Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Rubenstein, an intern with the Appropriations Committee, be granted floor privileges for the length of the current debate on H.R. 3401, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spent much of my career in the Senate working to eradicate landmines, which kill and maim far more civilians than combatants. These insidious, inherently indiscriminate weapons often remain active for years or even decades after the fighting has ended and the soldiers have left, lying in wait for the unsuspecting footstep of a child on her way to school, or a farmer working in a field. In 1997, the Yemeni Government signed the Mine Ban Treaty which outlaws the production, stockpiling, export, and use of anti-personnel mines. With the help of international donors, they made great strides in humanitarian demining, to the point that, by 2012, they were on the cusp of declaring the country landmine free. Unfortunately, the civil war between the Houthi rebels supported by Iran, and the Yemeni Government supported by the Saudi-led coalition, changed everything. The use of landmines made a resurgence, due to Iranian mines that the Houthis have planted by the thousands throughout the country. More than 9,000 Yemenis have reportedly been killed or injured by landmines, the overwhelming majority of them innocent civilians. Children are especially vulnerable to mine accidents. They run and play; they explore open fields; they are curious about strange objects. Most children who step on a landmine will die from loss of blood before they can obtain medical attention, and the survivors often do not have access to the specialized care and support they need. Even children who do not become victims are affected by landmines in their communities. They cannot play or go to school without fearing for their lives, and they suffer from malnutrition when militants turn farmland into minefields. As I have said many times before, the use of landmines is an affront to civilized societies. Regardless of who uses them, they are an illegitimate weapon, triggered by the victim, and are often used to terrorize and brutalize the innocent. They impede development for decades, even generations. In Vietnam today, for example, landmines continue to kill and injure civilians 44 years after the war ended. The Houthis' use of landmines cannot be justified any more than their use of child soldiers and other violations of the laws of war, and should stop immediately. Similarly, the United States should stop supporting Saudi Arabia's indiscriminate bombing in Yemen which has caused thousands of civilian casualties. This war will not be won militarily, and the longer it drags on the more innocent people will pay the price, with their limbs, their livelihoods, and their lives. The Department of State is supporting efforts to help locate and destroy landmines in Yemen, but far more needs to be done. Even though the Yemeni army, the UN Development program, and nongovernmental organizations have cleared more than 300,000 mines in the country, it is estimated that at least 1 million remain. The Leahy War Victims Fund, administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development, has provided artificial limbs, wheelchairs, rehabilitation, and vocational assistance to landmine survivors in many countries, and could be used in Yemen. Yemen was an impoverished country before Iran and Saudi Arabia decided to go to war there, which has caused immense suffering among the Yemeni people. War crimes have been committed by both sides, and by providing weapons to the Saudis, we also are implicated. Every effort should be made to pressure the Houthis to stop using landmines and child soldiers, and the Saudis to stop their bombing of civilian areas. The Department of State should increase its support for humanitarian demining in Yemen, and the U.S. Agency for International Development should increase its support for organizations that help mine victims rebuild their lives.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tomorrow, I will be back home in Burlington, VT, to take part in a joyous occasion. In an afternoon ceremony at the Ethan Allen Homestead, I will attend a naturalization ceremony in which 14 new Americans from 11 countries will be administered the Oath of Allegiance. The participants will be surrounded by family and friends as they stand proudly next to the American flag and formally became U.S. citizens. It will be an honor to stand with them. As we celebrate these immigrants who will join our ranks as American citizens, today, on World Refugee Day, we must not forget the plight of millions of refugees who have not been as fortunate. Right now, there are over 70 million people across the globe who have been forcibly displaced from their home countries by the horrors of persecution, war, famine, and chaos. In 2018 alone, nearly 13.8 million people were newly displaced, meaning that 25 people were forced to flee their homes every single minute of 2018. Nearly half of all refugees are children under the age of 18, many of them just infants and toddlers. On World Refugee Day, we must recommit ourselves to the hallowed American tradition of being a refuge for the persecuted and the oppressed. Welcoming refugees with dignity is not a Democratic or a Republican priority; it is the American way. We are a better country for it. No single administration will ever be able to erase that from our DNA as a nation of refugees and immigrants. I couldn't think of a better way to highlight the indelible contributions of immigrants and refugees to our society than to share a personal story that my good friend, U.S. District Court Judge Bill Sessions, recently offered at a naturalization ceremony at Vermont's State House marking the 17th anniversary of 9/11. Judge Sessions' remarks came just months after he suffered a life-threatening injury, only to later discover that the medical professionals who helped save his life were the very same immigrants he had sworn in as American citizens years earlier. I for one, am most grateful that they were here in America to save his life. I ask unanimous consent that Judge Sessions' statement be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, later this month our Nation will mark the 50th anniversary of the momentous uprising at the Stonewall Inn, an occasion that led to June being designated as Pride Month. From parades and celebrations to quiet remembrances, millions of Americans are reflecting on the progress made in the last 50 years for LGBTQ rights, but under the current administration, I fear some of that progress is at risk. President Trump, who once claimed to be an ally of the LGBTQ community, has proven to be anything but that. His administration has pursued a series of administrative rule changes that seek to undermine the progress made by the LGBTQ community. That includes, at seemingly every opportunity, attempting to make life more difficult for transgender individuals, a community of people who already face daily discrimination. The Trump administration has worked to erase the gender identities of Federal inmates; to restrict access to healthcare and allow homeless shelters to freely discriminate against LGBTQ individuals under the false guise of religious freedom; and to ban transgender servicemembers from our Armed Services, many of whom have served this country for years, including during times of war. If discrimination by policy were not enough, President Trump also nominated an unapologetic anti-LGBTQ zealot for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, a nominee Senate Republicans are ready to confirm on the floor this week. Matthew Kacsmaryk has a long history of espousing uninformed, offensive, and downright bigoted views of LGBTQ individuals. In 2016, he wrote that the existence of transgender identity is a ``delusion'' and that treating transgender patients in accordance with their gender identity is ``radicalism.'' He has repeatedly disparaged the LGBTQ rights movement and described efforts to roll back progress as a ``Long War Ahead.'' He has argued that discrimination against LGBTQ persons should be legal in employment, public accommodations, and healthcare. He has opposed equality in every possible arena, including anti- discrimination provisions in reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Trafficking and Prevention Act, two pieces of legislation that I authored and care about deeply, legislation that attempts to defend the most vulnerable in our society. No one can credibly claim that an LGBTQ individual, seeking nothing more than equality under the law, would receive a fair hearing from a Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a man who considers himself a warrior in the effort to roll back LGBTQ rights. He is simply unfit to serve as a judge. The fact that Senate Republicans would consider the nomination of Matthew Kacsmaryk during Pride Month adds additional insult to the LGBTQ community, which rightly speaks with a single voice in opposition to this nominee. Protecting LGBTQ rights need not be a partisan effort. Senator Ted Kennedy and I worked with Republican partners to pass the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, which ensures that hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity are federally recognized and prosecuted. I also worked with Senator Crapo when we authored the landmark reauthorization and expansion of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013, which expanded protections for LGBTQ victims. The Senate has an opportunity to come together again in enacting much-needed reforms by passing the Equality Act. A most basic duty of government is to protect its citizens. By allowing President Trump to repeatedly attack the LGBTQ community without taking action or speaking out, the Senate is failing in our duty. American citizens will suffer greatly from discriminatory policies and judges with hostility toward the LGBTQ community. People at their most desperate will be refused medical care and turned away from shelters. Soldiers will be forced to hide who they are or risk being discharged and prevented from serving the country they love. Inmates will be housed with people of a different gender, opening the door to abuse. If the President is able to sanction overt discrimination against marginalized members of society with impunity, the words ``all men are created equal'' have little meaning. I implore each member of this body to stand up for the rights of all our LGBTQ constituents and friends, not just during Pride Month, but every month. I, for one, will stand with them. nomination of allen cothrel winsor

