Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the White House recently unveiled the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, W-GDP, an interagency plan to increase women's global labor force participation and advancement in the workplace, improve access of women entrepreneurs to market opportunities, and remove barriers to economic growth for women. I support the initiative, although not based on the erroneous claim of some in the White House that it is the first women's initiative ever launched by the United States. On the contrary, I and many other Members of Congress and previous administrations have supported such efforts for many years. However, there is still a lot of work to be done, and I hope W-GDP builds on those efforts. Too many of this administration's actions have fallen far short of the President's rhetoric or have been the antithesis of what he promised, so while I am ready to do what is necessary to support W-GDP, I worry that this initiative may be part of the same story. From human trafficking at the southern border, to processing asylum applicants, to combating HIV/AIDS, this administration purports to be serious about addressing global problems while implementing policies or proposing budgets that bear no resemblance to effective solutions and in many cases would make the situation worse. For example, while the objectives of W-GDP are laudable, it is being implemented by the same White House that sought to cut the budget for the Department of State and foreign assistance programs by roughly 30 percent in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, cuts that would have decimated funding for programs that address the needs of the world's poorest people, for water and sanitation, maternal and child health, education and employment opportunities, to stave off poverty and disease that disproportionately afflict women and girls. In fact, the President's budget did not include a single dollar for W-GDP. This administration has also waged war on reproductive health, reportedly directing the omission of reporting on reproductive rights in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights, and one of President Trump's first acts after his inauguration was to reinstate the Global Gag Rule. In fact, egged on by extremists in his administration, he expanded it to condition funding for every nongovernmental organization, NGO, implementing any health programs for the United States overseas, even if their programs have nothing to do with reproductive health. In other words, if an NGO spends millions of dollars in India to combat HIV/AIDS, but spends $1 of its own private funds--not U.S. taxpayer funds--to provide counseling on abortion, it is ineligible for any U.S. Government funding for either purpose. Such a policy would be unlawful in our own country. So while I support W-GDP, I caution all those who defend women's rights and support economic opportunities for women to not be distracted by one initiative this administration launched on the backs of the Congress's rejection of President Trump's budget and to call on the White House to adopt a more consistent, comprehensive approach to supporting women around the world. With that in mind, I hope the White House will speak out forcefully and consistently about the institutionalized and systemic persecution and discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia and other countries whose autocratic and corrupt governments this White House has embraced. If the White House expects to be taken seriously about women's empowerment, it cannot remain silent about governments whose laws and policies treat women as property and that imprison women's rights activists. This is not the only area in which the administration is purporting to support vulnerable populations while its short-sighted policies are having the opposite effect. In a November 30, 2018, op-ed in the Washington Post, Ivanka Trump announced that the administration had decided to limit the number of waivers for assistance for countries that are identified in the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report as failing to meet minimum standards for combating human trafficking. She also noted the administration's pledge of $45 million to a fund to end modern slavery, funds that, as is true for W-GDP, the President did not include in his budget and from an account the White House proposed to cut. I agree with the goal of holding governments accountable for failing to meet minimum standards for preventing trafficking in persons, but informed people know that cutting funding for health, education, environmental conservation, counterterrorism, and governance programs does nothing to prevent human trafficking, while it undercuts our ability to make progress on other issues of national interest. Yet that is exactly what the administration has done. By belatedly approaching human trafficking as if nothing else matters and limiting use of the waiver authority Congress provided, administration officials have spent months tying themselves in knots over which programs to continue and which to suspend. The result is that implementing partners are running out of money, services are not being delivered, and important programs are shutting down. The Trump administration needs to stop governing by sound bite. If the White House is serious about addressing human trafficking and other complex challenges, it should work with Congress to secure the necessary funding and apply the law in a common sense manner that is consistent with our national interests.