Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry that the Republicans objected to the earlier legislation we brought up, which would have helped the Midwest. It had money in it. Of course, we are not, by any means, asking for billions more for Puerto Rico in this amendment. In total, this amendment would add $3.2 billion, of which only $462 million is for Puerto Rico. The rest is for the Midwest floods, Alabama tornado, Florida, California, Georgia and other states. I think it is unfortunate we have reached an impasse on the emergency disaster supplemental appropriations bill. For months, I urged Senate Republican leadership to take up and pass H.R. 268. For nearly 3 months, it wouldn't. During those 3 months, American communities suffered, and new disasters struck the Midwest and the Southeast. The new criticism from the Republican leadership was, with the Democrats' pushing for more comprehensive aid to Puerto Rico in H.R. 268, that they must not care about the American communities that have been affected by more recent disasters. But I would remind the Chamber that it was the Republican leadership that rejected my amendment to H.R. 268 that would have accommodated all of these other communities. I would also remind the Chamber that the Trump administration has not asked for one dime for Hurricanes Michael and Florence, the Alabama tornadoes, or the Midwest flooding. To the Trump administration, it is as though they never happened. I have always stood with victims of disaster around this country. When my own State of Vermont was devastated by Tropical Storm Irene, Members of this body came to me, not as Republicans or Democrats but as concerned American citizens looking to help, just as I always have, whatever State it might be. Red State, blue State, or purple State, I have always voted to support them, and today this Vermonter is here to stand with all the American communities affected by recent natural disasters. I have not given up on finding a path forward. Today Leader Schumer and I offered a substitute that would provide $2.5 billion in new funding to address the needs of communities affected by the 2019 disasters, such as flooding in the Midwest and tornadoes in Alabama. It would also accommodate the needs of the American citizens--remember that they are Americans--in Puerto Rico and other Territories by including increased funding for the community development block grant and grants to help rebuild damaged water systems. It also includes Medicaid funding for the Northern Mariana Islands and cost match waivers for the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. Finally, it mandates that HUD speed up the release of billions in previously appropriated CDBG funding which the Trump administration has unnecessarily withheld from disaster-stricken communities in Puerto Rico, in Texas, in Louisiana, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, in Florida, in South Carolina, in North Carolina, in West Virginia, in California, in Missouri, and in Georgia. We want to get help to all of those States. I am disappointed that once again Senate Republicans have objected to this critical assistance. We are the United States of America. We are all Americans. We cannot pick and choose which American citizens to help in times of crisis. Frankly, I was offended when the White House referred to Puerto Rico as ``that country'' that ``only takes from the U.S.A.'' I would remind the White House to look at a history book. Puerto Rico is part of the U.S.A. These are our fellow American citizens. We in the Senate must be better than that. We must stand with all American citizens in times of crisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have a couple of matters I want to discuss. Today, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science is holding its annual hearing on the President's budget request, with the Department of Commerce, with representatives from the Department. The representative from the Department that is invited, in my experience, has always been the Secretary--in this case, Wilbur Ross. This year, for as long as I can remember, with no public explanation, Secretary Ross declined the Subcommittee's invitation. The Department of Commerce has a budget request for over $12.2 billion but couldn't send over its Secretary to defend it. It is extraordinary that the Secretary provided no justification to the Republican chairman of the committee for his actions. It is extraordinary to me that this Secretary believes he should be treated differently from other Secretaries. He believes he may not be held accountable before the American people. Secretary Ross's absence is especially concerning to me, given the last time he appeared before the subcommittee. He blatantly, objectively, irrefutably misled me about a critical issue facing the Commerce Department. Perhaps he knew he would be asked about what he said last time and would be asked to tell us what is the truth. A year ago, I asked Secretary Ross why he had marketed the proposed addition of a controversial citizenship question to the census as being necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act. To claim that question was needed to enforce the law when the administration had no interest in enforcing it was actually laughable at the time. So I asked Secretary Ross why he had such a sudden interest in adding the question when the Department of Justice had not brought a single suit under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This was his response, and, remember, it is a crime to lie in your testimony before the Congress. He claimed the Justice Department is the one that made the request of the Commerce Department. He made similar claims before the House. He testified that Commerce was responding solely to the Department of Justice's request, and the Department of Justice made the request for the inclusion of the citizenship question. Those are the claims Secretary Ross made, and all of those claims are false. This was proven as a result of emails obtained through a FOIA lawsuit. It was not something he was willing to bring forth, but they had to have a lawsuit to get the truth. We now know, Secretary Ross himself made the initial request to include the citizenship question. We know it was Secretary Ross who pressured the reluctant Justice Department to claim that such a question would be helpful to enforce the Voting Rights Act. And now we know that the inclusion of this question, as many of us suspected from the beginning, was a nakedly political act, one that involves none other than Kris Kobach and Steve Bannon. The proof of all of this is in the emails. Just 1 year before I asked Secretary Ross about this issue, he wrote that he was ``mystified why nothing had been done in response to my months old request that we include the citizenship question.'' Well, I am mystified how Secretary Ross's testimony can be construed as anything other than blatantly misleading Congress. His testimony earned him four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. Two courts have now declared that Secretary Ross's attempt to include the citizenship question was illegal. One of them found that ``in a startling number of ways, Secretary Ross's explanations for his decision were unsupported by, or even counter to, the evidence before the agency.'' That is a remarkable, but not surprising, declaration from the court. So today I have a simple message for Secretary Ross: You are not an investment banker anymore. You serve the American people, and part of your job is being accountable to Congress and to the public. Trying to run from Congress will not solve your problems, and trying to hide from the truth will not either. The truth has a way of catching up with you. If you don't tell the truth, it eventually becomes obvious. Secretary Ross did not tell the truth. S. Res. 50 Madam President, to say it is disappointing that the Senate is going to vote today in relation to the resolution to reduce postcloture debate on nominations is an understatement. This is actually a resolution in search of a problem. This is an erosion of the Senate's responsibility--in fact, our sworn constitutional duty--to advise and consent to the President's--any President's--nominations. It is a removal of one of the last guardrails for quality and bipartisanship in our nomination process. It is short sided. It is a partisan power grab, and it is motivated by the far right's desire to flood the Federal judiciary with young, ideological nominees, many of whom, as we have seen time and again in the Judiciary Committee, are simply unqualified to serve on our Nation's courts. We have seen nominees who have never been in a courtroom, and they are being nominated for lifetime judgeships. Postcloture time is a critical tool for Senators, especially those who do not sit on the Judiciary Committee, to vet nominees for lifetime judgeships. In fact, last Congress, more than one nominee had to withdraw after scrutiny during this time led the Republicans withdrawing their support. We actually took the time to ask questions-- an extra 20 minutes of questions, or an extra hour of questions. For somebody who is up for a lifetime appointment, I think that is what the American public pay us to do. Unfortunately, for the Republican leadership the nominations process in the Senate is about quantity not quality. Let me give you an example. In the past 2 years, Republicans have disregarded the important role of the ABA. They denied them the time they needed to evaluate judicial nominees, or when they have evaluated them and they have come back saying they are unqualified, they have ignored that. Republicans routinely stacked hearing panels with multiple circuit court nominees over Democrats' objections--something Democrats never did to Republicans. Republicans have even held several hearings over recess despite our objections. That is certainly something I would never do when I was chairman if any Republican asked me not to. Upon the White House's changing hands from a Democrat to a Republican, the Republicans abruptly changed the policy of the blue slips. There has been a long-held tradition of honoring blue slips from home State Senators on circuit court nominees. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I respected the input of all home State Senators, no matter whether we had a Democrat or Republican in the White House and no matter whether the Senator was a Republican or a Democrat. Republicans only seem to insist on honoring blue slips when a Democrat is in the White House. When I was chairman with a Democratic President, every single Republican wrote a letter saying the blue slip was so sacred, and every single one of them wanted it to be upheld. It had to be upheld. Whoops, a Republican comes into the White House, and we don't need it any more. Look no further than the Judiciary Committee's markup this week, where they ignored the opposition of two home State Senators who are also members of the committee, including the Ranking Member, and will advance two circuit nominees for whom blue slips were not returned. When Democrats were in charge, no Republican would condone that and no Democrat would make them have to face that. Yet they have turned it into a partisan rubberstamp. We are not being the conscience of the Nation. Opponents to this resolution can say it is necessary to do this because of the slow pace with which President Trump's judicial nominations are being confirmed. Let's quickly review that. In his first 2 years, President Trump had more judicial nominations confirmed than President Obama did in his first 4 years. In just 2 years, we almost doubled the number of circuit court nominations confirmed compared to President Obama's first 4 years. In fact, President Trump had more circuit nominees confirmed in his first 2 years than President Obama, President George W. Bush, President Clinton, or President George H. W. Bush. So I don't need lectures from Senators in this Chamber about the importance of judicial nominations or the methods by which Members could frustrate the confirmation process. I lived it. I have seen it. I have served here longer than any other Member of this body. Regardless of whether it was a Republican President or a Democratic one, I respected the role of home State Senators, the role of the Senate as a whole, and our roles as individual Senators to evaluate the nomination before us. In 2013, in a bipartisan vote, the Senate agreed to a resolution to reduce postcloture debate that was supposed to be good for the life of the 113th Congress, not the permanent rule change proposed by S. Res. 50. Let's remember the facts, not just some of them. All the other guardrails of the nomination process were intact at the time. Nominations were thoroughly vetted by both the administration and the committees here in the Senate. Nominees were still subject to a 60-vote threshold for judicial nomination, including circuit nominees. Cloture was never filed on a day in which a nomination was reported on the floor. For judicial nominations, hearings were not continually stacked with multiple circuit court nominees, something both Republicans and Democrats agreed on. The prerogative of home State Senators and their in-State judicial selection committees--most of which are bipartisan--were respected both before and after the resolution. I understand the Republican majority now wants to cry foul and accuse Democrats of needlessly holding up our confirmation process. I wish people had been here more than 2 years. I look back at the glacial pace with which Republicans allowed us to process judicial nominations for the first 6 years of the Obama administration. From the very beginning, in 2009, Republicans inexplicably withheld their consent to consider President Obama's very first circuit nominee and one that was supported by his Republican home State Senator, the highly respected Richard Lugar. I always look back at the shameful treatment of Merrick Garland to fill a critical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Never in the history of this country have we refused to allow a Supreme Court nominee to at least have a hearing and a vote until Merrick Garland. That was a political power grab that undermined the legitimacy of the Senate and the courts. This claim was made: We don't vote on Supreme Court nominees in an election year. Well, of course we do. I remember almost all of us Republicans and Democrats voting on a nominee that President Ronald Reagan made in an election year when he was going to be leaving the Presidency. Looking back might provide a glimpse of history, but it will do little to restore the comity that was a hallmark of the Senate when I first came here--a hallmark which made the Senate seem like the conscience of the Nation, not a partisan political stamp. Looking forward, this resolution will do little to restore the comity and will further polarize the Senate, which is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. It will only further contribute to the politicization of our courts. The Federal courts are perceived throughout the world as above politics and are now being seen, more and more, as a political rubberstamp for President Trump. When the Senate Rules Committee held a hearing to evaluate the proposal back in 2017, I remarked that the word ``obstruction'' had become a term thrown about in the Senate whenever unanimous consent was not provided. ``Duty,'' unfortunately, is a word we hear too little in this body. Vermonters, time and again, give me their trust not only to represent Vermont values here in Washington but to protect the centuries-old institutions that have sustained our democracy and that made us the longest existing democracy currently in the world. The Senate is part of why that democracy still exists. The Senate should reject this resolution. We cannot abandon the traditions that made the Senate, at its very best, the conscience of the Nation in exchange for short-term political gain and going from the conscience of the Nation to a partisan rubberstamp. That is not the Senate that I admire. It is not the Senate that has been led by some of the best Republicans and Democrats I have known over my decades here. It is not the Senate we want to see in the history books. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while my friend is still here on the floor, he was absolutely correct when he pointed me out as saying that I have long supported disasters, whatever State is involved, whether it is a red State, blue State, or purple State. I believe in helping Americans. We are all part of the United States of America. I think we do waste time sometimes in having debates on things we should not. For example, when the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate and we had a bill to keep our government open and to fund part of the barriers along the Mexican border, both the Senator and I voted the same way. We voted for the bill. It would have given $1.4 billion that the Executive could use toward security. The President threaten to vetoed that, saying it was not enough even though the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats had voted for it in the House and the Senate. So he shut down the government for 35 days, which caused unprecedented hurt to Americans of all political persuasions all over this country. I believe the CBO said it cost the country about $11 billion. What did he then sign? The new bill we came up with, which had $1.3 billion. He rejected the bill the Republicans and Democrats had supported that had $1.4 billion, shut down the government, ruined the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Americans, cost our economy over $10 billion, and then signed a bill to get $100 million less. I worry we are in somewhat the same situation now. We seem to be deciding which Americans are going to be helped based on a tweet. I believe all Americans should be helped, and I voted for disaster relief for the States of every Senator who is on the floor presently. I have never asked what their priorities were or what their political background was; if they had a disaster, I voted for it. I think it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stand with American communities in crisis. I praised Chairman Shelby and his staff for their efforts to move this process forward. I know communities in Senator Shelby's State recently experienced their own natural disaster. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as a U.S. Senator, and as a Vermonter, I am ready to stand with the people of Alabama because that is what we Americans do. When Tropical Storm Irene devastated my State in 2011, Members of this body came to me not as Republicans or Democrats but as American citizens eager to help their neighbor. When disasters have hit other parts of the country, I have done exactly the same. But now we should know that for more than 1 year, one of our neighbors has been in crises. In 2017, Puerto Rico was hit by two back- to-back category 5 hurricanes. It is an almost unprecedented disaster-- two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. At first, the administration was saying: Well, there is only a handful of people who died. Well, it turns out that we estimated that 2,975 Americans lost their lives. That is one heck of a handful. Their homes were demolished. Their communities were destroyed. This was more than 1 year ago. Today, if you fly over Puerto Rico, the landscape will still be specked with blue plastic tarps that serve as temporary roofs and shelters. From the ground, you see that the wear and tear of a year and a half has frayed that plastic. The boards haphazardly holding up these plastic roofs have warped, and they appear ready to collapse. The New York Times wrote a story on the 1-year anniversary of the storms. The stories told are heartbreaking. One woman, Martina Cruz Sanchez, described her hurried routine every time it rains. First, she has to climb a ladder to where her roof used to be before 100-plus-mile-an-hour winds ripped it off and scattered it around the island. Then, using a hose, she has to manually siphon off the accumulating puddles to keep the roof from leaking on what little she has left. Ms. Cruz's situation is not unique. On a different part of the island, Pablo Figueroa is forced to live in the only corner of his small home that still has a roof. Two others described living out of a tent attached to their neighbor's garage. A fallen tree remains from where it first crashed through Paula Cruz Ortiz's home. Julia Rivera, a mother of nine, laments that she has ``lost everything'' except her ``faith in God.'' Across the island, water-logged walls have gone unrepaired and have begun to rot. A hospital that was flooded was overtaken by toxic mold-- a hospital. A hospital that was flooded was overtaken by toxic mold. A year after the storm, it remained closed. The mold in 82-year-old Leomida Uniel's home has stained the walls black. This 82-year-old person had a lung infection as a result. When Carmen Cruz was asked about losing her home, she said: It was a little house--two bedrooms--but for me, it was a castle. I tell these stories because these are American citizens. I would tell the same story if they were Vermonters or whatever other State they might be from. They are American citizens. These are our neighbors. These are human beings. Let's treat them as such. To do any less is an embarrassment to our country, this body, and our humanity. This was an extraordinary disaster and requires an extraordinary response. What has happened? Let's be very frank. Let's be very honest about what has happened. Instead of standing with our neighbors, our fellow Americans, the President has chosen to hold petty grudges, which is way beneath the Office of the Presidency. He wants to pick winners and losers by deciding who gets assistance based on his own arbitrary standards. That is wrong. This Senator says that is un-American. I know firsthand that the Federal Government is a critical partner in the effort to recover and rebuild. North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, California, Texas, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands just to name a few are all counting on us to get this bill across the finish line. I have urged Senate Republicans to take up and pass the House bill, H.R. 268, since the House first passed it in January. The Republican leadership has refused. So they have forced Puerto Rico to begin to cut back nutrition assistance weeks ago. I am glad to see that the Republican substitute amendment finally includes money for Puerto Rico's nutrition assistance program. We should get that money to the island soon, but nutrition assistance is not enough. Puerto Rico needs to rebuild. I have offered a compromise path forward from what the House passed, but it would address the needs of Puerto Rico. It would unlock billions of dollars in additional assistance for the mainland. Keep in mind that billions of these dollars are just sitting there. If Senate Republicans would accept this proposal, we could quickly pass this disaster bill. Even though it is different than the House bill, we could pass it in the Senate, and I believe the House would pass it and forego the need for a conference and get assistance to the people who need it sooner rather than later. I agree with my distinguished colleague and friend that we should do that this week. We could do that today. In a moment--and I alert my colleagues on the other side--I will ask unanimous consent to take up and adopt this amendment, but if the amendment is not adopted, I will vote against the cloture motion on the Republican substitute. We cannot advance a bill that picks and chooses among Americans and says that some Americans are lesser than others. We cannot advance a bill that does not address these critical needs. H.R. 268, the underlying House-passed bill, is a good bill. It provides for much needed relief of victims of Hurricane Florence, victims of Hurricane Michael, and the Hawaii volcanoes, and California wildfires, just to name a few of the disasters. It also continues critical assistance to Puerto Rico. Today I filed an amendment to extend relief to the victims of the recent tornadoes in the Southeast and the flooding in the Midwest. H.R. 268 was drafted before that flooding occurred. My amendment would ensure that they receive assistance, as well. I am about to ask unanimous consent that this amendment to the House bill be adopted, as well. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government not to pick and choose which Americans are really Americans. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stand with all American communities in crisis. We have to do it now. The needs are pressing. The people are waiting. When somebody serves in the Armed Forces--whether they are from Puerto Rico, Alabama, or Vermont--they don't pick and choose and say: Well, I will go to bat if this matter tells me to, but not this one. I alert my colleagues that I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer amendment No. 205 to Shelby amendment No. 201 and that the amendment be agreed to with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. I said these are among other States, if you look at what I said.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would yield.

