Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we ``new'' Members don't think to look up at the lights. I apologize, but I appreciate being recognized.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I did not vote for Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. Although Mr. Tillerson was a successful corporate executive, I did not believe that heading the world's largest oil company was the right resume for the Nation's top diplomat. Mr. Tillerson is a man of substantial intellect who wanted to do the right thing, but his record as Secretary of State speaks for itself. He did not do well, and the country, the State Department, and its employees-- including some of our most experienced diplomats who felt they were no longer relevant--paid a substantial price. For that reason, it is imperative that the next Secretary of State has the qualities and professional track record to restore the preeminent role that the Department has traditionally played in U.S. foreign policy. It is also for that reason that today I intend to vote against the nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State. By all accounts, Mr. Pompeo, like Mr. Tillerson, is a man of substantial intellect, and my conversations with him have seemed to confirm that. As we have learned, that alone is not enough to qualify one for a job that should be filled by someone who has proven that he or she understands and is skilled in the art of diplomacy and whose beliefs are consistent with fundamental American values. As the country's top diplomat, the Secretary of State should be a vocal and persuasive advocate for diplomacy to avoid conflict and crises. Unfortunately, I believe Mr. Pompeo's record falls far short. Mike Pompeo has made no secret of his strong support for President Trump, whose saber rattling, provocations, and so-called America First policies would more accurately be described as ``America Alone.'' The President has called for drastic cuts in the State Department's budget and personnel that would sharply diminish its role in diplomacy and development. He would weaken international organizations and alliances that serve our interests and undermine U.S. global leadership at a time when China and our other competitors are seeking every opportunity to expand their global reach. Unlike Secretary of Defense Mattis who, in response to the White House's proposed cuts, has been a strong advocate for the State Department's mission and budget, I am not aware that Mr. Pompeo ever publicly expressed a view either way until his confirmation hearing. Mr. Pompeo supported the invasion of Iraq, and he has defended the use of torture, two of the most profoundly misguided foreign policy decisions since the Vietnam war. As far as I know, it was not until this week, when his nomination was in jeopardy, that he said the Iraq war that he had long defended was a mistake, a mistake that claimed the lives of thousands of American soldiers and sowed chaos in the Middle East. The fact that he has insisted that waterboarding is not torture and, by implication, acceptable should by itself be disqualifying for the job of Secretary of State. He has supported keeping open the Guantanamo detention facility, arguing that detainees ``should stay right where they are'' and that the facility ``is the right place for [detainees] from both a security and legal perspective.'' That is as wrong as it is disturbing. The indefinite detention without trial of detainees at Guantanamo contradicts our most basic principles of justice, degrades our international standing, and harms our national security. Mr. Pompeo's position is particularly troubling, given the President's expressed intent to send new prisoners to Guantanamo for the first time in more than a decade. Mr. Pompeo has opposed what he called the ``disastrous'' Iran nuclear agreement, and he appears to favor withdrawing from it despite the International Atomic Energy Agency's determination that Iran is in compliance and support for the agreement from a wide spectrum of diplomatic, scientific, and national security experts. As far as I am aware, he has offered no realistic alternative, and the consequence would be to isolate the United States from our closest allies and to risk Iran restarting its centrifuges and quickly obtaining a nuclear weapon. During the negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Pompeo supported military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, reportedly arguing that it would take ``under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity,'' which he described as ``not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces.'' It might not be insurmountable, except for the fact that it would be the end of the coalition since few, if any, of our partners would join us. Beyond that, the unilateral use of preemptive military force on that scale in a volatile region in which Russia has its own security interests could ignite a regional war with far-reaching, possibly catastrophic, consequences. While the world's scientists overwhelmingly warn of the long-term dangers of climate change, Mr. Pompeo is an unabashed climate change sceptic. He has said that the Paris Climate Agreement, which is supported by practically every country including China, amounted to ``bowing down to radical environmentalists.'' That is extremist rhetoric about what many believe to be the most serious challenge facing our planet, a challenge that can only be met through diplomacy, and it belies a disturbing intolerance for opposing views. Mr. Pompeo has accused American Muslim leaders of being ``potentially complicit'' in acts of terrorism that they do not specifically condemn. He has said that Muslims ``abhor Christians'' and that they ``will continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior and is truly the only solution for our world.'' It would be hard to think of a more effective way to alienate the Muslim community, without whose help we cannot effectively counter violent extremism. As a Member of Congress, Mr. Pompeo cosponsored legislation to ban all refugee admissions, regardless of country of origin, even though people seeking safety are already subjected to a rigorous vetting process. It should alarm each of us that the nominee to oversee the bureau charged with protecting refugees, migrants, and other vulnerable people uprooted by conflict--a tradition we take pride in--would take such a crass, ideological approach to our country's refugee admissions policies. Mr. Pompeo has suggested that the Federal Government should collect records of American citizens' communications, without warrants and in bulk, and combine them with ``publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'' Think about that, at a time when the public is already outraged by Facebook's and Cambridge Analytica's misuse of personal data. As a Member of Congress, Mr. Pompeo criticized President Obama for going to Cuba, accusing him of making ``unilateral concessions.'' It is true that the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba--which was overwhelmingly supported by the people of both countries--did not include an agreement by the Cuban Government to hold free and fair elections, nor to stop persecuting opponents of the government. No one who knows Cuba expected that. But if free and fair elections and respect for human rights are Mr. Pompeo's prerequisite for having an embassy and an ambassador in a foreign country, we will need to close a lot more embassies than the one in Havana. We could begin with our embassies in China and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would be next, then Jordan and Morocco, Honduras, Vietnam-- the list goes on. The fact is we need embassies staffed with qualified personnel, including in countries whose governments we disagree with, so our diplomats can work to protect our interests and the interests of Americans who travel, study, work, or serve there. That is diplomacy 101. Mr. Pompeo opposes LGBT rights and has no record of defending civil society activists and independent journalists who risk their lives speaking out against corruption and abuses of human rights by foreign security forces, particularly in countries we consider friends or allies. He has also worked against women's reproductive rights, including cosponsoring radical legislation that would make abortion illegal nationwide, even in cases of rape. He voted to defund Planned Parenthood and for the ``global gag rule,'' which prevents foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. funds if they use their own money to provide safe abortions or even information about abortion services in their country. I take no pleasure in opposing Mr. Pompeo's nomination. I wish I could vote for him, as I am the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations. I strongly support the State Department, its mission, its personnel, and its programs. I have consistently defended its budget when others here or in the White House sought to cut it. I am pleased that Mr. Pompeo has said he wants to fill the vacant senior leadership positions at the State Department and that he recognizes that the United States has a duty to ``lead the calls for democracy, prosperity, and human rights around the world.'' But his record in Congress and his staunchly ideological views raise grave concerns about the policy direction he would give to those senior leaders. Given his record and beliefs, there is little reason to believe that he will be an effective or consistent defender of democracy and human rights abroad, particularly in the face of President Trump's abandonment of those values and principles. In many other respects, Mr. Pompeo's testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee had all the characteristics of a ``confirmation conversion,'' when he contradicted many of his previous statements and positions. As Senator Menendez asked, Which Pompeo are we voting for? The job of Secretary of State is too important, especially with Donald Trump in the Oval Office, to roll the dice and discount everything Mr. Pompeo has said in the past. If Mr. Pompeo is confirmed, as it appears he will be, I will make every effort to work with him to advance our foreign policy and national security interests, as I did with Secretary Tillerson after opposing his nomination, but given the impulsive and reckless statements and actions of this President and the upheaval at the State Department during the past year, we need a Secretary with the necessary temperament, values, and longstanding commitment to diplomacy and development. I hope he proves me wrong, but today I do not believe we have that in this nominee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to remember a Vermonter who, with seemingly boundless energy and enthusiasm, devoted her life to her family, her students, her friends, and her community. Hester ``Hep'' Caldwell, who died on April 10, 2018, will be forever remembered and admired for a life well lived. Hep, who lived to be 89, was one of those people who just about everybody liked immediately. She loved people, she loved sports, she loved the outdoors, and she loved living on West Hill in Putney, VT, with her husband, John, whom she first met when they were both just 10 years old. For decades, Hep taught history and John taught mathematics at the Putney School. Besides challenging her students in the classroom, Hep's many passions--hiking, skiing, gardening, classical music--inspired all who knew her. She set an example for generations, young and old, in her home, in the classroom, in woods, fields, and on the slopes and summits of mountains in all seasons of the year and by her many years of community service. Putney will not be the same without Hep, but she has left her mark there and in her children and grandchildren in ways that will live on for generations. I ask unanimous consent that Hep Caldwell's obituary in the Valley News be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to