Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 12, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1183, which is at the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that amendment is on behalf of Senator Hatch and myself.

Mr. LEAHY. I will yield for that purpose.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator for that purpose without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on amendment No. 1183, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, be a cosponsor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak on this amendment at greater length just before the vote. It makes a small but important improvement in the processing of visas that are required by foreign performing artists before performing in American orchestras and other arts organizations. It has to be processed in a timely way. We have had instances where orchestras, for example, in this country have had the privilege of having a visiting artist, maybe the best in their field--violinist, pianist, or whatever else--but the process of getting a visa is slowed up. Yet they plan performances on a certain date. This measure was included in the comprehensive immigration bills of 2006 and 2007 but not enacted. This would not give an automatic visa to these artists but simply says their application, instead of being in the bottom of the pile, would be considered in a timely fashion. On another matter, as we get into this debate, I have defended the First Amendment, American's right to speak. I have done it even when people have said things about me that I wish they didn't. But I also have a right as a Senator to comment on such speech. I saw a couple of paid political advertisements today in Politico, one that personally attacks Senator Rubio and the other directly attacks the Senators who drafted the legislative proposal before us, four Republicans and four Democrats. The attacks are so far off the mark. They have a right to make the attacks, and certainly the publication has the right to print them. I would suggest that something this far out of line, this completely unfair type of attack, doesn't do anything to help the public debate we are having. We had a debate with the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and had before us some 300 amendments, passed 141, including second- degree amendments, and we did it in a respectful way. Both Republican and Democratic amendments came up. In some areas we had major disagreements among the members, but we did it respectfully and did not impugn the motives of people on either side. I would say this kind of personal insult, this level of discourse, is not conducive to real debate. It helps neither side. It helps neither side. I don't think this is a time for name-calling. Let's work together. We know the immigration system we now have in this country is not adequate for the needs of the country or the people in this country. So let's stop the name calling. Let's stop the false accusations. I say this in defense of Senator Rubio, as well as all members of the Gang of 8, the four Republicans and four Democrats named in these ads. Let's work together to have a better debate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I appreciate the words of my friend of decades, the Senator from Iowa. He and I worked very closely to have an open and transparent process. Whether we agreed or disagreed on an issue, we tried to move it on. After all, it worked better that way because of the 18 members of the committee, we were the two who had to spend the most time during it.

Mr. LEAHY. All the time. I appreciate working with him. We were able to pretty well decide when matters would come up and make sure that both Republicans and Democrats had a chance to bring up all their amendments, and we adopted 136 or so amendments, including second- degree amendments, and all but one or two of them were bipartisan votes. I appreciate what he said and I enjoyed working with him on that. I will have more to say at another time about his amendment. But I just note for the past several days Senators have been discussing the immigration bill, and I am glad the Senate has now turned to actually consider it. We have had a lot of talk about getting to it, including, of course, the time spent in the Judiciary Committee. I intend to file a handful of amendments to the bill today, and I would encourage others to do the same so we can get to work without further delay. The bipartisan immigration bill is a measure the Senate should come together on to pass. We should send to the House the best bill we can, and I think the large majority of Senators want to do that. We should do what is right, what is fair, and what is just. The House has to consider comprehensive immigration reform legislation without any further delay. This year one of the most important bills we enacted into law was the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. From the outset I worked with my Republican colleague Senator Crapo to develop that legislation in a bipartisan way. We called in Senators from both sides of the aisle. We had cosponsors from both parties. We took suggestions and amendments from both Democrats and Republicans. Then we built a majority of Senators in support. I worked very hard to keep that as a bipartisan issue when, frankly, we had some on both sides of the aisle who wanted to make it a partisan issue. Last year we were able to have our bill considered. It passed the Senate with 68 votes--obviously, a bipartisan majority. Parenthetically, I would note that yesterday we passed the farm bill with fewer votes than that, but the New York Times described