Mr. LEAHY. I said in there, ``just to name a few.'' I did not leave anybody out.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer amendment No. 234 to the language proposed to be stricken and that the amendment be agreed to with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. Madam President, I thought it was exceptionally good news on Sunday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not implicate our President in a criminal conspiracy with Russia to attack our elections. The alternative, of course, would have been nothing short of catastrophic for our Republic. I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. Mueller and his team for their service to our country for determining the facts of what happened during what was an unprecedented attack on our democracy. This investigation endured relentless attacks during its 22-month existence. In fact, the investigation by Mr. Mueller was attacked 1,100 times by President Trump alone during this time according to the New York Times. These attacks may have tried to politicize and undermine Mr. Mueller's investigation, but they didn't deter his course. Anybody that knows Robert Mueller would know that he would not be intimidated by anybody, Republican or Democrat. In fact, far from being deterred, Mr. Mueller obtained 37 indictments, including against numerous close aides of the President. That marks this special counsel's investigation as one of the most productive and consequential in our history. The American people and their representatives in Congress now deserve to see the special counsel's work. The oversight authority of this body is deeply rooted in the Constitution. We would be derelict in our duties if we did not do everything within our power to obtain a full report and its underlying evidence. We already know from the 37 indictments, and from the testimony received by the Judiciary Committee, that this investigation has uncovered serious misconduct. We know the Trump campaign was informed that Russia had stolen Democratic emails months before anybody else. We know that a senior member of the campaign enthusiastically accepted an offer from the Russian Government to provide ``incriminating'' information on Hillary Clinton, and, afterward, he and President Trump blatantly misrepresented that meeting. We know from Roger Stone's indictment that the President was told about a coming release of stolen emails, and the campaign asked Stone to keep them apprised of developments with future releases. And we know that during all of this, the President was hiding his pursuit of a lucrative business deal in Moscow. Now, these activities may not amount to a crime, but they certainly amount to serious misconduct that reached the highest levels of the campaign and this administration, and they certainly raise questions about the President's baffling relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin. This relationship has been baffling to both Republicans and Democrats. That doesn't even touch on obstruction of justice. Attorney General Barr's letter revealed that there is still nonpublic evidence of the President's attempts to interfere with this investigation. The special counsel did not conclude whether the President's obsessive interference in this investigation qualifies as obstruction. Yet he stated that his report does not exonerate the President--does not exonerate the President. That is an extraordinary statement. Apparently, Attorney General Barr believes there is insufficient evidence to charge obstruction, but Mr. Barr also believes that it is not obstruction for a President to interfere with an investigation by exercising his Article II powers. Regardless, he believes that the only mechanism for holding a sitting President accountable is through Congress. Let's accept all of that. I don't necessarily accept all of it, but let's assume he is accurate in that. Then I would hope he would agree that it is the judgment of Congress and of the American people that is of the utmost importance in this moment. There is simply no justification for hiding even a portion of the Mueller report. The President has claimed it totally exonerates him. With respect to the collusion investigation, grand jury secrecy can be waived by the courts when there is a particular need that outweighs the interest in secrecy. With respect to the obstruction investigation, executive privilege cannot be used to hide evidence of a potential crime. In fact, if you want to hide evidence of a potential crime under executive privilege, all they have to do is look at a Supreme Court case where that was tried called United States v. Richard Nixon. Any claim would likely not survive a challenge under United States v. Nixon. It is hard to imagine that such hypothetical claims were not waived when administration witnesses talked to the special counsel's office. Transparency is really the touchstone of our democracy. Any attempt to hide swaths of the Mueller report from public scrutiny is only going to fuel suspicions that President Trump's Justice Department, which represents not President Trump but all the United States, is instead playing the role of President Trump's defense team. If no person, however powerful, is truly above the law, then no person should be permitted to conceal the results of such a critical national security investigation from public view. I hope that in the days and weeks ahead, the Senate has something to say about that. Everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, has a stake in knowing what is in that report and seeing the whole report. After months and months of work and all the investigations, all the indictments, and all the grand jury hearings, to say we have to rely on just a four-page summary is not enough. I don't accept that. I would hope that no Senator, Republican or Democrat, would accept it. I note that the House of Representatives voted unanimously--every Republican and every Democrat--to have the report released. I note that when we tried to have a similar resolution here, it was blocked by the Republican leader. I think the Republican leader should turn to all of us and say: Let the American people know the facts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Owen Gomory from my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on January 16, more than 2 months ago, the House passed a supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 268, which addressed the needs of all communities impacted by recent natural disasters. The House-passed disaster bill provided assistance to help people impacted by Hurricanes Florence and Michael, the Hawaii volcanoes, and the California wildfires. It provided aid to the people in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Guam, who were struck last year by typhoons, and the people of American Samoa, who were devastated by Cyclone Gita. It continued assistance for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to help them continue their recovery from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. They passed it 2 months ago. Instead of moving quickly on this package to help those Americans in need, Senate Republicans, at the President's insistence, held up the House bill because it included assistance for Americans in Puerto Rico. Instead of giving aid to the people who need it, the President has chosen to delay it over petty grudges and political concerns. The President's refusal to help Americans in Puerto Rico not only delays the important disaster bill that many of the other States are relying on to speed their recovery efforts, it discriminates against the over 3 million Americans who reside in Puerto Rico, and that is wrong. We have never--certainly in my years here--had disaster bills in which we say that Americans in this State can be helped, but we do not like the Americans in this State, so they cannot be helped. This is the United States of America. We are supposed to take care of all of our citizens when there is a crisis, not pick and choose who gets assistance based on who we are aligned with politically. I have voted for disaster relief for red States, for blue States, for purple States because they are part of the United States of America. I feel that as a country we have to come together to help each other when there is a disaster. Certainly Republican Senators and Democratic Senators helped the State of Vermont when we were hit with a disaster a few years ago. Well, today it is Puerto Rico, and all of the Americans in Puerto Rico need our help. A year and a half ago, it was hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. It is rare that anybody ever gets hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. An estimated 2,975 Americans lost their lives. Homes were demolished, communities destroyed. It was an extraordinary disaster, and it requires a commensurate extraordinary response. I am glad we are finally moving to debate on the House-passed bill because we need that. We actually ought to just pass the House-passed bill, but, unfortunately, the Republicans say they will file a substitute that will take us backward, not forward. Again, at the President's insistence, it eliminates critical assistance for the Americans in Puerto Rico provided for in the House bill, as well as assistance to other U.S. territories. It eliminates State-revolving funds that would help Puerto Rico rebuild damaged water systems and ensure they are resilient and can stand up to future storms. It eliminates a 100-percent cost-share for FEMA that would help cash-strapped Puerto Rico access Federal aid. It eliminates money to help Americans ensure that Puerto Rico is able to rebuild their electrical grid. It eliminates $68 million in Medicaid assistance for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, whose programs face serious shortages due to the increased need. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this money is not needed. They point to previous disaster supplemental bills and argue that we have already addressed the needs of Puerto Rico, and we should move on. Well, that is untrue. We provided Puerto Rico with significant assistance, as we should have, given the extraordinary nature of the storms that ravaged the island and given the extent of the devastation, but as damage assessments come in and the full picture of the devastation becomes clear, we must continually reassess and provide them what is needed to fully recover. I remember when this first happened, back when the White House was saying there may be two or three or four or a dozen fatalities in Puerto Rico. Well, they were off by thousands. There were 2,975 people who lost their lives, not just a handful. We don't simply appropriate the same amount of money to each State or territory that is hit with a disaster no matter the level of damage. We look at each place, and we provide what is needed for the people to rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives. I will give you one example of why one size does not fit all. With Katrina, we in Congress passed six supplemental disaster packages--not one, six--to help rebuild Louisiana and Mississippi because the storm was unlike anything we had ever seen. They needed the assistance coming in over time. I supported the help for Louisiana and Mississippi. No one at the time would have argued to stop after the first tranche of funding we provided and then leave them to fend for themselves, because they are Americans. We saw there were more problems, and we added money. This is no different. The President reportedly came to the Capitol and met with Senators yesterday and made his case as to why we should not continue aid to Puerto Rico. Let me repeat. The President of the United States-- something I have never seen in my 45 years here with either a Republican or Democratic President--affirmatively argued that we should refrain from helping American citizens in need. Of course, like so many things the President has said, it was not based in fact or reality. He claimed that Puerto Rico had received over $90 billion in Federal assistance, but it has not. He knows it has not. Why does he keep saying this when he has to know that what he is saying is not true? He claims it is using Federal money to pay off its debt. It has not. The President knows that is not true. Why does he keep saying it? Some here in this body have claimed that Puerto Rico has in the bank $20 billion in previously appropriated money that they have failed to spend, and they argue that we should provide no more until it is drawn down. I do not know if they are getting their talking points from the White House or what, but that is simply false. The bulk of the money to which they refer, which we Republicans and Democrats alike voted to appropriate over 1 year ago, is being held up by the administration in redtape and bureaucracy. It seems as though it is being purposely held back because of inaction by this administration. Billions of dollars that Congress approved over 1 year ago for disaster recovery efforts remain in the U.S. Treasury in Washington, DC, not where they belong--assisting the American citizens of Puerto Rico. There is no excuse for that. They cannot have it both ways. The administration cannot simultaneously hold up recovery dollars for Puerto Rico and then point to Puerto Rico's failure to spend it as an excuse not to provide additional assistance. In other words, they are holding these billions away from Puerto Rico, saying: You cannot have it, but why are you not spending it? Come on. You cannot do that. You cannot claim they are not spending the money that is being held back from them, and then say that is why they do not need additional assistance. Yesterday, Senator Schumer and I sent a letter to the administration about these bureaucratic delays and demanded answers. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter dated March 25, 2019, to Mick Mulvaney, Peter Gaynor, and Ben Carson.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that it will review whether the White House has deliberately interfered with the timely distribution of hurricane funds to Puerto Rico. That is pretty amazing. I have never seen a case that I remember where the inspector general of Housing and Urban Development had to look into whether the White House was deliberately interfering with funds to go to a disaster area. I know firsthand what it is like to see a State hit by disaster. Tropical Storm Irene hit Vermont in 2011, and it devastated our State. People lost their homes, roads were washed out, bridges destroyed, and communities forever changed. I saw bridges twisted like a child's toy. I saw farmhouses that had been on the north side of the river, which were now on the south side of the river, upside down and destroyed. I saw farmers' fields wiped out, businesses ruined, schools destroyed, roads necessary to bring medical supplies into villages gone. I know firsthand. I know as a lifelong Vermonter that in these moments the Federal Government is a critical partner in the effort to recover and rebuild. It is the same in other States--North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are all counting on us to get this bill across the finish line. That is why, 3 weeks ago, I put a compromise on the table to create a path forward. I did it in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It was a reasonable proposal. It does not restore everything that had been eliminated from the House bill, but it was a compromise that focused on the most critical proposals and the immediate needs. Had Senate Republicans accepted this proposal, we likely would have seen quick passage of a disaster bill in a bipartisan fashion in both the Senate and the House. It actually would have eliminated the need for a conference and would have gotten the assistance to the people who need it sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, it appears the President will not accept even this reasonable offer. It makes me think about when he closed down the government for over 1 month because the Congress gave him only $1.6 billion for a wall, and then he reopened the government when we gave him $1.3 billion. I don't know if they actually read the proposals and bills that we sent. In this case, I think it is obvious what is happening. The President is willing to endanger the entire disaster package for all of the United States because he wants to pick winners and losers. When there is a disaster, there are no winners and losers. Americans come together to help everybody. Yet he wants to say who gets assistance in the wake of disasters based on his own arbitrary standards and political grudges. That is unacceptable. Where is it going to end? Which State will the President disfavor next? Remember that just a few months ago, the President, in a tweet, threatened to cut off aid to California as they were reeling from some of the worst fires in recent history. He sent a tweet telling millions of Americans he doesn't want to help. We are an independent branch of government. We have to have a responsible party in the room, and it should be Congress. I think back to when Vermont was hit by disaster and hurricane flooding. As I was traveling around the State the day after, surveying the damage, I was receiving emails from a number of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, saying: Vermont stood with us when we had a disaster; we will stand with you today. That is what I want to do. I want to help, just as I voted to help Louisiana six times and Mississippi for their damage. It wasn't for a political benefit for Vermont, but it was because we are Americans and we all stand together. To think that we might consider a disaster package that picks and chooses which Americans are helped when they have all suffered equally from disasters, and to say: OK, you, American, we favor you, you get money. You, American, I don't like you. So you are not going to get money. That is not the American way. That is not the way the Senate should be. Let's pass a bill that addresses the needs of all communities impacted by disaster and do it now. People are waiting. The needs are pressing. I will file an amendment today with my recommended compromise. It provides a reasonable path forward--one that allows us to move quickly to get assistance to the people who need it now. I hope all Members will support it. The Governor of Puerto Rico made a strong statement this morning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello.

Mr. LEAHY. The Americans in Puerto Rico do not have representation in this body. Vermont is probably as far away from Puerto Rico as just about any State, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii. They do not have anybody to speak directly on their behalf on such an important matter. The Governor has spoken out. I urge every Member to read what the Governor has to say. I agree with him. Americans in Puerto Rico should be helped just as Americans in Texas, Americans in Oklahoma, Americans in California, or Americans in New York, or wherever disaster has struck. We are the United States of America. Let's start acting like that on behalf of all Americans, not on behalf of political biases. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a debate worth happening. I appreciate the comments from my New England neighbor. It is an important matter for us to consider. President Trump declared a national emergency, citing a ``crisis'' at the southern border, but it has become more and more evident he did it for one reason, to do an end run around Congress and the Appropriations Committee, and use taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border that Congress has refused to fund. For 3 years, he failed to convince Congress--a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House--that his wall was a good idea. For 3 years, he requested that Congress fund his cynical campaign promise to build a ``big beautiful'' wall on the southern border, and for 3 years, the Republican-controlled Congress refused. Even when his own party controlled both Chambers of Congress, he could not convince enough Members that it was a good idea. Certainly, nobody accepted his pledge that Mexico would pay for the wall. We all knew the U.S. taxpayers would have to pay for it. So instead of accepting that we are in a democracy, and he is not a monarch, instead of accepting that we are in a democracy and there are two other coequal branches of government that could constrain his actions, the President has decided to ignore the Constitution and the will of Congress and go it alone. Actually, Congress alone has the power of the purse. Congress having exclusive power over our government spending priorities is one of the most critical checks and balances in our constitutional system. Anybody who goes back and reads the history of the founding of this country knows that the reason we are the oldest existing democracy currently in the world, is that we believed in checks and balances. The President, of course, could propose funding for whatever projects he wants, but it is the job of Congress to decide where to invest the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. In a democracy, every President from George Washington to now is supposed to respect those decisions. After not getting what he wanted, this President has invoked the National Emergencies Act. He is stretching the powers given to him in that act beyond all recognition. He has declared a national emergency on the southern border. We are not responding to a national emergency. There is no crisis on our southern border requiring such extreme action. What kind of national emergency is declared only after you lose a 3-year funding fight with Members of your own party? What kind of national emergency is resolved by a vaguely defined, multiyear construction project? The truth is clear. He is trying to use this authority as a means to a political end. When Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act in 1976, it conveyed certain powers to the President to use in the event of a true emergency that required quick action. I remember. I was here during the debate. There was a Republican President. It assumed that whoever sat in the Oval Office would have enough respect for the office and the power being conveyed not to abuse