Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week I spoke about the importance of the rule of law in Guatemala and praised the work of Attorney General Thelma Aldana and the commissioner of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, Ivan Velasquez. These two individuals have helped to create hope among the Guatemalan people in the possibility of justice in a country where the justice system has too often been used to perpetuate corruption, impunity, and inequality. The International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, or CICIG, has been strongly supported by the United States. I commended President Morales when, shortly after taking office last January, he extended CICIG's mandate. He has affirmed that he supports CICIG's mandate through September 2019, for which, again, I commend him. Last week, I expressed a concern that had been conveyed to me by several individuals that President Morales might recommend against renewal of Mr. Velasquez as commissioner beyond September 2017, when Mr. Velasquez's current term expires. In response, according to press reports, President Morales denied this and said he supports Mr. Velasquez for as long as Mr. Velasquez does the job he is supposed to do. Ivan Velasquez is a respected former judge from Colombia who has carried out his responsibilities as the commissioner of CICIG with professionalism. He and Attorney General Aldana have collaborated on sensitive, complex cases, which until recently would never have been prosecuted in Guatemala, given its history of impunity. It is important that their collaboration continue for as long as possible. I welcome President Morales's public statement of support for CICIG and for Mr. Velasquez, particularly at a time when the U.S. Congress is again being asked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Alliance for Prosperity Plan. That plan, which is in its early stages, has the potential to make progress in combating the poverty, lack of opportunity, inequality, violence, and impunity that are among the key contributors to migration from Central America to the United States. These are deeply rooted problems that the Central American countries and the United States have a strong interest in working together to address. For the Alliance for Prosperity Plan to succeed, each of the Central American governments needs to take steps that their predecessors were unwilling or unable to take. Those steps include ensuring that senior government officials and their advisers are people of integrity; redefining the antagonistic relationship between government and civil society, to one of mutual respect for each other's legitimate role; fully supporting efforts to combat corruption by CICIG and by the Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras--El Salvador should also recognize the important role these entities are playing and support the establishment of a similar commission to combat corruption and impunity in that country-- increasing the budget of the Office of the Attorney General, so they have the necessary personnel, training, equipment, and protection to carry out their responsibilities throughout the country, especially in areas where they have never had the resources to operate; supporting the independence of the judiciary, including the selection of judges based on their qualifications and the principle of equal access to justice; and building transparent and accountable institutions of democracy that can withstand attempts to subvert the rights of the people, including demilitarizing law enforcement and building professional, civilian police forces. It is the responsibility of the Central American governments to take these steps and, by doing so, create the conditions for building more prosperous, equitable, and just societies. If they do that and they meet the other conditions in U.S. law, the United States should support them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the enduring legacy of a champion of education and equity in my home State of Vermont, David Wolk. For the last 16 years, Mr. David Wolk has served admirably as the president of Castleton University. David's retirement at the close of 2017 will leave a legacy of nearly 17 years of academic excellence, visionary leadership, and unmatched commitment to community. As the longest serving president in its history, David has led Castleton through an extraordinary transformation. David leaves Castleton as a vibrant, economic engine of the Green Mountain State and a trailblazer in inclusivity, entrepreneurship, and service learning. Castleton students have often found a unique kinship with David, noting his frequency in the student dining halls and at student club events. As an avid fan of Castleton Spartan Athletics, David is proud of the accomplishments of the school's student-athletes. The university more than doubled its varsity sport offerings during David's tenure, enabling Vermont students to play Division III sports. The largest community investment was the development of the Spartan Arena, which is used by both the school and the community as an all-purpose community center and athletic space. As a Rutland native, David has always felt a special connection to his hometown. As president, his focus on integrating Castleton and the surrounding community has built a lasting alliance that promises regional prosperity for years to come. Most recently, Castleton has partnered with the Rutland Economic Development Corporation to open the Castleton Downtown Office, a publicly accessible space for students and community members alike. A nexus of the downtown, this space now hosts the Center for Entrepreneurial Programs, Center for Schools, Center for Community Engagement, and the Castleton Polling Institute. David's passion for the arts has also inspired a coupling of the Castleton Downtown Art Gallery and the historic Paramount Theatre. As the needs of our students, families, and communities continue to evolve, David's legacy is his success in elevating education as a key solution to addressing our most pressing public challenges. As he transitions to his next venture, I wish David and his wife, Lyn, great success and hope they will find joy in visiting family and friends found throughout the world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement issued by Castleton University be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as in so many rural States, small businesses make up the backbone of Vermont's economy and communities. Countless Vermont businesses develop and manufacture a wide array of products, ranging from our thriving craft beer industry to Vermont-made peanut butter, candles, chocolates, and cheeses. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize one of Vermont's outstanding small businesses, Jasper Hill Farm. A small, rural creamery in the Northeast Kingdom, Jasper Hill Farm exemplifies our State's essential balance of innovation and tradition. Andy and Mateo Kehler have worked for more than 15 years to make the best cheese possible, all while remaining true to their Vermont roots. Now an award-winning artisan cheese business, Jasper Hill Farm began two decades ago when the brothers Kehler pooled their resources to buy a small farm in rural Greensboro, VT. They decided to try a new model of small-scale, value-added dairy farming that would transform raw milk into a more valuable product before leaving the farm. To do so, Mateo and Andy built a creamery with space to age cheese next door to the barn. After 5 years of hard work, the brothers finally had their first marketable cheese. What started as a few racks of cheese with a couple of direct customers quickly expanded, as did the farm's notoriety. Within 3 years, Jasper Hill Farm took home ``Best of Show'' at the American Cheese Society Conference. Despite their hard-earned success, Andy and Mateo continued with their vision of increasing access to value-added production for all interested farmers. They took new measures to create opportunities for community success, opening their space to other cheesemakers. Now, the creamery is home not only to numerous cheese caves, but to a modern laboratory where scientists work to create cheese starter cultures. Years of research have enabled the creation of better cheese, and Jasper Hill Farm has become a magnet for other artisan cheesemakers along the way. Andy and Mateo have created an outstanding business that is rooted in the Vermont values of hard work and perseverance, while emphasizing the importance of community. Their efforts to reinvigorate the State's dairy industry have contributed to our State's identity and culture, as well as our agricultural traditions. I am proud to feature the work of Jasper Hill Farm at our annual Taste of Vermont event, and I look forward to seeing what their future brings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times article about Jasper Hill Farm be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are we in morning business?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve in this body for more than 42 years, and I thank my native State of Vermont for that. When I joined the Senate, our country was still crawling out of an intractable war--a war which came to an end with a vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee in April of 1975. Since then, I have seen our country slide into new wars. I have seen scandals that have consumed this town and our Nation. I have seen horrific terrorist attacks that have shaken our country to its core, from Oklahoma City to 9/11, and others. All of these events, in different ways, have tested our country. But I have never seen a threat to our democratic institutions like I see today. There is still much we do not know about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, but what we do know is deeply disturbing. Last night, reports indicated that there is evidence that certain Trump officials coordinated the release of hacked documents with Russian officials. And on Monday the FBI Director confirmed that the FBI has been investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since July of last year. Already, the Intelligence Community has made public its conclusion that Russian President Putin waged a multifaceted influence campaign to delegitimize Secretary Clinton and help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Worse, he intended to undermine public faith in our democratic process. What is even worse is that this interference did not end on November 8, election day. It is ongoing. That--whether you are a Republican or a Democrat--should concern every American. According to the Intelligence Community, President Putin will continue using cyber-attacks and propaganda campaigns to undermine our future elections. This is nothing less than an attack on our democracy. It should outrage all Americans, no matter what their political affiliation, and we need to know all the facts. Frankly, my experience here tells me we need a thorough, independent investigation. We need to send a clear message to President Putin that America, our country--the country that the Presiding Officer and I revere--will not tolerate future efforts to manipulate our most sacred democratic process, our elections. All of us here know that President Trump is not going to lead such an investigation. He is not going to deliver this message. The President, unfortunately, spent much of the 2016 campaign supportive of President Putin. Then-Candidate Trump refused to call on Russia to stop meddling in our election, saying: ``I'm not going to tell Putin what to do.'' He even encouraged Russian hacking on live television, pleading: ``Russia, if you're listening, I hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.'' It is unprecedented. No candidate, in my memory, of either party has ever called on another country to interfere in our elections that way. This was occurring as the President was