Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patricia Clough, a fellow in Senator Warner's office, be granted privileges of the floor during consideration of Treaty Document 112-7, and S. 3254.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Bjerke, a defense fellow in Senator Blumenthal's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges during this vote and subsequent votes on the bill be granted to Bruce Cohen, Erica Schabot, and Matt Virkstis.

Mr. President, today, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce will recognize the philanthropic contributions of a longtime Vermonter: Antonio Pomerleau. Businessman, community developer, humanitarian all these terms apply to one of Vermont's most celebrated citizens. As I said in a statement to the Senate earlier this month, Marcelle and I are also fortunate to call him family.

But Tony's family extends beyond the Pomerleaus. It has come to encompass the State of Vermont, and his generosity has touched the lives of thousands of Vermonters.

This weekend, The Burlington Free Press published a story about Tony's legacy. His is a quintessential success story. From stockboy to economic magnet, Tony has become one of Vermont's most prominent businessmen. Along the way, he has donated millions of his own money to help Vermonters recover in the wake of such natural disasters as Tropical Storm Irene, to help renovate and restore mobile home parks for residents, and, notably, to celebrate the contributions and sacrifices of the many members of the Vermont National Guard and their families.

Few Vermonters have had such a footprint on Vermont's economic and social landscape. Antonio Pomerleau's contributions make him a Vermonter of the Year in 2012, but his legacy will benefit generations of Vermonters to come.

I ask unanimous consent that The Burlington Free Press article, ``Tony Pomerleau: The Art of the Dealmaker,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will pass this simple, commonsense legislation to clarify a provision of the Economic Espionage Act and thereby help protect American businesses and American jobs.

The Economic Espionage Act makes it a crime to, among other things, steal a trade secret knowing that the theft will hurt the owner. This is an important protection for American businesses, which often choose trade secret protection over other forms of intellectual property protection.

A recent decision of the Second Circuit in United States v. Aleynikov casts doubt on the reach of the statute. A jury in that case found the defendant guilty of stealing computer code from his employer. The court overturned the conviction, holding among other things that the trade secret did not meet the interstate commerce prong of the statute, even though the defendant had copied the stolen code from his office in New York to a server in Germany; downloaded the code to his home computer in New Jersey; then flew to his new job in Illinois with the stolen source code in his possession; and the code was used in interstate commerce.

The court held that the Economic Espionage Act provision applies only to trade secrets that are part of a product that is produced to be placed in interstate commerce. Because the company's proprietary software was neither placed in interstate commerce, nor produced to be placed in interstate commerce, the law did not apply--even though the stolen source code was part of a financial trading system that was used in interstate commerce every day.

The clarifying legislation that the Senate will pass today corrects the court's narrow reading to ensure that our federal criminal laws adequately address the theft of trade secrets related to a product or service used in interstate commerce. It is a straightforward fix, but an important one, as we work to ensure that American companies can protect the products they work so hard to develop, so they may continue to grow and thrive. I urge the House to act quickly to pass this commonsense legislation.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are we in morning business?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for no more than 5 minutes as in morning business and then resume in the regular order.

Madam President, Vermont is a small State, but it is filled with very big people. Perhaps none are better known or more well liked or more respected than Antonio Pomerleau. He is the Vermont Chamber of Commerce 2012 Vermont Citizen of the Year. Vermonters know Tony Pomerleau by many names. They either call him Mr. P or Tony. My wife

Marcelle and I have the good fortune of calling him Uncle Tony. He is my wife's uncle. They have a family bond that I admire. But no matter what we call him, we all agree that the best term to describe Uncle Tony is ``generous.''

This is not the first time I have come to the floor of the Senate to share stories of Tony Pomerleau's good deeds. Only 6 years ago, the Burlington Free Press named him the 2006 Vermonter of the Year. After that editorial, I came to the floor to tell the story of a successful real estate magnate turned philanthropist who touched the lives of thousands of Vermonters for the past several decades. At that time, he was 89 years old.

This year Tony has undertaken a series of good deeds so substantial that it would be irresponsible if we Vermonters did not acknowledge him with additional recognition and praise. In addition to his unwavering philanthropic commitment to Vermont, this year Tony has demonstrated why he is seen as a pillar of our community--I might say a granite pillar of our community. When Tropical Storm Irene destroyed people's homes, Tony immediately donated $1 million to put them back together. When a decade-long struggle to save a mobile home park in Shelburne, VT, seemed destined to fail, Uncle Tony showed up to rebuild the neighborhood and donate it to the residents. And when his hometown, Newport--Marcelle's birthplace--began discussing plans to reinvigorate its beautiful waterfront, Tony offered to lead the way.

Any one of these three activities over a lifetime would warrant a lifetime achievement award. But Tony Pomerleau did them all in 1 year-- at the age of 95.

This year's very public good deeds go hand in hand with a lifetime of public and private philanthropy. His generosity has touched tens of thousands of Vermonters, from college students at St. Michael's College, where he has been a leading benefactor, to the struggling families who attend his community Christmas parties, to the families of our deployed Vermont National Guard members who are able to come together in celebrations with Tony's support.