highlight the benefits of international students and scholars who come to the United States to live and study and who have been unfairly penalized by the current administration's efforts to limit travel to our country. I wonder how many Americans are aware of the many ways that international students contribute to our colleges and universities, to our communities, and to our Nation. In economic terms, last year alone, international students contributed an estimated $37 billion to the U.S. economy and created or supported more than 450,000 U.S. jobs. In our State of Vermont, nearly 2,000 international students and their families contributed $83.1 million and supported 850 jobs. One would think that President Trump, who often touts his efforts to create jobs, would want to encourage this. In addition to economic benefits, international students and scholars advance U.S. national security by strengthening our diplomatic and cultural ties with foreign countries. Students and scholars who spend time in the U.S. become informal ambassadors when they return home, sharing an appreciation for common values, counteracting stereotypes about Americans, enhancing respect for cultural differences, and maintaining connections with our country and citizens. However, our country is at risk of losing our position as the most attractive country for international students and scholars and of ceding the critical benefits associated with such a reputation to others. The U.S. Council of Graduate Schools recently reported a decline in international graduate student applications and enrollment for fall 2017, the first such decline in more than a decade. In fiscal year 2017, the U.S. Department of State issued nearly 20 percent fewer student visas compared to the previous fiscal year. Students and scholars are increasingly uncertain about their status in our country, as well as the types of educational and research opportunities that will remain available to international students. This uncertainty and the chilling effects of recent executive orders targeting foreigners appear to be diminishing the ability of the United States and our higher education institutions to remain attractive to international students. At the same time, many other countries--including Australia, Canada, and China--are seizing the opportunity and proactively introducing national policies and marketing strategies to attract talented international students who might otherwise come here. I urge the administration to not ignore the many important contributions to the U.S. economy, national security, and global reputation that are made by international students and scholars. The administration should reconsider its policies that are contributing to uncertainly and reluctance among such individuals, who instead should feel welcomed and encouraged to bring their talents and other contributions to this country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the life and achievements of Dan Akaka, a veteran, educator, U.S. Senator, and most importantly, a dear friend of mine. Dan passed away recently after 93 years of life imbued with the aloha spirit, and I have been reflecting on his legacy of quiet but effective work in the Senate. Dan Akaka was a tireless advocate for indigenous people. As I was working on the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, his cooperation and persistence as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee helped include important provisions to protect Native- American women from violence. He also worked hard to support vital programs that provided education, healthcare, housing, and other basic services for Tribes across the country. A World War II veteran himself, Dan was a strong supporter of the National Guard. He was one the first cosponsors to support my National Guard Empowerment Act and give the Guard the representation that it deserved. He will also be remembered for fighting to have the valor and sacrifice of Asian-American soldiers in World War II recognized, sponsoring legislation that awarded long overdue Medals of Honor to those who had been discriminated against because of their race. Hawaiians were lucky to have him as a champion in the Senate, and I was lucky to have him as a friend. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article ``Daniel Akaka, Former Democratic Senator From Hawaii, Dies At 93'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on March 21, 2018, Vermont lost one of its finest sculptors, Frank Gaylord. Frank Gaylord, a Granite City resident, was a beloved member of the Barre community. Frank influenced the city and its residents, and the city in turn influenced his art. The local granite quarries of Barre provided ample materials for Frank to hone his sculpting skills. Frank served his country not just in World War II, receiving a Bronze Star for his service, but also in creating the Korean War Veterans Memorial, his most famous work, which resides on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The memorial is visually striking; Frank captured the movement and feel of war, the 19 figures of diverse American soldiers are shrouded in ponchos and seem to walk endlessly. Frank called the day the memorial arrived on the National Mall as the highlight of his life. Other examples of Frank's work can be seen in many New England towns, including at the Connecticut capital and in Williston and Montpelier, VT. However, what Vermont will best remember Frank by was his dedication and determination to improve Vermont's own Granite City. Frank's contributions to the Barre Granite Association, as well as to the former Barre Players, will be missed. Frank's passing is a loss to Vermont, to the community of Barre, VT, and to the Nation. I will always remember Frank when I see his work on the National Mall and throughout Vermont, and how he so beautifully captured our country's spirit. I ask unanimous consent that the Times Argus article ``He had an arts spirit: Famed Barre sculptor Frank Gaylord has died'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the magnitude of atrocities and devastation in Syria caused by ISIS and the Assad regime, with support from Russia and Iran, is appalling. When this calamity began in 2011, I doubt anyone predicted it would come to this: hundreds of thousands of people killed; half the population of the country displaced, many living as refugees in neighboring countries; whole cities reduced to rubble riddled with landmines and boobytraps. For years, I, like others here, have called for a comprehensive U.S. strategy for responding to the Syrian crisis that is grounded in cooperation with the international community, to be presented to Congress. I have also supported hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to desperate Syrian civilians. We must at least do what is within our power to address the needs of those affected while efforts are made to bring the violence to an end. I have also defended Congress's sole authority to declare war, which should always be based on a clear strategy. I opposed the Obama administration's proposal for the authorization for the use of force in Syria in 2013 because it was overly broad and would have ceded to the White House power reserved to Congress under the Constitution. I have also opposed the manner in which President Trump has twice launched attacks against Syria without approval from Congress. While I recognize and appreciate the considerable precautions that were taken in the early hours of April 15 by the U.S. military to prevent civilian casualties and avoid targeting Russian assets in Syria, whenever military operations are conducted the outcome is never certain. Things can go terribly wrong. In this instance, instead of demolishing two or three Syrian chemical weapons facilities, we could have triggered a shooting war with Russia, and Israel and Iran might have quickly followed suit. What began as a missile attack lasting a few minutes could have ignited a regional war. That is a risk that Congress must be given the opportunity to weigh. The use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and a violation of international law that cannot be tolerated, but it is also a fact that conventional attacks by the Assad regime have caused far more deaths of innocent men, women, and children. The Assad regime has been slaughtering its own people for more than 7 years by dropping barrel bombs, laying siege to cities to prevent access to food, water, and medicine, and using poison gas. While we all want to act decisively in the face of such atrocities, the United States cannot solve this crisis using Tomahawk missiles. All such attacks can do, it appears, is degrade, most likely only temporarily, Assad's ability to use chemical weapons. This was demonstrated in the aftermath of President Trump's first military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in April 2017. It was conducted with great fanfare, without congressional authorization, and it failed to prevent future attacks. President Trump has now launched a second attack without the approval of Congress, and he has proclaimed ``mission accomplished.'' Why didn't the President seek Congress's approval? And what is the mission? How would we have responded if the attacks had triggered an escalation of violence, potentially spinning out of control? Those critical questions need answers. Perhaps the most fundamental question for this administration is what does President Trump seek to achieve in Syria? Is it limited to defeating ISIS and punishing Assad for using chemical weapons? Are we willing to accept Russia and Iran determining Syria's future? If not, what is the strategy for ending the war, if Russia continues to block diplomatic efforts in the U.N. Security Council? How does the White House explain cutting aid for refugees overseas, withdrawing the United States from the Global Compact on Migration, limiting the resettlement of Syrian refugees here to only 11 people so far in 2018, compared to 790 last year during the same period, and suspending $200 million in U.S. aid for civilians in Syria? Those funds are intended to help improve the livelihoods of Syrians impacted by the war, including to provide access to basic services. Does the White House believe that it is in the national interest to conduct attacks against Syria, at the risk of triggering a wider war and after failing to produce the intended results in the past, but that it is not in our national interest to provide aid to Syrian civilians in areas controlled by our partners? I am also concerned about what these attacks against Syria may reveal about President Trump's willingness to direct a military attack elsewhere without obtaining the consent of Congress, for example, against North Korea or Iran. The conflict in Syria obviously has no easy solution, and it is apparent that it has no military solution. It is the President's job to explain what our strategy is, including how we can overcome Russia's intransigence at the United Nations amidst mounting concerns that we will abandon the Syrian people, before he fires off another volley of missiles that do not get us any closer to a solution and which may have the opposite effect.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in this week when new Pulitzer Prizes were awarded to outstanding reporters and courageous news organizations, I want to take a moment, on behalf of all Vermonters, to recognize and thank an earlier Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Vermont's own David Moats. Until earlier this year, David has been the editorial page editor and the editorial page voice of the Rutland Herald. David Moats is a Green Mountain treasure. John Walters of the newspaper Seven Days called David ``a beacon of quality'' in Vermont journalism. He represents and gave voice to ideals, the aspirations, and the decency that characterize Vermont's vibrant, outward-looking, and engaged citizens. On July 1, 2000, our brave, small State again stepped up to tackle a difficult and momentous issue. That is when Vermont became the first State to offer to same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities of traditional marriage. Vermont's law was written, debated, and approved by the Vermont Legislature. David Moats documented and illuminated the debate that led to that breakthrough. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his series of 20 editorials that were published throughout that difficult and groundbreaking debate. The Pulitzer Committee honored David Moats, in their words, ``For his even-handed and influential series of editorials commenting on the divisive issues arising from civil unions for same-sex couples.'' In 2004, he wrote a book about this debate, ``Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage.'' Ted Widmer, writing in the New York Times Book Review, said this in his review: ``Near the end of `Mr. Deeds Goes to Town,' the Vermonter played by Gary Cooper dishes out a series of homespun metaphors for how government is supposed to treat people, from helping to push a car up a hill to saving a swimmer who's drowning. Obviously, life isn't quite that simple. This will take time. But in the long run, the question will be answered in the vast middle where most Americans live, and where they privately decide what is right and wrong.'' David Moats served as editorial page editor of the Rutland Herald since 1992. Previously, he had worked as the newspaper's wire editor, State editor, assistant managing editor, and city editor. Earlier in life, he served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Afghanistan. He is also the author of 11 plays, has made his home in Middlebury, VT, and is the father of three children, Jared, Thatcher, and Nina Moats. David, we thank you, and we wish you and your family all the best as you write your next chapter. I ask unanimous consent that these excerpts from an editorial titled, ``Legacy,'' in the Rutland Herald last month, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I am a proud Vermonter. My family has lived there for over 150 years. Yesterday, Vermont set an example for the Congress, and for the Nation. A Democratically controlled legislature and a Republican Governor, in a rural State with a strong gun-owning tradition and very few gun laws, worked together to debate, forge, and enact meaningful, commonsense gun safety laws. Yesterday, Governor Phil Scott, who is a Republican, signed three bills into law. They expand background checks, require those under 21 to complete training before purchasing a firearm, create extreme risk protection orders, and ban bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. Vermont did that, and other States are also acting. It makes me wonder why Congress can't do its job and follow that example. In Vermont, this was a debate about what the people of the Green Mountain State could do to keep their communities, schools, and citizens safe. We had some difficult conversations in my home State. Difficult compromises were made. And for the Republicans and Democrats in our legislature, these were difficult votes. In our State, as in every other, there are honest differences on this and many other issues. Vermonters made their voices heard, particularly a brave new generation of student activists inspired by their peers in Parkland, Florida. This isn't the first time that our small but brave State has stepped in and stepped up to tackle difficult but significant issues. On July 1, 2000, Vermont became the first State to offer same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities of traditional marriage. David Moats, the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial page editor of the Rutland Herald, wrote a book about this debate entitled ``Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage.'' Ted Widmer, writing in the New York Times Book Review, said this in his review of the book: Near the end of `Mr. Deeds Goes to Town,' the Vermonter played by Gary Cooper dishes out a series of homespun metaphors for how government is supposed to treat people, from helping to push a car up a hill to saving a swimmer who's drowning. Obviously, life isn't quite that simple. This will take time. But in the long run, the question will be answered in the vast middle where most Americans live, and where they privately decide what is right and wrong. In his remarks at yesterday's bill signing--and I note that the Governor signed the bill sitting at a table outdoors in front of the statehouse, where people who were opposed and people who supported it could watch what he was doing--at that bill signing, Governor Scott spoke as well about civility and public discourse. In a democracy, civility is more than a virtue; it is foundational for the democratic process to work. That is something all of us--all of us in both parties in the Congress and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue--should remember. Here is some of what the Vermont Governor said: Today in America, too many of our fellow citizens--on both sides of every issue, not just on guns--have given up on listening, deciding to no longer consider other opinions, viewpoints or perspectives. Our national dialogue has been reduced to angry, hateful social media posts that you can either `like' or not, with no room for conversation or respectful disagreement, and where facts and details no longer seem to matter. We would be naive to believe that the way we talk to each other, the way we treat each other, and the rise of violence are exclusive to one another. The Governor concluded: These things are hurting our nation. If we can reduce the polarization we're seeing across the country, we can diminish some of the anger at the root of these larger challenges. And this must be part of our ongoing pursuit to reduce violence and make our communities safer. He is right. Those are Vermont values that draw from time-tested American values. Three weeks ago, students from schools across this country led millions of fellow Americans of all ages, races, and backgrounds in marches against gun violence. On that Saturday morning, hours before the march on Washington, I met hundreds of Vermonters who came to the Nation's Capital. My wife Marcelle and I hosted a gathering with them. They were here to lend their voices to what has become a national outcry for commonsense reforms to reduce gun violence. Thousands more rallied in our capital city of Montpelier, in Rutland, and in other Vermont towns for a ban on military-style assault rifles and on high-capacity magazines; for universal background checks, so that if you have a felony record you are not going to be able to buy a gun; and for laws that keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those who seek to do us harm. I have rarely been more inspired than when I was listening to the eloquence, the clarity, and the indignant frustration in the poignant speeches of those students. To hear their stories, to hear of the loss and grief and the unsettling and unyielding fear resulting from not knowing whether your school will be next. I am reminded again of the appalling number of school shootings and the other daily tragedies caused by guns and the lasting and physical scars and trauma that gun violence has had on children, families, and neighborhoods, in cities and towns in every State of this country. How can one not feel that our generation has failed miserably to deal with the epidemic of gun violence? How can one not feel that the gun lobby and others who reflexively oppose all efforts at reform, no matter how modest or grounded in common sense, have won? Commonly exploited loopholes in our gun laws allow practically anyone--even those who are criminals or those who openly intend to do us harm--to buy 1 or 10 or 50 guns, guns that can shoot as many rounds per minute as you can pull the trigger or even more with the assistance of readily available accessories, like bump stocks. What have we done to stop it? Not nearly enough. Over a period of many years, I have introduced or cosponsored and advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee many pieces of legislation to stop it. This includes legislation to close background check loopholes--loopholes that allow criminals with records of violent crime to buy weapons--to ban military-style assault rifles, and to shut down the black market for firearms by strengthening tools to prosecute straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. We have gotten some of them through committee. Sometimes we have passed them on the Senate floor. But each time, the gun lobby has prevailed in blocking these efforts, just as they have blocked the efforts of others who have dared to take steps to reduce gun violence. The students are right. They don't just want our thoughts and prayers. They don't want us to stand up and piously say: What a tragedy. They don't want their teachers to have guns, and neither do their teachers. They don't just want a ban on bump stocks. They want real, meaningful change. They are saying enough is enough. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown, Roseburg, Parkland--these are school shootings that made the front pages, but there are hundreds of others. There were 18 school shootings in the first 3 months of 2018 alone. As horrific as that is, it is only a part of the problem. Every day, an average of 318 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, and suicide attempts--every day, 318. That is an epidemic, and we need to treat it like one. You can hear the outrage, and the fear, in the students' voices. I am probably the only Member of this body who has gone to murder scenes, who has been there in the middle of the night and seen a child who has been shot to death, knowing that I would be the one who would have to order the autopsy and have investigators from my office, when I was a prosecutor, notify the parents that their child was not coming back. I have seen so many people shot to death, I still have nightmares about them. Those who hold up the Second Amendment as somehow justifying their opposition to commonsense gun control laws could not be more wrong. None of the tragedies those students, our schools, our communities, our country are experiencing today are the price we must pay for the Second Amendment. None of the proposals in Congress threaten an individual's right to own a gun, nor would the bills signed by Governor Phil Scott. Any such argument is nothing more than baseless fearmongering. I have heard the NRA and some of its defenders ridicule the students for speaking out about seeing their fellow students shot. If you have seen somebody who has been shot to death, as I have on many occasions, you do not forget that. It was over 40 years ago that I was a prosecutor. There is hardly a day that goes by that I don't remember some of those scenes. When high-priced lobbyists or pundits go on national TV to belittle teenagers who saw their friends gunned down in their classrooms and who had the courage to speak for those who died, then the corrosive power of money and politics is glaringly apparent. Those children will never forget what they saw. I know. I know they will not. It reminds me of how the first and loudest voices in favor of using military force are rarely those who have actually experienced combat themselves. I wonder how many of those who represent the gun lobby have experienced what those students went through or have seen people who have been shot to death as I have and--worse yet--as those children did, seeing it when it happened and when it was friends of theirs. As much as I shudder to remember what I saw, it was nothing compared to what they saw. The only solution I have heard offered by those who oppose reform is to put more guns in the hands of good people. Well, I am a gun owner. We do need well-trained, well-equipped community police officers. I strongly support school