Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate considers the ``new NAFTA'', a bill now reviewed by seven Senate committees on which more than 85 Senators serve. Surely the vote count is clear: This implementing legislation will be adopted today and sent to the President. In Vermont, that will mean important wins for our State's economy and, in particular, our dairy farmers. I will support this bill. Vermont is a border State, and the commercial and cultural exchanges with Canada are woven into the fabric of the State. Vermont's largest export destination is Canada. In 2018, Vermont exported $1.3 billion-- billion--in goods to Canada. That is 43 percent of Vermont's exports. Trade with our neighbors to the north is essential to Vermont, just as trade throughout North America is important to our national economy. This agreement is far from perfect, but reflects a compromise that results when parties come together with a desire to make progress. It makes important updates to the more than 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement to reflect the advances in digital trade and intellectual property. The agreement will protect our ability domestically to increase the availability of affordable drugs. Importantly, to Vermont and the struggling dairy industry across the country, the agreement will increase U.S. access to markets in Canada and Mexico for our high-quality dairy products. The new NAFTA also includes funding to promote clean water infrastructure on the U.S.-Mexico border, and to improve environmental infrastructure on both sides of the southern border. It also includes funding to support reforms to the labor justice system in Mexico, to reduce the use of child labor and forced labor, to reduce human trafficking, and for international labor activities. These are important aspects of the deal that we should all strongly support. This agreement is a compromise. For all its gains, it lacks important accountability measures to address the escalating threat of climate change. No one surprised that an administration that announced from the start its intention to remove the United States from the landmark Paris agreement would not agree to binding limits on pollution. It should not surprise us that the Trump administration would not agree to any system to enforce environmental regulations. It is the greatest flaw of this agreement and a startling missed opportunity. We can no longer deny that climate change is real. The United States has a real opportunity to be a world leader in developing the green jobs and green economies that must drive our future. So while I am grateful that House Democrats were able to secure some concessions from the administration that will ensure that at least consider environmental impacts in terms of trade, the new NAFTA, unfortunately, misses that chance. I have heard from Vermont businesses concerned about our trade future, particularly with our neighbors to the north. They support this deal, and I ask unanimous consent to place a letter of support from the Vermont Chamber of Commerce and Vermont employers in the Record. It is because our trading relationships throughout North America are so vitally important to our national economy, and to local economies like those in Vermont, that I will support this agreement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is an interesting time. I was thinking that over the holiday break. I was home, and I talked to many Vermonters. These are Vermonters who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and across the political spectrum. All of them expressed concerns about how the Senate will handle the impeachment of President Trump or the trial. He has been impeached, but now it is the trial. I suspect that all 100 Senators had similar conversations. I have been asked not just about President Trump's actions in Ukraine but also about how the Senate will conduct a trial and whether the Senate is even capable of holding a genuine, fair trial worthy of our constitutional responsibilities. I would remind Senators that at the start of an impeachment trial, we each swear an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. During my 45 years in this Chamber, I have taken this oath six times, and I take this oath extraordinarily seriously. But I fear the Senate may be on the verge of abandoning what this oath means. The majority leader has vowed a quick acquittal before we hear any witnesses. He has boasted that he is ``not an impartial juror,'' and he has pledged ``there will be no difference between the President's position and our position as to how to handle this.'' He ignores the fact that the U.S. Senate is a separate and independent body. Actually, what the majority leader said is tantamount to a criminal defendant being allowed to set the rules for his own trial, while the judge and jury promise him a quick acquittal. That is a far cry from the ``impartial justice'' required by our oaths and the U.S. Constitution. Given this, I understand why Speaker Pelosi did not rush to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. A sham trial is in no one's interest. I would say a sham trial is not even in the President's interest. A choreographed acquittal exonerates no one. It serves only to deepen rifts within the country, and eviscerates the Senate's constitutional role. Now, how the Senate conducts the trial will be up to each of us. It is not up to one or two Senators, and it is certainly not up to the President. The duration and scope of the trial, including whether to call witnesses or compel document production, will be decided by a simple majority of the U.S. Senate. I know many on the Republican side have said we should postpone any agreement on witnesses. They argue that the Senate did that for President Clinton's trial, so why not now. That argument sounds reasonable--until you look at the facts. You know, facts are always troublesome things. Today, following President Trump's instruction, nine key witnesses-- key witnesses--with firsthand knowledge of the allegations have refused to cooperate with the House investigation. Because of President Trump, they are told they are not allowed to testify. Now, compare that to the Clinton trial. Then, every key witness, including President Clinton, provided testimony under oath before the trial. Indeed, we had a massive record from the independent counsel to consider: 36 boxes of material covering the most intimate details of the President's life. Just think of that, every witness testifying, as compared to the Trump impeachment, where he wouldn't allow any key witness to testify, and even though he said he wanted to testify, of course he never did. Now, even with all that, even with those 36 boxes of material, the Senate did end up hearing from three witnesses during the Clinton trial. Let me tell you how that worked. These are three witnesses who already had given extensive, voluminous testimony: Sidney Blumenthal, he testified before the grand jury for three days; Vernon Jordan, he testified before the grand jury for five days and was deposed by independent counsel; and Monica Lewinsky had testified for two days before the grand jury, was deposed by independent counsel, and was interviewed by the independent counsel 20 times. Let's be clear: Even Republicans, at the time, acknowledged they did not expect to learn new information from these witnesses. I know that Republicans and Democrats picked a small group of Senators to be there for their depositions. I was one of them. In fact, I presided over the Lewinsky deposition. One of the House managers--Republican managers-- said that ``if [the witnesses] are consistent, they'll say the same that's in here,'' referring to their previous testimony already before the Senate. Another told Ms. Lewinsky: ``Obviously, you testified extensively in the grand jury, so you're going to obviously repeat things today.'' And the third House manager told Mr. Jordan, ``I know that probably about every question that could be asked has been asked''--and, I might say, answered. And indeed those Republicans were correct. We did not learn anything material from these depositions. Now, unlike the claims made on the other side, the situation today could not be more different. The Senate does not have any prior testimony or documents from four key witnesses: John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, and Michael Duffey--all people who have significant information about what Donald Trump has been charged with. We don't have a single document. We don't have a single amount of testimony under oath. Why? Because the President directed them not to cooperate with the House, not to testify under oath, and not to say anything. If these witnesses had performed their legal duty, having been subpoenaed, and if they had cooperated with the House's inquiry, we wouldn't be in this position. There is no question that all Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--will benefit from hearing what those witnesses have to say. All of them have direct and relevant information about President Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine. There is no good reason to postpone their testimony. Take just one, the President's former National Security Advisor, John Bolton. My question for all the Senators is this: We already know that, according to Mr. Bolton's lawyer, ``he was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations . . . that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.'' We already know that includes a one-on-one conversation with the President about Ukraine aid. We already know that Mr. Bolton described the President's aide's efforts as ``a drug deal.'' And we now know that Mr. Bolton is willing to talk to us for the first time if asked. How can we say we are fulfilling our constitutional duty if we don't even ask? How can we ignore such critical, firsthand testimony? No matter how each side ultimately votes on guilt or innocence, the decision