claiming to have had no role in weakening the Republican Party's official position on Russia's incursion into Ukraine. Of course, we have now learned that this was false, and his campaign played a central role in softening his party's stance on Russia. I do not know why the President is so enthralled with President Vladimir Putin, a man who has shown such disregard for personal rights, even as he has made himself one of the wealthiest people in the world. It may be simply because Russia is heavily invested in the Trump brand. Years before the President denied having any financial relationships with the Russians, his son admitted that Russians own a disproportionate share of Trump assets, saying: ``We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'' Now, just how invested Moscow is in Trump is not known. The President broke with precedent of both Republicans and Democrats and did not release his tax returns. But I imagine there would be quite a sigh of relief if the only secret in the President's full tax returns were that he did not pay his share of taxes and paid far less than the average American. The President, though, is not the only one in his administration incapable of telling the truth when it comes to Russia. His Attorney General provided testimony that was not true before the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to questions from me and Senator Franken about Russian contacts, and we know his first National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, resigned after lying to Vice President Pence about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador. President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, also resigned after questions were raised about his extensive activities in Russia and Ukraine. Of course, now it has been reported that Mr. Manafort earned $10 million per year for secret work on behalf of Putin. Another former adviser, Roger Stone, had early warning of the release of hacked documents. He has admitted to having conversations with ``Guccifer 2.0,'' the Russian-connected hacker responsible for the cyber-attack on the Democratic National Committee. They say that where there is smoke there is fire. There is so much smoke here that it is getting hard to breathe. The President unfortunately continues to make matters worse. This week alone, he continued his untruth about President Obama personally ordering a wiretap of Trump Tower, something everybody knows is not true. I think members of his own administration's inner circle are embarrassed every time he persists in this. On Monday, the President ramped up his own influence campaign to undermine the integrity of this investigation, tweeting ``fake news'' as the Director of the FBI prepared to testify under oath in the House of Representatives. Now, I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the FBI's investigation thus far, but I have every reason to believe it is eventually going to be at risk. That is why we need somebody independent--independent of the Congress, independent of the administration. We need an independent special prosecutor to lead this investigation and to ultimately decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. A special prosecutor would not report to the Attorney General, who himself is a witness to this investigation. And a special prosecutor, unlike the Attorney General or even the FBI Director, cannot be fired by the President. I have thought long and hard about this. I went on my experience here with administrations beginning with President Gerald Ford straight through to today. It takes a lot of thought to call for a special prosecutor, but this is one where we need it, where the American people have to have somebody they can trust outside Republicans, Democrats, and the Congress, and certainly outside the administration. Our Nation is at a precipice. We can either confront what happened in our election and get to the bottom of it with an independent investigation and make sure it never happens again. Or we can just pretend this is another Washington scandal and allow it to be filtered through a familiar partisan lens. That would be a terrible mistake. In all my years here, I have never seen a time when another country--one that has shown its animosity toward us--has tried to interfere in our elections. If Russia can get away with interfering with our elections, what else can they interfere with in our democratic Nation? They do not share the ideals we do. They do not allow free elections. They do not allow freedom of expression. They do not allow their people to speak out. Why would anyone think that they would have America's interests at heart? Today we have a counterintelligence investigation into the campaign of a sitting President. There is evidence that this campaign colluded with a foreign adversary to impact our Presidential election. This is not normal. We must not treat it as such. I would feel this way no matter who had won the election--no matter if they were Democrat or Republican, because it goes beyond one party. President Putin's goal last year was to undermine our democratic institutions--to corrode American's trust and faith in government, something that has sustained us through two World Wars, through a Civil War, through all the other problems this Nation has faced. That trust should sustain us long after every one of us in this body are gone. This is a responsibility that we as Senators have to our great Nation: not to think of ourselves for the moment, but to think where this Nation is 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and 100 years from now. We must do that. We owe that to the American people. Republicans and Democrats alike, we owe it to the American people. We take an oath to uphold our Constitution. We come here, all of us--and I have great respect for every Senator here in both parties--we come here hoping to do the best for our Nation. Our Nation is in peril. All of us would stand together if we had an adversary attack us. All of us would stand together if somebody declared war on us. We have done that in the past. We did that after Pearl Harbor. We did that other times in our Nation's history. Well, because this is done quietly behind the scenes, it is a great attack on us. As I said, President Putin's goal last year was to undermine our democratic institutions--to corrode Americans' trust and faith in our government, no matter who is President. If we do not get to the bottom of Russian interference, he will no doubt be successful. And if anybody doubts it, if he is successful, he will try it again. That is why we should stand united and call for a truly independent investigation. The American people deserve nothing less. We can sit here and talk about this bill and that bill, but it is so rare that we have something overriding. This is overriding. Let's have an independent investigation. This Senator is willing to accept that whichever way it goes. I see our distinguished majority leader on the floor. I will yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senate will soon vote on the nomination of David Friedman to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel. I oppose his nomination. Mr. Friedman has made a career of derogatory and inflammatory statements about U.S. policy in the Middle East, about former U.S. officials, about the Palestinians, and about American Jews who have views that differ from his own. He has written falsely that President Obama and Secretary Kerry engaged in ``blatant anti-Semitism,'' that liberal American Jews are ``far worse than kapos,'' and that they ``suffer a cognitive disconnect in identifying good and evil.'' He has accused the State Department of a ``hundred-year history of anti-Semitism,'' apparently because diplomats in both Republican and Democratic administrations have not always agreed with the actions of some of Israel's leaders. Those comments alone should disqualify him for this sensitive position. Mr. Friedman has also raised millions of dollars for Israeli settlers and bragged about leading the effort to remove the two-state solution from the Republican Party's platform. Regarding the two-state solution, he wrote that it is ``an illusion that serves the worst intentions of both the United States and the Palestinian Arabs.'' That renunciation of longstanding U.S. policy should also, by itself, disqualify him for the job of Ambassador to Israel. Mr. Friedman is certainly entitled to his own views as a private citizen, even if they are offensive and counter to U.S. interests and values. But can anyone honestly say that this nominee is qualified or suited to represent the American people in Israel? Five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, who served under Republican and Democratic Presidents going back as far as President Reagan, say the answer is no. An alliance as longstanding as ours with Israel, which has far- reaching consequences for the entire Middle East, requires effective daily management by an experienced diplomat who not only has knowledge of the region but the temperament and appreciation of our short- and long-term interests. I do not see how anyone could conclude that Mr. Friedman possesses the requisite temperament or objectivity. The record is devoid of evidence that he appreciates the critical distinction between the interests of the United States and the parochial interests of an extreme constituency in Israel that he has fiercely advocated for over the course of his long career. Mr. Friedman's confirmation hearing provided him the opportunity to assuage concerns about his divisiveness, including the many disparaging remarks he has made and his close identification with and support for, the Israeli settler movement. During the hearing, he disavowed his past undiplomatic statements, saying he was speaking as a private citizen. Mr. Friedman's remarkable confirmation conversion falls far short of convincing evidence that changing his title to ``Ambassador'' will cause him to divorce his life's work and objectively serve the interests of the American people. We all want what is best for the American people. We also share a desire to find a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that protects the rights and security of both peoples. Neither goal can be achieved by pursuing policies that further inflame tensions and erode the role of the United States as an honest broker for peace. There are any number of qualified Americans who could capably support that role. Mr. Friedman is not among them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for over a decade, Vermont has been named one of the healthiest States in the Nation. For those who know the tireless dedication of Vermont's Commissioner of Health, Dr. Harry Chen, this fact is not surprising. Dr. Chen recently made the difficult decision to not seek reappointment. He leaves behind a legacy which future leaders will undoubtedly follow. Dr. Chen has long graced Vermont as a top leader in healthcare. Before his appointment as health commissioner in 2011, Dr. Chen served in the Vermont House of Representatives from 2004 to 2008 and in his last term was the vice chair of the Health Care Committee. In 2008, he was honored with the Physician Award for Community Service by the Vermont State Medical Society. Prior to his election to the State legislature, Dr. Chen worked for more than 20 years as an emergency room physician and medical director at the Rutland Regional Medical Center. Dr. Chen also served on the clinical faculty at the University of Vermont's College of Medicine and as vice chair of the University of Vermont's board of trustees. He obtained his medical degree and completed his residency at the University of Oregon's school of medicine as chief resident. Dr. Chen's work to improve public health awareness and education has long made Vermont a nationwide leader in healthcare. As Vermont's Commissioner of Health since 2011 and briefly as the