resource officers, and we should invest more in our police. But police armed with assault rifles at every school, at every movie theater, in every church, on every street corner in America, at every shopping mall, at every museum--is that the solution? Is that the United States of America we want? We should talk to the police. We would find that police across this country support stricter, commonsense gun safety laws. It is Congress's job to regulate when regulations are needed, and we have a responsibility to do so when so many Americans' lives are at stake. Let's use the power we have to do what the Constitution requires of us and what the American people overwhelmingly are asking us to do. The students who organized these marches have challenged us. President Trump, your party controls the Congress. Members of Congress can act or they can continue to make excuses or remain silent in hopes that this issue goes away. But, I can tell you, these students aren't going away--not the students I have met, not the students whose determination is in their eyes and in their voices. It is time for you, President Trump, and for this Congress to do right by these students and by all Americans who are asking their leaders to stop gun violence. Follow Vermont's example. Support comprehensive, commonsense gun reform legislation, just as you said you would when you met with Members of Congress of both parties after the Parkland shooting. Keep your word. Do what you said you would do, but this time follow through. Fight for it so that it passes, and sign it. Listen to the words we heard yesterday in Montpelier, VT. Stop the shouting on either side. Have people sit down and talk about what the American people really want and what the American people really need, and listen to each other. But then let's do it. Let's do it. I think it can be done. I know any killing is terrible, but as a parent and a grandparent, I wonder how anyone can think of a child or grandchild having to witness such a horrible thing. It should stop. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Carper from Delaware.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are at an interesting time. We have had months of intense negotiations, sometimes lasting all night and throughout weekends. We have had very tough choices. We have had some very good-faith compromises. In other words, we have actually handled legislation the way we should. We have reached a bipartisan agreement to fund the government for this fiscal year and to make renewed investments in the American people and to protect our national security. The fiscal year 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill has $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. That includes $700 billion for defense programs to support our men and women in uniform and $600 billion in nondefense programs that will help us invest in America and support our working families. The bill has critical resources dedicated to combating the opioid epidemic, to rebuilding America's infrastructure, to improving healthcare facilities for our veterans, to improving access to affordable healthcare for all Americans, to ensuring the security of our elections, to supporting advances in scientific research, and to investing in rural communities across the country. The Presiding Officer and every Senator have rural parts of their States, and the investments to be made in those rural communities should be good news for every Senator. These investments would not have been possible without the 2018 bipartisan budget agreement that lifted the budget caps on discretionary spending--lifted the caps for defense by $80 billion and for nondefense by $63 billion--providing relief from the severe cuts in both defense and nondefense known as sequestration. The consequences of the 2011 Budget Control Act, which mandated sequestration, have been devastating to our military and domestic priorities. This bill is a long-awaited step toward reversing those cuts and allowing us to reinvest in the American people. I wish the President would actually read what is in the bill. He is calling these investments in our country's priorities a waste. Can you imagine--investing in the priorities of the United States of America a waste? This morning, he tweeted that they were ``Dem''--I suppose he means Democrats--``giveaways.'' I would ask, Mr. President, is it a giveaway to provide medical care for the 7 million veterans who rely on the VA? I would ask, is it a giveaway to help the family in Rutland, VT, heat their home during a dangerously cold winter so they can afford their groceries? I would ask, is it a giveaway to finally take the opioid crisis seriously by making investments in research, treatment, and prevention? The President slammed our efforts for budget parity, but he has since shamelessly held press conferences to tout initiatives only made possible by this agreement, including the sizeable new investments to counter the opioid epidemic. Even though it was critical that we put money in for that, he is now saying, of course, it was his idea. A budget is where you set your priorities. The President made clear in his budget that his priorities do not rest with the needs of hard- working, middle-class Americans. The bill rejects many of those areas where the President wanted cuts in the needs of hard-working, middle- class Americans. Instead, the bill sets a vision for the future of our country. We invest not only in the wealthiest among us but in middle- class families and those who are struggling to make their way and make their community better. We dedicate $18.25 billion to begin rebuilding our infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our country's infrastructure a D-plus. A lot of countries have much higher. This was the collective grade for the roads, bridges, dams, drinking water, wastewater, public parks, and schools on which we all depend. That is not acceptable, not in this country, and this bill is an important, long-overdue step toward bringing our infrastructure into the 21st century. The bill takes the opioid crisis seriously by investing $3.3 billion into law enforcement, healthcare, and community efforts that we know help to rid our country of this scourge. The time for sloganeering and sound bites is over. I have always preferred substance over slogans, and the time for real, effective, and meaningful investment in ending this epidemic has arrived. Marcelle and I have met with too many Vermonters as we go around our State who are impacted by opioid abuse, too many neighbors and friends who are struggling to get the help they need or to help those in need. I am glad that when I return to Vermont, I can say that we heard them, and we delivered. This bill strongly rejects the partisan package passed by House Republicans in September, which would have recklessly slashed funding for domestic priorities by $68 billion below the bipartisan agreement introduced Wednesday. Most importantly, this bill rejects devastating cuts proposed by the Trump administration. These included the President's proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, which helps ensure we have clean air and drinking water. The bill rejects his cuts to job training, education, and childcare programs that so many of our Nation's working families rely on. It rejects the President's misguided proposal to slash the budget for the Department of State. This bill also rejects the President's misguided immigration priorities by refusing his request to hire an additional 850 ICE agents and increase the number of ICE detention beds. It also rejects his request to build a ``big, beautiful wall'' on the southern border--something that reflects last century's technology. Instead of his original $1.6 billion request for 74 miles of wall, which was later increased to a request for $18 billion to build a wall on the entire southern border, the bill funds only a fraction of that, and it includes important restrictions on how the funds can be used. The bill provides $641 million for 33 miles of fencing in the Rio Grande Valley, $251 million to replace secondary fencing, which is already in San Diego, and $445 million for replacement of existing pedestrian fencing. It speaks to real need, not to funding a campaign slogan. Incidentally, in the request, somehow the campaign promise that this would be paid for by Mexico, and not by American taxpayers, seems to have been forgotten. Importantly, the bill includes language requiring the Department of Homeland Security to use proven fence designs that currently exist on the border instead of allowing the President to build a 30-foot concrete wall, which would endanger our men and women who patrol the border. I would still like the President to tell us when and how he wants Mexico to cover these costs because, time and again, he promised the American people Mexico would a pay for it. Time and again, he gave us his word. We now know that was never a promise he could keep. One critical thing missing from this bill, though, is a remedy for the crisis the President has created, and that crisis relates to DACA recipients. I have watched with fury as the President has, day after day, tweeted the Democrats are responsible for not addressing DACA. Late last night, he tweeted: Democrats refused to take care of DACA. Would have been so easy, but they just didn't care. Balderdash. For nearly two decades, I have been a proud supporter of the DREAM Act. I included it in the 2013 comprehensive immigration bill. I care. Democrats care. We voted for that bill on the floor of the Senate. Republican leadership in the House refused to take it up. Yet, after promising before Members of Congress in both parties and the American people, making a big splash on TV, the President said he would sign an agreement to address DACA, but then he walked away from a bipartisan DACA and border security compromise in February. There is no fix for DACA because the President and the Republican leadership are not serious about getting one. I wish they would. This Senator is willing to sit down with any Senator--Republican or Democratic--if we can get such an agreement. This bill does strike more than 130 poison pill riders. These riders would have restricted women's access to healthcare. They would have rolled back environmental protections. They would have put significant restrictions on consumer financial protections. Had these riders stayed in, we would not have reached a successful conclusion to this negotiation, notwithstanding the all-night sessions of negotiating, notwithstanding the weekends. I do not agree with everything in this bill. When you have a package of this magnitude, there is always going to be matters included that we like and things on which we disagree. That is the nature of compromise, but the Senate was designed by the Founders of this country to require compromise. This bill represents tangible progress that is going to benefit all Americans, and I am proud of the compromise Republicans and Democrats reached together. I thank my own staff. They have worked days and nights and weekends. I am able to leave at night. They are still working well past midnight. I was able to go to Vermont last weekend. I worked with them by phone, but they stayed here working throughout the weekend--all hours, for several weeks, and nonstop in the homestretch of finishing this comprehensive bill: My staff director, Chuck Kieffer, whose experience and depth of knowledge has become essential to me in my role as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It was especially helpful, too, that Mr. Kieffer's expertise was available to any Senator who asked--Republican or Democratic; Chanda Betourney, a native Vermonter, deputy staff director and general counsel, who has taken with her to these negotiations her Vermont values and her long Senate experience; Jessica Berry, another native Vermonter, who has fought for many of my priorities, and those of