Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment and Senator Shelby's be called up.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act or any applicable budget points of order for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. LEAHY. I understand we are going to have a voice vote on the Cotton amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 2124

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for joining both myself and Senator Shelby on the Leahy-Shelby amendment. There have been weeks of negotiation, most of it quiet but weeks of negotiation going on in this. I am sure I can speak for both Senator Shelby and myself. We each might not have gotten everything that we wanted, but on this specific issue, we got what the country needed. We got the improvements for the security of our Capitol, the symbol of our democracy. We showed what we can do to help take care of the damage to the Capitol Police, what we can do to help those who work so hard here in the Capitol, the men and women throughout the Capitol and Capitol Complex facing the threat of COVID. And thanks to bipartisan efforts, we had the issue of people who had worked with our military and our government in Afghanistan. And, now, as we withdraw, something that both President Trump and President Biden wanted to do within this timeframe--as we withdraw--they face retribution from the Taliban. We had to show our commitment to protect them and to save them, and there is money and laws that are in this that will help. All in all, it meant a lot of Republicans and a lot of Democrats had to come together. I have been here longer than anybody else in this body, and I have seen days when Republicans and Democrats come together and we accomplish something, and I have seen times when we don't and nothing gets accomplished. I have also found, over these years, that nobody gets every single thing they want, but you try and do things that will make the country better, that will help the United States of America, that will help the things that we stand for. This bill, the fact that it has passed 98 to 0, is an example of that. So I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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, I always consider it a privilege to open the U.S. Senate, be here for the pledge of allegiance, be here for the Chaplain's prayer. But I must admit this morning that I felt such a sense of sorrow that we were praying for my good friend Mike Enzi, whom I had the privilege to serve with during all the time he was in the U.S. Senate. We used to spend time together. We would talk to each other on votes coming up. He was the old ``old school.'' He always kept his word; he knew I would mine. We worked on many things. I did remember, through the tears this morning as I heard the news, of one day when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Enzi came to me and he said: You know, I know you are Italian American--which I am on my mother's side--and I am Italian American. And I have this nominee. He is one of us. He is Italian American. Please push him through. Well, the nominee backed by Senator Enzi was, of course, well qualified anyway. We put him on the agenda and passed him. A few weeks later, he came up to me, and he said: I have got another nominee. I said: How many Italian Americans do you have in Wyoming? He said: Oh, this is one of us. He is Irish. I said: Mike, what do you mean ``he is Irish''? You are Italian. He said: No, I am just like you, except in reverse. He had an Italian father and an Irish mother. I had an Irish father and Italian mother. So he said: He is one of us; you have got to get him through--of course, as only Mike could, in that gentle humor of his. And we laughed. And, of course, he was well qualified, and we put the nominee through. A couple of weeks later, he comes up to me on something else. I said: Do you have another nominee? He said: No, but I am looking for a French Canadian, and now I am going to call your wife Marcelle and say: This is one of us. We have got to get him through. But I tell that story only because it was typical of him. He would quietly meet with Senators on both sides of the aisle. We were different in our political philosophy, but he always worked at finding a way we could come together. And countless times he would bring Democrats and Republicans together. It was never done with any fanfare. He didn't seek publicity. He wasn't running to the press to say: Look what I did; look what I accomplished. But he had the thankfulness of all of us. He and his wife Diana and Marcelle and I have spent so many times together, and you felt this was somebody you could be having a backyard barbecue with, somebody you could just be sitting together and watching a sporting event with or anything else. I don't know the full details of the tragic accident he had, but I can almost see Mike out on his bicycle, in his beautiful State, and enjoying the day. I do mourn his passage, not only as a friend but as somebody who represented what I feel the Senate has been and should be again. So I will yield the floor and only say I miss Mike Enzi. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will get right to the point: the very definition of democracy in the United States is under attack. You see it in State legislatures across the country. Powerful partisans advancing bill after bill to restrict voters' access to the ballot box. It flies in the face of the very evolution of progress. Gone are the days when voters rode on horseback or walked for miles to cast their ballot. Technological advances, commonsense understandings of the daily lives of hard-working Americans--all these things and more recommend an open, accessible, expanded, and secure election process. Yet instead of seizing these opportunities to ensure every voice, every vote counts, partisan efforts are afoot to take us back--back to a time when senseless barriers were erected to block the votes of very specific communities. The U.S. Senate--the democratically elected U.S. Senate--should not stand for such an assault on our democracy. And every Senator who swears the oath of office should stand up and stand against this bitter attack on the ballot box. Protecting the right to vote has long been bipartisan. I stood alongside my dear friend, himself a soldier in the war against voter oppression, John Lewis, when we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006. And it was with a heavy--but hopeful--heart