Perhaps the best gift Tony Pomerleau has given Vermont is the sense of community and work ethic he has instilled in his family and employees. He and his wife Rita had 10 children, 8 of whom remain with us today. And often one of his many grandchildren travels with him when he goes around the State.

Vermont is a better place thanks to Tony and his good deeds. On behalf of all Vermonters, I thank the Vermont Chamber of Commerce for spotlighting Antonio Pomerleau's good works on behalf of his beloved fellow Vermonters.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

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 November 15, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A Legislative Hearing on the Water Resources Development Act of 2012.''

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 ``Pharmacy Compounding: Implications of the 2012 Meningitis Outbreak'' on November 15, 2012, at 9:45 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2012, at 2 p.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``America's Invisible Epidemic: Preventing Elder Financial Abuse.''

Mr. President, I have been here as a colleague in the Senate during those 11,000 votes. I don't want to ruin his reputation back home, but we have a significant number of those votes where he and I voted the same way, and, of course, he and I sit together or sit side by side on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I congratulate him. These are milestones worth being noted.

Senator Grassley and his wife Barbara are friends of Marcelle's and mine, and I congratulate him. His wife Barbara was kind enough both to recommend my wife for a cancer awareness award and then to introduce it just before we recessed. It has been that kind of relationship. Those of us who live in rural areas, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, acquire certain bonds, so I applaud the Senator.

Mr. President, I have another subject, if I might. Incidentally, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I will take from the majority side.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

As we all know, Congress is now back from an extended recess. When we left, there were a number of significant items pending either on the floor of the House or on the floor of the Senate. Yesterday I spoke about one major piece of legislation we passed here in the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and that was the farm bill. It has, of course, implications to a State such as Vermont but also to every single State in this country. It has everything from milk price supports to drought and disaster relief. This was a bipartisan vote strongly supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. It has been stalled in the House, and I hope, now that the election is over, they can bring it up and pass it.

But there is another urgently needed piece of legislation that we have passed here in the Senate, and it is time to pass it in the House. I know we have issues such as disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. We should do that. We have the fiscal cliff that threatens our economy. That is extremely important. We should have confirmation votes on scores of judicial nominees. We have 19 of them pending on the floor. All of that is important. All of these things can be done in the time remaining for us. But one of the important legislative priorities is the VAWA, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I wrote the bill with Republican Mike Crapo of Idaho. This was and is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It won the support of all the women Senators in this body, Republican and Democratic alike. It passed by an overwhelming margin in this body. The distinguished Presiding Officer was a strong supporter of it. This Senate-passed bill deserves to be on our short list of priorities for the rest of the year.

I was pleased to see that the President and Speaker Boehner have indicated a willingness to work toward a bipartisan solution to avoid the fiscal cliff. But on VAWA, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, the time for posturing has long passed. Congress has failed to pass the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. It passed the Senate with 68 votes more than 200 days ago. We need to take it up and pass it in the House.

I am committed to ensuring that VAWA addresses the changing needs of all victims. I stand ready, as I have from the start, to work with all Members of both parties. I look forward to hearing from the Republican leaders in the House and to seeing this important measure enacted.

You know, both parties could have celebrated the passage of yet another bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill after the Senate's convincing vote in April. There have been a lot of victims since April. They could be receiving the critical protections included in the Senate-passed VAWA reauthorization bill.

In the month since the Senate passed the Leahy-Crapo bill, we have been reminded of the importance of VAWA. I will give you a couple of examples. Let me tell you, these are very grim stories. But let me tell you some very grim stories about what is happening.

In Wisconsin, a gunman opened fire in a Milwaukee-area spa. He wounded four people and he killed three people, including his estranged wife. The Republican Governor of Wisconsin called for tougher domestic violence laws because the gunman had previously abused his estranged wife. The Leahy-Crapo bill will strengthen the ability of States and service providers to identify domestic violence cases with a significant risk of homicide and take effective steps to protect potential victims.

In another case, an Amherst, MA, college student who was raped by a classmate bravely stepped forward in the pages of her school newspaper to describe the lack of response from the school administration. That young student--she is not alone by any means--along with countless others like her, deserves attentive and respectful treatment in the wake of such a heinous act of sexual violence. Our bill would encourage such a response with new campus protections.

If we don't take congressional action, these and other crucial new protections in the Leahy-Crapo bill will not be able to help victims and prevent crimes nationwide. These recent events remind us that innocent lives are on the line when it comes to domestic and sexual violence. These victims of rape and domestic violence cannot wait. It is unacceptable to delay these protections. I was astounded to hear that some of the objections in the House were because we covered all women--all women--in the act, immigrants, gays, straight, Native Americans, whoever it might be.