other Members in this body, in this spending bill; Jay Tilton, my committee press secretary, who has gotten the word out far and wide about the importance of this bill so everybody, even though we work all night long many times--people would know exactly what we have been doing; Jean Kwon, who has provided hours of support to the entire Appropriations Committee staff. I also thank the Democratic subcommittee clerks for their support and their tireless efforts in crafting this bill: Tim Rieser, Jessica Schulken, Jean Toal Eisen, Erik Raven, Doug Clapp, Ellen Murray, Scott Nance, Rachel Taylor, Alex Keenan, Melissa Zimmerman, Chad Schulken, and Dabney Hegg. I also thank my dear friend, one of the most senior Republicans in this body, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran. It has been an honor and pleasure to serve with him. Senator Cochran and I have served together since 1978. We have worked together on appropriations matters, agriculture matters, every matter before this body. We have traveled the world together to help carry out America's interests. It has been a particular honor to work with him on this appropriations bill. It is his last in the U.S. Senate. As vice chairman, I salute the chairman. He is going to be sorely missed. I spoke about him earlier today. I thank Chairman Cochran's staff for all their hard work on this bill. Particularly, I want to thank Bruce Evans and Fitzhugh Elder. They both have had long careers in the U.S. Senate. They share Chairman Cochran's dedication to this institution and his dedication to his own State of Mississippi, and they have been a pleasure for me and my staff to work with. I say this to the Appropriations Committee staff--both the Democrats and the Republicans, some who are in the Chamber today--I thank you for the long nights and weekends you worked to get this bill across the finish line. We could not have done it without your hard work. I hope you will soon be able to spend time with your families and friends. I am sure they remember what you looked like since you left to continue this work. Certainly, we Senators know what you look like because we have seen you practically around the clock. The work has been worth it. Because of the tremendous work the staff on both sides of the aisle and the leadership staff have done, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill. When we can, I hope this body will give a resounding aye and send the bill to the President. I don't see any Senator seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished other Senator from Mississippi for their comments. I have often thought that Thad Cochran and I would serve here together straight through whatever time we have in the Senate. Because he is such a dear friend, I have often felt that Senator Thad Cochran was plucked from a central casting to fill the role of a devoted public servant. More than most of us, he looks the part, but more than most of us, he embodies the best of what the Senate can be. Currently, in this body, I have served longer here than anybody else, but I have never felt closer to a Senator than I do to Thad Cochran, my dear friend. Our country needs more public servants like Thad. As Congress has become more partisan in recent years, Thad has stood by his values. He brings substance, not sound-bites, to the upper Chamber. His leadership, as has been described, as ``the quiet persuader'' is going to be missed. They talk about his being the son of a schoolteacher. So it is no shock that he devoted his life to public service. He joined the Navy after graduating from Ole Miss. He went on to earn a law degree from the University of Mississippi and then became engaged in Mississippi politics, often traveling with his father to help with voter registrations in campaigns around the State. He worked on campaigns from county sheriff to the Governor's race. Thad then went to the House in 1972--here to Washington, a couple years ahead of me--and then we became Senate partners in 1978. He and I both became chairmen of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Today in the committee's hearings room, our official portraits hang together. It is easy to tell them apart. He is the one with the hair and better looking. Marcelle and I have joined Thad in Mississippi to visit sprawling cotton farms and fish farms, and twice Thad joined me in Vermont to visit small family dairy farmers. I even introduced him to my mother in Montpelier. Now, I have to make a confession here, and I hope this doesn't go out of this room. It was during one of those trips to Vermont--to St. Johnsbury, VT--in 1985 that I had extolled the beauty of Vermont in the wintertime. When we arrived, I think the southern gentleman was not ready for temperatures that dipped down to around 20 below zero. That is cold weather even by Vermont standards. This wonderful southern gentleman turned to me and he said: Pat, this is not Mississippi weather. Then, he made a few other suggestions of what I was trying to do to him, but we had a wonderful visit just the same. We stayed in what is called the Rabbit Inn, with fireplaces going. The next day at our meetings, I think Vermont was ready to elect Thad Cochran as its third Senator, because he was so impressive. We also traveled beyond Vermont and Mississippi. We met with leaders around the world. As senior Members of the Senate, we could go in a bipartisan way to see what they thought about the United States and to answer their questions. We and our wives became closer in these fact- finding visits. No matter how long the trip was--and some were to the other side of the Earth--Thad, through his conversation and his friendship, made even the longest trip seem short. In our travels, one of the things I could always count on was that Thad would always check in on the Cochran fellows in whatever country we were in. Starting in 1984, the Cochran Fellowship Program has provided training for more than 17,500 people from 125 different countries to develop agricultural systems and to strengthen trade between our countries. The program also strengthens understanding between the United States and other countries. Thad is leaving a legacy that is tied to our Nation's agricultural development. When he was chair of the Agriculture Committee, he left his fingerprints on the farm bill, which are still there today. More recently, we championed the reauthorization of the Farm to School Program, which provides Federal resources to bring fresh and nutritious local food from local farmers to more than 40,000 schools across the country, including 83 percent of the schools in Vermont--what a legacy, as the son of a teacher and a great advocate for Mississippi farmers. Thad knows how important this program is to strengthening local farm economies and educating young kids and their families about the importance of eating locally grown and nutritionally dense food. This picture was taken as we were visiting a farm--obviously not when it was 25 below zero. It was probably a warm summer day. So that is why we only have on light sweaters. Even though we are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, Thad and I have crossed the aisle to work hand-in-hand for the American people--from our work in the Senate to our work for years as regents at the Smithsonian. In every bill and program on which we have worked, he has been a Senator with integrity, decency, civility, and, most importantly, a dear and cherished friend. Thad will always keep his word, and I tell that to the Senate because that is a quality that is becoming too rare sometimes in both parties. He is old school. Many of us would say the best school. When I became vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I knew I would have a steadfast partner in Senator Cochran. He has earned the moniker of ``the quiet persuader.'' He was also referred to by one of the members of the Appropriations Committee once--a moniker that should be appreciated--as a workhorse, not a show horse. That is why he has been so successful--the quiet persuader. Well, the quite persuader, when Hurricane Katrina struck, used his leadership to direct nearly $100 billion to communities on the gulf coast to rebuild. Thad will leave this Chamber having cast more than 13,000 votes and becoming the 10th longest serving Senator in the history of our country. A constant champion of Mississippi and the American people, I don't think many people truly understand how much Senator Cochran has accomplished for his State and his country. Marcelle and I count Thad and Kay among our dearest friends. His leadership on the Appropriations Committee in the Senate will be sorely missed. Our country needs more devoted public servants like Thad Cochran, and I am sad to see my dear friend leave. But I know his legacy is a presence that will be felt in this Chamber, in Mississippi, and across the country for generations to come. I will enjoy looking at the photographs of my dear friend taken in Vermont, Mississippi, and around the world. He is one of my heroes. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am voting for this legislation because, on balance, I believe it will provide important legal recourse to victims of sex trafficking and will help hold accountable those websites that seek to exploit them. Protecting these victims should be our top priority. There have been concerns raised that this legislation may have an unintended--and harmful--impact on one of the key laws underpinning the free and open Internet. That key law is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, CDA 230, which promotes free expression and innovation by protecting online platforms from a range of laws that might otherwise hold them unfairly accountable for everything their individual users may say and do online. This law defends free speech online and has encouraged innovations ranging from the earliest online bulletin board systems to today's platforms for social media and user- generated video. Without the protections of CDA 230, the internet would be a very different place today. Today's legislation amends CDA 230 by, among other things, prohibiting construing that law to limit Federal or State civil liability for conduct that involves ``knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a violation of'' Federal child sex trafficking laws. Clearly, CDA 230 was never intended to be a shield to protect child sex traffickers, and it should not, but there is concern this legislation could potentially open up providers and websites who operate in good faith to new liability risks for what their users say or do, which could harm free expression. Also, the threat of this liability will fall especially hard on smaller platforms that have fewer resources to fight lawsuits, even ones without merit, which could harm innovation. As a result, I do not take amendments to this core protection for free expression and innovation online lightly. I am voting in favor of today's legislation because we must balance those possible risks against the very real scourge this legislation will forcefully combat: sex trafficking, including trafficking of underage youth. Just earlier this week, Senators Collins, Heitkamp, and I reintroduced our bipartisan bill to curb youth homelessness and support young victims of trafficking, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. This is an issue I have long been committed to addressing. Today's legislation represents a step in the right direction, and I will support it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is about time we had a debate, if only for a few hours, on the participation of the U.S. military in the civil war in Yemen. Frankly, I cannot comprehend nor am I able to explain to my Vermont constituents the ongoing involvement of U.S. troops in support of the Saudi-led coalition as it flies U.S.-origin planes and drops U.S.