Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during Thanksgiving last week, families across the country came together to give thanks for the blessings of the past year. One group in particular--corporate CEOs--had a special reason to be thankful: the Republican tax bill we are considering today. Rather than engaging in a bipartisan process to develop and enact meaningful tax reform that will benefit working Americans and small businesses, Republicans in Congress have spent the last few weeks. crafting tax cut legislation that will overwhelmingly favor large corporations and ultrawealthy Americans. Just in time for the holiday season, this bill delivers everything on the Republican donor class's wish lis while providing the vast majority of working Americans with little more than a lump of coal. This tax bill would have harmful and far-reaching effects, in countless ways, for our economy, for the budget, for our healthcare system, for our environment, and for the pocketbooks of middle-income Americans from coast to coast; yet despite these enormous threats across the board, rarely, if ever, have I seen such a secretive and slapdash process and such a shoddy result. Republican leaders purposely chose a partisan process, not a bipartisan process. This bill has one clear goal: provide corporations with permanent tax cuts at any and all costs. Unfortunately, the costs of providing these unnecessary cuts are high and fall disproportionately on lower and middle-income Americans, who will only see temporary cuts that will expire in 2025. The true purpose and slant of this bill are belied by the fact that huge tax cuts for corporations would be permanent, while the meager adjustments for hard-working Americans are only temporary. Critical deductions relied upon by many Vermonters, including the State and local tax deduction, are reduced or eliminated. These changes are likely to result in higher taxes for many working families. To add insult to injury, even after targeting the middle class to pay for permanent corporate tax cuts, the bill will still end up adding more than $1.4 trillion to our deficit and debt over the next 10 years. This is a bill that cheats our future for the sake of a tax-cut windfall for the 1 percent. It does absolutely wonderful things for the wealthiest taxpayers, like the President, his cronies, and his family, but it does not advance the common good. It offers crumbs to hard- working Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations reap the rewards of this bill, with the false promise of trickle-down benefits to everyone else. The wealthiest are doing just fine, and big corporations already are pulling in record profits, which they are not investing but salting away. They don't need more tax cuts. More than 400 millionaires have urgently told Congress that they don't need more tax cuts. Even more appallingly, to pay for these tax giveaways for corporations, Republicans intend to strip health insurance from 13 million Americans, a move that threatens to seriously destabilize the health insurance market. Americans with health insurance today will face higher premiums as a result of this bill becoming law. As the Congressional Budget Office found in its recent analysis, by 2027, the bill takes away billions of dollars in Federal healthcare support for Americans making less than $75,000. This needlessly putt innocent lives at risk. To the extent that working Vermonters see any benefit from the tax cuts included in this bill, those gains will be more than wiped away by these changes to our healthcare system. What is more, this Republican proposal will also cause irreparable harm to our environment by opening up oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR--all to pay for tax breaks for corporations, including those in the oil and gas industry. Exposing this breathtaking area of the country to the ravages of oil and gas drilling would be an environmental tragedy. Even worse, the rationale for it may be built on a false premise. There is evidence to suggest that opening this area for development would not even provide the economic benefits being claimed. Turning ANWR into an oil field is yet another gift to corporate interests at the expense of the American people and at the cost of damage to their public lands. These are just some of the devastating consequences this bill will have if it is enacted, and we know this isn't even the bill on which we will ultimately cast a vote. This bill has been written and rewritten so many times behind closed doors, and we have every reason to believe Republicans will conclude this arcane reconciliation process by offering a final amendment, unveiled at the last minute, without the benefit of thorough review and debate. For an issue this complex that touches every aspect of our economy, moving at a breakneck, partisan pace is a dangerous and reckless approach. How many Senators who support this legislation can look their constituents in the eye and honestly tell them they know every detail of this bill and how it will impact them and our country? Can the Senators who support this bill in good faith promise it won't raise their constituents' taxes, today, tomorrow, next year, or in a decade? Or that it won't set in motion slashing cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid? Remember the promises the Republican majority made just months ago? They promised their bill would boost the economy and help middle-class Americans and that it wouldn't explode the debt and the deficits. The President himself promised that the bill wouldn't benefit him or other wealthy taxpayers. Now, we know the truth. The independent Congressional Budget Office and countless economists have made clear that those promises have been utterly shredded. Further damage is done by this direct hit on the health insurance that is relied upon by millions of Americans and by the elimination of the deductibility of State and local taxes. Blowing a hole in the budget will seed the ground for rising interest rates that will hit every family and drag down our economy, and Republican cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will follow. Even these huge corporate tax cuts are not structured in a way that would truly encourage investments here at home and boost workers' wages. There is no bang, let alone a popgun pop, for shoveling out these more than 2 million bucks. We need to go back to the drawing board and start this process over again. Let Republicans and Democrats work together on real tax reform that simplifies the Tax Code and provides real benefits to working Americans. This bill is not tax reform. This is a cartoonish caricature of what real tax reform should look like. It is dishonest to its core. It is cynical, and it can only breed more cynicism by the public. It is not only bad policy, it is horrible policy--and it is wrong.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for 25 years, Earl ``Rusty'' Powell has served as the director of the National Gallery of Art, making him the longest serving director in its history. Rusty will retire in early 2019, concluding a tenure that has marked growth and development at one of our Nation's great galleries. Rusty's life of public service began with 3 years of service in the Navy, during which he served as a navigator in Vietnam. Upon his return, Rusty embarked on what would become a decades-long career as a curator, historian, and aficionado, earning a doctorate from Harvard before beginning his first assignment at the National Gallery of Art. His experience there led to a 12-year tenure as the director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, after which he returned to the National Gallery for what would become the longest tenure of a director in its 75-year history. He has worked tirelessly at the National Gallery of Art to increase the accessibility of the arts by expanding the National Gallery's projects, exhibitions, and endowment. Rusty's approach to expanding and enriching the National Gallery has been as collaborative as it has been visionary. Rather than govern with a singular vision, he included his staff and board in moving the museum forward. From the construction of the stunning sculpture garden, to the renovation of the gallery's west wing, no detail has been overlooked throughout his tenure. He has also overseen several other projects that received less attention but are of no lesser value to the current success of the gallery. All these improvements have enhanced the experience of the more than 5 million visitors that pass through the gallery every year. Rusty's great passion for the mission of the National Gallery and his unwavering efforts to bring storied art collections to its millions of visitors each year are unparalleled. With his retirement next year, he will leave a legacy at the gallery that will never be forgotten. Marcelle and I have treasured the evenings we have spent with Rusty and his wife, Nancy, at exhibits and events we will always remember. I ask unanimous consent that the November 7, 2017, Washington Post article detailing Rusty's time and accomplishments at the National Gallery of Art be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the moving work of Ron Powers of Castleton, VT--a Pulitzer Prize- winning author who has written about everything from Mark Twain to the soldiers of Iwo Jima to broadcast news and sports. Ron's latest book, ``No One Cares About Crazy People,'' concentrates on a topic that he promised himself he would never write about: the social history of mental illness in America. This story is poignantly told through his own deeply personal story of his two sons' struggles with schizophrenia, which tragically claimed the life of one of them. The book's informative yet intimate approach raises awareness about a subject that most are too uncomfortable to broach. When reading it, you can hardly hold back tears. I cannot imagine the pain Ron and Honoree went through while working on this book. It is a truly personal journey and a triumph. I am proud of him for publishing this important work. He understands that mental illness is not an issue that will simply go away if pushed into the darkness of neglect and denial. One cannot lock it up in an institution and expect to be rid of the problem. Mental illness in America needs to be discussed openly, by those who suffer from it, the friends and families of those affected, medical experts, and those of us Senators. We must all follow the footsteps of Ron and continue to shine a light on this extremely sensitive issue. I ask unanimous consent that the October 8, 2017, Vermont Digger article honoring Ron Powers and his family and recognizing his great work be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, long before his confirmation as the 10th Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero proudly served our Nation in a different capacity, as a Navy corpsman in Vietnam. Today, with the help of Mr. Ferreiro's unique personal perspective and professionally informed guidance, the Lawrence F. O'Brien Gallery at the National Archives Museum in Washington, DC, is currently exhibiting a new collection of remarkable documents that illustrate some of the Vietnam war's biggest controversies. Mr. Ferriero and his team are to be thanked for painstakingly determining which of the countless relevant texts housed in the National Archives best told this often misunderstood story. We can be sure, however, that few if any archivists are better suited with experience and vision for this task than Mr. Ferriero. With this exhibit, Mr. Ferriero and his team honor the memory of those who served in Vietnam, while also fulfilling a sacred obligation to accurately preserve even our most contentious history so that we may strive to avoid repeating past mistakes. Today I would like to pay tribute to the Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, and his team and ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post article titled, ``A Veteran's View of Vietnam,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017. This legislation, if enacted, will help ensure that when Americans entrust corporations with their most sensitive personal information, these corporations take the right steps to keep this information secure, and do the right thing in the event of a data breach. In today's modern world, data security is no longer just about protecting our identities and our bank accounts; it is about protecting our privacy and even our National security. The need for this legislation has long been clear, and never more so than in the wake of the recent, massive Equifax data breach. After media investigations and multiple Congressional hearings, we learned that the Equifax breach exposed the sensitive personal information of almost half the American population. We also learned that Equifax failed to take basic steps to secure its databases, and waited an unjustifiably long period before notifying consumers and regulators. Clearly, it is past time for all corporations that hold our personal information to maintain some common-sense, baseline cybersecurity standards. Corporations make significant profits from our personal information, and they should be obligated to keep it safe. Yet too often, data breaches continue to plague American businesses and compromise the privacy of millions of consumers. At the same time, the amount of information we share with corporations who are the target of these breaches is growing. Corporations collect and store our social security numbers, our bank account information, and our email addresses. They collect information about our private health and medical conditions. They know what routes we take to work and where we drop our kids off at school. They can replicate our fingerprints or even faceprints. We trust them with private photographs that we store in the cloud. This information is increasingly targeted by both criminal hackers and nation-states, including hostile foreign powers. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act I am introducing today is based on legislation I first introduced in 2015, and builds and expands on data security legislation that I have introduced in Congress since 2005. It seeks to protect the vast amount of information that we now share with corporations each and every day. Americans want to know that the corporations who are profiting from their information are actually doing something to prevent the next data breach. Americans want to know when someone has had unauthorized access to their bank accounts and to their private family photographs, but they do not just want to be notified of yet another data breach. Consumers should not have to settle for mere notice of data breaches. American consumers deserve protection. This legislation would accomplish that. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act requires that corporations meet certain baseline privacy and data security standards to keep information they store about their customers safe, and requires that corporations provide notice and protection to consumers in the event of a breach. This legislation protects broad categories of data, including, (1) social security numbers and other government-issued identification numbers; (2) financial account information, including credit card numbers and bank accounts; (3) online usernames and passwords, including email names and passwords; (4) unique biometric data, including fingerprints; (5) information about a person's physical and mental health; (6) information about geolocation; and (7) access to private digital photographs and videos. It is true that not every breach can be prevented. Cyber criminals and nation-state actors are determined and constantly looking for new ways to pierce the most sophisticated security systems. But just as we expect a bank to put a lock on the front door and an alarm on the vault to protect its customers' money, we expect corporations to take reasonable measures to protect the personal information they collect from us. Unfortunately, many of the corporations that profit from the very information that we entrust them to protect, have woefully inadequate measures to secure this information. For others, security is simply not a priority. American consumers deserve better and our national security demands it. This legislation creates civil penalties for corporations that fail to meet the required privacy and data security standards established in the bill or fail to provide notice and protection to consumers when a breach occurs. The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and State attorneys general each have a role in enforcement. This legislation also requires corporations to inform Federal law enforcement of all large data breaches, as well as breaches that could impact the federal government. Such notification is necessary to help law enforcement bring these cyber criminals to justice and identify patterns that help protect against future attacks. Many Americans understandably assume Federal law already protects this sensitive information--common sense tells us that it should. Unfortunately, the reality is that it does not. States provide a patchwork of protection, and while some laws are strong, others are not. For example, my home state of Vermont has a strong data breach notification law that that has been in effect since 2007. But there are many other States that have not passed data security laws designed to prevent data breaches. This legislation sets a floor: a baseline standard that that protects Americans across the country, while also freeing individual States to provide even stronger protections to their residents. In crafting Federal law, we must be careful not to override strong State laws, but we also need to ensure that all Americans, regardless of where they live, have their privacy protected. To this end, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act preempts State law relating to data security and data breach notification only to the extent that the protections under those laws are weaker than those provided for in this bill. We must ensure that consumers do not lose privacy protections they currently enjoy. Since this bill is modeled after those States with the strongest consumer protections, I believe it will improve protections for consumers in nearly every State. I am joined today by Senators Markey, Blumenthal, Wyden, Franken, and Baldwin in introducing this legislation. These Senators have long shared my commitment to protecting consumer privacy. This legislation also has the support of leading consumer privacy advocates, including: the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Consumer Federation of America, New America's Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge. Millions of Americans who have had their personal information compromised or stolen as a result of a data breach consider this issue to be of critical importance and a priority for the Senate. Protecting privacy rights should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope all Senators will support this common-sense measure to better protect Americans' privacy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017. This legislation, if enacted, will help ensure that when Americans entrust corporations with their most sensitive personal information, these corporations take the right steps to keep this information secure, and do the right thing in the event of a data breach. In today's modern world, data security is no longer just about protecting our identities and our bank accounts; it is about protecting our privacy and even our National security. The need for this legislation has long been clear, and never more so than in the wake of the recent, massive Equifax data breach. After media investigations and multiple Congressional hearings, we learned that the Equifax breach exposed the sensitive personal information of almost half the American population. We also learned that Equifax failed to take basic steps to secure its databases, and waited an unjustifiably long period before notifying consumers and regulators. Clearly, it is past time for all corporations that hold our personal information to maintain some common-sense, baseline cybersecurity standards. Corporations make significant profits from our personal information, and they should be obligated to keep it safe. Yet too often, data breaches continue to plague American businesses and compromise the privacy of millions of consumers. At the same time, the amount of information we share with corporations who are the target of these breaches is growing. Corporations collect and store our social security numbers, our bank account information, and our email addresses. They collect information about our private health and medical conditions. They know what routes we take to work and where we drop our kids off at school. They can replicate our fingerprints or even faceprints. We trust them with private photographs that we store in the cloud. This information is increasingly targeted by both criminal hackers and nation-states, including hostile foreign powers. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act I am introducing today is based on legislation I first introduced in 2015, and builds and expands on data security legislation that I have introduced in Congress since 2005. It seeks to protect the vast amount of information that we now share with corporations each and every day. Americans want to know that the corporations who are profiting from their information are actually doing something to prevent the next data breach. Americans want to know when someone has had unauthorized access to their bank accounts and to their private family photographs, but they do not just want to be notified of yet another data breach. Consumers should not have to settle for mere notice of data breaches. American consumers deserve protection. This legislation would accomplish that. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act requires that corporations meet certain baseline privacy and data security standards to keep information they store about their customers safe, and requires that corporations provide notice and protection to consumers in the event of a breach. This legislation protects broad categories of data, including, (1) social security numbers and other government-issued identification numbers; (2) financial account information, including credit card numbers and bank accounts; (3) online usernames and passwords, including email names and passwords; (4) unique biometric data, including fingerprints; (5) information about a person's physical and mental health; (6) information about geolocation; and (7) access to private digital photographs and videos. It is true that not every breach can be prevented. Cyber criminals and nation-state actors are determined and constantly looking for new ways to pierce the most sophisticated security systems. But just as we expect a bank to put a lock on the front door and an alarm on the vault to protect its customers' money, we expect corporations to take reasonable measures to protect the personal information they collect from us. Unfortunately, many of the corporations that profit from the very information that we entrust them to protect, have woefully inadequate measures to secure this information. For others, security is simply not a priority. American consumers deserve better and our national security demands it. This legislation creates civil penalties for corporations that fail to meet the required privacy and data security standards established in the bill or fail to provide notice and protection to consumers when a breach occurs. The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and State attorneys general each have a role in enforcement. This legislation also requires corporations to inform Federal law enforcement of all large data breaches, as well as breaches that could impact the federal government. Such notification is necessary to help law enforcement bring these cyber criminals to justice and identify patterns that help protect against future attacks. Many Americans understandably assume Federal law already protects this sensitive information--common sense tells us that it should. Unfortunately, the reality is that it does not. States provide a patchwork of protection, and while some laws are strong, others are not. For example, my home state of Vermont has a strong data breach notification law that that has been in effect