Mr. President, I still have nightmares about some of the crime scenes I went to as a young prosecutor in Vermont at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. I remember seeing the battered bodies of victims, battered and

bloodied bodies of victims. I never remember a police officer there saying: Wait a minute, we have to find out whether this victim is gay or straight, whether this victim is an undocumented immigrant or a Native American. We have to determine that before we can decide whether we are going to do anything. The distinguished Presiding Officer was mayor of our Queen City of Burlington. He never would have allowed any member of the police force in that city to pick and choose. None of us would.

So let's face up to reality. Let's stop saying we can't pass this bipartisan bill because we have to limit it and we have to pick and choose who are victims. I have said it over and over again on this floor: A victim is a victim is a victim. So let's come together. Let's send the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill to the President without further delay. Let's stop the deaths, the beatings, and the rapes that are occurring. How many of us could pick up an article in the paper and read of one of these things and not be shocked? Every one of us, as a Member of Congress, has the ability to do something to stop this. This is an easy bill to pass. It passed by a wide, strong, bipartisan effort here in the Senate. Let's just take it up, call a vote in the House on it.

I have heard from enough Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives. If this bill came up for a vote, it would pass. I think it is slamming the door in the faces of people who might be abused if we don't bring it back.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee on the floor, and, as I mentioned earlier, just a few minutes ago and yesterday, her leadership brought about one of the most sweeping, cost-saving, best 5-year farm bills this body has passed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, now that the elections are over, I renew my call

for all of us to come together to do what is right and to act in the interests of the American people. We should come together to avert the fiscal cliff and the automatic cuts that will otherwise occur in domestic and defense spending.

I am hopeful that, working together, Democrats and Republicans can come to an agreement so that we can avoid sequestration. The automatic cuts from sequestration would further damage our Federal courts. According to the sequestration report released by the Office of Management and Budget, the sequestration would lead to a $555 million reduction below fiscal year 2012 levels for our independent judiciary. The impending across-the-board cuts under sequestration would reduce Federal court allotments to fiscal year 2006 levels, despite considerably higher caseloads. The impact of sequestration on Federal court operations nationwide could be devastating. It could result in the Federal courts eliminating as many as 6,300 employees, about one- third of their staff, or implementing court employees furloughs for more than a month system-wide.

If we do not find a solution to both the vacancy crisis and the threat to judicial resources, it will be harder for Americans to obtain justice in our Federal courts. Our courts are already overburdened, and the sequester will result in cuts that will force courts to hear fewer cases, which means that court proceedings will be delayed even longer. This will be especially damaging in civil cases, where there are already over 40,000 cases that have been pending for more than 3 years. Sequestration cuts could even result in the suspension of civil jury trials. Even more alarming is what is at stake in the criminal context. If probation and pretrial services offices are downsized or closed, Federal courts and their staff will be unable to properly supervise thousands of persons under pretrial release and convicted felons released from Federal prisons. It is critical, then, that we work together.

And we should complete the task of considering the judicial nominees who have already had their hearings before the Senate recessed for the elections. There is no justification for holding up final Senate action on these judicial nominations. These are not judgeships that Republicans can claim they wish to keep open in order to be filled by nominees from President Obama's successor next year. The American people have decided that President Obama will continue to lead our Nation. In accordance with the will of the American people, it is time for the obstruction to end and for the Senate to complete action on these nominees so that they may serve the American people without further delay. Even Senate Republicans' contorted application of the Thurmond Rule can no longer serve as any sort of rationale for inaction. Delay for delay's sake is wrong and should end. The Senate should start by acting on the 19 judicial nominations that have been approved by the Judiciary Committee and have been awaiting final Senate action without further delay.

Two months ago, the Senate recessed without taking action on 19 judicial nominations. All were supported by their home State Senators, Republican and Democratic. Almost all had bipartisan support. I cannot remember a time when the Senate refused to act on nominees with such bipartisan support. There was no precedent for the filibuster of Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit and that filibuster should end. After Senator Coburn failed to vote for cloture to end the filibuster of the Bacharach nomination last July, he indicated that he expected Judge Bacharach to be confirmed before the end of the year if President Obama was reelected. The junior Senator from Texas also indicated that the circuit judges would be voted on if President Obama was reelected. Well, now that the people of this country have spoken, we should be working together to approve these judicial nominees so they can provide justice for the American people.

I urge Senate Republicans to come together and work with us to consider these judicial nominees without further delay. They should agree to debate and then to let the Senate vote on the nominations of Judge Patty Shwartz of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, Richard Taranto to the Federal Circuit, William Kayatta of Maine to the First Circuit, Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit, and the district court nominees from Connecticut, Maryland, Florida, Oklahoma, Michigan, California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. I am also working to have the Judiciary Committee complete its consideration of five more judicial nominees who had their hearing in September. With the confirmation of these nominees, we can eliminate the backlog here in the Senate and take a significant step toward filling a good portion of the judicial vacancies that have been plaguing our courts, including filling over a dozen judicial emergency vacancies.

The president of the Hispanic National Bar Association wrote a letter to the Senate Leaders in September saying: ``The fact that Congress is adjourning without confirming these candidates is of great concern, and is a disservice to the Federal Courts and the people they serve.'' He was right. Now that the election is over, let us come together as the Senate of the United States and make progress on behalf of the American people.