that I reintroduced the Voting Rights Advancement Act last year to bear his name. I will soon do so again. This bipartisan legislation should advance, and quickly. Now is the time for every American--regardless of party, regardless of politics--to stand in defense of our democracy. To stand for what is right, and to stand with the clear arc of history--the arc that bends toward justice, toward inclusion, towards equality. With one loud and clear voice, we should reject erosions of voter protections. And we should do so now. Vermont has always been at the forefront of expanding access to the ballot, and one of our State's leaders in that fight has been Secretary of State Jim Condos. I ask unanimous consent that a column by Secretary Condos, published in the July 14 edition of The Times Argus, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since the start of the pandemic, the State of Vermont, at every level of its leadership, has taken heroic efforts to mitigate spread of the deadly COVID-19 virus. With strong leadership from Gov. Phil Scott, and bolstered by a firm belief in scientific facts, the State nearly halted altogether the spread of COVID-19, minimized the number of Vermonters lost to the disease, and now leads the Nation in the percentage of residents who have received at least one vaccine shot. As we look to hopefully soon be on the other side of this pandemic, I strongly believe that there are invaluable lessons to be learned from Vermont's response, so that we are better prepared for the days, months, and years ahead. Aisha K. Jha's ``Vermont's and South Dakota's COVID Infection Rates are Remarkably Similar--But their Outcomes are Not'' article published in the Washington Post on July 13, 2021, reviews the important steps Vermont took to not only protect the health of its residents but also ensure that minimal economic damage was done given the circumstances. A strong public health approach, led by Vermont Health Commissioner Mark Levine, always communicated scientific evidence clearly and thoughtfully. This fostered a sense of trust and community that has now resulted in Vermont nearing herd immunity and able to fully reopen local businesses for everyone to enjoy. I am so proud of every Vermonter who stepped up to do their part to not only protect themselves, but their families, friends, and neighbors. This is truly the Vermont way. I know that if all States followed Vermont's example, and continued to vaccinate all residents, we would be able to put this dark chapter of American history in our rearview mirror. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article mentioned above, about the important work in Vermont to protect our State from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been 40 years since the Nation lost a champion for the hungry, and the American people lost a talented and inspirational musical artist. And I lost a dear partner and friend. I was proud to have been able to work side by side with Harry Chapin on several projects to address hunger, here at home, and in the world. We strategized. We met with other Senators to build support. And I got to know him well. He stayed at our home and even sang for our enthralled children. I was with him on the grounds of the Capitol Building when he pulled out his guitar and gave an impromptu concert. Passersby were drawn to him, and it was one more magical moment, among so many with Harry. Harry had incredible energy and drive and commitment to his goals. Bill Ayres, a former Catholic priest who cofounded the organization WhyHunger with Harry, has noted that Harry used to say: ``When in doubt, do something.'' And do something, he certainly did. Since its founding in 1975, WhyHunger has raised more than $30 million to help more than 10 million families, children, veterans, and others around the world gain access to nutritious food and vital services. One of Harry's ideas was to convince President Jimmy Carter to form a Commission on world hunger. I readily signed on to help him. When we had that meeting with the President in the Cabinet Room, Harry's persistence was on overdrive. President Carter agreed to establish the Commission. So that goal was in hand. But Harry kept telling the President why we should do this, and President Carter kept trying to tell Harry that he agreed with him. Harry was wound up and excited to have the chance to lay out the case for a Commission. And I finally said: ``Harry, don't talk him out of it.'' Everyone laughed because we all knew that it was a moment that distilled the pure energy for which we all loved and admired him. I worked with Senator Byron Dorgan and others in gaining authorization for a Congressional Gold Medal, which I was honored to carry to a memorial concert at Carnegie Hall to present to Harry's family. Harry Belafonte and Bruce Springsteen were there and so were so many others who had known and worked with Harry. Harry Belafonte, whom I also admire so deeply, has said this: I grew to really admire him, not only for his commitment to the cause of hunger, but also the fact that he did it with such passion, such real commitment. As an artist, I certainly loved his work. Not only his music, but the content of his words. He spoke about the human condition with a sense of humor and as a lyricist he had his hand on the pulse of social needs. A few years ago, I received a letter from a 16-year-old Canadian boy in Newmarket, Ontario, Ryan Kruger. He had heard about my work with Harry and wanted me to know how much he admires him. ``I am a big fan of Harry,'' he wrote, ``and think he exemplifies the ideals of both of our respective nations, as well as the world, or at least what they should be. In this volatile political climate, on both sides of the border, as well as around the world, I think we need a bit more Harry.'' And we certainly do. Harry's children wrote an eloquent tribute that was carried in the New York Daily News on July 16. They, and many of us, want to keep alight and aloft the candle that helps Harry Chapin's important legacy live on and on. I commend their tribute to the attention of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise on the floor today to honor the legacy of one of the country's most cherished heroes and a very dear and close friend of mine, John Lewis. This past Saturday marked 1 year since we said goodbye to Congressman Lewis. The pain of his loss is still very fresh for both my wife Marcelle and me, as it is for millions of Americans. He