since 2007. But there are many other States that have not passed data security laws designed to prevent data breaches. This legislation sets a floor: a baseline standard that that protects Americans across the country, while also freeing individual States to provide even stronger protections to their residents. In crafting Federal law, we must be careful not to override strong State laws, but we also need to ensure that all Americans, regardless of where they live, have their privacy protected. To this end, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act preempts State law relating to data security and data breach notification only to the extent that the protections under those laws are weaker than those provided for in this bill. We must ensure that consumers do not lose privacy protections they currently enjoy. Since this bill is modeled after those States with the strongest consumer protections, I believe it will improve protections for consumers in nearly every State. I am joined today by Senators Markey, Blumenthal, Wyden, Franken, and Baldwin in introducing this legislation. These Senators have long shared my commitment to protecting consumer privacy. This legislation also has the support of leading consumer privacy advocates, including: the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Consumer Federation of America, New America's Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge. Millions of Americans who have had their personal information compromised or stolen as a result of a data breach consider this issue to be of critical importance and a priority for the Senate. Protecting privacy rights should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope all Senators will support this common-sense measure to better protect Americans' privacy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Acting President pro tempore.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak about a subject that many Senators are aware of and should be deeply concerned about. As we remember, in the early morning hours of March 3, 2016, Honduras lost one of its most courageous and charismatic indigenous leaders, Berta Caceres. Ms. Caceres was the general coordinator of the National Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, COPINH. She was gunned down by assassins in her home in the village of La Esperanza, Intibuca. Berta Caceres spent her life defending indigenous rights, particularly to land and natural resources. In 2015, she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her outstanding activism and leadership. She and COPINH had been supporting land struggles throughout western Honduras, and because of that--because she was exercising rights guaranteed by Honduran law and international law--she and the communities that she and COPINH supported were the frequent targets of death threats. In Rio Blanco, her organization and the community of Rio Blanco were threatened repeatedly as they engaged in peaceful protests to protect the river and their way of life from the construction of the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam by DESA, a Honduran company supported by international banks. It was as a result of the threats she received for supporting the Rio Blanco struggle that Ms. Caceres was granted precautionary measures by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. However, the Honduran authorities not only failed to protect her, they vilified her and other social activists like her. Berta Caceres was an inspiration to people around the world, and her death was a terrible loss for people everywhere. As I said in this Chamber the day after her death: The immediate question is what President Hernandez, and his government which has too often ignored or passively condoned attacks against Honduran social activists, will do to support an independent investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible for this despicable crime. And beyond that, what steps will the government take to protect the many others, including members of COPINH, who are in need of protection, and to stand up for the rights of people like Berta who risk their lives peacefully defending the environment and their livelihoods. Not surprisingly to those who are familiar with Honduran law enforcement, the investigation of the murder got off to a bad start. Not only was the crime scene at Ms. Caceres's home tampered with, the government's first response to the killing was to attempt to falsely pin the attack on her COPINH associates. When that went nowhere, they sought to intimidate the one eyewitness to the shooting, Gustavo Castro, a Mexican citizen who had been wounded. That also failed. Thanks to intense international pressure including from the U.S. Embassy, eight people were eventually arrested, including one active duty army officer and low-ranking employees of DESA, the hydroelectric company. This is notable, because the assassination of Berta Caceres was only the latest of more than 100 reported killings of environmental activists in Honduras since 2010. Since her death, there have been others. Investigators for Global Witness, a widely respected human rights organization that documented those crimes, were subjected to threats and spurious accusations by Honduran officials who sought to discredit their report. As far as I am aware, no one has been brought to justice for any of those crimes, and had it not been for the international outcry, there is no reason to think that Ms. Caceres's murder would have been treated any differently. Shortly after the murder, due to the long history of impunity for killings of journalists and social activists, Ms. Caceres's family urged the Honduran Government to permit the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IACHR, to send an independent team of legal experts to conduct their own investigation. Not only did the Honduran Government refuse, the Public Ministry has refused to share the bulk of the evidence with the Caceres family's legal representatives, as required by Honduran law. The family also asked that independent forensic experts be allowed to analyze the ballistics and other evidence. The Honduran Government similarly rejected that request. Like Ms. Caceres's family, I also called for an independent investigation and urged that the concession granted to DESA for the Agua Zarca project be abandoned. It clearly cannot coexist with the indigenous people of Rio Blanco who see it as a threat to their safety and way of life; yet while some of the international banks have withdrawn, it is 20 months since the murder of Ms. Caceres, and not only does DESA deny any responsibility, it refuses to cancel the project. After the arrests of the eight suspects, there was hope that those who conceived of and paid for the assassination of Ms. Caceres would also be tracked down and captured, but that did not happen. For more than a year, there has been no further word from the Public Ministry about the case, except that the investigation is ongoing--a familiar refrain in Honduras where criminal investigations have a way of either never beginning, or never ending. The U.S. Embassy also repeatedly assured me and others who inquired that the investigation was being handled professionally in accordance with the highest standards. It now appears that was uninformed, wishful thinking. After the Honduran Government refused to permit the IACHR to investigate, Berta Caceres's family arranged for an independent team of international human rights lawyers to conduct their own review of the evidence. Over a period of a year, the group, consisting of five experienced lawyers from the United States, Colombia, and Guatemala, known as the International Advisory Group of Experts, GAIPE, interviewed witnesses and analyzed what cell phone data and other evidence they could obtain from the Public Ministry. While the data they analyzed represented only a small fraction of what is known to exist, it included thousands of text messages that revealed a great deal. There is now little doubt about the identities of at least some of the intellectual authors who conceived of and paid for the assassination of Berta Caceres; yet the Public Ministry has failed to act on this evidence, perhaps because it implicates DESA executives with ties to officials in the Honduran Government. As I said on October 31, 2017, when GAIPE released the report of its investigation: [t]his damning report corroborates what many have suspected--that the investigation of Berta Caceres' murder has been plagued by incompetence, attempts to stonewall and deflect blame to protect those who conceived of and paid for this plot, and a glaring lack of political will. The Public Ministry needs to fully disclose, without further delay, all testimony and electronic and ballistics evidence to the Caceres family's legal representatives and defendants' lawyers, as required by law. The Ministry also needs to ensure that every piece of evidence is properly safeguarded, and to follow the evidence wherever it leads to arrest those responsible. It is shameful that despite intense domestic and international pressure, this horrific case has languished, while those responsible have sought to derail it. And there are hundreds of other Honduran social activists and journalists who have been similarly threatened and killed, whose cases have not even prompted investigations. It is important to note that the GAIPE report indicates that the evidence not only implicates DESA executives and employees, as well as Honduran state agents, in the surveillance, spreading of false information, and plot to assassinate of Berta Caceres; the evidence also reveals other crimes such as obstruction of justice, abuse of authority, and unlawful association. The report documents the shocking extremes to which the company was willing to go, including murder for hire, in pursuit of its financial goals. In addition to immediately disclosing the evidence to the Caceres family and others who are entitled to it under Honduran law, the Public Ministry should act on the petition of the Caceres family's legal representatives to arrest the intellectual authors. The Public Ministry should immediately ensure that all electronics and other evidence is adequately safeguarded to eliminate any risk of tampering. For whatever reason, much of the evidence is reportedly in the possession of the National Directorate of Investigations and Intelligence, and given the history in Honduras of evidence disappearing or being destroyed or stolen, and witnesses being intimidated and killed, securing the evidence in this case is imperative. The Honduran Government should take whatever steps are necessary to protect the leaders of COPINH, whose lives remain in jeopardy. The government's past responses to requests for protection have ranged from inaction to ineffective. The Agua Zarca concession and other hydro or extractive concessions that were obtained without the consent of local people whose lives or territory would be adversely affected should be cancelled. The Honduran Government needs to substantially reform the way it reviews and grants such concessions, which have too often been the product of corrupt dealings that resulted in environmental degradation, social unrest, and violence. The assassination of Berta Caceres, as outrageous and tragic as it was, presented the Honduran Government with an opportunity to show that justice is possible in such cases and that even people who hold positions of economic or political privilege and power can be held accountable. Instead, we have witnessed more of the same--important evidence being mishandled and possibly even ignored and withheld from those entitled to it. A partial investigation that resulted in the arrest of those who reportedly carried out the crime, followed by months of silence without identifying those who were behind it. This is not acceptable. Over the past 2 years, President Hernandez and other top Honduran officials have traveled to Washington to lobby for Honduras's share of U.S. funding for the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity of the Northern Triangle of Central America. Among other things, they have earnestly voiced their commitment to human rights and respect for civil society. They