The New York Times noted in an editorial last month entitled ``Politics and the Courts'' that: ``During the Obama years, nominees presenting no ideological threat have been held up in the Republicans' campaign of partisan attack and obstruction--even against trial judges. * * * The holdups have cost Americans dearly--in justice delayed (it now generally takes two years to get a federal civil trial) and justice denied.'' Now that the election is over, let us do what we can to mitigate the damage and move forward.

The number of judicial vacancies has, again, risen above 80. I have heard from judges around the country whose courts have vacancies. They are working hard to keep their courts functioning, but they need help to ensure that all Americans have access to courts and to justice. Recently, Professor Carl Tobias summed up the vacancy crisis that has been plaguing us for the last four years. Professor Tobias is right, and we need to expeditiously confirm our judicial nominees so they can deliver justice for the American people. I ask consent that his full article in The Hill, entitled, ``Obstruction in Senate Taking Its Toll on the Courts,'' appear in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

We can begin to help address the vacancy crisis by confirming the 19 nominees who are currently waiting for final Senate action. The four circuit court nominees have each been waiting at least 5 months for a vote. One has been stalled for more than 8 months. The 15 district court nominees have all been waiting at least 3 months, with some stalled for as long as 7 months.

The Republican Senator from Pennsylvania wrote a letter to the Majority leader and Senator McConnell asking that the two nominees for the Middle District of Pennsylvania be considered. I want to see those nominees, as well as the dozen whose Senate votes have been delayed even longer, and all the judicial nominees who have had a hearing, acted upon by the Senate.

The Senate should not continue down the path of unprecedented obstruction and delay. President Obama had not sought to pick an ideological fight with the Senate on judicial nominees as his predecessor had done. By way of example, the Republican Senators from Oklahoma have said that they support Robert Bacharach, and the Republican Senators from Maine strongly support William Kayatta. It is unprecedented to have this many consensus judicial nominees not acted upon before the election recess in a presidential election year.

The American people deserve better, and I know the Senate can do better. After the midterm election in 2002, Senate Democrats worked with Senate Republicans to confirm 20 of President Bush's judicial nominees in 1 week, including 18 in just 1 day. Again, in 2010, the Senate proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees during the lameduck session after the election. Unfortunately, Republican delays in 2010 had backlogged 38 judicial nominees and the confirmations of 19 went only halfway to what we should have done.

When Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were President, Senate Democrats cleared the calendar of all but the most controversial and extreme ideological judicial

nominations. The Senate needs to be allowed to vote on President Obama's judicial nominees now so that our Federal courts are better able to function and fulfill the fundamental guarantee of providing access to justice. I hope that now that President Obama has been reelected, Senate Republicans will work with us to fill these longstanding judicial vacancies. The American people deserve no less.

When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, or when two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. Americans are rightfully proud of our legal system and its promise of access to justice and speedy trials. This promise is embedded in our Constitution. When overburdened courts make it hard to keep this promise, the Senate should work in a bipartisan manner to help.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am proud to call to the Senate's attention the record of accomplishment of a military officer who has retired after 33 years of outstanding service to the Vermont Air and Army National Guard.

LTC Lloyd Goodrow served five Adjutant Generals. He distinguished himself in the position of State Public Affairs Officer. Through diligence, honesty, and integrity he forged a strong and straightforward relationship with the media and the Vermont Congressional Delegation.

In the years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Lieutenant Colonel Goodrow provided strong, meaningful support to deployed troops and their families. He helped Vermonters to make a human connection to the Guard during this difficult time. His empathy and deep understanding of the tragedy and suffering of Gold Star families not only aided those families in the healing process but left a lasting impression on Lloyd.

Lloyd is an outstanding family man. Marcelle and I are fortunate to count as friends Lloyd, his wife Margo, and their son Daniel. Daniel has been recognized at the State and national level for his swimming in the Special Olympics. Like his parents, he has been a strong advocate for people with special needs.

In recognition of Lieutenant Colonel Goodrow's service to our country and to our State of Vermont, I ask that an article, ``Spokesman for Vt. National Guard retires,'' written by Matt Ryan in the November 1, 2012, edition of the Burlington Free Press, be entered into the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, one of Vermont's premier businesses is celebrating its 80th anniversary this year. Ethan Allen Furniture has come to represent the very highest standards and quality that Vermont has to offer.

In 1932, two brothers-in-law from New York City established a wholesale company that sold small housewares. Four years later, they purchased a bankrupt furniture factory in Beecher Falls, VT, and began manufacturing early American furniture branded as the Ethan Allen line. They eventually renamed the company after Ethan Allen, a Revolutionary War hero who played an integral role in America's fight for independence and Vermont's admission to the Union as the 14th State.

Over the years, Ethan Allen Furniture has grown into one of the world's most prominent furniture makers and interior design specialists, with over 300 stores worldwide and manufacturing centers around the globe.

