Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know other Senators have already spoken on this, but I would hope Members would oppose the Paul amendment. The amendment would cut, among other things, $7.3 billion from the Department of State and the USAID. It would decimate programs that fund the foreign policy priorities of both the administration and the Congress. A cut of that size would be about two-thirds of the total funding appropriated for these purposes, some of which has already been spent. I remember when James Mattis was the Secretary of Defense. He is a man I admire for his work as a four-star general with the Marine Corps and as Defense Secretary. He is not a man who looked at the world or the needs of our military in an abstract fashion; he dealt with it every day. He came before our Committee on Appropriations and said: If you want to cut foreign aid, buy me more bullets. He made it very clear that there are areas in the world where what we do keeps us from having to go to combat. The Paul amendment would practically eliminate the remaining budget for programs to strengthen democracy, combat corruption, promote economic growth, improve water and sanitation, aid victims of war and natural disasters, and support our allies and partners in countless ways. The reason the State Department and USAID need supplemental funds is that the resources provided in fiscal year 2020 are not sufficient to meet the unanticipated public health, economic, and humanitarian challenges presented by the coronavirus. Yet the Paul amendment would cut billions from the same accounts for which additional resources are needed. The funding for the programs that would be cut by the Paul amendment is how we make our presence felt around the world. It actually totals less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. Senators of both parties--of both parties--voted overwhelmingly to include this funding in the fiscal year 2020 State, Foreign Operations appropriations bill. In case anybody has forgotten when that was, that was just 3 months ago. The Paul amendment would also eliminate $475 million that Congress enacted less than 3 months ago for educational and cultural exchanges, including $160 million for the Fulbright Program--so no more Fulbright Program, no more International Visitors Program, no more exchange programs for young leaders in Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America. These programs enrich the lives of Americans and directly benefit the economies, in every State of the Union, and create lasting ties between U.S. and foreign communities, universities, and governments--but not if the Paul amendment passes. The amendment would eliminate all funding for the Inter-American Foundation, which, with a budget of just $37 million, supports hundreds of projects to combat poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean. It would eliminate funding for the East-West Center, which has a long history of strengthening relations and building understanding between the United States and the Asia/Pacific countries. Both the Inter-American Foundation and the East-West Center were established by acts of Congress. It is in our national interest to fight poverty in Latin America and support engagement with countries in the Far East. The coronavirus represents a serious public health threat. We have to respond now. We have to treat this as the emergency it is. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, addressed to Senator Graham and myself-- incidentally, they represent more than 500 U.S. business and nongovernmental organizations--opposing this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not see another Senator seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with what Chairman Shelby has said. We have tried to set an example. The two of us are from two different parties, from two different parts of the country and, I think it is fair to say, have two different political philosophies. Yet we have come together on this, as we have on so many other issues on appropriations, to show, as an example to our colleagues, what we think is best on this bill. This week, Congress showed strong, decisive leadership in addressing the novel coronavirus. As appropriators of both parties often do, and as Members of Congress have proven still capable of doing even in the most partisan of times, we have put our labels aside and have come together for the American people. I was concerned that this was something the President was not doing. We saw the President spread misinformation on national television that downplayed the potential risk to the American people. I was concerned that he was worried more about the market impacts than about human lives. His administration's initial proposal for $1.25 billion of new spending, plus the authority to divert $1.25 billion from such things as Ebola prevention and low-income heating assistance, was reckless and devoid of substance. Those in the administration sought vague transfer authorities to allow them to move other money around in unidentified ways. It showed how little thought was given to what was needed and to how much was needed. I thought it was the latest attempt to undermine Congress's power of the purse--the power of the purse that Republicans and Democrats have always tried to protect. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks a letter from Russell T. Vought, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I asked to submit the acting OMB Director's request letter as an example of what not do in an emerging crisis. Fortunately, there are those who remain in our government who are very forthcoming with me and with our bipartisan staff members--my staff and Senator Shelby's staff--about the real needs of confronting the coronavirus, needs that are based on facts and science. I do thank the staffs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources. Their help was invaluable in producing in only 9 days the package we are going to be voting on today. During those 9 days, there was a lot of evening and weekend work by our staffs and by the Senators involved. We did it in 9 days because of the emergency, and their help was invaluable. The crisis is real. Worldwide, there are now 92,000 confirmed cases and 3,200 confirmed deaths. Here in our country, that number is rising as there have been more than 150 confirmed cases and 11 deaths. The CDC has told us that the public health system will be able to test up to 75,000 people by the end of the week and that we should expect the number of cases here to rise. So I strongly support this $7.8 billion package and the other money that is available. This package is going to provide nearly $1 billion directly to State, local, and Tribal governments to support public health preparedness and response; over $3 billion in the research and development of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics; nearly $1 billion for healthcare preparedness, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and community health; $1.25 billion to support our needed response overseas; $7 billion in low-interest loans for small businesses; and nearly $500 million to enhance the availability of telehealth services across the country. This is, certainly, something very important to those who might have rural areas in their States, and, frankly, we all do. The American people are looking for leadership, and they want assurance that their government is up to the task of protecting their health and safety. I think we have to provide this leadership. I am pleased that Congress included language in the bill--supported by both Republicans and Democrats--that specifies that the funds can only be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. If there is a cynical effort, for any reason, by the President to shift funds from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Public Health Social Services Emergency Fund, which are the agencies at the epicenter of this crisis--to divert funds, for example, to activities along the southwest border--it will violate the law. As I have said several times on this floor, I thank Chairman Shelby and his staff, as well as the majority and Democratic leaders, for their cooperation. I will submit a list of committee staffers who worked through weekends and late into the nights to make this possible. It is a long list, but it shows some of the most professional people we have working in the Senate. I know that Senator Shelby has a similar list from his office. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of the committee staffers' names.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont has lost one of the finest people we have had in our State. Bobby Miller epitomized the very best of Vermont ideals, from his childhood straight through all that he accomplished in our State. Throughout it all, he and his lovely wife Holly were a constant, quiet source of giving. The Millers have always prioritized Vermont communities, never losing sight of their humble upbringings and never expecting praise for their philanthropy, even when they most deserved it. I know Marcelle and I join with all Vermonters in mourning the passing of Bobby Miller. Our hearts go out to Holly and their family. I ask unanimous consent that the article, ``Developer and Philanthropist Robert `Bobby' Miller Dies at 84,'' originally published by ``Seven Days,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Chairman Shelby just spoke. He and I have worked so hard together on the Appropriations Committee on the emergency coronavirus supplemental request. I have always enjoyed working with Chairman Shelby, and I am pleased we can announce that we have reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on an emergency supplemental to address the spread of the novel coronavirus and protect the health and safety of the American people. So I thank my friend Chairman Shelby, Chairwoman Lowey of the other body, and Ranking Member Granger for their cooperation. I think one of the things I found during my time on the Appropriations Committee is that we tend to leave our labels at the door. We worked together. We did not see each other as Republicans and Democrats. We looked at each other as Members of the House and the Senate trying to get this done. I urge both the majority leader and the Democratic leader to move as quickly as possible, once the House acts today, to get this agreement to the President's desk. As I said last weekend, there is no reason why we cannot and should not finish this bill this week and get it down to the President for signing. If we have to work Friday or even Saturday, let's get it done and get it done now. Now, what the House of Representatives is debating today is vastly different from the $1.25 billion grossly inadequate proposal from the Trump administration that was sent to