are going to find out that action, not words, are what matter. Over the past 2 years, the U.S. Congress has provided a total of $1.4 billion to support the plan, of which a significant portion is for Honduras. I supported those funds because I recognize the immense challenges that widespread poverty, corruption, drug trafficking, gang violence, and impunity pose for those countries. These problems will not be solved by building a wall along our southern border or deporting tens of thousands of Central Americans currently living in the United States. I mention this because the assassination of Berta Caceres brings U.S. support for the plan sharply into focus. Today that support is in jeopardy. It is why those responsible for her death and the killers of other Honduran social activists and journalists must be brought to justice. It is why Agua Zarca and other such projects that do not have the support of the local population must be abandoned and replaced with an inclusive, transparent process that complies with international environmental and social safeguards. It is why the Honduran Government must cease its attempts to undermine the work of the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras, MACCIH, which has begun to investigate the link between the assassination of Berta Caceres and corrupt dealings between DESA and Honduran state agents. It is why the Honduran Government must finally take seriously its responsibility to protect the rights of journalists, human rights defenders, other social activists, COPINH, and civil society organizations that peacefully advocate for equitable economic development and access to justice. Only then should we have confidence that the Honduran Government is a partner the United States can work with in addressing the needs and protecting the rights of the Honduran people, particularly those who have borne the brunt of official neglect, corruption, and violence for so many years. Today any hope that the Honduran Government may have of continued U.S. assistance under the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity will hinge in part on the outcome of the Caceres case, concrete actions that demonstrate support for the legitimate role of civil society and the independent media, and real reform of the justice system. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as Republicans consider tax proposals to disproportionately benefit corporations and the wealthy, they simultaneously fail to address revenue-draining loopholes that compel hardworking taxpayers to subsidize corporate misconduct. Today, I am introducing commonsense legislation--the ``No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers Act''--to prevent the worst corporate actors from writing off their wrongdoing as simply the cost of doing business. This idea is commonsense. This idea is straightforward. This idea should be bipartisan. Today's tax code allows corporations to deduct the cost of court- ordered punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense. Courts reserve punitive damages for only the most egregious and reckless misconduct--misconduct that usually causes great harm to peoples' lives. For victims who have suffered at the hands of the worst corporate bad actors, there is nothing ``ordinary'' about this loophole. Punitive damage awards are designed to punish wrongdoers for the reprehensible harm they cause--to provide a deterrence to misconduct. By giving corporations a deduction specifically for their wrongdoing, our tax code winks and nods at future wrongdoers who know that they can simply write off the damages they owe for the damage they cause. This is not a theoretical problem. In 1994, when the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil in the Prince William Sound, devastating Alaska's southern coast, it was eventually slapped with punitive damages of $500 million. Exxon turned around and exploited this tax loophole to write off those punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense--saving the company millions of dollars that could have--and should have--added to government revenues. In 2011, two Montana teenagers died in a car crash caused by a steering wheel defect in the Hyundai model they were driving--a defect that Hyundai knew about and recklessly ignored for over a decade. Although a judge eventually ordered Hyundai to pay $73 million in punitive damages, Hyundai can lawfully write those damages off as a business expense. This is just wrong. The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoing Act is simple and straightforward, and would end this offensive loophole once and for all. My bill would amend the tax code to prevent the deduction of any amount ``paid or incurred for punitive damages in connection with any judgment in, or settlement, any action between private parties.'' Aside from bringing our tax code in line with our most basic notions of justice and fair play, my bill would save American taxpayers a significant amount of money. In 2016, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that ending this punitive damages loophole would increase our government revenues by nearly $415 million over 10 years. The Senate will be talking a lot about tax reform in the coming weeks. The Senate majority will bend over backwards--they already are-- to argue how important it is that we dramatically lower tax rates to make our tax system more favorable to large corporations. Should we not also hold these same corporations accountable when they poison our environment and harm Americans? Legislation that leaves such an egregious loophole in place while giving companies massive tax cuts is not tax reform. It is a corporate tax giveaway. It should shock the conscience to know that our law effectively compels hardworking taxpayers to subsidize the recklessness and bad behavior of the worst corporate actors. This bill would change this unacceptable status-quo. I thank Senators Blumenthal, Reed, Gillibrand, and Hassan for cosponsoring this legislation. I urge all Senators--of all political ideologies--to support the No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoing Act. Protecting our constituents from corporate misconduct is not a political or partisan issue. It is our job.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as Republicans consider tax proposals to disproportionately benefit corporations and the wealthy, they simultaneously fail to address revenue-draining loopholes that compel hardworking taxpayers to subsidize corporate misconduct. Today, I am introducing commonsense legislation--the ``No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers Act''--to prevent the worst corporate actors from writing off their wrongdoing as simply the cost of doing business. This idea is commonsense. This idea is straightforward. This idea should be bipartisan. Today's tax code allows corporations to deduct the cost of court- ordered punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense. Courts reserve punitive damages for only the most egregious and reckless misconduct--misconduct that usually causes great harm to peoples' lives. For victims who have suffered at the hands of the worst corporate bad actors, there is nothing ``ordinary'' about this loophole. Punitive damage awards are designed to punish wrongdoers for the reprehensible harm they cause--to provide a deterrence to misconduct. By giving corporations a deduction specifically for their wrongdoing, our tax code winks and nods at future wrongdoers who know that they can simply write off the damages they owe for the damage they cause. This is not a theoretical problem. In 1994, when the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil in the Prince William Sound, devastating Alaska's southern coast, it was eventually slapped with punitive damages of $500 million. Exxon turned around and exploited this tax loophole to write off those punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense--saving the company millions of dollars that could have--and should have--added to government revenues. In 2011, two Montana teenagers died in a car crash caused by a steering wheel defect in the Hyundai model they were driving--a defect that Hyundai knew about and recklessly ignored for over a decade. Although a judge eventually ordered Hyundai to pay $73 million in punitive damages, Hyundai can lawfully write those damages off as a business expense. This is just wrong. The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoing Act is simple and straightforward, and would end this offensive loophole once and for all. My bill would amend the tax code to prevent the deduction of any amount ``paid or incurred for punitive damages in connection with any judgment in, or settlement, any action between private parties.'' Aside from bringing our tax code in line with our most basic notions of justice and fair play, my bill would save American taxpayers a significant amount of money. In 2016, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that ending this punitive damages loophole would increase our government revenues by nearly $415 million over 10 years. The Senate will be talking a lot about tax reform in the coming weeks. The Senate majority will bend over backwards--they already are-- to argue how important it is that we dramatically lower tax rates to make our tax system more favorable to large corporations. Should we not also hold these same corporations accountable when they poison our environment and harm Americans? Legislation that leaves such an egregious loophole in place while giving companies massive tax cuts is not tax reform. It is a corporate tax giveaway. It should shock the conscience to know that our law effectively compels hardworking taxpayers to subsidize the recklessness and bad behavior of the worst corporate actors. This bill would change this unacceptable status-quo. I thank Senators Blumenthal, Reed, Gillibrand, and Hassan for cosponsoring this legislation. I urge all Senators--of all political ideologies--to support the No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoing Act. Protecting our constituents from corporate misconduct is not a political or partisan issue. It is our job.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, something truly outrageous is happening today on the floor of the Senate. The resolution we will consider today signals to the American people, in no uncertain terms, that they do not deserve the right to seek justice when big banks or other financial service providers rip them off, leave their personal information exposed to hackers, or engage in discrimination. The resolution of disapproval before us today will strip Americans of their rights in court and will ensure that corporate wrongdoing can remain shrouded in secrecy--all to protect powerful companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax. Access to our court system is a fundamental principle in American society. It ensures that all those who wrong others, no matter how powerful, are equal in the eyes of the law and can be held accountable. That may no longer be the case. Access to our courts is under assault by companies that slip forced arbitration clauses into the fine print of agreements for basic services like checking accounts and credit cards. For some of these companies, like Equifax, consumers are not even their customers. They sell consumers' financial information to other companies. They have little incentive to protect consumers or even treat them fairly. That is how Equifax can actually make significant profits after it carelessly allowed the personal information of half of the adult population in the United States to be compromised. This is wrong. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, rightly put some commonsense limitations on the abuse of forced arbitration clauses. The rule provides that financial services companies cannot force consumers to sign away their right to join a class action lawsuit. The rule also requires more transparency when arbitration is used to ensure that wrongdoing cannot be hidden by powerful companies to keep consumers in the dark. Protecting consumers in this way should not be controversial. With the blunt instrument of a resolution of disapproval, the majority is seeking to strike the CFPB's rule and prevent it from ever implementing a similar rule in the future. This action, through a simple majority vote, would slam the courthouse door shut on every American who is ever ripped off by a company like Wells Fargo or has their sensitive personal information carelessly left unprotected by a company like Equifax. If we go down the path of striking this rule, consumers will only be left with the same empty, meaningless apologies we always hear from these companies when they are finally caught red- handed. I hope the American people are following this vote today. If they want to know whether their Senator stands with them or stands with corporate abusers, they will certainly find out. Whose side will the Senate be on when the rollcall is taken on this key vote? The American people, and their rights as citizens and as consumers? Or the powerful corporate interests who are pushing to repeal this protective rule? We shall soon see. This should not be a partisan issue. We all represent the American people. It is time we act like it. The Vermonters I represent are watching. They know what is at stake by repealing this rule. I urge every Senator who shared my outrage at Wells Fargo and Equifax to take a stand and reject this shameful resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me just speak for a few minutes on the emergency supplemental appropriations for disasters. No one in this Chamber is immune from disaster. Six years ago, I remember, in Vermont, Marcelle and I watched as communities around Vermont felt the devastating impact of Tropical Storm Irene. That storm washed away entire communities in our State, tearing down homes, local landmarks, and bridges alike. I watched the devastation from a helicopter with the Governor and the head of our National Guard the day after the storm hit. I saw bridges washed away. The only way we could get into the towns was by helicopter because all of the roads were gone that led into them. I saw homes that had been on the north side of a river that were now upside down and destroyed on the south side of the river. Do you know the one thing that occurred to me as I traveled around the State of Vermont? It is that I had heard from my fellow Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, saying that they would help us rebuild. I had heard the same thing from the President of the United States. They stood by Vermont's side to help us rebuild--again, Republicans and Democrats alike--because that is who we are as Americans. We lift each other up in times of disaster. We are one country. Today, in California and across the West, families are returning to the charred ruins of their homes--those who were able to get out alive. In Florida and Texas, communities are trying to put their lives back together after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma--again, those who were able to get out alive. In Puerto Rico, hundreds of thousands are still without potable water, electricity, cell service, or adequate medical supplies following Hurricane Maria. The Virgin Islands are also facing devastation that I can never remember. Millions of Americans all over the country, as well as the Americans in Puerto Rico and the Americans in the Virgin Islands, need us to work together to help lift them up, just as we have seen in past disasters. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue; this is an American issue. This is who we are as a country. We hold together. I have been privileged to serve here since the time of President Ford. In times of disaster, I have seen every single President, Republican and Democrat, work to help Americans and do it out of concern for Americans, not for themselves. That is why it is so disappointing that President Trump seems more concerned with claiming credit for a job well done than the actual situation on the ground deserves, particularly in Puerto Rico. President Trump has given himself a 10 out of 10 as though this were a game show for the administration's response to the devastating hurricane, but let's look at some numbers that really matter for the people who have lost everything. It has been 48 days since Hurricane Irma made landfall in Puerto Rico and 34 days since Hurricane Maria tore through the island. These storms wreaked havoc on those who live there. They destroyed houses and killed at least 49 people. Yet, 48 days later, nearly 80 percent of the island is still without power, and 30 percent of the population is without clean drinking water--some having to resort to drinking contaminated water. Roads are impassable. Bridges are down. The few hospitals that are operating are operating on generators. Frankly, the administration was slow to respond to the disaster. So to claim that it gets a 10 out of 10 for its response is to ignore the facts, especially the facts that the people who have been hit know so well. As I said before, this is not a reality TV show. It is not where the participant with the highest score advances to the next round. This is not fiction. These are people's lives--real people. They are people's homes. This is the hard part of governing. This is where we roll up our sleeves and dig in for the long haul. We stop patting ourselves on the back. Instead, we use that hand to give a hand to the people who are hurting. Today we are going to advance a disaster package that contains $36.5 billion in additional emergency relief. It includes $18.7 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund, $16 billion for the National Flood Insurance Program debt forgiveness, $1.2 billion for nutrition assistance, and $576.5 million to address these devastating wildfires in the western part of the United States. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. If we do not act, the Disaster Relief Fund and the Flood Insurance Program will run out of resources in a matter of days. This money, if we pass it, will help FEMA, the Department of Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies to continue their work in all of the devastated communities and to start catching up with the work that needs to be done and to help families begin to rebuild their homes and their lives--those who did not die in the disaster. This is just the next step. This is a multistep process. This is the next step on the road to recovery. Last week, I met with Governor Ricardo Rossello, of Puerto Rico, and his staff. I have been to Puerto Rico many times, in happier times, but here he detailed the unique challenges that face Puerto Rico. He was telling us what is happening to our fellow Americans. The electric grid was almost completely destroyed. Its infrastructure, itself, was demolished. Houses were flattened. At the same time, Puerto Rico faces a fiscal situation that will make it nearly impossible for it to provide the Federal match that is required for most disaster assistance programs. It faces a Medicaid funding crisis that may leave nearly 1 million people without healthcare in just a matter of months, assuming that we restore their healthcare. This tells us that our response cannot be business as usual. We need to tailor disaster assistance to meet Puerto Rico's unique challenges. We may need to consider legislation to address its unique needs. Most importantly, we need to think long term. To simply replace and repair what was destroyed would be shortsighted. We have to help our fellow Americans who are in Puerto Rico to recover, to rebuild, and to be more resilient and better prepared. We should invest in the 3.4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and invest in their infrastructure so that the next disaster is not a humanitarian issue and crisis. Some like to say that the situation is unique in Puerto Rico. It is not. We have to acknowledge that historic-sized storms are now annual occurrences, and we have to respond accordingly. Even with the help from our own citizens and from the U.S. Government, we are just now fully rebuilding in Vermont, and we were not hit as badly as these other places were. Across the country--from wildfires in California to the flood damage in Florida, Texas, the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as what I said about Puerto Rico--we can invest in technology, and we can invest in conservation and infrastructure. That would mitigate further damage. Do you know what? It would also make these communities more resilient because we cannot speak about ``once in 100 years'' storms. Sometimes, as we have seen this year, they have been ``once in 2 months'' or ``once in 3 weeks'' storms. This requires a commitment from the U.S. Government. It is not measured by days or weeks or months but in years--a commitment that does not waver, a commitment that does not depend on whether you live in Texas or Florida or Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. Today, I urge all Senators to support this emergency supplemental bill that will provide much needed assistance for disaster relief across the country, but it is still just the next step on the path to recovery. The Trump administration is committed to putting forward a third, more comprehensive disaster package in the coming weeks. As vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I intend to hold the administration to that commitment. In conclusion, even in the years since Irene, this Vermonter still takes comfort in the number of Republican and Democratic Senators who called me during that storm and pledged support and, along with the pledge, came through with the support. Recognition of the Majority Leader

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just want to address very briefly one other issue that surfaced last week. Press reports indicate there are multiple nominees of President Trump awaiting Senate confirmation, but even though they haven't been confirmed--there has not been a vote maybe even in committee, I understand; certainly they have not been confirmed by the Senate. Yet they are engaged in the very duties of the positions for which they have been nominated. That includes nominees showing up to work, even though they are not yet confirmed. It means they attend White House meetings, even though they are not yet confirmed. They show up for photo ops, even though they are not confirmed. This includes officials with at least three different agencies. If accurate, this is nothing but an end run around our constitutional system. It directly flouts the Senate's constitutional role to check and balance the enormous power wielded by the executive branch. It is our obligation to advise and ultimately consent, vote up or down, the appointment of high-level agency officials. Their decisions impact millions of Americans. I hope that all of us--both Democrats and Republicans--will speak up and defend the prerogatives of the Senate if the Trump administration continues to insist it is above the law. I have been here a half dozen times when Democrats were in the majority and a half dozen times when Republicans were in the majority. We have always insisted that these kinds of nominees await a vote first. Back in my time during the Ford administration, the Carter administration, the Reagan administration, the Bush administration--the first Bush administration--the Clinton administration, the next Bush administration, the Obama administration, we actually followed the law and the Constitution. It was something that both Republican leaders and Democrat leaders insisted on, and I agreed with it. Although I may have hated to wait sometimes, we insisted on it. So I raise that point. It raises a real question. I am told that it may be a violation of the law. It certainly raises a question if they make decisions based on their responsibilities in a position that requires confirmation and they haven't been confirmed. We may be facing lawsuits--taxpayers paying to defend lawsuits--when all they have to do is wait a few days. Republicans are in charge of the Senate. They can bring up these nominees. Bring them up and vote on them, but don't just pretend the Senate is not here. Let's not pretend the advice and consent part of the Constitution doesn't exist. Let's actually obey the law and the Constitution. It can be refreshing to do things the way the law and the Constitution requires. In the long run, the country will be better off. