Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 713

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Collins and I, as well as other Senators in both parties, worked with law enforcement, worked with the NRA, worked with a whole lot of others to craft this amendment. It gives law enforcement officials the tools they need to stop the all- too-common practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. This gives us the tools to go after drug cartels that use straw purchasers to get their guns and gangs in big cities that use straw purchasers to get their guns. It is an important law enforcement measure. Across the political spectrum, law enforcement supports it. Let's stand with law enforcement and vote aye.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Today I would like to pay tribute to Anthony Lewis who passed away on March 25. As a reporter covering the Supreme Court and through his books, including ``Gideon's Trumpet,'' Mr. Lewis shaped the way millions of Americans understand the role of the judiciary in safeguarding our democracy. He was truly an iconic figure in American journalism and he will be greatly missed. Reading Anthony Lewis changed the way so many of us thought about justice in this country. He brought legal decisions to life and made clear the impact the law has on our lives. He made us aware of the humanity behind the technical legal arguments. Nowhere did he do this better than in ``Gideon's Trumpet,'' his 1964 book about the Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. That landmark case affirmed a fundamental principle of our democratic society: that no person, regardless of economic status, should face prosecution without the assistance of a lawyer. I have spoken countless times over the years about the importance of that decision. And each time, whether it was here on the floor of the Senate, in the Judiciary Committee questioning nominees to the Supreme Court, or in conversations with young law students, I have thought about ``Gideon's Trumpet'' and the powerful impact that book had on me. In fact, on the 50th anniversary of the Gideon decision, which was just days before Mr. Lewis's death, I introduced the Gideon's Promise Act, a bill intended to breathe new life into that seminal case and ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system for all participants. Much of what I said about the anniversary of Gideon, and the work that remains, finds its roots in my days as a young attorney when I read ``Gideon's Trumpet'' and was moved both by the unfairness it revealed of a system that allowed poor people to be jailed without a lawyer, and the powerful equalizing impact a courageous Supreme Court can have when it is willing to stand up for those who are marginalized. When I was a young law student, my wife and I had an opportunity to have lunch with Justice Hugo Black shortly after he wrote the majority decision in that case. It was a powerful experience. He recognized that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to counsel in a criminal case was fundamental to a fair trial. He called it an obvious truth. And I know from my days as a prosecutor how right he was. Now, as we pause to remember Anthony Lewis and his contributions to our understanding of the right to counsel and so many other fundamental principles of American democracy, it is also fitting that we acknowledge that the promise made in Gideon remains unfulfilled. In too many courtrooms it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. The rich will have competent counsel, but those who have little often find their lives placed in the hands of woefully overburdened public defenders or underpaid court-appointed lawyers who are inexperienced, overworked, inept, uninterested, or worse. And now our Federal public defender system, long held out as the gold standard of indigent defense, is being hobbled by sequestration. In New York, the Federal Defenders Office is being forced to furlough each of its 30 lawyers for 5\1/2\ weeks by the end of September, resulting in delays in even the most significant terrorism cases. Chief Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York called these cuts ``devastating.'' The head of the Federal Defenders Office stated: ``On a good day, we're stretched thin. . . . Sequestration takes us well beyond the breaking point. You simply can't sequester the Sixth Amendment.'' He is right. I am hardly alone in my concern over this fundamental American right. Last month, four leading advocates for fairness in the criminal justice system, including former Vice President Walter Mondale, sent a letter to President Obama urging him to create a bipartisan commission on the fair administration of justice for the indigent accused. I applaud their efforts and I believe Anthony Lewis would have too. Through his reporting on the Supreme Court and our Nation's civil rights challenges, Anthony Lewis opened the eyes of millions of Americans to the power of law and judges to change lives. He helped shape my thinking as a young lawyer, and I hope his work will continue to be an inspiration for the generations to come. Our democracy will be stronger for it. I ask that a copy of an article dated April 8 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont is known for many of its great businesses and products. Among those successful companies is Darn Tough Vermont, whose brand represents the commitment to quality and excellence that defines Vermont. For nearly a decade, Darn Tough Vermont has been making the type of quality products our Nation has grown to expect from Vermonters. Darn Tough was launched in 2004 by Ric Cabot, whose family founded Darn Tough's parent company in Vermont 35 years ago. For three generations, the Cabot family has stayed true to their roots and committed to the Northfield community. While other clothing manufacturers have outsourced their labor, the Cabots carry on where they began--manufacturing in New England, keeping faith with their customers and their 120 employees. Darn Tough has a local feel to those who visit its factory and know its operators, but the company's name brand is known across the country and around the world wherever people appreciate a high-quality wool hiking and athletic sock, and its products are even worn overseas by our troops in combat. And as with other Vermont companies that equip and outfit our military, taxpayers can rest assured our troops are in good hands when their feet are in quality goods made by Darn Tough. The Burlington Free Press recently paid tribute to Ric Cabot and all of the employees at Darn Tough for their hard work that continues to benefit our troops and the Vermont economy. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the recent Free Press article entitled ``Rebuilding American textiles, one sock at a time: Darn Tough measures success,'' be printed into the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell the Senator from Nevada, we have been working very hard on that. It has bipartisan support. It had a bipartisan vote out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had been working on it with the National Rifle Association and a lot of others because this trafficking allows somebody who can legitimately buy weapons to go in and buy them and then sell them to people who are from a drug cartel in this country or others or to a gang member--people who could not have bought them legitimately. It is a huge loophole. We saw the same loophole in the murder of the head of the Colorado prison system. The man who we understand shot him would have been prohibited from buying a weapon, but somebody who could buy one bought it and passed it on to him. I want to thank Senators Manchin and Toomey for coming forward with their bipartisan amendment to close the gun show loophole and prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, while at the same time respecting and protecting the second amendment rights of responsible gun owners. These Senators have worked long and hard. They have studied the issue. They have compromised, and they have reached an agreement that I intend to support and I hope the Senate will adopt. The Senator from Nevada certainly hopes Senators will vote and not filibuster. The American people I think would consider it a disgrace if Senators were unwilling to stand and vote either yes or no. A filibuster means you vote maybe. I would hope, with only 100 of us to represent 314 million Americans, we would at least have the courage to vote yes or vote no. It may not be a popular vote either way you vote, but voting maybe--which is what a filibuster is--shows no respect for the Senate and shows no courage. We have had background checks for decades. They are an accepted part of the process of buying a gun. I am among millions of responsible gun owners who have undergone a background check as part of this process. And as I tell our gun dealers in Vermont when I buy a gun there, I am like millions of responsible gun owners. I understand this check is necessary and I have no problem going through it. But I expect everybody else to go through it because it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are a danger to themselves and others due to mental illness. Background checks work. Since 1998, over 2 million sales to prohibited people have been prevented thanks to background checks. That is 2 million times a potentially dangerous person trying to get a gun was denied a gun. Now some argue that background checks do not work because not enough people who fail the background check are later prosecuted. Failing a background check is not in itself a crime. Indeed, the main purpose of the background check is to prevent a prohibited person from getting the desired gun. Although not foolproof, the background check system we have had in place has succeeded in preventing dangerous people from getting guns over 2 million times. What we are now trying to do is improve the background check system. That is what the Manchin-Toomey amendment is trying to do. We all know there is a huge, huge loophole in that background check system. Criminals and other prohibited people who could not go in to a legitimate gun store in the Presiding Officer's State or my State can get around this by going to nonlicensed dealers at gun shows. I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct background checks. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow these same rules. I agree with these responsible business owners. Just as I go through a background check when I buy a gun, I want everybody to have to go through it and not be able to use the loophole. I have been voting to close this loophole for years. In 1999, when the Senate adopted an amendment to close the gun show loophole, we passed that provision after the tragedy at Columbine. Regrettably, the House would not pass the bill. Republican leadership at the time let the matter drop. I hope this time the House will join us to close the loophole once and for all. The Manchin-Toomey bipartisan amendment closes the loophole in a way that does not infringe upon second amendment rights. Sales at gun shows, sales using online or print advertising will be governed by the same kind of requirements that a gun store owner in Vermont or Virginia or anywhere else has to follow. It is going to make us safer. It will not confiscate anyone's guns. It will not create a government registry. It does not undermine the second amendment. No court has held that background checks, which have been with us for decades, violate the second amendment. Indeed, when the U.S. Supreme Court expressly held that the second amendment provides an individual right in the Heller case, it also said that ``longstanding provisions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill'' do not violate the second amendment. The compromise these Senators have presented to us is focused on gun shows and commercial sales. It does not require background checks for sales between spouses or siblings or parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, and cousins. It does not require background checks for a transfer between friends and neighbors who talk to each other and decide to sell or give each other a firearm. The bill does not require background checks for temporary transfers of guns for hunting or target shooting. But it does require background checks for the kind of sales that can be easily exploited by people who intend to do harm: sales at gun shows and through online and print advertisement. I would hope Senators would agree with 90 percent of the people in this country: We need a strong background check system in order to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. Why not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow dangerous criminals