that farm bill, and rightly so, as having ``overwhelming bipartisan support.'' In fact, last fall, when the House of Representatives would not take up our VAWA legislation--the violence against women legislation--we redoubled our efforts during the lameduck session. We had many meetings in my office between Republicans and Democrats to find where we could go. We then reintroduced our bill with some modifications at the beginning of this year. I sought to make it our first legislative priority of the new Congress. With the strong support and leadership of the majority leader Senator Reid, the Senate turned to it, we considered it, and we passed it as one of our very first legislative matters in February. We actually passed it with an even stronger bipartisan majority this year than last, although many of those who now oppose immigration reform continued voting against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. But we passed a strong, principled, bipartisan bill. I had people urge me to abandon my efforts in the Violence Against Women Act to protect all victims. I was glad to see they were proven wrong. I was told repeatedly that the House of Representatives would never consider, let alone pass, our bill that provided fairness for gay and lesbian victims and that we would never be able to provide meaningful protections for Native American women being brutalized by non-Indians on reservations. But I said from my own experience early as a prosecutor and since as chairman of the Judiciary Committee: A victim is a victim is a victim. When I would go to crime scenes, I never heard a police officer, who would see a victim of violence against women, say: Wait a minute. Before we can get involved, is this victim gay or straight? Is this victim Native American? They said a victim is a victim is a victim, and let us see what we can do to protect not only this person but others. In spite of all the dire predictions and political naysayers, our bipartisan group of Senators stuck to our principles. The Senate stood firm. We did the right thing. What happened then? How were we able to enact this bill into law? The American people spoke up. They supported our bill. They demanded action. There were some Republican Members of the House, such as Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who knew the right thing to do and were willing to say they wanted to do it. Then more and more House Republicans came around to our view. The House, to its credit, changed its stance and considered our bill. They passed it with no changes whatsoever--exactly as it came out of the Senate--and it is now law. I was proud to stand with President Obama on March 7 in an emotional ceremony in which he thanked legislators from both sides of the aisle for protecting all victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. Relevant to the pending immigration bill, there was one piece of the original Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill that was requested by law enforcement to help immigrant victims of violence. We sought to increase U visas for abused immigrant women so they could be protected and help law enforcement go after their abusers. So often immigrant women are afraid to go and report their abusers because they think they themselves may be deported. In fact, we have had evidence and testimony that people are being abused. If they are immigrants, they are told: If you report what I am doing to you, I will get you deported. That provision had a technical budget affect that last year the House used as an excuse not to consider our bill. I promised at the beginning of this year that I would continue fighting to enact that measure. We would take it out of the VAWA bill to avoid the technicality of having it blocked by the House, but I never forgot that. I never forgot my promise to those immigrant women. I am happy to report that these important U visas are now part of comprehensive immigration reform legislation before us. I tell this history because some have argued the Senate immigration reform bill has to be undermined from what we brought out of committee. We have to do that to conform to demands intended to appease some in the House Republican majority. I disagree. I disagree. Just as we did not back off on VAWA, I say: Do not do it now. Let's consider not a partisan reason, but let's consider America. The Senate should pass the best bill for the economy, for our families, and for our Nation. We should do what we think is right. The House of Representatives is clearly in a different place than those who support the Senate bill. Just last Thursday House Republicans voted to end President Obama's administrative program to help DREAMers, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, until such time as we can pass the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act is in our Senate immigration reform bill. It recognizes that young people here without fault of their own, who are in school or in the military, and in good standing should not be deported because they are undocumented. They are Americans. They should be part of this Nation's future. Senator Durbin--I am so proud of him for this--has been right to fight for them, as he has for years. He is a national voice for those who want the DREAM Act to pass. Senator Durbin has insisted on the DREAM Act being included in our legislation, and President Obama was right today to highlight the achievements and contributions these young people make to our country and will continue to make if the bill becomes law. Should we now abandon them? Should we say let's just strike those measures from the Senate bill because