interim Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2014 to 2015, Dr. Chen led the charge to expand public health education and resources across the State. Dr. Chen was especially instrumental in the fight against opioid and substance abuse. I was proud when he testified at the field hearing I held on the issue while ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2014. In the years after, he worked to strengthen State resources for treatment and education programs. He has worked to improve the State's prescription drug monitoring system in order to curb harmful opioid prescribing and misuse. Dr. Chen also led efforts to reduce tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol use among youth. In 2013, he and I worked to secure a $10 million grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, to expand substance abuse efforts in Vermont among young adults at risk of developing habits in alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and illicit drug use. Since his efforts, the conversation regarding youth substance abuse, especially on marijuana, has become a major public health discussion in the Vermont Statehouse and beyond. He also worked to expand nutrition education in schools and to increase awareness surrounding the importance of vaccines. For instance, 2 years ago, after the outbreak of Ebola, Dr. Chen worked with Vermont's top health facilities to strengthen defenses against the disease, while educating patients on the importance of disease prevention. He also led efforts to increase vaccinations for children in efforts to prevent the spread of disease at school. Dr. Chen's dedication to public health promotion did not stop at the State level. In 2009, Dr. Chen testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Vermont's experience with healthcare reform and the creation of Vermont Health Connect. In 2014, he became chair of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Food Safety and Modernization Act Surveillance Working Group where he continues to strengthen foodborne illness surveillance systems across the country. He has also long served on the board of the CDC's Office of Infectious Disease, and he currently chairs the Prevention Committee of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Vermont's national role in promoting the health and well-being of patients has made strides under the leadership of Dr. Chen. Vermonters are sorry to see him go, but I know we can expect many more years of outstanding leadership from him. In fact, he and his wife have just been accepted to the Peace Corps, where they look forward to training physicians in Africa. I wish them both the very best in this exciting work, and I once again thank Dr. Chen for his incredible contributions to our State and beyond.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to the current situation in Guatemala, where upholding the rule of law has too often been the exception rather than the rule. For centuries, most Guatemalans had no access to justice. This was exacerbated during--and in the years since--the civil war, when an estimated 200,000 people were killed or disappeared. Most of them were innocent victims of the armed forces, and only a small number of the military officers and their accomplices who were responsible have been punished. In fact, the armed forces and their benefactors have for the most part successfully avoided justice, by threatening prosecutors and witnesses and paying off judges. At the same time, Guatemala is experiencing the corrosive effects of drug gangs, smugglers, and organized crime. Former President Perez Molina is under arrest, and other high-ranking officials have been implicated in corruption. Rampant gang violence and a lack of job opportunities have caused tens of thousands of Guatemalans, including unaccompanied minors, to seek safety and employment in the United States. Two individuals, Thelma Aldana, Guatemala's Attorney General, and Ivan Velasquez, the head of CICIG, the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, have been courageously investigating these high- profile cases and working diligently to bring those responsible to justice. Both are respected former judges, Aldana a Guatemalan and Velasquez a Colombian. The United States, with the support of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, has provided funding to both of their offices. It is difficult, dangerous work. They have received anonymous threats in an attempt to intimidate them, and there is a concern that President Morales may oppose the renewal of Mr. Velasquez's term of duty, which ends in September, or request the U.N. Secretary General to remove or replace Mr. Velasquez. This would be of great concern because no democracy can survive without the rule of law, and there can be no rule of law without independent investigators, prosecutors, and judges. In Guatemala, with its history of impunity, Thelma Aldana and Ivan Velasquez are making history by showing the Guatemalan people that justice is possible. It is possible even in cases in which the perpetrators are high-ranking government officials, members of their families, or others with wealth and power who have long evaded justice. Guatemala needs our support to reduce poverty and malnutrition, improve education, combat crime, reform the police, and strengthen its economy and public institutions, but none of that can be achieved or sustained without political will and a transparent, accountable justice system. I know this from my own experience, first as a prosecutor, and more recently as the senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have been here a long time, in fact longer than any other Senator. I know Guatemala's history and the daunting challenges it faces. Its people deserve better, and they need leaders who respect the rule of law. If Guatemala's leaders support Thelma Aldana and Ivan Velasquez for as long they are willing to make the personal sacrifice and continue their important work, we will do our part by supporting the Alliance for Prosperity, but if there are attempts to undermine or curtail the work of these two outstanding prosecutors, then Guatemala's leaders should look elsewhere for support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, article 2 of chapter I of the Charter of the Organization of American States, of which Ecuador is a party, states that one of the OAS's purposes is ``to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention.'' I mention this because the second round of Ecuador's Presidential election is scheduled for April 2, less than 2 weeks away. In the first round, Lenin Moreno, who is supported by outgoing President Correa, received 39 percent and his opponent, Guillermo Lasso, received 28 percent, so it is a hotly contested election. But democracy is about more than elections. There is no institution more fundamental to democracy than a free and independent press. A free press helps protect the rule of law, to ensure that no person or group is above the rules and procedures that govern a democratic society. A free press helps ensure transparency to prod governments to be honest and accountable to their citizens. Although wavering at times, Ecuador has a history of democratic government of which its citizens can be proud. It has a long tradition of recognizing the importance of freedom of the press. Ecuador's first constitution, written in 1830, stipulated that ``every citizen can express their thoughts and publish them freely through the press.'' Ecuador's 1998 constitution guaranteed the right of journalists and social communicators to ``seek, receive, learn, and disseminate'' events of general interest, with the goal of ``preserving the values of the community.'' Even Ecuador's current constitution protects the right ``to voice one's opinion and express one's thinking freely and in all of its forms and manifestations,'' and the right to ``associate, assemble and express oneself freely and voluntarily.'' Yet, since President Correa was first elected, freedom of the press has been under assault. He has called the independent press his ``greatest enemy.'' He sought to intimidate and silence his critics in the media and civil society, like Janet Hinostroza, El Universo, Vanguardia, El Comercio, Xavier Bonilla, and Fundamedios. He publicly vilified Dr. Catalina Botero, a respected Colombian lawyer and former OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. He pursued criminal charges against columnists and newspaper owners who had criticized his policies. During this period, the number of state-owned media organizations exploded, growing from just one government-run news outlet to a media conglomerate that today is made up of more than a dozen outlets echoing the government's self-serving declarations. These actions are a threat to democracy, and they damaged relations with the United States. On April 2, when the people of Ecuador elect their next President, they alone will decide Ecuador's future. What is important at this stage is to ensure that the electoral process is free and fair, that the press can participate freely, and that the election is open to international observers, including the OAS. Whoever wins on April 2, I hope Ecuador's next President is someone who genuinely believes in the freedoms of expression and association that are enshrined in Ecuador's Constitution. I hope he defends the right of a free press, an independent judiciary, and the right of civil society organizations to function without government interference. These rights are part of the foundation of the representative democracy referenced in the OAS Charter. The alternative is unaccountable government. That is, in fact, where Ecuador was heading, after President Correa orchestrated the adoption of a new constitution in order to run for reelection in 2009 and again in 2013. I hope the result on April 2 will signify a commitment to uphold Ecuador's Constitution and the beginning of a new relationship with the United States, based on a common devotion to the fundamental rights of citizens.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on two nominees to the U.S. Sentencing Commission who should have been confirmed last year. Judge Danny Reeves was nominated more than 1 year ago, and he was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee; yet Senate Republicans refused to approve him before the end of last year. Judge Charles Breyer was nominated last September for a reappointment, and despite overwhelming support, Republicans blocked him as well. These are not controversial nominees, and there is no good reason they were blocked last year. In fact, in ordinary times, these nominees would be unanimously confirmed during wrap-up on the Senate floor. richard boulware Mr. President, one nominee we are not considering today is Judge Richard Boulware, whom President Obama nominated in 2015 to fill a seat on the Sentencing Commission previously held by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Judge Boulware was confirmed to serve as a district judge in June 2014, becoming the first African-American man to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. His nomination to the Sentencing Commission had the strong support of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which said that Judge Boulware would ``bring a much needed and valuable perspective to the work of the Commission because of his experience.'' Judge Boulware clerked in the Southern District of New York, served as a Federal public defender, and represented the Las Vegas branch of the NAACP on a range of issues, including voting rights, police cameras, and solitary confinement. Despite his clear qualifications, Senate Republicans blocked Judge Boulware, and his nomination was returned to the White House at the end of last year. President Trump renominated Judge Reeves and Judge Breyer, but I am disappointed that he failed to do the same for Judge Boulware. The