wasn't just a moral giant and a guiding light for the world, he was, as he always told me, my brother, and I still have such a sense of emotion when I think of the time he introduced me as his brother. For more than six decades, John Lewis served the United States with an unyielding belief that we could be better; that we have a responsibility to each other and the world to live up to our founding ideals. John didn't spend his life fighting for Democrats or Republicans; he fought for the rights of all Americans and the dignity of all human beings. John's principles were so much bigger than party and politics. When he saw suffering, he tried to end it; whenever he saw injustice, he tried to correct it; and wherever good trouble was needed, he delivered it. I knew John as more than just a generational leader; I knew him as a friend. And I can tell you that his dedication to justice was matched only by his fundamental decency as a person. John and I served in Congress for more than 30 years. In those years, I witnessed a tremendous humility and empathy that defined his lifetime of public service. Every day, John embodied the ideals he fought for through his unfailing generosity and dignity. So I consider John Lewis a brother, and it was an honor of a lifetime to have him consider me one too. It is--I think when we walked down the street in Vermont, I just felt suddenly so much a person because I was walking beside John Lewis. But people are seeing where he had walked. Many Americans know the stories of John's bravery in the face of brutality. He was beaten bloody, his bones broken, in the heroic efforts to bolster the ballot box for millions of Americans. John wasn't just on the frontlines of our Nation's great civil rights movement; he was the frontline. John was there when the Freedom Riders were dragged off their buses and beaten and arrested; John was there to lead the march from--for freedom from Selma to Montgomery, AL; and John was there when millions of Americans gathered in Washington to proclaim to the country that the time for justice and equality was now. John Lewis put his body and soul on the line for the mighty movement that changed the world. What fewer Americans may know is that John was beloved and respected by Members of both parties. It is because he believed in his heart that our Nation's greatest challenges must be faced together, regardless of party. When he stood there beside Lyndon Johnson as he signed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, he was flanked by Democrats and Republicans. In that moment, he absorbed the lessons that reaching across the aisle wasn't just a political necessity, it is the way to change--everlastingly change society. And throughout his career in Congress, John embraced bipartisanship. He built friendships with Members of both parties. For years, John led bipartisan groups of Members of Congress, including some of my Republican friends in this body, down to the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. He wanted to commemorate Bloody Sunday and the American struggle for equal rights. I will never forget the iconic photo of John. He is flanked on either side by Presidents Obama and George W. Bush; the three of them, heads bowed in silent reflection, arms and hands linked on the Edmund Pettus Bridge for Bloody Sunday's 50th anniversary. John Lewis didn't just cross bridges; he built bridges. By bringing people together, he helped us forge a more perfect Union. So it is in John's spirit today that I fervently urge my Republican friends to join me in restoring and reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. I would remind everyone in this body that reauthorizing the VRA, the Voting Rights Act, on a bipartisan basis is the way we have always done it. I say always done--the core provisions of the VRA have been reauthorized five times, and every single time it was with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Look at the Presidents who signed it: President Nixon, President Reagan, George W. Bush. They all signed the Voting Rights Act reauthorizations into law because they spoke of the profound importance of the landmark law for our democracy. I was here in 2006 for the most recent VRA reauthorization. Do you know what the vote was in this body in 2006? It was 98 to 0 in the Senate. In fact, many of the Republican Senators still serving today voted yes; 98 to 0. You can't do much better than that. So let's honor John Lewis's legacy the way he would want to be honored, with solid justified action. I am committed to working with my Republican friends to find a bipartisan compromise around my John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which I proudly renamed in his honor last Congress. For those who knew John Lewis and for those who did not, I can say John would want us to come together and find a path forward to addressing the many threats facing Americans' foundational right to vote. I will tell you what he wouldn't accept. He wouldn't accept inaction. So let's put in the hard work and let's try to live up to the memory of John Lewis, our hero and our colleague. Let's remember the person who took me by the arm and walked me on to the floor of the other body one day and said to everybody: I am here with my brother. Every one of us thought of John as our brother, and we were proud of that. Let us be proud of our brother. Let's be proud of his memory. Let's be proud of America. Let's be proud of our right to vote. Let's pass and reauthorize the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph S(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 11:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committeee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 12 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will oppose this amendment today. I base it on my experience as an advocate for victims of crime that began when I was a prosecutor, certainly during the time when I was the Vice President of the National District Attorneys Association and on their executive board. If you look at the Victims of Crime Act Fix bill, it has passed the House. It would deposit the proceeds in deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements into the Crime Victims Fund. And I mention this because in recent years, deposits into the fund have shrunk significantly. They actually threatened the ability to sustain payments to crime victims. Senator Toomey's amendment would create a point of order if