to buy guns without background checks? It is a matter of common sense. If we agree that the background check system makes sense, why not make it more effective? What responsible gun owner objects to improving the background check system? I come from a State with a lot of gun owners, myself included. I have not heard a single gun owner say, we should not have a background check apply to everybody just as it applies to them. At the first of our Judiciary Committee hearings of the year, the first of three hearings on gun violence proposals, I pointed out that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. He emphasized at that time the NRA supported closing loopholes in the background system by saying, ``No loopholes anywhere for anyone.'' It is common sense. That is what we voted to do in 1999 and we should again, and this time we should get it enacted. I have said over and over again, do not filibuster or sloganeer. Vote. Vote yes; vote no. Do not vote maybe. No one is going to take away our second amendment rights. They are not at risk. But lives are at risk where responsible people fail to stand up for laws that will keep guns out of the hands of those who use them to commit crimes of violence. This is something we can come together and do to make America safer and more secure. Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecutions under existing gun laws. And some have suggested that instead of making sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence, Federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing laws. I share some of that frustration, but I do not agree it is a valid excuse for us to do nothing. Improvements in the enforcement of existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement officials better tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive; those efforts complement each other. A recent article in the Washington Times, certainly not considered a liberal paper, documented the gun prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration. They suggested having a Senate-confirmed Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would significantly help law enforcement. We need to get such a director. But let's not be distracted from what we can do to keep Americans safe by partisan attacks on this administration or the last administration. I also want to thank Senator Schumer for all his efforts to bring us to this point. I worked with him to make sure the legislation considered and voted on in the Judiciary Committee included a provision to improve the background checks system. He introduced a number of background check proposals. He reached across the aisle to try very hard to come to an agreement with Senator Coburn. His efforts helped pave the way for the agreement that Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey were able to reach. I have also been encouraging the junior Senator from West Virginia in his efforts. He has shown great leadership, sensitivity and perseverance. I commend Senator Toomey for his willingness to join in this legislative effort. Together they have done the Senate and the country a great service. At the outset of the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this issue, I encouraged Senators to bring forward their ideas, to debate that which they thought could make a difference, not just obstruct that which they opposed. I hope those who oppose the measure put forward by Senators Manchin and Toomey will seek to be part of this debate rather than simply try to silence it. Improving the background check system is a matter of common sense. Senators Manchin and Toomey have shown that it can be accomplished in a way that better protects our communities and fully respects our Second Amendment rights. I am pleased to support this bipartisan solution. Now, will everybody agree on this legislation? Perhaps not. But at least have the courage to vote yes or no. Vote yes or no. If you are going to vote maybe, that is voting for a filibuster. The American people want a little bit of courage on the part of 100 Senators.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``A New, Open Marketplace: The Effect of Guaranteed Issue and New Rating Rules'' on April 11, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Policy Toward Syria.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing on the Nomination of Gina McCarthy to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Outsourcing Accountability--Examining the Role of Independent Consultants.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of the comments by the distinguished Senator from Utah, I be recognized.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to suggest the absence of a quorum for about 1 minute and ask unanimous consent that upon coming out of the quorum, I be recognized. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this week I spoke about the need for the Senate to consider legislation to help increase Americans' safety by reducing gun violence. I came to the floor of the Senate and I urged my fellow Senators to abandon efforts to filibuster proceeding to this bill. The Senate should not have to overcome a filibuster to respond to the call for action in response to the violence they are experiencing. I have the privilege of being the longest serving Member of this body. I have watched debate on so many issues. If there were ever an issue where all 100 of us should vote yes or no it is here. I was encouraged by the comments of a number of Senate Republicans that they are prepared to debate this matter and will not support this wrongheaded filibuster. Even the Wall Street Journal editorialized against this filibuster yesterday in a lead editorial entitled ``The GOP's Gun Control Misfire.'' I do not agree with much of that editorial, but I would quote this: If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on the floor. Senators should understand what is in this bill that a small minority of Republicans are seeking to prevent the Senate from even considering. The bill has three parts. None of them threaten the second amendment rights, none of them call for gun confiscation or a government registry. In fact, two of the three parts have always had bipartisan support. With regard to the third component--the provisions closing loopholes in our current background check system--Senators Manchin and Toomey yesterday announced they are going to have a bipartisan amendment for this component as well. Since the beginning of the 113th Congress, in the months since the tragedy in Newtown, the Judiciary Committee held three hearings and four mark ups focused on the issue of gun violence. The Committee voted in favor of the Leahy-Collins gun trafficking proposal that is now part of the legislative package the Majority Leader created to allow for Senate consideration. I described our legislation in some detail on Monday. I thanked our Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for working with us and supporting our gun trafficking bill. I commended Senator Collins, who has been my partner as we have moved forward with legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasers who obtain firearms to provide them to criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Shaheen and King. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more effective tools. It was an ATF whistleblower who testified last Congress that the existing firearms laws are ``toothless.'' We can create better law enforcement tools and that is what we are doing with the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. We need to close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs and other criminals have exploited for too long. Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system. Straw purchasing firearms is undertaken for one reason to get a gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having one. We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired through straw purchases. It was a straw purchaser who enabled the brutal murders of two brave firefighters in Webster, New York this past Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, last September. We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We also include suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation that will help combat a serious problem and that will do no harm to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Yesterday, Senator Collins, the senior Senator from Maine, and I were able to announce another step toward consensus. We had previously been engaged in discussions with law enforcement and victims groups. More recently we have been engaged in discussions with the National Rifle Association. We have agreed on modifications to the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. They address all of its substantive concerns while doing as we have always wanted to do--providing law enforcement officials with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasing. Senator Collins and I are both strong supporters and advocates of second amendment rights for law-abiding Americans. We also agree that our law enforcement officials deserve our support in their efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands. We worked with the NRA and are confident that nothing in our bill infringes on the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners and purchasers, while still providing a strong new set of tools for law enforcement officials. We protect legitimate sales and do not place unnecessary burdens on lawful transactions. We are pleased that the NRA agrees with us that this legislation is a focused approach to combat the destructive practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking while protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Having now worked out differences with the NRA on our bipartisan legislation that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and individuals with severe mental illnesses, and give law enforcement the tools they need to investigate and prosecute these crimes more effectively, it seems absurd that some Senators nonetheless persist in filibustering consideration of our bill. The American people expect us to stand and face our responsibilities. Whether we like having to vote or not, we have taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, to uphold our laws. Congress has to confront the serious role that straw purchasing and gun trafficking play in supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes. It is not enough to stand on the floor of the Senate and say you are pro law enforcement. Let's take as a given everybody is pro law enforcement, but then give law enforcement the tools they need. The bipartisan Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will create specific Federal criminal statutes prohibiting the trafficking and straw purchasing of firearms, and also strengthens other law enforcement tools to assist those investigating these crimes. This is a common sense response to help in the fight against gun violence. This is a commonsense response to help in the fight against gun violence, and it will help law enforcement. That is why law enforcement strongly supports our bill. Yet some are seeking to filibuster it. Let them go to law enforcement groups and say they are trying to block them and take away the tools they need to keep every one of us safe. Our bill protects Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners, while cracking down on criminals and those who would assist them. The bill does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. It sends a clear message that those who would buy a gun on behalf of a criminal, a member of a drug cartel, or a domestic abuser will be held accountable. That is why our bill is strongly supported by law enforcement. Yet that is what some are seeking to filibuster. Congress should be confronting the serious role that straw purchasing and gun trafficking play in supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes, not ducking the issue. Senators are filibustering a bipartisan proposal that received bipartisan backing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide some Federal assistance to schools to create safer environments for children and young people. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. We should proceed to consider it and I would hope pass it so that more school resource officers can be hired and more can be done to help and protect our young people who are in schools around the country, where there are supposed to be. Finally, it is hard to understand how improving our background check system and plugging some of the loopholes in it that allow those who are by law prohibited from purchasing guns because they are dangerous criminals or dangerous to themselves and others because of mental illness justifies a filibuster. We have had background requirements for gun purchases for decades. We have had a background check system for decades. We have improved it repeatedly over time. I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct background checks to block the conveyance of guns to those who should not have them. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow these same protective rules. I agree with these responsible business owners. As I said, Congress should be confronting the serious role straw purchasing and gun trafficking play in supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes, not ducking the issue. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. Don't give speeches saying you are in favor of law enforcement but we are going to take away tools law enforcement needs. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. If we can all agree that criminals and those adjudicated as mentally ill should not buy firearms, why should we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow them to buy guns without background checks? If we agree the background check system is worthwhile, should we not try to reform its content so it can be more effective? What responsible gun owner objects to improving the background check system? Stand up and be counted. At our January hearing I pointed out that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory criminal background checks for, as he put it, ``every sale at every gun show.'' He went on to emphasize the NRA's support for closing the loophole in the background check system by saying--in what has become an oft-quoted remark--``no loopholes anywhere for anyone.'' Well, of course, it is common sense to close the gun show loophole. The Senate voted to do so in 1999. We should vote to do so again. This time we should get it enacted. One of the ways to do so is with the bipartisan proposal from Senators Manchin and Toomey to improve the law, if we are able to stop this ill-conceived filibuster and get to the bill. Americans across this great country are looking to us for solutions and for action, not filibustering or sloganeering. Americans are saying: Stand up and be counted. I opened our first hearing on these issues in January, asking Senators on both sides of the aisle to join in the discussion as part of a collective effort to find solutions to help assure that no family, no school, no community ever has to endure the kind of tragedy the families at Newtown and Aurora and Oak Creek, Tucson, Blacksburg or Columbine had to suffer. As I emphasized throughout the committee process, the second amendment is secure. It is going to remain secure and protected as part of my oath of office as a Senator. In two recent cases, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the second amendment, as the other aspects of our Bill of Rights, secures that fundamental individual right. Americans have the right to self-defense. They have the right to have guns in their homes to protect their families. No one is going to take away these rights or these guns. That second amendment right is the foundation on which our discussion rests. They are not at risk. But we cannot close our eyes to what is at risk: lives are at risk when responsible people fail to set up the laws to keep the guns out of the hands of those who will use them to commit mass murder. So I ask my fellow Senators to focus our discussion and debate on these proposed statutory measures intended to better protect our children and all Americans. Ours is a free society, an open society, a wonderful society. We should be coming together as elected representatives of all of the American people to consider how to become a safer and more secure society. I would have hoped all Senators from both parties would join together in good faith to strengthen our law enforcement efforts against gun violence and to protect public safety. Let's focus on our responsibilities to the American people. We are the 100 Senators elected to represent more than 314 million Americans. That is an awesome responsibility. Let's stand up to that responsibility. We are accountable to those people. We are not accountable to special interest groups on either the right or the left. We are accountable to the more than 300 million Americans. Special interest lobbies on either the left or right should not dictate what we do. We do not need a lobby's permission to pass laws to improve public safety. That is our responsibility. I urge Senators to be less concerned with special interest scorecards and more focused on fulfilling our oath to faithfully discharge the duties of our office as Senators. I consider myself a responsible gun owner, but I am also someone who cherishes all of our constitutional rights. As a Senator who has sworn an oath to uphold those rights, as a father and a grandfather, and as a former prosecutor who has seen the results of gun violence firsthand, I have been working to build consensus around commonsense solutions. I am prepared to debate and vote on the measures before us. I challenge other Senators to do the same. Do the same. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. A filibuster says you are not willing to take a stand; that you vote maybe. Stand up and be counted. Have the courage. Stand up and be counted. Then let us work together to make all Americans safer. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the American intellectual property system is rightly held as the global standard for promoting innovation and driving economic growth. This is particularly true of our patent system, which was recently updated and strengthened for the 21st century by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The fundamental truth that our Founders recognized more than 200 years ago--that limited exclusive rights for inventors incentivize research and development-- continues to benefit consumers and the American economy at large. These limited rights can also be applied to incentivize research and discoveries that advance humanitarian needs. In my time in the Senate, I have worked to promote policies that encourage intellectual property holders to apply their work to address global humanitarian challenges. Today, I am pleased to join with Senator Coons in reintroducing the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act