Representative King of Iowa and other House Republicans do not like them? Of course not. The Senate is a separate body--100 people to represent over 300 million Americans-- and we should be the conscience of our Nation. That means the Senate should do what is right if we are to reflect the conscience of the Nation. I am inspired by the young DREAMers I have met over the last several years and by the courageous testimony of Juan Antonio Vargas and Gaby Pacheco during our hearings this year. Our bill should include the DREAM Act, just as we should protect and include the fair but tough pathway to citizenship included in the bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. These provisions are the core of our bill. Let's not start negotiating against ourselves. Let's not start backing off what we came together to pass. The vote by the Republicans in the House of Representatives to prevent DREAMers from being able to stay in the United States is not the example that the Senate should follow, especially if we really want to be the conscience of the Nation. A few days ago the New York Times had a lead editorial that accurately describes where we are. It cautions against making bad modifications to the bill. It urges bipartisanship and courage and that we stand up to bad politics and bad policy. I hope the Senate will heed this call. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this past Sunday's editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, over the past weekend, I was happy to hear from my neighboring State of New Hampshire that Senator Ayotte pledged her support to this bipartisan legislation. I know how much I appreciated working with her and Senator Shaheen earlier this year to get the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act reauthorized. Senator Ayotte, of course, was an important leader in her caucus on that bipartisan bill. I hope and expect she will be on the bipartisan immigration bill as well, especially since it also contains several protections for victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. Just this morning the President of the United States spoke to all of us in this country, to all of America, about the need for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. He called our commonsense bipartisan bill the best chance we have had in years to fix the broken immigration system. He urged us to do the right thing and do it now. He was joined by a cross-section of distinguished Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, from DREAMers to former President Bush administration officials to business leaders and law enforcement representatives and clergy and laymen. It was interesting to see the coalition that oftentimes will not stand together on an issue or be opposed to each other standing together in unity on this issue. I know I am meeting later this week with the President along with a bipartisan group of Senators so we can work together to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I would encourage him to keep on speaking about this because there are Senators in both parties who want real immigration reform. Because it is an important economic issue, it is also a civil rights issue. It is an issue of fundamental fairness. It speaks to where we are as a nation. The other day when I was speaking about this bill, and they referenced the fact that--something I never expected when I came to the Senate--I have become the President pro tempore of the Senate. It means I have been here a long time. The distinguished Presiding Officer that day, the Acting President pro tempore, a colleague of ours, she herself is an immigrant. She came to this country with her mother. She has explained that they had all of their possessions in one suitcase. Her mother was fleeing an abusive spouse and came to this country. Now that mother's daughter is a Senator. I think of my wife. She was born in this country, but her parents came here from Canada speaking a different language and became very successful in their careers, helped employ a lot of people in our State of Vermont. My maternal grandparents came from Italy not speaking the language, had a business, employed a lot of people, became a very important part of our country. Their children, one became the highest decorated pilot in World War II, other distinguished careers, one, of course, I am closest to is my mother. I remember her pride and my father's pride when they saw their son, one generation removed, become a Senator. Well, there is going to be success stories all over this country if we stand for true immigration reform, if we make it possible for people of different backgrounds and different races, different cultures to come here and make this country a better country. They speak of us as being the melting pot but the melting pot that brings about a wonderful combination. We see that in a nation--not a nation of such unity of thought and religion and politics and appearance that becomes bland and not vibrant. Instead, we are a country of different cultures and languages and backgrounds, and we all become Americans. The sum of the whole is greater than the parts. We are a better country for it. So if we stand together, if we stay true to our values and agreements, I believe we can pass legislation that will be a continuing renewal of our spirit, our creativity, our vitality as a nation, which upholds our great traditions and compassion in humanity as a welcoming nation. That is what I believe the Senate should do, what I believe our ancestors should have done, I believe generations before us that made this a great country should have done, and I believe we will be a better country if we will because of the people who have become citizens in this country. I look forward to the day when we come together, we 100 Senators come together and pass a bill that reflects the conscience of our Nation, the conscience of the Senate, a bill that will make us all proud and America proud. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the Senate Judiciary Committee held lengthy and extensive markup sessions to consider the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, or S. 744--the bill before us--we worked late into the evenings debating the bill. We considered hundreds of amendments. But what was interesting and what we heard the most about was the fact that the public was able to witness our consideration firsthand. They saw all our proceedings streamed live on the committee's Web site and broadcast on C-SPAN. We made available on our website proposed amendments, and reported developments in real time throughout the committee process. I know this made a difference because I was receiving e-mails and calls from all over the country from people watching it. Whether they agreed or disagreed on a particular matter, they said how much it meant to them to actually know what the Senate was doing. And Members from both sides of the aisle praised the transparent process and the significant improvements in the bill made by the Judiciary Committee. The bill, as we amended it, was passed out of committee by a bipartisan two-thirds majority. Again, everybody worked together, set politics aside, and allowed the American people to see what we were doing. In many ways this is how we did it when I first came to the Senate, except we didn't have a way of streaming things live and we didn't have C-SPAN, so it is even more transparent now. I appreciate what President Obama said this weekend about immigration reform. I agree with him that we have to move in a timely way. Of course, the time is now for the Senate to act, so I hope we can take some of the same steps in the Chamber that we took in the Judiciary Committee during our debate of this legislation to have an efficient and transparent process. After all, look at the markup of the Senate Judiciary Committee: both parties--and it goes across the political spectrum as well as geographically, from the west coast to the east coast, from southern borders to our northern borders. During our committee consideration last month, an editorial in the Barre Montpelier Times termed our proceedings a ``lesson in democracy.'' Our committee proceedings demonstrated to the American people and the world how the Senate can and should fulfill its responsibilities despite our differences. The ranking Republican on the committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, and I were on different sides of the legislation, but we were able to work well together. I hope we can continue to work here on the Senate floor in a bipartisan way. Although he voted against the bill, the senior Senator from Iowa said had his vote been necessary to report the bill to the Senate, he would have voted to do so. I appreciate that sentiment, and I look forward to his cooperation. I have proposed to Senator Grassley, who as the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee will be managing the bill for the minority, that we try to replicate here in the Senate the fair and transparent process we were able to achieve in the committee. To that end, once the Senate is able to proceed to the bill, I suggest we establish a filing deadline for amendments, as we did at the outset of our committee consideration. Ideally, then we will be able to take these amendments and group them and thereby work together by issue and by titles, as we did in the committee. It makes it a lot easier for the public as well as for the Senate to know what we are doing on the bill. It will help us with the Senate's timely consideration of this important legislation. Of course, in order for Senators to be able to file amendments and work on the bill, the Senate has to proceed to the bill. Republicans and Democrats worked together to develop this legislation. Senators from both sides of the aisle, including the Senator from Alabama, who has already spoken on the Senate floor at length about this legislation, had amendments adopted in committee. Almost none of the more than 135 amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee were adopted on party-line votes. So we should be able to work together to ensure consideration of amendments and then proceed to a vote on final passage without filibusters. The American people want us to vote yes or no, up or down. They do not want us to add delaying tactics that allow us to say, well, maybe we would have been for it or maybe we would have been against it. They expect more of their Senators. Vote yes or no. I had hoped the Senate would turn immediately to the consideration of amendments to this important bill. I regret that tomorrow afternoon, instead, we will vote on cloture on a procedural motion to allow us to begin debate on the bill. The legislation before us is the result of a bipartisan group of Senators who came together and made an agreement. It was initially a proposal from the so-called Gang of 8. It came through the committee process a product of a group of 18, supported by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee. If Senators who have come together to help develop this bill keep their commitments, I have no doubt we will be able to end this unnecessary filibuster and pass this fair but tough legislation on comprehensive immigration reform. There is broad agreement that our Nation's immigration