Sentencing Commission does not have a single person of Color serving as a commissioner; yet its work on criminal justice issues has a significant effect on communities of color. Judge Boulware should have been confirmed last year, along with Judge Reeves and Judge Breyer. While I support the two nominees before us today, I want the Record to note my deep disappointment and concern that Judge Boulware is not among them. For nearly a decade, I have worked with Senators from both parties on bipartisan legislation to reform our criminal justice system. The Sentencing Commission has also studied the issue and brought about needed change to the sentencing guidelines. The Bureau of Prisons continues to consume nearly a quarter of the Justice Department's budget, even as violent crime rates have gone down; but instead of taking meaningful steps to reduce these costs, the Trump-Sessions Justice Department has signaled it intends to more aggressively charge low-level offenders with crimes carrying mandatory minimums. The Attorney General also lifted restrictions on the use of private prisons that serve only the interest of wealthy corporations. This is deeply troubling on moral grounds. Incarceration should not be a for-profit business. It is also troubling to me in my role as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on private prisons, we should be directing our limited resources to train and protect officers on the streets and to reduce recidivism and crime. The Sentencing Commission has brought much-needed fairness to the Guidelines in the past, and I hope it will continue to do so once its new members are confirmed, Although we should also be voting today on Judge Boulware's nomination to the commission--rather, we should have voted on it last year--I will support the nominations of Judge Breyer and Judge Reeves. breyer nomination

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Thursday the Trump administration submitted its first budget blueprint to Congress. The President called it ``America First, A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.'' The title would seem like a ``Saturday Night Live'' skit if the topic were not so serious. Like some of the President's tweets, his budget is a hasty list of appallingly unbalanced, shortsighted, and, I believe, politically driven priorities. He proposes to eliminate or drastically cut programs that benefit the middle class and safeguard its most vulnerable citizens, programs that protect our environment, programs that promote our interests overseas but also security at home. Instead, he wants to spend billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on a misguided wall along our southern border and increased spending for the Pentagon. He says his proposal causes ``strength, security and resolve.'' He couldn't be more wrong. You don't want to make America ``great again'' at the expense of middle-class families and the most vulnerable among us. We are not a ``great'' nation if we abandon our shared desire to cure cancer, the desire to bring an end to Alzheimer's disease or diabetes. We don't do that by slashing billions for the National Institutes of Health. You can't switch complex and promising medical research off and then say: Well, maybe someday later we will just turn it back on again. We are not a great nation if we eliminate heating assistance for the 6 million vulnerable households that receive LIHEAP. Some 21,000 of those households just had to dig themselves out from a historic snowstorm in my State of Vermont. And we are not a ``great'' nation if we don't protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. You don't make America stronger by eliminating the very programs that strengthen our alliances around the world and make our Nation more secure. We are not a strong nation if we simply pour more money into the Pentagon but then renege on commitments to international peacekeeping and security alliances or slash funding to respond to humanitarian crises or cut our diplomatic presence around the world. Interesting enough, when the other body spent millions of tax dollars to investigate a lack of security in Benghazi and came up with nothing, this budget slashes huge amounts that could be spent on security in our embassies, just as they voted to cut out hundreds of millions of dollars from a Senate budget that would have improved our security. The President says he prefers hard power to soft power, but it is not either/or. The notion that soft power is weak or wasteful is mindless. If you are cutting programs that feed millions or prevent AIDS or treat tuberculosis and malaria, well, that doesn't help. It makes the world less stable, less secure. I am afraid the budget proposal is divorced from reality. It has a lot of partisan campaign promises. He promises infrastructure investment--and all of us would agree with that--but then it cuts critical Federal funds for proven successful State transportation projects. He claims it will save rural America, but he cuts those Federal programs that spur rural economic development. That is not a budget with vision. We need a serious budget proposal--a proposal that acknowledges the devastating effects the Budget Control Act and sequestration have had in our country and a budget that charts a path forward, rather than doubling down on further cuts on programs for the middle class. We need a budget proposal investing in our citizens and in our military, not a proposal that pays for one at the expense of the other. We have a lot of work to do. I am the vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I would say we have to finish the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills and then get to work on fiscal year 2018. Anybody who has been a Governor of their State would recognize that because they know they have to do it in their State. We should do it for the United States. To accomplish that, we need a budget framework that respects the principles in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, including parity between the defense and nondefense spending and that, even though they might be politically popular, doesn't have poison pill riders. We need relief from sequestration, not more misguided cuts. This budget proposal takes us backward, not forward. But we can remind ourselves that it is Congress that holds the power of the purse, not the President. I have said that, whether we had Democratic or Republican Presidents. I take the responsibility seriously. I look forward to working across the aisle with colleagues both on and off the Appropriations Committee. I want to craft a responsible budget, a thoughtful budget, a serious budget--one that truly makes us a better and safer Nation and reflects the values we share as Americans. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as the Senate continues to consider nominees to lead Federal agencies, I am concerned that once again there is a nominee before us with a stunning lack of expertise to run an agency that affects so many American lives. Seema Verma is another such nominee. The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has an incredible responsibility to ensure some of America's most important programs run smoothly. For decades, Medicare and Medicaid have offered coverage to some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations. Medicare and Medicaid currently cover more than 100 million Americans--nearly one in three patients. The Administrator is responsible for overseeing more than $1 trillion in annual spending and a staff of about 4,000 people. This is a position of vital importance where a new Administrator should hit the ground running, instead of learning on the fly. And learning on the fly is what she will have to do, as evidenced by her testimony before the Finance Committee. When asked to name a specific program she would commit to improving as Administrator, she could not identify even one. She also demonstrated a lack of commitment to protect healthcare for women, saying that coverage for prenatal and maternity care should be optional and paid for separately. Does Ms. Verma really want to return us to a time when women are discriminated against in healthcare solely because of their gender? It appears so. When asked about provider payment systems, she stumbled to answer, showing little knowledge about a system that directly impacts millions of providers across the Nation. Furthermore, the only fact she could name about Medicare Part D, a benefit that supports more than 40 million seniors, was about an online plan finder tool. Supporters of her nomination point to her involvement and design of Indiana's Medicaid program as her qualification to run CMS. Directed by then-Governor Mike Pence, Indiana's plan requires even the poorest patients to pay a monthly fee in order to access health insurance. The plan also restricts those who miss a payment to be locked out of care for 6 months. Instead of working to find ways to help Indianans gain insurance coverage, she contributed to a system that bars access to vulnerable patients. Conversely, Vermont also has a Medicaid waiver that, combined with Vermont's All Payer Waiver, has a goal of insuring all Vermonters. Vermont's is the standard that we should all be trying to meet. I am not confident that Ms. Verma is up to the task. What is more concerning is how Ms. Verma fits into a world where Republicans are engaged in an effort to not only rip apart the Affordable Care Act, but also to end the Medicaid Program as we know it. The current proposals before the House of Representatives would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, leaving States in the lurch and causing millions to go uninsured or to have substandard care. As Republicans continue these efforts, it will be critical for the Administrator of CMS to understand and care about the impacts of such efforts on the millions of Americans who rely on these health protections day to day. Confirming someone with such a lack of experience to run a trillion- dollar agency would be unfair to the American people. And as a core player in the effort to unravel the Affordable Care Act, she demonstrates values that are counter to the very agency which has been supported and improved by key provisions in the law. I do not believe Seema Verma is qualified or fit to serve as the Administrator of CMS, and I encourage all Members to join me in opposing her nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are a couple of issues that I will speak on, but I was asked earlier this morning about what President Trump has tweeted, basically charging former President Obama with having spied on him in a way that would be plainly illegal. Of course, President Obama's advisers have denied any such thing happened. If it did happen, of course, it would be a grave constitutional issue, and if such a thing did happen, it would be criminal conduct. Now, many people are saying: Well, is it true or not? Was Mr. Trump telling the truth in the tweet or not? There is a very simple response on this. There is one person who knows whether it is true or not, and he has been totally silent on this. They asked Attorney General Sessions. Attorney General Sessions made it very clear in his confirmation hearing--well, he said a number of things in his confirmation hearing, but one was, of course, that he would be independent. President Trump has leveled very serious charges against former President Obama. I happen to feel the charges are false, but let's have a definitive voice. The Attorney General should have the courage and independence to simply say whether Mr. Trump is telling the truth or not. It is a very simple matter. I would hope that the press and everybody else would keep asking because eventually somebody has to answer that question, and the Attorney General can.