Congress just 9 days ago. This was so poorly thought out that both Republicans and Democrats said it made no sense. Where President Trump's proposal would rob Peter to pay Paul by stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from funds meant to contain an ongoing Ebola crisis and take money from programs the American people rely on, like the low-income heating assistance program, LIHEAP, our agreement provides $7.8 billion in new emergency funding to address this crisis without raiding these important programs. We cannot just turn our backs on funding to address the ongoing Ebola crisis. And millions of Amricans rely on programs like LIHEAP. I would invite any of those from the White House who think we do not need this heating assistance in places like my home state of Vermont, where just a few days ago it was 10 below zero. Our agreement does not rob Peter to pay Paul. We are not stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from funds meant to contain an ongoing Ebola crisis but simply providing $7.8 billion in new emergency funding to address this crisis without raiding those important programs. We also include a $500 million authorization to enhance the availability of telehealth services--something that could be so helpful in virtually every one of our States. We also reject the President's extreme ``America First'' mantra that would include nothing for USAID to help contain the spread of the coronvirus abroad. Let's be realistic. At a time when communicable diseases are only an airplane flight away, that is a recipe for failure. If we can stop this before it gets to our borders, why shouldn't we work with other countries to do that? So, we instead provide $1.25 billion in new resources for the global health response, provide humanitarian assistance, and secure funding for emergency evacuations of U.S. citizens, if needed. We provide $2.2 billion to support Federal, State, and local public health agencies to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. The funds will support laboratory testing and monitoring, infection control, and public health preparedness. Again, we are taking this completely out of politics and going to where our best people are who need the resources to address this crisis. I talked about some of the need for help with the Governor of our State, who is a Republican, and we worked very, very closely together. I applaud what he has been doing to prepare for this virus. Our agreement is going to provide more than $3 billion for research and development of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics to prevent or treat the effects of coronavirus. We are going to include provisions to ensure that vaccines developed with the support of Federal dollars-- our tax dollars--remain affordable to those most in need. The taxpayers pay for it. They should not have to pay for it a second time because a large company wants to make a huge profit. In fact, we provide nearly $1 billion for healthcare preparedness, the procurement of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies and funding to support community health centers, which provide healthcare to so many in our underserved urban areas and rural communities. We provide $61 million to the Food and Drug Administration to facilitate the development of new therapies and vaccines to combat the coronavirus but also to mitigate the potential medical supply chain interruptions. Importantly, this agreement includes $7 billion in small business disaster loans. What is happening can really hit the small businesses, which are the backbone of America's economy. We have this money, the small business disaster loans, to help mitigate the economic impact of the spread of the coronavirus in the United States. When we confront this widening crisis, it is important to remember that we are not doing it as Republicans or Democrats seeking to score political points in addressing this threat. It is not something for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party to deal with. We should deal with it as who we are. We are Americans, and we are U.S. Senators. One hundred of us have to speak to our own conscience. At times of crisis in our Nation's history, the Senate has proven its ability to be the conscience of the Nation and a steady guiding hand. That is what we have to do now. I am pleased that the House measure does not include legislation related to extending FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We have had months to deal with that controversial legislation. It has no place on urgent funding legislation to combat the current health situation. I am confident we can, once again, put aside partisan squabbles and help to lead our Nation forward. Taking up this agreement as soon as possible is the first step. I will work with Chairman Shelby. The two of us will work together to shepherd this bipartisan, bicameral agreement through the Senate and to the President. I would note--and I will speak further on this later on--that there are an awful lot of members of our staffs, both Republican and Democratic, who have worked and worked and worked late nights, worked weekends, and worked on days off to get us here. I applaud the men and women who have done that. I see my distinguished colleague on the floor, so I will yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Deborah Fleischaker, a detailee on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 116th Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 55 years ago, a courageous band of civil rights activists, including the fearless John Lewis, began a march for what many of us considered a sacred right to vote. They marched from Selma to Montgomery, and they marched in the face of unspeakable violence. They shed their blood for access to the ballot. While much has changed in the last 55 years, this struggle for voting equality, and this march for progress, continues. On Sunday, I was inspired yet again by my hero, my dear friend, now- Congressman John Lewis, who summoned depthless strength to lead thousands in commemorating the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. This was not merely a commemoration; it was a clarion call to action. Those of us who know the Congressman know he has been seriously ill but has not given up the fight. In fact, Congressman Lewis's voice booming over the crowd reminded us all to ``continue to fight . . . now more than ever.'' ``I'm not going to give up,'' he thundered. ``I'm not going to give in.'' I am proud to stand with my dear friend, Congressman John Lewis. In the past several years, a number of States have done all they could to disenfranchise tens of thousands of minority voters. Their tactics were often brazen and transparent. While these voter suppression schemes took many forms--from sweeping purges of voter rolls to arbitrary, new identification requirements--they all shared one purpose and one purpose alone: making voting more difficult for minorities and the marginalized. As a Federal judge observed when he struck down one such State's voter ID law, it sought to disenfranchise ``African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' Today, we are seeing a reprise of these efforts ahead of one of the most consequential elections in the history of our democracy. Those doing the suppressions don't even pretend to hide their intent. In November, a senior adviser to President Trump's reelection campaign came right out and said the quiet part, but he said it out loud. He observed that ``traditionally . . . Republicans [suppress] votes,'' and then he predicted that voter suppression is ``going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program'' in 2020. In May 2019, Tennessee enacted a draconian law imposing criminal penalties against voter registration groups who submitted so-called deficient registration forms. In October 2019, Florida's State legislature tried to undo a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by Floridians to restore voting rights to former felons. This is something we take for granted in Vermont--that they can vote. These efforts have thankfully been halted, at least temporarily, in the courts. There will be other States that attempt what Florida and Tennessee tried--or even worse. And those who value the sanctity of the vote will be engaged in an endless war of Whac-A-Mole in the courts to stop these un-American efforts to suppress the right to vote. Why have States been given such free rein to suppress the minority vote? It is because of the disastrous 2013 Supreme Court decision, Shelby County v. Holder. That gutted section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which had been voted on by both Democrats and Republicans. It gutted it. It crippled the Federal Government's ability to proactively prevent discriminatory changes to State voting laws. In the wake of Shelby County, States have unleashed a torrent of voter suppression schemes, some almost immediately after the decision came down, knowing full well that the Federal Government can no longer serve as a shield against disenfranchisement. Our democracy depends on these changes--and changing now. The proliferation, the threats to the right to vote in the wake of Shelby County, makes it unmistakably clear that we need the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. That is exactly why, for years, I have championed, authored, and I have reintroduced the Voting Rights Advancement Act. I reintroduced this legislation again in 2019. I note it is a bipartisan bill. I should repeat this. It is a bipartisan bill. Republicans and Democrats alike support it to restore section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and improve and modernize that landmark legislation, and provide the Federal Government with other critical tools to combat this full- fledged assault on the franchise. A total of 47 Senators publicly stated they support this commonsense effort to protect the right to vote. Why don't we bring it to a vote? If people want to continue these suppressions, let them vote that way. If they want to allow people to vote, let them vote that way. If the majority leader would simply let it come to a vote--right now it is being stopped by one person. If the majority leader would simply let it come to a vote, it would pass. The House has already passed its companion version of my legislation. I find it offensive for those who claim this bipartisan, bicameral legislation is some kind of partisan power grab. In America, it is the governed who possess the power. Restoring their power is not partisan. Restoring their power is what it means to be a democracy. I say to my friend the majority leader, to Senator McConnell: All eyes are on you. Will he release the Voting Rights Advancement Act from his legislative graveyard and do it before the elections? Will he simply allow an up-or-down vote on