it. Those of us in the Senate, at that time, felt that whether it was a Republican or Democratic President, they would not abuse the power. President Trump has failed that test. Presidential emergency powers should only be invoked in a true time of crisis. It is an abuse of power to invoke these authorities just because he couldn't do what he wanted in any other way. We are now seeing what he would do if he had these powers. The President wants to raid money meant for military housing and military base improvements to pay for his wall. This comes almost in the same week we see in the news that so much of military housing is infested by mold, by rats, by asbestos, and by all these other problems. Is he going to take the money that would make this housing safe for the men and women in our military to pay for his wall? Is he going to take money from Camp Lejeune that was hit by Hurricane Florence and badly damaged? I know Camp Lejeune. When my son was in the Marines, he spent time there. Is he going to take money from Tyndall Air Force base, which was flattened by Hurricane Michael? What about money for schools for military families, like the school at Fort Campbell, KY, or a child development center at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland? What about essential training facilities that would ensure military readiness, like a special operations training facility at Fort Bragg, NC--which I have visited. Congress chose to fund these projects over an ineffective, wasteful wall. Congress had to say, where does the money go? We felt these things to help our military and military families made far more sense than the wall. Congress used its constitutional power--let me emphasize that--Congress used its constitutional power of the purse to set priorities for how to invest the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. The President is trying to label opponents of his action as weak on border security or weak on crime. That is nonsense. I don't know any Member of the Senate, of either party, who doesn't believe in border security or is in favor of crime. Let's see what he asked for. Instead of border security, he wanted $5.7 billion for the wall. Congress approved a border security package--money for fencing along with technology added between the ports of entry, and additional personnel. That is real border security, not a political stunt. Now the President is saying: Thank you for your views; thank you for following your constitutional power, but I am still going to do it my way. Where is he going to stop? The fact that it is a political game was shown when this Congress passed, overwhelmingly, $1.6 billion for border security. The President threatened to veto that. Then after closing the government for 35 days--costing the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars for nothing--he signed the bill that did not give him the $1.6 billion that he threatened to veto but that gave him $1.3 billion, and that he signed. If anybody thinks this is just playing games, that states it. Over the past 2 years, we have seen the erosion of our institutional checks and balances in the face of creeping authoritarianism. The time has come for Congress and Members of the President's own party to take a stand. Congress simply cannot afford to remain silent in the face of such an unprecedented violation of the separation of powers. I understand Senator Lee has introduced a bill to reform the National Emergencies Act. I appreciate the thought he has put into this issue. I am certainly going to review his legislation with an open mind, but make no mistake, legislation to fix future abuses of this law does not address the abuses we have that are happening right now. His bill does not address the fact that this President is trying to do an end run around Congress--an end run around Democrats and Republicans alike--and is cynically using an emergency declaration to fund a request on which we had voted but of which we did not approve. We must send a message to the President that this is unacceptable. This is not something we never voted on. We have voted on this matter, and under the Constitution, that is what is supposed to carry the day. I hope my Republican friends will take a moment to take stock of where we are. President Trump is going to be but a moment in our Nation's history. The Constitution controls our history no matter who is President. For the sake of appeasing a man who made a foolish campaign promise that was never grounded in reality, will they not stand up for the institution in which they serve? For the sake of appeasing a President who detests any limits or checks on his authority, will they forever diminish the role of Congress as a coequal branch of government? Now is the time for country over party. I will vote aye on the joint resolution of disapproval, and I urge all Senators to do the same. I do not see any Senator who seeks the floor. Mr. President, is this under controlled time?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time consumed by the quorum be equally divided between both sides.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been more than 5 months since journalist and American resident Jamal Khashoggi was tortured and murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. More than 5 months since the Saudi Government initially denied it had anything to do with Mr. Khashoggi's disappearance and told the world, in a calculated and quickly disproven lie, that he left the consulate unharmed. As the Saudi Government's complicity became clear, its explanations became even more convoluted. We were told to accept that the operation that resulted in Mr. Khashoggi's death was an interrogation gone wrong, carried out by rogue agents who somehow flew to Istanbul, executed Mr. Khashoggi, and worked with a local collaborator to cover up the crime, all, despite their ties to the highest levels of government, without the knowledge of the Crown Prince. Although Senators--Republicans and Democrats--who have been briefed on the matter found that possibility preposterous, President Trump and Secretary Pompeo seemed ready to accept the Saudi Government's lies. The truth is that, while there is a mountain of information circulating in the press that suggests the Crown Prince was involved in the planning and approval of the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi, there are still many unanswered questions. We know the Saudi Government identified certain Saudi officials who allegedly carried out this murder, but we do not know how they were identified, what these officials were asked, by whom, and what they have said about the crime, or why some of them were brought to trial and others were not. We know that the Trump administration sanctioned 17 Saudi officials, but we have not been told to what extent or why these individuals were targeted for sanctions and others were not. We know that there was a local collaborator, but we have not been told his nationality or identity, nor the whereabouts of Mr. Khashoggi's body, which has not been returned to his family. What do we know? We know that the Saudi Government--the royal family--is sticking to the latest version of its story, absolving itself of any culpability. The Trump administration maintains, despite many mixed signals, that it is doing everything in its power to ensure Mr. Khashoggi's murderers are held accountable for their actions. If that is true, we would expect the administration to be transparent and to cooperate with the Congress. But while I would like to be persuaded of their commitment to pursuing justice in this case, their efforts to date have been anything but convincing. On October 10, 2018, Senators Corker, Menendez, Graham, and I, along with a majority of the members of the Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to the President to trigger a 120-day review and determination on the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act with respect to any foreign person involved in the murder of Mr. Khashoggi. The response of the administration has been to ignore the legal requirement to make that determination. This is only the latest attempt by the administration to obstruct the Congress's access to information about this crime. Rather than ignoring its legal obligations and keeping Congress in the dark, the administration should be working with Congress and the international community, to expose the truth about who gave the orders to kill Mr. Khashoggi. If the administration has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by being part of the effort to see justice done. One way for the administration to prove it is serious about accountability is to fully cooperate with the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, who is reviewing the evidence in the Khashoggi case. The White House, the State Department, and our intelligence agencies should promptly provide her with any relevant information in their possession. As I stated on February 3, 2019, if the President continues to take actions such as ignoring the clear mandate of the Magnitsky Act or otherwise refuses to cooperate with the investigations of this murder, the White House will share the blame for attempting to cover up the crime and for helping those responsible to evade justice. The administration should also urge the Saudi Government to guarantee a fair and public trial for the men accused of being involved in the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, that meets international standards of due process. A trial that fails to disclose all of the facts--a trial that is rushed and secretive--will be seen as simply further obstruction of justice. Real accountability must occur in this case. We know all too well that Mr. Khashoggi's murder is only one example of the brutal way in which the Saudi Government, led by the Crown Prince, treats anyone it perceives as a threat, which means anyone who dares criticize the government or who advocates for human rights. Since May 2018, prominent women's rights advocates have been imprisoned and tortured by the Saudi Government or banned from traveling, without any criminal charges being brought--women like 25- year-old Loujain al-Hathloul, who had a driver's license from the United Arab Emirates and advocated for the right of Saudi women to drive, but was arrested in a sweeping crackdown on women's activists just before the Saudi Government lifted the ban on female drivers. Dr. Hatoon al-Fassi, another women's rights advocate and a history professor, was arrested in June 2018 and remains confined to this day. While these women have not been charged, their so-called crime is obvious: engaging in independent activism. The royal family will do whatever it takes to make clear that they alone can create change in Saudi Arabia. That is why, like these women, anyone of influence, including average citizens who advocate for reforms, is at risk in Saudi Arabia. It is not only opposition that the Crown Prince fears, it is the appearance of capitulation to ordinary citizens that he seeks to avoid by cracking down on those who are merely advocating for reforms he himself claims to support. His repression has touched every segment of society, from journalists to women's rights advocates to economists like Dr. Essam al-Zamil, who was detained in September 2017, presumably due to his opposition to the Crown Prince's economics plan, and Mohammad Fahad al- Qahtani, an economics professor and human rights activist who was sentenced in 2013 to 10 years in prison for breaking allegiance with the royal family and defaming the judiciary. Sometimes the motivation behind the Crown Prince's actions is a complete mystery. One egregious case is that of Dr. Walid Fitaihi, a U.S. citizen who earned his medical degree from George Washington University and a master's degree in public health from Harvard University. Dr. Fitaihi was seized by Saudi authorities for unknown reasons in November 2017. He has reportedly been severely tortured, and he remains in prison. In fact, before Mr. Khashoggi was murdered, he wrote about Dr. Fitaihi's detention on social media to decry the arbitrary and repressive trends developing under the Crown Prince's rule. Like Jamal Khashoggi, there is not a shred of evidence that Dr. Fitaihi is guilty of anything. He should be released immediately. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the March 4, 2019, editorial in the Washington Post, entitled, ``Saudi Arabia is torturing a U.S. citizen. When will Trump Act?'' which highlights Mr. Fitaihi's case, be printed in the Record following my remarks. These cases are only a fraction of the known examples of the Crown Prince's repression. There are countless others that don't escape the royal family's tight control of information in the country. This is the so-called reformer we are told to put our trust in to help lead Saudi Arabia into the future. As others in this body have said, he is no reformer; he is an impulsive, ruthless gangster. It would be naive not to think that the Crown Prince's actions will lead to greater public resentment and instability in Saudi Arabia and jeopardize our long-term interests in the region. Contrary to the thinking of the White House, no amount of arms sales and no amount of oil can change that reality. I urge all Senators to join me in urging the White House and in supporting legislative action as appropriate to protect our national interests by ensuring that United States relations with Saudi Arabia are guided, first and foremost, by our principles and, most importantly, by our commitment to the rule of law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the past dozen years, the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, with financial support from the United States and other countries, has worked in collaboration with Guatemala's Public Ministry. That partnership has enabled courageous Guatemalan prosecutors to investigate and bring to trial cases they never could have pursued without the international ``shield'' and assistance provided by CICIG. It has also enabled courageous constitutional court magistrates to defend Guatemala's weak judicial institutions. In a country where throughout its history high-ranking public officials, including senior military officers, and corporate elites have enjoyed near total impunity for corrupt acts and violent crimes, the Guatemalan people finally saw that justice is possible. Not surprisingly, that collaboration encountered fierce opposition from its inception. The same high-ranking officials and elites who feared becoming the targets of corruption investigations sought to curtail CICIG's role. Last year, that opposition culminated in President Morales expelling the CICIG commissioner and subsequently announcing that the agreement establishing CICIG would be terminated, effective immediately. That announcement was made, without warning, after months of negotiations between Guatemalan, UN, and U.S. officials on reforms requested by the Morales government, which would have established the position of Deputy Commissioner as well as certain reporting and oversight requirements. In response to that announcement, as well as other worrisome trends in Guatemala, last week Senator Cardin and I, along with Representatives Torres and McGovern, introduced legislation in the Senate and House entitled the ``Guatemala Rule of Law Accountability Act.'' Its purpose is to respond to the flagrant actions by the Morales government to subvert the rule of law, including its campaign against CICIG. In fact, the Morales government lacks authority to unilaterally curtail an agreement with the United Nations, a point that was made clear by the UN Secretary General. CICIG's mandate continues in effect until September 2019, at which point it may or may not be renewed. However, I am concerned that there are some, including at the UN, who believe CICIG should significantly reduce its activities and, for all intents and purposes, fade into the sunset. This would mean that, for the remaining 6 months of its current mandate, CICIG personnel would no longer attend trials or engage in further investigations. Essentially, CICIG would discontinue its public activities and its personnel would be limited to preparing for the shutdown that would presumably occur in September. This is extremely worrisome for several reasons. First, donors would be paying to simply keep the lights on. Second, CICIG would cease to function half a year before the end of its mandate. This would be an enormous waste of time and resources that could be used to continue pursuing important cases and to ensure their proper hand-off to the public ministry. Third, it would send a terrible message to the Guatemalan people, especially to the families of the victims. CICIG's work under Commissioner Ivan Velazquez has been important not only for Guatemala, but for all of Central America. There are still many cases under investigation. Abandoning these cases would be a grave mistake. It would signal that the Morales government's tactics of intimidation and obstruction of justice paid off. It would undermine future anticorruption efforts in Guatemala, as well as send a terrible message to anticorruption effort's in Honduras and fledgling efforts in El Salvador. The United Nations and the international community have a responsibility to do everything possible to prevent this result. On a related topic, the Guatemalan Congress is about to debate, for the third and final time, legislation to grant amnesty to former military personnel who are charged with or convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. If the amnesty legislation is approved, those serving prison sentences will reportedly be released within 24 hours. The Guatemalan Congress has long had a reputation for being corrupt, and absolving military officers who engaged in heinous crimes is clearly a payoff to obstruct justice and undermine the rule of law. We remember that Guatemala was ravaged by three decades of an internal armed conflict that included crimes of genocide. An estimated 200,000 people, mostly rural Mayan villagers, were killed, and, according to the United Nations, more than 90 percent of those killings were committed by the army. The peace accords that ended that disaster were never implemented, and for decades, the victims of those crimes were denied justice. Now the Guatemalan Congress, with the support of President Morales, is on the verge of adding insult to injury by freeing the few army officers who were sent to prison. If that happens, the Guatemalan Government will join other pariah governments that fail to uphold their most sacred obligation to provide security and justice for their citizens.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the longest serving Member of the Senate and also the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I feel compelled--and I normally don't come down and speak about these things--but I want to warn about the destruction of long-held norms and traditions that have protected the Senate's unique constitutional role with respect to lifetime judicial appointments. This is an extraordinary responsibility on the part of the U.S. Senate. The Constitution quite properly allows any President to nominate whomever they want for a lifetime position on our Federal courts, but as our Founders said, the Senate has to give advice and consent because of the effect of this person's lifetime position. They go way beyond the term of the Senators who vote for them and the term of the President who nominates the person. In fact, until recently, and certainly during the years I have served here, Members of this body knew well they had a say when it came to who serves in the Federal courts in their States. It didn't matter whether you had a Republican or Democratic President or a Republican or Democratic majority in the Senate; blue slips protected the prerogative of home State Senators and gave meaning to the constitutional requirement of advice and consent. It ensures fairness but, more importantly, I think it also ensured comity in the Senate. That now is fast becoming history, and I fear it is going to do lasting damage to the Senate. What is happening is a disingenuous double standard. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the beginning of the Obama administration, every single Senate Republican, including many serving today, signed a letter. They made the case for the importance of the blue-slip tradition. They said it was absolutely imperative that it be respected during the new administration, the Obama administration. The Republicans said: We must do this. Well, I didn't need any reminder because under my chairmanship during both the Bush Republican administration and the Obama Democratic administration, I respected the blue-slip tradition without exception, even when it was not politically expedient to do so. I respected Republicans and Democrats alike. Regardless of who was in the Oval Office, under my chairmanship, not a single judicial nominee received a hearing without first receiving both home State Senators' positive blue slips. I defended the blue slips, and that was unpopular in my own party on occasion, but I believed in both their constitutional and institutional importance. I also believed in the prerogatives of home State Senators and the need to ensure that the White House works in good faith with those Senators. I believed then, and I still believe now, that certain principles matter more than party. Something that, unfortunately, some, probably because they are new here, don't understand. All of us, whether Democratic or Republican, should care about good- faith consultation when it comes to nominees from our home States. The reasons are principled and pragmatic. We know our State better than anybody else. We know who is qualified to fill lifetime judicial seats. They are going to have a tremendous impact on our communities. We know the men and women who are qualified. Without blue slips, nothing prevents our State selection committees from being completely ignored by the White House. Nothing would even prevent a New York or California lawyer from being nominated to a Texas court or vice versa. Yet the Senate is abandoning this protection. Senators of the Republican Party who promised they would uphold it, gave their word they would uphold it, asked me to uphold it, have suddenly broken their word. That bothers me. Last week, for example, for the first time in the history of this body, a nominee was confirmed to a seat on the circuit court over the objections of both home State Senators. That is the first time in our history that has happened. That meant my friends on the other side of the aisle had to break their word from what they agreed to before. This week, we are voting on two additional nominees, Chad Readler and Eric Murphy, who are opposed by another home State Senator, Mr. Brown. Senator Brown made extensive efforts to reach a compromise with the White House on these two Sixth Circuit vacancies, but the White House was not interested. The White House knew the Republicans would not keep to the position they expected Democrats to keep when we were in the majority, and because they knew they could rely on Members of their own party not to follow tradition for the first time, they didn't even try. The White House didn't even try to consult. Even superficial consultation is an afterthought. Senator Brown then attended the confirmation hearings. He spoke against these nominations. He cited, among other things, Mr. Readler's unprecedented actions attacking healthcare protections while serving in the Trump Justice Department. Mr. Readler was willing to reverse Justice Department policy and sign a brief undermining protections for preexisting conditions when career Justice Department officials--career