of whether to keep both the Senate and the American people in the dark would effectively make the Senate complicit in a cover-up. That would fall on the Senate, and that will shape our system of checks and balances for decades to come. It will haunt both Democrats and Republicans. Senate Republicans must not close the Senate's eyes and cover its ears. We should be Senators. We should follow our oath to uphold justice. I recognize, of course, that this is an era of deep partisan acrimony. But that was true during the Clinton impeachment trial, and it was true during the Johnson impeachment trial. The question that each of us has to answer now is whether we will allow the label of Democrat or Republican to matter more than our constitutional role as Senators. We are first and foremost U.S. Senators. There are only 100 of us to represent over 300 million Americans. That is why I believe the Senate itself is now on trial. I have never seen a trial without witnesses when the facts are in dispute. I have tried many, many, many cases, both in private practice and as a prosecutor. I have never tried a case where there are no witnesses. More to the point, the Senate has never held a Presidential impeachment trial without hearing from witnesses. The Senate and the American people deserve, to have the full story. We shouldn't be complicit in a cover-up. I would not suggest to any Senator that his or her oath requires at this time a specific verdict--that is going to depend on the trial. But I strongly believe that our oath requires that all Senators behave impartially and that all Senators support a fair trial, one that places the pursuit of truth above fealty to this or any other President, setting the rules for the time to come. The Senate has a job to do. It is not to rig the trial in favor of-- or against--President Trump. Impeachment is the only constitutional mechanism that Congress has to hold Presidents accountable. Whether or not the Senate ultimately votes to convict, if the Senate first enables a cover-up with a sham trial, then it means it is placing one President above the Constitution. In doing so, the Senate would eviscerate a foundation of our democracy that has thus far survived 240 years. No one--no one--is above the law. I see other Senators waiting to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with my good friend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby from Alabama. We worked hard on this bill, he as chairman and I as vice chairman. We reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that will fund the Federal Government in fiscal year 2020. The agreement rejects some devastating and shortsighted cuts proposed by the President. It makes historic investments in the American people and working families. It fully implements the bipartisan budget agreement and allows us to invest an additional $27 billion in nondefense programs to benefit our Nation's children, improve our educational institutions, protect our environment, combat the opioid crisis, promote and grow our economy, invest in our infrastructure, and protect our elections. There is a lot in here. There are 12 appropriations bills put into 2 minibuses. The first, we refer to as the domestic minibus bill. That is a strong bipartisan bill that makes real and historic investments in the American people and our communities. It rejects anti-science and know-nothingism proposals by making record-level investments in science and research programs. We all know that you have to invest in science and research, and you cannot turn this on and off year by year. We have to think long term. We also have to invest in our children's education. We have increases in programs with proven success, such as Head Start, the child care and development block grant, child nutrition programs, 21st-century learning grants, Pell grants, and others. For the third year in a row, it continues the historic level of funding to combat opioids that we began in fiscal year 2018. This funding is critical for State and local governments because they are at the frontlines of this battle. The agreement provides over $5 billion more than the President's budget to protect national parks and public lands and fund critical environmental protection and conservation programs. These national parks are an important part of our heritage. The Presiding Officer has some of the most beautiful ones in the country in his State, but all of our national parks are beautiful. I think about the brilliance of people like President Theodore Roosevelt who said: Let's preserve them. Even though the administration denies that climate change exists, the agreement includes significant resources to combat this threat in the new fiscal year. It rejects the President's proposal to totally eliminate key Federal affordable housing and economic development programs. For the first time in decades, Congress has come together to fund $25 million for gun violence research by the Centers for Disease Control and the NIH. That is a significant step to combat the gun violence epidemic and rash of school shootings facing our Nation. It is a good bill. It is certainly going to improve the lives of Vermonters. It improves the lives of millions of Americans in all the States. It provides support for working families and supports and promotes our economy. In a few moments, we are going to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on this bill, and I will urge an ``aye'' vote. The second package of bills, we refer to as the national security minibus bill. It is critical funding to support our troops, invest in our military, and protect our Nation from ongoing threats, both foreign and domestic. Importantly, it includes $425 million for election security grants. While the administration has not requested anything, I heard from secretaries of state--Republicans and Democrats alike--throughout the country, including our own, Jim Condos of Vermont, of the need for these election security grants. It is a matter of national security to preserve our democracy, and we have to maintain full faith in our elections. We also fund the constitutionally mandated 2020 Decennial Census. That is in the U.S. Constitution. It not only determines congressional apportionment, but it also is relied on to distribute $900 billion in Federal funds. We have to have a fair and accurate count, and the money provided in this bill will help us achieve that. We have significant investments to fight crime and terrorism, implement criminal justice reforms, combat violence against women, and keep communities safe. We also have funding for the Department of Homeland Security. I would note that we have one area that has been a lightning rod in both Chambers. We tried to get a bill that would receive the required number of votes to pass. The reason it has been difficult is because of the President's insistence that we waste taxpayer money on an ineffective and foolish wall on the southern border. We all want secure borders. A wall that can be easily cut with a $100 power saw you can buy at a local hardware store is not security, and we worry about the cruel and ineffective immigration policies of the Trump Administration. Last year, the President plunged us into a 35-day government shutdown when Congress refused to fund his anti-immigration agenda. That cost the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars that could have been spent on better things. But we reached a resolution. Again, I compliment Senator Shelby and Congresswomen Lowey and Granger because we met for hours in my office and worked our way through that. In this bill, the President will receive $1.375 billion for barriers on the southern border, which is what he would have received if we had a continuing resolution and far less than the $8.6 billion he requested, $5 billion of which would have come from the Department of Homeland Security. I would have preferred no funding for the wall. President Trump's wall will negatively impact communities in which it is built, rob people of their property--in some cases, ranches and farmland that have been in families for generations--and destroy critical habitat on the border. But the Republicans were clear: They would not support a bill that contained zero for the wall. They stood with the President on the wall, as they seem to do time after time. I am disappointed that we did not further restrict the President's ability to steal money from our troops to pay for the wall. If the President decides to once again steal money from our troops and their families for the wall, he will have to answer in court and to the American people. Our position on this is clear: It is wrong. No one should interpret silence in this bill or the domestic minibus on this issue as condoning the President's actions or as an agreement that what he has done is lawful. It simply reflects a sad political reality that the Republican Party refuses to stand up to this President and protect the Congress's exclusive power of the purse and clarify the law. One court has already correctly concluded that the President's raid on military construction money was unlawful. That conclusion is based on a long-standing provision of appropriations law, section 739 of the financial services bill, that prevents the administration from increasing funds for a program or activity requested in the budget above and beyond what was provided in an appropriations act. This provision is included again in the underlying bill, and we believe it was correctly interpreted. We denied the President's request to increase the number of ICE detention beds to 54,000. This request was cruel and unjustified. Instead, we provided funding to support the same level of beds as fiscal year 2019. There is no need for a higher number. President Trump is misusing ICE detention facilities for the mass incarceration of asylum seekers and immigrants who have no criminal history and pose no threat to our communities. There are more effective, less