Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, the Nation celebrates the 226th anniversary of the Constitution's signing. That moment was a decision to create a Federal Government with the power to address national problems. During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates debated hundreds of issues and proposals before crafting the original version of the Constitution. Even then, though, the true genius of their charter was article V, which provided for later amendments--because the Founding generation knew that they did not have all the answers and they had faith in future generations to perfect their charter and ``form a more perfect Union.'' And so, step by step, we have. ``We the People'' have shown a continuing concern for the sacred right to vote. And we have amended the Constitution six times to expand that right. For over 2 centuries, the Constitution has allowed America to flourish and adapt to new challenges. Since the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Constitution has been amended 17 times. Our current version of the Constitution reflects not just the Founders original crafting, but also the need for subsequent amendments. Today is a good day to remind the American people that when we pledge to support the Constitution, we must pledge our support for the whole Constitution, and not just those specific provisions and amendments that we favor or find convenient to uphold. Too often, I have heard people who profess to support the original meaning of the Constitution, ignore the subsequent amendments that inform and alter that original meaning. Some even express strong support for specific amendments, but then ignore others. That is not how our charter functions. It is not a menu that you can pick and choose from. The whole Constitution is what we celebrate today. This past June, when the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Voting Rights Act, I noticed that there was surprisingly little discussion of the fundamental importance of the Reconstruction Amendments. After the Civil War, we transformed our founding charter into one that embraced equal rights and human dignity by abolishing slavery, guaranteeing equal protection of the law for all Americans, and prohibiting racial barriers to the right to vote. I find it alarming that many who claim to support and honor the Constitution conveniently ignore these critical amendments that made our Nation a more perfect one after the Civil War. There are perhaps no two amendments that have played a larger role in securing liberty and equality for all Americans than the 14th and 15th Amendments. Without the 14th Amendment we would still have ``separate but equal'' treatment of Americans and State-sanctioned gender discrimination. Without the 15th Amendment, minorities would continue to be excluded from fully participating in our democracy. The importance of these amendments was clear upon passage. President Ulysses S. Grant in 1870 signed a bill into law that created the United States Department of Justice to help facilitate the enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments. But the Justice Department does not have sole responsibility for supporting and upholding the 14th and 15th Amendments. Congress, as provided by the text of the Amendments, has an even greater role in enforcing the mandates of those Amendments. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states that: ``The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'' Section 2 of the 15th Amendment states that: ``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' It is clear that the Constitution has placed the burden on Congress to ensure that all Americans are entitled to the freedoms and rights guaranteed by these two amendments. It is for this reason that Congress must respond to the recent Supreme Court decision severely undercutting the Voting Rights Act by passing legislation that protects against racial discrimination in voting. It is our duty and constitutional obligation to not waver from the path of greater political inclusion that we have set for the Nation through our bipartisan support of the Voting Rights Act. I hope that Congress will work with me so that we can provide the protections guaranteed by these two amendments for all Americans. On this day, as we commemorate the signing of the Constitution of the United States of America 226 years ago, I hope that Congress will be reminded of its obligation not only to periodically read the words of our founding charter, but to act and to give meaning to those words. I look forward to working with fellow Senators to reinvigorate the Voting Rights Act this fall to uphold our constitutional values and ensure that every American enjoys the right to vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in 1940, Congress officially recognized the values inherent in United States citizenship by enacting legislation to designate a day of commemoration. At that time, the third Sunday in May was designated ``I Am an American Day.'' In 1952, Congress passed new legislation to move the commemoration date to September 17, the date in 1787 the Constitution was signed. September 17 became known as Citizenship Day, a day that we recognize today. Today's celebration of the values represented by United States citizenship represents also a celebration of our democracy. In Vermont, United States Federal District Court Judge William Sessions will conduct a naturalization ceremony today. Once again the President will issue a proclamation to honor the principles of what it means to be an American. I am proud to join the President in the official recognition of the citizenship process and all it represents. Last week, as Americans remembered and reflected upon the tragedy of September 11, 2001, I was reminded of how I recognized that terrible day on its 1-year anniversary. With Judge William Sessions, on September 11, 2002, we convened a naturalization ceremony in Vermont's historic State House. I was honored to speak at that ceremony and at others in the years following. These celebrations, in which we welcome new Americans, reflect America's resiliency and ongoing renewal. They also serve as an emotional reminder to me what it means to be part of this country. When we say to those who aspire to be Americans that we welcome you regardless of religion, ethnicity, native language, or culture, we honor the principles upon which America was founded, and which Americans spanning generations have given so much to defend. This August, I was privileged to be invited to participate in a naturalization ceremony by the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Vermont, Christina Reiss. I was moved then, as I am at every naturalization ceremony I attend, by how uplifting and hopeful this process is for those who have earned it and for those including myself who witness it. In June, 68 Senators voted to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The Senate and so many Americans--and aspiring Americans--wait with optimism and hopefulness for the House of Representatives to act. The core of the Senate's legislation was the opportunity for many millions of undocumented people living in the United States to enter the lawful immigration system, and to one day become citizens. The Senate recognized that the time for action is now and in acting, upheld the sacred values we celebrate today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on August 16, I had the honor of attending a naturalization ceremony at the Ethan Allen Homestead Museum in Burlington, VT, conducted by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, Christina Reiss. This naturalization ceremony was especially timely as the Senate had in June voted strongly in favor of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. I am proud of the Senate's work on that legislation, and especially proud of the thorough process we had in the Judiciary Committee to give that legislation a fair and public hearing. I have attended many naturalization ceremonies over the years and never fail to come away inspired by the process and by the participants. Judge Reiss' most recent naturalization ceremony was a reminder of how meaningful American citizenship is, and of what an accomplishment it is for those who earn it. Judge Reiss invited me to address the new Americans, but I was particularly moved by her remarks to the 10 new Americans who were naturalized as citizens of the United States that day. Judge Reiss delivered a positive, uplifting, and powerful message to these men and women about what it means to be an American. Her message to them was one of hope. It was also a challenge to be the transformative force that so many immigrants have been for America throughout our history. Judge Reiss encouraged their civic participation and commitment to our constitutional values. She called upon them to be full participants in our democracy, to exercise their rights and their responsibilities by voting, and to embrace the rule of law. And Judge Reiss' remarks were a warm Vermont welcome to the 10 new citizens who chose to make Vermont their home. As I listened to Judge Reiss deliver her remarks, I reflected on my own family's history of immigration and the experience of my wife Marcelle's mother and father who became citizens and made Vermont their home. I hope the message they heard when they swore the oath to become citizens was as inspirational as the one Judge Reiss delivered this summer in Vermont. And I hope the 10 new American citizens we welcomed together on August 16 will take her words to heart as they begin this new chapter in their lives. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Judge Reiss' remarks of August 16, 2013, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, two weeks ago, thousands of people gathered on the National Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his historic ``I Have a Dream'' speech. That remarkable moment in this Nation's history was a peaceful day of unity and we rightfully remember the inspiring words of Dr. King. We are reminded this week of just how quickly that hope and positive signs of progress were challenged by a stunning act of violence. Just a few days after Dr. King inspired a nation with his dream for his four children, four other children in Birmingham were killed at their church because of the color of their skin. On September 15, 1963, a bomb was planted by members of the Ku Klux Klan at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. Addie Mae Collins, 14, Denise McNair, 11, Carole Robertson, 14, and Cynthia Wesley, 14, were innocent victims of racial hatred. The inhumanity of those who conspired and killed children in a church may seem unimaginable in our Nation today, but, as Colbert King of the Washington Post noted recently, ``Before al-Qaeda, there was the Ku Klux Klan.'' We celebrate the significant strides we have made with determined efforts in forging a more just and equal America since the KKK's reign of terror, and yet we cannot forget that these events occurred just days after the March on Washington. It occurred in the lifetime of 88 of 100 members of this Senate body. It is our recent history, not ancient history. The tragic deaths of those four little girls, along with the other shining examples of bravery, patriotism and resolve during the Civil Rights movement, catalyzed passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These laws helped to transform our Nation and ensure that our most basic promises to our citizens are more than just words on a page, honored only in their breach. The inspiring possibilities described so eloquently by Dr. King, and the depravity and horror of the Birmingham church bombing just weeks later, reveal an important lesson about our history. The path to progress in our Democracy is winding, and sometimes very, very difficult. We know from our shared experience that we cannot be the Nation that we strive to be by setting the dial on autopilot and assuming that all will be well. There are so many reminders of the winding path to progress, and recently we experienced a considerable detour. Three months ago, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that the coverage provision of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Section 5, often called the ``heart of the Voting Rights Act,'' provided a remedy for unconstitutional discrimination in voting by requiring jurisdictions with the worst histories of discrimination to ``preclear'' all voting changes before they could take effect. The remedy is both necessary and important because it stops the discriminatory voting practice before our fellow Americans' rights are violated. By striking down the coverage provision for Section 5, the Supreme Court's ruling leaves this vital protection unenforceable. While certain barriers to participation have been eliminated, we continue to see discriminatory voting measures such as arbitrary registration rules, polling-place manipulation, voter purges, challenges or other devices to deny access to the ballot, as well as vote dilution tactics. Since the Court's recent decision in Shelby County, several states have already decided to impose new barriers to voting, thereby reversing the gains that we have made through the last five decades. These include measures taken by Texas, North Carolina, and Florida to undermine their citizens' right to vote and to participate in our democracy. But on this day, when we reflect on the contributions of our children to the cause of liberty, perhaps no story is more worth retelling than the story of the Prairie View A&M students. It is a story that bridges the past with both the present and the future. Students from that historically black university have been fighting for their voting rights for more than four decades now, and if not for the Voting Rights Act, many of these students would have been denied their fundamental right to vote. The history is well-documented in a recent Houston Chronicle article by Renee Lee. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. In the 1970s, the Justice Department filed an action against Waller County and its state officials for using a questionnaire to deny Prairie View students the right to vote. In 1992, 19 students were indicted for improperly voting, which ultimately led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that authorized college students to register and vote in communities where they live while at school. In 2004, the NAACP and four Prairie View students filed a federal case after the county district attorney tried to enforce residency requirements that would keep students from voting. A Section 5 enforcement suit was filed by civil rights organizations around the same time after county officials shortened the early voting period at the campus in violation of Section 5. This effort to narrow student participation came at a time when a student leader sought elective office. Testimony about this recent chapter at Prairie View A&M was submitted to Congress in support of the 2006 Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. It was compelling evidence that voting discrimination persists in that community and that even a Supreme Court ruling was not sufficient protection. Two years after the reauthorization of Section 5, in 2008, nearly 1,000 Prairie View students marched in protest for the lack of an early voting place on campus. The county had reduced the number of early voting polling sites from six to one, requiring students to walk miles to the nearest polling location. If you did not know the long and tortured history of the schemes to block Prairie View A&M voters from their constitutionally protected rights, moving a polling place may seem like merely a matter of administrative convenience, but in voting, both history and context matter. The Justice Department under Attorney General Michael Mukasey ultimately entered into a consent decree with Waller County that required officials to restore three polling sites. And now, the students from this historically black university are once again fighting to exercise their fundamental right to vote by demanding an accessible polling place. The Prairie View A&M story illustrates that sometimes discrimination starts early, and that some officials are surprisingly persistent in their efforts to erect barriers in the path of our youngest voters. The Voting Rights Act stands as a guardian against these schemes to discourage young voter participation. But now, following the Shelby County ruling, and with a college leader seeking elective office in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, local officials have borrowed the Prairie View A&M disenfranchisement playbook. There, a party chairman challenged the eligibility of Montravius King from standing for office by claiming that Mr. King did not meet the residency requirement because he lived in a dorm. The premise of this challenge is flatly contradicted by Supreme Court precedent and the decades of advocacy over Prairie View A&M students' voter access. Nevertheless, North Carolina local officials were initially able to disqualify Mr. King's candidacy. There were also indications that some in Elizabeth City, North Carolina intended to employ new voter challenge procedures in the state to prevent students from the historically black college from voting. It is perhaps no wonder, then, that part of the officials' plan also involved removing the polling place from the campus. Last week, local election board reversed itself only after a huge public outcry, but these events reveal that some things have changed and some, unfortunately, have not. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Washington Post by Mary Curtis, which documents the efforts by North Carolina's state officials to infringe on the fundamental right to vote. When President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in 1965, he declared that: ``Through this act, and its enforcement, an important instrument of freedom passes into the hands of millions of our citizens.'' We must remain vigilant and protect the rights of all Americans to exercise this fundamental right. The recent Supreme Court decision placed the burden on Congress to respond with a legislative fix. It is therefore our duty and constitutional obligation to not waver from the path of greater political inclusion that we have set for ourselves and the Nation through our bipartisan support of the Voting Rights Act. We must restore the vital protections that were weakened by the Supreme Court's ruling. We must provide additional remedies for states and counties, anywhere in the Nation, that not only have a history of discriminating against their voters, but continue to do so. We must extend the reach of these protections to states that commit serious voting rights violations in the future. We must amend the existing provisions of the Act to make those protections more effective. And we must provide greater transparency for changes to voting procedures so that voters are made aware of these changes. These are the kinds of bipartisan solutions that we should all be able to agree on. As we continue the fight to combat discrimination, we should remember the words of Dr. King. We should remember the aspirations of students like Montravius King. We should remember the contributions of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Congressional leader John Lewis. And we should remember that those four girls who died in the 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing, and who are being posthumously honored today with Congressional Gold Medals, were part of a movement that helped make America better, stronger and more just. The way to truly honor them is not by words alone but through our actions and leadership. While we commemorate the sacrifice of these four girls, our work does not end with this commemoration. Our work is ahead of us and we must act together in a bipartisan manner to protect the fundamental right to vote for all Americans. All of our children are depending on it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am proud to recognize Andrew Whiteford of Richmond, VT, owner of Andy's Dandys, maker of all-natural dog treats. Marcelle and I had the pleasure of meeting Andrew and his mother Lucie Whiteford at the bicentennial celebration for Richmond's Old Round Church, and we were so impressed with him. Andrew was born with Down syndrome, and his family started Andy's Dandys as a means for Andrew to have meaningful employment and to provide jobs for other young adults with special needs. His work is in line with the best of Vermont's spirit of service to others, and for that I ask that the article by Lynn Monty from the August 22, 2013, edition of the Burlington Free Press be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr President, I want to speak briefly about a recent development in Colombia of which many Senators may not be aware. Colombia is ranked as the second most biologically diverse country in the world. The variety of plant and animal life is staggering, which reflects its similarly diverse geography--from Amazon rainforest to glacier-covered mountains, and Caribbean and Pacific coastlines. To its credit, Colombia has an extensive system of national parks and biological reserves. I have long been convinced that as security improves in that country and long after the oil wells are depleted, its national parks and other protected areas will be among Colombia's greatest resource, attracting eco-tourists from around the world. On August 21 President Santos took an historic leap forward by doubling the size of Chiribiquete National Park, which is home to a myriad of species including jaguars and is comprised of extraordinary rock formations and dense jungle. Chiribiquete was already Colombia's largest park, and it has now become the size of Belgium. There is more that needs to be done to protect Colombia's environment, particularly from the damage caused by mining and other extractive industries which has often occurred in, or adjacent to, environmentally fragile areas or indigenous reserves. But President Santos' single stroke of the pen has done more for environmental conservation and species protection than what most heads of state do in a lifetime. I commend him for it and congratulate the Colombian people. Colombia has set an example for all of us who care about the environment and recognize that we have a responsibility to protect it for future generations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. LEAHY. I believe we should act quickly on a number of judicial vacancies. Eleven of the twelve circuit and district nominees currently pending before the Senate were reported by voice vote. All Democrats, all Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted together. There is no reason why we couldn't consider all 12 today, along with Mr. Chen. If we work together, then we can fulfill the needs of the Federal judiciary. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEAHY. I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to strongly support the nomination of Samantha Power to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations, and I commend President Obama for selecting her for this extremely important position. Born of Irish parents and raised in Ireland until she was 9, Samantha and her parents emigrated to Pennsylvania and Georgia, and she attended Yale and Harvard. She is well known for her accomplishments as a journalist during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, her Pulitzer Prize-winning book, ``A Problem from Hell,'' her leadership of the Carr Center for Human Rights, and her work as the senior director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council. Samantha is a person of extraordinary intellect, exceptional integrity, and a strong moral compass. She is willing to challenge conventional wisdom and fight for things she feels passionately about, irrespective of the forces aligned against her. Samantha is an internationalist. She believes in the indispensable role that multilateral organizations play in addressing global problems no country can solve alone--from genocide to global warming to international terrorism. At the National Security Council she also brought much-needed attention to human trafficking, protection for refugees, gay rights, and gender-based violence. But what some people may be less aware of is the depth of Samantha's devotion to the principles on which this country was founded, and which I believe is one of the key reasons the President nominated her. Samantha is an American patriot. She will not only strive to ensure that the United States leads by example at the United Nations, but that we do so in a manner that honors the Constitution and the idealism of those who wrote it, which continue to inspire people around the world. That is what people expect of the United States, and I know of no one better suited to turn that expectation into reality. At a time when the United States faces emerging threats and intensifying competition for natural resources, human rights are under assault in many countries, and millions of people live in squalor or have fled their homes due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or the effects of overpopulation and climate change on the availability of land, water and food, how effectively we use our influence globally will determine the kind of world our children and grandchildren inherit. Now is the time for the United States to embrace these challenges, and I am confident that Samantha Power will do so with every bit of conviction and energy that she has. To those Senators of either party who have at times differed with this administration over foreign policy or who may doubt the importance of U.S. support for the United Nations, I encourage those Senators to speak to Samantha directly. There is no one better informed, no one more willing to listen to other points of view, and no one more persuasive, than Samantha Power. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, each year fire destroys hundreds of vulnerable historic buildings that serve as the anchors of America's vibrant villages and downtowns. These fires leave gaping holes in Main Streets all across the country. All have destroyed property. Some have taken lives. And many could have been prevented by sprinkler systems. This upfront but costly investment could have helped prevent the loss of life, reduced property damage, and decreased federal expenditures on rebuilding efforts after these fires. To prevent fires from destroying buildings in historic downtowns and to preserve access to upper-story office, retail, and housing space in these buildings, I am introducing legislation today--the Historic Downtown Preservation and Access Act--that will create a 50 percent refundable tax credit, capped at $50,000, for the installation of fire sprinklers and elevators in older, multi-use buildings in historic downtowns. Since 2000, Vermont has had more than a dozen significant downtown fires causing tens of millions of dollars of damage and taking at least three lives. The original owners of at least 8 of these buildings were unable to rebuild--leaving the critical task of rebuilding both the building and the community to nonprofit entities that rely primarily on Federal funds. These 8 projects cost the Federal Government $20 million in Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Community Development Block-Grant building, and HOME funding. Only one of these 8 buildings had a sprinkler system. If the building owners had installed sprinklers in all eight buildings using the credit created by this legislation, the Federal Government may have saved $19.6 million, dozens of Vermonters would still be in their homes, more than a dozen businesses would have been sparred, and at least three Vermonters might still be alive today. According to the National Fire Sprinkler Association, housing units with sprinklers receive 69 percent less property damage during a fire than units without sprinklers, the death rate per fire in a home with a sprinkler is 83 percent less than in a home without a sprinkler, and firefighters are 65 percent less likely to be injured in a fire where a sprinkler is present than in a fire where a sprinkler is not present. This legislation also incentivizes the installation of elevators because too often upper story office, retail, and housing space in historic downtown buildings goes unused due to accessibility requirements. Financial cost-benefit modeling and existing federal incentives for rehabbing an historic building with sprinklers or an elevator fail to adequately incentivize building owners to install these assets. For instance, the Qualified Rehabilitation Tax Credit requires significant rehabilitation to a building equal to the value of the building before renovation in order to claim the credit. Asset depreciation tax benefits take decades for a building owner to offset the cost of a sprinkler or elevator system, and building owners who make no profit or minimal profit have no use for existing tax credits. The new refundable tax credit I am introducing today--modeled after the State of Vermont's highly successful downtown historic tax credit--would allow private entities with little tax liability and nonprofits alike to install these important property- and life-saving devices in historic buildings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, each year fire destroys hundreds of vulnerable historic buildings that serve as the anchors of America's vibrant villages and downtowns. These fires leave gaping holes in Main Streets all across the country. All have destroyed property. Some have taken lives. And many could have been prevented by sprinkler systems. This upfront but costly investment could have helped prevent the loss of life, reduced property damage, and decreased federal expenditures on rebuilding efforts after these fires. To prevent fires from destroying buildings in historic downtowns and to preserve access to upper-story office, retail, and housing space in these buildings, I am introducing legislation today--the Historic Downtown Preservation and Access Act--that will create a 50 percent refundable tax credit, capped at $50,000, for the installation of fire sprinklers and elevators in older, multi-use buildings in historic downtowns. Since 2000, Vermont has had more than a dozen significant downtown fires causing tens of millions of dollars of damage and taking at least three lives. The original owners of at least 8 of these buildings were unable to rebuild--leaving the critical task of rebuilding both the building and the community to nonprofit entities that rely primarily on Federal funds. These 8 projects cost the Federal Government $20 million in Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Community Development Block-Grant building, and HOME funding. Only one of these 8 buildings had a sprinkler system. If the building owners had installed sprinklers in all eight buildings using the credit created by this legislation, the Federal Government may have saved $19.6 million, dozens of Vermonters would still be in their homes, more than a dozen businesses would have been sparred, and at least three Vermonters might still be alive today. According to the National Fire Sprinkler Association, housing units with sprinklers receive 69 percent less property damage during a fire than units without sprinklers, the death rate per fire in a home with a sprinkler is 83 percent less than in a home without a sprinkler, and firefighters are 65 percent less likely to be injured in a fire where a sprinkler is present than in a fire where a sprinkler is not present. This legislation also incentivizes the installation of elevators because too often upper story office, retail, and housing space in historic downtown buildings goes unused due to accessibility requirements. Financial cost-benefit modeling and existing federal incentives for rehabbing an historic building with sprinklers or an elevator fail to adequately incentivize building owners to install these assets. For instance, the Qualified Rehabilitation Tax Credit requires significant rehabilitation to a building equal to the value of the building before renovation in order to claim the credit. Asset depreciation tax benefits take decades for a building owner to offset the cost of a sprinkler or elevator system, and building owners who make no profit or minimal profit have no use for existing tax credits. The new refundable tax credit I am introducing today--modeled after the State of Vermont's highly successful downtown historic tax credit--would allow private entities with little tax liability and nonprofits alike to install these important property- and life-saving devices in historic buildings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, when the 113th Congress convened following the terrible tragedy in Newtown, CT, the Judiciary Committee focused its attention on commonsense gun violence prevention legislation. The American people made their voices heard in favor of effective reforms, and many Senators went to work to find common ground. Although the Senate Judiciary Committee approved four pieces of legislation to address gun violence, two of which were reported on bipartisan votes, the Senate was unable to pass any of these measures. Like many Americans, I was disappointed at the Senate's inability to come together to make sensible changes to our laws to reduce gun violence. Today we have another chance to make progress in our efforts to reduce gun violence with the confirmation of B. Todd Jones to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Todd Jones has served as the Acting Director since September 2011. Under his leadership, the ATF has been called on to analyze the bombs left near the finish line at the Boston Marathon, to sift through burned debris in the West, TX, explosion and to trace the weapons used by the shooters in the Newtown and Aurora massacres. The ATF has played a major role in investigating some of our Nation's worst tragedies. In addition to the ATF's enforcement responsibilities, the agency is central to firearms commerce. The ATF issues permits for companies that import firearms and provide firearms to law enforcement agencies. Without a confirmed Director, the ATF's job of supporting and regulating Americans who make their living in the business of firearms is much more difficult. Yet we continue to hamper the ATF's ability to do its job. No nominee to lead the ATF has been confirmed since that position was made subject to the Senate's consent. I hope the Senate will vote to change this unfortunate pattern of obstruction. Mr. Jones is a dedicated public servant and law enforcement official. He volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps in 1983, serving on Active Duty as a Judge Advocate and Infantry officer until 1989. In 1991, he was recalled to Active Duty to command the 4th Marine Division's Military Police Company in Iraq. He also served as commanding officer of the Twin Cities Marine Reserve Unit. When Todd Jones was confirmed by this body in 1998, he became the first African- American U.S. attorney in Minnesota's history. Todd Jones has served this country honorably as a marine, a U.S. attorney, and the ATF's Acting Director. Unfortunately, there is opposition to Mr. Jones's confirmation. But in my view this opposition has little to do with his ability to lead this important Federal agency. Every nominee to lead the ATF has been met with unreasonable opposition. And the consistent opposition all nominees to this post have faced is less about those nominees' qualifications than about weakening a Federal law enforcement agency that some disfavor. Some Senate Republicans would prefer not to have anyone leading the ATF, no matter who the nominee is. They would not allow President Bush to have a confirmed Director, and they do not want President Obama to