Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we had interesting news in Vermont this morning. Our Governor, Governor Scott, announced that we have reached 80 percent immunity--vaccinations--and so the State will, in effect, reopen. Now, I mention this because, right from the beginning, I have worked closely with our Governor. We have tried to show no partisanship in this. I am a Democrat; he is a Republican. We are both, first and foremost, Vermonters. And restrictions were put in place. Efforts were made to vaccinate. I know my wife Marcelle and I went to some of these vaccination centers. We had everybody from Vermont National Guard to veterans groups, to schools, to nurses who were volunteering all over those places. And everybody would line up, and they would say: ``I am scheduled for 9:20. I will be there at 9:10,'' and they just went through, and people wanted to get the vaccination. It meant some hardships while it was going on because a lot of our businesses could not open or had to open just in limited ways. But--but they kept at it, and we all worked together to help with aid to the State during the COVID time, and I was proud of what I might be able to do, but I am mostly proud of the Vermonters. They set politics aside; they set partisanship aside; and they said: How would it make us a safer State? So I just thought I would note that, all my trips back home, all the times I joined with the various people--Dr. Levine, our chief physician in Vermont, and the Governor and others, our Lieutenant Governor, Molly Gray--all of us worked together, and it has paid off. And I must admit, when I go home this weekend, this coming weekend, I am going to walk off that plane with a bigger smile than I usually have. I always have a smile coming home to the State where I was born, but this weekend it is going to be an especially big smile. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, in a bipartisan vote, the Senate advanced important legislation to increase our Nation's competitiveness with China. The United States Innovation and Competition Act, USICA, of 2021 is significant legislation and an example of what process and debate can yield in the U.S. Senate. This legislative package is the end result of the bipartisan work of from multiple Senate committees and reflects the urgency of addressing the challenges faced by domestic manufacturers and American researchers in our global competition with China. This includes an emergency appropriation of $54 billion in funding for grants to make semiconductor chips here in America and for the continuation of chip production in Essex, VT. The package also allocates $1.5 billion in funding for implementation and domestic research and development, R&D of 5G technology to ensure that the United States drives the modernization of its own communications infrastructure. The bill significantly raises authorization levels by almost $120 billion over 5 years for the National Science Foundation, NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy, DOE. These historic investments in American ingenuity will help strengthen our country's R&D capabilities, regional economic development opportunities, manufacturing capacity, and supply chain resiliency. Through the creation of a new Directorate of Technology and Innovation at the NSF, the Federal Government will be able to better support research and technology development in key focus areas, such as the growing artificial intelligence space and quantum science. Among other activities, the Directorate will help fund R&D at collaborative institutes, establish technology testbeds, and award scholarships and fellowships to build a workforce equipped to lead us through the 21st century and beyond. Throughout the process, I was encouraged to see a strong focus on the need to continue to increase education, research, and workforce opportunities in rural and underserved areas throughout the country. The regional technology hub program at the Commerce Department established in this bill will benefit rural communities in Vermont and across the country. These hubs, of which there will be three per EDA region, will carry out workforce development activities and business and entrepreneur development activities, among other important activities. I appreciate the work done by fellow Members in the Senate to ensure that these hubs truly and accurately represent the significant economic needs of rural areas in this country. The inclusion of increased supplementary funding for research at universities that participate in the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, takes important steps to build our Nation's capacity in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, field. This funding will also help reduce the geographic concentration of research and development and education opportunities across the country. For far too long, Americans have had to leave their hometowns and even their home States to get an education and find work. This bill will give rural residents more reasons to stay close to home and help their communities grow from the ground up. I have seen the incredible work that has already been done by the University of Vermont's participation in EPSCoR and am excited to see what is to come from this substantial investment. This serious legislative package shows what can be done when we all work together in the Senate. Thanks to these efforts, we will be able to secure America's role as a global leader in technology, R&D, and manufacturing. I hope the House of Representatives will soon consider this legislation so President Biden can sign this historic initiative into law.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to vote on the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, I wanted to take moment to highlight the support this bill provides to the U.S. semiconductor industry. I want to commend the leadership that Senators Warner, Cornyn, and Schumer have shown in highlighting the need for our country to ensure that we maintain leading edge manufacture capabilities in the United States. I strongly support the over $50 billion provided in this bill for the Department of Commerce to join in partnerships with U.S. semiconductor companies. My history with microelectronics spans my career in the Senate, and I can remember when Tom Watson selected Essex Junction as the location for an IBM fab to produce some of the first generations of mass produced integrated circuit memory and processing chips. Of course, it revolutionized computing. Over the years, Vermonters working out of Essex led the way in inventing new kinds of chips and new ways to make chips, at the same time making Vermont the State with the most patents per capita. Over that time, I heard again and again from national security leaders from both political parties that one of the biggest threats facing the United States was that our revolutionary technology was threatened by the production of chips increasingly moving to foreign countries. While some of those countries closely cooperate with the United States, being offshore provides an inherent risk of the chips being compromised by malicious actors or even facilities themselves being rendered inoperable, one way or another. I helped create a program called Trusted Foundry within the Department of Defense to provide critical chips for national security needs that we knew were untampered with from start to finish and were made right in the United States. Because the national security needs alone could never be produced at an economically practical scale, we located Trusted Foundry in commercial fabs, including the one in Essex. Today that factory still produces both commercial and national security chips, particularly chips used for radio frequency or RF functions. With this bill, we continue the endeavor to produce chips in the United States at a commercially viable level. We hope that the production can supply our national security needs, by geographically keeping production domestic, thereby increasing our confidence that the chips have not been tampered with. Through the Appropriations Committee, I will continue oversight of this important area. We will ensure that these grants are administered well and build toward a better future. And we will ensure they are part of a whole-of-government effort, including contributions from the Department of Defense and other Agencies from their own authorizations and budgets. Thanks to this bill, I look forward to a brighter, and more technologically capable future. AMENDMENT no. 1813