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have had many discussions on what is happening on appropriations bills. So I thought I could help clear some things up. Next week, the Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up a supplemental appropriations bill. We are doing this to address the humanitarian crisis, which it is, on our southern border. There is absolutely no need for this to be a partisan process. So many of us, Republicans and Democrats, agree we need to address the humanitarian crisis on our southern border. We have seen the news reports showing crowded conditions at Custom and Border Protection facilities. We have seen the pictures of women and children sleeping outside on the ground because the facilities are full. I have gone through places where they basically have cages holding children--and this is happening in America. And we have seen the numbers of unaccompanied children in our care swell as kids come across the border looking for help and compassion. Now, most of these people are fleeing violence or dire poverty in their home countries. Most know how dangerous the trek north will be, but they feel they have no choice but to make the trek anyway. Some have said they know they may die on the trek north, but they are going to die from gang violence and the murderers back home if they do not. They fear for their lives. By the time they reach us, they are exhausted, they are scared, and they are hungry. The vast majority actually just turn themselves over to Border Patrol Agents as soon as they cross into the United States. Rather than try to evade law enforcement, they look for the U.S. authorities in uniform. They turn themselves in to them and are then escorted by Border Patrol through the billion-dollar, actually useless, Trump wall. They are not looking to do us harm. They are looking for mercy. Now, we may disagree about what has led to this crisis and what changes may be needed to our immigration system. But I take issue with claims from across the aisle that Democrats oppose any and all solutions to address this crisis. Everybody knows that is simply false. We have a responsibility to make sure that the people in our care are treated humanely. After all, we are Americans. We ought to show the world we stand for American values. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I take this responsibility seriously. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement--the Agency that cares for unaccompanied children who cross the border--is running out of money. They are expected to exceed their Federal appropriations by the end of this month. Because they are running out of money, they have already begun to scale back on services that are not critical for life and safety, including education, recreation, and legal services. We ought to take action. Customs and Border Protection processing facilities are vastly over capacity. That not only creates dangerous conditions for the migrants who are in our care but also dangerous conditions for our Border Patrol staff. We have seen these pictures of men and women and children sleeping outside with Mylar blankets in temporary shelters, under bridges, and in overcrowded conditions inside facilities that cannot accommodate them. I have seen this. It cannot continue. We have to do better. We Americans have American values. We should act like it. The Senate Democrats are willing to provide money to address these problems. We have a responsibility to do so--Republicans and Democrats both--but we also have a responsibility to put basic conditions on this money. We want to make sure the taxpayers' dollars are appropriately spent. We cannot provide a blank check, especially to this administration. HHS and DHS facilities have to meet appropriate standards. So the care we provide reflects the fact that we are Americans with American values. We must not let detainees languish outdoors in 100-degree temperatures for more than 30 days without showering or changing clothes--and that is happening. Children in our care should only be housed in facilities that meet State licensing requirements--not in cages. They should have access to education, recreation, and legal services. DHS should not be using information on potential sponsors for unaccompanied children to deport them. We found that has happened. We had people willing and capable of taking care of these children instead of the U.S. taxpayers spending thousands upon thousands of dollars. Instead of saying thank you, we say: Well, we are going to check your background. Maybe we should deport you. It makes me think about the number of people who have served in our military and overseas that are immigrants and then get deported. Now, that is hard to understand. It is probably easier to understand for people who have refused to serve, but it is hard to understand. That is no different than saying: Oh, you served our country, you faced dangers, and you were shot at wearing the uniform of this country. But we are throwing you out. Now, Members of Congress with oversight responsibility of these Agencies should be able to have access to detention facilities. The Trump administration should not request these resources from Congress and then not tell Congress what they are going to do with it by saying: We sure as heck are not going to let any Member of Congress--Republican or Democrat--see what we do with it. Money appropriated for humanitarian assistance should be used for humanitarian assistance. It should not be diverted to pay for a wall, which would do nothing to solve this humanitarian crisis. Now, these should not be controversial propositions. They are reasonable conditions to include. They should get bipartisan support. We can do it if Republicans want to, but what we are not going to do is allow the Trump administration to use this humanitarian crisis to supplement funding for an enforcement agenda that is not only controversial but also ineffective and cruel. For example, the President has asked for funding to increase ICE detention facilities by 7,600 beds. There is no need for this increased funding. We should not provide it. The administration's inclination at every turn is to just use detention to solve our immigration problem, while not actually working to solve our immigration problem, at enormous cost to the American taxpayers. It is expensive, inefficient, and it is wrong. The other thing is that it does not work. Alternatives to detention exist. They are safe, effective, and enormously less expensive to the taxpayers. The administration needs to use the resources it has for ICE detention services to house those people who truly present a danger to our communities. Yes, house somebody who is a criminal. House somebody who has a criminal record. But do not lock up every man, woman, and child simply for being here without proper documentation, spending thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars to lock up a 5-year-old. They are really not the people we should worry about. But the Trump administration's dramatically escalating the arrest and detention of immigrants who have no criminal record makes no sense. It is an enormous waste of taxpayers' dollars. We carefully negotiated ICE bed levels in the fiscal year 2019 Homeland Security appropriations bill just a few months ago, which got strong bipartisan support. That was just a few months ago; there is no reason to revisit it now just a few months later. Congress should also ensure that funding it approved 2 years ago-- overwhelmingly, by both Republicans and Democrats--to deal with the root causes of immigration from Central America is spent for those purposes. If we do not deal with the reasons people are leaving their countries, of course they are going to keep coming. That is just common sense, and that is why we appropriated these funds. That is why Republicans and Democrats voted to appropriate these funds and the President signed those