expensive, and more humane ways to enforce our immigration laws while immigrants go through judicial proceedings. That is why I fought for and secured a significant increase in alternatives to detention, like the Family Case Management Program. I also fought to include restrictions on the President's ability to increase the bed number by transferring money from other accounts. But again, Republicans stood with the President and refused to negotiate on this issue, and those critical reforms were not included. Not every part of the DHS bill is controversial, however. The bill provides critical funding for the Coast Guard to support their missions to keep our country safe. It provides an increase for the Transportation Security Administration, which ensures our safety and security at our Nation's busy airports, and it provides increased funding for FEMA whose mission is critical for communities struggling to recover in the wake of natural disasters. While I do not agree with everything included in this bill, on balance, the security minibus provides funding important to keep our Nation safe, to support our troops, to improve election security, and ensure an accurate count for the Census. Later today, we will turn to this bill, and I urge an aye vote. I do thank Chairman Shelby for his hard work in negotiating the bills. The hours were long. We didn't always agree. We had a lot of weekends and evenings that we worked quietly out of sight of the press and everything else, but knowing that we can take each other's word, we worked in good faith to reach a resolution on difficult matters. He made compromises necessary to get us a deal, as did I. And I thank my friend Senator Shelby for his leadership on the Appropriations Committee. I say this as Dean of the Senate and as somebody who has served with almost 20 percent of all the Senators in this country's history--I thank him for his friendship. I thank the Appropriations Committee staff on both sides of the aisle. I might go home at 9 or 10 o'clock at night; they are still there until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. They are hard-working, and there were sleepless nights. We could not have done this without them. Obviously, I thank my full committee staff--Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, Jay Tilton, and Hannah Chauvin--for their work, as well as Shannon Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, and David Adkins on Senator Shelby's staff. I thank all the subcommittee. It is a long list, and I ask unanimous consent the entire list be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I have often said that we Senators are merely constitutional impediments to the staff who do such great work, and I applaud them all on both sides of the aisle. I yield the floor to my distinguished chairman.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank everybody for joining Senator Shelby and I on this vote. It is going to help us move forward, and, as I said in my earlier remarks, Republicans and Democrats came together and worked extraordinarily hard on these appropriations bills, and it shows what can be done when we work together. I think the vote here is an indication of that. If nobody is seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Virginia Flores, a detailee of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, be granted floor privileges for the debate and action on H.R. 1158 and H.R. 1865.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of one of Vermont's most nationally recognized businesses, Agri-Mark Cabot Creamery Co-operative. Founded as a small butter plant in Cabot, VT, with principles of producing high-quality dairy products and supporting farmers and communities, Cabot has grown to be a leader in the dairy industry, raising the bar for excellence across the country. The founders of Cabot prided themselves on quality products and doing things the right way. Cabot began with just 94 members that collectively owned 800 cows. Today, Cabot has expanded to include over 800 farm families, never losing sight of their core values of exceptional quality, safety, and community cooperation. These tenants have been upheld by their members repeatedly throughout the last century. The farm families of Cabot Creamery Co-operative continue to be innovators, pioneers of sustainability, and dedicated stewards to their land and animals. Their products consistently prove to be the cream of the crop, winning many awards, and rightfully earning the title of ``World's Best Cheddar.'' For decades, they have been earning top marks around the country and world, from respected competitions like the U.S. Championship Cheese Contest, the American Cheese Society, and even the World Championship Cheese Contest. The recognition is well deserved after a century of hard work, dedication, and commitment shown by generations of farmers across New England and New York. Not only do they produce excellent products, Cabot's farm families are leaders of sustainability. They have worked to strengthen green farming practices, some of which provide Vermont families with electricity, and even their own electricity processing plant. They have made continuous efforts to create more sustainable practices, from conserving water to installing solar panels. Cabot and their members have been awarded prestigious honors, such as U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards and New England Green Pastures Award for Outstanding Dairy Farm of the Year. Cabot has recently been classified as a B Corporation, the first dairy cooperative to achieve that certification, which shows the strong commitment they have to being a socially and environmentally responsible business. I have had the pleasure to work with Cabot, creating lasting memories and an incredible working relationship that has supported the dairy industry in Vermont and the entire country. I am privileged to host Cabot at my annual Taste of Vermont event, and guests of the reception are often greeted by the distinct Cabot plaid upon entering the Kennedy Caucus Room on Capitol Hill. As a Vermonter, I am proud of the incredible service Cabot, its leaders, and their farmers provide for our State, our economy, and the larger dairy industry. Cabot truly represents the essence, values, and traditions of what makes Vermont special. I congratulate Cabot and their dairy farmers on 100 years of hard work and success.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the success of another Vermont business, Hazelett Continuous Casting, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary of producing quality casting equipment and research. Hazelett is a true pioneer of continuous metal casting development and research, growing from one man's dream into one of Vermont's most successful companies. As a fourth-generation, family- run company, it is fitting to look back on Hazelett's 100 years of public service and learn more about their history. Hazelett's founder, Clarence W. Hazelett, worked tirelessly to design and develop continuous metal casting technology in 1919. Clarence's commitment was undying, his persistence to be a leader in this field led to his groundbreaking work being recognized through worldwide patents and technical publications. In 1924, Clarence established the first commercial continuous metals casting and processing company in the world, Hazelett Storage Battery Company. Upon his death, his two sons, William ``Bill'' and Richard, followed in his footsteps and took Hazelett a step further. Bill took the reins from his father, becoming president of the company in 1956. Building on his father's foundation, Bill relocated the company to Colchester, VT, and renamed it Hazelett Strip-Casting Corporation. It was here that the family business grew into one of the world's leading continuous casting machine manufacturers. Bill went on to win the United States Small Business Administration National Exporter of the Year award in 2001 for his exemplary innovation and vision in building a very successful business in Vermont, boasting an employment of 145 people while accounting 70 percent of its $23 million in sales to foreign business. Bill passed away in 2010, but his legacy lives on and continues in his son, David. Today, with David at the helm, Hazelett has maintained their status as one of the world's leaders in continuous metal casting, expanding well beyond the Green Mountains. Hazelett's prominent presence around the globe is marked by the operation of their machines in 27 countries and the establishment of the only full-service Hazelett branch outside of the United States, Hazelett Trading in Shanghai, China. David's mission is clear: He hopes to offer the most cost-effective, environmentally friendly metals casting technology in the world. It pleases me to hear important Vermont values incorporated into Hazelett's work. Hazelett has been an important contributor to not only the Vermont economy but the global economy. The Hazelett family and their employees have also helped build and support their home town of Colchester over this entire 100 years. A business of this magnitude in Vermont is a true gem and the years of dedication and hard work are exemplified through Hazelett's generations of leaders. I am incredibly proud of the continued dedication of each generation that has taken over the business. Congratulations to Hazelett Continuous Casting on 100 years of business, may your success continue for another 100 years.