This world-renowned company has remained close to its Vermont roots and continues to employ many Vermonters because of their unique talent and experience in finely crafted furniture. It was great to see that the company's president, CEO, and chairman, Farooq Kathwari, recently visited with employees at the Orleans, VT, facility to celebrate the company's anniversary and its return to profitability.

I congratulate Ethan Allen Furniture on this monumental anniversary, and I wish them much success in the future.

I ask unanimous consent that the September 26, 2012, Caledonian Record article entitled ``Ethan Allen Celebrates 80 Years'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, homelessness is not something found only in large urban areas or that is isolated to city limits; it is just as easily found in small towns and rural areas. Vermont, like the rest of the Nation, struggles each day with homelessness. It is estimated that in any given year, there are 4,000 homeless Vermonters, and on any given night, children, as well as adults, find refuge in a shelter.

The Committee on Temporary Shelter, known in Vermont as COTS, has been serving the homeless in Chittenden County since 1982. While COTS relies on the talents of more than 60 dedicated staff members, it is the tireless leadership of their executive director, Rita Markley, that is the heartbeat of this critically important organization.

I have been so proud of the work of Rita and COTS in their service to the people of Chittenden County. During her time with COTS, Rita has worked tirelessly to provide emergency shelter to those in need, while advocating for long-term solutions to end homelessness. Beyond providing emergency shelter for those in need, COTS' prevention program extends a crucial safety net for those on the brink of losing their homes.

Under Rita's leadership more than 100 families found shelter through COTS in 2011, including 115 parents and 122 children. Since 2008, COTS' prevention program has helped 1,264 people to stay in their apartments and has stopped 55 foreclosures.

Rita is known throughout Vermont for her overwhelming generosity, tireless determination, and sharp sense of humor. She truly embodies the Vermont spirit, dedicating herself to helping her neighbors and reminding us that we are all in this together. Vermont is truly lucky to call Rita Markley one of our own.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an article from September 20, 2012, entitled, ``Innovation, and passion, in the nonprofit world,'' from The Burlington Free Press, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, shortly after the Senate recessed in September, a compelling article was published in the Burlington Free Press which I would like to share with this Senate.

John Ewing is a true public servant in Vermont. His vision and ability to work with diverse groups to protect Vermont's environment has been an inspiration to many. His September 30, 2012, column entitled, ``I Believe'' reviews the important steps Vermont has taken to achieve smart growth to help our natural resources and the State's economy hand in hand. John also looks to the future and what we must continue to do in Vermont to ensure we are planning for our best future possible with vibrant communities, a working landscape, and the natural beauty of our open spaces. Vermonters have a history of approaching these issues in a collaborative and objective fashion and I know that if we continue to do that we will be able to move Vermont forward to a bright and sustainable future.

John's column is a roadmap to how States can protect their natural heritage while maintaining their economic vitality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this column be printed in the Record.

Does the distinguished Senator yield?

I join my colleagues in welcoming him back to this body, in which he has served with distinction from his very first day here as he did in the other body.

It tears my heart apart to hear of this kind of suppression. In Vermont, we have pride in our ability to vote. We have Town Meeting Day. I think we had 65 or 70 percent turnout this time. We expect people to be able to vote.

The distinguished Senator has referred to the civil rights era. Do we, in this great country--a signal of democracy to so much of the world--want to go back there? I am sure the distinguished Senator has had, as I have had, the honor of being an observer of elections in other countries where, finally, a country that has overcome a dictatorship or overcome a civil war, they finally can vote, and the people are lining up and saying: Thank God we have a chance to vote and it is open for the first time. They would say: You Americans would never have to experience this. I don't want to go to these countries that we ask to come into the fold of democracy and ask them to have free and open voting and have them--those that do not want free and open voting--say: What about what you have done in your country?

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is an American issue. We fought a revolution. We fought world wars. We worked to make this country of over 300 million people great because everybody's voice is supposed to be heard. I think it is shameful and I think it is illegal. Those who try to stop it, they should be exposed. They should be punished. I don't care if the person voting is a Republican or Democrat or Independent. They should have the right to vote. If we lose that right, we lose our soul as Americans. I thank the distinguished Senator for bringing this up.

Mr. President, I think the distinguished senior Senator from Florida has done the Senate and the country a service in what he has said.

We each represent our own States. We have matters of interest in our States, but also so many times they are national interests. During this past recess, I was in just about every part of Vermont. I was stopped time and time again by Vermont farmers who asked me why Congress left town without passing a farm bill. They knew we had passed it in the Senate, but why hadn't we finished?

Similar to my fellow Vermonters, I have been frustrated by the refusal of the leadership of the House of Representatives to consider the legislation sent to them by the Senate to extend the farm bill. In fact, they blocked consideration of a bipartisan farm bill, one that mirrors the legislation passed in their own body by the House Agriculture Committee.

I have been here nearly 38 years. I have served on the Senate Agriculture Committee all that time. I have never seen a case where the House Agriculture Committee--whether it is led by Democrats or by Republicans--passed a bipartisan farm bill only to see it blocked from a final vote by its own leadership.