system is broken and is in need of a comprehensive solution. There is also broad agreement in this Nation that people are tired of unnecessary delays in the Senate. They would like to see us do the work we are paid to do, the work we were elected to do, and vote yes or no, not continue voting maybe by delaying. This bipartisan legislation will achieve this. Given the impact the broken system has on our economy and our families, we cannot afford delay. This is a measure on which the Senate should come together to consider and pass. We should do what is right, what is fair, and what is just. Comprehensive immigration reform was last on the Senate floor 6 years ago. When it was blocked by the minority party--the Republican Party-- the former chairman of our immigration subcommittee, Ted Kennedy, said: A minority in the Senate rejected a stronger economy that is fairer to our taxpayers and our workers. A minority of the Senate rejected America's own extraordinary immigrant history and ignored our Nation's most urgent needs. But we are in this struggle for the long haul. . . . As we continue the battle, we will have ample inspiration in the lives of the immigrants all around us. He was right. We are back--in strength. I had the privilege of serving in the Senate with Senator Kennedy from the time I arrived until the time he died. I know how passionately he felt about this issue. I also know, both from then and now, that a small minority of the Senate that continues to reject this measure should not prevail this time and close the door on so many people in our country--both those who are citizens and those who aspire to become citizens. I have taken inspiration from many sources, from our shared history as immigrants, from the experiences of my own grandparents, from my wife's parents, from our courageous witnesses Jose Antonio Vargas and Gaby Pacheco and, as Senator Kennedy noted, from the millions of American families that will be more secure when we enact comprehensive immigration reform. During his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Vargas asked the committee: What do you want to do with us? What do you want to do with me? Poignant questions. But this legislation answers Mr. Vargas, and it sends a message to the millions of others who are looking to Senators to be true to our ``extraordinary'' history and tradition as a nation of immigrants. I am encouraged that some on the other side of the aisle are signaling their support for this legislation. I welcome the support of those who supported immigration reform in the past, who support this effort again. I trust that those Republican Senators who helped draft this legislation--and helped us greatly--will be with us for the long haul, be firm in their commitments, and will defend the legislation they asked the other 14 members of the Judiciary Committee to consider and approve. I will hope and expect that they will not look for excuses to abandon what has been and what needs to be a bipartisan effort because everybody had to give some on this bill. The bill now before the Senate is not the bill I would have drafted. I voted for amendments in the Judiciary Committee that were rejected, and I voted against some amendments that were accepted. I withheld an amendment on what, to me, is an issue of fundamental fairness in ending discrimination, after Republican Senators pledged to abandon their support for this bill had that amendment been offered. I cannot begin to tell this Senate how much it hurt to withdraw that amendment. But despite many shortcomings as a result of compromise, the bill before the Senate is worthy of this Chamber's immediate attention and support. It is time for us to stop voting ``maybe'' and instead proceed to this bill and get to the business of legislating. After all, that is what the American people, Republicans and Democrats alike, expect us to do. The Congress was unable to achieve this goal during the last decade. Now, in the second decade of the 21st century, we again have the opportunity to make the reforms we so desperately need to carry us forward and strengthen our Nation. As I said on the Senate floor late last week, if a majority of us stand together, if we stay true to our values and our agreements, I believe we can pass legislation to write the next great chapter in America's history of immigration--a chapter for which succeeding generations will thank us. Mr. President, before I conclude on this issue, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the editorial I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, seeing nobody seeking recognition, I ask permission to speak as in morning business on an issue we will vote on later today.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me speak on an important issue the Senate will be voting on later today, my amendment to the farm bill. The Internet has made a fundamental difference in our lives. From how we shop to how we stay connected to one another, there are few aspects of life the Internet does not touch. In the 21st century, access to high-quality, high-speed Internet is not a luxury but a necessity. Unfortunately far too many Americans, particularly those living in rural areas, like so many in my own State of Vermont, can only dream about having access to this kind of critical infrastructure. We must take action to correct this. I am pleased the Senate will vote today on an amendment I have offered that sets our sights high for real, ultra-high-speed Internet. In some areas, these next-generation networks are already being built. These networks offer gigabit speed--speed that is 100 times faster than what we are