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Budget Control Act of 2011 expires this year, and that is a good thing. This law led to a decade of underfunding our domestic priorities, from which it will take years to recover. Right now, in communities across the country, our infrastructure is crumbling, millions of Americans cannot access Federal programs for which they qualify, and we are falling behind in investing in science, research, and development on the global economic stage--all of this because the Budget Control Act set artificial and unrealistically low caps on discretionary spending, and it inflicted arbitrary, across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. President Biden understands the real consequences of this decade-old decision. That is why tomorrow, President Biden will propose a 16- percent increase for nondefense investments in his budget. We cannot build back better until we recover the ground we have already lost. I want to give a few examples of what I mean. For many low-income families with young children, the beginning of summer means the end of school breakfast and lunch programs and waking up every morning dreading how you will be able to put food on the table for your children. Basic nutrition is a basic requirement for child health, development, and education. The Summer EBT program is meant to help these families bridge to this gap, with an extra $30 or $60 per child every month. This is a program that has proven itself successful, reducing the number of households with food-insecure children from 43 percent to just under 35 percent. But because of the Budget Control Act, this program has been flat- funded. We could not expand upon its success. And today, only 16 percent of children who need access to USDA food programs have that access. This problem of underinvestment in successful, worthwhile programs is true across our appropriations bills. Our country, which has led in some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century, ranks 24th out of 36 developed nations for investments in university research and development as a share of GDP. We once accounted for 69 percent of global research and development expenditures but have fallen to just under 30 percent. China now accounts for 23.9 percent of global research and development spending, and growing. How did this happen? One analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science directly attributes $200 billion in lost Federal research and development investments to the Budget Control Act. The National Science Foundation alone has lost $2 billion a year, which could support more than 5,500 grants and 65,000 scientists, technicians, and students. We cannot lead in a rapidly evolving technological landscape unless we are investing in science and our scientists. Failing to do so only cedes the next great discovery to China at the cost of innovation here in the United States. As chair of the Appropriations Committee, I am committed to fighting for the investments in American science, research, medical progress, and technological development that our great Nation needs and deserves. There has been a lot of talk in this Chamber about the need for a major infrastructure package to repair our Nation's crumbling bridges and roads, and I support addressing that need. But there is a reason why our roads are in disrepair, forcing the American people to spend nearly $130 billion each year on vehicle repairs and operating costs. There is a reason why our drinking water systems lose the equivalent of 9,000 Olympic-size swimming pools of water every day. And there is a reason why one in five children lacks the high-speed internet connections they need to learn and participate in school. That reason is a decade of budget caps that artificially constrained our ability to address these issues before they became the national limitation and embarrassment that they are today. Now there is a $44 billion backlog in airport improvement projects, $35 billion in deferred maintenance for public housing, and $472.6 billion in urgently needed funds to maintain and improve the Nation's drinking water infrastructure. Over the last decade, we have lost ground in education, childcare, environmental protections, and affordable housing. The Budget Control Act did not constrain our national debt; it left us as a nation in disrepair. Joe Biden understands this, and I commend him for taking the bold action to address this in the budget he will release tomorrow. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working with the President, his administration, and my dear friend Vice Chairman Shelby on passing responsible appropriations bills that address the damage caused by the Budget Control Act. The end of the Budget Control Act gives us the opportunity to invest in our communities. Tomorrow, Congress will receive the President's budget. The full Appropriations Committee has already held hearings on the need to invest in our infrastructure and on the threat of domestic violent extremism, and in June, we will hold hearings on global leadership and national security. In June, our subcommittees will hold numerous hearings to scrutinize the President's budget. When Congress returns in early June, it is essential that Congress, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, work with the President to negotiate budget toplines so that we can commence the appropriations process for the fiscal year that begins October 1. As President Biden has said, we can, should, and need to build back better.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is no State in America more beautiful than Vermont, but along with its jaw-dropping beauty, Vermont is home to some of the finest, most active and engaged citizens who make it such a special place. Theresa Alberghini DiPalma is one of those people. Theresa recently let it be known that she will be leaving her senior position at the University of Vermont Health Network. I have known Theresa and her late parents for more than 30 years. Theresa's parents were both public school teachers. They raised five children in Burlington, including Theresa. Her father Roy saw Active Duty as a lead navigator on bombers in the European theater in World War II. Her mother Connie was also a pillar of the community. She taught Spanish, and she was an accomplished musician and extraordinary cook. Theresa grew up in Burlington, the youngest of those five kids and the only girl. After college, she started in my Washington office answering phones. She steadily climbed the professional ladder to be both my top healthcare adviser and then my legislative director. For as long as I have been in the Senate, I have talked about the challenge of keeping, maintaining, and attracting young Vermonters to our State. More than 20 years ago, Theresa did just that. In the mid- nineties, Theresa returned to Vermont to be closer to family and to serve as Vermont's chief healthcare regulator. After leaving government service, Theresa joined the University of Vermont College of Medicine in 2000, serving as assistant dean for external relations. In 2002, she was called to serve--first on a temporary basis and then permanently--at then-Fletcher Allen Health Care during a time of great challenge. Theresa joined a dedicated team, led by Ed Colodny, which worked tirelessly to restore public trust in our State's academic medical center. Theresa is a now a senior vice president for external relations at the University of Vermont Health Network, where she and her colleagues support and lead an integrated healthcare delivery system in Vermont and New York, dedicated to ensuring that the more than 1 million people in the region have access to the care they need, close to home. Theresa's commitment to the well-being of our communities is boundless. She has served on several boards, including Mercy Connections, the United Way of Northwest Vermont, the Lake Champlain Chamber, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, VELCO, VGS, Vermont Business Roundtable, the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors, and Governor Scott's Government Modernization and Efficiency Team, among others. She is deeply committed to the professional advancement of women in our area and routinely mentors young professionals. She and her husband Robert reside in Burlington. Marcelle and I think of their home on Maple Street as our second home. While I know one incredible chapter is closing for Theresa, I also know that she hasn't lost her passion for making Vermont a better place. I so look forward to seeing what is ahead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the late Walter Mondale is widely known for having transformed the role of Vice President, ably taking on many key responsibilities that were delegated to him by President Jimmy Carter. Less noted are his many accomplishments in this body while he served as a Senator from the State of Minnesota. Walter Mondale is sometimes described as the paradigm figure of the transition between two eras--the FDR Coalition up to the war in Vietnam and the social ferment that came after the war. And perhaps this is so, but to me, who Fritz Mondale