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to celebrate the success of a Vermont entrepreneur and small business owner, Steve Gagner, of 14th Star Brewery. Started in 2012, 14th Star Brewery began in a hand-built brew house in St. Albans, VT, with beer brewed in repurposed maple sap collection tanks. Under the leadership of the team he has assembled, the company has grown immensely since then, increasing their staff to 24 and moving to a new location where they are expected to produce over 8,000 barrels of craft beer by year-end. 14th Star has become widely popular throughout Vermont and distributes to six nearby States. The creation of this Vermont brewery, however, began on the battlefields of Afghanistan. The founders of 14th Star, Steve Gagner and Matt Kehaya, served in Afghanistan with the Vermont Army National Guard. During their deployment, they drafted the business plan for their dream company on the back of a notebook. Even as the business has grown dramatically, Steve continues to serve in the Vermont Army National Guard and has been named commanding officer of the Army Mountain Warfare School in Jericho, VT. Steve was deployed for two combat tours and is a two-time Bronze Star recipient. He also teaches the next generation of leaders as an assistant professor at Norwich University. Named after Vermont's status as the 14th State to join the Union, Steve has ensured that 14th Star Brewery maintains a close tie to service of our fellow Vermonters. Taking its values from Steve and his close-knit leadership team, the brewery directs a portion of its proceeds towards supporting Purple Hearts Reunited, an organization founded by fellow Vermont Guardsman Zach Fike to return lost or stolen military medals to veterans and their families. Each June, which is PTSD awareness month, 14th Star releases a special brew, 11Bravo, and hosts an annual event to support the Josh Pallotta fund for addressing veteran suicides, in memory of his fellow Vermont Guardsman. Steve and 14th Star are proud and devoted members of the St. Albans and Franklin County community, serving every way possible, such as raising enough funds to ensure eggs and milk were supplied to a local kitchen for an entire year. 14th Star's tireless efforts to give back to their community and the State shows how far a small business's impact can go. Marcelle and I have enjoyed getting to know Steve and his wife Nicole over the years. During the Vermont Brewers Festival in 2015, Steve kindly gave me a tour of the festival and introduced me to many amazing brewers within our State. Marcelle and I have also had the pleasure of visiting 14th Star Brewery, where we were impressed not only by the creativity and quality of the beer but also the sense of community they have fostered by creating a welcoming gathering space in St. Albans. His sister and business partner, Andrea Gagner, who is the CEO of 14th Star, has also joined us in DC to participate in the annual Taste of Vermont on Capitol Hill for 2 years, and Marcelle and I have enjoyed spending time with her at the event. I was proud to hear that Steve was chosen as the Vermont Small Business Person of the Year earlier this year. I have seen firsthand the dedication Steve has not only to his community in St. Albans but also to the veteran's community. He has an outstanding work ethic and I applaud him for all the selfless work to give back to his community. I believe Steve truly exemplifies what it means to be a small business owner in Vermont and he is very deserving of this high recognition.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I support the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. The final, conferenced version of this bill reflects a compromise. As with any compromise, there are things I support and things I wish the final bill had included. Of great significance is the inclusion in this bill of a provision providing 12 weeks of paid parental leave for all Federal employees. There are Federal employees in every corner of this country, including in Vermont. We lead by example when we say that the Federal Government will support new parents, who will now be able to be home with their new child in those important first days. I hope that this example is one that can be replicated throughout our workforce. The fiscal year 2020 NDAA includes important wins for servicemembers, their families, and our national security as well. I am pleased that at long last we have successfully introduced a phase-out of the so-called Widows' Tax. This bill mandates gender integration for Marine Corps training, makes much needed progress in addressing the use and after effects of open-air burn pits, and demands new standards for microelectronics supply chains, so we know our technology is working for us. Closer to home, the bill authorizes $30 million to construct a new Army Mountain Warfare School in Jericho. This is important to Vermont and to the Nation. This major construction project will allow the Vermont Army National Guard, one of the Nations' few mountain battalions, to better fulfill their mission of training soldiers from the Guard, Reserves, and Active Duty to accomplish their mission in cold, rugged terrain. Vermont is an ideal training ground because its mountains and climate are challenging, but still allow training throughout the year for all levels of expertise. That training is important to the Army because mountain skills require the ability to move from one place to another when major obstacles are in the way, something valuable anywhere the Army operates. The bill includes an important measure based on an amendment I filed as well to improve condolence payment authorities for civilians who are killed as a result of U.S. military operations. We have included funds for this purpose for years through the appropriations process, but very few payments have been made and record keeping has often been poor. The new provisions in this bill aim to improve the process and increase its use, so that when civilians are harmed in war, their families are not left economically destitute as well. I am disappointed that this bill does not include measures that were adopted by the House of Representatives to repeal authorizations for the use of force that were adopted nearly two decades ago. We simply must have a debate in Congress about our ongoing engagement around the world that relies on these AUMFs. I wish the final agreement had included a hazardous substance designation for the dangerous chemicals known by their abbreviations PFAS and PFOA, nor was a sufficient authorization included that would support the cleanup of these chemicals. The NDAA also includes authorization of the President's Space Force, which I believe increases bureaucracy at the expense of our real priorities. Nonetheless, I believe this is a good bill that supports our troops, and for that reason, I support its passage.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I recently had the pleasure of meeting with my friend, former Vermont State Representative Kiah Morris, who among many distinctions was only the second African-American woman ever elected to the Vermont Legislature. Kiah's talents are far-reaching. She has also been an actress of stage, film, and television, spoken word performance, as a singer, dancer, and arts manager. Whether as a legislator or on a theater stage, Kiah's work has focused on amplification of the voices of oppressed people, on human rights, and on social justice. It was in keeping that Kiah recently traveled to El Salvador and Honduras under the auspices of Oxfam America to meet with families struggling with the violence, poverty, lack of opportunity, injustice, and hopelessness that is causing thousands of destitute, frightened people to abandon their homes to seek refuge elsewhere. In those countries, Kiah saw where people had been gunned down, victims of gangs or corrupt police. She listened to the stories of threats and extortion, of kidnappings and deadly attacks, of fear and desperation. Inspired by the people she met and outraged by the brutality they described, she wrote a poem. I ask unanimous consent that Kiah's poem, which captures the essence of what the debate here over Central American refugees should be about, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past October, the young women who make up the Burlington High School girls soccer team in Burlington, VT, made a statement: The time for equal pay is now. All they are looking for is for their leaders--leaders like us in Congress--to show the courage to make it happen. It all began one Friday night in October, when, after scoring a goal to put them ahead in the closing minutes of a game against neighboring rivals South Burlington, four exuberant members of the soccer team removed their jerseys to reveal T-shirts emblazoned with this simple phrase: ``#EqualPay.'' The reception to their silent statement was reminiscent of that moment when the U.S. Women's National Team made history in July, winning its second consecutive World Cup title. After a thrilling win over the Netherlands, the stadium in France was filled with chants of ``Equal Pay! Equal Pay!''