-made bombs--purchased at a discount thanks to American taxpayers--amid continued reports of indiscriminate targeting and horrific civilian casualties. These are not isolated incidents in Yemen. They have occurred time after time over the past 3 years. Houses, health clinics, and markets are destroyed, millions of people uprooted from their homes. Whether extreme negligence or intentional and a war crime, the effect is the same for those who are killed, wounded, or displaced. There is no evidence that U.S. military involvement nor the recurrent appeals of international humanitarian and human rights organizations has improved the situation. This is not just a matter of the carnage we have observed. It is that we are supporting these military operations at all. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and the ongoing participation of U.S. forces in the Saudi-led coalition's war against the Houthis in Yemen clearly meets the definition of the ``introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities'' under the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution also authorizes Congress to direct the removal of U.S. forces if their introduction has not been authorized by law, as is the case in the war against the Houthis. That is why I support the resolution before us, S.J. Res. 54, which would exercise Congress's prerogative to limit the involvement of U.S. forces, in this case to the narrow purpose of combatting al-Qaida, which does serve our national security interests in the region. I recognize, as some others have pointed out, that the war in Yemen is part of a larger conflict of interests and ideology between Iran and Saudi Arabia. If there are other legitimate and compelling national security interests that justify the deployment of U.S. forces in that region, let us debate them. We should also be doing more to demand greater transparency and accountability for civilian casualties in Yemen, regardless of the context in which they occur. If the Saudis want U.S.-taxpayer subsidies, they need to focus their efforts on terrorists, take effective steps to minimize civilian casualties, and credibly investigate such casualties when they occur. I have heard Senators who oppose this resolution say they intend to hold hearings and focus more attention on what is happening in Yemen. I welcome that, but I have to wonder why it has taken so long and whether anything will change as a result. Yemen has been a humanitarian disaster for years, and there is no end in sight. The Foreign Relations Committee should have held hearings and voted to invoke the War Powers Resolution when the U.S. military first became involved in Yemen. This is not a new crisis, and other than the increasing toll of death and destruction. the facts on the ground have not materially changed. The Saudis have seemingly done nothing to improve the conduct of their air force in Yemen. The least we can do is support this sensible resolution to put an end to the unauthorized involvement of the U.S. military in this civil war, as the War Powers Resolution compels us to do. The alternative is conceding unchecked power to the executive branch to use U.S. troops in support of any armed conflict, without congressional debate or authorization. That is just what the War Powers Resolution was designed to prevent. It is time to live up to the responsibility entrusted to us in the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war. If we are unwilling to do so, we have no business asking the men and women of the U.S. military to risk their lives in Yemen today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for 50 years, the Vermont State Housing Authority, VSHA, has helped make available secure, safe, and affordable housing in my home State of Vermont. Founded in 1968, the Vermont State Housing Authority provides thousands of Vermonters with the resources they need to find housing that works for them. As the first statewide housing authority in the Nation, VSHA was a pioneer in the field, as they built a successful program from the ground up without existing State models or best practices to replicate. Not only does VSHA help Vermonters of all ages and backgrounds find a home through Federal or State programs, they also provide critical support to those who need it most. The VSHA offers a variety of assistance and resources to the refugee population that has settled in Vermont, including free interpreter services and the promise of a friendly face ready to help navigate a new beginning in an unfamiliar culture. Further, VSHA staff make what can be a frightening transition more tailored, personal, and comfortable--helping new citizens acclimate and assimilate into their new communities. From connecting families in need with resources from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to developing innovative programs that inspire self-sufficiency and long-term independence, to promoting affordable housing for veterans, VSHA is involved in every community in Vermont. VSHA, though the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, helps families achieve economic stability and independence. As of the fall of last year, the program has graduated 194 people and has assisted a total of 153 Vermonters in becoming first-time homeowners through the homeownership program. While homeownership is a critical piece of building wealth and a hallmark of the American dream, it is often a far off dream for many families who struggle just to find a stable and affordable place to call home. As more and more families struggle to make ends meet, especially when affordable units are few and far in between and housing prices continue to rise, the team at VSHA, led by their executive director of more than 30 years, Richard Williams, has worked hard to ensure that we work to meet the needs of our community. Though support for our most vulnerable populations is first and foremost in the minds of the VSHA team, it is clear that civic engagement and involvement plays a large role as well. The VSHA is involved in partnerships with dozens of Vermont nonprofit organizations, State and Federal agencies, and private sector businesses. Through their work rehabilitating and managing buildings, VSHA has revitalized our communities and downtowns one by one. The Vermont State Housing Authority has made a lasting difference in the lives of Vermonters across our great State. For that, I thank them. On behalf of all Vermonters, congratulations on 50 years of hard work, dedication, and outstanding commitment to those you serve.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my wife, Marcelle, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the Wayside's 100th anniversary. I remember when my sister, Mary, brother, John, and I would go with my parents, Howard and Alba Leahy, for a special treat: Sunday after church, we would go to the Wayside for lunch. I remember my mother speaking Italian with some of the people there, but it was particularly special because of the fact that we would see everybody we knew from Montpelier and Barre, where my father was born. Even today, I hold those memories from when I was a child, and I have thought of them every time Marcelle and I have brought our children, and now our grandchildren, for lunch at the Wayside. This is one of the institutions that makes Vermont the most special place in our country. I ask unanimous consent that a press release commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Wayside Restaurant be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to once again join with Senator Collins to introduce the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. Senator Collins and I have championed this effort together for years now, and I thank her for her thoughtful and steadfast advocacy and constructive contribution throughout our efforts. Our bill will extend for five years key programs authorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and expand and improve the programs and services that are vital--and sometimes lifesaving--resources and safe havens for at risk youth in our home states and across the country. Runaway and homeless youth are significantly more likely to become victims of sexual abuse and trafficking. Our bill ensures that service providers, who are the bedrock of the support system for runaway and homeless youth, have the information, training, and resources they need to identify and serve youth that have been victims of trauma. This includes connecting the youth with appropriate additional services to ensure their physical and mental health and safety. The bill reauthorizes and expands programs and guidance that help providers reunify youth with their families and loved ones, or, if not possible, provide a tailored and comprehensive support system to help them get back on their feet or on a path to self-sufficiency. The spectrum of support services include emergency and transitional housing--because the first step is having a safe place to stay. They also include training and counseling relating to physical and mental health care, financial literacy, and workforce training. Runaway and Homeless Youth providers are there for the youth every step of the way, supporting them and connecting them to their community and to available resources. Our reauthorization adds completion of the Free Application for Financial Student Aid (FAFSA) form to the available assistance to help youth who wish to pursue advanced educational opportunities realize their goals. Finally, our bill ensures that no child can be discriminated against in trying to gain access to access services or housing through Runaway and Homeless Youth programs. It is unconscionable to turn away any child in need--gay, straight, black or white. These are our Nation's most vulnerable youth and they must all feel welcome. In many cases, Runaway and Homeless Youth programs can be a last resort. We cannot let one child fall through the cracks in our support system. In Vermont alone, the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs served 500 young people in need of housing supports in Fiscal Year 2017. Vermont is the seventh most expensive State to live in for rural areas, and ranks within the top five States for the largest shortfall between housing wage and renter wage. As youth and families struggle to make ends meet in Vermont and across the Nation, these programs and support systems are more important than ever. We must invest the resources to ensure our youth have a safe place to go and the resources they need to become self-sufficient. Senator Collins and I know just how dangerous and unpredictable the weather can be in the Northeast. In fact, we are getting hit with yet another nor'easter complete with fresh snow this week. No child in either of our states, or anywhere in the United States, should have to call the street home. The bill we are introducing today will help ensure our nation's children have a safe place to stay and have the support they need to grow, learn, and thrive.