was and what he stood for are just as important as when he stood there. The issues he led on then are as fresh as today's news and as enduring as our founding documents, issues like the concentration and abuse of power or social and economic justice and the consolidation of wealth in the pockets and portfolios of just a few or the role of government in protecting the little guy when powerful market forces run roughshod or the tension between freedom and security; even the question of whether a woman ever could credibly assume the highest office in the land. Trace any of these issues back in time, and you will find Fritz Mondale at earlier decision points. Fritz Mondale was a good man whose decency elevated every institution in which he served. Who he was has everything to do with what he achieved. He loved the Senate, and the Senate loved him back. He said the Senate ``was like mainlining human nature.'' One side of Fritz that the public did not see as readily as we did in the Senate was his sense of humor--one of the best I have ever known. In many a tense moment, his sense of humor often defused the tension and restored the spirit of comity that is so crucial in getting things done in the Senate. He knew the art of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. I wish the American people had seen more of that side of Fritz Mondale. That was a heady and vibrant legislative era, and Fritz had a hand in virtually every major piece of civil rights, education, and childcare legislation that emerged from Congress during that period. Another of Fritz Mondale's most remarkable and lasting achievements in the Senate was to engineer a change in the Senate's rules, to curb the abuse of filibusters in thwarting the will of clear majorities of the American people. The difficulty in passing the civil rights laws of the sixties had gradually convinced more and more Senators that the bar for cutting off debate in the Senate was set too high. That might not sound difficult, but changing the way the Senate operates is something akin to trying to change the weather. As a freshman Senator, I had a front seat and a bit part in Fritz's highly organized campaign to change the cloture rule. He won the change in the cloture rule, and it is not an exaggeration to point out that his efforts probably saved the Senate as we know it, and he did it without changing the Senate's fundamental character. The Senate at its best can be the conscience of the Nation. It takes constant work and vigilance to keep our system working as it should for the betterment of our society and its people. Keeping faith with these fundamentals accounts for much of the legacy of Fritz Mondale. It is easy for politicians to appeal to our worst instincts and to our selfishness. Political leaders serve best when they appeal to the best in us, to lift our sights, summon our will and raise us to a higher level. Fritz Mondale's farewell message to his staff made clear that this is how he thought of himself to the end of his days: as a public servant. He represented the best of what public service means. Through his own public service Fritz Mondale invested himself in the belief that our democracy gives each of us the opportunity to thrive, to make justice real, and to make the economy work for all and not just for some. His legacy in the Senate deserves to be and will be an enduring one.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am opposing this amendment before us. I just thought I would mention some of the pragmatic reasons for that. A mandate to offer dollar-for-dollar parity between defense and nondefense programs unless there are 60 votes to overcome the point of order is not limited to discretionary spending, which would be in the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills, but in all Federal spending. Let me tell you what that means. It may make people feel good, but let me tell you what it does. If you provide a dollar to the Defense Department for every dollar of nondefense spending, well, it is simply arbitrary. These are some of the absurd results. Under this amendment, if we pass an infrastructure bill through reconciliation--and we know that in the States represented by all 100 of us, we have roads, bridges, water systems, everything else breaking down and deteriorating and has to be fixed. If we don't do it now, it is going to cost us a heck of a lot more in the future. So let's say we have $2 trillion to rebuild our bridges, our roads, our water systems, broadband, and so on, but then we would have to automatically provide $2 trillion more for defense, nearly tripling the defense budget and spending more on defense than the rest of the world put together. And the Department of Defense says very frankly that there is no way they could spend that kind of money--unless we have 60 votes, a supermajority. Now, come on. I will give another example. This can get really weird. Suppose a hurricane hits somewhere in the South. We have seen that happen-- hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding--or you have massive fires that rage out in the West. So as we have always come together in the past, Republicans and Democrats alike, to help those communities that have been destroyed--we are the United States of America--then let's say we provide $10 billion, which we have in the past, to help communities recover and rebuild. Well, then, even though they don't want it, we have to provide $10 billion to the Department of Defense. And why are we spending that? Because they had a flood in Louisiana or a tornado in the Midwest or an earthquake in the West or a forest fire. Well, we have got to rebuild them, but we have got to spend an equal amount at the Department of Defense, whether they want it or not. In another way, let's say we increase funding for veterans, which we should. Well, then, we would have to say: Well, wait a minute. The Department of Defense will have to have a dollar-for-dollar increase. I can go on and on with a whole lot of other examples. We are going to have to obviously address the costs and the efforts that we went through here because of the riots on January 6. Do we do an equal amount for the Department of Defense if we repair the damage done to the Capitol? Now, why don't I suggest that we do what we were taught to do, and I have seen the Senate do over the past 40-some-odd years, we actually have debate about appropriations? Have a debate about the defense level. Either vote up or down. Have a debate about nondefense spending in fiscal year 2022 and vote it up or down. Let's not start off with some arbitrary rules, which make no sense--an arbitrary rule that says we are probably going to have to hesitate to help out the communities that have been struck by a tornado because we have to spend twice as much money as it would cost to repair those communities because we have to put an equal amount into the defense budget, whether they want it or not. Now, I can say this, as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I understand some annual increases in the Defense bill, but that should be considered as the Defense bill, just as we should consider our healthcare bills, just as we should consider infrastructure bills, education, and all those. We can easily do each part of these appropriations bills that make some sense to the American people. In the past, many times we have been able to get bipartisan agreement. Let's do that. Let's stop playing like children or some arbitrary ``You give me this; I will give you that'' kind of rule. We are U.S. Senators. We should be above that. We should be the conscience of the Nation. There are only 100 of us. The country looks at us. We ought to respond to the country. January 6 Commission I note that no one is seeking recognition at the moment. I just had another thing. The House of Representatives did the right thing. They passed a bipartisan vote to have an independent Commission to find out what happened on January 6--what sparked it; who was involved; how many crimes were committed; why did police officers who protect the Capitol lose their lives; why did others lose their lives; why did we have such a huge amount of damage; why did we end up spending hundreds of millions of dollars; why were the lives of Republican and Democratic Members of Congress put at risk? Why not have, as we did after 9/11 and other major things in our country, a bipartisan committee to look at it? That is what the House voted on last night. I am disturbed when I hear Republican leaders, both in the House and the Senate, say: We don't want to have any kind of a hearing. We don't want to know what happened. We don't want anybody to ask a question. Well, I don't know about your State, but I can imagine you probably heard a lot of questions from the people in your State. I heard a lot of questions from Republicans and Democrats