. One Friday in October, the stands--though smaller--in Burlington, VT, erupted in the same way. The result? Yellow cards for the offending players, issued by a referee bound by the rules of the league. The young women of the Burlington High School soccer team became overnight sensations. Within a matter of days, they had sold more than 2,000 of their now iconic simple white T-shirts, raising more than $30,000 to support the Greater Burlington Girls Soccer League. Men were invited to pay an extra $4 for the $25 T-shirt: 16 percent of the cost, to represent the pay gender pay gap in Vermont. Their story was reported by local outlets like VTDigger and the Burlington Free Press, and it was featured on ``Good Morning America'' and on CNN. It even reached across the pond, where the UK's Daily Mail featured the team's advocacy. I ask unanimous consent that the report from VTDigger be printed in the Record following these remarks. The lesson here is simple, and the voices could not be clearer: Equal pay for equal work should not be controversial, nor should it be challenged. Yet today in Vermont, a woman makes $0.84 for every $1 earned by a man. In some States, the gap is as wide as 70 percent. It is inexplicable. It is inexcusable. And it needs to stop. Marcelle and I are proud to support the young women of the Burlington High School soccer team. We proudly wore our #EqualPay shirts outside the U.S. Capitol, standing in solidarity with these young Vermonters and with women everywhere who are simply demanding what should be theirs: equal pay for equal work. Earlier this year, after the U.S. Women's National Team's inspiring victory at the World Cup, I reintroduced a simple resolution calling for the Federation Internationale de Football Association, FIFA, to immediately eliminate gender pay inequity and treat all athletes with the same respect and dignity, regardless of gender. It is straightforward. It is common sense. And it is past due. Following the October game, the referee who issued the yellow card bought one of the team's #EqualPay shirts for himself. I find in that action a simple metaphor: There is simply no longer support for arcane practices that never should have existed. We should heed the call of the next generation and end these discriminatory practices, not just in sports but across the workforce. Equal pay for equal work should be the right of every person. It is as simple as that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for 50 years the Inter-American Foundation, IAF, has partnered with grassroots organizations and underserved populations throughout Latin America and the Caribbean to advance U.S. interests by helping to improve the lives of the hemisphere's poorest people, supporting civil society, and strengthening democratic institutions. I want to take this opportunity today, on IAF's 50th anniversary, to comment briefly on the foundation's accomplishments and on the unique value of small-grant, community-led development. In 1969, Congress established IAF as an independent development agency charged with identifying and investing in community-led development solutions. IAF awards small grants, averaging $280,000 over 4 years, directly to local organizations, eliminating costly intermediaries and ensuring programs are led and implemented locally. IAF also requires grantees to contribute or mobilize their own cash or in-kind resources, helping to ensure sustainability and local investment in project success. On average, such counterpart investments mobilize $1.31 for every $1 invested by IAF. According to IAF, in fiscal year 2019 alone, it awarded $18.5 million to 97 grassroots organizations in 24 countries and mobilized $20 million in grantee counterpart resources. IAF grantees created more than 2,500 partnerships with other organizations to share experiences and advance their missions, trained more than 200,000 people in new leadership and technical skills, and contributed to the creation of 11,000 new or improved jobs. IAF's development model illustrates that if modest resources and technical support are provided directly to communities and their grassroots organizations so they can define their own needs, design their own solutions, and invest in their own communities, then local ownership, self-reliance, and sustainable development are possible. IAF's small-grants model also enables it to be nimble and responsive to changing conditions on the ground, including natural and man-made disasters. In recent years, IAF has used its network of grantees in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru to support thousands of displaced Venezuelans and the communities where they have relocated. After the signing of the Colombia Peace Accords in 2016, IAF launched the Colombian Peacebuilding Initiative and invested nearly $2 million in 23 local Colombian organizations to support community-level peacebuilding and reconciliation. In Central America, IAF has 98 projects addressing the causes of migration in areas likely to be targets of criminal gangs in order to help families and communities resist such violence. And since June 2019, IAF has awarded $650,000 in grants to civil society organizations across the Eastern Caribbean focused on strengthening community-led disaster mitigation and preparedness planning. IAF's successful approach to development is why we increased funding in the fiscal year 2020 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which was reported unanimously by the Appropriations Committee in September. Increased funding would enable IAF to support a greater number of meritorious grant proposals, as the foundation was able to fund only 7 percent of the almost 800 proposals received in fiscal year 2019. Regrettably, this model of donors directly supporting small-scale, local initiatives to design, implement, and sustain their own development solutions is more the exception than the rule. I hope IAF's 50th anniversary serves not only as an opportunity to commemorate its many accomplishments, but also to reflect on the need to expand IAF's approach to development across the U.S. Government. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it really is a privilege to join with so many of my Senate friends in honoring the service of Senator Johnny Isakson. I would also say to Senator Isakson: Isn't it nice to hear all of these wonderful things while you are alive and can be enjoying it? I have had the privilege of serving with 391 U.S. Senators. I respect the office they hold, but some of those 391 I respect not just for the office but for who they are. Johnny Isakson stands out among the 391 because of who he is: a lifelong Georgian through and through, born and raised in Atlanta. As we have heard from others, he went on to serve in the Georgia Air National Guard and had a wildly successful career in real estate in his home State. It was a call to service that led him to seek opportunities to represent his fellow Georgians in the State legislature, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and, to the benefit of every single Senator in both parties, ultimately, here in the U.S. Senate. I have seen him, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, fight for our Nation's servicemembers. He tried to make our system of care for our veterans more efficient, higher quality, and most importantly widely accessible. The VA MISSION Act was a wonderful signature accomplishment of Senator Isakson's tenure on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. But his commitment to our nation's veterans extends far beyond healthcare. He was a key leader of the Forever GI Bill, which made GI bill benefits available to veterans at any time in their career, without expiration. As I said, I hold in my mind a very special group of the 391 Senators I have served with. Johnny, you know you are in that very, very special group. I remember when I first came to the Senate in the wake of Watergate, I spent time cultivating bipartisan relationships that might help my advocacy for Vermonters and for the Nation. I forged relationships with Senators with whom I had strong differences of opinion, but with whom I could find common ground. I valued the partnership of Members who, when they gave their word, they kept it. That is why I value Senator Isakson. He is a Senator in that mold whom I looked up to the most when I first came here. He reflects the best of those Senators of both parties, who, over the decades, have shaped my knowledge of this body. He is a public servant devoted to his constituents, devoted to his country, devoted to this Chamber. The Senate needs more people like Johnny Isakson. I know that he and Dianne will welcome the calmer days that lie ahead of them, but the Senate is going to miss him and his efforts to promote bipartisanship. I have even learned to like Georgian barbecue, which I never had before I met Johnny Isakson. I also like the good spirit he brought with him and the fact that he had Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum sitting and enjoying each other's company, enjoying the example of Johnny Isakson. Johnny, as I have told you privately, I am sad to see you leave, but I so value our friendship. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be brief. I agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama. The Paul amendment imposes a 1-percent across-the-board cut over last year's funding level to the vast majority of discretionary spending for the duration of the CR. I hope all Members--Republican and Democratic alike--will oppose it because it would mean arbitrary cuts in defense and other national security programs, cuts to veterans' healthcare, education, childcare, opioid programs, just to name a few. It is a simplistic tool that ignores the complexities of our Federal budget. It is not a way we should govern. We have the hard work of making hard choices to fund programs each year based on reality. That is what we should do. That is what the American people deserve. I support increased investment in our Nation's infrastructure. I would be happy to work with Senator Paul to ensure these programs receive the resources they require. I hope he might be able to get some support from the Trump administration, which has consistently proposed cutting resources to improve our Nation's infrastructure. I hope he might be able to get that kind of support, but funding it through an across-the-board cut on all other programs, including veterans healthcare, national security, and education programs is irresponsible. It is not the answer.