expenditures from the Crime Victims Fund fall below the 3-year average. The current 3-year average is $583 million, assuming the CBO estimate of collections in fiscal year 2021 is $750 million. The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agency Subcommittee, Appropriations, has worked to ensure the release of the fund is more than the 3-year average. For example, in fiscal year 2021, the CJS bill allows spending of $2 billion--$2.015 billion out of the fund. Now, that is $1.5 billion more than the 3-year average of fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 2020. I mention all of this because I support the crime victims. I spent a career supporting and advocating for them. I did that, as I said, before I was in the Senate, when I was a prosecutor. But this amendment offered by Senator Toomey impinges on the ability of the Appropriations Committee to do its job. If it were adopted, here is what would happen. It would create a point of order. It would delay the movement of any appropriations bill that the Crime Victims Fund is part of. I just put over on the--talking about the average--we have been releasing more than the 3-year average of the fund over the last several fiscal years, but then there could be a time when there is not enough funds to keep it sustainable. And that is why we are here to vote on the underlying bill, the VOCA Fix Act. That would direct deposits from nonprosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements to go into the Crime Victims Fund so we can continue to spend out of the fund at or above current levels. And without it, the spending would continue to fall. Victims groups like the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence are asking for clean passage of this act. I went down through it and looked at the various States. I mention a couple: the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Children's Advocacy Centers of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape authored an opinion piece on July 5. They ask for clean passage of the VOCA Fix Act. By the way, this bill also has nearly 60 cosponsors, including a number of my Republican colleagues like Senators Murkowski, Graham, Cornyn, and Grassley. And the Senate bill is identical to the one before us, H.R. 1652. Now, if we don't include amendments, if we pass this bill, we can get it to the President for signature immediately. We can help to ensure deposits into the Crime Victims Fund. That means all crime victims are going to be helped. I want that passage without an amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families, Council of State Governments, Futures Without Violence, and numerous others be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks

Mr. LEAHY. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to speak about a topic I spoke about before, and that is our policy toward Cuba. I couldn't help but think, as I look at the Cubans protesting in the street, especially as I see so many people in the streets in places where both my wife Marcelle and I have walked, and actually our granddaughter Sophia, where we know a number of the people there, and we see them protesting, it hits twice as hard. They are demanding greater freedom and economic opportunity. This illustrates a widespread hardship and hunger and the need for fundamental change in Cuba. Human rights are universal. Cuban people are no different from people anywhere in the world. They want to be able to speak freely. They don't want fear of retribution. We have been told that the Biden administration is conducting a review of the Trump administration's policy. It is the Trump administration's policy toward Cuba which is now in effect. There is nothing unusual about that review. New administrations regularly conduct such reviews. But it is now mid-July, and the key question that needs to be answered is not very complicated. It is axiomatic that we have profound disagreements with the Cuban Government. They have held power since 1959. They have held power by outlawing opposition political parties. Dissent is often punished with physical abuse and imprisonment. The government's crackdown on the recent protests, calling the protesters counterrevolutionaries and blaming the United States for Cuba's ills, is predictable. They have blamed us for many years. I look beyond the headlines. There is no doubt that the Cuban people, many of whom I have met, and I know they struggle from day to day to make ends meet--they want greater freedom, and they want a better life. They have told me that. They have told Marcelle. They have told the other Senators, Republicans and Democrats, who have traveled there with me. But the question now is, How should we respond? It comes down to whether you believe that we should continue a policy of unilateral sanctions, which have been in effect for decades, much of my life--they have completely failed to achieve their objectives, and they have contributed to the daily misery of Cuba's people--or should we instead pursue a policy of engagement? I believe President Obama got it right. You know, one definition of ``insanity'' is to keep doing what has repeatedly and demonstrably failed. In Cuba, it is worse than that. Our policy, which does not work, has emboldened Cuba's hardliners, and it provides an excuse for Cuba's authorities to crack down on those who dare to protest. But worse than that, it has created a vacuum. And guess who is exploiting that vacuum a few miles from our shores? Well, of course, the Russians and the Chinese. And we undercut the Cuban private sector. By any objective measure, it is time for President Biden to act on his pledge to ``reverse the failed Trump policies'' that have ``inflicted harm on Cubans and their families'' and ``done nothing to advance democracy and human rights.'' I feel that if we allow those Trump sanctions to persist, we only undermine these principles. They restrict the freedom of movement and economic autonomy of the Cuban people. They compound the suffering caused by the Cuban Government's own repressive policies and well-known economic mismanagement. In fact, the repression in Cuba didn't decrease during the Trump administration; it increased. Biden administration officials have repeatedly said that democracy and human rights will be at the core of our policy toward Cuba. Well, I have been a defender of those principles for 50 years, and human rights and political freedom should be a key element not just of our policy