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services and Related Agencies held a hearing on the opioid epidemic and how States are responding to the crisis. I was pleased Beth Tanzman, the executive director of Vermont's Blueprint for Health, agreed to be a witness at today's hearing to share the innovative approaches Vermont has taken to combat opioid use disorders. Ms. Tanzman has also served as Vermont's deputy commissioner for mental health and also directed adult mental health services for Vermont's Department of Mental Health. While certainly not spared from the opioid epidemic, Vermont is ahead of much of the country in many ways: Our State openly identified the problem, and our former Governor, Peter Shumlin, dedicated his entire State of the State address in 2014 to constructively seek ways to not just help addicts get clean, but to halt this scourge in its tracks. Public health leaders, addiction specialists, doctors, and State leaders came together and implemented a system to integrate substance abuse treatment with primary healthcare. Ms. Tanzman's testimony focused on the system developed through this collaboration, known as the Hub and Spoke Model. The plan helps support those in recovery with nine regional hubs, offering daily medication assisted treatment for those with complex addictions, and spokes, where patients receive follow-up care, counseling, and general wellness services. This framework has allowed Vermont to virtually eliminate wait times for treatment, which can be enormous barriers for individuals needing help. Every State in the Nation has seen the impacts of opioid abuse. Ms. Tanzman's testimony was informative and offers an important perspective for other States struggling with treating addiction. I ask unanimous consent to that her testimony from the Appropriations Committee hearing this morning be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to briefly discuss the situation in Egypt, a country where unchecked repression has come to define the government of President el-Sisi. The 2011 Egyptian revolution brought hope of a democratic future for the country, but it has failed to materialize, subverted by aspiring autocrats. After winning historic democratic elections in 2012, the Morsi government sought to consolidate its control, issuing a declaration to provide the President with sweeping authorities and eliminating checks on Executive power. The response was another popular uprising and a military coup led by then-Defense Minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Although cheered by some who favor President el-Sisi's crackdown on the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and anyone suspected of being affiliated with it, his Presidency has become a model for autocratic rule. His police have arrested human rights lawyers, journalists, civil society activists, and opposition politicians. Anyone who criticizes the regime or calls for a more democratic system is threatened, arrested, and accused of ``terrorism'' or some other vague crime against the state. Once detained, they have been subjected to physical and psychological abuse while they wait for months or more often years before being subjected to sham trials that make a mockery of due process. Earlier this month, President el-Sisi's government took another step to consolidate his rule. Egypt's rubberstamp Parliament approved constitutional amendments that would enable el-Sisi to remain in power until 2034, 12 years beyond the end of his second and final term. Other amendments would enable el-Sisi to tighten his control of the judiciary, create a second Parliamentary chamber dominated by Presidential appointees, and expand the authority of the military to codify its role in civilian political life. Egypt today is a civilian government in name only. The military, led by el-Sisi, effectively wields total control. In 2011, we all hoped the Egyptian people had a brighter, albeit challenging, political future ahead of them, but 7 years after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, the el-Sisi government is erasing any remaining hope for democracy in the country. The calls of those who flooded the streets under Mubarak and Morsi for greater political freedom and civil liberties, less corruption, and more accountability are treated not as visions for Egypt's future, but as threats to el- Sisi himself. Regrettably, it seems that the only constant in U.S.-Egyptian relations over the last several decades, besides Egyptian Government repression and billions of dollars in U.S. military aid, is the reticence with which successive U.S. administrations have confronted this issue. There always seems to be an excuse for why now is not the time to insist on meaningful progress to advance democracy and human rights by our ally Egypt. If not now, when? What line would the Egyptian government have to cross for the Congress and the administration to recognize the threat that a brutal military dictatorship poses to stability in Egypt, and to our long-term interests in the region? Every U.S. administration has engaged, in varying degrees, in quiet diplomacy to address human rights abuses and corruption overseas and issued public statements or withheld foreign aid to encourage progress. Diplomacy, if backed up with consequences, can achieve results, but successive Egyptian Governments have gambled that, at the end of the day, we will look the other way in the mistaken belief that doing so serves U.S. security interests, and by and large, that has been the case. It is interesting to compare the Trump administration's selective condemnation of government repression in other countries, where the number of political prisoners is a fraction of those in Egypt, to President Trump's pronouncement that