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont is known far and wide as a tourist destination for all seasons. From our celebrated ski slopes to our stunning and world-renowned fall foliage, Vermont draws travelers from near and far, from nearby States and from Canada, our neighbor to the north. What many don't realize is that Vermont has also become home to refugees and asylum seekers from Iraq, Syria, Bosnia, Sudan, and elsewhere. These men, women and children enrich our communities and inspire us all. One Vermont community, Rutland, last year announced that it would welcome refugees fleeing the catastrophic civil war in Syria. The town was preparing to welcome 100 refugees. Nine arrived. When President Trump issued his appalling and disastrous executive order banning admission to refugees from Syria and six other nations, the remaining 91 individuals were prevented from coming to Vermont. I have heard from hundreds of Vermonters outraged by President Trump's Executive actions to close our borders to those seeking refuge. Also deeply concerning is the President's clear intent on targeting Muslim refugees. The freedom of religion, enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution and defended through the ages by generations of Americans, should not be squandered to promote an unfounded fear. The voices raised in opposition to these executive orders cross the spectrum. I want to include in the Record some of those voices: students at Rutland High School, some of whom have formed the New Neighbors Club, to help welcome refugee students who will attend Rutland City Public Schools. Emma writes: ``I am a 9th grader from Rutland High School. We should continue to support immigration in Vermont and the United States. These people deserve a good life and don't deserve what they have to go through.'' Carolyn writes: ``I'm from Rutland, Vermont, and I believe that refugee resettlement is an important issue. We have the opportunity to make a change in these people's lives and make new relationships and bonds in our lives. They need a support system so why can't that be us?'' Lea writes: ``This immigration ban is a big problem to me. I don't like that our country is stopping people from coming to our country. I know many people are afraid of what could happen to us. But we are all human and they are humans looking for safety.'' Lily writes, ``Everyone deserves the same amount of respect and understanding that we afford to anyone. The refugees obviously need our help and we are completely capable of building a community that is ready and willing to accept the refugees.'' Jessica writes: ``I can understand these fears, but they also clearly come from an inhumane and misinformed point of view. Without immigration in the past, no one would be here, and it is simply un- American to deny freedom from persecution to refugees and other immigrants.'' Emma writes: ``With all of the recent stigma regarding the Refugee Resettlement Plan, Rutland's program has recently gone static. At Rutland High School, we have a club that helps raise money and eventually welcome the refugees. Please make all the movement possible to make these people feel welcome in our state. We don't want to be stuck on the wrong side of history.'' Victoria writes: ``I feel that it is incredibly important for us to help refugees who are in desperate need of a second chance at life. As a global superpower of a country, it seems absurd to me that we are accepting so few refugees to our communities, as we could be helping with the global refugee crisis a whole lot more by actually trying to mitigate it.'' Ian writes: ``The refugees should come to Rutland because we are devoted to helping integrate them into our community. Several of the students here are devoting every Friday to getting together and coming up with great ideas on how we can incorporate them.'' Kjersti writes: ``As a citizen in the United States, I believe the diversity is what makes this country beautiful, and the fact that someone is exempt from the freedom and is turned away because of their diversity is not what this country stands for.'' Noah writes: ``I believe we should let people immigrate to Vermont because the people in these countries are living in terrible living conditions. Everyone in this world is equal so there's no reason not to let them in. They just want a chance at a safe life.'' Ashleah writes: ``We should continue to support immigration for the Syrian refugees into our community. This is such a great opportunity for Rutland to experience more diversity and more culture. Our small city would benefit greatly from allowing refugees to come and live with us.'' Kelsey writes: ``People who are safe and living comfortably should do their best to help those that need it. I feel by turning them away and denying them help we are being inhuman and cruel.'' Caitlin writes: ``I believe immigration should be accepted in all areas of this country. I strongly support the idea of people wanting to make a better life for themselves. I choose to take a stand against anti-immigration for I believe it is essential to make America better.'' Greta writes: ``These Syrians are people who have gone through atrocities and deserve our help. They will also promote understanding and diversity in our community amidst this political climate of fear mongering. Welcoming Syrian refugees will only be beneficial for Rutland and United States, and is upholding the value of America and human rights.'' And Elizabeth writes: ``I am disappointed with how our current administration is portraying our nation to the rest of the world. I think the people of the United States are stronger, more loving, and kinder people than what is being shown, and I think we need to take individual action in order to show this.'' The voices of these young Vermonters are emblematic of what I hear from Vermonters across our State. We all want to keep our country safe; of that, there is no question. But President Trump's travel ban ignores the clear fact that refugees are the most stringently vetted travelers to the United States. His Executive order provokes and plays on fear. It does not make us safer. Benjamin Franklin once famously said, ``Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I hope all Senators will listen to the words of these young Vermonters. President Trump's Executive order does little to enhance our security, but does great damage to the freedoms that are the cornerstone of our good and great Nation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am honored to recognize a Vermont treasure, Dr. Robert Backus of Grace Cottage Hospital, who is retiring after nearly four decades of dedicated service to the rural community of Townshend, VT. Dr. Backus, or ``Dr. B'' as his patients often call him, is a natural healer. He discovered his passion for medical sciences as a young hunter. After serving with the Peace Corps in Brazil, he traveled to Australia to complete a medical internship and his residency. Years later, while on a trek across country from California, Dr. Backus found himself meandering along the winding roads of Vermont's Route 30, and he discovered the place he continues to call home today. The people of Townshend are glad he never left. After settling in Vermont, Dr. Backus went on to complete his premedical studies at the University of Massachusetts and, later, Dartmouth College. He then received his doctorate in medicine from the University of Vermont in Burlington. Soon after, Dr. Backus took a job working as deputy to Dr. Carlos Otis, the revered founder of Vermont's Grace Cottage Hospital, one of the State's leading rural providers. Dr. Backus is perhaps most well-known for always being there for his patients, even if they are admitted to a different hospital. He is also known for his strong commitment to the community. For example, each year, Dr. Backus dedicates his time to collecting items for the Grace Cottage Fair, an event that supports the work and patients of the hospital. He also enjoys singing in the West River Valley Chorus with his wife, Carol. Dr. Backus remains committed to staying active in his community after retirement, and as a grandfather to six, he is also looking forward to spending more time with his family. I am proud to honor Dr. Backus's commitment to our State, and to the health and well-being of Vermonters. I know we will continue to see great things from him, and I wish him the very best as he enters a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I have reintroduced legislation to protect Americans from being stripped of their legal rights by little known clauses that are now hidden in an alarming number of contracts. When we enter into agreements to obtain cell phone service, rent an apartment, or accept a new job, most are not made aware of the forced arbitration clauses that are tucked away in the legal fine print. But these dangerous provision force us to abandon our constitutional right to protect ourselves in court and instead send hard-working Americans to face wealthy corporations behind closed doors in private arbitration. This must change. When Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925, it was intended to help businesses resolve legal disputes with each other. But over the past two decades, private arbitration has been abused by large companies to push Americans out of court. In doing so, these companies have effectively opted out of critical labor, consumer, and civil rights laws that give Americans the ability to assert their claims before our independent judiciary. Forced arbitration clauses now appear in nearly every contract we sign. Unfortunately, examples of the injustice caused by these clauses are equally ubiquitous and can be found all across the country. They affect consumers, workers, seniors, veterans, and families in Vermont and every other State, and the cases are heart-wrenching. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that hundreds of current and former employees of Sterling Jewelers--a company that earns $6 billion in annual revenue--have for years alleged that the company is engaged in pervasive gender discrimination and has fostered a culture that condones sexual harassment. The stories now being reported are shocking and date back to the early 1990s. Yet, despite the fact that women at the company have been alleging misconduct for decades, no one knew about it. That is because their claims were hidden behind closed doors because of private arbitration. To this day, we still do not know the full details. The press has helped to bring attention to other instances of forced arbitration in recent years. In 2015, the Los Angeles Times revealed that Wells Fargo used arbitration clauses to deny customers whose names were used to open fraudulent accounts an opportunity to seek justice in court. In fact, Wells Fargo asked a Federal court in Utah to move a number of sham account allegations to arbitration. The New York Times dedicated a three-part investigative series to highlighting the impact on consumers and workers of forced arbitration clauses. And becoming the story herself, television journalist Gretchen Carlson was barred from speaking publicly about her allegations of sexual harassment against former FOX News chairman Roger Ailes. I have long raised concerns about the practice of forced arbitration, and as chairman led hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2013. This should not be a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly spoken out against the Federal Arbitration Act's intrusion on State sovereignty and a State's compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. In Vermont, lawmakers enacted commonsense legislation to limit the abuse of forced arbitration clauses and raise consumer awareness, but but this law was invalidated because it conflicted with Federal law. Companies have effectively created a ``get out of jail free'' card that guts our laws and shields bad actors from any type of public accountability. This is an unconscionable situation, and Congress must act. The