but also of our engagement with Cuba. But, again, the question is how best to support the Cuban people who seek greater freedom and a better life. Is it to continue a policy that has achieved neither, which is likely to be used as an excuse by those in power to further stifle dissent? In fact, engagement with Cuba will honor our commitment to human rights and the recognition that American presence can be a positive force in closed societies. That is the argument that Secretary Blinken and others, both Democrats and Republicans, have rightly made in defense of diplomacy and engagement throughout the world. Neither engagement nor continuation of the Trump sanctions can guarantee Cuba's political transformation. That is ultimately a decision for the Cuban people. But--but--but engagement stands a far greater chance of creating a new dynamic beneficial to the Cuban people. President Obama's engagement with Cuba showed that U.S. travel, exchanges, remittances, and business ties expand opportunities and information and income for Cubans, boosting the private sector and increasing economic independence. I visited a number of these people, often young people starting their own businesses--small businesses, private businesses--doing it because of President Obama's engagement with Cuba. It also initiated working- level discussions on a wide range of issues, from law enforcement to property claims, to public health and environmental protection. Raul Castro and his generation are in the process of handing over power to the next generation. I compliment him on that. The current leadership is rooted in the past, but they are also deep in a debate about how to reform the economy, how to regulate the private sector, and how to navigate citizen demands for pluralism, something they have not seen. I believe American citizens and diplomats alike should participate in that debate--and not from a distance, not from Washington and New York and elsewhere, but down there. Cuba's private sector offers a particular opportunity because Cuba's economic policies are changing in ways that enable U.S. engagement to have greater impact than was impossible even during the Obama years. A new law will soon greatly expand the legal scope for private business activity, and another is expected to give entrepreneurs legal status that will permit them to receive foreign investment. The government is enabling private businesses to import supplies and export products. Any of us who come from States that have an agricultural industry should look at this. For the first time, the Cuban Government is calling for foreign investment in private farm cooperatives. But for U.S. citizens and businesses to be able to engage, several steps are needed. We have to remove the restrictions that limit the flow of remittances, both family assistance and ``donative'' remittances mainly used to pay and support private entrepreneurs. Restore the travel regulations that were in effect when the Obama- Biden administration left office. This includes eliminating or significantly reducing the Cuba Restricted List of business entities, ending the prohibition on lodging in Cuban hotels, and allowing U.S. airlines to service provincial airports. Reverse the frivolous ``state sponsor of terrorism'' designation that former Secretary Pompeo almost flippantly announced 9 days before leaving office. Suspend title III of the Helms-Burton Act, as all the Presidents did from 1996 to 2019, Republican and Democratic Presidents alike. These regulatory changes would permit the private sector to activate and would be no burden on the U.S. Government. It would be the private sector activating. We don't need some grand diplomacy to do this. Dialogue with Cuba can resume at the working level. Human rights advocacy at whatever level should be a key part of any engagement policy, as it is in our relations with other autocratic governments. There would be broad support in this country for a return to engagement. There would be vocal support from U.S. agriculture, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, from many Cuban Americans, and from many in Cuba whose lives have become immeasurably worse due to the COVID pandemic. Given time to work, engagement policies would expand the constituency for engagement in Miami as more Cuban Americans travel and build economic ties. This is also how you make progress with Cuba on cases of political prisoners or other violations of human rights. You don't make this progress by making ultimatums or threats or repeating slogans that sound great but achieve nothing in practice. It can't be by conditioning U.S. aid because we don't gave aid to Cuba. We do to some military dictatorships, of course, like Egypt. It can't be by canceling sales of U.S. weapons. We don't sell weapons to Cuba the same way we do to some other repressive governments, like Saudi Arabia. It is through building relations by making progress on issues where we share interests, which can create the conditions for progress--making progress on issues where we differ, like human rights and property claims. I don't expect we are going to come down here and everybody is going to say: We all agree on everything. Let's talk about the things where we do have differences. But you don't talk about it--you don't get anywhere by making ultimatums from a country away. I hope the Biden administration will be guided first and foremost by what is in our national interest but also in the interests of the Cuban and American people. Candidate Biden was right when he pledged, and I repeat, to ``reverse the failed Trump policies'' that have ``inflicted harm on Cubans and their families'' and ``done nothing to enhance democracy and human rights.'' It is time to act on that pledge. It is time to encourage so many of these young people--young students, young entrepreneurs, young business owners like those I visited and met with in Cuba--it is time to say: Yes, you can be part of the world. Yes, you can work with those in our country who want to make your life better. If we do that, we will see the real change--not slogans of change but substantive change. I see my distinguished friend and colleague from Ohio on the floor. I will ask to put my full statement in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the weeks, I have been rising on the Senate floor to urge that the Senate take up and pass an emergency supplemental. So I am rising again to tell you what that emergency supplemental is, even though I have