this legislation to restore the bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965? History is watching. As my hero and friend John Lewis powerfully reminded us this past Sunday, ``We've got to make America better for all of her people. . . . We're one people, we're one family.'' I agree. The right to vote for all Americans is the beating heart of our form of government. Indeed, it is the very right that gives democracy its name. Let us show the world we are deserving of that name. Let us show the world the conscience of the Senate is that we will go forward and vote it--vote for it or vote against it but vote it. Don't just keep it from coming to a vote. Unfortunately, when you keep it from coming to a vote, it looks too much like what we are trying to do to a lot of people, especially minorities in this country, is keep them from voting. We have Republicans and Democrats in this body. Let us vote up or down on this. Most importantly, as we do in my State of Vermont, we fight to make sure every Vermonter gets to vote no matter what their party is, no matter where they live, no matter who they are. Let's see if we can do that for the rest of the country. We would be a better country for it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, everybody has a story. Actually, everybody has a journey, when you think of life. Some are heartbreaking, but some are uplifting, and some are hopeful. Tomorrow night, during senior night, the University of Vermont men's basketball team is going to celebrate one story that is all of these things: heartbreaking, uplifting, and hopeful. They will celebrate that when senior Josh Speidel takes the court for the first time--and what will be the only time--in his college career. Josh is a native of Columbus, IN. He dreamed from a very young age of playing college basketball. At Columbus North High School in Indiana, Josh was the basketball team's all-time lead point scorer and an Indiana All-Star. In November of 2014, just before his senior basketball season, he committed to play for the University of Vermont, and he accepted a scholarship at the university to play for the team. Here is the heartbreaking part. Just a few months later, in February of 2015, Josh's dream was derailed when he suffered a traumatic brain injury, resulting from a devastating car crash. Josh would go on to spend the next 4 months in the hospital and in rehab. But just a few days after the accident, the University of Vermont's head coach, John Becker, went to Indiana and visited Josh there with a simple message for him: You are still welcome at UVM. Your scholarship will be honored, and we will help you in any way we can. That is, after all, the Vermont way. Josh would ultimately arrive at UVM in August of 2016. While he hasn't suited up with the team, he has worked with trainers; he has improved his physical condition; and he has remained active on the court. What is so inspiring, his team was at his side throughout. He has been a constant fixture of the team, on the sidelines at games, cheering his teammates on. I have been at games and have seen him doing that. Off the court, Josh has been working toward a degree through the College of Education. He is choosing a self-designed major to prepare him to work with children through sports, with a double minor in behavior change and coaching. He has been a committed student throughout his time at UVM. He is set to graduate this May. After graduation, Josh hopes to use both his life experience and his education to work with children. Tomorrow night, the University of Vermont men's basketball team will celebrate senior night. In a special arrangement with their opponent, Albany, Josh, wearing number 32, will suit up, take the court, and notch the night's first basket after the tip-off. I so wish I could be there because when Josh steps off the court, it will surely be to the standing ovation of this young man--the personification of perseverance, determination, dedication, and hope he so richly deserves. I know my fellow Vermonters who are at these games, and I know there will be very few dry eyes in the house. We are, all of us, the product of our life experiences, of the community that supports us, and of the will we carry to press on. Josh Speidel is a remarkable young man. At the packed gym tomorrow night, there is going to be an emotional and vibrant celebration. Josh, from the floor of the U.S. Senate, I congratulate you on a recognition so richly deserved. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Burlington Free Press highlighting Josh's journey, dated March 1, 2020.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to do this because in an era where we hear so much bad news, it is wonderful to hear inspiring news. This is an inspiring young man. I congratulate him and the University of Vermont for what they have done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I note that somebody else is not waiting to speak. When somebody does, I, of course, will yield the floor. Coronavirus Madam President, I want to bring my colleagues up to date on where my head is as vice chairman of Appropriations. All of us worked very hard throughout the weekend and all last week--Republicans and Democrats together--along with our counterparts in the other body. Each one of us looks with some trepidation to the latest report on the virus attacks, including the serious ones in the United States, and the deaths that have occurred around the world. We are trying to put together an appropriations bill that will give our administration the tools they need to protect America and to help our allies, not only to protect us from having what has come to our shores but what is already in our shores, the coronavirus--that we be able to protect Americans from it. I want to compliment those who have been working on it in both parties. As often happens in the Appropriations Committee, we pretty well leave our labels at the door. We work together--both Republicans and Democrats--to get a good bill. I urge both the majority leader and the Democratic leader that, once we have it and as soon as the House acts, there will be an appropriations bill. They will go first, but we move very quickly. Frankly, when I look at the dangers facing America, I am perfectly willing to stay here throughout the weekend, if need be, as many of us did last weekend, to get this passed and on the President's desk. We are not Republicans or Democrats in this matter. We are Americans, and we are U.S. Senators. The Senate has so often set the standards for the rest of the country. We can do it here. I hope that as soon as we can vote on this, we will. I commend Senator Shelby. He is the chairman of the committee. I am the vice chairman of the committee. We have worked together. I also commend all the other Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who have worked with us. I hope this body will be able to vote, ideally this week--if not this week, the very first part of next week. This is an important matter. Cancel the weekend, if need be. Stay here and get it done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, we voted on an amendment to S.J. Res. 68 that was offered by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch. That amendment consisted of one sentence, as follows: ``The President has a constitutional responsibility to take actions to defend the United States, its territories, possessions, citizens, servicemembers and diplomats from attack.'' On its face, the Risch amendment seems reasonable. The President does have a responsibility to defend the country. But, as is so often the case, the devil is in the details, or the absence of details, and when it involves engaging U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities, we should pay particularly close attention. I was among those who opposed the amendment and I want to explain why. First, it is important to note that the underlying resolution already states that ``[nothing] in this section shall be construed to prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack.'' So there is no question about the President's authority to defend the country. But the central purpose of the resolution is to give meaning to the Congress's constitutional authority--the Congress's sole power-- to declare war. For far too long this body has surrendered that duty to the executive branch. In 2002, when the Senate considered whether or not to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq, many in this body argued that providing the President with that authority was needed to convince Saddam Hussein to back down. I, instead, saw it as Congress abdicating its constitutional duty by providing the President with open-ended authority to use military force against Iraq. For that reason, among others, I voted no. In fact, my worst fears were realized. Not only was the justification for that war based on lies, but thousands of Americans died, trillions of dollars were wasted that could have been used to fix what's broken in this country, and the American people are no safer. Today that authority is being used in ways that no one envisioned or intended to justify an attack against another country, Iran, nearly two decades later. We should learn from that costly mistake. The obvious implication of the Risch amendment is that any President is authorized, and has an affirmative responsibility, to use military force at anytime, anywhere, indefinitely, to prevent an unspecified attack that might occur sometime in the future. There is no requirement that it be ``imminent''. There is no requirement that such an attack be anything other than speculative or imagined. Given the way this and past administrations have expansively interpreted past authorizations for the use of force, the Risch amendment could be interpreted to further erode Congress's ability to prevent a President from unilaterally sending U.S. forces into hostilities without prior consultation with, or further authorization from, the Congress. Such an endorsement--even if unintended--of unchecked Executive power undermines the purpose of the underlying joint resolution, and it makes a mockery of the Congress's sole power to declare war. That is not something any of us should condone.