently receiving. I look forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller as we work to fit the necessary Copyright and Communications Act provisions of this bill together. I also look forward to working with our counterparts in the House in order to protect the consumers relying on this license. I urge the Senate to support extending STELA for another 5 years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Grassley to introduce legislation to reauthorize for another 5 years expiring provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA. This law provides satellite television carriers with the necessary rights to retransmit distant broadcast television programming to households that are otherwise unable to receive local signal over- the-air. 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 are currently receiving. The compulsory copyright license system for satellite television has been successful in promoting competition in the video marketplace. Consumers across the country benefit from having nationwide competitors to cable. Rural consumers, including many in Vermont, rely on a healthy satellite industry that is able to provide service to customers where cable is unable to reach. Congress has helped to facilitate the growth of the satellite industry by providing it with a mechanism to clear the rights to broadcast television content, which remains among the most popular. Senator Grassley and I are continuing what has always been a bipartisan partnership on satellite television legislation. I worked with Senator Hatch in 1999 to establish a permanent license allowing satellite carriers to retransmit local television content to consumers. That license has had an important impact on competition in the video market. In 2010, I worked with Senator Sessions on STELA. Satellite television legislation should never be partisan--it should be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together and demonstrate to the American people that we can act responsibly and prevent serious disruption to consumers. The bill we are introducing today is a narrow approach. We are extending the current system for another 5 years, while also making some minor technical corrections to the existing statutes. This bill may not please all stakeholders. Some would like Congress to use this legislation as a vehicle to enact significant changes to the current system that governs the relationship between broadcast television stations and distributors. Others would prefer that Congress not act at all and simply allow this license to expire. My focus is on the consumers who stand to lose access to broadcast television content in the event that Congress is unable to pass a bill by the end of the year. This bill will ensure that they are not left in the dark come December 31. Our legislation is one half of what the Senate will have to do in order to ensure that 1.5 million consumers are able to maintain the broadcast television signals that they are currently receiving. I look forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller as we work to fit the necessary Copyright and Communications Act provisions of this bill together. I also look forward to working with our counterparts in the House in order to protect the consumers relying on this license. I urge the Senate to support extending STELA for another 5 years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.