accustomed to today. These networks bring with them innovation and jobs. Over the next 5 years these networks are going to become more widely adopted in urban areas, but rural America is at risk of falling further behind. If that happens, rural Americans will be left behind. They will lose potential economic growth. They will cede engines of innovation to urban areas that are equipped with ultra-high-speed Internet capability. My amendment will establish a pilot program within the Rural Utilities Service Program that is part of the farm bill to fund up to five projects to deploy ultra-high-speed Internet service in rural areas over the next 5 years. The pilot is narrow in scope. It is carefully crafted to ensure that the main focus of the RUS Program is deploying service to unserved rural areas, while at the same time giving RUS the flexibility to find the best rural areas to test gigabit service investment. This will help pave the way for the Internet infrastructure that rural communities across the Nation will need as our economy turns the corner into this next generation of Internet service. Next-generation gigabit networks have the potential to transform rural areas. They can dramatically improve education and health care. They have the potential to bring the innovations of Silicon Valley to the Upper Valley of Vermont and to rural areas across the country. Rural America has so much to offer in our way of life, but without the great equalizer of high-speed Internet, it cannot live up to its full potential. So now is the time to invest in these networks. One need only look at the number of applications Google received for its Google Fiber project to know that cities and towns throughout the country understand the innovation and economic growth that comes from gigabit networks. If we are going to invest money in rural networks, it makes sense that we invest some of it in networks that are going to be future-resilient. The broadband revolution of the last decade brought a bright new future for many areas of the country, but I know firsthand that many rural areas are still playing catch-up. As the next generation of broadband investment begins this decade, let's learn from those past mistakes and test our investment in gigabit networks in rural America. I thank Chairwoman Stabenow for working with me since the committee first started on this amendment and for her commitment to improve the quality of life for rural America, and I thank those Senators--both Republicans and Democrats--who have supported me. Most importantly, rural America supports it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, across Vermont's food system, businesses are starting, expanding, and creating good jobs. Ever more local food is available in stores, restaurants, and institutions throughout the State and in greater supply, for more months of the year. Important programs are reaching more food insecure Vermonters with fresh, healthy food. Thanks to the Senate farm bill we will continue to see these improvements in Vermont and across the country Nationwide agriculture supports 16 million jobs. In Vermont our farms and private forestlands play a large role in our economy and our State's cultural and historical identity. Iconic images of Vermont's farms and forests bring millions of visitors to the State each year, supporting our local communities. The 2013 farm bill that the Senate passed today will continue to support our farmers and rural communities, while also reforming agricultural programs to save taxpayers billions of dollars. I am encouraged that the Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow and our ranking member Thad Cochran have been able to bring the Senate together to pass a bipartisan farm bill. A farm bill that saves more than $23 billion. A bill that includes many compromises. This bill provides an important framework to help farmers and ranchers in all regions of the country manage their risks more effectively, especially our country's dairy farmers, who strongly support the dairy provisions in the Senate-passed farm bill. I must also thank the chairwoman for her assistance with my gigabit broadband pilot amendment. This small pilot effort is an important addition to the bill and the broadband program and will help to ensure that the taxpayer dollars we are investing in networks will not become obsolete within the next few years. Gigabit Internet is spreading to cities across the country, and this pilot will allow USDA to test out investment in gigabit networks in rural areas on a pilot basis. The next generation gigabit networks will transform everything from the reliability of the electrical grid, to education and healthcare in rural America. We cannot leave rural America behind in the dust while the rest of the country moves into this next stage of the digital era. I urge the U.S. House of Representatives to follow suit by bringing a farm bill up for debate as soon as possible. Time already is running short for us to bring Senate and House bills to a conference committee to work out the vast differences and arrive at a compromise farm bill that can be signed into law prior to the Sept. 30 expiration of the current bill. Farmers face enough uncertainty in their work and do not need Congress to compound the variables with which they must contend by once again delaying final action on a farm bill. Our farmers and the American people deserve a new farm bill and a balanced bill like the one we have passed in the Senate today, a bill which supports our nutrition, conservation, rural development, and farm programs. Our farmers cannot afford to be kept in limbo any longer by congressional gridlock.