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to once again join with Senator Collins to introduce the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. Senator Collins and I have championed this effort together for years now, and I thank her for her thoughtful and steadfast advocacy and constructive contribution throughout our efforts. Our bill will extend for five years key programs authorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and expand and improve the programs and services that are vital--and sometimes lifesaving--resources and safe havens for at risk youth in our home states and across the country. Runaway and homeless youth are significantly more likely to become victims of sexual abuse and trafficking. Our bill ensures that service providers, who are the bedrock of the support system for runaway and homeless youth, have the information, training, and resources they need to identify and serve youth that have been victims of trauma. This includes connecting the youth with appropriate additional services to ensure their physical and mental health and safety. The bill reauthorizes and expands programs and guidance that help providers reunify youth with their families and loved ones, or, if not possible, provide a tailored and comprehensive support system to help them get back on their feet or on a path to self-sufficiency. The spectrum of support services include emergency and transitional housing--because the first step is having a safe place to stay. They also include training and counseling relating to physical and mental health care, financial literacy, and workforce training. Runaway and Homeless Youth providers are there for the youth every step of the way, supporting them and connecting them to their community and to available resources. Our reauthorization adds completion of the Free Application for Financial Student Aid (FAFSA) form to the available assistance to help youth who wish to pursue advanced educational opportunities realize their goals. Finally, our bill ensures that no child can be discriminated against in trying to gain access to access services or housing through Runaway and Homeless Youth programs. It is unconscionable to turn away any child in need--gay, straight, black or white. These are our Nation's most vulnerable youth and they must all feel welcome. In many cases, Runaway and Homeless Youth programs can be a last resort. We cannot let one child fall through the cracks in our support system. In Vermont alone, the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs served 500 young people in need of housing supports in Fiscal Year 2017. Vermont is the seventh most expensive State to live in for rural areas, and ranks within the top five States for the largest shortfall between housing wage and renter wage. As youth and families struggle to make ends meet in Vermont and across the Nation, these programs and support systems are more important than ever. We must invest the resources to ensure our youth have a safe place to go and the resources they need to become self-sufficient. Senator Collins and I know just how dangerous and unpredictable the weather can be in the Northeast. In fact, we are getting hit with yet another nor'easter complete with fresh snow this week. No child in either of our states, or anywhere in the United States, should have to call the street home. The bill we are introducing today will help ensure our nation's children have a safe place to stay and have the support they need to grow, learn, and thrive.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 10 years ago this month, we saw the first domino fall toward the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Some of our country's largest financial institutions were facing capital and liquidity crises, and it became clear that many of the biggest banks would need a massive injection of capital, in the form of a taxpayer bailout, to prevent what then-Chairman Bernanke called the ``chaotic unwinding'' of financial markets. The near collapse of the U.S. financial system had a real and lasting impact on the prosperity of the United States, reaching the pocketbooks and kitchen tables of every American family and the stability of the world's economy across all sectors. We--and I do mean we--you, me and all tax-paying U.S. citizens footed the bill for the risky and cavalier behavior of our country's biggest banks, allowed largely by a poorly regulated system that brought our economy to its knees. American taxpayer dollars propped up our financial system to prevent its catastrophic failure, an economic collapse that would have wrought even more damage and misery on tens of millions of American households. The crisis clearly exposed deep flaws in our regulatory system and a serious lack of oversight of the financial sector. It taught us that looking the other way and trusting the system to check and right itself will always result in a race to the bottom in terms of capitalization, risk-taking, transparency, and, too often, casual lending practices. Big Banks and their executives took on untold and unnecessary risks, hid their financial well-being and, at best, misinformed their investors and, at worst, downright lied. This behavior was supported and left unchecked by a regulatory regime without the oversight to identify and teeth to prevent rampant risk-taking in the name of short- term profit. We vowed we would never again put American taxpayers on the hook to bail out Big Banks. To that end, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, the most sweeping, comprehensive reforms to our financial system since the 1930s. These changes, including new regulations and enforcement mechanisms, were necessary to prevent the recurrence of the systematic profit-driven actions of bad actors throughout our financial system. Dodd-Frank required Big Banks to meet capital requirements, pass stress tests, and make plans for their orderly liquidation in case of failure. All of these requirements were designed to prevent another taxpayer bailout, and they are working. By design, these standards are difficult to meet, but they have not prevented banks from profiting. Big Banks, in fact, are thriving. They continue to protect American taxpayers who are, rightly, wary of the behavior of Big Banks. Now is not the time to roll back these protective rules for Big Banks. They don't need it. No one except these big hanks will benefit, and it would all be at the risk of future bailouts. Without these standards, we will again see bank executives influenced by compensation packages that favor risky short-term profits over sound investments and loan quantity over quality. If we roll back commonsense oversight of Big Banks, we should expect banks to take advantage of their newfound flexibility and reintroduce risky practices like failing to ensure they are adequately capitalized and mitigating risk. Like most sweeping reforms, some pieces of the Dodd-Frank Act had unintended consequences. We talk a lot about banks that are too big to fail, but not about banks too small to succeed or perhaps too small to comply with the new regulatory regime. Authority was granted to new and existing agencies to mandate certain regulatory requirements intended to safeguard our financial system. Our small community banks and credit unions have done their best to comply with these one-size-fits-all regulations and rules, often to the great detriment to their businesses, their bottom lines, and their relationships with their community and customers. I have heard from community bankers who, instead of focusing on Vermonters' needs and tailoring their financial services in the honest and professional way that is a hallmark of doing business in a small community, must spend much of their time crossing Ts, dotting Is, and collecting data for fear of the consequences of minor errors. That is not how small community bankers should be spending their time and not how they maintain the flexibility necessary to meet the needs of their communities. Our community banks and credit unions did not cause the financial crisis; yet they are still paying the price for it, and by extension, the consumers they serve. I am glad that this bill provides some regulatory relief for smaller and community banks. If regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions were its own bill, we would be lining up to support it--or even more likely, pass it by unanimous consent. But what started out as an effort to help small community banks has been hijacked by Big Banks and their supporters in Congress. I am extremely disappointed that this essential relief has been coupled with some very significant changes to regulations on the biggest banks, banks that took hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts. This is the handiwork of savvy lobbyists pushing a deregulatory agenda and hiding it behind relief for our community bankers. They know community banks are the backbone of our communities and that they enjoy the support of their representatives. It is frustrating that we could not consider, debate, and pass a bill that would responsibly allow community banks to better serve and revert to relationship lending in their communities without revisiting these additional oversight measures on Big Banks that our constituents demand and deserve. All told, this bill will substantially deregulate some 25 of the largest 38 banks and will require fewer stress tests which are effective ways to measure a bank's ability to withstand sudden or prolonged economic downturns. I do not believe this is an appropriate way to relieve our community banks and credit unions, and I am concerned that instead of safeguarding our economy, this legislation will instead open up our taxpayers to even more risk at the hands of bank executives. For these reasons, I cannot support the Big Bank protection act that this bill has become. I am disappointed that instead of passing what we said we wanted--relief for small banks that are being punished for something they did not cause--this bill will roll back the very rules that hold Big Banks accountable and that protect our economy and the American people. To conclude, I ask unanimous consent that an opinion piece by Vermont Law School Professor Jennifer Taub, which appeared online at CNN.com, be printed in the Record. In it, she discusses the troubling flaws of this proposed legislation. Her words would be instructive to the Senate as we are poised to roll back some of the strongest protections we have against another financial crisis.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was just at a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and we were talking about what continues to happen, over and over again in this country--mass shootings. We are an outlier in this country, as we have far more shooting deaths per capita than any other similar country in the world, and we heard some of the things that make it difficult to attack the problem. For example, Congress has passed legislation that cripples the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. When ATF is asked to perform a trace on a gun involved in criminal activity, they have to go to a warehouse with stacks of papers to do a physical search of records. They search warehouses that contain the amount of information I can store on an iPhone and find in a matter of seconds. This physical search is something Congress has required them to do. We heard about the fact that you can buy magazines carrying 15 or 20 rounds, even though many states including my own State of Vermont, limit the number of rounds you can have in your weapon for deer season. We want to give the deer a chance, but we don't want to give children in school the same chance. This is the world upside down. We limit what you can buy and use to go deer hunting but not what can be sold to people who want to shoot children. Outside the Capitol right now, there are young students who have brought their powerful message to those of us inside the Capitol. They say thoughts and prayers are welcome, but what the United States needs right now is action. I said this morning at the hearing that I am tired of people saying: ``Oh, this is not the time to talk about taking steps. This is the time for prayer and reflection,'' as though it is an either/or thing. It is getting kind of weary to hear that refrain over and over again--this is not the time for action. Tell that to the parents, tell that to the other children, tell that to their siblings when they are at the funeral because somebody shot them. Now, I am very, very proud of those students in Vermont whose voices are joining this nationwide chorus of student voices. We have Vermonters showing up, even though we have had 10 to 20 inches of snow in some towns in Vermont in the last day or so, and it is still snowing heavily there now. We know that in Washington, half an inch of snow would close the place down but not in my State. These Vermont students are not going to use a heavy snowstorm