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken previously about the alarming rates of corruption, violent crime, and impunity in Honduras. While Honduras is by no means unique in this regard, it is a serious concern given the challenges it poses not only for the people of Honduras but also for the United States. Every week, my office receives word of another assassination in Honduras of a social leader, environmental activist, indigenous rights activist, journalist, or trade unionist. Rarely does a week go by that we do not hear about threats against these individuals. Rarely does a week go by that we do not receive reports of arbitrary and prolonged imprisonment of critics of government policies or practices. While the murder of Berta Caceres on March 3, 2016, captured the world's attention, that outrageous crime was but one of many targeted killings of Hondurans who have dared to protest against corruption, infrastructure development that threatens their land, water, farms and communities, excessive force by the military and police, and the lack of access to justice. These types of crimes are nothing new in Honduras; in fact, they are shockingly common. But they have noticeably increased in frequency since the conviction in a New York Federal court on October 18 of Tony Hernandez, a notorious drug kingpin and the brother of President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was named as an unindicted coconspirator. It begs credulity that President Hernandez was completely unaware of the actions of his brother or of the reported use of profits from drug trafficking to finance his political campaign. Honduras, which was already among the most corrupt and dangerous countries in the world for those who have dared to challenge the dominance of a tiny elite who continue to wield unbridled control over the political and economic levers of the country, has become even more corrupt and dangerous. Ever since President Hernandez successfully orchestrated his reelection to an unprecedented second term, the country has become increasingly polarized. Social and political dissent, when the government's consistent response is to use force--including lethal force--and to misuse the judicial process to silence its critics, fuels instability and violence which are among the key drivers of migration. This is what we are seeing in Honduras, and the United States shares some of the blame as our Embassy and the Department of Defense continue to publicly portray their engagement with the Hernandez Government as business as usual. There is only one person who has the authority and responsibility to lead Honduras down a better path, a path toward real stability and a culture of lawfulness, and that is President Hernandez. The election of his successor is only 2 years away. In the time remaining, President Hernandez could use what credibility he has left and take decisive action to begin a process of reconciliation aimed at uniting the Honduran people in pursuit of the common goals of economic opportunity, personal security, and justice. Doing so would require a fundamental change of attitude and approach, including installing people in key positions of government who have unimpeachable integrity and who represent a wide spectrum of Honduran society. Absent such enlightened leadership, Honduras will likely remain a fractured society, plagued by instability, rampant poverty, violence, and impunity. Honduras's democratic institutions will continue to be corrupted and eroded, and Hondurans will continue to seek a better, safer life outside their country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I vividly recall the feeling of optimism that people in this country and around the world felt on that day in Washington in 1993 when Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat signed the Oslo Accords. For those too young to remember, the Oslo process began as secret negotiations in Oslo, resulting in the recognition by the PLO of the State of Israel and the recognition by Israel of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people for the purpose of direct negotiations between the two parties. The Oslo Accords marked the formal start of that process, which aimed at achieving a peace treaty based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and at fulfilling the ``right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.'' The negotiations were to focus on resolving the key issues in dispute: Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem, Israel's military presence in and control over remaining territories after Israel's recognition of Palestinian autonomy, and the return of Palestinian refugees. It was hoped and believed that the signing of the Oslo Accords was the beginning of the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of a process that would culminate in a two-state solution with secure borders for both Israel and a new Palestinian state. Since then, virtually nothing has occurred as envisioned. Prime Minister Rabin, a visionary leader whom I knew and greatly respected, was assassinated by a Jewish extremist. Over the years, time after time, the hopes and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians have been dashed. Israelis have suffered countless deadly attacks by Hamas and by other Palestinian extremists. The Palestinians have suffered countless humiliations and assassinations. But despite the many setbacks, missed opportunities, and failures of leadership on both sides, I have never felt that the Oslo process was a lost cause--until today. Today, I feel a greater sense of sorrow and discouragement about that once hopeful vision than I ever have before. On Monday, Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the administration no longer considers Israeli settlements to be contrary to international law, thereby reversing a longstanding U.S. position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal. That position was based on adherence to international law and UN Security Council resolutions and was embraced by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Upon learning of this change of position, I could not help but feel that it signified the demise of the Oslo Accords. After so many similar reversals of U.S. positions by this White House on key issues that both sides had pledged would be resolved only through negotiations, it seems beyond dispute that President Trump never believed in a two-state solution. In fact, this White House has been consistently disingenuous about its intentions in the Middle East, all the time talking about wanting a political settlement but acting in ways that put it increasingly out of reach. It was just a matter of time before they abandoned any pretext of supporting the principle that territorial disputes should be resolved through dialogue. Every step of the way, administration officials have insisted on the myth that they are improving the prospects for peace, but 3 years later, Israelis and Palestinians are farther from that goal than at any time since 1993. The White House, with the support and encouragement of the U.S. Ambassador and the Secretary of State, has done whatever it could to ensure that the West Bank, home to nearly 3 million Palestinians, is occupied permanently or annexed by Israel. Without a change of leadership with the necessary vision and political courage in the United States and in Israel, the Palestinians will remain as second-class citizens, subjected to a lifetime of indignities and entitled to only limited rights. I cannot help but wonder what my friend Prime Minister Rabin would be thinking today and how he would react to this announcement. I suspect he would be as disappointed as I am that his courageous act more than a quarter century ago, and the opportunity that act offered for lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians, has been so selfishly and recklessly squandered. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know people are waiting to see what might happen around here. We will have before us a continuing resolution to fully fund the Federal Government through December 20. I wish this was not necessary, and that we would have just passed all of our appropriations bills. But while I wish the step was not necessary, I would urge all Members to vote aye. I wish we were further along in our work, but it is not for lack of trying. It is no secret what is holding up negotiations--the President's demand for $8.6 billion more for his vanity wall along the southern border. This is a wall the President gave his word to the American people that Mexico would pay for it, and now he is telling the American people: No, I want the American taxpayers to pay for it. I should point out that he already has $10 billion on hand. He could not possibly build that much of his wall, anyway, over the next fiscal year with the eminent domain that would have to be done in Texas and elsewhere. And, of course, the wall they have built, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars a mile, can be defeated by a $100 saw at the local hardware store. The President was talking about how they will make it so high that it will be hard to get over it, but you can just kneel down and cut a hole to go through it. But he has $10 billion on hand for his wall. It could not be spent in the next year no matter how much the government is overcharged for the wall. He stole $6.3 billion of that from our troops and their families, and despite the fact that the vast majority of that money has yet to be spent, he wants more. If we hadn't had this issue, we would have had our work done by now. To quote one of the most famous baseball players, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' The President is once again putting his own personal interests ahead of the interests of our country. I would like to remind the Chamber what is at stake in the annual appropriations bills. These are the things that are being held up because the President wants us to forget his promise that Mexico would pay for this wall. What is being held up? Well, education for our children. Cutting-edge medical research. Anybody who has a family member with cancer or diabetes or any other disease wants their tax dollars being spent on medical research. Support for our Nation's farmers, medical care for our veterans, addressing the opioid crisis, environmental programs to keep our air safe to breathe and our water safe to drink--all of these things are being held up, all are being put on autopilot because the President cares about his wall--his symbolic wall--far more than he does about medical research or medical care for our veterans. So we find ourselves at a critical juncture. We