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island is still on the floor I recall that, just within the last year, I had the privilege of being on the lawn of our former Embassy in Saigon. I stood there with other Senators, Republicans and Democrats, and with officials from the State Department, and I was mesmerized as Senator Whitehouse recounted what he had observed there a lifetime ago. I think every one of us had the same reaction. We stood there and looked around. We could feel the helicopters, we could hear the helicopters, but of course we didn't see them. Mostly, I saw the face of my dear friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, and heard what he said. What he was saying ultimately showed his pride in being an American. I thank Senator Whitehouse for recounting that again. S.J. Res. 68 Mr. President, on another subject, last month the United States and Iran came frighteningly close to war. If any of Iran's missiles had killed American soldiers at those military bases in Iraq, President Trump would have reacted very differently and, most likely, without consulting Congress. Rather than the self-congratulatory statements by the President who depicted the brazen, ballistic missile attacks against our bases that failed to kill any of our troops stationed there a victory, we could be in the midst of a calamity spiraling out of control. Obviously, I think of the soldiers who have brain injuries from the attack, injuries that the President dismissed as minor headaches. Well, those who have actually served in the military and were not able to get deferments from serving know that an attack like that can produce lasting injuries. This is the nightmare scenario we have to avoid. We have been on a path to war with Iran ever since President Trump recklessly abandoned the Iran nuclear agreement, with no credible alternative strategy. There was nothing to replace it. Today, while the White House insists there is no need for the resolution we are debating because the danger is behind us, the possibility of war with Iran remains very real. As we saw only a month ago, we could again find ourselves on the brink of war with Iran at any time. For too long, this President and previous Presidents have sent U.S. forces into hostilities without obtaining the consent of Congress, and the Congress has been a willing party. The Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility as the sole branch of government with the authority to declare war. It has permitted the misapplication of open- ended and outdated authorizations for the use of military force. The result is endless wars the American people don't support, at a cost of thousands of American lives lost and trillions of dollars spent that could have been far better used fixing problems here in our own country. No one denies any President's right to act in self-defense, to respond to an imminent threat if reliable intelligence shows that such a threat exists. But neither is it credible to rely on an authorization for the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein--an authorization that was based on lies by the White House about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction--to justify attacks against Iran nearly two decades later. Not a single Member of this body who voted for that use of force in 2002--and I did not because I had read the intelligence and knew the stories coming from the White House were not true. Not a single Member, though, who voted for that use of force can honestly say they could have imagined or intended that authorization for the use of force in Iraq would be used to justify armed hostilities against Iran so many years later. A few weeks ago, a top administration official said it would be a mistake for the Senate to even have a debate about the President's war powers. He said it would embolden Iran's leaders if they saw that there are differences of opinion among us. Has he ever read a history book? Has he ever read our Constitution? He said it would be wrong for us to disagree on an issue as consequential as attacking another country, as though in the United States we should simply serve as a rubber stamp for the President. That is so beneath the United States of America. That is so beneath our Constitution. It is so beneath the democratic principles we believe in, to be told by a top administration official that we shouldn't even debate an issue like this. As others have said, including Senators in the President's party, that is an insult, it is dangerous, and it belies a fundamental lack of understanding of Congress's role in this democracy. Others, including the President, have falsely accused Democrats of sympathizing with Mr. Soleimani or even with the Ayatollah, both of whom are responsible for heinous crimes. That kind of baseless, partisan slander and fearmongering is what we have come to expect from this White House, but it belittles the Office of the Presidency, as does a statement from a top official that we should not discuss our disagreements. But too many of our friends in the other party--unlike the way the Senate used to be--have remained mute. By saying nothing, they condone such reprehensible behavior. One can only wonder how they would react if the tables were turned and they were the targets of such despicable, ad hominem attacks. Under the Constitution, it is our job, it is our responsibility to debate and vote, especially if it involves war and peace and the lives of our servicemen and women and their families. I would make a suggestion to the President and to members of his Cabinet: Read the Constitution. And I would say to those in this body who too often ignore what the Constitution says: Read the Constitution. Think of the lives lost, the many more grievously wounded, the families destroyed, the millions of innocent people forced to flee the carnage, and the huge amount of tax dollars wasted because of that fateful vote in 2002. A vote based on false pretenses. A vote that made the world less safe. We can't afford to repeat that unforgiveable mistake. This resolution, of which I am a cosponsor, ensures that debate will happen, and that we will have another chance to exercise our authority under article I of the Constitution and do what is right. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since first emerging in Wuhan, China, on December 31, the outbreak of a new coronavirus, COVID-19, ``novel coronavirus'', has spread to 25 countries, infected more than 44,000 people, caused at least 1,100 deaths, forced entire cities into lockdown, triggered hundreds of international flight cancelations, restricted hundreds of Americans to U.S. military bases in Federal Government quarantine, and caused significant economic harm to countries and businesses around the globe, all this in only 6 weeks, with no end in sight. The virus has infected and killed more people and has done so faster than the SARS outbreak in China in the early 2000s, which infected 8,098 people and caused 774 deaths worldwide. The World Health Organization--WHO--has formally declared a public health emergency of international concern--the sixth such declaration since 2009--and the outbreak will get worse, possibly far worse, before it gets better. While the novel coronavirus outbreak is alarming and is creating fear around the world, it should not be surprising. Scientists, epidemiologists, and other global health experts have for years warned that infectious disease outbreaks will continue to occur more frequently and cause greater harm, and that most emerging viruses will spread from animals to humans. Such zoonotic viruses are increasingly common as human activity, including population growth and expanding human encroachment into wildlife habitat, increases contact between animals and humans, which is what happened in Wuhan. The coronavirus strain threatening us today is believed to have emerged from a bat, and potentially passed through another animal before infecting humans in a live-animal market. Such animal markets, which in China and many other countries include bats, rats, birds, porcupines, and other animals infected with viruses, are sources of protein for hungry humans, but also serve as breeding grounds for zoonotic diseases. Scientists estimate that there are more than 1.6 million unknown viral disease species in mammalian and avian populations, of which an estimated 600,000 to 850,000 have the potential to infect humans. As we saw during SARS, Ebola, and MERS and are now seeing once again, infectious disease outbreaks threaten not only human health but also cause economic harm and social upheaval. We should all be asking whether we, the United States and the international community, are doing enough to combat and prepare for this known and escalating threat. It seems obvious that we are not. In fact, while the President and Secretary of State have repeatedly said that protecting the health and safety of American citizens is their highest priority, that is not borne out by the facts. The American people should be aware that the Trump administration has consistently proposed cuts in funding for the very programs designed to help prevent outbreaks and contain the spread of infectious diseases like the novel coronavirus. Even in the President's fiscal year 2021 budget request sent to Congress this week, in the midst of a deadly infectious disease outbreak that will almost certainly become a global pandemic, the administration has proposed to pay less than half of what the U.S. owes WHO, in addition to requesting a 10 percent cut to U.S. Agency for International Development--USAID--pandemic preparedness programs. It is a reckless game of Russian roulette with a global threat we absolutely must prepare for. Yesterday, it was SARS, then it was Ebola; today, it is Ebola again and a coronavirus. Tomorrow, it may be something that is even deadlier and spreads even faster. Fortunately for the American people, Congress has rejected those cuts in the past and increased funding for most global health programs, and I am confident we will do the same this year, but far more needs to be done. Funding for pandemic preparedness at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USAID, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, and other Federal agencies that play an indispensable role in preparing for and responding to outbreaks should be significantly increased, not forced to cut programs and personnel as the administration has proposed. It makes no sense to be shortchanging the agencies and programs we all depend on to protect public health, keep our ports of entry open, and keep our commerce flowing. Pandemic response is critical, but often, by then, it is too late. We can and must do more to proactively reduce pandemic risk. One approach I have urged is for a global viral discovery effort. Such a concept was proven successful through USAID's PREDICT program, which used the collection and analysis of wildlife samples in areas of the world most at risk for zoonotic disease to identify new emerging viruses with pandemic potential. PREDICT was able to discover hundreds of disease pathogens at their source, rather than waiting for human infection. In China, the PREDICT program sampled more than 10,000 bats and identified more than 500 new coronaviruses, including a strain that is a 96 percent match to the 2019 novel coronavirus strain. The known existence of and readily available data on such a close relative is one reason