stated it over and over again. It is to deal with the fallout from the violent insurrection that took place at the seat of our democracy on January 6. I have been making this call for 2 months now. I am frustrated and beginning to feel a little bit like a broken record. Just days before this Chamber left for the July 4 recess, I sounded the alarm that time was running out. It is even more so today. The Senate has only a few weeks to act. If we do nothing, the Capitol Police will deplete salaries funding sometime in August. And for anybody who hasn't looked at the calendar, that is next month. This means that the men and women who protect the seat of democracy and Members of Congress and their staff in this building and the support staff who keep the building running may face furloughs and significant impacts to the department's programs and mission asset support, including the hiring of much needed new sworn officers. These are the same women and men who fought and bled--and some died--for everything this hallowed building stands for. That happened on January 6. We owe them more than just a paycheck. As a result of this budget crunch, purchases of critical equipment--like respirators, ballistic helmets, protective gear--and training that has all been delayed. Efforts to implement the department's wellness program to address mental health concerns that followed the January 6 insurrection have been put on the back burner. These police officers stood with us on that horrible day. Shouldn't we stand with them now and pass the emergency appropriations to address these shortfalls? And I point out that it is not only the Capitol Police that we owe. Our distinguished Presiding Officer served with distinction in our military. I think of the days after January 6, when tens and thousands of men and women from the National Guard from all over the country came to secure our Nation's Capital ahead of the inauguration and beyond. They were called, they came, and they appeared here. Like many other Senators, I thank them for their service. But unless Congress acts, the National Guard will be forced to cut training they need to prepare for overseas deployments and responses at home to make up for the costs incurred as a result of January 6. If we have, as we often do, forest fires, hurricanes, and floods that hit our individual States, we are going to want to call on the National Guard. But what we are seeing now, if we don't pass this bill, is this: Gee, come when we call you, and the check may be in the mail a year or 2 or 3 years later or never at all. Now, we don't budget for an insurrection, but it has been 187 days since the violent mob stormed the very Chamber we are standing in now, sitting in the same Presiding Officer's chair where our distinguished Presiding Officer now sits. My memory of the growing roar of that mob echoing down the hallway as the Capitol Police whisked us to safety has not faded. It hasn't faded from the consciousness of the American people or the rest of the world. It has been 53 days since the House passed its own security supplemental, and I was shocked that not a single Republican voted for it. So I provided my Republican colleagues here in the Senate with a proposal to address these pressing needs and many others. I did that over a month ago, and I urged that we begin negotiations in earnest. Only now have they come to the table with a proposal. While I appreciate them bringing something, it is a pretty small something. It is a proposal that does not provide the appropriate resources to secure the Capitol or address the urgent needs that have arisen since January 6. The images of the mob breaking through windows and forcing their way through doors exposed the truth. The Capitol and its office buildings are not impenetrable. It is not a fortress. The windows can be broken. The doors can be breached. This complex is no longer shrouded with the protection of belief that it is not possible to storm these Halls. Much like the windows, that protection was shattered, and it was broadcast to the whole world on January 6. See, the emperor has no clothes. Unfortunately, the Republican proposal would not adequately address our vulnerabilities. I have been very clear saying over and over again that I don't want to militarize our Capitol in the wake of January 6. It is important that the Capitol campus that I first saw as a teenager with my mother and father remain open for citizens from all walks of life to come and enjoy. It is their democracy after all. But we can and we must invest in securing the Capitol in a way that will address our vulnerabilities, protect Members and staff, and still keep us open to the public. I am confident that we can strike that balance. We also have a responsibility to pay for the unforeseen costs of investing and prosecuting these violent insurgents. The FBI, the U.S. Marshals, the DC Metropolitan Police Department, and numerous other law enforcement agencies hurried to defend the Capitol at the urgent call, and we are all thankful for that. Federal prosecutors have charged more than 500 people in more than 40 States with participating in the attack, and arrests continue almost daily. We have a responsibility to support these Agencies in dealing with January 6 and its aftermath, but it is not addressed in the Republican proposal. I am tired of hearing people saying we are in favor of law and order and law enforcement, but we just don't want to pay for it. It should not be lost on us that we were not the ones to sweep up the shattered glasses, scrub the floors and walls of this building on that day and throughout the night. We cannot turn our backs on the dedicated public servants, the women and men who had to process that trauma that day as they boarded up shattered windows and broken doors. And it is a trauma that came at the end of a yearlong pandemic. It should not be lost on us that during the darkest hours of the pandemic, these are the same public servants who came to work to clean our offices, ensuring our safety and the safety of our staff. We have a responsibility to pay for these and other costs that were incurred as a result of the pandemic on the Capitol Complex and its staff. Now, of course, we did not budget for an insurrection. We don't budget for a global pandemic. We have been forced to rob Peter to pay Paul to keep our congressional community safe and healthy. The scars of COVID have not healed in our own Capitol community, and they have not been addressed