have one either. Opposition to confirming an ATF Director is just another piece of the overall effort by some in Congress to make it more difficult for the ATF to carry out its important mission. For example, when the ATF proposed and implemented a rule intended to provide investigative leads on straw purchasing rings in the Southwest that were fueling drug cartel violence by trafficking firearms across the border, some Members of Congress immediately objected, and the agency was sued to block implementation of the rule. The rule, which has now been upheld unanimously by two Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, including the Fifth Circuit, was simple--it required federally licensed firearms dealers to report sales of multiple semiautomatic rifles to the ATF, just as all licensed dealers are required to report multiple sales of handguns. Yet some spent significant energy and resources to block the agency's action. And in recent years, some Members of Congress spent months and untold public resources investigating misguided investigative tactics in the ATF's Phoenix field office associated with an ATF criminal investigation called Fast and Furious. The Fast and Furious investigation concerned a significant firearms trafficking organization in Arizona. This trafficking organization was systematically purchasing hundreds of firearms using straw buyers and transferring them to members of Mexican drug cartels. They operated with ease and virtual impunity as the result of weak Federal laws concerning straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. Investigators and prosecutors were hobbled by weak laws. Some took unacceptable risks to combat a very serious problem on both sides of our border with Mexico. When the investigative tactics at issue came to light, they were widely criticized, and Attorney General Holder acted swiftly to put an end to them. The Attorney General also directed the Department of Justice inspector general to conduct a thorough investigation. As a result of the inspector general's investigation, those responsible for these tactics were disciplined. And the ATF's procedures were revised to set out clear guidelines for firearms trafficking investigations. While some Members of Congress were content to merely heap blame on the Attorney General and other dedicated law enforcement officials following the Fast and Furious investigation, I and other Senators chose a different path and worked with law enforcement experts and advocates on both sides of the firearms policy debate to come up with an effective, sensible approach to put an end to the straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. Unfortunately, the same Senators who were so critical of the ATF's investigative tactics in Arizona and its approach to dealing with a very serious law enforcement issue declined to support the bipartisan legislation Senator Collins and I developed to give law enforcement the tools they need to fight gun trafficking. I hope the same Senators that were so critical of the ATF and the Department of Justice for the breakdown in leadership and management at the agency will not obstruct this nominee and the opportunity to give the agency the solid footing it needs. If the Fast and Furious investigation revealed anything, it was that the ATF faces very significant law enforcement challenges, and that our current laws are inadequate to provide the tools investigators and prosecutors need to confront these problems. Let us not compound these difficulties with continued obstruction of this nominee. Todd Jones was nominated in January. It is now the last day of July. For months, I accommodated the ranking member on requests for further information and delay on the nomination of Todd Jones. He insisted on the production of documents from the Department of Justice that his staff had already had access to for months. He insisted that his staff be able to interview Todd Jones in his capacity as U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota, as well as two other Justice Department officials, in order to try to build a case against another nomination, that of Tom Perez to be Labor Secretary. Senator Grassley requested additional background information from the administration not usually required by the committee for an executive nomination and he was provided that information. When he sought information about an ATF operation in Milwaukee, I arranged a bipartisan briefing from the agency. Then a member of the ranking member's staff disclosed a private Office of Special Counsel, OSC, complaint against Todd Jones to the press. I thought it unfair that the nominee could not publicly defend his reputation. An employee complained of ``gross mismanagement and abuse of authority'' but the OSC closed the file based on lack of evidence. The other allegation involved alleged retaliation for making the mismanagement claim, and that subsidiary claim has been referred to mediation. In deference to the complaining party and at the request of the investigating agency that the complaint not be made public, it has not been. I wish it were. It is not substantial or directly related to Todd Jones. It is certainly not a reason to oppose his confirmation. I know Senator Grassley has the right to raise concerns, but he has made it very clear he does not approve of Todd Jones under any circumstances. I had asked his staff to work with us to get a clearer understanding of the retaliation complaint. But when we talked to the complainant, he was willing only to repeat his own allegations, allegations that are not aimed directly at Mr. Jones but at somebody else, a mid-level manager. We asked the complainant to provide the committee access to the contemporaneous files so we could determine whether this instance was retaliation or one in a series of disciplinary actions against an employee spanning several years. We offered to take the information in confidence, not for the Justice Department but just for members of our committee. The complainant refused and his lawyer refused to provide that to us, so I would ask all members to read the complaint themselves. We have bent over backwards to allow the complainant to come forward, and he has chosen not to do so. I would also note for all Senators that we have moved forward on nominees in the past when there have been pending complaints. For example, last year a civil suit was filed against a judicial nominee from Iowa alleging age discrimination and retaliation for raising management issues against the nominee in her capacity as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. We conducted a bipartisan staff investigation into the claims. I listened to the Senators from Iowa, and we determined we could move forward despite the civil suit that was pending against the nominee. The nominee was overwhelmingly confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Earlier this year, when a defense counsel filed a motion against the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico making allegations of improper activity, we independently examined the matter. The committee proceeded with that nomination instead of delaying it. Todd Jones is the ATF's fifth Acting Director since 2006. During that time 80,000 Americans have been killed with guns. The ATF helps protect our communities from dangerous criminals, gun violence, and acts of terror. It is a central piece of our Federal law enforcement strategy. For too long the position of Director at the ATF has been held hostage to partisan politics at the expense of public safety. It is time to make real progress in our efforts to reduce gun violence and protect the citizens of this great Nation. Today, I encourage all Senators to take the opportunity to move toward that goal together with the confirmation of B. Todd Jones to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nearly 50 years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his historic ``I Have a Dream'' speech in front of hundreds of thousands of people on the National Mall. At the time, I was entering my last year of law school. I was inspired by the March on Washington and knew that history was being made before my very eyes. The youngest speaker at the March was a compelling man by the name of John Lewis. Many spoke of their unyielding support for civil rights legislation, but John Lewis demanded more. He demanded that the civil rights bill protect the right of every American to vote free from discrimination. With his strong and forceful voice, he proclaimed that ``One man, one vote is the African cry. It is ours too. It must be ours.'' A year and a half later, John Lewis would lead another march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. There, State troopers brutally beat, bloodied, and trampled John Lewis and the group of peaceful marchers he led. Those powerful images from ``Bloody Sunday'' were captured on television and in vivid photographs, and would become a catalyst for the passage of the Voting Rights Act. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the act into law several months later, he fittingly gave one of the pens to John Lewis. The Voting Rights Act has become the most successful piece of civil rights legislation in this Nation's history. It has worked to protect the Constitution's guarantees against racial discrimination in voting for nearly five decades. It has helped minorities of all races overcome major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, intimidation by voting officials, registration and language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. Despite the continuing evidence of racial discrimination in voting that Congress amassed in 2006, the Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that makes it more difficult to protect all Americans in exercising their sacred right to vote. In Shelby County v. Holder, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that the coverage formula for section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Section 5 provides a remedy for unconstitutional discrimination in voting by requiring certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to ``pre-clear'' all voting changes before they can take effect. This remedy is both necessary and important because it stops the discriminatory voting practice before our fellow Americans' rights are violated. By striking down the coverage formula for section 5, the Court's ruling leaves this effective protection unenforceable. Two weeks ago, I began a bipartisan conversation to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act when I chaired a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearing included meaningful testimony from John Lewis and Jim Sensenbrenner. Both agreed that protecting the right to vote from discriminatory practices is neither a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue. At this hearing, Republican City Commissioner Luz Urbaez Weinberg of Aventura, FL, also testified to the need to restore the protections of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. She urged Congress to demonstrate a ``clear and principled commitment to equal voting rights for all Americans regardless of race, language spoken, and to also act swiftly to restore the protections.'' Moreover, she made clear that maintaining the Voting Rights Act ``is not a partisan issue. It is a nonpartisan issue. It is an issue for all Americans. Whether Republicans or Democrats, all Americans strongly believe in fair and equal electoral opportunities.'' It is true that America has made a lot of progress since the Voting Rights Act was first enacted. Nobody denies this. But we are far from achieving the dream that Dr. King spoke of on that magnificent day in August of 1963. Although the Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula in the Shelby County case, the Justices acknowledged, as they must and as the American people recognize, that discrimination in voting continues to be a problem. As the Chief Justice rightly noted in the majority opinion, ``voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.'' The question only remains how best to protect Americans against this discrimination. This is an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have always come together on. Every reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, including its initial passage, has been marked by the overwhelming support of lawmakers of both parties. In the last few weeks, I have heard people say that Congress is too gridlocked and will not act on voting rights. That is wrong and it is unsupported by our tradition of leadership on this issue. As my friend Senator Grassley said at the Senate Judiciary Committee voting rights hearing I chaired 2 weeks ago, ``Cynicism and defeatism have never before characterized reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.'' Senator Grassley is right. History shows that we have reauthorized the act time and again because it is a nonpartisan issue. Those who forecast failure also underestimate what a person like John Lewis can accomplish. I, for one, would never underestimate John Lewis's tenacity and ability to bring people together. The Supreme Court's ruling last month was a setback to the cause of equality. However, we should see it as a calling for Congress to come together to meet the voting discrimination which persists with a steadfast resolve. It is up to us to meet this challenge. We must work together as a Congress--not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans--to ensure that we protect against racial discrimination in voting. We can only do that with a strong Voting Rights Act. Earlier today, at the bipartisan and bicameral event marking the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington in Statuary Hall, John Lewis said, ``We have come a great distance but we are not finished yet.'' I could not agree more. Let us continue to work to protect the fundamental right to vote for all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Harkin and Grassley in reintroducing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This bipartisan bill seeks to restore crucial worker protections that were cast aside by five justices of the Supreme Court in the 2009 case Gross v. FBL Financial, Inc. The bill reaffirms the contributions made by older Americans in the workforce and ensures that employees will be evaluated based on their performance and not by arbitrary criteria such as age. Congress has long worked to enact civil rights laws to eliminate discrimination in the workplace. In 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, ADEA, extending protections against workplace discrimination to older workers. We strengthened and codified these protections in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which passed the Senate with an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 93-5. These statutes established not only our clear congressional intent, but also a clear legal standard: an employer's decision to fire or demote an employee may not be motivated in whole or in part by the employee's age. However, the Supreme Court's Gross decision unilaterally erased that longstanding standard. A narrow 5-4 majority threw out a jury verdict in favor of Jack Gross, a 32-year employee of a major financial company, who had sued his employer under the ADEA. That jury concluded that age was a motivating factor in the company's decision to demote Mr. Gross and to reassign a younger, significantly less-qualified worker to take his place. But the Supreme Court ignored the fact finder, its own precedent, and congressional intent to overturn the jury verdict. Five justices shifted the burden from the discriminators to the discriminated, deciding that workers like Mr. Gross must now prove that age was the only motivating factor in a demotion or termination. The court's decision required workers to essentially introduce a ``smoking gun'' in order to prove discrimination. By imposing such high standards, the Court sided with big business and made it easier for employers to discriminate on the basis of age as long as they could cloak it with another reason. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act rejects the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Gross decision, not only in those cases under the ADEA but also under similar civil rights provisions. The Supreme Court's holding has created uncertainty in our civil rights laws, making it incumbent on Congress to clarify our intent and the statutory protections that all hardworking Americans deserve. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act restores the original intent of the ADEA and three other Federal anti-discrimination statutes. The bill reestablishes Congress' intent that age discrimination is unlawful even if it is only part of the reason to demote or terminate a worker. It makes it clear that employers cannot get away with age discrimination by simply coming up with a reason to terminate an employee that sounds less controversial. Under the bill, a worker would also be able to introduce any relevant admissible form of evidence to show discrimination, whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. I commend Senator Harkin for his efforts over the past 4 years to negotiate a bipartisan bill to restore the civil rights protections that all Americans deserve in the workplace. I also thank Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for his commitment to this issue. I once again urge my fellow Senators to join this bipartisan effort and show their commitment to ending age discrimination in the workplace.