China was able to quickly sequence the novel strain and identify the animal source of the outbreak. As the 10-year PREDICT program comes to an end this year, USAID is working to design the next phase of programming to build on the successful analytical and modeling work demonstrated through PREDICT. Others in the international community should use the lessons learned and techniques proven through PREDICT to inform their own efforts. Investing in biomedical research focused on infectious disease is another crucial, proactive step to reducing pandemic risk. The NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases--NIAID--has a unique mandate to conduct and support basic and applied research on established infectious diseases and also to quickly launch a research response to newly emerging and reemerging infectious threats. With NIAID support, scientists design and develop new diagnostics, treatments, and preventive strategies, including vaccines, which can be deployed to protect and treat people worldwide. Yet, in the midst of the novel coronavirus emergency, the President's budget would cut $3.1 billion from NIH and assumes the reduction is spread across-the-board to all 27 Institutes and Centers, including NIAID. Slashing infectious disease research programs threatens our ability to develop better therapeutics and vaccines for high priority pathogens, as well as the rapid development of medical countermeasures against emerging infectious diseases, like the coronavirus, when they arise. The President's budget features similar dangerous cuts to CDC programs that have been pivotal in combating the novel coronavirus response, proposing a $693 million overall decrease from fiscal year 2020. Although the administration touts its $175 million proposal for Global Health Security in fiscal year 2021, it simultaneously cuts almost $100 million from other crucial global health investments, including in global HIV/AIDS, global polio eradication, global immunization, and the global public health capacity and development programs. This is short-sighted and dangerous. The President's budget proposes only $50 million, a $35 million decrease compared to fiscal year 2020, for CDC's Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund--IDRRRF--which has served as the primary source of funding for responding to the novel coronavirus outbreak. This risks potentially undermining the agency's ability to access funding to initiate an early and rapid response to emerging pandemic threats like novel coronavirus when the U.S. is faced with a public health emergency. The administration also proposes an $85 million cut to the CDC's Center on Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease and a $25 million cut to the Public Health Preparedness and Response Program. Slashing these programs weakens CDC's ability to provide rapid scientific support during outbreaks of infectious disease, maintain support for global health programs that build core public health capabilities and bolster frontline preparedness internationally, and ensure that State and local health departments are ready to handle many different types of emergencies that threaten the health and resilience of families, communities, and the Nation, Thus, while the White House named its fiscal year 2021 budget A Budget for America's Future, it is anything but that. There is no better example of where this Administration's rhetoric clashes with reality than the drastic cuts they propose to the very programs that protect the American people from deadly communicative diseases. I continue to urge USAID, other Federal agencies, the White House, and Members of Congress to support a more proactive approach to reducing pandemic risk. Today, we are struggling to control outbreaks of Ebola and the novel coronavirus, and while we don't know which viruses will next attack us, we do know it is not a matter of it: but when, and we must do everything we can to prepare. The more information we have about potential zoonotic viruses, the better able we will be to respond. The stakes are immense. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives could be lost, and the amount of funding necessary to control it would be incalculable.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Andrew Brasher for an Alabama seat on the 11th Circuit. This is over the objection of Senator Jones, who was not meaningfully consulted by the administration and did not return a blue slip. Senator Jones is as reasonable as they come; the fact that he was denied a voice in this process shows just how disinterested the White House is in being reasonable when it comes to selecting judges who will shape the laws in our States for decades to come. It is clear the President views the courts as a mere extension of his power, not as an independent body critical to the checks and balances of our constitutional system. The President knows that no matter who is nominated, whether or not qualified or within the mainstream, the Judiciary Committee of today and the Senate of today--led by a majority leader who describes the Senate's role as a mere conveyor belt for President Trump's nominees--will confirm them. The President likes to brag about the number of judges that have been confirmed under his administration. Less attention is paid to the cost. Of the last 20 circuit court nominees the Judiciary Committee has reported, 15 have been along party lines, and 13 had a negative blue slip. My friends across the aisle apparently no longer care about the constitutional principle of providing advice and consent to nominees in your home State, a tradition that, until recently, had been guarded by members of both parties. Blue slips aside, Andrew Brasher had served as district court judge for just 7 months before receiving this Presidential promotion. Every single Democrat opposed his nomination when it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee and again when it was considered on the Senate floor. During his short tenure as a district court judge, he has presided over only three cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. In his questionnaire, when asked what significant opinions on Federal constitutional issues he has written, he simply wrote ``none.'' But of course, the President did not select Brasher for his judicial experience. A partisan judicial philosophy, along with youth, seem to be the only qualifications of many of this administration's nominees. Before becoming a judge, Brasher spent his short legal career systematically restricting the rights of vulnerable populations, including opposing voting rights and LGBTQ rights and supporting an unconstitutional law mandating universal drug testing for food stamp applicants, which the 11th Circuit slapped down as stripping away peoples' privacy simply because they are poor. Brasher is opposed by literally hundreds of civil and human rights groups who represent millions of Americans. They all are afraid that with this elevation, he will continue to be a rubberstamp for the President's radical agenda and negatively impact 37 million residents of Alabama, Florida and Georgia--States that have often been on the frontlines of systemic voter disenfranchisement for years. For these reasons, I will oppose the nomination of Andrew Brasher. We all must commit to considering each nominee carefully and on his or her individual merit. I hope this body can reverse course and return to its historic roots: tackling our Nation's most serious problems in a bipartisan way, displaying comity even when we disagree, and treating our unique role in approving lifetime judgeships with the seriousness of purpose required by the Constitution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I entered the Senate in the wake of Watergate in 1975, a time when the American people's faith in our institutions was profoundly shaken. The very first vote I cast was in favor of creating the Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans-- that is, the Church Committee. Through that Committee's work, the American public soon learned of years of abuses that had occurred at the hands of the executive branch's intelligence agencies. In response, the Senate passed sweeping reforms to rein in this overreach. In many ways, this represented the best of the Senate: we came together across party lines to thoroughly investigate, and ultimately curb, gross executive branch abuses. The Senate has never been perfect. And much has changed in the 45 years I have served in this body. Yet today we face a similar test: whether the Senate, in the face of egregious misconduct directed by the President himself, will rise again to serve as the check on executive abuses our Founders intended us to be. But today, and throughout this ``trial,'' we are failing this test and witnessing the very worst of the modern Senate. After being confronted with overwhelming evidence of a brazen abuse of executive power, and an equally brazen attempt to keep that scheme hidden from Congress and the American people, the Senate is poised to look the other way. To simply move on. To pretend the Senate has no responsibility to reveal the President's misconduct and, God forbid, hold him to account. Indeed we are being told the Senate has no constitutional role to play, and only the American people should judge the President's misconduct in the next election. This is despite the Senate's constitutionally-mandated role, and despite the fact that the President's scheme was aimed at cheating in that very election. And now the Senate is cementing a cover-up of the President's misconduct, to keep its extent hidden from the American people. How, then, will the American people be equipped to judge the President's actions? How far the Senate has fallen. In some ways, President Nixon's misconduct--directing a break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters to benefit himself politically--seems quaint compared to what we face today. As charged in Article I, President Trump secretly directed a sweeping, illegal scheme to withhold $400 million in military aid from an ally at war in order to extort that ally into announcing investigations of his political opponent to boost his re-election. Then, instead of hiding select incriminating records, as President Nixon did, President Trump attempted to hide every single record from the American people. As reflected in Article II, President Trump has the distinction of being the only president in our nation's history to direct all executive branch officials not to cooperate with a congressional investigation. I want to be clear: I did not relish the prospect of an impeachment trial. I have stark disagreements with this President on issues of policy and the law, on morality and honesty. But it is for the American people to judge a president on those matters. Today is not about differences over policy. It is about the integrity of our elections, and it is about the Constitution. The Constitution cannot not protect itself. During this trial, the words of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lincoln have frequently been invoked on behalf of our Constitution. Now it is our turn to record our names in defense of our democracy. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as the remedy for ``the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Although that definition has guided the nation for 230 years, President Trump's counsels would have us rely on a very different definition. The central arguments presented by the President's defense team were stunning. The President argues that we cannot convict him because abuse of power is not impeachable. He can abuse his power to benefit his re- election, and engage in improper quid pro quos, so long he believes his re-election is in the national interest. King Louis XIV of France--who famously declared ``I am the State''--might approve of that reasoning, but the Senate should condemn it. The President and his attorneys even argue that a president may welcome and even request foreign governments to ``dig up dirt'' on their opponents with impunity. Yet not only are such requests illegal, they violate the very premise of our democracy-- that American elections are decided only by Americans. The Senate should flatly reject the President's brazen and dangerous arguments. But an acquittal today will do the opposite. If you believe that the President's outlandish arguments are irrelevant after today, and will have no lasting impact on our democracy, remember this: The President's counsel's claim that abuse of power is not impeachable is largely--and mistakenly--based on the argument of another counsel, Justice Benjamin Curtis, defending another president from impeachment, President Johnson. That was 150 years ago. What we do today will set a weighty precedent. An acquittal today-- despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and following a sham of a trial--may fundamentally, and perhaps irreparably, distort our system of checks and balances for another 150 years. And what a sham trial it was. The fact that this body would not call a uniquely critical witness who has declared his willingness to testify, John Bolton, is beyond outrageous. And why? To punish the House for not taking years to first litigate a subpoena and then litigate every line of testimony? Or is it because testimony detailing this corrupt scheme, no matter how damning, would not alter the Majority Leader's pre-ordained acquittal? The Senate had a constitutional obligation to try this impeachment impartially. Yet the Senate willfully blinded itself to evidence that will soon be revealed. Senate Republicans even defeated a motion merely to consider and debate whether to seek critical documents and key witnesses. The notion that the Senate could retain the title of the ``world's greatest deliberative body'' following this charade rings hollow. It is often said that history is watching. I expect that's true. But in this moment we are not merely witnesses to history--we are writing it. It is ours to shape. And let me briefly describe the dark chapters we are inscribing in the story of our republic today. In his farewell address, George Washington warned us that ``foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.'' Yet, as a candidate, President Trump famously requested that Russia hack his political opponent's emails. Hours later, Russia did. The President then weaponized Russia's criminal influence campaign, which resulted in an investigation that uncovered a morass of inappropriate contacts with Russians, lies to cover them up, multiple instances of the President's obstruction of justice, and 37 other indictments and convictions. Yet, after the saga concluded, the President felt liberated. Literally the day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified, the President asked the Ukrainian president ``for a favor.'' He has since publicly repeated his request for Ukraine to intervene in our election, and made the same request to China, on national television. All of us must ask: If we acquit President Trump today, what will he do tomorrow? None of us knows. But two things I am confident of: President Trump's willingness to abuse his office, and his eagerness to exploit foreign interference in our elections, will only grow. And, crucially, Congress's capacity to do anything about it will be crippled. While the President's lawyers stood on the Senate floor and admonished the House Managers for failing to litigate each subpoena in court to exhaustion, he had other lawyers in court making the mutually exclusive argument that Article III courts have no jurisdiction to settle disputes between our two branches. Such duplicity would put the two-faced Roman God Janus to shame. Meanwhile, the President's Department of Justice claims not only that President Trump cannot be indicted while in office, he cannot even be investigated. But don't worry, the President's lawyers promise us, the President is still not above the law because Congress can hold him in check through our confirmation power and power of the purse. Neither would come close to checking a lawless executive. It is well known that the President has effectively stopped nominating senior officials in his administration. He has now set a modern record for acting cabinet secretaries. The President has said that he prefers having acting officials, who bypass Senate scrutiny, because they are easier to control. More crucially, with this vote today, we inflict grave damage on our power of the purse. I am the Vice Chairman of Appropriations, a Committee on which I have served for 40 years. Members of this Committee not only write the spending bills, they are the guardians of this body's power of the purse, granted exclusively to Congress by the Founders to counter ``all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches.'' The Framers, having broken free from the grip of a monarchy, feared an unchecked executive who would use public dollars like a king: as a personal slush fund. Yet this is precisely what President Trump has done. If we fail to hold President Trump accountable for illegally freezing congressionally appropriated military aid to extract a personal favor, what would stop him from freezing disaster aid to states hit by hurricanes and flooding until governors or home state senators agree to endorse him? What would stop any future president from holding any part of the $4.7 trillion budget hostage to their personal whims? The answer is nothing. We will have relinquished the very check that the Founders entrusted to us to ensure a president could never behave like a king. The President's defense team also argued that impeachment is inappropriate unless it is fully bipartisan. Decades ago, I questioned whether an impeachment would be accepted if not bipartisan. But this argument has revealed itself to be painfully flawed. In 1974, Republicans ultimately convinced President Nixon to resign; in 1999, Democrats condemned President Clinton's private misconduct and supported a formal censure. In contrast, with one important exception, President Trump's supporters have thus far shown no limits in their tolerance of overwhelming misconduct; they even chased out of their party a Congressman who stood up to the President. Indeed, a prerequisite for membership in the Republican Party today appears to be the belief that he can do no wrong. Under this standard, claiming that President Trump's impeachment would only be valid if it were supported by his most unflinching enablers renders the impeachment clause null and void. That said, I do understand the immense pressure my Republican friends are under to support this President. I know well how much easier it is for me to express my disgust and disappointment that the President has proven himself so unfit for his office. That is one reason why I feel it is important to make a commitment right now. If any president, Republican or Democrat, uses the power of his or her office to extort a foreign nation to interfere in our elections to do the president's domestic political bidding, I will support their impeachment and removal. It is wrong, no matter the party. And we all should say so. Before I close, I want to thank the brave individuals who shared their testimony with both the House of Representatives and American people. Each of these witnesses served this President in his administration. And they have served their country. They witnessed misconduct originating in the highest office in world, and they spoke up. They did not hide behind the President's baseless order not to cooperate. Most knew that by stepping forward they would be attacked by the President and some of his vindictive defenders. Yet they came forward anyway. We owe them our enduring appreciation. They give me hope for tomorrow. Yet today is a dark day for our democracy. And what frightens me most is this: We are currently on a dangerous road, and no one has any idea where this road will take us. Not one of us here knows. But we all know our democracy has been indelibly altered. The notion that the President has learned his lesson is farcical. The President's lead counsel opened and closed this trial by claiming the President did nothing wrong. The President himself describes his actions as ``perfect.'' On 75 separate occasions, including yesterday, he's claimed he's done nothing wrong. Lord help us if the Senate agrees. The only lesson the President has learned from this trial is how easily he can get away with egregious, illegal misconduct. If the Senate does not recognize the gravity of President Trump's ``violation of the public trust,'' and hold him accountable, we will have seen but a preview of what is to come. Foreign interference in our elections. Total noncompliance with lawful congressional oversight. Disregard of our constitutional power of the purse. Open, flagrant corruption. I fear there is no bottom. This is the tragic result of the Senate failing its constitutional duty to hold a real trial. We will leave President Trump ``sacred and inviolable'' and with ``no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution.'' As Hamilton warned over two centuries ago, that is not a president; that is a king. I, for one, will not merely ``get over it.'' I have listened very carefully to both sides over the past two weeks. The record has established, leaving no doubt in my view, that President Trump directed the most impeachable, corrupt scheme by any president in this country's history. To protect our constitutional republic, and to safeguard our government's system of checks and balances, my oath to our Constitution compels me to hold the President of the United States accountable. I will vote to convict and remove President Donald J. Trump from office. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the question before us is incredibly serious, but it is also more than a little absurd. We are sitting as a court, exercising the sole power to try impeachments, entrusted to us by the Framers. The President of the United States has been charged with high crimes--a constitutional charge of abuse of power that includes in its text each of the elements of criminal bribery. The President's lawyers have complained all week about the absence of sworn testimony from officials with first-hand knowledge of the President's actions and intent. They claim not to know when the President froze the aid. They falsely claim there is no evidence the President withheld the aid in exchange for his political errand--announcing an investigation into his political rival. And yet whenever the President's counsels have pled ignorance or claimed a lack of evidence, they ask not that we pursue the truth; they ask instead that we look away. The Senate simply cannot look away. In the 220 years this body has served as a constitutional court of impeachment, we have never refused to look at critical evidence sitting in front of us. We have never raced to a pre-ordained verdict while deliberately avoiding the truth or evaluating plainly critical evidence. And when I say ``sitting in front of us,'' I mean that literally. Just this morning, we learned that Pat Cipollone, lead counsel for the President, along with Rudy Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney, was part of a meeting where President Trump directed John Bolton to ``ensure [President] Zelensky would meet with Mr. Giuliani.'' A meeting with the President's personal lawyer is not subject to executive privilege; and a meeting with Bolton and Mulvaney is not subject to attorney-client privilege. And this afternoon we received a proffer from Lev Parnas's attorney, claiming that Pamas could provide us with testimony implicating several cabinet officials and members of Congress in the President's scheme. I cannot say whether that is credible, but shouldn't he at least be heard and cross-examined? The Senate cannot turn a blind eye to such directly relevant evidence. This slipshod process reminds me of another trial. That was the trial of Alice in Wonderland. In that trial, the accusation was read, and the King immediately said to the jury, ``Consider your verdict.'' But even in that case it was acknowledged that ``There's a great deal to come before that,'' and the first witness was called. With apologies to Lewis Carroll, surely the United States Senate can at least match the rigorous criminal procedure of Wonderland? The oath that each of us swore just two weeks ago requires that we do ``impartial justice.'' Reasonable people can disagree about what that means, but every single time this body has sat as a court--every single time--it has heard from witnesses and weighed sworn testimony. We have never been denied the opportunity to hear from critical witnesses with firsthand information. During the Johnson trial, this court heard live testimony from 41 witnesses, including private counsel for the President and a cabinet secretary. During the Clinton trial, three witnesses were deposed and we considered the grand jury testimony of the President's chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, and White House Counsel--plus the grand jury testimony of the President himself. ``Impartial justice'' cannot mean burying our collective heads in the sand, and preventing relevant, probative testimony from being taken. Briefly, I also want to address the arguments made against calling witnesses. The President has said that ``Witnesses are up to the House, not up to the Senate.'' But the Senate has never been, and should not be now, limited to the House record. The Senate's constitutional obligation to try impeachments stands independent of the House's obligation. The Constitution does not allow the House's action or inaction to limit the evidence and testimony the Senate can and must consider. The last time we sat as a court we heard from 26 witnesses in total, including 17 who had not testified before the House. Seventeen. Some have also said that calling witnesses like John Bolton would leave us tangled up in an endless court battle over executive privilege. Not so. The Senate alone has the ``sole Power to try all Impeachments,'' and the Chief Justice reminded us just a few years ago in Zivotofsky v. Clinton that Article III courts cannot hear cases ``where there `is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.' '' And in Walter Nixon v. United States, the Supreme Court expressly ruled out ``[j]udicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review.'' Moreover, and more simply, executive privilege cannot prevent testimony from a private citizen like Bolton who is willing to testify. And, in any event, the President has almost certainly waived any claim to privilege by endlessly tweeting and talking to the media about his conversations with Bolton. The Senate is not helpless. We are the only court with jurisdiction. We can and should resolve these questions. Let us conduct this trial with the seriousness it deserves-- consistent with Senate precedent, the overwhelming expectations of the American people, and how every other trial across the country is conducted every single day. As Senators, we are here to debate and vote on difficult questions. I understand this may be a difficult question politically--but it is nowhere close to a difficult question under the law or common sense. I do not believe for one second that any of us sought public office to become an accomplice to what can only be described as a cover-up. As the Chief Justice has reminded us, we have the privilege of serving in the world's greatest deliberative body. So let's actually deliberate. But if we adopt the rule--rejected even in Wonderland--of verdict first, witnesses later, be assured those witnesses will eventually follow. Whether through FOIA, journalism, or book releases, the American people will learn the truth, likely sooner rather than later. Maybe even over the upcoming weekend. What will they think of a Senate that went to such extraordinary lengths--ignoring 220 years of precedent, any notions of fairness or respect for facts, and indeed ignoring our duties to the Constitution itself--to keep the truth buried? A vote to preclude witnesses will embolden this President to further demean the Congress, this Senate, and the balance of power so carefully established by the Framers in the Constitution. It will ratify the President's shell game of telling the House it should sue to enforce its subpoenas, and then telling courts that the House has no standing to do so. Just today, after a week of his counsel arguing that the President cannot be impeached for failing to respond to House subpoenas, the Justice Department argued in court that the House can use its impeachment power to enforce its subpoenas. It is up to all 100 of us to put a stop to this nonsense. I have served in this body for 45 years. It is not often we face votes like this--votes that will leave a significant mark on history, and will shape our constitutional ability to serve as a check against presidents for generations to come. I pray the Senate is worthy of this responsibility, and of this moment. I fear the repercussions if it is not. I will vote to hear from witnesses. With deep respect, I ask my fellow senators to do the same.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask to send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Blumenthal to the House managers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question for the House managers, and I send it to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past December, H.R. 1865, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, was enacted into law as Public Law 116-94. I want to take a moment to offer some clarity regarding section 903 of division J of the Act, which is a modified version of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019. I commend the Republican and Democratic Senators who have dedicated their time to pursuing justice for American victims of terrorism. We all want these victims to have their day in court and to be appropriately compensated. It is also important that we do so in a manner that does not do more harm than good. That is the balance that was sought in section 903 on a bipartisan basis. One component of section 903 is a provision that enables the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, PA and PLO, to conduct certain activities in the United States ``exclusively for the purpose of conducting official business'' and activities ``ancillary'' to those listed in the provision without consenting to personal jurisdiction in civil cases. The provision was included because Senators of both parties understand that it is in our national interest to permit certain activities related to the official representation of the PA and PLO. Having been part of the negotiation that resulted in this language, I believe it is important that we have a clear understanding of the types of activities that are considered ``ancillary'' to the conduct of official business. While the official business of any foreign mission necessarily includes meetings with Members of Congress and their staff, representatives of the executive branch, and other public officials, ancillary activities are those which may not be essential for the minimal functioning of the mission but which support the mission's primary operations. By way of example, I am confident that every Member of this body would, as I do, consider a public statement, the issuance of a press release, or a meeting or public appearance--while not essential--to be ancillary to his or her primary functions as a U.S. Senator and would reject any attempt to define such activities otherwise. That is also why, with regard to the PA and PLO, while we may or may not agree with the statements of its representatives, the law contemplates that its representatives may meet with advocates regarding relevant issues, make public statements, and otherwise engage in public advocacy and civil society activities that are ancillary to the conduct of official business without consenting to personal jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is provided for elsewhere in section 903. The message in this bill is clear: Congress is committed to pursuing justice for American victims of terrorism while ensuring appropriate standards regarding the ability of foreign missions to conduct official business in the United States. This is a solution that protects U.S. national interests, and I thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked together to find a way forward on this measure.