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in correspondence with officials of the Government of Bangladesh over a period of several years and in conversations with officials of our own State Department, I, like many others, have raised concerns about enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, unfair trials, extrajudicial executions, and other flagrant violations of the rule of law by the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed and particularly by the Rapid Action Battalion, RAB. Like the inquiries and appeals of others, my concerns have been responded to by Bangladeshi officials with blanket denials, obfuscation, and even falsehoods. Despite such attempts to deflect responsibility, it is beyond a doubt that the rule of law is often violated by Bangladeshi law enforcement agencies. This conduct has become so ingrained that it is not an overstatement to describe Prime Minister Wajed's government as one that condones state-sponsored criminality. Of course, the government would vociferously reject such a characterization, insisting that individuals who have disappeared were kidnapped by militants or joined extremist groups or simply claiming that their whereabouts are unknown to the government. The problem is that there is often credible eyewitness testimony to the contrary or those responsible for the abductions have identified themselves as members of one of the security forces, the RAB being the most notorious. The State Department's latest Country Reports on Human Rights describes the situation in Bangladesh as follows: ``Human rights groups and media reported that multiple disappearances and kidnappings continued, some committed by security services. The government made limited efforts to prevent or investigate such acts. The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances contacted the government on March 9 concerning the ``reportedly alarming rise of the number of cases of enforced disappearances in the country'' and had 34 outstanding cases under review as of May 18, but the working group did not receive a response. Following alleged disappearances, security forces released some individuals without charge, arrested some, some were found dead, and others were never found.'' The State Department also cited the practice of torture of detainees in Bangladesh: ``Although the constitution and law prohibit torture and other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment, local and international human rights organizations and the media reported security forces, including RAB, intelligence services, and police, employed torture and physical and psychological abuse during arrests and interrogations. Security forces reportedly used torture to gather information from alleged militants although members of political opposition parties claimed that security forces also targeted activists within their parties. Security forces reportedly used threats, beatings, kneecappings, and electric shock, and law enforcement officers sometimes committed rapes and other sexual abuses. Two prominent human rights organizations stated that security forces tortured eight persons to death in the first nine months of the year.'' The situation has not improved since the State Department published that report earlier this year. Just last week, seven senior representatives of an opposition political party were arrested in Dhaka. Their whereabouts, conditions of confinement, and the evidence against them remain a mystery. This egregious situation has been cited by the European Parliament, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and other reputable human rights monitors; yet the government of Prime Minister Wajed rejects such admonishments out of hand as fabrications or an infringement of sovereignty. Not only do these practices violate the rule of law, they threaten democracy itself. Bangladesh does face a serious problem of violent extremism, which must be effectively addressed, but if peaceful expression and association that challenges government policies or that condemns corruption and police misconduct are equated with terrorism and responded to with threats, arbitrary arrests, and disappearances, extremism will increase, and democracy will suffer. Other international organizations and governmental bodies have urged the Government of Bangladesh to respond to calls regarding dozens of cases of disappearances and to permanently dismantle the RAB and suspend other law enforcement agencies that have engaged in such crimes until credible investigations of such cases are conducted and those responsible are appropriately punished. I echo those calls and do not support further U.S. assistance for such agencies until the necessary steps are taken.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to speak briefly about the situation in Uganda, which should concern all Senators. Uganda, located on the Equator in East Africa, has been a friend and partner of the United States for many years, particularly in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Twenty years ago, Uganda was the epicenter of AIDS in Africa. Thousands were dying, testing was nonexistent, condoms were outlawed, and the future was bleak. Since then, dramatic progress has been made in controlling the disease, although more remains to be done. The United States has also joined in the fight against the Lord's Resistance Army, which ravaged northern Uganda for many years. I remember a time, not so long ago, when thousands of young children, called ``night commuters'' would walk each evening from their remote villages into towns where they were protected from being kidnapped by the LRA and forced into servitude as child soldiers. Throughout that period and to this day, President Museveni has remained in power, for five consecutive terms, solidifying his control increasingly through repression, including the arrest, imprisonment, and even alleged assassination attempts of political opponents and social activists. In 2016, at his most recent inauguration after an election marred by fraud and intimidation, Sudan's President Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court, was an invited guest. In 2012, President Museveni announced that he would ``certainly not'' seek to remain in office after age 75, consistent with article 102(b) of Uganda's Constitution; yet today, with the next Presidential election scheduled for 2021, an effort is underway in Uganda's Parliament, presumably with President Museveni's blessing, to amend the constitution to eliminate the age limit. If successful, Museveni could remain President for life, in the tradition of other African strongmen like Robert Mugabe. There is no law against amending the constitution. Our own Constitution poses no such age limit on Presidents or Members of Congress, but doing so for the obvious purpose of perpetuating the increasingly autocratic rule of a serving President, who has used the security forces to silence his opposition and who has systematically undermined the possibility of a free election, is wrong. Such an outcome would be a tragedy for democracy and the rule of law in Uganda, at a time when corruption, economic stagnation, and internal strife are propelling Uganda backwards. The United States and the international community have provided Uganda with billions of dollars in aid since 1986 when President Museveni first came to power. I supported that investment in Uganda's social, economic, and political stability, and President Museveni deserves credit for many positive developments in Uganda since the horrific years of his brutal predecessors, Idi Amin and Milton Obote; yet today much of that investment is at risk of being squandered. Ultimately this is a decision for the representatives of the Ugandan people, but I hope the Ugandan Parliament recognizes what is at stake, not only for the people of Uganda and for the future of democracy and stability in that country, but for future support from the United States and the international community. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, budget resolutions set general spending priorities for the Federal Government. The budget resolution before us today, however, sets a path for so-called tax reform that will benefit the wealthiest among us on the backs of hard-working Americans. For all their talk of reining in spending and reducing the debt, the majority is promoting a budget that will explode the debt by $1.5 trillion. They propose increasing the debt not to invest in our infrastructure or in educating the next generation. They propose increasing the debt not to expand access to healthcare or promote medical research. No--they propose exploding the debt to give corporations and the top one percent a tax cut. Once again, they majority is turning away from the bipartisan traditions of this Senate and toward the hyperpartisan tactics that do not result in progress for the American people. This budget invests in millionaires and billionaires like the Trump family, the Koch brothers, wealthy corporations, and the top 1 percent. It turns its back on millions of hard-working American families. While the resolution authorizes a $1.5 trillion increase in the debt, independent experts calculate that the real cost of the Trump tax plan will far exceed that amount. How will the majority pay for the difference? It will slash Medicaid, a proposal already rejected by the Senate this year. It will slash Medicare. It will slash programs for veterans and infrastructure. It will be middle-class Americans who bear the brunt of these cuts. According to independent analysts, middle-class Americans will see their home values drop and will experience a tax increase as a result of the Trump tax plan. This shameful budget sends the message that the Senate supports putting tax cuts for the wealthy and biggest corporations on our Nation's credit card and, to the extent we pay for any of it, that we do so on the backs of the middle class and seniors and at the expense of protecting the environment. This budget proposes invading the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These are not Vermont values. These are not American values. This is not how our Nation became the greatest country on Earth. After years of claiming that the deficit is one of the greatest threats to our country, the majority today will waive away any concern about the long-term impact of increasing it. They argue that the economic growth spurred by these tax cuts will outpace the foregone revenue, but as we saw with the Bush tax cuts, this claim is simply not based in reality. This argument is based on a pyramid scheme of assumptions on top of assumptions, and while we should be taking a close look at the Congressional Budget Office's projections--a range of both dynamic and conventional scores--this budget resolution eliminates the only existing mechanism that requires the Senate to have a CBO estimate in advance of a vote. Why might the majority want to rush a vote before examining the long-term economic impacts of these proposed tax cuts? Our Tax Code is complex--very much, overly complex--and I share the view that it is in need of improvement and simplification. We can and should have a meaningful debate about tax reform, but any reforms must be certain to benefit middle-class Americans, not just the top 1 percent. We need to strengthen tax credits that promote community development and the construction of affordable housing. We should extend and make permanent tax credits that help those who are struggling to make ends meet. I am in favor of bipartisan tax reform that brings both parties together and results in balanced changes to the current system. That is in the best tradition of the Senate, and it is the path to enacting truly meaningful reforms that will benefit every single American. The Senate should reject this partisan effort, just as it rejected last month the unsuccessful partisan efforts to roll back health coverage for millions of Americans. We should--and can--work together to craft a balanced and sustainable budget and tax reform package. No package will be perfect, but it should be bipartisan. It should be fair. The budget before us today fails to meet that test, which is why I will oppose it.