in the other party's proposal. But we can't also ignore the world around us. We have another emergency brewing. This one is in Afghanistan, and we have a moral responsibility to address it. I have been talking for 2 years now of an imminent departure from Afghanistan. Now it is happening, and we must ensure that the brave Afghans who stood with America are not abandoned as we conclude our mission in that country. I am fortunate that there is bipartisan support for this effort. I think this is something where Republicans and Democrats have to come together. We made a promise. Whether you supported the war or not, we made a promise to the Afghans who risked their own lives to support and protect our troops and our country. We made a promise to them, and as a country our word should be our bond. And we all agree--I believe both Republicans and Democrats--that bond is not going to be broken on our watch. And if we don't address this now, if we don't keep our word now, then when? The bill I am introducing today includes funds to care for the inevitable flood of Afghan refugees to neighboring countries and an increase in the number of Afghan special immigrant visas. They must be included in this package because the crisis is unfolding now. There is no dispute about the urgency and the importance of standing with our Afghan allies. My colleagues on the other side do not address it in their proposal. I hope they will. So where are we? A violent insurrection that none of us thought we would ever see in our lifetime happened. A pandemic that we thought we would never see in our lifetime happened. And the President has announced the withdrawal of the American troops from Afghanistan. These events created urgent needs that must be met. My Republican colleagues are proposing that we deal with these problems piecemeal, address some of them now and others sometime, somewhere, someday. But a piecemeal approach that jumps from one problem to the next is no way to govern. I have been here long enough to know that a promise to do it later is no promise at all. It has been 53 days since the House passed a security supplemental, and only now are my Republican colleagues coming to the negotiating table. I don't want to wait another 53 days more before we address these pressing matters. We can't govern by crisis, and we can't legislate at the convenience of either party. So I am introducing my comprehensive proposal today. To make sure it is not a surprise to anybody, I shared this proposal with my Republican colleagues more than a month ago--a month ago--and I am sharing it with the full Senate today. It addresses all the needs arising from the tragic events of January 6 and the global pandemic. This is the best way forward. We owe it to our Members in both parties. We owe it to our staff. We owe it to the Capitol Police. We owe it to the National Guard, and we owe it to numerous others. We must act, and we must act in a comprehensive way. We have only one shot at this. We have a responsibility to get it right. With that, Madam President, at the end of my remarks, I introduce a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, and for other purposes. I ask to have it held at the desk.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Scott of Florida, Menendez, Tuberville, and Schumer be allowed to complete their remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was happy to join with both Senators Grassley and Cornyn on the EB-5 reform bill. Senator Cornyn has worked very hard on this, Senator Grassley has, and I have, and it was truly a bipartisan bill. It had widespread support of EB-5 stakeholders--those who responsibly welcomed changes to the program that would improve oversight and accountability. Senator Grassley and I have been working for years to reform the EB-5 visa program. We wanted to reduce the fraud that has occurred in several EB-5 projects, including one that occurred in my own State of Vermont. This legislation--again, bringing Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum together--reflects a careful and thoughtful compromise to both keep the EB-5 Program alive and curtail the worst abuses it has. There is actually only a small minority that wants to keep the program operating without these improved standards and oversight. I wish they would be willing to come here and bring it up, vote it up or down, and be on the Record saying how they are going to vote, because opposing our effort on this is a vote that allows the EB-5 Program to lapse. It will have untold economic consequences throughout the communities that rely on the program for development projects, like those that the Senator from Texas just mentioned. I wish that Senators had supported Senator Grassley's consent request. But I will take a moment to say I thank Senator Grassley for working with me over the years to find a bipartisan compromise to reform this. Hours have gone into that. He and Senator Cornyn and I and others have worked hard to have a compromise. I am sorry that the unanimous consent was objected to, especially as it means this will expire, and we won't have votes on improvements that could take place. I think it is a wasted opportunity.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are some people who leave an indelible mark on your life, from the moment you meet them. On June 7, the Saint Michael's College community lost one such person with the passing of Father Raymond Doherty. As an alumnus of Saint Michael's College, I was shaped by the academic experience and lasting tight-knit community that a small college provides and will always feel a deep connection to the school. As a fellow alumnus, Father Doherty was a pillar of the Saint Michael's community and played a fundamental role in guiding and molding not only the College but its students for decades. Raymond J. Doherty was born and raised in Newton, MA, and in 1948 he enrolled as a student at Saint Michael's College in Colchester, VT, a journalism student and skilled pitcher on the varsity baseball team. Upon his graduation in 1951, Father Doherty served his country as a staff sergeant and combat correspondent in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean war. In 1953, Father Doherty returned to Vermont and joined the Society of Saint Edmund at the Edmundite Novitiate in Putney, where he took his first vows in 1954. Father Doherty was ordained into the priesthood in 1958 at the Cathedral of Immaculate Conception in Burlington, VT. As an