The Senate has done its work, but as a result of the House's inaction, for the first time that anybody can remember in either body, the farm bill has expired. This is dangerous for dairy farmers in Vermont and for farmers across the country.

This delay threatens our rural communities. We all have rural communities in our States. The farmers not only need but also deserve the certainty that a 5-year farm bill provides. We pass farm bills in 5-year segments so that farmers, who have to plan way in the future, know how to plan. We can't say: Wait a minute, put your farming on hold while we try to get our act together. Don't milk those cows for a few months while we try to figure out what we are going to do. Don't plant or don't harvest that crop while we are trying to figure out what we are going to do.

It doesn't work that way. The farmers already confront enough uncertainty running their businesses. When we let farm programs expire without enacting a new farm bill, it needlessly compounds that uncertainty and it is irresponsible. Decisions must by made today to determine what is going to be planted next spring. But now they have to make that decision with uncertainty about what may be in the farm bill.

The essential nutrition programs in the farm bill provide healthy food for vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant and nursing women. Vermonters, like tens of millions of people across the country, depend upon these programs where they are struggling to put enough food on their table during these very tough economic times.

Some of these program benefits will continue. But it is such a tenuous position. How does a State plan? How does a community plan? We need the House leadership to allow the farm bill to proceed so we can move this country forward, giving farmers the certainty and vulnerable citizens the security they deserve.

The Senate farm bill is a good, bipartisan bill. But more than that, it is a deficit reduction bill. It has $23 billion in cost savings as well as crucial policy reforms for dairy farmers facing the challenges of the 21st century. It also maintains a safety net for millions of hungry Americans.

The wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth has people going hungry. In a nation that spends billions of dollars on fad diet programs or billions of dollars to dispose of waste food, we should not have hungry people. Not in this country.

I also point out the farm bill has always been bipartisan. I remember the hard work, mutual respect, and spirit of cooperation that Senator Dick Lugar and I shared. We worked together as Agriculture Committee chairman and ranking member. We put American farmers and families first and politics last. My good friend from Indiana and I were able to accomplish amazing things together. Obviously, we had some differences of opinion as Members of different regions and different parties do. But we knew we had to work together. We did, and America benefited from that. Certainly our farmers did too.

The need to work together is as true today as it was then. It is going to take real leadership in the House and Senate to pass a farm bill. We have seen that leadership and bipartisanship in the Senate. Having served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for 8 years, I can say without any doubt that Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow has been one of the finest chairs we have had of that committee. I have watched how hard she has worked and how hard Ranking Member Pat Roberts has worked. He brought his tremendous experience and knowledge through his time as chairman of the House agriculture Committee. In fact, in the debate over the Senate farm bill--and I commend Senator Stabenow on this--seated around that table we had several people who had previously been chairman or ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee or the House Agriculture Committee, both Republicans and Democrats. In fact, even one Senator who had been Secretary of Agriculture. We all said: We can play games, we can talk, we can posture, we can sloganeer or we can sit down like grownups and put together a real farm bill.

It took a nanosecond to decide we can be grownups and put together a real farm bill. Republicans and Democrats sat down. We wrote a deficit- reducing, meaningful farm bill, and it passed in a Senate which is often deadlocked. It passed 64-35. It passed overwhelmingly--from all parts of the country and across the political spectrum.

Senator Johanns, former Secretary of Agriculture during the Bush administration, sat around that table and helped us write it. That shows how bipartisan the approach to reauthorizing the farm bill was in the Senate. We did not let political labels get in the way of what was best for the country.

The elections are over. We know who has won or lost. We hope our friends in the other body, in the House of Representatives, will set aside their obstructionism and pass this bill. I am pleased by the fact that our State's Congressman, Peter Welch, is a member of that committee. He has been urging both Republicans and Democrats to pass the bill, and I agree with him because it is a bill that directly affects every farm family's budget. It helps farmers decide which crops to plant, where to sell, how much to borrow. It allows farmers to make their decisions--which are hard enough to make without this delay--with some kind of certainty.

The farm bill affects Vermonters and Americans across the country where there is food insecurity and uncertainty in these difficult times. One of the things people lose sight of is that the farm bill is also a disaster relief

bill. We need the new farm bill to help farmers in the Garden State and across the entire Nation to recover from the nonstop floods of 2012. We need it to help those across the Nation who are stuck on the other side of the weather spectrum, with drought.

That is all in this bill. Because we know, as much as we wish there would never be floods, as much as we wish there would never be droughts, they occur. We have written that into this bill. Why in heaven's name would anybody, from any part of the country--and we are all vulnerable at one time or another--want to hold it up?

The fact is things are going to get worse very quickly if we begin the new year without a farm bill. Outdated parity price systems will multiply the price of milk on store shelves. It will destroy household pocketbooks and the milk market nationally.