alike in my State who basically said: What in heaven's name has happened? We are the greatest country on Earth, and we are seeing our symbol of democracy with a mob of people going in. People are dying. Property is being smashed. People are posing for selfies: Hey, I am breaking the law; don't I look great? There was a gallows with a noose and with the name of the Vice President of the United States on it put outside here. Come on. We ought to find out what happened. We were shamed throughout the world by what happened. Let's not have that happen again. Let's have a real committee. Find out what happened and who was responsible and see what steps we take not to have that happen again. I am proud of the U.S. Capitol. I have had the opportunity to serve here for decades. I remember coming through this body as a teenager with my parents and being awed by it. I looked at the Brumidi paintings with my Italian-American mother and the pride she felt looking at that. I looked at other things with my Irish-American father and the pride he had in the history. All of us did. I have taken Vermonters from both parties through here, enjoyed pointing it out, and everybody feeling the sense of history. So what do we see now? A locked-down Capitol because of the insurrection. And we don't want to actually ask questions? What is this? What is this? Why don't we all just cower under our desks? Well, we can't ask a question. I am going to hide down here. I see nothing. Oh, come on now. The American people saw plenty. Let's have that committee. Let's have that Commission. Let's find out what happened and make sure, for God's sake, it never happens again. I yield the floor

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to call attention to recent events in El Salvador which have caused international concern, including in the U.S. Congress. I was a Senator in the 1980s, when social injustices and authoritarian regimes in El Salvador led to a brutal civil war that lasted 12 years. I traveled there during that period when the United States was supporting the Salvador Armed Forces, despite their history of corruption and collusion with death squads that carried out political assassinations with impunity. Finally, in 1992, after tens of thousands of lives lost and atrocities including the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and six Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her daughter by the Salvadoran Army, the two sides signed the Peace Accords that ended the war. Those Accords failed to solve the country's historical problems, and the leaders of the Arena and FMLN parties failed to put implementation of the Accords above their own corrupt, political ambitions, for which they ultimately lost the support of the Salvadoran people. But the Accords did establish the foundation for democracy, including a clear separation of powers with checks and balances as well as a limited constitutional role for the armed forces and the newly formed civilian police to avoid ever again being used for political purposes or repression. I mention this history and the price in human suffering that was paid for the chance to build a peaceful, democratic society in El Salvador, at a time when key elements of the Peace Accords are under assault from within the government itself and President Nayib Bukele. In February 2020, in a show of force designed to intimidate the Salvadoran Congress, which at that time his party did not control, President Bukele, accompanied by heavily armed soldiers, occupied the legislative chamber to demand passage of a law to pay for new equipment. Fifteen months later, after winning a supermajority in the Congress, he turned his attention to the judicial branch. Under the Peace Accords, the Office of the Attorney General, formerly an appendage of the Executive that was used for repression and persecution of political opponents, became an independent institution, acting as a fourth branch of government and appointed by a majority of Congress to a 3-year term. Since the Congress is also elected for 3- year terms, every Congress gets to appoint an Attorney General. The President has no say in the matter. The Attorney General can be removed by a majority of Congress for just cause and in accordance with due process. Attorney General Raul Melara's term was to end on January 6, 2022, just 7 months from now, and the newly elected Congress could have selected someone to replace him after that date. However, on May 1, President Bukele's supermajority in Congress summarily removed Mr. Melara without cause and appointed a political loyalist as Melara's replacement, contrary to the requirements of the Constitution and raising serious doubts about the continued independence of the office. It is notable that prior to his dismissal, the ousted Attorney General, with U.S. support, was investigating a number of cases of corruption against top government officials, including a multibillion- dollar money laundering case. Then last week, in what can only be interpreted as a flagrant attempt to shield themselves from accountability, the Congress passed a law to provide retroactive immunity to all government officials implicated in corruption involving spending linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also last week, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the anti-corruption unit suddenly resigned, for reasons that have not been explained, and was also replaced by a Bukele loyalist. Those actions were just the beginning. El Salvador's Supreme Court has 15 justices elected for 9-year terms and distributed among different chambers. Every 3 years, Congress can appoint 5 justices from a list of 30 candidates submitted by the National Council of the Judiciary. The President has no say in the matter. Justices can be assigned to and transferred from any chamber, except justices in the Constitutional Chamber who are appointed by the Congress strictly for that chamber and cannot be transferred. The chief justice of the Supreme Court is also selected by Congress from among the five members of the Constitutional Chamber. The newly elected Congress would have elected five justices from different chambers of the Supreme Court in June from the already submitted list of candidates. However, on May 1, the Congress removed all five justices from the Constitutional Chamber and their substitutes, without cause or due process, arguing that their rulings were biased and contrary to the government's policies. Out of those justices only one would have completed his term in June. The other four from the Constitutional Chamber were serving terms until 2029. Apparently, the role of the judiciary as a separate branch of government that serves as an independent check on Executive power in a democracy is unacceptable to President Bukele and his congressional allies. The Congress appointed new justices but not from a list of candidates submitted by the National Council of the Judiciary. So not only was the sudden removal of justices unconstitutional; so was the appointment of new justices. The Constitutional Chamber had played an essential, historical role as a check on the Executive's abuse of authority, which is plainly why its justices were targeted for removal. The chamber often rebuked the Executive for overreaching in its actions, including the Bukele-ordered military occupation of the Congress in February 2020. Thus, by removing the Attorney General and the Supreme Court justices, the Congress gave President Bukele control of all branches of government, creating a situation in which corruption can flourish with impunity. I have recounted these events because they have created a crisis that could have profound consequences for El Salvador, and for U.S.