as an excuse for not showing up to deliver their message. We are here in comfort in a secure building. We ought to act in solidarity with these students and with the students who put shoes out here on the lawn of the Capitol--rows and rows and rows of shoes--symbolizing children who have died. Now, I remember a little over a year ago, millions of women across the Nation brought their energy into the halls of government. In my own hometown of Montpelier, VT, where I was born, our State's capitol, there are only 8,500 people. We had 19,000 to 20,000 show up on the statehouse lawn for the women's march there. Brave and strong, they were speaking out. My sister was one of those joining them. In fact, some had to park their cars on the interstate; they caused such a traffic jam just to be there. I remember the hundreds and hundreds of Vermonters who came here to Washington. My wife Marcelle and I hosted them before the march with coffee and doughnuts, and we had to keep sending out for more coffee and more doughnuts because of the number of people there. We marched with them alongside our daughter and granddaughter. We saw people of all races, all backgrounds, all across the economic and political spectrum marching for women's rights. They made a difference, and now our students are doing the same thing. Our students are acting as a catalyst to break the inertia that has prevented Congress from dealing with the plague of gun violence. When I was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we brought several pieces of gun legislation here, and even those that got 50-plus votes were blocked from going further. There was heavy pressure from powerful lobbyists. The lobby that wasn't heard, though, were the children who were facing this danger. Now they are being heard. Now they are being heard. The question is, does Congress have the courage to listen? The strength of our democracy is citizen engagement. At a time when it has never been more important to protect and engage in our democracy, I am deeply moved by the students who are making their voices heard today. I think of those students in Florida and elsewhere who faced a horrendous thing that most of us will never see, even if we have been in combat, but they had the courage to go back to school after the shooting. They saw this tragedy, they faced the danger, they saw their classmates and teachers killed, and they still had the courage to go back to school. Well, I would ask: does Congress have the courage to do something? That is the question they are asking. If we can't answer it positively, then we in Congress have failed these students. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, late last month, as I watched Olympic Gold Medal winner Jessie Diggins carry our flag in the Pyeongchang closing ceremonies, I was overcome with pride--pride in Vermont and pride in our great country. Throughout the games, athletes raised in Vermont and those who choose to train at Vermont's world-class winter academies and programs showcased the very best of our winter wonderland. Vermont, ranked 49th in population among the States, sent the most athletes per capita to the games. While there, they showcased Vermont values, including respect, personal achievement and excellence, civility and good sportsmanship. Vermont athletes were also incredibly successful during these games, bringing home three gold medals. Montpelier native Amanda Pelkey and the U.S. Women's Hockey Team capped a year battling for equal pay and treatment with a gold medal performance, stunning Canada in a thrilling final match. Burke Mountain Academy graduate Mikaela Schiffrin continued her stunning success, bringing home gold in the giant slalom and silver in the alpine combined. Jessie Diggins, from Stratton Mountain School's T2 elite team, lunged across the finish line in an exciting end to the women's cross-country skiing team sprint to grab the gold, the first cross-country gold medal ever for the United States. Between the golden moments of triumph, we also saw the grit and determination of Vermont athletes to simply compete at the highest levels of their sport. In the slalom, Ryan Cochran-Siegle demonstrated his ability to overcome injuries and the odds as he enjoyed--and then gracefully ceded--the lead to his fellow athletes. His teammate, UVM alpine racer Tommy Bisemeyer, had the courage to speak honestly about the profound disappointment of suffering a training injury that cut short his second Olympic attempt. Other Vermont Olympians include Sophie Caldwell, cross-country skiing, from Peru; Caroline Claire, freestyle skiing, from Wilmington; Kelly Clark, snowboarding, from West Dover; Emily Dreissigacker, biathlon, from Morrisville; Susan Dunklee, biathalon, from Barton; Lindsey Jacobellis, snowboarding, from Stratton; Nolan Kasper, alpine skiing, from Warren; Devin Logan, freestyle skiing, from West Dover; Kaitlynn Miller, cross-country skiing, from Elmore; Andy Newell, cross-country skiing, from Shaftsbury; Ida Sargent, cross-country skiing, from Craftsbury Common; Emerson Smith, freestyle skiing, from Dover; and Liz Stephen, cross- country skiing, from Montpelier. We as Vermonters are so proud of each and every Vermonter who went to Pyeongchang to represent the Green Mountain State and our country. Each of them competed fiercely and truly represented the Olympic values of friendship, respect, and excellence-- which also happen to be some of our cherished Vermont values. I congratulate each and every one of them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont has a rich history of supporting vibrant arts in communities throughout our State and across the world. Local and foreign visiting artists alike make invaluable social and economic contributions to our communities. Today our complex, overloaded, and outdated immigration system often prevents foreign artists from coming to the United States and engaging in international cultural exchange. That is why I am reintroducing the bipartisan Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act with Senator Orrin Hatch. Our bill would assist nonprofit arts organizations in obtaining visas for foreign artists by ensuring enforcement of current statutory requirements. The O visa is available to individual foreign artists, while the P visa is available to groups of foreign artists. The Immigration and Nationality Act currently requires that O visa and P visa petitions be processed within 14 days. However, artists and nonprofit arts organizations routinely confront lengthy and uncertain wait times in the adjudication process. Many nonprofit arts organizations are unable to afford the exorbitant filing fee necessary for expedited processing of petitions. The ARTS Act would require USCIS to provide premium processing services, without a fee, if an O visa or P visa is not adjudicated within the statutorily required 14-day timeframe and if the petition is filed by or on behalf of a nonprofit organization. The many problems plaguing our immigration system demand responsible reforms. This bill is just one small piece. As we look ahead to comprehensive immigration reform, I hope that Congress will consider commonsense legislation like this that will help create permanent solutions. Foreign visiting artists provide an important public service and support our international diplomacy. It is time we start working to create results that can best help our communities as a whole.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont has a rich history of supporting vibrant arts in communities throughout our State and across the world. Local and foreign visiting artists alike make invaluable social and economic contributions to our communities. Today our complex, overloaded, and outdated immigration system often prevents foreign artists from coming to the United States and engaging in international cultural exchange. That is why I am reintroducing the bipartisan Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act with Senator Orrin Hatch. Our bill would assist nonprofit arts organizations in obtaining visas for foreign artists by ensuring enforcement of current statutory requirements. The O visa is available to individual foreign artists, while the P visa is available to groups of foreign artists. The Immigration and Nationality Act currently requires that O visa and P visa petitions be processed within 14 days. However, artists and nonprofit arts organizations routinely confront lengthy and uncertain wait times in the adjudication process. Many nonprofit arts organizations are unable to afford the exorbitant filing fee necessary for expedited processing of petitions. The ARTS Act would require USCIS to provide premium processing services, without a fee, if an O visa or P visa is not adjudicated within the statutorily required 14-day timeframe and if the petition is filed by or on behalf of a nonprofit organization. The many problems plaguing our immigration system demand responsible reforms. This bill is just one small piece. As we look ahead to comprehensive immigration reform, I hope that Congress will consider commonsense legislation like this that will help create permanent solutions. Foreign visiting artists provide an important public service and support our international diplomacy. It is time we start working to create results that can best help our communities as a whole.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. No American should have to relinquish all of their privacy rights in their cell phones, laptops, and other electronic devices, simply because they are coming home from a trip abroad. Yet that is exactly how our Government views it: currently, if a Vermonter crosses the border into Canada for a day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can search through the Vermonter's emails, text messages, photos, and anything else contained in their electronic devices without any reason to suspect the person is in violation of anything. Let me repeat that: without any suspicion at all. That is unacceptable. That is why I am joining with Senator Daines to introduce legislation to require the Government to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search or seize Americans' electronic devices at the border. This legislation is a vital step toward protecting our Fourth Amendment rights, while also ensuring that officers protecting our homeland have the lawful authorities they need to do their jobs. Last year, CBP searched the electronic devices of over 30,000 travelers, and this number continues to grow. These searches can take place at any international airport, or at any land border point such as U.S.-Canada border crossings in my home state of Vermont or Senator Daines's home state of Montana. Nothing in this legislation will prevent CBP officers from doing their jobs to protect the homeland, detect contraband, and enforce the law. Our legislation simply says that if an officer of the Government wants to search an American's electronic device at the border, at a minimum they should have reasonable suspicion. If they want to seize the device, they should have probable cause. And if they want to conduct a forensic examination of the device, they should get a warrant from a judge. Our legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to collect statistics on such searches and seizures and report them to Congress. This will significantly increase transparency on the Government's use of these invasive tools, providing Congress and the American people an opportunity to assess the balance between the needs of law enforcement and the imperative of protecting privacy and civil liberties. I urge other Senators to join us in support of this legislation. It should not be controversial to be concerned at the Government's ability to search our electronic devices at the border without any suspicion at all. All of us--Republican and Democrat--can support the goal of protecting our borders while also protecting the Fourth Amendment.