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. It sets up a pilot program for real ultra-high-speed Internet in rural areas. We are going to have this in urban areas. All we are saying is let rural areas--and every single Senator represents a rural area somewhere in their State--allow rural areas to compete with urban areas for jobs, for education, for medical care. The ultra-high-speed Internet service pilot is narrow in scope, carefully drafted. I know it is supported by the distinguished chair and distinguished ranking member. It has the potential of bringing, as I said earlier, the innovation of Silicon Valley to the Upper Valley in Vermont and rural areas across the country. It is almost what we had to argue about rural electricity back before I was born--whether rural areas would be the same as urban areas. This makes it possible. I urge its passage.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his kind comments. I also note that throughout the markup and debate on the immigration bill, his advice and his counsel was always there. We discussed it many times, and I appreciate the fact he made it very clear the bill would come up at the time he said. We would not have it here without his strong support, so I appreciate Senator Reid's very nice comments this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is good to see the Presiding Officer here as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate Judiciary Committee held lengthy and extensive public markup sessions on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744. We worked late into the evenings--we also started pretty early in the morning--debating the bill. We considered hundreds of amendments. The public saw our consideration firsthand. We streamed everything we did on the Internet and it was broadcast on television. We took all the proposed amendments, Republican and Democratic alike, and put them on our Web site. We updated the Committee's Web site to include adopted amendments in real time. I heard from people all over the country that they felt they actually had involvement in what we were doing, which is what I want. I appreciate the fact that members from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, praised the transparent process and also praised the significant improvements to the bill made by the Judiciary Committee. In fact, the markup process followed three additional hearings on the bill--on top of all the others we had--with 26 witnesses, and the bill, as amended, was supported by a bipartisan two- thirds majority of the committee. I have sent that bill, S. 744, to the Senate on behalf of the Judiciary Committee and am filing an extensive committee report as well. I hope the report is going to be a valuable resource for Senators. It explains not only the underlying provisions in the legislation and its history, but it also summarizes all the amendments that were adopted and also those that were rejected. In order for all Senators to be able to file amendments and work on this bill, of course the Senate first needs to proceed to the bill. I had hoped that what has become all too typical obstruction would not infect the proceedings. Senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to develop this legislation. Senators from both sides of the aisle had amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee. Almost none of the more than 135 amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee were adopted along party-line votes, unlike this week's vote in the House in which nearly every member of the Republican conference stood together to prevent DREAMers from being able to stay in our country. The one thing that ought to unite all of us is the DREAM Act. These young people are here through no fault of their own. They have enriched our Nation. They have enriched this debate. I am proud that we in the Senate are considering inclusive legislation that supports them, and I hope a fair process in the Senate finally prompts action in the other Chamber. I don't know how anybody who professes to care about family values, who professes to care about other people, can sit down with these young people--the DREAMers--and not be moved and not want them to have the same advantages our children and our grandchildren have. The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us. It is long past time for reform. As members of the Senate Judiciary Committee from both parties said at the conclusion of our proceedings, this is a matter of great significance to the American people, and the Senate should debate it. But the Senate is being delayed from doing so by a small minority of opponents. This is not the time to have a tiny handful stop a debate. There are only 99 Senators now, with the loss of our dear friend Frank Lautenberg. But take a Senate of 100 people, we represent over 300 million Americans, and they are counting on us not to use stalling tactics, but to stand--vote for or vote against, but stand up and vote. When one stalls and refuses to let votes come in, it is an easy way to say: I am voting maybe. Then you can go back home and you can be on everybody's side, for the people for it or people against it. ``I am on your side,'' because nobody can point that you voted one way or the other. That is not what we were elected for. We were elected to stand and take a position, yes or no, not maybe. The legislation we seek to bring before the Senate was the result of Senators from both sides of the aisle who came together and made an agreement. What was initially a proposal from the so-called Gang of 8 became, through the committee process, the product