could pass another continuing resolution to allow us to continue to negotiate in good faith, which I am committed to do, or shut down the government. Well, that is really not a choice. The continuing resolution before us is a good bill that will allow us to continue our bipartisan, bicameral negotiating on the fiscal year 2020 appropriations process. I hope all Senators will support it. I would note for Senators how the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby, and I, as vice chairman, have kept the process in a bipartisan fashion. Almost all of our appropriations bills have come out of committee unanimously or virtually unanimously. They have come to the floor, and then they have gotten an overwhelming vote. Let's rely on those Senators in both parties who are willing to set aside political posturing and who are willing to set aside symbolism and instead have substance. In addition to continuing to fund our government for 4 more weeks, our bill tackles some issues that have to be addressed right away. It provides the Commerce Department with the necessary funds to carry out the decennial census, which is required by our Constitution. It provides funds for mobile centers to ensure that the census reaches those in the hardest to reach areas. It fulfills our constitutional obligation to make sure every American is counted. The bill includes a provision that would block a looming $7.6 billion rescission of highway funding set to hit the States July 1--the States of virtually everybody in this Chamber, Republican and Democratic alike. Without this provision, each of our States would see significant cuts to its highway funding. That is the last thing we need given the dire state of infrastructure in America today. The bill includes a pay raise for the military, which is set to go into effect in January. It also includes legislation to ensure that victims of state-sponsored terrorism get the compensation they are entitled to. More importantly, it ensures that the government remains funded and open while we continue to work on full-year appropriations bills. Now, even if we passed this bill today or tomorrow, we have only 4 short weeks to complete our work. It can be done. I am committed to staying here, as we have in the past. We all worked nights, weekends, and I must say the tremendous Appropriations Committee staff worked even more hours. But it cannot be a one-sided negotiation. And we cannot be expected to divert billions more in taxpayer dollars to fulfill President Trump's cynical campaign promise as part of the final deal. It does not have the support in this Chamber or among the American people to carry the day. If we had an up-or-down vote in this body--will you take this money away from housing for our troops, for medical research, and all these other things, to pay for an ineffective wall so the President will not be embarrassed by not keeping his word that Mexico was going to pay for it? Of course, that would fail. Of course, that would fail. Nobody wants to go back home and say they did that. We have billions of dollars in here to keep our borders secure. We want to keep our borders secure. Everybody wants to, Republican and Democrats alike, but let's not waste the money on symbolism, especially if it means we do not do our medical research or take care of housing for our troops among all the other things I have listed. Do not do a bill with the hopes of, someday, Mexico will pay us back, just because the President promised they would. We all know they are not going to. So, with that being said, we have made some progress. I do not go and call press conferences like some of my colleague do each moment along the way, but I have been working closely with a bipartisan group. We all look forward to continue to work with Chairman Shelby and Chairwoman Lowey and with Ranking Member Granger to get these bills across the finish line. We owe it to the American people, and we have demonstrated--I think Senator Shelby as chair, myself as vice chair, we have demonstrated that we can get the bills through with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Just let us do it. Let's go forward and pass them. Let's do substance over symbolism. With that, Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague on the floor, so I will yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since the onset of the Trump Presidency, the White House has issued a steady stream of executive orders to reverse the policy of engagement with Cuba begun by President Obama. Those decisions have largely curtailed travel by law-abiding Americans to Cuba who seek to participate in people-to-people exchanges, patronize Cuban private businesses, and otherwise experience Cuban culture. Cuba is the only country in the world to which Americans cannot travel freely, other than North Korea, because President Trump apparently believes it is his sole prerogative to tell Americans where they can travel and spend their own money. I have spoken about the need for engagement with Cuba many times. It is in our national interest because our past policy of unilateral sanctions and isolation--enforced for more than half a century--failed to achieve any of its objectives and because engagement with the people of other countries is the way we promote our values and protect our interests. This is especially true when the foreign government is one with which we have profound disagreements, like Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey; it is a long list. But no one is proposing that we prevent Americans from traveling to those countries, and if they did, it would be strongly opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike. Today, our Embassy in Havana is operating on a shoestring. Whereas there used to be more than 50 direct hire staff, today there are fewer than 18. The Cuban Embassy in Washington has also been reduced to a shell of what it used to be. As a result, the ability of both governments to process visas and conduct diplomacy is at a virtual standstill. Cubans who seek visas to travel to the U.S. today to participate in educational programs, cultural, entrepreneurial, or scientific exchanges have to travel to Trinidad, Mexico, or some other country to apply at our embassies there. The cost to do so far exceeds what the vast majority of Cubans can afford, so travel by Cubans to the U.S. has been reduced to a trickle compared to what it was before. The White House has curtailed most air and sea travel to Cuba, so travel by Americans has also plummeted. This has wreaked havoc on fledgling Cuban private businesses, which depend on American customers. The administration seems utterly unconcerned, focused instead on punishing the Cuban Government for its support of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. This is nothing new to the Cuban authorities, and it empowers hardliners in the Cuban Government who opposed engagement with the United States in the first place and who are more comfortable building alliances with counterparts in Russia, China, and North Korea with whom they share a common ideology and disdain for the United States. I recognize that the Trump administration has no reluctance to hold Cuba to a standard that it does not hold for other authoritarian regimes. In fact, if President Trump were consistent he would be praising his Cuban counterpart as a friend or great leader, the way he praises Kim Jung Un, Xi Jinping, Abdel Fattah al Sisi, Rodrigo Duterte, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and other autocrats. But despite this hypocrisy, why don't we at least increase the number of consular officers at our embassies so Americans and Cubans can visit each other's countries? I understand that we have yet to determine the cause of illnesses suffered by U.S. Embassy personnel in Cuba, for which there is no evidence implicating the Cuban Government, despite kneejerk claims by some to the contrary. But the last such incident was more than a year ago, and there are certainly U.S. Foreign Service Officers who would welcome the opportunity to serve in Havana. Both governments should be working to create favorable conditions for restaffing each other's consular services so they can better serve the people of our two countries. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Washington Nationals' upset victory in the 2019 World Series reminded a good friend of mine, Rabbi Michael Cohen of Manchester, VT, of another unforeseen win. Fifty years ago, the New York Mets, led by star pitcher Tom Seaver, and manager--former Brooklyn Dodgers star Gil Hodges--shocked the baseball world by defeating the heavily favored Baltimore Orioles in the fall classic. Rabbi Cohen, who has led an exemplary life, taking action on major issues including Mideast peace, antisemitism, and other difficult challenges, sees a common theme in these two victories, 50 years apart. Life, as in sports, offers all of us the opportunity to achieve what at the outset seems insurmountable. Peace in the Middle East is possible. We can end the scourges of antisemitism, xenophobia, and racism. Rabbi Cohen's words in an article published in the Jerusalem Post on October 28, 2019, ``Letter from America: The `69 Mets and lessons for today'' are a powerful reminder of what we humans can achieve against the odds. I ask unanimous consent that Rabbi Cohen's writing be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to celebrate the achievements of Maida Townsend, a Vermont State Representative and now a decorated figure skater, who recently took home the gold medal in an international figure skating competition in Lake Placid, NY. Marcelle and I have known Maida for many years, and we have always been impressed with her dedication, artistry, and selflessness. While we have come to know Maida through her tireless work for the State of Vermont, we have been impressed, but not surprised, that she brings the same dedication to figure skating, a sport she picked up at the