appropriations bills. We should insist they are used for the purposes that Republicans and Democrats voted for them to be used. When President Trump decides to withhold a half a billion dollars of that funding, that is self-defeating. That does about as much to stop illegal immigration as tweeting about it does. So in addition to being ready, willing, and able to help address humanitarian issues at the border, Democrats are also advocating for longer term solutions that both parties should support if we are serious about solving this crisis. As some Senators recall, when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we had months of hearings, weeks of markup, hundreds of pieces of information coming, and witnesses, and I brought a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor 6 years ago. There were 68 Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, who voted for it. Even though it passed the Senate, the Republican Speaker of the House refused to bring it up. The irony is that yesterday the Acting Homeland Security Secretary testified that if we had enacted that bill--the bill I brought to this floor, which 68 Senators voted for--it would have made a difference in the current crisis. It is unfortunate that the Republican Speaker blocked it. He did say it would violate the Dennis Hastert rule, and they had to uphold that. Well, no, it violated common sense by not bringing it to a vote. So as we did back then, any immigration reform we consider today has to be done on a bipartisan basis. That is how we got the big vote here. I know that these are controversial matters. Of course they are. That is why we struggle over them. But bipartisanship is the only way to get things done around here. Given the urgency of the need on the southern border, I hope my Republican colleagues will not use this bill as a vehicle to force debate on divisive immigration proposals that should be left to the authorizing committees, not to the Appropriations Committee. If we turn this into a protracted debate about immigration reform, we will only delay much needed humanitarian assistance on the southern border. We could do both. Pass the appropriations bills, but then let's have a real debate, as we did a few years ago, on immigration reform, something that got two-thirds of the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--to vote for it. As I said at the beginning, consideration of a supplemental appropriations bill to address the humanitarian crisis should never be a partisan issue. We all want to make sure that we appropriately care for the vulnerable families seeking refuge at the United States of America's border. I urge all Members to focus on areas of agreement in this package. There are a lot of areas we can agree on, Republicans and Democrats. Focus on it, pass it, and get assistance out the door as quickly as possible. I see another Senator is waiting. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the remembrances of D-Day from Senator Blunt, the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri. It is always memorable attending D-Day events. The first one I went to--and you just spoke of the distinguished Kansan, Dwight Eisenhower-- was with Robert Dole for the 40th anniversary. President Reagan asked the two of us to represent him in Italy when we first landed, while President Reagan went to Normandy. Subsequently, I went with a delegation with President Clinton and then with President George W. Bush, and, lastly, with President Obama. I found the experience overwhelming each time. Last year--it was actually on my birthday--Dick Shelby and I were there and laid a wreath in Normandy. Nobody can walk by there--first, seeing all the graves and realizing that they are only some of the remains--and then walking to the cliffs and looking down, and not wonder how anybody could have had the courage to face such withering fire. For some who survived, it seemed like the enemy was using a paint brush and just wiping people out. You would see them falling all around. A well-respected doctor from our home town in Montpelier had never talked about it. On the 50th anniversary we asked him if he would join us there. He is not a wealthy man. He treated a lot of the poor Italian immigrants for nothing. My mother was a first generation Italian American, and she always talked with him. She and my father and others raised money for him to go, and after that for the first time he could talk about it. He came back and talked about it. He was a medic and a little guy. He went off the boat with all of his gear and just sank. He would have drowned, but somebody pulled him up and brought him to the shore. He turned to say thank you, and the man who rescued him was shot dead. He refused to leave the beach. He just treated one person after another, and his story is not unusual. So many did that. So I thank my friend from Missouri for what he said.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Appropriations Committee staff was working until midnight last night, as they do so often, on the disaster supplement. We know that in January the House sent us a disaster supplemental appropriations bill to help communities across the Nation. These communities were dealing with the deadly aftermath of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and volcanoes. It has been my experience over the years that normally disaster bills sail through both Chambers of Congress. Every Member knows that one day it will be his State or her State that needs help recovering from a disaster. I well remember when we had a terrible hurricane in Vermont; it created the most damage in generations in our State. The day after the devastation, I went with our Governor and the head of our National Guard in a helicopter to survey the damage. For many towns, the only way we could reach them was in a helicopter. The bridges were like a child's toy, twisted and gone. The roads totally disappeared. Houses were upside down in the river. It was heartbreaking, but as we were going there, I received email after email. My Senate colleagues, many of them Republicans, said ``Vermont stood with us when we had''--and they named the disaster. ``We will stand with you.'' That is what we do. It doesn't make any difference whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; if there is a disaster, you stand together. What I cannot understand is that in my 44 years here--it was different this time. When we brought up a disaster supplemental appropriations bill in January of this year, the President of the United States came out swinging against it. Why? Because the bill contained assistance for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico had been hit by 2 back-to-back, category 5 hurricanes, and apparently providing assistance to 3 million Americans in need was a step too far for him. He did not want to provide aid to these Americans. ``Not one more dime for Puerto Rico'' he was reported to have said--shocking words for somebody who holds the highest office in the land, especially after they had nearly unprecedented back-to-back hurricanes. From the beginning, I have said what my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues have always said. It is a role of the Federal Government to stand by all Americans in times of need. It should not matter whether you are a Georgia peach farmer, a California small business owner, or a child living in San Juan. If your community is devastated by a natural disaster, you are an American, and the American community will stand with you. That is what I have always fought for. So here we are, 5 months later--5 months of negotiations, 5 months of talks--and we finally reach a deal on a disaster aid bill that helps all--all Americans. We don't pick and choose. It is a good deal. It addresses the need from Alabama to California and many States in between. But 5 months is too long to wait. It is far too long for the communities who are trying to rebuild their homes and their towns, so we have to act now. The President has asked that we add $4.5 million to the disaster supplemental bill to address the issues that we face at our southern border. I agree with the President that some of this money is badly needed. We don't dispute that. But everyone in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, knows that under this President, anything to do with immigration is controversial; it is going to be hotly debated. We have been working night and day to strike a compromise on the President's request. When we finished in the middle of last night, we were close, but we are not there yet. I hope in the next few hours we can resolve our remaining differences, but if we cannot reach agreement, then at least pass the disaster bill without it today--not tomorrow, not next week, not next month--today. Five months has been too long for America to have to wait. We have a deal on the disaster aid bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is supported by Democrats and Republicans. It is ready to go. Let's pass it today, and let's show the American people we stand with them in times of crisis, just as Members of this body stood with my beloved State of Vermont when we were hit. We didn't say we are Republicans or Democrats. We said that we are Americans, and Americans have been hurt, and Americans stand together when we are suffering. Today, Americans are suffering across this country. Let us--as the conscience of the Nation, the U.S. Senate, let us stand with them, and let's get the disaster aid they need. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their votes. Even though the final vote might be 5 months late, today is a good day for the Congress, for the Senate, for the American people, and for the Nation. I have said from the beginning--a position I have taken in all of my decades in the Senate--that any disaster supplemental that passes this Chamber cannot pick and choose which American citizens to help in their time of need. We are all Americans. The American community bands together to support one another when disaster strikes, regardless of where we are from, what our politics are, or what our beliefs are. That is the American way, and it is the role of the Congress to make sure that it is done. I am glad to stand on the Senate floor today, and I am glad to be here with my dear friend, the senior Senator from Alabama and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby, to support what is a bipartisan, bicameral disaster supplemental appropriations bill. Think of what we have done. This bill will provide long overdue aid to the people of California, Georgia, Florida, Nebraska, Iowa, North Carolina, South Carolina, Hawaii, Texas, Missouri, Alabama, and Puerto Rico just to name a few. Some of these people--they are all American citizens--have been trying to put their lives back together for nearly 2 years--since August of 2017. It provides $19.1 billion to help communities in these States and Territories to rebuild stronger than they were before. It includes more than $2.4 billion in community development block grants, more than $1.6 billion for the Federal Highway Administration to rebuild roads and bridges, and more than $3 billion to support our Nation's farmers who lost their crops and livestock in the storms. It also provides more than $3 billion to rebuild our military's storm-damaged infrastructure. It has been no secret that how to help the American citizens of Puerto Rico has been at the heart of our dispute on disaster aid, but I am pleased to report that the bill provides much needed assistance to these Americans, including $605 million for the Nutrition Assistance Program, and $304 million in community development block grants to help the island meet the FEMA match requirements. One thing that we learned when Tropical Storm Irene struck Vermont is that you have rebuild better than you were so you are stronger when you face the next storm. We have included language that requires FEMA to rebuild the island stronger and better than it was before to help mitigate the damage of a future storm. We did this in certain areas in Vermont, and it made all the difference in the world. This supplemental will unlock billions of dollars that Congress had previously appropriated for Puerto Rico and other communities across the country that the Trump administration has held back in the Treasury. We reached this agreement because the Republicans and the Democrats came together across the aisle. It is a strong bipartisan agreement. It reflects that we are one Nation in times of need and that all Americans can count on each other. I was happy to see the strong support from the Senators here, but our work is not yet done. Now we have to address the humanitarian crisis at our southern border. We have to help those who are fleeing from violence and persecution in their own countries. The President has requested $4.5 billion. Some of this money is badly needed. There is no dispute about that, and I will support the part that is badly needed. Everyone in this Chamber knows these are difficult issues that are often made more difficult given the President's rhetoric and extreme policies. Difficult issues take time. Let's lower the rhetoric, and let's do as we have done here--work together. We have been working day and night to strike a compromise on the President's request. We are close, but we are not there yet. Even as of late, late last night, we were still working on that. When we return, I hope we can negotiate a bipartisan agreement to provide additional humanitarian assistance. To reach this agreement today, many of the Senators--and I mentioned, of course, Senator Shelby, my friend, as chairman--and I, as vice chairman, worked together. So did many others, but none of us could do it without the dedicated staff that was involved. I could go home at 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock at night, but they were still there. I am talking about both the Democratic staff and the Republican staff. So I asked my Appropriations chief of staff, Chuck Kieffer, to give me a list. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks the list of names of both the Democratic staff and the Republican staff who worked so hard on this. I said on a personal basis earlier that I remember when Tropical Storm Irene hit Vermont and how totally discouraged I was by the damage. Yet, within hours, I had texts and emails from Senators in this body--Republicans and Democrats alike. They said: When we were hit by a tornado, by flooding, by an earthquake--whatever it might have been-- Vermont stood with us, and we will stand with Vermont. That is what we are as the United States of America. The Senate did what it should do today. The Senate acted as the conscience of the Nation. We stood together to help all Americans.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President I want to bring to the Senate's attention the story and the example of Alberto Curamil, an environmental activist who is a member of the indigenous Mapuche people in Chile's Araucania region. The Mapuche are Chile's largest indigenous group, and since the 1800s they have struggled to protect their culture, territory, rivers, forests, and natural resources against encroachment and destruction by settlers and energy companies that have often acted with impunity and the backing of the government. Mr. Curamil has dedicated his life to this cause. It is the existential struggle of indigenous people in scores of countries as the insatiable global demand for energy, arable land, water, timber, oil, gas, and minerals threatens their ancestral lands and way of life. Several years ago, during a prolonged drought in Chile, the Ministry of Energy announced a plan for two large hydroelectric projects in Araucania, without consulting the Mapuche people who live there. The projects would reportedly divert more than 500 million gallons of water for power generation, severely limiting water flow and damaging the ecosystem of the Cautin River on which many of the Mapuche people depend for survival. Mr. Curamil, who has three children, lives on the outskirts of the town of Curacautin. He is a farmer who raises animals. His wife teaches the Mapuche language. Fearing what the harm to the river would mean for his people, he organized Mapuche and non-Mapuche, environmental organizations, lawyers, and academics to try to stop the projects. In public protests and in court, they argued that the government had ignored Chilean law which requires free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities before approving such projects. Despite harassment, threats, and violent attacks, Mr. Curamil succeeded in uniting the opposition, and in 2016 the projects were canceled. But that was not the end of it. On August 14, 2018, Mr. Curamil was arrested by Chile's national police and imprisoned. He has been charged with assault during a bank robbery in which a guard was injured and hostages taken. An anonymous witness reportedly said that one of the robbers looked like a Mapuche, and they arrested Mr. Curamil. There have been no judicial proceedings, and Mr. Curamil remains in pretrial detention. Mr. Curamil and his family say that he is a victim of retaliation for his environmental activism, that he was attending a meeting in a different town at the time of the robbery, and that multiple people can attest to his presence there. At the time of his arrest, his house was ransacked by police and left in a shambles. In November 2018, another Mapuche, Camilo Catrillanca, age 24, died after being shot in the back by police. He was a member of the Mapuche Territorial Alliance, a grassroots organization that seeks to reintegrate the Mapuche people through reclaiming their language, territory, and rights that were fractured and repeatedly violated during the past two centuries. I mention these events to put in context the recent announcement that Alberto Curamil was selected as one of the 2019 winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize. The prize honors grassroots environmental activists from around the world, singling out individuals for their extraordinary and sustained efforts to protect the natural environment, often at great personal risk. Not only did Mr. Curamil lead a successful challenge to the unlawful decision by the Chilean Ministry of Energy, he is being subjected to what many suspect is a flagrant and vindictive abuse of the judicial process of the type that we have come to expect in countries with authoritarian governments like Russia but not democracies like Chile. If the Chilean authorities have credible evidence to support