Let me reiterate that. Certainly in my State this is very important. If we don't pass the bill, we will have outdated parity price systems that will multiply the price of milk on the store shelves and will destroy household pocketbooks and the milk market nationally. Ask anybody who lives paycheck to paycheck what that would be like.

So I urge the leadership in the House of Representatives to allow open debate on the Senate-passed farm bill. They don't have to have a bill that is word for word what we passed here in the Senate, but I point out that the Senate bill saves billions of dollars, it does have a dairy program, and it does speak to disaster, drought, and flood relief. We need it now. Let us stand with our dairy farmers in Vermont, our eggplant growers in New Jersey, and our hungry families across the country. Let's set the political gamesmanship aside, help America's farmers, families, and rural communities that all rely on the farm bill. The people in these communities, the farmers in these communities, do not care whether there is a Democrat or Republican's name on the bill. All they know is they want a good farm bill that allows them to stay in farming.

Farming is hard enough as it is. None of us has to do the farming. We ought to stand up and help--that we can do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it was more than 40 years ago when two young prosecutors, one from the biggest city in Pennsylvania and one from a smaller town in rural Vermont, came together at an annual meeting of the National District Attorneys Association in Philadelphia. Little did Arlen Specter and I know then that we would spend 30 years working together in the United States Senate, building on our bond as former prosecutors, seeking to bridge the partisan divide, and striving to find common ground on some of the most contentious issues of our time.

Arlen Specter's public service began during the Korean War. When elected to serve as Philadelphia's District Attorney, he led landmark prosecutions against public corruption and to rid his city's streets of some of the country's most hardened criminals. He was a prosecutor's prosecutor.

Arlen Specter also was a Senator's Senator. He loved the Constitution, he loved and honored the institutions of our democracy, and he loved policymaking and the political process. As a Senator he tried to put the interests of the Nation and the Senate's special role in our system above partisanship while always representing and serving the people of Pennsylvania. He believed in aggressive oversight of government agencies, regardless of the administration's affiliation, from our bipartisan investigation of the shootout at Ruby Ridge, to the political firings of U.S. attorneys and the threats to civil liberties posed during the Bush administration. He reached across the aisle to partner with me to try to pass comprehensive asbestos legislation and we joined to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act during the Bush administration. He supported more transparency, in every branch of our government, to ensure the American people knew what their government was doing. He was a strong supporter of law enforcement and a vigorous and fair judicial system. And he joined with Tom Harkin to direct billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health and cancer research.

His work ethic and dedication were tested when he was first diagnosed with an advanced form of Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2005. Through that ordeal, Arlen kept his humor, his spirit, and his rigorous work schedule. He served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2005 and 2006. I was the ranking Democratic member of the committee during those years and worked collaboratively to make my friend a success and ensured that we treated him fairly. During those years and those that followed, when it was my turn to chair the committee and his to lead the Republican members, we used to joke that we spoke to each other more often than we spoke to our wives, Marcelle and Joan.

Arlen was a fighter. I never knew anyone who worked or fought harder. I think he hoped to fight through his disease one more time.

The history books will note that Arlen Specter was the longest- serving U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania history. History should remember Arlen Specter as a person who tried to do what he thought was best for the country and to challenge the ever more constricting litmus test of partisan politics. He represented Pennsylvania and served the Nation. Like the Republican Senators who have represented Vermont, Arlen is an example to all senators, of any party. He will be missed.

Mr. President, on August 25, 2012, the United States and the world lost one of its most creative thinkers and problem solvers. Roger D. Fisher, Williston Professor of Law at Harvard University and coauthor of ``Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In,'' the most widely read book ever written on the subject, was 90 years old.

Roger Fisher was a pioneer and a giant in the field of negotiation. He not only changed the way people think about dispute resolution, inspiring and mentoring countless students who have gone on to use his teachings in their own careers, he applied his theories to real-life conflicts from South America to the Middle East.

I had the good fortune to meet Roger and was struck by his affable manner and big smile, his inquisitive mind, and, perhaps above all, his enthusiasm for devising creative ways to help others solve seemingly intractable problems and in doing so make the world a better place. No conflict was too big or too small. He had imaginative, thoughtful approaches to everything, from ending the Vietnam war to resolving an argument among siblings at the family dinner table.

Roger was a gifted advocate. He had a brilliant mind and an extraordinary ability to persuade. But, as others have said, ``he taught that conflict was not simply a `zero-sum' game in which a fixed pie is simply divided through haggling or threats.'' Rather, it was about how one approaches the problem, recognizing the other side's needs, understanding their interests, and in doing so maximizing outcomes for both sides. That was the genius of the ``without giving in'' part of ``Getting to Yes.'' While some might assume he meant getting one's way at another's expense, Roger recognized that is rarely possible or desirable, and it is often not necessary for a good result. But he also saw how lacking in the basic analytical and practical tools of negotiation most people are.

I often think of Roger when I see the House and Senate so polarized and incapable of the positive, creative thinking and compromise that are necessary to deal effectively with issues of importance to our constituents, to the country, and to the world. ``Getting to Yes'' should be mandatory reading for every Member of Congress. It contains invaluable lessons for the job the American people sent us here to do.