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President I want to take a few moments to discuss an issue that has garnered some attention in recent months, which is our relations with the Government of the Philippines, including President Duterte's counter-drug strategy and his government's treatment of those who have openly criticized that strategy. It is important to first recount the long history of friendship and strategic cooperation between the United States and the Philippines. Family and cultural ties that extend back many generations bind us together, as do our shared goals in East Asia and the Pacific. Our Armed Forces regularly engage in joint exercises to enhance regional security. Despite our differences, relations between our two countries are strong and based on mutual respect. We should also extend our deepest sympathies to those harmed by the recent eruption of the Taal volcano in Luzon. It has displaced tens of thousands of families and destroyed the livelihoods of many. The U.S. Agency for International Development and international organizations that receive U.S. funding like the World Food Programme are responding with humanitarian aid to those in need, which I and others in Congress strongly support. One of the manifestations of our longstanding, close relations with the Philippines is the assistance we provide annually to promote a wide range of interests there, from humanitarian and economic assistance to military assistance, which in fiscal year 2019 totaled more than $150 million. However, as is the case for other recipients of U.S. assistance, those funds are not an entitlement and they are not a blank check. For example, in the Philippines they may not be used to support police counter-drug operations. We condemn the thousands of extrajudicial executions of suspected drug users and drug-traffickers by police and their collaborators. Such a strategy is not consistent with due process and the rule of law, nor an effective way to combat the trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs that every country, including the United States, is struggling with. We do support treatment programs for Filipinos suffering from drug addiction. We also stand strongly in support of freedom of expression, whether in the Philippines or anywhere else, including in our own country, and that, as well as President Duterte's counter-drug strategy, is what underlies our current disagreement with his government that is illustrated, most recently, by the passage without opposition of S. Res. 142, which condemns the imprisonment of Senator Leila De Lima and calls for her immediate release. It also calls on the Government of the Philippines to guarantee freedom of the press and to drop charges against Maria Ressa and the online news network Rappler. As said by Senator Durbin who, like I, cosponsored that resolution, ``[i]n the end, [De Lima's] freedom and the end of government harassment against journalists like Maria Ressa will be important tests of whether cherished democratic norms we share with our long-standing Filipino allies will be respected by President Duterte.'' The response of the Duterte government was regrettable, albeit not uncharacteristic. Like Senator Durbin, I have become accustomed to being on the receiving end of baseless personal attacks by President Duterte's spokesman, as if those attacks might intimidate us or boost domestic support for his government. Rather than respond substantively to legitimate concerns about extrajudicial killings, impunity, and freedom of expression that I, Senator Durbin, Senator Markey, our Democratic and Republican colleagues, the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, and respected human rights organizations have raised over the years, we are told that S. Res. 142 is based on ``bogus narratives . . . promoted by Duterte's usual antagonists.'' We are accused of being ``prejudiced'' and ``misguided,'' our support for Senator De Lima ``a direct and shameless affront to the Republic of the Philippines, which has long ceased to be a colony of the United States.'' Our actions are called ``brazen and intrusive to the dignity of an independent, democratic and sovereign state'' which would ``not be bullied by any foreign country or by its officials, especially by misinformed and gullible politicians who grandstand at our expense.'' Going a step further, the Duterte government inexplicably threatened to deny visas to Americans who seek to visit the Philippines and who have nothing to do with these concerns. Such vitriolic hyperbole is barely deserving of a response, but suffice it to say that none of us remotely regards the Philippines as a colony of the United States, nor are our concerns about the treatment of Senator De Lima and Maria Ressa an intrusion of the Philippines' sovereignty, which we respect. S. Res. 142 is based on consistent reporting by the Trump administration's State Department, the United Nations, and other credible observers, including in the Philippines, who share the conviction that defending freedom of expression has nothing to do with sovereignty. To the contrary, it is everyone's responsibility, wherever it is denied. If there is any ``intrusion of dignity'' or ``shameless affront'' in this instance, it is the harassment, threats, false charges, and imprisonment of those who have dared to criticize the Duterte government's lawless counter-drug strategy. None of us here, nor in the Philippines, has an interest in prolonging this dispute. To the contrary, we want to enhance our cooperation in a multitude of areas of common interest--from maritime security to human trafficking to climate change. What 100 U.S. Senators--Republicans and Democrats--have urged is succinctly spelled out in the resolution. Rather than deny visas to Americans, many of whom have family in the Philippines, and rather than resort to ad hominem attacks, there is, as Senator Durbin has said, ``an easy and honorable way forward.'' As I have said for months, we are not aware of any credible evidence that Senator De Lima, who has been detained for nearly 3 years, is guilty of the crimes she has been accused of. If such evidence exists, it should be promptly produced in a public trial, and she should be provided the opportunity to refute it. Otherwise she should be released. As a former prosecutor, I know that is the minimum to which anyone accused of a crime is entitled. And respected, courageous investigative journalists like Maria Ressa should be able to publish without fear of retaliation. There is no surer way to destroy the underpinnings of democracy than by using threats and unlawful arrest to silence the press.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken repeatedly about the unlawful imprisonment and abuse of human rights activists by the Saudi Government, which continue despite promises of reform by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In fact, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the botched coverup and sham investigation, and the ongoing, systematic repression of Saudi activists have only served to confirm what we already knew, which is that the Crown Prince is no reformer but, instead, a ruthless autocrat intimidated by non-violent dissent from his own people. One such activist being unlawfully detained by the Saudi royal family--which for all intents and purposes is the government--is Loujain al-Hathloul, a prominent and outspoken women's rights defender known for her activism against the women's driving ban and the male guardianship system. In 2014, Ms. al-Hathloul, who had a driver's license from the United Arab Emirates, UAE, was detained for 73 days after attempting to drive into Saudi Arabia from the UAE. She was arrested again in May 2018 along with several other women's rights activists, weeks before the Saudi Government lifted the ban on female drivers. She was detained and forcibly deported via private Saudi jet from the UAE and remains in a Saudi prison today. According to Ms. al-Hathloul's family and several human rights organizations, she has been tortured, sexually harassed, and threatened with rape and murder by Saudi officials. For the first 10 months of her detention, Ms. al-Hathloul was held without charges or trial and for the first 3 months, without access to her family or lawyer. In her first trial session on March 13, 2019, she was charged with promoting women's rights; calling for an end to the male guardianship system; and contacting international organizations, foreign media, and other activists. It is hard to believe that in the year 2020, advocacy that has been protected under international law for nearly half a century is grounds for imprisonment and prosecution in Saudi Arabia, a country whose leaders enjoy the best of what oil revenues can buy while subjecting their critics to treatment reminiscent of the 1800s. Imprisoned, tortured, and charged with multiple ``crimes,'' Ms. al- Hathloul's last court appearance was on April 3, 2019, more than 250 days ago. She remains in prison without any information regarding when her next court session will take place. The right of due process simply does not exist in Saudi Arabia. This is typical of how Saudi Arabia treats those who dare to exercise their rights to free expression, association, and assembly. We should all be outraged, and in fact Republicans and Democrats in Congress as well as dozens of foreign governments have called for Ms. al-Hathloul's release and the release of others facing politically motivated charges in Saudi Arabia. Until there are consequences for these violations of human rights and misuse of the judicial process, nothing will change. Fortunately, our hands are not tied. The United States can do more than simply call for Ms. al-Hathloul's release. Section 7031(c) of division G of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, which applies to all foreign countries, states that ``[o]fficials of foreign governments and their immediate family members about whom the Secretary of State has credible information have been involved, directly or indirectly, in . . . a gross violation of human rights shall be ineligible for entry into the United States.'' Secretary of State Pompeo unquestionably has such information. Ms. al-Hathloul's prolonged, arbitrary detention and abuse in custody are gross violations of human rights. Secretary Pompeo should apply section 7031(c) and immediately impose visa restrictions on all Saudi Government officials involved, directly or indirectly, in her detention and abuse. That is our law. It is as ironic as it is unconscionable that the Crown Prince has been praised for ending the ban on a woman's ability to drive a car in Saudi Arabia, at the same time that his government is unjustly and cruelly imprisoning a courageous woman for advocating for that very right. The Trump administration should apply the law as required in this case.