Restoring Statutory Rights Act that I am reintroducing today/will protect Americans' right to seek justice in our courts. It will ensure that our Federal laws will actually be effective by ensuring that Americans cannot be stripped of their ability to enforce their rights before our independent court system. This bill also ensures that when States act to address forced arbitration, as my home State of Vermont has, they are not preempted by an overbroad reading of our Federal arbitration laws. This effort is supported by the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, the National Employment Lawyers' Association, and consumer groups such as National Association of Consumer Advocates, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the National Consumer Law Center, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. For years, these groups and many others have worked tirelessly to highlight the injustice of forced arbitration and the full scope of the number of people it affects. All Senators should care about ensuring that corporations cannot unilaterally circumvent the statutes that this body writes, debates, and enacts into law. Senators should also care about the ability of the States to protect consumers from unconscionable contracts. I urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I have reintroduced legislation to protect Americans from being stripped of their legal rights by little known clauses that are now hidden in an alarming number of contracts. When we enter into agreements to obtain cell phone service, rent an apartment, or accept a new job, most are not made aware of the forced arbitration clauses that are tucked away in the legal fine print. But these dangerous provision force us to abandon our constitutional right to protect ourselves in court and instead send hard-working Americans to face wealthy corporations behind closed doors in private arbitration. This must change. When Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925, it was intended to help businesses resolve legal disputes with each other. But over the past two decades, private arbitration has been abused by large companies to push Americans out of court. In doing so, these companies have effectively opted out of critical labor, consumer, and civil rights laws that give Americans the ability to assert their claims before our independent judiciary. Forced arbitration clauses now appear in nearly every contract we sign. Unfortunately, examples of the injustice caused by these clauses are equally ubiquitous and can be found all across the country. They affect consumers, workers, seniors, veterans, and families in Vermont and every other State, and the cases are heart-wrenching. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that hundreds of current and former employees of Sterling Jewelers--a company that earns $6 billion in annual revenue--have for years alleged that the company is engaged in pervasive gender discrimination and has fostered a culture that condones sexual harassment. The stories now being reported are shocking and date back to the early 1990s. Yet, despite the fact that women at the company have been alleging misconduct for decades, no one knew about it. That is because their claims were hidden behind closed doors because of private arbitration. To this day, we still do not know the full details. The press has helped to bring attention to other instances of forced arbitration in recent years. In 2015, the Los Angeles Times revealed that Wells Fargo used arbitration clauses to deny customers whose names were used to open fraudulent accounts an opportunity to seek justice in court. In fact, Wells Fargo asked a Federal court in Utah to move a number of sham account allegations to arbitration. The New York Times dedicated a three-part investigative series to highlighting the impact on consumers and workers of forced arbitration clauses. And becoming the story herself, television journalist Gretchen Carlson was barred from speaking publicly about her allegations of sexual harassment against former FOX News chairman Roger Ailes. I have long raised concerns about the practice of forced arbitration, and as chairman led hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2013. This should not be a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly spoken out against the Federal Arbitration Act's intrusion on State sovereignty and a State's compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. In Vermont, lawmakers enacted commonsense legislation to limit the abuse of forced arbitration clauses and raise consumer awareness, but but this law was invalidated because it conflicted with Federal law. Companies have effectively created a ``get out of jail free'' card that guts our laws and shields bad actors from any type of public accountability. This is an unconscionable situation, and Congress must act. The Restoring Statutory Rights Act that I am reintroducing today/will protect Americans' right to seek justice in our courts. It will ensure that our Federal laws will actually be effective by ensuring that Americans cannot be stripped of their ability to enforce their rights before our independent court system. This bill also ensures that when States act to address forced arbitration, as my home State of Vermont has, they are not preempted by an overbroad reading of our Federal arbitration laws. This effort is supported by the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, the National Employment Lawyers' Association, and consumer groups such as National Association of Consumer Advocates, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the National Consumer Law Center, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. For years, these groups and many others have worked tirelessly to highlight the injustice of forced arbitration and the full scope of the number of people it affects. All Senators should care about ensuring that corporations cannot unilaterally circumvent the statutes that this body writes, debates, and enacts into law. Senators should also care about the ability of the States to protect consumers from unconscionable contracts. I urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Established on March 6, 1867, its powers are rooted in article I, section 9 of our Constitution, which states, ``No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' The founders of our country recognized the power of the purse as one of the most important tools Congress has to ensure our system of checks and balance and to conduct oversight of the Executive and Judicial branch, but it is much more than that. The Appropriations Committee is also where we translate the priorities of a nation into the realities of the people. Our country is not a business, where we allocate resources only according to the bottom line. We do not invest in order to make a profit, or a one-for-one dollar in return. We invest in those areas where it is uniquely right for government to take the lead. We invest in the areas that make a difference in the everyday lives of Americans and that help build the foundations of our country and our economy-- infrastructure, national security, our environment, education, health care. The Appropriations Committee is where we fund nutrition programs to ensure that children do not have to sit through class hungry and remain healthy so they can develop and grow. It is where we allocate the resources to clean our lakes and our streams and make investments in growing our communities and promoting jobs. It is where we invest in research to cure cancer. It is where we can define who we are as country. I have been a member of this Committee for almost my entire tenure in the Senate, and just a few short months ago, I became vice chair. I am proud to serve on this committee, and I feel honored to join in the ranks of its leaders. Today I am glad to join you all in celebrating 150 years of an institution that is at the foundation of the Senate. I look forward to working with my friend Chairman Cochran in continuing the long and bipartisan history of the Appropriations Committee in the months and years ahead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Every day we learn more about the troubling connections between the Russian Government and both President Trump's administration and his campaign, but last night kind of topped everything--a revelation that Attorney General Sessions met with Russian officials during the height of the Presidential campaign, which raises a new level of alarm. One of the reasons is, we now know the Attorney General, under oath, misled the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to my direct question about his contacts with Russian officials. I asked then-Senator Sessions if he had been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian Government about the 2016 election. His answer was unequivocal. He said no. He provided a similarly misleading response to Senator Franken, saying that he was ``not aware'' of any connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government. Especially those of us who are lawyers, and who have had a chance to serve as attorney general or as prosecutors in our States, know it is an egregious breach of public trust that Attorney General Sessions has not recused himself from this investigation. I think everybody would agree he has to recuse himself. Of course, as this goes on, the question now arises: Has he perjured himself? In response to these reports, the Attorney General claims that he ``never met Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign.'' That is a wholly inadequate response. The Attorney General was a top adviser to the Trump campaign. He took a private, undisclosed meeting with the Russian Ambassador during the height of concerns about Russian involvement in our election. Think about it. There are reports everywhere about concerns about Russian involvement in the election of the United States, and he has an undisclosed meeting with the Russian Ambassador. He also met with the Russian Ambassador during an event at the Republican National Convention. One would think, at the Republican National Convention, it is possible that politics might be discussed. Now, if the Attorney General thinks his explanation is sufficient after he misled Congress about these contacts, of course, he is mistaken. I don't say that as a Democrat. I think everybody would agree to that. What I worry about is that the Attorney General is only the latest Trump administration official who has attempted to mask his contacts with the Kremlin. The President's first National Security Advisor lied to the Vice President about his communications with the Russian Ambassador. He only resigned after the media reported how he had lied to Vice President Pence, and even that was weeks after the President had been informed. He had to leave only when it became public. The President's Chief of Staff attempted to use the FBI--which, of course, would be in violation of Justice Department policies--to suppress news reports about Russian contacts. I have been here through seven previous Presidents-- Republicans and Democrats. You would assume they would play by the rules. This administration seems to want to make up the rules. My concern is not just what the administration might be doing; my concern is about Russia. We are, I believe strongly, the greatest democracy history has known. We are the longest existing democracy in history, and now we have Russia meddling and trying to undermine our democracy. Every American should worry about that. Every American should be frightened, not just concerned but frightened. It is an attack on our democracy. This is one of the most disturbing national security challenges facing our country. Russian President Putin ordered a multifaceted campaign that was aimed at helping Donald Trump win and undermining public faith in our election. That should alarm and outrage everybody