age of 50. Maida has served the State of Vermont over the years through her leadership as the president of the Vermont branch of the National Education Association, as a chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, and in recent years as a State representative for South Burlington. Most noteworthy though is Maida's long career as a public school teacher, a career in which she has taught young Vermonters the French language for well over 30 years. Maida's career of public service is exemplary. I know that she will continue to dedicate herself to Vermont for many more years to come. But just as inspiring as her long career in public service is her pursuit of a personal joy and passion, that of figure skating. Maida, proving it is never too late to pursue a new joy, is as dedicated to her sport as she is to her career. Starting her days hours before many of us see the sun rise, Maida hits the ice before she hits the halls of the State legislature. Maida is a friend, a true Vermonter, and a true treasure. Marcelle and I are proud to join her loved ones in offering a hearty congratulations to Maida Townsend on this impressive win in one of her many passions. We are lucky to know her, and Vermont is lucky to have her. I ask unanimous consent that the article, ``State rep wins gold in international skating competition,'' originally published by ``The Other Paper,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the world's oceans serve as a crucial carbon sink, a home to hundreds of thousands of known and countless unknown species of marine life, an essential source of protein for billions of people, and a facilitator of billions of dollars in tourism, fishing, shipping, and other economic activity. Today, the oceans, on which life on Earth depends, are under serious threat. Threats from climate change, habitat destruction, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and pollution--plastic waste pollution in particular--are accelerating and causing potentially irreparable harm to this planet. I spoke recently on the significant health, environmental, and economic impacts of the more than 300 billion pounds of plastic waste circulating in the oceans, and on funding in the Senate version of the fiscal year 2020 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill to strengthen U.S. efforts to address this pollution. Today I will further discuss the scale of the problem and actions that governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private companies, and other stakeholders can take to address this challenge. I want to share a few findings and recommendations from a report recently published by Ocean Conservancy and the Trash Free Seas Alliance, a global group of companies and NGOs seeking to reduce and reinvent products and services that contribute to ocean pollution. Absent collective action, the report depicts a bleak future--one involving more than 550 billion pounds of plastic waste in the oceans by 2025, clogging our rivers and waterways, threatening marine life and seabirds, endangering human health, contaminating the food supply, and triggering a significant decline in economic benefits. For perspective, the amount of plastic entering the oceans each year is equivalent to dumping a garbage truck full of plastic into the ocean every minute of every hour of every day. That is 1,440 truckloads of plastic per day, or more than half a million truckloads per year. And, of course, this does not include the immense amounts of chemical waste and other types of pollution that enter the oceans every day. As the report describes, rising ocean plastic pollution is a direct result of the increasing global production and use of plastic, which totals more than 750 billion pounds per year, an estimated 40 percent of which is single-use. Waste management systems, particularly in developing countries, are woefully incapable of managing the growing quantity of plastic waste. So the majority of plastic entering the oceans was never collected as part of a formal waste management system, and without increased resources for waste management programs and improvements to collection infrastructure, developing countries--and the oceans--will continue to be inundated with plastic waste. There is no single solution. Instead, the report outlines four priority areas on which to focus our collective efforts: financing the collection of plastic waste; reducing the production and use of single- use plastics; improving design standards to address nonrecyclable or difficult to recycle plastics; and increasing the demand for post- consumer plastics. One option for increasing resources to finance the collection of plastic waste is by charging fees to companies based on the amount of nonrecyclable materials used in their products. Such fees have the potential to generate up to 75 percent of the resources needed to support effective waste collection programs. And increasing the demand for recycled products--one of the other priority lines of effort-- reportedly has the potential to reduce the resources needed for such programs by more than 30 percent. Other options for tackling plastic pollution include a ban on microplastics, incentive programs for recycling, preferential procurement policies, and the use of refillable packaging. All of this is to say that steps can, and must, be urgently taken. While ocean plastic pollution may be a devastating and growing challenge, it is not an insurmountable one. And as I have said before, while the United States should significantly increase our engagement and leadership on this issue, we cannot solve this problem alone. There is no greater unifier than the oceans. Their protection should be of the utmost importance to governments, companies, and individuals on every continent and in every country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we do not have to be reminded of the more than 50 million lives lost in the 1918 influenza pandemic or the many thousands lost in the SARS, Ebola, MERS, and other recent infectious disease outbreaks to recognize that far more must be done to reduce the risk of catastrophic pandemics. Rather than waiting until disease outbreaks occur, then scrambling at great expense for 2 or 3 years or however long it takes to develop a vaccine while countless people die, we need to act proactively. It is worth noting that tens of millions of people have died, and we still lack a vaccine against HIV. Viral threats will continue to emerge at a rapidly accelerating pace in response to expanding global populations in the least developed countries, international travel, and human encroachment into wildlife habitat. And we know that the vast majority of emerging viruses, like HIV, are zoonotic--infectious diseases that can spread between animals and humans. In an effort to strengthen global capacity for detection and discovery of zoonotic viruses, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, initiated the PREDICT project in 2009. Its goal was to identify new emerging viruses with pandemic potential and improve predictive modeling to better focus surveillance, data collection, and analytics to reduce the risk of animal viruses spilling over and spreading in human populations. Through the collection and analysis of wildlife samples in areas of the world most at risk for zoonotic disease, PREDICT was able to discover disease pathogens at their source, rather than waiting for human infection. Over the past decade and through its work in more than 30 countries, PREDICT has identified hundreds of viruses and has estimated that there are more than 1.6 million unknown viral disease species in mammalian and avian populations, of which an estimated 600,000 to 850,000 have the potential to infect humans. PREDICT has proven the feasibility of a global, systematic viral discovery program and paved the way for continued progress toward a more proactive approach to reducing pandemic risk. As the PREDICT project comes to an end next year, USAID is exploring ways to build on its successful analytical and modeling work and is in the process of designing the next phase of programming to continue this critical effort. It is my hope that others in the international community will use the lessons learned and techniques proven from PREDICT to inform their own efforts. Currently, the international community often targets global health investments on infrastructure, institutions, and human resources. While that approach works to strengthen public health systems and to tackle existing diseases, reducing the risk of future pandemics will require a substantially different approach. As the PREDICT project has shown, there are ways to use data, research, and technology to proactively identify viral threats. Using existing health science and technology to continue to fill the knowledge gap for unknown viruses will save precious lives and dollars in the future. Thanks to the work of USAID, we have a strong basis of knowledge on which to expand this critical research. While the large pool of viral threats lying dormant in animals has not changed, human interaction with wildlife has. In this increasingly globalized and densely populated world, where it is easier than ever for zoonotic diseases to rapidly spread across regions and continents, it is essential that the international community focus on finding innovative ways to reduce pandemic risk. One approach is through a global viral discovery effort, in which countries share data on previously unknown viruses, which will transform the fight against pandemic threats from a reactive to a proactive undertaking. This is not a technological challenge; it is matter of political will and resources. It will require commitments from governments around the world to collect and share data on previously unknown viruses. While I recognize that is easier said than done, better equipping humanity to protect itself against catastrophic pandemics is an investment we cannot afford not to make.