the charge against Mr. Curamil, they should produce it in a public trial and provide him with the opportunity to defend himself. Instead, nearly 10 months since his arrest, he languishes in jail while his wife and children are alone fending for themselves. The attempts to intimidate and silence Mr. Curamil and the threats to his people and the natural environment are not unique. This is happening to indigenous people all over the world, and each year the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize helps to call attention to those like Mr. Curamil who have risked their lives on behalf of their communities, wildlife species, rivers, lakes, forests, and oceans that are being threatened or destroyed. Mr. Curamil is an activist for environmental and social justice that Chileans should take pride in. Like the many hundreds in attendance in San Francisco and Washington who cheered when his daughter, Belen Curamil, received the prize on his behalf, the Chilean people should recognize Mr. Curamil for his courageous defense of Chile's natural environment and diverse cultural heritage. We should also be concerned that Mr. Curamil 's arrest takes place against a backdrop of escalating violence between the national police and Mapuche activists. At the heart of the dispute is land ownership and lack of consultation on legislation or investment projects that directly affect the Mapuche. Timber is Chile's second-largest export commodity, worth billions of dollars annually, and the political elite is deeply invested in the industry. Mapuche activists are engaged in a campaign against the timber industry and its defenders in the government. In response, prosecutors are using an anti-terrorism law originally introduced by the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet to stifle political dissent. The law allows for indefinite pretrial detention, investigations being kept secret for up to 6 months, and evidence admitted in oral hearings from anonymous witnesses, as in Mr. Curamil 's case. This situation is aptly described by Global Witness in its 2017 report, Defenders of the Earth: It is increasingly clear that, globally, governments and business are failing in their duty to protect activists at risk . . . Ironically, it is the activists themselves who are painted as criminals, facing trumped-up criminal charges and aggressive civil cases brought by governments and companies seeking to silence them. This criminalization is used to intimidate defenders, tarnish their reputations and lock them into costly legal battles. Chile's police have intervened violently on the side of private companies, intimidating Mapuche communities. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples warned that the government and police are increasingly targeting activists who are campaigning to protect their land from mining, logging, and dams. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has condemned the Chilean Government for applying anti-terrorism laws against Mapuche leaders. According to Amnesty International, ``Although violence against defenders is a constant in the region, little is known about what is happening in Chile, especially in relation to the historical context of criminalization and stigmatization of the Mapuche and their leaders. The Chilean authorities have an obligation to guarantee conditions that enable human rights defenders to carry out their work and to establish protection mechanisms for environmental defenders and Indigenous leaders who face constant criminalization and stigmatization.'' Again, these circumstances are not unique to Chile. Similar confrontations are occurring in many countries. But Mr. Curamil's receipt of the Goldman Environmental Prize should cause everyone to pay attention, and to ask, Should not these issues be handled better? Is it acceptable for the Chilean Government to label these largely defenseless, mostly impoverished people as ``terrorists,'' for trying to protect their territory and way of life? Should not the Chilean Government act as a convener of a dialogue that recognizes the legitimate rights of its indigenous population, that ensures they are consulted in a timely and meaningful way, as the law requires, about decisions that affect them, and that their views are properly reflected in those decisions? Is that not the government's responsibility? To listen to its citizens who have traditionally been ignored and whose way of life is threatened and to find creative, sustainable solutions? I join others in congratulating Alberto Curamil for setting an example at a time when the natural environment is under siege due to human development; recklessness, and greed. We see the consequences on every continent--tropical forests cut down for oil palm plantations, coral reefs destroyed, rivers polluted, dammed and diverted, fish populations depleted, and other wildlife species facing extinction. Earlier this month, a UN assessment of the world's biodiversity compiled by 145 experts from 50 countries over 3 years, reported that ``the health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.'' This is true in Chile as it is in virtually every country. Complacency is not an answer, and I hope the Chilean Government will recognize that people like Alberto Curamil should be listened to and supported, not threatened and jailed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many of us are increasingly concerned that, since President Trump's reckless decision to abandon the multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran, which by all accounts Iran had been complying with, the administration has been on a collision course that could draw us into a war with Iran. Although the President insists that is not what he wants, he is known to change his mind on a whim, and the statements and actions of others in his administration, including some who were vocal proponents of the unnecessary and costly war in Iraq, leave little doubt that they favor a policy of regime change. We all deplore Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, its horrific violations of human rights, and its constant outpouring of hateful anti-American, anti-Israel rhetoric, but a war with Iran would be far worse, and no one can be certain how it would end. As tensions increase, a misunderstanding or provocative act by either Iran or the United States could quickly trigger retaliatory strikes that spiral out of control, drawing us, our allies, and our adversaries into protracted hostilities. Rather than risk that potentially disastrous result, the administration should be partnering with our European and Middle Eastern allies on a strategy of negotiations to reduce regional tensions. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a recent op-ed in ``The Guardian'' by Peter Westmacott, former British Ambassador to the United States, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been nearly a decade since Justice John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court. His absence on the bench is perhaps felt more now than ever. Justice Stevens' nomination was the first of 18 Supreme Court nominees I have considered in my years in the Senate. As a young Senator, it was a privilege to support his confirmation in 1975. It was a vote I have long been proud of. Justice Stevens had a storied tenure on the Supreme Court and ultimately became the third longest serving Justice in our Nation's history. Justice Stevens' commitment to the law and conduct on the bench was beyond reproach. His legacy is one of integrity, dedication to public service, and a recognition that the Constitution protects all Americans equally. He was part of majorities that protected LGBT rights, disability rights, and limited the death penalty. The Supreme Court has never been perfect. Justice Stevens would be the first to acknowledge as much, but I cannot help but compare his many years on the Court with today. Today, the Supreme Court almost reflexively sides with corporate interests over individuals' interests, even when precedent or so-called textualism and originalism stand in the way. We have also seen an unprecedented blockade of a Supreme Court nominee, and we have a President intent on nominating the most ideological nominees to the bench I have ever seen, nominees who have been preapproved by opaque far-right special interest groups. Many of these nominees have long records of outright hostility toward reproductive rights, environmental protections, and voting and civil rights. They even refuse to accept that Brown v. Board of Education, a foundational civil rights decision settled 65 years ago, is indeed settled law. It is equally predictable and deeply unfortunate that Americans increasingly view the courts as a purely political institution. Our Constitution and laws are intended to serve the people, protecting the freedom of individuals from the tyranny of government and helping to organize our society for the good of all. It is up to the judiciary to ensure our laws have meaning. This is a duty Justice Stevens' recognized and relished. How I miss his jurisprudence, his steady voice, and his leadership. I ask unanimous consent that a May 11, 2019, feature by Robert Barnes from The Washington Post entitled, ``John Paul Stevens looks back on nearly a century of life and law, but