- Salvadoran relations. My concern is not only what it means for democracy in that country but what it could also mean for its economy and the livelihoods of its people. The stifling of democracy ultimately deprives already desperate people--suffering from the COVID pandemic, two hurricanes in 2020, and gang violence--of any hope their lives will get better, and this desperation is a major driver of migration to the U.S. border. The United States has always been El Salvador's largest trading partner and its largest donor. CAFTA--the Central America Free Trade Agreement--established not only trade preferences but labor, health, and environmental standards. The results have been significant. Forty-five percent of El Salvador's exports go to the United States under CAFTA, which amounts to $2.6 billion a year. Thirty-five percent of its imports come from the United States, totaling $3.5 billion a year. There are nearly 3 million Salvadorans living in the United States, of whom 200,000 have temporary protected status. Collectively, they send $6 billion each year in remittances to their relatives in El Salvador, which amounts to 25 percent of the country's GDP. On top of that, the United States has provided El Salvador with more than $700 million in aid through USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and other agencies in the last 5 years alone. Much of the progress made with those funds is now at risk of being washed away. The largest exporters in El Salvador are U.S. corporations, which are also the largest employers in El Salvador. President Bukele knows that his dictatorial actions are a direct challenge to the United States and to the Biden administration's emphasis on democracy, human rights, and combating corruption in the region. Faced with criticism from the White House and the U.S. Congress, he may point to China as an alternative to the United States, as if a knight in shining armor from Beijing can gallop in and solve El Salvador's problems. But the people of El Salvador have no connection with China, and they are not about to cast aside their longstanding relationship with the United States. Trade with China has always been one-way and characterized by dumping practices that have destroyed local industries in El Salvador. There are no major exports from El Salvador to China except occasional shipments of coffee and sugar. Chinese infrastructure projects do nothing to help unemployed Salvadorians, when China sends the steel, concrete, and even the Chinese workers to build them. The Salvadoran private sector knows that China isn't the answer. They know the country cannot prosper without democratic institutions and the rule of law. El Salvador is a sovereign country, and President Bukele was democratically elected. He makes his own decisions. But the choices he and his allies in the Salvadoran Congress make, that are eviscerating El Salvador's democratic civilian institutions and empowering the armed forces, have consequences for U.S.-Salvadoran relations. They have consequences for our aid programs and for our support for financing for El Salvador from the IMF, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank and for our trade relations, and for visas. This isn't about national sovereignty and foreign interference, as President Bukele has falsely suggested. His actions directly affect the United States, U.S. companies, our commercial relations, and the welfare of millions of Salvadorans in the United States, as well as the Salvadoran population. I join others here and in El Salvador in urging President Bukele and the Salvadoran Congress to reconsider their unconstitutional actions and to restore the separation of powers and the rule of law. Don't destroy the Peace Accords' greatest achievement. End the attacks on the rule of law, respect the tenure of other justices and the Human Rights Procurator, and appoint justices to the Constitutional Chamber and an Attorney General following the established procedures and ensuring that they are people with the necessary professional qualifications, integrity, and independence.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as we finally, finally begin to turn the corner on the coronavirus pandemic, we have the hard work of rebuilding our economy. One of the core engines of the American economy is intellectual property. From the smallest startup to the largest multinational company, intellectual property is central to creating jobs, boosting economic output, and protecting consumers. So it is appropriate that, today, we celebrate World Intellectual Property Day, which recognizes the important role that intellectual property plays in promoting innovation, creativity, and economic growth. This year's World IP Day theme celebrates the contributions of small- and medium-sized businesses to the global marketplace. Why? Well, these small enterprises make up 90 percent of the world's businesses. Whether through protecting their brands with trademarks or their inventions with patents, intellectual property allows these small companies to grow and succeed; yet, here at home, far too many Americans with an entrepreneurial spirit find key elements of the intellectual property system out of their reach. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property--and I am privileged to chair that--held an important hearing to find ways to boost access in the patent system. We know that women and people of color are chronically underrepresented in the patent system, which results in a serious loss to our economy. I am particularly proud that this hearing featured testimony from Georgia Grace Edwards, a Middlebury College graduate and entrepreneur, who realized that, after spending a summer in Alaska and 8 to 12 hours at a time on ice, she was at a serious disadvantage when it came to answering nature's call during her treks. Like so many innovators before her, Georgia Grace got to work in designing a new zipper--in sense, it was such a great thing--that could be incorporated into a variety of women's pants. Now, while she was ultimately able to successfully navigate the patent system and secure protection for her idea, here is the problem. She faced a number of barriers along the way: the high cost of obtaining a patent, particularly from legal fees; a lack of knowledge about how the patent system works; and the lack of representation of women throughout the system. Ten years ago, Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which put structures in place to help access the patent system and bring up a far more diverse set of inventors into the innovation economy, and at our hearing, we heard specific ideas for building on the success of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. As the President awaits nominating the next Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, I want him to choose a nominee who shares a commitment to increasing access. It is not just the huge companies that need it; it is the small inventors. It is important that the next Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office respect the law, including the statutory bounds set by Congress. You know, the last administration took steps to undermine the Leahy-Smith Act. They acted outside those statutory bounds. I have always sought to curb the potential for poor-quality patents to be abused. That drove much of the work we did 10 years ago. So I look forward to supporting a nominee for PTO Director who shares my view that it is important to weed out poor-quality patents, avoid the potential for abuse, but at the same time reinforce the protection provided to high-quality patents. We must also work to ensure that hard-working small business owners and creators who rely on copyright protections to make a living are able to protect their works online. While I appreciate the steps that some online platforms are taking to address the persistent problem of online infringement, much like the issue of diversity in the patent system, more work needs to be done. Last month, I joined with Senator Tillis and other members of the IP Subcommittee, and we sent a letter to major online platforms outlining specific voluntary measures they could adapt to crack down on online infringement. I hope that on World IP Day, the leaders of these online platforms will take a moment to consider the plight of the individual songwriter or photographer or the independent film producer and give serious thought to steps they can take to ensure that creators can adequately protect their works online. You know, for these small and independent creators, nothing short of their livelihoods is at stake. Finally, I want to recognize the important work our IP system does to protect consumers. The trademark system helps to guide consumers in finding which products are legitimate but also which are not. Unfortunately, fraudsters are relentless in exploiting opportunities to fool consumers into buying counterfeit products, and that has been especially dangerous during the global pandemic. Just last month, authorities seized more than 65,000 counterfeit 3M N95 masks--not like the real one I am holding. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. As the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am committed to ensuring that Customs and Border Patrol has the resources it needs to respond to the ever-evolving counterfeiting threat. A diverse, accessible, and effective intellectual property system that rewards creativity and innovation is essential to our Nation's continued prosperity, and I look forward to working with Ranking Member Tillis and the other members of the IP Subcommittee, as well as with the Appropriations Committee, to both celebrate the achievements of American inventors and ensure that their contributions are being protected