I want to express my condolences to Roger's two sons, Elliot and Peter. Elliot Fisher lives in Vermont, is a respected physician at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and a leading voice for health policy reform. Peter Fisher has had a distinguished career in finance, including at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and as an Under Secretary of the Treasury. I have no doubt they both have put to good use the lessons of their father.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an obituary in the Economist about Roger Fisher.

Mr. President, seeing the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the chair, I have a feeling I may be preaching to the converted, but let me say we, all of us, were outraged by the video denigrating the Muslim faith but then by the mob violence--some of it encouraged by al-Qaida or other extremist groups-- against our embassies and diplomats in Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and other countries around the world. Secretary of State Clinton said it well: ``The United States rejects both the content and message of that video . . . and deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.''

The Secretary and President Obama have also said, repeatedly, that there is never any justification for the violent acts that have been perpetrated against our diplomats, and they have called on the governments of those countries to protect our embassies and consulates. And of course, they are right.

As far as I am aware we have received the condolences and support of the governments of these countries, as well as scores of other governments around the world.

The support and sympathy expressed, not only by foreign officials but by countless citizens of these countries who have denounced the attacks on United States personnel, needs to be recognized.

There is no evidence, that I am aware of, that any of these governments were responsible for, or had any involvement in, these violent demonstrations. They neither ordered nor condoned them. To the contrary, they have since taken steps to protect our facilities and personnel.

That is why I am mystified by the legislation offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky, Senator Paul, which would cut off aid to key U.S. allies like Israel, Indonesia and Jordan where such protests have occurred, even peaceful demonstrations, as well as security partners like Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan.

On the one hand, there are some affirmations of our policy goals in the legislation that I agree with--for example, we all want those responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans in Benghazi, as well as the destruction of property there and in Cairo and elsewhere, to be brought to justice. And already, dozens of people are under arrest in those countries.

But anyone who is inclined to support this legislation should read the fine print, because the way it is drafted is not only unworkable, it would serve to inflame an already dangerous situation, harming America's national security interests.

For example, all aid would be cut off to governments in countries where a demonstration occurred, even a peaceful demonstration, until the government arrests everyone who participated, and until the FBI has identified everyone involved and they are all in the custody of the United States, even if we do not have extradition treaties with those countries.

In other words, we would cut off aid to the governments of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, Turkey, Lebanon,

Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Yemen, and India, among others, until every one of the thousands of people who participated in demonstrations in those countries has been identified by name, arrested, and brought to the United States and imprisoned.

I have seen unworkable, unwise legislation before, but this may win the prize. Not only would this be a colossal waste of FBI resources, it would be impossible to implement.

How is the FBI going to determine the identity of everyone who joined in these protests? Is that really what we want the FBI doing?

Are we, who believe in freedom of speech, really going to fill up our prisons with thousands of foreigners, including those who have engaged in peaceful demonstrations?

Does the author of this amendment have any idea how much that would cost U.S. taxpayers?

Are we really going to cut off aid to the Government of Egypt, which has reaffirmed its peace agreement with Israel, sent troops against Egyptian extremists in the Sinai, deployed police to protect the U.S. embassy, and is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the IMF--with U.S. and European support--to reform its economy?

Are we going to also cut off aid to Israel--which we would not do, of course?

Do we really want to cut off aid to the Government of Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world and a key U.S. ally in South East Asia?

And Libya, which we helped to liberate, and which has just emerged from a bloody revolution to overthrow a tyrant who posed a real threat to regional peace and security?

As I said before, we are all outraged and saddened by the tragic events in Benghazi, Cairo, and elsewhere. There is no justification for it. We expect to see those responsible for the violence to be brought to justice, and we have insisted that these governments fulfill their obligation to protect our embassies, as we protect theirs.

But this is no way to honor the patriotism and sacrifice of Ambassador Stevens and the others who lost their lives.

We are not talking about brutal kleptocracies like the Mobutu Government of the 1980s who the junior Senator from Kentucky spoke of today.

These are fledgling democracies whose people have been ruled and brutalized by corrupt dictators for decades. They are struggling to draft new constitutions, elect parliaments, reform their police, restructure their stagnant economies, and manage competing ethnic, religious and political factions, some of which have been in conflict with each other for centuries.

We can punish them by cutting off our aid, even though these governments had no more to do with organizing the protests than our government had to do with producing the anti-Muslim video that is inciting the protests.

That might score political points for some back home.

Or we can support them in making decisions that will improve our relations and strengthen our security.

Withdrawal is not an option for the United States. Isolationism is not an option. Overreacting in ways that embolden violent extremists is not an option.

This amendment is poorly conceived, poorly drafted, and would have all sorts of unintended and dangerous consequences. The best message the United States Congress could send to the forces of democracy in these countries is to defeat it overwhelmingly.

I believe, like so many both Democrats and Republicans who have spoken against this, it makes no sense.

I yield the floor.