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand the leader is going to make a request. I wonder if the Senator would withhold his request for a couple of minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act along with Senators Cochran, Casey, and Moran. This bill is an effort I have worked on with former Senator Richard Lugar for many years and I am happy to continue the effort on behalf of hungry families nationwide this Congress. In the wake of our Nation's economic recession, the demand on food banks, church food pantries, and soup kitchens has increased significantly. According to a study by the United States Department of Agriculture, over 50 million Americans lived in food insecure households in 2011. The same study found that households with children reported food insecurity at a much higher rate than households without children. In fact, in Vermont alone, over 12,000 children rely on food from food shelves each month. Despite the increased demand for donated food, it is estimated that between 25 and 40 percent of the food that is produced, grown, and transported in the United States will never be consumed. This contributes to the 70 billion pounds of fit and wholesome food that are sent to landfills in the United States each year. This bill would address this troubling trend by giving greater incentives to all businesses to donate food to non-profit organizations that feed the hungry. The current tax code allows corporations to receive a special deduction for donations to food banks, but it excludes many other small businesses such as farmers, ranchers, and restaurant owners from the same tax incentive. Unfortunately, these businesses often find it more cost effective to throw away food than to donate it to those in need. I am pleased beginning in 2006, Congress temporarily extended this tax incentive to most businesses, and most recently extended the provision through the end of 2013. After the provision was enacted, in the restaurant industry alone we saw a 137 percent increase in the pounds of food donated. The Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act would make this provision permanent, and would extend the deduction to farmers who often have large amounts of fresh food to donate. This bipartisan legislation is supported by numerous organizations including Feeding America, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufactures Association, the National Restaurant Association, the Vermont Food Bank, and Hunger Free Vermont. I hope as this Congress considers comprehensive tax legislation in the future this measure is included. We must do more to ensure that no one in America goes hungry, and increasing the amount of food available to food banks is a critical step toward meeting that goal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act along with Senators Cochran, Casey, and Moran. This bill is an effort I have worked on with former Senator Richard Lugar for many years and I am happy to continue the effort on behalf of hungry families nationwide this Congress. In the wake of our Nation's economic recession, the demand on food banks, church food pantries, and soup kitchens has increased significantly. According to a study by the United States Department of Agriculture, over 50 million Americans lived in food insecure households in 2011. The same study found that households with children reported food insecurity at a much higher rate than households without children. In fact, in Vermont alone, over 12,000 children rely on food from food shelves each month. Despite the increased demand for donated food, it is estimated that between 25 and 40 percent of the food that is produced, grown, and transported in the United States will never be consumed. This contributes to the 70 billion pounds of fit and wholesome food that are sent to landfills in the United States each year. This bill would address this troubling trend by giving greater incentives to all businesses to donate food to non-profit organizations that feed the hungry. The current tax code allows corporations to receive a special deduction for donations to food banks, but it excludes many other small businesses such as farmers, ranchers, and restaurant owners from the same tax incentive. Unfortunately, these businesses often find it more cost effective to throw away food than to donate it to those in need. I am pleased beginning in 2006, Congress temporarily extended this tax incentive to most businesses, and most recently extended the provision through the end of 2013. After the provision was enacted, in the restaurant industry alone we saw a 137 percent increase in the pounds of food donated. The Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act would make this provision permanent, and would extend the deduction to farmers who often have large amounts of fresh food to donate. This bipartisan legislation is supported by numerous organizations including Feeding America, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufactures Association, the National Restaurant Association, the Vermont Food Bank, and Hunger Free Vermont. I hope as this Congress considers comprehensive tax legislation in the future this measure is included. We must do more to ensure that no one in America goes hungry, and increasing the amount of food available to food banks is a critical step toward meeting that goal.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wish to speak about the Comey nomination. James Comey, Jr., should be confirmed to be our next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I feel it should be done without delay. Director Mueller has served very well, but his term expires early September. It is imperative the Senate work quickly to confirm his successor. I worked with Ranking Member Grassley to schedule James Comey's confirmation hearing as soon as we returned from the Fourth of July recess. Earlier this month, with Senator Grassley's cooperation, we in the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the nomination of James Comey to the floor. However, in contrast with the treatment of previous FBI Director nominees--the FBI Director nominees of all preceding Presidents--who were all confirmed by the full Senate within a day or two of being reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, James Comey is the first FBI Director nominee to be filibustered in Senate history by either Republicans or Democrats. In this case, of course, it is the Republicans who are filibustering a law enforcement position such as this, somebody who was voted out of the committee by every single Republican and Democratic Senator--and then to be filibustered by Republicans on his nomination? We should be voting to confirm James Comey tonight. It has already taken twice as long to bring up this nomination for a vote in the full Senate as for any previous FBI Director. President Obama officially nominated James Comey on June 21, 38 days ago. No other FBI Director has waited longer than 20 days from nomination to confirmation. The FBI Director plays a very vital role in our national security, and the Senate must put an end to these routine delays. Nearly 12 years ago, when the Senate considered President Bush's nomination of Robert Mueller to be Director of the FBI on the same day he had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, I spoke about how the rights of all Americans were at stake in the selection of a new FBI Director and how the FBI has extraordinary power to affect the lives of ordinary Americans. Contrast that with President Bush, Democrats were in the majority, and we Democrats worked to get President Bush's nominee confirmed the same day he came out of committee. We Democrats made sure politics were not in play in the confirmation of the FBI Director. Republicans shouldn't allow politics to play in the confirmation of an FBI Director. I said at the time, with Robert Mueller, I noted the FBI's sweeping investigatory powers, when used properly, can protect all of us by combating crime, espionage, and terrorism. But I also warned that unchecked, these same powers could undermine our civil liberties and our right to privacy. When I spoke those words, I didn't know that just 40 days later the world--and the FBI -would change dramatically in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11. It shook this area, including even the Senate because of the anthrax attack, which killed a number of individuals. One of the anthrax letters was addressed to me. As the full Senate considers the President's nomination of James Comey to be the seventh Director of the FBI, what I said in 2001 holds true today. With the increased counterterrorism role of the FBI and the expansion of the FBI's surveillance activities, it is even more imperative that the next FBI Director possesses an unflagging commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. James Comey is the right man to lead the FBI. He has had a long and outstanding career in law enforcement. He worked for years as a front- line prosecutor on a range of cases fighting violent crime, terrorism, and white-collar fraud, all of which are at the core of the FBI's mission. He also served as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He served as the Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush. In fact, Madam President, many of us remember, when he was Deputy Attorney General, the