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am glad to hear the distinguished Senator, my colleague and friend, speak about the problems on the southern border. I feel for President Biden because he inherited a horrible mess from his predecessor, a man who said that he would build a wall, which he didn't--a wall that would stop illegal immigration, which it didn't-- and that he would build it, saying he would get the money from Mexico, knowing that he would not get 1 cent from Mexico, but he repeated that falsehood hundreds of times around this country. He also actually took money away from housing for families on our military bases, from families living in substandard housing. It was money that Congress had voted for to repair the housing to make it safe, to remove lead, mold, and so on. He took that money to build a wall that he claimed, as I said, Mexico would pay for. When I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we passed by about a 2-to-1 margin, after months and months and months of debate and work, an immigration bill here in the Senate. Republicans and Democrats voted for it, and it certainly could have solved all of these problems. When it went over to the House of Representatives, there were enough votes to pass it there, but it would not be with a majority of the Republicans. The Republican Speaker said that he could not bring up the bill, even though it had passed, because it was violating a rule very sacred to them, a rule named after Dennis Hastert, a former Speaker, and they could not violate the great respect they had for Dennis Hastert and his rule. So, even though it had passed, they did not bring it up. Of course, subsequent to that, Dennis Hastert went to prison for child abuse.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for not more than 5 minutes regarding Shalanda Young.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to one of Vietnam's highest ranking military officers, Senior Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh. General Vinh, who has served as Vietnam's Deputy Minister of National Defense since 2009, has played an indispensable role in the reconciliation between Vietnam and the United States. After more than four decades of military service, he is finally nearing retirement from the Ministry of National Defense. General Vinh was born in 1957. He studied at the Institute of Military Technology before embarking on his long and distinguished career in the Vietnamese People's Army. His father, General Nguyen Chi Thanh, came from a humble family and rose to become a decorated military officer and politician. Today, one of Hanoi's main thoroughfares bears his name. As someone who lived through the Vietnam war era, I remember it a catastrophe for both countries. The more than 58,000 American soldiers and other servicemembers who died, whose names are etched in the granite Vietnam Veterans Memorial, are only part of the story. We remember their families and the many tens of thousands who returned home with severe disabilities. In Vietnam, virtually no family was unscathed. Hundreds of thousands are still missing among the estimated 3 million Vietnamese who died. The majority were civilians, whose families suffered grievous losses and severe hardships as the fighting raged around them. Many of their stories remain untold. In the decades since, memories of that time have faded and the world's attention has turned elsewhere. Yet during the past quarter century since the normalization of relations with Vietnam, there has been a sustained effort by both countries to address some of the worst legacies of the war. By doing so, we have built a new partnership and set an example for other former enemies. It began in the late 1980s with the first use of the Leahy War Victims Fund by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, to assist people with severe war-related disabilities. That was authorized by President George H. W. Bush, after he and I discussed the need to assist Vietnamese who had been injured during the war. It led to funding by the State Department to locate and destroy unexploded landmines and bombs, which litter the Vietnamese countryside and have maimed and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, including children, since the war ended. Nearly 15 years ago, those war legacy programs expanded to address the cruel legacy of Agent Orange, and it is in this that General Vinh and I became acquainted. Since then, General Vinh has been my principal Vietnamese counterpart in working to address the legacy of dioxin contamination at former U.S. military bases and the needs of Vietnamese with severe physical and cognitive disabilities resulting from exposure to dioxin. I consider him a friend and am grateful for the hospitality he has shown me, my wife Marcelle, and other Senators when we have visited Vietnam. From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. Air Force sprayed nearly 19 million gallons of herbicides in Vietnam, of which at least 11 million gallons were Agent Orange, in an effort to defoliate trees and shrubs and kill agricultural crops that were providing cover and food to North Vietnamese soldiers. Decades later, we learned that the Agent Orange was contaminated with dioxin, which can cause problems with reproduction, development, and the immune system. Dioxin can disrupt hormones and lead to cancer. It is also a persistent pollutant that can remain in the environment for many years. Millions of Vietnamese were exposed, and hundreds of thousands suffered severe physical and cognitive disabilities. My wife Marcelle and I have met three generations of Agent Orange victims, from young children to their parents and grandparents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who served in Vietnam were also exposed, and thousands have been battling cancers for years. Fortunately, thanks to studies funded by the Ford Foundation, it was possible to identify key ``hotspots'' with significant contamination, and working closely with General Vinh and USAID, we cleaned up the contaminated soil and sediment at the former U.S. airbase in Da Nang. Seven years and $110 million dollars later, it is once again a busy commercial airport. In fact, Air Force One landed there in 2017, when President Trump visited Vietnam. That project would not have been possible without the leadership and perseverance of General Nguyen Chi Vinh, and I will never forget visiting the site with him when we formally launched the project in 2014. Since then, we have moved on to Bien Hoa, on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City, the site of the largest U.S. airbase during the war where Agent Orange was stored and loaded onto airplanes. Today it is a shadow of what it once was, and it is contaminated with dioxin that has been leaching into the nearby Dong Nai River for half a century. In 2019, General Vinh and I, along with Deputy Prime Minister Truong Hoa Binh and U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kritenbrink, and in the presence of eight other U.S. Senators, inaugurated a joint U.S.-Vietnam project to clean up Bien Hoa, including a U.S. commitment to contribute $300 million over 10 years, half from the U.S. Department of Defense and half from USAID. I had several conversations with Secretary of Defense James Mattis about Bien Hoa, and the Pentagon's contribution is the result of his recognition that we have a responsibility and a national interest in helping Vietnam address war legacy issues. At the same time, USAID launched a 5-year, $65 million effort to expand our health and disability programs, which are being implemented in eight provinces that were sprayed with Agent Orange. Over more than four decades, the Government of Vietnam has provided essential access and support in locating the remains of hundreds of American MIAs. This year, we are embarking on a 5-year, $15 million program, jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and USAID, to help the Vietnamese locate and identify some of their own people missing or killed during the war. Much has been written, and I suspect more will be, about the collaboration between our two countries in addressing the legacies of the Vietnam war. Issues that for years were a cause of anger and resentment are today examples of how two former enemies can work together for the betterment of the people of both countries. These projects opened the door for the United States and Vietnam to cooperate on a wide array of other issues, from climate change and wildlife trafficking, to public health and regional security. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese students are studying in the United States, and we are supporting institutions of higher education in Vietnam. This has been possible because of the efforts of many people over many years. Senators John McCain and John Kerry played an instrumental role in the normalization of relations. By doing so, they set the stage for both countries to build trust based on mutual respect by addressing sensitive war legacy issues, which Ambassadors of both countries have also strongly encouraged. It is in this that Senior Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh has built his own legacy. The partnership that has developed from our cooperation on war legacies and which today extends to programs jointly funded and implemented by Vietnam's Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Department of Defense would not have been possible without General Vinh's vision, his leadership, and his good will. For that we owe him our lasting appreciation and respect.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be here on the Senate floor to offer my strong support for Shalanda Young to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, as I have spoken about her earlier before the committee. She has worked on the House Appropriations Committee for nearly 14 years. She has been the House Appropriations staff director since 2017. It is from my position on the Appropriations Committee that I got to know her very well. I can tell you, without any reservation, there is no one better suited for this position. Her deep understanding of, really, the often arcane Federal budget process, her years of experience on the Appropriations Committee, her tenacity, and her dedication to public service will serve the Agency and the American people. I think after we had the last closedown of the government--I believe the longest in history--we ended up, finally, with four of us meeting for several weeks in my office here in the Capitol. When we forged the agreement to reopen, Senator Shelby and myself, Congresswomen Lowey and Granger from the House--we were chair and vice chair of our respective committees--but, most importantly, Shalanda Young was there for the House, as was Chuck Kieffer, and she had an opportunity to work for the Senate. Her knowledge of the intricacies of that and her ability to help us reach agreement were absolutely essential. Ms. Young began her career in public service in 2001 at the National Institutes of Health. She first came to work on Capitol Hill as a detailee for the House Appropriations Committee in 2005. She came back as a professional staff member in 2007. She worked her way up in the committee over the years. She helped develop a budget for and conducted oversight of key Agencies. That has given her a critical insight into the operation of some of our Nation's most important Agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration. She even served as a staff director for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, which covers the budget for Congress. Ms. Young became staff director of the House Appropriations Committee in 2017, coincidentally the same year I became vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee. But she has helped the House navigate some of the most difficult issues before the Chamber. As I said, she was a critical player in helping to end the longest Federal shutdown in history in 2019, and she was instrumental in crafting 2020 bipartisan COVID relief bills. She has a reputation as a tough but fair negotiator. That is high praise on Capitol Hill because she gets it from both Republicans and Democrats. I can attest to the truth of these statements. I have seen these skills firsthand. I have already said that the Office of Management and Budget is one of the most powerful government Agencies that most Americans have never heard of. That is true. It wields incredible influence on not just the Federal budget but over policies that affect people's lives. We need people like Shalanda Young to help steer the Agency in these important decisions. That is why I voted yes on the recent motion, and that is why I want to see her in that position as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have 7 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 5(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 Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 2:30 p.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 Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, all of us have been sent here by the people of our States to represent them. I have always felt a true measure of the quality of our service is reflected in the kind of people we hire to help us do these awesome jobs. The people in our State offices, on our frontlines, are critical in this effort. John Goodrow is one such public servant. I hired him in 1987 from his job at a local radio station. John brought his radio voice and Vermont sensibility. He has a great sense of humor and could see the challenges, frustrations, and occasional absurdities of everyday life in a Senate office. This was coupled with a determination to serve all Vermonters. On March 4 of this year, John Goodrow marked 34 years as a loyal and dedicated service. With deep appreciation and respect and more than a little bit of sadness, I recently informed my staff that John has decided to retire on March 31. At the age of 25, John came to my office scheduling appointments and events, and serving as my on-the-ground Vermont press secretary. He clipped news items in a time when they were actually cut and copied from newspapers, and John loved his typewriter. It was just a few years ago that he reluctantly let go of the typewriter in his office. Staff may have even spirited it away when he wasn't there. He understood the importance of my travel throughout our State to meet with Vermonters, and in his bones, he knew it how meaningful it was for Marcelle and me to be home at our farmhouse in Middlesex. He fielded the scores of scheduling requests that came to my office. And later, as my deputy State director, he has helped in overseeing an exceptionally skilled and dedicated staff. What I also treasured was how direct John could be with me. When something was wrong, he let me know. If I was reluctant to do something he deemed important, he made his case. In our jobs, we are frequently surrounded by people who are too quick to flatter. That was never a problem with John and something I always valued. John has been a valuable resource and coach to countless staff members and interns over the years. His institutional memory, his good judgment and steadiness of purpose, and his connections to Vermonters across our State are unmatched. His droll sense of humor, including practical jokes, and his gifted storytelling can take you back many years, including back to every one of my campaigns. And his empathy and compassion for others is a gift. Marcelle and I value John's friendship, his loyalty, and his dedication to helping those in need. We have watched his family grow and prosper as he and Mary Ellen raised their two boys, Joe and Jamie. While we will miss his booming voice when we walk down the hall of the Burlington office, we will take comfort in knowing that voice will continue to be heard at Centennial Field as baseball season begins anew. Marcelle and I congratulate John for all he has accomplished, we commend him for his service to Vermont, and we thank him for his friendship and loyal service to our State. We will miss our daily interactions with him, but we are grateful that he forever will be part of the Leahy family.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week the Congress passed and tomorrow the President will sign into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which includes $10 billion to respond to COVID-19 internationally. While this is a tiny fraction of the $1.9 trillion in the Rescue Plan, it is critically necessary. As long as the virus continues to spread and mutate into more transmissible and deadlier variants in other countries, it will remain a threat to Americans. Within that amount, $580 million is included to support the U.N. Global Humanitarian Response Plan for COVID-19 through U.S. voluntary contributions to international organizations, including the World Health Organization, the World Food Programme, UNICEF, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and other international organizations. UNICEF offers critical operations and technical assistance to ministries of health and education around the world as countries continue to adapt their health and education activities to meet COVID- 19 protocols. UNICEF also focuses on strengthening risk communication and community engagement to ensure that women, children, and their families know how to prevent COVID-19; providing supplies to communities and educational and health facilities to support the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, including WASH supplies and personal protective equipment; and ensuring that children and women have continued access to basic healthcare, education, child protection, and gender-based violence services, including ensuring access to immunizations, prenatal and postnatal care, and HIV care in an environment safe from infection by the virus. It is obvious that UNICEF has a critical role to play in the international COVID-19 response. The same can be said of the World Food Programme, UNHCR, and WHO. I am pleased that Congress was able to provide additional funding for these and other international organizations to support their lifesaving work.