President el-Sisi as a ``great guy.'' What a sad commentary on what this country purports to stand for. We must acknowledge what history has repeatedly shown, that upholding our values is the best way to protect our interests. That does not mean cutting off all aid and walking away from Egypt. That kind of reactionary approach is equally short-sighted. What it does mean is that we need a more principled, measured, and consistent policy and make clear that our aid is not a blank check--that Egypt's leaders are not above the law; that freedom of expression is universal; that due process is a right; that torture, cruel and inhuman treatment are forbidden under international law; and that governments should be accountable to their people. At a time when President el-Sisi is seeking to manipulate the legislative process to cement his hold on power for life, senior officials at the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon need to stand up for what is first and foremost in our national interest: the principles that define us as Americans. I hope all Senators will join me in encouraging the Trump administration to learn from the mistakes of its predecessors and realign our policy toward Egypt with our values.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island. I could not help but think--as I saw the picture of John Chafee, with whom I had the honor of serving here in the Senate--of John Chafee's close friendship with Robert Stafford, who was my senior Senator when I came here, both having served in World War II, both with a naval background, both people who cared first and foremost about the country and the environment. I am going to speak a little bit further about Bob Stafford as we go. When we laid John Chafee to rest in Rhode Island, I remember sitting there and listening to the eulogies. Both Republicans and Democrats were speaking about this man. Also, referring to what the Senator from Rhode Island has said, more than 30 years ago we had cooperation and bipartisanship. It was a hallmark of the U.S. Senate. It was a bipartisan group of Senators who sounded the alarm about climate change. They made a very modest request to the Office of Technology Assessment. They said: Study the issue of climate change and make recommendations to avert global disaster. Those Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, were concerned that human activity might directly cause permanent, destructive, and widespread changes to our planet's climate system--changes that would put our entire economy, ecosystem, and, our very own existence at risk. As I said, one of these Senators was my senior Senator, my mentor, when I came here and one of the finest Senators who ever served-- Republican Robert Stafford, from Vermont. Today, led by Senator Whitehouse, I think that what many of us are trying to do is what Senator Chafee and Senator Stafford did. We want to recall that moment in 1986 and renew the warning those Senators issued 33 years ago. Let me speak about Senator Stafford. When I came here at the ripe old age of 34, I was the only Democrat ever elected in my State. Robert Stafford was ``Mr. Republican.'' He took me under his wing. He had been a Congressman. He had been a Governor. He had been an attorney general. He served in World War II and in Korea. He was a mentor, but he was also an example. His legacy is one of sensible, pragmatic Vermont values that he brought to Washington for decades. They weren't Republican or Democratic. Senator Stafford was--like most Vermonters--a champion for the natural environment. With his work on landmark environmental legislation, like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Superfund program, Senator Stafford represented the best of Vermont's commitment to sustainability. His appeals to reason and for common ground, and his belief in sound science resonate even more today than when he left this body three decades ago. If he were here today, I believe he would be calling on both sides of the aisle to act now to ensure that we can pass on a secure and livable planet for generations to come and to act before it is too late. Today, so many people still refuse to accept what is now an overwhelming scientific consensus--that climate change is real and that humans are the dominant cause of it. What is worse, for the last 2 years many in Congress have willfully accelerated the devastation caused by global warming by enabling the Trump administration's erosion of our Nation's bedrock environmental protections--protections that I have fought for throughout my nearly 45 years in the Senate. As climate scientists warn of the urgent need to reduce emissions and reverse the global rise in temperatures, many Senators have refused to preserve even the status quo. Instead, in the last 2 years, we have seen the rollback of commonsense regulations, often at the behest of private interests that have spent decades misinforming the public and suppressing their own science on the long-term hazards of the fossil fuel industry. Alarmingly, this week the Senate is poised to confirm someone to lead the Environmental Protection Agency--the Agency that is charged with safeguarding the air and water on which we depend--who, despite the scientific consensus, denies that climate change is the great threat we face today. To growing numbers of Americans it is saddening--actually, it is maddening--and most of all, deeply alarming that the Trump administration and many others in leadership positions have made Trumpism's anti-science, know-nothing agenda their default position. This poses existential threats not only to our children and grandchildren but to our generation. More than three