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague that there are no recommendations on where these cuts are coming from. Do they come from the programs that support our Nation's veterans, from the National Institutes of Health--the cutting-edge cancer research it conducts? You can't turn research on and off. Scientists don't hit pause. Does it come from our transportation and infrastructure? If we really want to make these cuts--and this, of course, would take us well below the postsequester budget caps that are already $43 billion. If we want to make cuts, have the courage to stand up and say ``This is the program I want to cut''--not do something like this, where we don't know if the cut will be for veterans, education, cancer research, or anything else. I oppose the amendment. To reiterate, I oppose the Paul amendment and urge others to do the same. The Paul amendment appears to mandate a cut of $43 billion from nondefense discretionary programs in fiscal year 2018. This is an 8- percent cut to the fiscal year 2018 postsequester budget caps, which are already $3 billion below last year's levels. It could impact defense as well. Of course, Senator Paul provides no recommendations on who he wants to hurt. Should it come from programs that support our Nation's veterans? Should it come from the National Institutes of Health and the cutting-edge cancer research it conducts? You cannot just turn research on and off. Scientists do not hit pause. What if we take it from transportation and infrastructure programs that help repair our Nation's failing roads and bridges? If those are unacceptable, perhaps we should cut or eliminate programs that assist our Nation's farmers or help promote economic growth in rural communities. I think we can all agree that is not going to happen. It should not happen. We should be investing in our communities to make sure they have the tools they need to grow and flourish, not deserting them. Members on both sides of the aisle have been calling for months for a bipartisan budget deal. In speech after speech we have heard about the devastating consequences that sequester has on both defense and nondefense programs. If we are going to finish this year's appropriations process, we need a bipartisan budget deal based on parity that provides us relief from sequester. This amendment takes us in the opposite direction. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a recent report by the Secretary of State concerning, among other things, impunity within Indonesia's military. This has been a concern of mine, and of many others, for decades. Senate Report 114-290, which accompanies division J of the fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, requires the Secretary of State to submit a report on steps taken by the Indonesian military to, No. 1, deny promotion, suspend from active service, and/or prosecute and punish military officers who have violated human rights, and to refine further the military's mission and develop an appropriate defense budget to carry out that mission; No. 2, cooperate with civilian judicial authorities to resolve cases of violations of human rights; No. 3, implement reforms that increase the transparency and accountability of the military's budget and operations, and achieve divestment of military businesses; and No. 4, allow unimpeded access to Papua; respect due process and freedom of expression, association, and assembly in Papua; and release Papuans and Moluccans imprisoned for peaceful political activity. The Secretary submitted this report on September 12, 2017, and the information it contains is both disturbing and disappointing. Indonesia became a democracy after many years of brutal, corrupt dictatorship under President Suharto. He had the unwavering support of the Indonesian military, which was responsible for widespread atrocities not only against Indonesian citizens who opposed Suharto but later against the people of East Timor and Papua. He was also a Cold War ally of the United States. Suharto is gone, and Indonesia has changed for the better. It remains an important ally of the United States, but no democracy can achieve its potential without an independent judiciary and security forces that are professional and accountable or that fails to defend such fundamental rights as freedom of expression and association. While the Indonesian military is no longer the criminal enterprise it was during the Suharto period, impunity for past crimes remains the norm. As the Secretary of State's report notes, the Government of Indonesia continues to take inadequate steps to hold members of the Indonesian military accountable for human rights violations. One stark example includes the reemergence on active duty and promotions of several former members of the Special Forces' Rose Team, who were convicted in 1999 of kidnapping pro-democracy activists. In another deplorable incident, the Government of Indonesia appointed as the head of the Armed Forces Strategic Intelligence Agency a military officer who was convicted in 2003 for the murder of prominent Papuan civil society leader Theys Eluay. Furthermore, military-related entities, such as foundations and cooperatives, continue to hold large amounts of land and other properties and businesses, despite the government's claim that the military has largely divested itself of private enterprises. Military personnel are still not subject to civilian judicial authorities. Instead, they are tried by military tribunals which lack transparency and often grant much shorter prison sentences than any credible judicial authority would deem appropriate. Although four district courts are authorized to adjudicate cases involving human rights violations, none of them have heard or ruled on any human rights cases since 2005. Simply authorizing changes or espousing rhetoric without following up with tangible action makes a mockery of the concept of reform. Other findings in the report are also illustrative of a resistance to reform. For example, the report states, ``Indonesian law provides that military prosecutors are accountable to the Supreme Court. In practice, however, they are responsible to the Indonesian Armed Forces for the application of laws.'' With respect to the Moluccas and Papua, the report states that ``according to international NGO reports, approximately 10 Moluccan independence activists, who were arrested in 2007, remain in custody. . . In January 2015, a court sentenced Simon Siya, a leader in the Moluccan independence movement, to five years in prison on treason charges. He remains in prison. The court also sentenced seven others to two-to-three years for displaying a banned separatist flag during a peaceful pro-independence demonstration in 2014. . . NGOs in Papua continued to report widespread monitoring of their activities by intelligence officials as well as indirect threats and intimidation.'' Accusing people of being traitors and imprisoning them for peacefully supporting self-determination is itself a violation of human rights. Indonesia has come a long way since the dark days of President Suharto, but when it comes to military reform, it has fallen far short. In January 2018, it will be 10 years since Suharto's death; yet the military remains a largely opaque, unaccountable institution that has not even acknowledged the extent of its responsibility for past crimes. That needs to change.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to August ``Gus'' Schumacher, Jr., who passed away on September 24. Gus was an altruist who dedicated his life to discovering ways to help both farmers and those who are hungry, both here in the United States and abroad. His integrity, creativity, and his great courage over decades to sustain a passionate commitment to assisting the poor and hungry, as well as our farmers and rural communities, leaves an immeasurable legacy that will not soon be forgotten. I have known Gus since his days in Massachusetts. From the first time I met him, it was clear his passion was infectious. He brought that passion and his creative ideas to us here in Congress when he was the Massachusetts secretary of agriculture. It was that passion that propelled Senator Kerry and me to craft the first legislation--which became law--to create a farmers' market coupon demonstration project in 10 States. In 1988, the first year of the demonstration program, we secured $2 million in the Agriculture appropriations bill for the Women, Infants and Children, WIC, Farmers Market Demonstration Project. I was--and remain--proud that Vermont was one of those 10 States chosen for the initial WIC Farmers Market Demonstration Project. Now, nearly 30 years later, the program helps over 7 million nutritionally at risk women, infants, and children across the United States. None of this would have been possible without Gus's brilliant innovation, determination, and leadership. Gus put into action his innovative ideas first in Massachusetts and then across the country and around the world with his work at the Foreign Agricultural Service and as Under Secretary of Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service. His work led to a greater emphasis on organizing direct marketing, farmers' co-ops, farmers' markets, crop diversifications, and expanding opportunities for farmer-owned packaging, distributing, and processing facilities. More recently, his leadership and endless resourcefulness was on display through his work at Wholesome Wave. For Gus, the only things that mattered were that there were struggling farmers and hungry people who needed help. It did not matter where because Gus understood that hunger transcends all languages and cultures. We were fortunate to have Gus come to Vermont several times, both during his work at the USDA and Wholesome Wave. During his visits with the USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service, Gus's unflinching public service was always on display. He came to meet with the farmers, the food processors, and the dairy co-ops. He came to help Vermonters improve their lives, and I will always be grateful for that. His recent passing reminds all of us of the need to continue his fight. The fight for the hungry, for our farmers, and for the constant work of more fully realizing America's potential as both a great and a good nation. Gus believed, as should we all, that hunger should not exist in this country. We have the food and know-how to end it. Gus offered creative solutions to fight it. Now we need the political will to do it. I ask unanimous consent that the September 27 Washington Post obituary that describes Gus's life and career be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Friday, President Trump announced that he will slash our refugee admissions to 45,000 in fiscal year 2018--the lowest annual target since the passage of the 1980 Refugee Act. Instead of embracing our moral and legal obligation to address the worst refugee crisis in global history, as has been our tradition for decades, President Trump seems intent on relinquishing our role as the humanitarian leader of the world. The dimming of our beacon is not just a symbolic loss; tens of thousands of human lives are now placed at risk. There is no rational basis for this shameful retreat. The administration's own analysis shows that refugees contributed a net benefit of $63 billion to our economy between 2005 and 2014. National security leaders across the political spectrum, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, are unanimous in their view that refugees are the most stringently vetted travelers to the United States. Our commitment to welcoming refugees plays a critical role in strengthening our alliances in areas of conflict. The President stands alone in his disregard for the staggering suffering we are witnessing around the world. Last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee--on which I serve as vice chairman-- unanimously approved a funding bill that demonstrates our unwavering commitment to refugees. It fully funds offices that are critical to the continuity of refugee programs and even provides a $50 million increase to the State Department's refugee assistance and resettlement missions. Our bipartisan bill repudiates any claims by President Trump that the United States is unwilling to commit the resources required to fund a refugee program that honors our history as a refuge for the persecuted. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation has called on President Trump to set annual refugee admissions ``based on historical refugee levels,'' which have never dropped below 67,000 per year since the beginning of the Reagan administration. I am proud that my own State of Vermont has welcomed and resettled approximately 7,500 refugees since fiscal year 1989. The city of Rutland was preparing to resettle an additional 100 refugees mainly from Syria last year and this fiscal year, until the Trump administration inexplicably halted certain refugee admissions and announced drastic reductions to the refugee resettlement program. Vermont and other States stand ready to do more to address this global crisis, but the leader of our country is shamefully directing them to do less. Presidents have an obligation to protect our Nation's fundamental values. Presidents of both parties have long understood this. They have not forsaken our history as a nation founded by enterprising individuals seeking refuge and freedom from persecution. They have ensured that our policies do not betray our proud tradition as the humanitarian leader of the world. This decision illustrates that President Trump is misinformed and that he has caved to the counsel of xenophobic voices seeking to hollow out our refugee program. By shutting our doors to thousands of innocent human beings fleeing persecution and tyranny, he misunderstands the history of the country he was elected to lead. I hope that he reconsiders his callous decision, as the law in fact empowers him to do, in light of emerging humanitarian concerns. Nothing less than our Nation's identity as an unwavering beacon of hope during the world's darkest chapters is at stake.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2015, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, did something that can be all too rare Washington: It listened to the American people. After a record number of Americans spoke in favor of clear rules to protect a free and open Internet, the FCC voted to adopt strong net neutrality protections that accomplished this goal. These protections, which ensure that innovation and free speech can flourish online, are currently under threat as the FCC now moves to repeal them. On net neutrality and on many other key telecommunications policy issues, Chairman Pai has stood against consumers, startups, and small businesses. Today I choose to stand with them and with millions of Americans who support net neutrality by opposing his reappointment. Vermonters have been clear that they want strong FCC rules in place to ensure that the Internet remains the ultimate platform for economic opportunity and free expression. These protections are particularly important for small businesses, which compete on the internet's global stage against the largest companies in the world. The Vermont Country Store is a great example of a small company that has taken advantage of the promise of an open Internet. Family-owned with a rich history dating back to 1897, the internet offered new opportunities to extend the company's reach. As fifth generation storekeeper Cabot Orton said when he testified in Vermont about the FCC's effort to craft net neutrality protections in 2014: We don't want to imagine an America with two Internets: a fast one for giant corporations and a slow one for everybody else. We don't want to imagine being held for ransom by telecom behemoths and cable monopolies just to reach our customers with the same speed and convenience that global conglomerates enjoy . . . A small business website that is no longer protected from giant Internet toll-keepers would have one choice: pay to play. Failing that, a company becomes the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it. Chairman Pai has shown total disregard for the concerns of businesses like the Vermont Country Store. In proposing to repeal the existing net neutrality protections, he makes no mention of their importance to the small business community. Instead of recognizing the very real impact on small businesses of stripping away these protections, Chairman Pai claims that there are no possible harms these protections could be designed to prevent. This is particularly clear when he discusses the current rule banning harmful paid prioritization agreements that would create the type of two-tiered internet small businesses fear. Chairman Pai claims that there was no need for this rule because some large internet service providers, ISPs, said they ``had no plans'' to engage in this kind of behavior. This is despite the fact that at least one major ISP said outright in its 2014 FCC filing that it wanted the ``flexibility'' to charge websites for priority access and that, even though it had no plans for these arrangements, they ``should be permissible and should be tested.'' I introduced legislation to ban pay-to-play deals online before the FCC adopted its rule because of the harm they would cause small businesses like the Vermont Country Store. I find Chairman Pai's failure to understand the importance of a level playing field for small businesses extremely disconcerting. Not only is Chairman Pai ignoring the small business community by barreling ahead to repeal net neutrality protections, he is also ignoring the clear will of the American people. Over 22 million Americans have submitted comments in the proceeding he started to repeal these critical protections, shattering records at the FCC. Poll after poll has found overwhelming bipartisan support for net neutrality. In Washington, Chairman Pai calls net neutrality protections burdensome and unnecessary. In Vermont, we just call them common sense. Vermonters also value their privacy rights and want basic protections in place to protect their personal data. In 2016, over Chairman Pai's objections, the FCC put in place important privacy protections to prevent ISPs from selling their sensitive information, including their web browsing history, without their consent. These rules also included basic data security and data breach notification requirements. We have seen how important it is to hold companies to basic data security and breach notification standards in the wake of the total disregard Equifax showed for protecting sensitive consumer information. Unfortunately, Chairman Pai was a strong supporter of the resolution of disapproval passed by this Congress that permanently repealed the FCC's privacy and data security protections. At a time when the personal information of every single American is under constant threat, Chairman Pai thought it was simply too much to ask for ISPs to take reasonable steps to secure their subscribers data and notify them if a breach occurs. Chairman Pai's approach to rural broadband, which is one of the most pressing issues for Vermonters, also raises cause for concern. Just recently, he has proposed to effectively lower the speed standard used to measure whether Americans have access to adequate broadband service. As someone who represents a rural State, ensuring that we accurately measure how many Americans lack this essential service is critical. Under the current standard set by the previous FCC, 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to true high-speed broadband service. In contrast, only 4 percent of urban Americans lack access. I supported the FCC's decision to set a high minimum broadband speed to use as the baseline for comparing rural and urban areas. All Americans deserve the same quality of broadband service, whether they live in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont or the heart of Kansas City. Rural Americans should not be held to a lower standard simply so that Chairman Pai can rig the numbers to falsely claim that he has closed the digital divide once and for all. Chairman Pai has shown far too often in his time at the FCC that he will side with Goliath over David and that he will ignore the overwhelming sentiment of the American people. With the fate of the open internet and many other critical telecommunications issues at stake, I must oppose Chairman Pai's nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the year 2017, when some people live in extravagant homes with half a dozen or a dozen bathrooms with marble floors and the latest fixtures, an estimated 2.5 billion people live in squalor with no access to modern sanitation. One billion people have no access to latrines and defecate in the open, like our ancestors did thousands of years ago. The United States spends about $400 million a year on water supply and sanitation programs worldwide, pursuant to the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. One of our late colleague's many public policy contributions was his focus on pressing issues such as the growing scarcity of clean water sources--even in our own country--and the preventable suffering that comes from poor sanitation. His book, ``Tapped Out,'' is another contribution he made to greater understanding of these challenges. The law named for him requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the U.S. Agency for International Development and other U.S. Government agencies, to develop and implement a strategy to provide affordable and equitable access to safe water and sanitation in developing countries. For the past several years, the Congress has directed that $14 million of those funds be used specifically to design and build safe, public latrines in Africa and Asia. Our purpose has been to help reduce the risk to woman and girls, particularly in rural areas in these countries, who are often assaulted at night or subjected to humiliation and harassment, due to the lack of safe and accessible latrines. Unfortunately, USAID has not utilized these funds as effectively as we intended, and the fiscal year 2018 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which was reported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 7, specifies that not less than $15 million shall be made available ``to support initiatives by local communities in Africa and Asia to build and maintain safe, public latrines.'' What we intend is not rocket science. Today communities in Africa and Asia, often with the assistance of small local or U.S. nongovernmental organizations like the Advocacy Project, are building low-cost, easy to maintain, public latrines. Something as basic as a latrine can transform a community, particularly for women and girls. Not only does it reduce their vulnerability to assault, it reduces the obvious health problems caused by open defecation. It also increases girls' access to education, if there are latrines for girls at schools. The cost of such projects can be as little as a few hundred dollars, particularly when members of the community volunteer their labor. Just as important as the design and construction is a plan for community members to regularly maintain the latrines and to educate the local population-- men, women, and children--on their use. Access to water and sanitation are fundamental to social and economic development. The lack of safe drinking water and proper sanitation, coupled with poor hygiene, are leading causes of sickness and death worldwide. Nearly 1,000 children under age 5 die each day from diarrhea caused by contaminated water and from poor sanitation and hygiene. There are few ways to safeguard a person's health and improve their dignity more basic than by providing them access to sanitation facilities for safely disposing of human waste. There should be no confusion about what we intend for these $15 million. We want USAID missions in countries where women and girls in rural areas lack access to safe, public latrines to identify communities for pilot projects, where local leaders want to address this problem and where a small investment can make a significant difference. Working with those leaders and utilizing the technical expertise of local or U.S.-based NGOs, we can help set an example for other communities to replicate. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)