to again advance such policies. This legislation improves on a program created by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, last year. The PTO's Patents for Humanity Program provides rewards to selected patent holders who apply their technology to a humanitarian issue that significantly affects the public health or quality of life of an impoverished population. Those who receive the award are given a certificate to accelerate certain PTO processes. This year, the innovations that received awards touched on critical areas that will help improve the quality of life for people throughout the world. Award winners worked to improve the treatment and diagnosis of devastating diseases, improve nutrition and the environment, and combat the spread of dangerous counterfeit drugs. These are innovations that will make a real difference in the lives of people in the developing world and elsewhere. Following a Judiciary Committee hearing last year, I asked PTO Director Kappos whether the Patents for Humanity program would be more effective, and more attractive to innovators, if the acceleration certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. He responded that it would, and that it would be particularly beneficial to small businesses. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act makes these acceleration certificates transferrable. It is a straightforward, cost-neutral bill that will strengthen this useful program. When Congress can establish policies that provide business incentives for humanitarian endeavors, it should not hesitate to act. I urge the Senate to work swiftly to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the American intellectual property system is rightly held as the global standard for promoting innovation and driving economic growth. This is particularly true of our patent system, which was recently updated and strengthened for the 21st century by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The fundamental truth that our Founders recognized more than 200 years ago--that limited exclusive rights for inventors incentivize research and development-- continues to benefit consumers and the American economy at large. These limited rights can also be applied to incentivize research and discoveries that advance humanitarian needs. In my time in the Senate, I have worked to promote policies that encourage intellectual property holders to apply their work to address global humanitarian challenges. Today, I am pleased to join with Senator Coons in reintroducing the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act to again advance such policies. This legislation improves on a program created by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, last year. The PTO's Patents for Humanity Program provides rewards to selected patent holders who apply their technology to a humanitarian issue that significantly affects the public health or quality of life of an impoverished population. Those who receive the award are given a certificate to accelerate certain PTO processes. This year, the innovations that received awards touched on critical areas that will help improve the quality of life for people throughout the world. Award winners worked to improve the treatment and diagnosis of devastating diseases, improve nutrition and the environment, and combat the spread of dangerous counterfeit drugs. These are innovations that will make a real difference in the lives of people in the developing world and elsewhere. Following a Judiciary Committee hearing last year, I asked PTO Director Kappos whether the Patents for Humanity program would be more effective, and more attractive to innovators, if the acceleration certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. He responded that it would, and that it would be particularly beneficial to small businesses. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act makes these acceleration certificates transferrable. It is a straightforward, cost-neutral bill that will strengthen this useful program. When Congress can establish policies that provide business incentives for humanitarian endeavors, it should not hesitate to act. I urge the Senate to work swiftly to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont is a special place. In a State that abounds in natural beauty, the Kingdom, as many Vermonters affectionately call the State's northeast corner, is heralded for its rural splendor. While the rural character and unspoiled landscape is what defines the Kingdom to many, it is also home to an academic institution that has educated Vermonters for more than 100 years. Since its founding in 1911, Lyndon State College has served as an economic engine for the region, educating students in a diverse range of academic pursuits. Lyndon has distinguished itself by developing academic programs that mirror the emerging economic needs of the community, such as its first-of-its-kind Mountain Recreation Management program. At the same time, Lyndon remains committed to a liberal arts education and educating students to be well-rounded professionals. On Friday, April 19, Lyndon State will inaugurate its fifteenth president, Joe Bertolino. Joe comes to Vermont from Hunter College in New York, where he served as vice president for enrollment management and academic affairs. Joe's passion for working with students is evident in his easygoing manner and in how he has engaged students since arriving on campus last summer. At a college of only 1,400 students, Joe's personal touch sets the clear tone that under his leadership Lyndon will be a student-centered institution. Joe has undertaken a number of creative initiatives to build community spirit among Lyndon students and alumni, including an informal policy called ``Go Green, Go Gold,'' that encourages the Lyndon State community to wear the school colors on Wednesdays. Beyond this personal approach, Joe has laid out an ambitious plan for the college's future. I have had the opportunity to meet Joe during a recent visit to Washington and am encouraged to welcome his energy and creative thinking to Vermont. Lyndon State College is a vital part of Vermont's higher education community, and I wish Joe the best as he is officially inaugurated as the college's next president. I request unanimous consent that an article from Lyndon State about President Bertolino be printed in the Record.