worries about the future,'' be included in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a wonderful friend, Bishop Thomas C. Ely, who is retiring from his leadership position of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont. Bishop Ely has been an outstanding servant of the Vermont diocese since his consecration as bishop in 2001. During his tenure in the Green Mountain State, he has served as the leader of the 45 Episcopal congregations in Vermont and one more across Lake Champlain in Essex, NY. He has visited all parishes once a year and counseled many clergy members. Bishop Ely's devotion to human dignity and dignity education influenced every church in the diocese. He demonstrated this as chairman of the board and as an educator of Rock Point School in Burlington, where his wife Ann worked all through his tenure as bishop. Bishop Ely, as a promoter of social justice and equality, also showed leadership in many other ways. He has been active in immigrants' rights, marriage equality, improving the lives of those living in poverty and in Bishops Against Gun Violence. His work on human rights is illustrated in his long commitment to the human rights organization Cristosal, which works in Central America. Recently, Bishop Ely completed the successful Partnership Campaign for Rock Point, raising over $2 million to assure the future of the 130 acres owned by the Church on Lake Champlain in Burlington. The funds will improve the trails and facilities in partnership with the city of Burlington and the Lake Champlain Land Trust, preserving 93 acres for public access. I am proud to say that Bishop Ely lives his faith, through worship, leadership, and through action to improve and enrich the lives of all Vermonters. His journey of faith and action would not have been possible without the love and support of Ann Ely who, in addition to her work at Rock Point School, has also been deeply involved in St. Paul's Cathedral in Burlington. The outpouring of gratitude and love for Tom and Ann has been enormous, in particular at the May 18, 2019, convention, where Vermont Episcopalians elected their next bishop. The applause would not cease until Bishop Ely motioned for quiet, so that proceedings could continue. Bishop Ely is loved by his people and greatly appreciated by many Vermonters for his principled leadership. He made a difference, helping us to live up to our ideals, and will be fondly remembered, as he and Ann enter a new phase of their lives. Marcelle and I are delighted that Tom and Ann will continue to be citizens of Vermont, living in the beautiful town of Newfane. We both value their friendship. In honor of Bishop Ely's retirement, I ask that the December 5, 2017, Episcopal New Service article ``Vermont Episcopal Bishop Thomas Ely announces plans to retire,'' be entered into the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Darn Tough Vermont says that their factory in Northfield, Vermont, is the ``Sock Capital of the World.'' I'm loath to object to that claim. Over the past 15 years, Darn Tough has steadily grown from a small sock producer for other companies into a world-renowned brand of their own. They've created good paying jobs to Vermont and have a deep commitment to American manufacturing. Darn Tough is a great example of the many hearty small businesses that drive Vermont's economy. It is with pride that I recognize their achievements. Marc Cabot opened Darn Tough's factory, Cabot Hosiery Mills, in 1978. He started by producing private label socks--other companies sell these under their brand name--for large companies like Brooks Brothers and Old Navy. This was a steady business. But things became difficult in the 1990s when many of those customers began to move their production overseas. By the early 2000s, Cabot Hosiery Mills was struggling. Marc's son, Ric, who had been involved in the family business from a young age, came up with an idea to save the company. He decided to transition Cabot Hosiery Mills from a private label producer to its own brand: Darn Tough Vermont. Ric envisioned a superior, outdoor-oriented sock that was knit right in Vermont. Its quality would speak for itself. At first, Ric had to give Darn Tough socks away to get noticed. He gave out 3,500 pairs of Darn Tough socks at the Vermont City Marathon in 2004, and soon after word, began to spread about a mysteriously durable sock with a lifetime warranty produced right in Vermont. Darn Tough's brand and sales have been growing steadily ever since. Over the past 15 years, the Cabots have rebounded from the brink of bankruptcy to a company nearing $50 million in sales annually. Ric, who is now the CEO and president, is leading Darn Tough in its latest expansion. They've added over 50 new knitting stations and are in the process of expanding their workforce of over 250 Vermonters. Darn Tough doubled down on American manufacturing when their partners wouldn't-- now they're seeing their reward. I am proud to recognize the contributions and achievements that Darn Tough and the Cabot family has made over their over 40 years in Vermont. I ask consent to enter into the Record a VTDigger article titled ``Making it in Vermont: Darn Tough doubles down on Northfield facilities.'' It describes the hard work that goes into making each Darn Tough sock and highlights Darn Tough's commitment to Vermont and Vermont values.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2379.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. LEAHY. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this may seem like just a perfunctory thing, but I want to speak about what we just did. The Senate passed legislation to permanently reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This is the sixth time I have worked to reauthorize this lifesaving program since I and my Republican partner, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, of Colorado, authored the legislation to establish it more than 20 years ago. My role in authoring this program--and my commitment to it ever since as we have reauthorized it and reauthorized it--was, in part, motivated by a horrific incident the year before Senator Nighthorse Campbell and I created it. On August 19, 1997, a man named Carl Drega went on a killing spree along the Vermont and New Hampshire border. After hours of pursuit, Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New Hampshire cornered Drega, and in an ensuing exchange of gunfire, he was killed. During the shoot-out, all of the Federal law enforcement officers involved were wearing bulletproof vests. This includes John Pfeifer, a Vermonter and a longtime friend. His father was one of my favorite professors in college, and I remember John as a child. He was seriously wounded. In fact, at that time, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and his family were staying with us at our home in Vermont. We visited Officer Pfeifer, who was a U.S. Border Patrol agent, in the hospital. He was grievously wounded, but he survived and later became the Chief Patrol Agent of the sector. I have always feared--and I believe he agrees--that had it not been for his bulletproof vest, the outcome for John and his family may have been much worse. Some of the state and local officers involved were not that fortunate. Two New Hampshire state troopers were killed. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. I don't know whether vests would have saved their lives. Let us hope they would have. One thing I do know is that no officer should have to serve without having the benefit of wearing a bulletproof vest. That is what this is all about. I am immensely proud of this program. It is the most tangible support that all of us in Congress--both parties--can provide to our Nation's law enforcement officers. To this day, for far too many jurisdictions, especially rural and smaller agencies, vests cost too much, and they wear out too soon. This program fills in the gap. It has provided more than 13,000 law enforcement agencies with 1.35 million vests. It has saved the lives of countless officers, several of whom have shared their stories with the Judiciary Committee, here in the Senate, during previous years. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office, more than 3,000 officers' lives have been saved by vests since 1987. It makes me very proud to know these officers can still be with their families and their departments. Just yesterday, my office received a call from the Union City Police Department in Georgia. Last month, one of its officers, Jerome Turner, Jr.