Edmundite priest, Father Doherty spent the subsequent decades working throughout Vermont, New England, and across the South during the civil rights era, where he preached, served the community, and worked to further the cause of social justice. Although his assignments pulled him to different corners of the globe, his home was always Saint Michael's. After many terms as a member of the staff and Campus Ministry at Saint Michael's throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Father Doherty returned permanently to Saint Michael's in 1985. His career at Saint Michael's spanned a variety of roles in the admissions office, athletics department, and as campus chaplain. Until his passing, Father Ray, as he was affectionately known, remained deeply involved on the Saint Michael's campus and in the surrounding community. He leaves behind a life and legacy that should be an inspiration to many. Father Ray, through his compassion, humility, and commitment to serving his community, exemplifies what it means to be a Vermonter and a true leader. He led by example and inspired his students and those around him to strive to understand and address the needs and circumstances of all, to lead with grace, and to tirelessly work to improve the lives of others. Father Ray once told me that when the time came for him to be called home, he hoped to fall asleep here and wake up there. That stuck with me. It is a comfort to know that wish came true. Like the extended Saint Michael's College community, I will miss Father Doherty. His legacy will live on in the students he taught, the lives he impacted, and the words he preached. Father Ray will be deeply missed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, lost in the continuously emerging world of social media is the iconic bedrock of community news: radio. I would like to take a moment to celebrate a milestone in Vermont radio: 90 years on the air for WDEV. At 5:50 in the morning of Thursday July 16, 1931, the broadcasters at WDEV turned on their microphones for the very first time. Ninety years later, WDEV remains a Vermont institution, bringing colorful conversation, sports commentary, and great music to thousands of listeners every day. Growing up in Central Vermont, I have always enjoyed tuning in to WDEV. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have spoken to anchors and morning show hosts at WDEV more times than I can recall. WDEV has been independently owned and operated by Radio Vermont since 1935. Radio Vermont was founded by Lloyd Squier, who ran the company for 44 years, until his death in 1979. From then until 2017, Lloyd's son, Ken, has been at the helm. Beginning in 1966, Ken has hosted the Saturday morning classic and a personal favorite: ``Music To Go To The Dump By.'' Ken still cohosts the program--what he calls the ``children's program for adults.'' ``Music To Go To The Dump By'' provides a fun, thoughtful and lighthearted weekly digest of the goings-on throughout the State, with commentary from its panel of hosts and their wide array of guests. Whether it is ``Music To Go To The Dump By,'' the ``Vermont Viewpoint,'' or a race at Thunder Road, we Vermonters can always turn to WDEV for fresh and interesting programming that keeps us all smiling, engaged, and informed. While it is certainly challenging to catch a broadcast from here in the Nation's Capital, I am eager to listen in once I am back home in a few weeks' time. Congratulations to WDEV and the team at Radio Vermont on 90 years of community radio. Keep up the great work, and I look forward to calling in soon.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts and contributions of a longtime friend and advocate for dairy farmers in Vermont and across the country, Bob Gray. As he retires later this month, he leaves an enduring imprint on Vermont's bedrock agricultural sector. I first met Bob in 1978 when he joined the staff of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, who passed away in 2014. Bob and Jim were an unstoppable force, pushing in the late seventies for Federal legislation that eventually became the 1981 federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. Bob understood the growing urgency of protecting the Nation's working landscapes from development, fragmentation, and speculation--and especially for rural States like Vermont. He also understood that, so long as farmers had a voice and a seat at the table, conservation and agriculture could be mutually reinforcing, not adversarial. Bob's love for the land and those who steward it comes naturally, having been raised on a dairy farm in Cayuga County, NY. After earning his bachelor of science degree in animal science at Cornell University, he served the Nation as an Army officer in the First Infantry Division out of Fort Riley, KS, before joining the New York National Guard and serving for 3 more years, rising to the rank of captain. Since 1990, Bob has led the Northeast Dairy Farmers Cooperatives, a trade association representing dairy farmers in Vermont and the region. Throughout the decades of challenging policy discussions and many farm bills, I could always count on Bob to provide me with sound counsel, always keeping the interests of Vermont's dairy farmers first and foremost. That counsel has always been especially important to me during challenging years for dairy, like this one has been. Dairy farmers across the United States are much stronger than they would now be were it not for Bob Gray's work. Bob's immeasurable contributions to the dairy industry and our decades-long friendship are strong enough that I have welcomed him to join me at farm shows and agricultural fairs in New England, despite his unmitigated and puzzling cheerleading for the New York Yankees. When Bob announced his retirement, I made sure to join his final board meeting with the Northeast Dairy Farmers Cooperatives. The farmers whom he has worked with and industry leaders who have relied on his expertise, including myself, will certainly feel his absence and miss his kindness. Beyond his advocacy, Bob has always been a good friend to Marcelle and me for so many years--something we will always cherish. As he embarks on this next and exciting part of his life, I want to acknowledge Bob's work and thank him for his decades of support for Vermont's dairy farmers and the U.S. dairy industry and wish him the best of luck.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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