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to associate myself with the words of the distinguished deputy leader. Nobody has said it better. Nobody could. But in the meantime, we have to get up and vote. Madam President, I am going to put in a quorum call for just a minute, and then I will take it off. 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, earlier this month, actually for the first time in--earlier last month, I should say, in February, for the first time in our Nation's history, the Senate convened as a Court of Impeachment to try a former President for a high crime and misdemeanor. For 5 days, every Member of the Senate was here to hear presentations and arguments from an extraordinarily intelligent group of Congressmen and Congresswomen representing the House of Representatives. We also heard from counsel for former President Donald Trump. After listening to the compelling evidence presented by the House managers, I voted to convict President Trump for inciting the Capitol riots on January 6, and I will have a lot more to say about my vote to convict the former President in a later statement. Today, though, I am going to speak about the unique role I had in this historic trial as its Presiding Officer. It is unique in the history of the Senate, and I thought for my fellow Senators and, also, for historical purposes I would like you all to know some of my feelings. Now, I understand why some of my Republican friends were skeptical of a Democratic Senator presiding over the trial of a Republican former President. I noted the Constitution does not contemplate that the Chief Justice would preside over the impeachment trial of a former President, but I also note the impeachment process, no matter who presides, is inherently and often intensely divisive. Presidential impeachments have historically been partisan. Having a member of one particular party in the Chair presiding over the trial could understandably give some pause. Now, as my fellow Senators know, I did not ask, I did not seek to preside over this trial, but I am occupying the constitutional office of the President pro tempore, and because I am, it was incumbent upon me to do so. A Court of Impeachment is not a civil or a criminal court; it is a constitutional court. And the President pro tempore, as a constitutional officer, has historically presided over impeachment trials of non-Presidents. As President Trump's term had expired before the trial began, the responsibility to preside over this historic trial fell to me, as it would have anybody who would have been President pro tempore. I just happened to be. I was not going to shirk my duty. My staff and I spent hundreds of hours poring over the constitutional background of these trials. I read transcripts. I read everything. And what I found is, throughout our Nation's history, each President pro tempore has almost without exception belonged to a political party, and each has no doubt had their own personal and political views on the matters before the Senate. But when presiding over the Senate, as I go back through history, I see Presidents pro tempore have historically served as a neutral arbiter, issuing rulings where appropriate and preserving order. I consider holding the Office of the President pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it as one of the highest honors but also one of the most serious responsibilities of my career here in the Senate. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the President pro tempore takes an additional--not just his regular role but an additional one to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. This is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously. In fact, to demonstrate my commitment to preside over the trial with fairness and transparency, before the trial I wrote a letter to every single Senator and the parties to the trial. In it I made clear my intention and my solemn obligation was to conduct the trial with fairness to all. I committed to adhering to the Constitution and to applicable Senate rules, precedents, and governing resolutions. I committed to consulting with the Senate's esteemed and nonpartisan Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, and I committed to being guided by Senate precedent should a motion or an objection or a request or an application be put before me. I reiterated that any decision I made-- any decision I made--from the Chair would be subject to the review of the full Senate--every Democratic Senator, every Republican Senator, every Independent Senator. And I stated I would put any matter before the entire Senate in the first instance where appropriate in light of the precedents and practices of the Senate, giving all Senators an equal say in resolving the issue at the outset. I also informed all Senators, though, that I would enforce the Senate rules, and I would enforce the precedent governing decorum and do what I could to ensure the trial reflected the best traditions of the Senate. Now, with the trial behind us, I believe I made good on those commitments. My job wasn't to shape the trial or to direct or slant it in any particular way but to make sure the rules were followed, the proceedings were fair to all parties, consistent with the will of the whole Senate, and I believe it was. I did my best. I followed the advice of the Parliamentarian and enforced our rules and precedents. Where objections were raised, they were ultimately resolved without a vote challenging the rulings I made from the Chair. While I never faced this situation, before the start of the trial I had decided--and I had informed the Parliamentarian of my decision-- that should a ruling of mine be appealed, I would abstain from voting as a Senator on the question of whether to sustain my own ruling. Now, I know from the Constitution and the practices and the rules of the Senate, the Presiding Officer is fully empowered to do so--to vote--and it happens routinely during legislative sessions. But in going back through all the hundreds of pages--the thousands of pages--I could not find a historical precedent for Presiding Officers doing so during impeachment trials, and I was determined to strictly adhere to precedent, even if it limited my authority as a Senator in this instance. Now I would note that, on two occasions during the trial, I felt it was necessary to remind counsel--and I did, as did Chief Justice Roberts during President Trump's first trial--to refrain from using language that was not conducive to civil discourse. On the final day of the trial, when it got a little bit heated, I was prepared to do so in stronger terms, if needed. Yet, during closing arguments, I believe neither side gave me reason to do so. Now, like those who presided over the three prior Presidential impeachment trials in our history, I understood each of my decisions was important historically and would become important precedents to guide those who preside over trials in the future, just as I had read and studied the precedents of past trials. Since the conclusion of the trial, both Republican and Democratic Senators have thanked me for being fair, and I appreciate that greatly. I may have had a prominent role for this historic trial, but I was committed to not shaping it in any way. I just wanted to give voice to our institution's precedents and rules and to otherwise let the Senate determine the trial's structure and direction, to let each side present its case, and let the chips fall where they may, but let the Senate do its job. I have now had the opportunity to sit as a judge and juror in numerous impeachment trials, including three trials of Presidents. All were historic moments for the Senate and this country. I hold no illusion that the Senate was at its best for every moment of every trial, but each has nonetheless increased my respect for our system of government and our Constitution. I was proud to uphold my oath as a Senator and as a Presiding Officer, my oath to do impartial justice according to our Constitution and the laws during last month's trial. There are some things I consider far more important than allegiance to any person or political party, and my commitment to the Constitution and this great institution of the Senate are listed high among them. I have felt from the first day I came here that the Senate can be and should be the conscience of the Nation. I wanted to help make sure that conscience was upheld, and I appreciate the fact that my colleagues elected me President pro tempore and gave me this opportunity. I suggest the absence of a quorum.