--shown in this photograph--was shot multiple times when he responded to a call. One round hit him directly in the chest, but it did not get through his bulletproof vest. When backup arrived, Officer Turner was lying on the ground from his other injuries. He went through 6 hours of surgery, but he lived. His department called yesterday to tell me that the vest that saved his life was purchased through this program. Everybody in my office and I just applauded at that news. My staff also had a chance to talk with Officer Turner. He is still recovering, but he said he is happy to be home with his family--his family he might never have seen again. He also said what we all know to be true--the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program is critical to ensuring officers around the country can return home to their families after their shifts. Officer Turner knows a lot about this program. It turns out that he previously served as the chief of police in a small town in Florida, which is the Presiding Officer's State. He used this program to outfit his officers with protective vests in order to keep his officers safe while they were protecting us. This week is National Police Week. It is a time for the Nation to honor the many brave men and women in law enforcement who have lost their lives while having served their communities. That includes the 163 officers who were lost last year--52 of them killed by gunfire. The fact that Congress has now passed legislation to permanently reauthorize this program places real meaning behind our words of tribute. The legislation also increases the funding for vests as, year after year, only a fraction of the need is met. This program is not now, and never has been, partisan. When we started, I said that I and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, of Colorado--a Republican--started it. I am especially grateful to Senator Lindsey Graham for being the lead cosponsor of both this and the last reauthorization. Last week, our bill was being considered by the Judiciary Committee. I have to admit I was a bit surprised and very humbled when Chairman Graham called up an amendment to name the program after me and when it then got a unanimous vote from Republicans and Democrats. I am always going to be thankful, for the program is personal to me, and it is personal, certainly, to the officers who wear these vests. I thank my many staff who have worked on this program for 22 years, including Dave Pendle, Erica Chabot, Ed Pagano, Bruce Cohen, Matt Virkstis, Kristine Lucius, Chan Park, David Carle, Jessica Berry, and many others. I am also thankful to the entire law enforcement community, which has spoken with a single voice on this issue--a single voice. In particular I would like to thank Chuck Canterbury, Jim Pasco, and Tim Richardson with the Fraternal Order of Police--all friends of mine. The FOP has strongly supported this program from the beginning, and has been there for each of the six reauthorizations. I would also like to thank for their support the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Tactical Officers Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Last, I would like to thank the sponsors of the House companion which the Senate just passed, Congressmen Bill Pascrell and Peter King. Without this legislation, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program would expire next year. Once this legislation is signed into law, it will never expire. It has already saved the lives of so many, and placed vests on the backs of well over one million officers. Now we know that millions more officers will be protected, and millions of officers like Officer Turner will be able to go home to their families. I wonder if the Senate would allow me to tell a story. When we were doing the reauthorization, I had asked a police officer from Pennsylvania to come and testify. He came. His parents, his wife, and his children sat behind him. He gave very moving testimony. He said the two most important things to him in life were his family and law enforcement. He told us about how, a short while before, he stopped a car at a routine traffic stop. He got out of his police car, and the person in the other car stepped out and fired four shots at him--point blank. He fell over. Others caught the person. He said: As I was falling, I thought I would never see my family again. I had a couple of cracked ribs. They came to visit me in the hospital. I went back home with them to their love and care. Then I went back to work. This is what saved me. He reached under the table and held up a bulletproof vest, and you could still see three large caliber slugs embedded in it. He said: Those would have been in my heart. I never would have seen my family, and I never would have gone back to law enforcement. At that time, I was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. After his testimony, I asked if we could have a unanimous vote to reauthorize. It was the fastest unanimous vote I can remember in that committee. As I said then and as I say now, this is the least Congress can do on behalf of our Nation's law enforcement officers. Obviously, I am proud to have had the legislation named after me, but I am proud of all of the Senators over the last 20-plus years--Republicans and Democrats-- who have supported it. I am glad we have done it. Now it will head to the President for his signature, and I am sure the President will sign it without delay. I see nobody else who seeks recognition. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a remarkable and unique person, Vermont Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Skoglund, who will soon be retiring after serving 25 years with the Vermont judiciary. Justice Skoglund is what we all want to see in a jurist and public servant. She is dedicated, personable, and highly committed to the rule of law, but her path to the Vermont Supreme Court was anything but typical. As a single mother working hard to get by in the 1970s, law school was not an option. Instead, she took advantage of Vermont's ``Reading the Law'' approach that allowed her to study while serving as an apprentice of sorts with the Vermont Attorney General's office. After being admitted to the Vermont Bar, she would go on to serve as chief of the civil law and public protection divisions in the AG's office before being appointed to the bench in 1994 by then-Governor Howard Dean. She would be elevated to the supreme court just 3 years later. At the time, she was only the second woman to serve on Vermont's highest court. Today, women make up the majority of its five justices. I have had the pleasure of knowing Justice Skoglund during her many years of living and working in my hometown of Montpelier. Her personal story was so compelling that she was my first choice in 2008 to keynote Vermont's Women's Economic Opportunity Conference, an annual event I have now hosted for 23 years. But no tribute to Justice Skoglund would be complete if it did not mention her keen sense of humor. Perhaps it is this trait that has so deftly served her these many years, for as serious as the supreme court must be in delivering justice, Marilyn Skoglund has demonstrated time and again the benefit of laughter in our lives. She finds the time to appreciate what some might only see as mundane; she cherishes her friendships, and she mentors those who will succeed us. By her own account, she has led a full life. I ask unanimous consent that these excerpts of the May 1 Seven Days profile of Justice Skoglund be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, I am honored to recognize the president of the University of Vermont, UVM, Thomas Sullivan, who is stepping down this June after 7 years as a remarkable leader for the university. Tom's tenure as the 26th president of the University of Vermont came during a tumultuous time in higher education. Despite demographic declines and reduced public investments in higher education, Tom made quality, affordable education and investment in scholarship his top priorities. Tom expanded UVM's course offerings, oversaw 20 building projects, and helped increase the value of UVM's endowment by 80 percent. When appointed in 2012, Tom was given the responsibility of heading UVM's Move Mountains fundraising campaign with the goal of raising $500 million by 2020. Because of Tom's personality, passion, and, at times, persuasion, the University hit its fundraising goal a year ahead of schedule, a very impressive accomplishment considering the economic hardship that has defined the last decade. The success of this campaign increased scholarships for students, invested in top-tier faculty, and made capital investments to improve the student experience. While the university has continued to evolve, under Tom's leadership, UVM has managed to stay true to its founding as a Land Grant university. Tom has worked tirelessly during his tenure to expand UVM's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--STEM--offerings including the 4-year construction of a $104 million STEM Complex. Tom shares the belief that income should not be a barrier to a good education. Because of his dedication to the education of all students, Tom was instrumental in developing UVM's Catamount Commitment, which promises Pell Grant-eligible Vermonters that the reminder of their tuition will be covered, either through grants or waived by the university entirely. Tom's tenure at UVM tops off a long and distinguished professional experience in the field of academia. Tom taught at the law schools of the University of Missouri, Washington University in St. Louis, MO, and was appointed to be a dean and professor of law at the University of Arizona College of Law. Following his time at the University of Arizona, he began his 17-year tenure at the University of Minnesota, where he eventually was appointed to become its senior vice president and provost. Calling Tom a prolific academic and legal scholar would be an understatement. He has written 11 books and over 50 articles primarily in the field of antitrust litigation. In addition to his writings, in 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee had the honor and privilege of obtaining Tom's advice and consultation on the confirmation of then- Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lasting impact of Tom's work in the field of legal studies is no small feat and will be felt for generations to come. It is rare to find Tom's unparalleled selfless dedication to academia and the needs of students across the country as well as throughout the world. Over the course of his 7-year tenure, Marcelle and I have had the pleasure on multiple occasions to enjoy the company of Tom and his wife Leslie. They are wonderful people who care about nothing more than giving the next generation the opportunity to succeed through academics. Tom's charming and caring presence will surely be missed on campus, but we look forward to having Tom and Leslie as Vermont residents for some time. Marcelle and I thank Tom for his service, and we wish him and Leslie all the best in the next chapter of his distinguished career.