dramatic hospital bedside confrontation James Comey had with senior White House officials who tried to prod an ailing John Ashcroft to reauthorize an NSA surveillance program--a program that the Justice Department had concluded was illegal. Yet White House staff was over there trying, at his hospital bed, to get the Attorney General to agree to it. But the Deputy Attorney General stepped in, in his role as Acting Attorney General, and stood firm against this attempt to circumvent the rule of law, and I believe he will continue to show the same strength of character and principled leadership if confirmed as Director. During his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, James Comey proved that his reputation for unwavering integrity and professionalism is well-deserved. One area of great concern for me was his approval of a 2005 legal memo to authorize the use of various methods of torture, including waterboarding. I wanted to make sure that as FBI Director, James Comey would never condone or resort to waterboarding a prisoner--something for which we have prosecuted people in other countries. He answered my questions and stated directly, unequivocally, that waterboarding is not only personally abhorrent but that it is torture and illegal. He also testified that if confirmed he would continue the FBI's policy of not permitting the use of abusive interrogation techniques against prisoners, including sleep deprivation and cramped confinement. Mr. Comey and I do not agree on all matters. I do not agree with him that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force permits the government to detain indefinitely an American citizen captured on American soil in military custody without charge or trial, and I will continue to oppose efforts to codify such an interpretation of the law. I was glad James Comey committed to adhering to the current administration policy of not indefinitely detaining Americans in such circumstances. When he testified before us, I saw a man of integrity and honesty, competent in background, and so once he is confirmed--and I trust he will be confirmed once this filibuster has ended--I will continue to press him on the scope and legality of surveillance conducted by the government pursuant to the PATRIOT Act and other authorities under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. As I noted during his confirmation hearing, just because the FBI has the ability to collect huge amounts of data does not mean it should be collecting huge amounts of data. As the head of our premier law enforcement agency, the FBI Director bears a special responsibility to ensure that domestic government surveillance does not unduly infringe upon our freedoms. I have long said that protecting our national security and protecting Americans' fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both. I fully expect that James Comey will work to achieve both goals. After Director Mueller's distinguished tenure at the Bureau, James Comey has big shoes to fill. The next Director must face the growing challenge of how to sustain the FBI's increased focus on counterterrorism while at the same time upholding the FBI's commitment to its historic law enforcement functions. It is going to be particularly difficult to protect this country and protect our law enforcement functions because of sequestration and other fiscal constraints, but I think the FBI has to continue to play a key role in combating the crimes that affect everyday Americans--from violent crimes, to bank robberies, to fraud and corruption cases. If we learned nothing else since the September 11 attacks, we learned that it matters who leads our Nation at all levels of government. We need strong, principled, ethical leaders who steadfastly adhere to the law. I am confident that James Comey is such a leader. I am urging Senators on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting to overcome this filibuster in a vote to confirm him to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As I said before--and I will put into the Record how long it has taken from nomination to confirmation--twice as long as President Bush's FBI nomination, more than twice as long as President Reagan's FBI nomination, and twice as long as President Nixon's FBI nomination. In every one of those cases, no Democrat filibustered President Bush, President Reagan, and President Nixon. We all worked to get the FBI Director in there. This filibuster by my friends on the other side of the aisle is unprecedented. I wish they would treat President Obama the same way we treated President Bush, President Reagan, and President Nixon and not make President Obama seem to be somehow different and interfere with law enforcement the way they have. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart showing how long it took previous Presidents.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my friend from Iowa on the floor, but I want to express for the record my concern about this kind of unprecedented obstruction. And it is unprecedented. I have been here 38 years, and this has never happened before, this unprecedented obstruction of the FBI nominee. In addition to the unprecedented obstruction on the FBI nominee, I want to mention another topic that my friends on the other side of the aisle are blocking. A small minority of Senators are objecting to moving forward with a budget conference. We have all heard a lot of talk in the last few years about getting our fiscal house in order--it makes for a great campaign slogan. But I am afraid that too many in this body are not following through on their responsibility to govern. It has been over four months since the Senate passed its version of a budget resolution. We all remember being here overnight voting on amendment after amendment. In the intervening months Senate Democrats have tried 17 times to move to a bipartisan budget conference with the House to work out a final budget agreement. Yet each time the perfunctory request is made--a request that normally is agreed to shortly after we finish our version of the budget--someone from the other side of the aisle, with the full support of their leadership, objects. After years of crocodile tears from the other side of aisle about the lack of a budget from the Senate, we finally pass one and they object to moving forward. After years of hearing how we need to get our fiscal house in order because the national debt is the single most pressing issue facing the country, we pass a responsible budget plan to pay down the debt and they object to moving forward. When it comes time to turn all the politicking into governing, they get cold feet and object. As the distinguished chairwoman of the Budget Committee has lamented over and over again, I am sorry to say that for some factions in the Republican Party today ``compromise'' is a dirty word and ``distrust'' is a political tactic. That may explain why Senate Republicans have offered up excuse after excuse for blocking the regular budget order they so desperately pled for just a short time ago. Republicans are denying the opportunity for members of this body to work with members of the other body on hammering out a final budget agreement. I have been fortunate to serve in this chamber for 38 years. I was elected to the Senate in 1974, the same year the Congressional Budget Act passed into law. And I served here with Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, the first chairman of the Budget Committee. In all those years-- with all those budgets--I cannot recall one, single instance where political obstruction like this blocked the Senate from going to conference on a budget resolution. And just to be sure, I checked with the Congressional Research Service and they could not find another instance of obstruction like this on a budget conference either. Not from Democrats; not from the old GOP; not from anyone until now. Some in this body have objected to the Senate considering any appropriations bills until a final budget agreement is reached. Let me see if I get this straight. The very same people who have been begging for a new budget plan are blocking the Senate from going to conference on the budget resolution and then saying we cannot possibly deal with any bills to fund the government next year until we have a final budget agreement, inching us even closer to a government shutdown or a government default that would devastate our economy and ruin the very fiscal house they claim they are trying to get in order. Oh, the sweet irony here. It is time for reason and sanity to return to the Senate--on this budget resolution, on nominations, and on a whole host of other issues. I think returning to regular order on the budget conference--and letting conference members from the House and the Senate work out a final agreement--would be a good first step to bringing some comity and order back to this body so we can serve the American people.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all remaining time.