of a group of 18. Now let's have a product of a group of 100 representing all States in this country. Amendments offered by 17 of those 18 members were adopted into the bill. Seventeen of the eighteen members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had amendments adopted into the bill. A bipartisan majority of more than two-thirds of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for the bill the Senate is being called upon to consider. I am honored to serve as both the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the President pro tempore of the Senate, an office established in article 1, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States. I have been privileged to serve the people of Vermont for more than 45 years, the last 38 as their Senator. But one thing I learned many years ago, taught to me by the distinguished majority leader at that time when I came to the Senate, Senator Mike Mansfield, is how important it is for Senators to keep their commitments, keep their word, to stay true to their agreements. If Senators who have come together to help develop this bill do those things, I have no doubt we will be able to end this filibuster, stop voting maybe, and actually vote up or down and pass this fair but tough legislation on comprehensive immigration reform. Our history, our values, and our decency can inspire us finally to take action without the prolonged partisanship that often paralyzes this Chamber. We need an immigration system that lives up to American values. This is a time when we are called upon to come together. Few topics are more fundamental to who we are as a nation than immigration. The Statue of Liberty has long proclaimed America's welcome: Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . . . Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. That is what America stood for. That is what we should continue to represent. That is the America that attracted my maternal grandparents from Italy to Vermont and my paternal great-grandparents from Ireland to Vermont. Immigration through our history has been an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity, and our economic strength. Our bipartisan legislation establishes a path to earned citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. It addresses the lengthy backlogs in our current immigration system-- backlogs that have kept families apart sometimes for decades. It grants a faster track to the DREAMers brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, and to agricultural workers who provide our Nation's critical food supply. It makes important changes to the visas used by dairy farmers and the tourists and by immigrant investors who are creating jobs in our communities. It addresses the needs of law enforcement, which requires the help of immigrants who witness crime or are victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. It improves the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers so the United States will remain the beacon of hope in the world. This is going to make us all safer. This is a measure the Senate should come together, consider, and pass. We should do what is right, what is fair, and what is just. Immigration reform is an important economic issue, a civil rights issue, and a fairness issue. If a majority of us stand together and we stay true to our values and our agreements, I believe we can pass legislation to write the next great chapter in the American history of immigration. Those of us serving in the Senate who are immigrants understand that. Those of us who are children or grandchildren of immigrants understand that. Just as my wife's family came to this country and created a better State of Vermont, they understood it, similar to so many who come. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows better than anybody in here what it is to come and become part of this great country. One can come as an immigrant and then become a Senator of the United States. As President pro tempore, I am delighted to see the Presiding Officer in the chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to recognize Bob Conlon, a coowner of Leunig's Bistro, a fixture on Burlington's historic Church Street for decades. Bob was recently honored by the Burlington Business Association, BBA, for his contributions not only to the local economy through the success of Leunig's but also because of his commitment to community service. Originally from Waterbury, CT, Bob has been a resident of Chittenden County for over 45 years, first arriving in the area to attend my own alma mater, St. Michael's College. Bob first came to Leunig's as a bartender, rose to the post of manager, and today is a coowner of one of Church Street's most successful restaurants. Marcelle and I enjoy seeing and talking with Bob when we are in Burlington. Bob's contributions to the greater Burlington community are not limited to providing great cuisine at Leunig's; he has been engaged in the community for decades, hosting regular fundraisers that support a wide range of services, from monthly dinners with proceeds that benefit various local support programs to hosting an annual fashion show to benefit the Breast Care Center at Fletcher Allen Hospital. Bob has been an exemplary model of what good business really is: economically successfully, and community-minded. Bob's dedication to the Burlington community is well documented, and the honor bestowed upon him by the BBA is wholly merited. In recognition of his work, I ask that an article published in the Burlington Free Press on April 4, 2013, ``Leunig's co-owner honored,'' be printed in the Congressional Record.