no matter what party one belongs to. We didn't hear a word about it in the President's speech on Tuesday during the joint session of Congress. In fact, the President's only reaction has been to disparage American investigators, to disparage the intelligence community, to cast journalists who report on this as ``enemies of the American people.'' Journalists are not enemies of the American people. Russia is the enemy of the American people. Putin is the enemy of the American people. Do not cast our journalists, do not cast our investigators, do not cast our intelligence people, do not cast those who dare speak out as being enemies of America. Point to the real enemies--Vladimir Putin and those he controls. It is about time we take this seriously. I have been here 42 years. I have never seen such a perfidious threat to our democracy than what we are seeing in Vladimir Putin, and my concern is the administration does not call it out for what it is. We Americans deserve to know the facts. We deserve a full and fair investigation. We deserve one that is free from any political influence. I have repeatedly called on Attorney General Sessions, who was one of President Trump's top advisers during the campaign, to recuse himself and appoint a special counsel to conduct the investigation. Earlier this week, he said: ``I would recuse myself on anything that I should recuse myself on.'' This morning, he said he would recuse himself ``whenever it's appropriate.'' This would be a ludicrous response from a law clerk at the Department of Justice. From the Attorney General, it is dissembling. Recusal is not optional here. It is required by very clear Justice Department regulations. It is required to maintain at least a semblance of integrity in this investigation. The Attorney General has to recuse himself because, as stated clearly in Department rules, he is obviously ``closely identified'' with the President due to his ``service as a principal adviser.'' That is the rule, and that is the rule whether it is a Republican or a Democratic administration. It describes his relationship with the President. The investigation has to be led by someone who, in reality and in appearance, is impartial and removed from politics. That does not describe someone who was in the trenches of a political campaign with the subjects of the investigation while they were allegedly engaged in the very activity under investigation. It does not describe somebody who misled Congress--who misled the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee--about his own activities that have been implicated in the investigation. This is not a close call. We know Russia is doing everything to undermine our democracy. Let's stand up for America. Let's do what is best for our country. The Attorney General should start by stepping aside. Then what we need is an independent investigation, and we need answers. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska for her indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to explain my opposition to the nominations of Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior and Rick Perry to be the Secretary of Energy. I have closely reviewed their records, testimony, and responses to questions for the record. confirmation of ryan zinke Madam President, the Secretary of the Interior is one of the most important jobs in the Federal Government and has a far reach when it comes to coordinating our Federal policy in the 50 States and U.S. Territories for our public lands, parks, and cherished natural resources. The Secretary and the Department of Interior are tasked with using sound science to manage and sustain America's lands, water, wildlife, and energy resources, while honoring our Nation's vital obligations and responsibilities to tribal nations. The Secretary of Interior also coordinates Federal assistance to the Freely Associated States of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau under the Compacts of Free Association. There are few Cabinet positions with such a wide range of management and organization. Any nominee for this position should be selected for their commitment to protecting our precious resources, as well as their dedication to uphold and enforce our environmental laws. After reviewing Mr. Zinke's record, there is little doubt that he is dedicated to public service and that he has a strong connection to the outdoors. However, the Secretary of the Interior has a great responsibility as the leading steward of our majestic public lands, the champion of our great tribal nations, and the manager and defender of our diverse wildlife. I fear that Mr. Zinke may not be fully prepared to set aside some of his personal views on the management of our resources and consider the views of all Americans as we debate critical natural resources issues. I enjoyed learning that Mr. Zinke is an admirer of President Teddy Roosevelt, a point that has been repeated countless times, and I was pleased that he agrees that, yes, President Roosevelt did get it right when he placed millions of acres of lands under Federal protection. However, I hope that Mr. Zinke will not only study the work that President Roosevelt did to instill a conservation ethic in this country, but will look more broadly at other individuals whose steadfast commitment and dedication to conservation and historic preservation have left their mark in Vermont and across the country. For instance, Laurance Rockefeller made significant contributions to the American conservation movement that had a lasting impact on the American landscape. The Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park in Woodstock, VT, honors not only Rockefeller's dedication to conservation, but is also the first national park to tell the story of conservation history and the evolving nature of land stewardship in America. Conservation of the environment and recreational development was a passion to which he dedicated his life. In addition to his work in Vermont, he was instrumental in the creation and development of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming and the Virgin Islands National Park on the island of St. John. These three national parks could not be more different, but they are each spectacular pieces of our natural heritage. This heritage that would not exist today and be available for the public to enjoy, had it not been for the vital work of Laurance Rockefeller and the Federal investments that have been made in these important public lands. I hope Mr. Zinke will also study and hopefully visit the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, which carves its way not only through Vermont, but 13 other States as well. This trail is an amazing footpath for the people that traverses over 2,100 miles through wild forests, towns, valleys, and mountaintops, and connects a myriad of through-hikers and day hikers to our scenic landscape. All of them are able to enjoy the important Federal investments in this trail, which is maintained by the countless hours of work done every year by devoted volunteers like the Green Mountain Club in Vermont. Work to build and maintain the Appalachian Trail is not static, nor is it complete. There continue to be important investments needed through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, to acquire land and conservation easements to safeguard the trail. There is much needed trail maintenance that should be included as part of any infrastructure bill the Senate considers. This work is shovel-ready and will have a considerable impact in supporting our outdoor economy on which Vermont is so dependent. Mr. Zinke should also seek out expertise and guidance from the past Secretaries of the Interior who have dedicated their lives to this work. I hope he will study the exit memo that Secretary Jewell prepared on the Department's Record of Progress and the moral imperative the Department has to positively impact our American economy, our rural communities and cities, and ultimately, the well-being of our planet. As Secretary of Interior, Mr. Zinke will oversee a number of ongoing debates concerning our fragile public lands, the protection of endangered species, and how we respond to climate change. I know that there is no single solution that can answer the different land management issues facing each region of our country. Many stakeholders are constantly engaging the Interior Department and the Senate with a wide variety of views on how we should protect, access, and use our natural resources. In Vermont, we are deeply concerned about the pressure being placed on our natural resources from rapid growth and climate change. I heard from hundreds of Vermonters concerned about Mr. Zinke's nomination and worried that our environmental standards and laws will not be enforced for our lands, air, water, and threatened species under his leadership. His record has shown an opposition to policies that protect valuable rivers and streams from polluting coal runoff and a willingness to weaken historic laws such as President Teddy Roosevelt's Antiquities Act. He even authored a bill that sought to obstruct efforts by the Department of the Interior to review and modernize management of our Federal energy resources and ensure that taxpayers are fairly compensated for their sale. Taxpayers deserve a Secretary of the Interior who will work to support the protection of our shared Federal resources 100 percent of the time, not one who will actively work to weaken or dismantle the powers of protection invested in this Department. Based on that record, I voted against his nomination. Nonetheless, now that Mr. Zinke is the Secretary, I want him to know that I am committed to working closely with him on a variety of issues that are important to Vermonters and all Americans. I will work with him to foster consensus not only in New England, but throughout the country. As the Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I am committed to working with him to ensure that we protect our Federal lands and continue the important conservation ethic of Teddy Roosevelt to permanently protect our beautiful and fragile natural resources, while also addressing new challenges posed by climate change. Madam President, with respect to the nomination of Rick Perry to be the Secretary of the Department of Energy, hundreds of Vermonters have written to me in opposition. They were concerned that under his leadership we will halt the forward progress we have made towards a responsible energy strategy for the future of our country. Not only did Governor Perry make headlines for famously proposing to abolish the Department of Energy, he lacks a background or any true experience on the complex scientific and technical issues in the Department of Energy's portfolio. This agency must be focused on addressing our energy and environmental challenges through transformative science and technology solutions; yet Mr. Perry expedited the permitting of coal- fired electric generating plants and filed suit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gases significantly endanger public health. How can we trust him to lead the Energy Department? I was pleased that, during his confirmation hearing, Governor Perry apologized for suggesting that the entire Department of Energy should be abolished. However, he has yet to say that he will fight to maintain important offices within the Department, such as the Office of Electricity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. I find it hard to see how we can pursue an ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy called for by the administration if so much of the Department's capabilities are targeted for elimination. By supporting research around wind, solar, and efficiency, offering loan guarantees for innovative demonstration projects, and providing expertise and support to the private sector in commercializing new research we can create American jobs and grow the