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to speak briefly about the courageous environmental activism of Alfred Brownell, a native of Liberia now living in exile in Boston. Mr. Brownell is an environmental and human rights lawyer and the executive director of Green Advocates, a Liberian organization that he founded to promote environmental justice for indigenous communities. Like so many environmental activists around the world, he has been repeatedly harassed and threatened. He was forced to flee his country with his family due to fear of reprisal for his outspoken and tireless work to protect the traditional land rights of his countrymen and against the sale, without their consent, of vast areas of forest to Golden Veroleum Liberia, a Southeast Asian-based company that produces palm oil. Now a visiting scholar and teacher at Northeastern University, Mr. Brownell continues to conduct research and classes on the issues that have come to define his life. Mr. Brownell was recently recognized by the international community for his perseverance in protecting Liberia's forests on which thousands of Liberian families and many endangered species of wildlife depend. He was honored in San Francisco and Washington as one of six recipients of the prestigious 2019 Goldman Environmental Prize. It is important that we not only pay tribute to Mr. Brownell for his extraordinary contribution to his people and his country but that we be aware that despite this international recognition, he continues to fear returning to his native country. I have long supported U.S. assistance to help Liberia overcome years of a brutal armed conflict, and I will continue to do so. But I regret that the Liberian Government has sided with the palm oil company and against their own local farmers. Unable to intimidate Mr. Brownell, government officials tried to silence him by offering him government jobs in return for his cooperation. When that failed, they put his house and his family under police surveillance, publicly accused him of sedition and economic sabotage, accused his organization and other environmental rights organizations of undermining Liberia's sovereignty, and lied about him to incite an assassination attempt. Since December 2016, he has been living in exile, with no indication from Liberian officials that their hostility toward him and his cause has diminished. Government intimidation of civil society activists and scholars is antithetical to open and accountable democratic societies. It is what we have come to expect of shortsighted or, even worse, corrupt officials and the outsized influence of corporate interests. If the Liberian Government is serious about attracting foreign investment for job creation and sustainable economic development--goals we all support--it should recognize that Mr. Brownell is a patriot of whom all Liberians can be proud. Liberian officials should encourage him and his family to return to Liberia, and point to him as an example of how one courageous and determined individual can make a positive difference for the country. Rather than benefiting a foreign corporation producing a monocrop for export, the Liberian Government should be protecting its biologically diverse forests and wildlife, not destroying them and polluting the rivers on which local inhabitants depend and displacing people who have lived there for generations. Alfred Brownell should be a source of pride and an inspiration for all Liberians. I hope the international recognition he has received will convince the Liberian Government that it is people like him who deserve our admiration and our thanks.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is not often that I say the words ``Vermont'' and ``bow tie'' in the same sentence, except, of course, when discussing the famed Beau Ties Ltd. of Vermont. Beau Ties, Vermont's sole bow tie manufacturer, got its start as a mom-and-pop operation more than 25 years ago and maintains that ethos. They are an amazing example of the many small businesses that are the heart and soul of Vermont. Beau Ties was started in 1993 by bow tie aficionado Bill Kenerson and his wife Deborah Venman. They ran the company out of their home and sold their bow ties through the mail. Over the years, the company has grown to employ 30 Vermonters and now has its own manufacturing facility in Middlebury. They sell hundreds of different bow ties, and their selection is constantly changing to keep customers coming back. Though they are no longer at the helm, Bill and Deborah's desire to keep the company in Vermont has been honored. In fact, the company has never left the facility that it moved into in 1999, and many of its employees have been with Beau Ties for over 20 years. Among its clientele, Beau Ties Ltd. can count the late Orville Redenbacher and Bill Nye. The company has also cut cloth for the Obama White House and is the official tiemaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Vermont Statehouse. I have also sported Beau Ties before: I wore one of their bow ties to the investiture of Judge Geoffrey Crawford, now chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. I am proud to recognize the achievements and devoted following that Beau Ties Ltd. has accumulated over its nearly three decades in business. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a ``Seven Days'' article titled, ``Middlebury's Beau Ties Collars the Market on Dapper Neckwear.'' It tells the story of Beau Ties Ltd., from its humble beginnings to now and of its importance to Vermont's economy and its many satisfied customers, myself included.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. president, Katherine Paterson is a Vermont author with more than 30 titles to her name and a list of awards that other writers could only dream of. She has a keenly special knack for introducing young readers to difficult topics about life and death, as she did with her well-known novel, ``Bridge to Terabithia.'' She has just added a prestigious and fitting recognition to that long list, having been named the American Academy of Arts and Letters' 2019 E.B. White Award winner. The award pays tribute to her lifetime of achievement in children's literature. What is notable about this latest award is the modesty by which Katherine Paterson comes to it. In an interview with Vermont Public Radio, VPR, the author who has twice won both the National Book Award and the Newbery Medal said her latest award held special meaning. ``Any award that has the name `E.B. White' attached to it brings with it a great thrill of joy, since he's one of my real heroes,'' she told her VPR audience. ``He probably was one of the best writers in America, and yet he respected children so much that he wrote some of his best work for them. And that makes me incredibly happy.'' Clearly, some of E.B. White's influence has rubbed off, as Katherine Paterson's own novels show great respect for her readers, young and old alike. Her writing has been hailed for the compassion she expresses, taking on life's challenges--and tragedies--in a forthright and honest exploration for young readers. Her achievement is all the more impressive given that Katherine Paterson's first language was Chinese, having been born to Christian missionaries who immersed her in the culture before being forced to leave China in the late 1930s. Her studies of both Chinese and Japanese cultures, as well as her religious interests, are evident in her collection of writings. We are fortunate that Katherine and her late husband John chose to settle in Vermont more than three decades ago. On both local and national levels, she has been most generous with her time, visiting schools and inspiring young people to read, while advocating for organizations that promote literacy. It is no wonder that Katherine Paterson has been named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress. Marcelle and I are proud and honored to call Katherine Paterson a friend and, more so, a Vermonter. Congratulations to you, Katherine, on this latest and most meaningful recognition. It is so very much deserved.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes regarding the Schumer-Leahy amendment. I realize this will put off the time slightly for the vote.