officials who have been there in both Republican and Democratic administrations--refused. They refused to reverse their well-established Justice Department policy. He, however, was perfectly willing to throw it away in court. Is this somebody we expect to be fair on the court? Senator Brown cited Mr. Murphy's longstanding support and advocacy for restrictive voting laws in Ohio. He knows that his constituents will have to live with the ramifications if these nominees are confirmed. It will directly affect the State. He expressed his concerns about their records, and his voice, in this process as a U.S. Senator, was ignored. These votes come on the heels of the Senate's confirming a 37-year- old nominee for the Fourth Circuit who has practiced law for less than 10 years--a grand total of 9 years. She now holds a lifetime judgeship on an appellate court, just one step below the Supreme Court. Her confirmation hearing made a mockery of the Senate's duty of advice and consent. It marked the first time in the Judiciary Committee's history--the first time ever that a nomination hearing was held during the October recess over the objections of the other party. We found out why. Only two Republican Senators attended the hearing, and the questioning lasted only 20 minutes for someone who demonstrated no abilities to serve on the Fourth Circuit. They knew it didn't make any difference whether she had the abilities or knew what she was doing. All they knew is that this White House had nominated her, so let's rubberstamp this. Frankly, the Senate should never function as a mere rubberstamp for nominees seeking lifetime appointments to our Federal judiciary. We shouldn't do it whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. That is exactly what we are doing with a Republican President and a Republican majority. No matter whether the person is qualified, if the name comes up, rubberstamp it. When I chaired the Judiciary Committee, many Senators--Republican Senators--expressed both publicly and privately their appreciation for the fact that my respect for blue slips protected their rights and gave meaning to advice and consent. Many told me this is the way it must always be, whether Republicans or Democrats are in the majority. Well, their about-face, now that they control the Senate, is unbecoming, and it basically says that the Senate will just bow down to the executive branch. We will give up our responsibility, we will give up our authority, and we will just be rubberstamps. We might as well not even bother to show up; just do whatever we are told. It is deeply disappointing. I know the pressure because many of my Republican friends have told me to rubberstamp President Trump's nominees. I know my warnings will fall on many deaf ears, even for those who promised me they would not do this. I have served in the Senate long enough to know that political winds tend to change direction. Inevitably, the majority becomes the minority, and the White House changes hands. I suspect that many of my Republican colleagues who care about this institution, as do I--and there are many--are going to live to regret many of these actions. The further down this path the Senate goes, the harder it is going to be to unring this bell. A vote for Mr. Readler or Mr. Murphy is a vote to say that we abandon our abilities as home State Senators to serve as a check not just on this President but any future President, Republican or Democrat. Basically, we are saying that we don't believe in advice and consent. Basically, we are saying that we don't believe in the Senate being the conscience of the Nation. Basically, we are saying that we don't believe the Founders of this country knew what they were doing when they said the U.S. Senate--this body of 100 people--has to represent 325 million Americans and that we don't believe they should have any responsibility, have any say in lifetime appointments. If we abandon longstanding traditions and chase partisan expediency, I remind everybody that provides only fleeting advantage. It inflicts lasting harm on this body. It is within our power to stop it right here and right now. I urge all Senators to ensure that home State Senators are provided the same courtesies during the Trump administration that they received from both Republican and Democratic judiciary chairmen during the Obama administration. I believe we can do that. I ask my fellow Senators to oppose Mr. Readler's and Mr. Murphy's nominations because they were done so out of the way that they should be done. Let the U.S. Senate, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, say that we are not a rubberstamp to any President. We don't take our orders from any President. We don't bow and scrape for any President. Let's act like Senators, not like a rubberstamp. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 3 years ago yesterday, Berta Caceres, an indigenous rights activist in Honduras who had been a vocal opponent of the construction of a hydroelectric dam that threatened the territory of the Lenka people, was murdered in her home. That cowardly crime, about which I have spoken many times, was the culmination of years of harassment and threats against her life, and it was by no means an isolated case. At the time, it was only the latest of scores of assassinations of social activists who protested against the confiscation of land, forced evictions, and infrastructure development involving corrupt payoffs to circumvent environmental and social safeguards, and against abuses by Honduran security forces. Nobody has been punished for any of those other, similar, crimes. I did not know Berta Caceres, but I knew of her. I remember when she was awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize. I remember the disgust and outrage I felt when I learned that she had been murdered. I remember thinking that whoever would murder Berta Caceres, a charismatic leader who was recognized not only in her native country but around the world, must have been confident that they would never see the inside of a jail cell, because in Honduras only a small fraction of homicides, not to mention other violent crimes, ever results in conviction. Impunity and the corruption that enables it is a way of life there. It was no surprise that in the days and weeks after Berta Caceres was murdered, the Honduran police tried to cover it up. It was only because of international pressure, including by the U.S. Embassy, that the fraudulent ``investigation'' did not end there, as so often happens in Honduras when the victim is not someone of notoriety. Eventually, last November, after what seemed like interminable foot dragging, a trial resulted in the conviction of seven of those involved. That was a significant achievement, considering that absent international pressure Berta Caceres's case would have faded from memory like all the others. That trial also implicated top officials of the hydroelectric company DESA, one of whom is still awaiting trial 3 years later. I was a prosecutor before I became a Senator. I prosecuted many murder cases. While premeditated murder is a horrific crime, it is often relatively easy to prove. In Berta Caceres's case, there was a lot of evidence. So to those who ask why, 3 years later, we are still waiting for justice, I think the answer is obvious. There are powerful forces within the Honduran Government who are beyond the reach of the Honduran justice system, and the attorney general recognizes that. So today, 3 years later, there are some who conceived of, or knew of, the plan to murder Berta Caceres who have not been charged. The question, 3 years later, is when will they be charged? When will they be brought to justice? Neither I nor the world have forgotten Berta Caceres. Our desire to see justice done in her case is as strong today as it was 3 years ago not only because of the importance it has for her family and her community, but for the larger cause of justice in Honduras. Impunity is a powerful, evil force, but I believe the whole truth about this crime will eventually be known. Beyond Berta Caceres's case, the central question is whether the Honduran Government is serious about fighting the corruption that permeates not only the justice system, but practically every crevice of Honduran society and Government. A government that is serious about fighting corruption would enact the plea bargaining law that has languished for years, without which it is extremely difficult to investigate and prosecute crimes involving top public officials or corporate executives. A government that is serious about fighting corruption would put an abrupt end to legislation referred to as the ``impunity pact.'' That legislation would bar the attorney general from bringing charges against someone for stealing public funds until the Supreme Auditing Tribunal, whose members are all loyal to the President, has investigated and ruled on the alleged theft. It is a transparent attempt to ensure that cases of public corruption are never prosecuted. A government that is serious about fighting corruption would support strengthening the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity, not seek to ``renegotiate'' its mandate to eliminate or substantially weaken its investigative authority. The Honduran Government, which professes to be a partner of the United States in fighting corruption, is not doing any of these things. The inescapable truth is that it is not serious about fighting corruption, which is apparent to anyone who is not easily fooled. Until that changes and until all those involved in the murder of Berta Caceres are brought to justice and until Hondurans who speak out against corruption and impunity are no longer vilified and attacked, the amount of assistance we provide to the Honduran Government will be far less than it would otherwise be.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just a couple of short weeks ago, we finally finished the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills, and I greatly appreciate those who worked with us to get that done. I want to talk today about the need to reach a new 2-year budget deal. We have to do that so the Appropriations Committee could then begin to work in earnest on the fiscal year 2020 bills. We have shown that we can move the appropriations bills quickly, but we have to have the budget deal. In fact, unless we will get a budget deal, sequestration returns in fiscal year 2020. That would mean steep cuts in programs that invest in America and support working families. It means we would have to make cuts in our defense programs for the next fiscal year--cuts of $71 billion. This is real money. There would be a 10-percent cut in funding to support our troops and to invest in military readiness. It would also require that we cut $55 billion for nondefense programs in the next fiscal year. That is a 9-percent cut. The reality is, it means less investment in infrastructure, education, housing, or agricultural programs. It means less money for veterans' healthcare, protecting our environment, or combating the opioid epidemic. These cuts are not just hypothetical numbers on a piece of paper. They affect real people and real families. They affect people in my State. They affect the people in the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer. They affect people in the 50 States represented by all 100 of us. Of course, the worst part about that is the cuts will come at the same time we are facing significant increases in important programs that we have no control over. For example, we have to fund the decennial census. The Constitution requires us to have this census, and we have to fund it by $4 billion if we are going to follow what the Constitution of the United States requires us to do in conducting the 2020 census. We have all talked about veterans' healthcare. We have had a significant increase in the healthcare costs for veterans, and we have to have significant increases in the budget if we are going to adequately fund their health. The VA MISSION Act, which provides additional private care options for veterans, becomes effective in June of this year. That is going to cost at least an additional $3 billion, and estimates could climb significantly higher. That is on top of the $3 billion increase for VA medical care that we have already enabled through advance appropriations. Then we are going to need an additional $1 billion to ensure that an estimated 5 million people who receive affordable housing assistance can stay in their homes. In addition to these increased costs, we expect to lose nearly $4 billion in receipts and cost savings in other programs compared to this year. This may sound like just a whole lot of numbers. It is more than that. It means we have $15 billion right off the bat that we must account for above this year's levels. Of course, I am sure there will be more increases that we will have to address. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I know how hard Chairman Shelby and I worked with Republicans and Democrats to get through the bills we had this past year. We got them done, but it was not easy staying within levels. We have to have a 2-year budget deal. We have to negotiate it now. If we wait until the very last second to pass these bills, it will cost the taxpayers a lot more money because the Departments cannot plan. We are not going to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it is going to fix itself. Of course, again, in the Appropriations Committee, we try to work in a bipartisan way. But we cannot responsibly do our job in the absence of cap levels that allow us to meet the needs of the American people. Again, this is not just an accounting issue. This is the security and the well-being of the greatest Nation on Earth. It is not rhetoric; it is reality. The budget deal has to be based on parity if we are going to pass it. It has to have equal treatment for defense and nondefense programs, as we have had in the past. We have to invest on both sides of the ledger if we are going to create a strong national defense, a strong economy, and a healthy citizenry of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to all Senators that was received yesterday from over 300 retired admirals and generals who agree with this premise.

Mr. LEAHY. These admirals and generals, many of whom I know and a lot of whom I do not, have been here with Republican and Democratic administrations, but they are all people who have served our Nation and care about our Nation. They are part of a coalition called Mission: Readiness, Council for a Strong America. They call on Congress to negotiate balanced investments in both defense and nondefense programs. They wrote: ``As members of Mission: Readiness, we recognize the fact that the strength of our military--and our Nation--is dependent on the strength of our people.'' We have certainly seen this. You can go back to the time of World War II, when Harry Truman found that we could not find the people we needed in our military because of things like malnutrition or a lack of education; we needed to improve the nutrition programs in our schools. This is not rhetoric; it is reality. These admirals and generals want a strong United States of America, just as I do and just as every single Member of this body--of either party--wants. If the press reports are accurate, the President is planning to send up a budget on March 11 that not only fails to provide a constructive path forward, but it is going to be dead on arrival. If press reports are accurate, the President will, yet again, propose deep cuts to nondefense programs, even though Congress has rejected President Trump's cuts for the last 2 fiscal years. Every Republican and every Democrat knows that you have to have a balance between defense and nondefense programs. President Trump also proposes large increases for defense programs, paid for using a budget gimmick that his own Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, would rail against when he was in Congress. He says he will move large portions of the defense base budget into the Overseas Contingency Operation, or OCO, account so that it will not count against the budget caps. Mick Mulvaney and most Republicans and Democrats have said we cannot do this. It is not a recipe for success. OCO is meant for costs associated with military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. It is there to address crises overseas. It supports our men and women deployed and in harm's way. The OCO account should not be used as a slush fund to pay for the everyday operations of the Department of Defense or to avoid a real debate on the budget caps. To suggest we should move billions in the base defense budget into OCO at a time when the President is actively reducing our troop presence overseas shows what a disingenuous move it is. I went back in my notes, and I found a letter written by then- Congressman Mick Mulvaney--now the acting Chief of Staff for President Trump. He wrote this in March of 2014. It is strikingly relevant today, 5 years later. Then-Congressman Mulvaney wrote a letter signed by numerous Members. He opposed a $10 billion increase in OCO, calling it is a ``misuse'' of funds and an attempt to ``circumvent the caps'' for things unrelated to overseas combat at a time when war operations were ``winding down.'' He opposed the gimmick. He argued for greater transparency and discipline in the budget process. He said he would not want any President--well, of course, in that case, it was President Obama--to have this power. Now he is Acting Chief of Staff of another President, and we are told the President may propose an increase of $105 billion, more than doubling OCO funding, as we are withdrawing troops. That is not the way forward. Let's have an honest conversation, Republicans and Democrats together, about our needs as a nation. We have to do the hard work to set new caps. It is not easy. Every one of us will have to cast difficult votes. Well, so what? We are elected to a 6-year term. There is not a single Member of this body who, at one time or another during their campaigns, did not say something to the effect of ``I am willing to cast tough votes.'' Well, let us have it, this onerous conversation. Let us do the hard work to set new caps. Let us cast those difficult votes. Let us show the people who elected us they did the right thing. Let us invest in the programs. Let us strengthen our military, grow our economy, improve our infrastructure, and build the future of this country we love. Let us not use a budget gimmick to frustrate that debate. Trust me, the American people will see through that kind of a gimmick. I am ready to have those conversations. I want to move forward with the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bills. Let's get the work done the American people sent us here to do. If we have to stay a few evenings and if we have to stay a few weekends, let's do it. It is for the greatest Nation on Earth. Let's do it. I urge leadership on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers of Congress, to begin these negotiations now. Then we have to take up, with urgency, a disaster package. In the last 2 years, we have had the deadliest disaster seasons in recent memory--Hurricanes Michael, Florence, Irma, and Maria, the California wildfires, volcanic eruptions in Hawaii, and typhoons along the Pacific coast. These communities, States, and territories need our help. When Tropical Storm Irene hit Vermont in 2011, I found out firsthand how devastating natural disasters can be. Roads were washed away, towns and villages were cut off from vital services, and people's homes were destroyed. The day after Irene, I went around the State of Vermont with our Governor and with the head of our National Guard in a helicopter, landing in small towns. Many times the only way you could get into these towns was by helicopter because roads were gone and the bridges were gone. You would see bridges, like a child's toy, twisted and a mile from where it was supposed to be. A farmhouse that had been on the north side of the river was now upside down on the south side of the river. We were in the middle of the State, and we knew it was critical. The Federal Government provided assistance to help recovery because we are part of the United States of America. The people of Puerto Rico and others that have been so badly damaged, these are Americans. We should stand together to help them. I am sorry we were not able to reach agreement to include a disaster package in the fiscal year 2019 minibus we passed just 2 weeks ago. We were so close to an agreement on a package--so very close, Republicans and Democrats alike. It would have addressed the needs of all impacted communities. It broke down because the President insisted we eliminate disaster assistance for Puerto Rico. I guess he thought tossing rolls of paper towels for the people is good enough. Puerto Rico is part of the United States. It is not, as the White House described it, an island surrounded by water, I guess, as compared to those other islands. It is a part of the United States. These are American people. They have served in our military. They help us in our medical facilities. They are Americans, and they cannot be left out. Hurricanes Maria and Irma--they had two hurricanes--devastated Puerto Rico. They destroyed the island's homes and infrastructure. They caused the deaths of an estimated 2,975 people. It was one of the deadliest hurricanes our country has ever seen, certainly in my lifetime. Now, we provided Puerto Rico assistance in past disaster bills, but they have so many unaddressed needs that have to be met. Many people, even after the hurricane, are still living in temporary housing. Roads, bridges, and communities still need to be rebuilt. One of the largest infrastructure projects to be undertaken on the island is the rebuilding of Puerto Rico's energy grid, which needs more assistance. Most importantly, in the absence of supplemental assistance, we estimate that 140,000 Puerto Ricans, U.S. citizens, are going to lose nutrition assistance at the end of March. We are the United States of America--United States of America--and this is the U.S. Senate. We are supposed to take care of all our citizens when they have crises. We do not pick and choose based on with whom we are politically aligned. I voted for disaster relief for States that were predominantly Republican and other States that were predominantly Democratic, but I don't look at it like that. I look at the fact that they are part of the United States of America, and they had a disaster. They should be helped. Last month, the House passed H.R. 268, a comprehensive disaster package that provided over $14 billion to help all States and territories impacted by recent disasters to help them recover and rebuild. I worked closely with the House on this bill. I believe it will address the needs of all disaster-impacted communities. On Tuesday, Senators Perdue and Jones and others, working very hard, introduced a similar but not identical bill. I am taking these bills with me this weekend. I am going to review them carefully. I thank the bipartisan group of Senators--Senators Perdue and Jones and others--for bringing the issue back to the forefront of the Senate. I am certainly committed to working with my good friend Chairman Shelby. I also worked with Republicans and Democrats in the House Appropriations Committee. I want a package that can pass both Chambers in addressing the needs of all States and territories hit by recent disasters. I certainly urge the majority leader, Senator McConnell, to commit to bringing this to the floor as soon as possible. With that, I see other Senators on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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