national economy. Conversely, if we turn our back on the future, we are ceding these important and fast growing fields of research and production of renewable energy technologies to China, the European Union, and other countries at a critical time. That would be a monumental mistake to haunt our economy for many years. Earlier today, I had the chance to talk to a Vermont company that is closely watching the work of the Energy Dpartment to advance America's clean energy revolution. Northern Power Systems in Barre, VT, has been designing and developing wind turbines for almost 40 years and offers support services for energy generation needs around the world. Last year, they received an award for their increase in exports, but rather than selling to an international market they would rather see their sales here in the U.S. take off so that they can create more American jobs to manufacture American-made wind turbines. Turbines that should be installed here to utilize this reliable, abundant, and free resource to lower energy costs for Americans. It is troubling that Mr. Perry has taken such an aggressive stance against the Department of Energy and dismissed large parts of its mission. I hope that he will devote himself to learning everything he can about the diverse work of the Department and surround himself with some of the best public servants and technical experts he can find. The last Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, prepared two documents that I am hopeful Mr. Perry will study closely. First, the Quadrennial Energy Review provides a broad review of federal energy policy in the context of economic, environmental, occupational, security, and health and safety priorities. The Department also prepared an extensive suite of analyses to accompany the Quadrennial Energy Review that I know would serve Mr. Perry well as he tries to understand the wide array of issues that will come before him at the Department. I would also recommend that he review the exit memo Secretary Moniz prepared, which highlights the responsibilities and opportunities for the Department's enduring service to the Nation as our leading science, technology, and innovation agency. The Department has an extraordinary span of responsibilities from energy and the environment, to cyber security, science and national security, and it must collaborate with other agencies like the Defense Department and our intelligence community. I remain committed to supporting and protecting the essential mission of the Department of Energy in order to move us forward with 2lst century jobs and make needed investments in our electricity grid, clean energy, and energy efficiency that will save American consumers and businesses money.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to the fact that it has now been 1 year since the assassination of Berta Caceres, a renowned indigenous Honduran environmental activist who devoted her life--and ultimately lost her life--defending the land, water, and other natural resources of the Lenca people. After an initial attempt by the Honduran police and even some high- ranking officials to falsely portray the murder as a crime of passion, which is a not uncommon ploy to cover up official complicity in such cases, eight men have been arrested, including one active-duty and two retired military officers. Although Honduran officials have denied any government involvement in Ms. Caceres's murder and downplayed the arrest of Major Mariano Diaz who was promptly discharged from the army, there are reasons to be skeptical. Diaz, a decorated special forces veteran, was appointed chief of army intelligence in 2015, and at the time of the murder he was reportedly on track for promotion to lieutenant colonel. Another suspect, Lieutenant Douglas Giovanny Bustillo, reportedly joined the military on the same day as Diaz. They served together and apparently remained in contact after Bustillo retired in 2008. It is particularly noteworthy and troubling that, according to press reports, both Diaz and Bustillo may have received military training from the United States. A third suspect, Sergeant Henry Javier Hernandez, was a former special forces sniper who had worked under the command of Diaz. He may also have worked as an informant for military intelligence after leaving the army in 2013. According to press reports, First Sergeant Rodrigo Cruz, a former army officer who deserted after Caceres's death and remains in hiding, said the Honduran military high command gave a hit list with the names and photographs of activists to eliminate to the commander of the Xatruch multiagency taskforce, to which Cruz's unit belonged, and that Caceres's name was on the list. It sounds a lot like the death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s. Five civilians with no known military record have also been arrested. They include Sergio Rodriguez, a manager for the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam that Berta Caceres had long opposed. That project is being led by Desarrollos Energeticos SA, Desa, with international financing and the strong backing of the Honduran Government. According to press reports, the company's president, Roberto David Castillo Mejia, is a former military intelligence officer, and its secretary, Roberto Pacheco Reyes, is a former justice minister. Desa employed former Lieutenant Bustillo as head of security between 2013 and 2015. Ms. Caceres had reported multiple death threats linked to her campaign against the dam, including several from Desa employees. The Honduran Government largely ignored her requests for protection, and Desa continues to deny any involvement in the murder. It is inconceivable to anyone who knows Honduras that this outrageous crime was carried out by these individuals without orders from above. The question is whether the investigation will identify the intellectual authors, which almost never happens in Honduras. In fact, as Global Witness, the U.S. Department of State, and others have documented, there have been scores of killings of environmental activists in Honduras that have never been credibly investigated and for which no one has been punished. I have no doubt that one of the reasons this case has progressed at all is because U.S. law enforcement experts, supported by the U.S. Embassy, have assisted in the investigation, and because of the efforts of Honduran Attorney General Oscar Fernando Chincilla. However, as I have said before, in Honduras where impunity is the norm, a case of such domestic and international importance should also be the subject of a parallel independent investigation. The obvious entities to convene such an inquiry are the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras, MACCIH; yet the Honduran Government continues to reject such an inquiry. The United States and Honduras have a troubled history; yet we and the Honduran people share many interests. We want to continue to help Honduras address the deeply rooted poverty, inequality, violence, and impunity that have caused so much suffering and hardship and contributed to the migration of tens of thousands of Hondurans, including children, to the United States. But for this Senator, that requires solving the Berta Caceres case and undertaking credible investigations and prosecutions of the shocking number of assassinations of other social activists, journalists, and human rights defenders in recent years. It means Honduran officials publicly affirming and defending the legitimate role of such activists, who in the past have been ignored, threatened, and treated as legitimate targets. Only then will it be clear that the Honduran Government is committed to justice and that our assistance will achieve lasting results. The Department of State needs to thoroughly and transparently investigate whether Major Diaz and Lieutenant Bustillo were in fact trained by the United States. If so, the Congress and the Honduran people deserve to know how they were selected, what training they received, and any steps taken to improve the process of screening potential trainees and to monitor the conduct of those who have received U.S. training. Finally, as I have said before, as long as the Agua Zarca project and others like it continue over the objections of indigenous people whose livelihoods and cultures are intrinsically linked to the rivers that are impacted, the confrontations and violence will continue. The Honduran Government, like other governments in that region, needs to change its way of doing business in areas where the rights and interests of indigenous people have long been violated and ignored. Given the shameful history of the Agua Zarca project it should be cancelled. Other hydroelectric and extractive projects in indigenous territories should be reconsidered by the Honduran Government and allowed to proceed only after a transparent process based on the free, prior, informed consent of affected communities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Department of Housing and Urban Development plays a vital role ensuring that all Americans have access to safe affordable housing. Affordable housing should not be a political issue; it is a moral issue. Programs like Section 8 and the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, Program keep families in their homes and support and maintain affordable housing. That is not up for debate. I am disappointed that President Trump did not look to our knowledgeable housing advocates across the country to identify a qualified, experienced nominee to serve as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and instead nominated Dr. Ben Carson to this important position. In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr, Carson, like many nominees, said the right things. He made the right promises. I want to believe that he will fulfill those commitments. Programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development keep shelter over the heads of our Nation's struggling and low-income families. They combat homelessness among adults and children alike by building and maintaining affordable housing and helping families buy their first homes. I am proud of the progress we have made in Vermont and across the Nation through programs implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Deveropment. During his confirmation hearing, Dr. Carson testified to the crucial role of rental assistance programs. He pledged to be an advocate for funding for housing assistance programs. He turned away from his previous call for a 10- percent across-the-board cut to housing programs. I hope that Dr. Carson will fulfill these commitments. I continue to have concerns regarding Dr. Carson's seeming animosity toward the affirmatively furthering fair housing, AFFH rule, which he called a ``failed socialist experiment'' in an op-ed in the Washington Times. While Dr. Carson tried to minimize those comments in his hearing, I remain concerned that Dr. Carson doesn't understand the AFFH rule. This rule asks cities and towns receiving Federal dollars to look at their housing patterns to identify racial bias and to take action to rectify any bias they find. Dr. Carson has called it social engineering. I call it social justice and support the examination of policies to promote equality and eliminate discrimination. During his confirmation hearing, he pledged to enforce our fair housing laws. I believe this includes upholding the AFFH. I am concerned that Dr. Carson lacks the necessary experience to successfully serve as our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He will be confirmed, of that there is no doubt. I hope that Dr. Carson will work with both sides of the aisle to further the mission of the Department, strengthen the successful programs that keep families in their homes, build and support and maintain affordable housing in Vermont and across the Nation, and help first-time home buyers realize their homeownership goals.