decades ago, long before protecting our planet became a partisan issue, the Environment and Public Works Committee held 3 days of hearings on climate change. Those 1986 hearings compelled a bipartisan group of Senators to acknowledge and warn the public about a ``fundamentally altered planet'' as a result of the ``substantial greenhouse warming'' that was projected. They asked what could be done to prevent consequences ``ranging from disruption of forest, crop, and ocean productivity to shifts in population,'' and ``extreme weather events, such as droughts, monsoons, and lowland floods.'' These words of warning were neither radical nor partisan. They were sensible. So what has changed since then? The ice caps are melting--only faster. Certainly, the glaciers I saw when I visited Antarctica 25 or so years ago had been there for eons, and they are now fast disappearing. Our coastline is still disappearing but faster. Farmers and ranchers are still concerned about prolonged droughts and extreme weather, only, today, the fires and storms are more frequent and more devastating. Just last month, the intelligence community's ``Worldwide Threat Assessment'' offered a sobering conclusion. This is the intelligence community's assessment: ``Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.'' We know that bipartisan action on big environmental threats is possible. In fact, soon after the climate change hearings in 1986, Marcelle and I climbed Vermont's Camel's Hump with President Reagan's EPA Administrator. We wanted to show him the terrible damage caused by acid rain. We could see that mountain from our home. We could see the changes up close. They were very obvious. With President Reagan's EPA Administrator's support, we moved ahead with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and they were signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. It was not a partisan issue. The result was a great reduction in the scourge of acid rain. We see these results every day. Today we are in danger of taking such results for granted. It is up to us to protect this planet. If we don't, who will? There is no more urgent responsibility. There are bold ideas for how to address this challenge. The Green New Deal offers a valuable roadmap for debate and a pathway for action. The time for dallying around the edges of the issue is over. We all share responsibility for where we are today. So, likewise, we have an obligation to attack this issue, but not with cynical show votes, not with feel-good votes intended to demonstrate a political divide rather than what should be universal acknowledgment of what we know to be true--that climate change is real, and human activity is the primary cause of these threats to our way of life, our communities, and our planet. We have to channel the American innovative spirit that has improved our lives for centuries. We have to find creative solutions for reducing carbon emissions, and then we have to invest in those solutions. We have to reorient our workforce toward the great opportunities that are opening for green-economy jobs. We should invest in leading the whole world in developing clean energy solutions. We have to address this real emergency head-on. Not only can we curb climate change, but, in doing so, we can transform the American economy. Over 30 years ago, a handful of forward-looking Republicans and Democrats stood together in this Senate. I was proud to be here when they issued their challenge, but the time for delay is over. In fact, our time is running out. Let this renewed vigor in addressing climate change, brought about by the bold proposed Green New Deal, be the catalyst for real change. Let's stand together. Senator Whitehouse has enlightened us on so many of these issues, but we have also learned, as he did, from our mentors--like Senator Chafee, Senator Stafford, and the others who got together in 1986. It is not partisan and it is not political. It is survival. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the legislative situation?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Presiding Officer. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, President Trump declared a national emergency 2 weeks ago. He did this in order to build a pet project of his. In the process, he said it was his intent to siphon billions of dollars that Congress had appropriated to help our men and women in uniform. Now, I am not sure what lawyers he consulted, but those lawyers seem to have overlooked our Nation's founding document--the U.S. Constitution. I know the President likes to communicate in 280 characters or less, so I will point him to a 77-character phrase he may want to review: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' That is a short sentence, but our Founders knew what it meant. They enshrined it in article I, section 9 of the Constitution, and they established that Congress--and Congress alone--possesses the power of the purse. That Congress has exclusive power over our government's spending priorities is one of the most critical checks and balances in our constitutional system. The President can propose funding for whatever project he wants. He has the absolute right to propose funding, but it is the job of Congress to decide where to invest the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. Let's review the facts. For over 2 years, the President has repeatedly tried and has repeatedly failed to convince Congress that building his southern border wall is a good idea. He has failed to get a deal with Mexico despite giving his word and promising his supporters more than 200 times that Mexico would pay for it. He promised that Mexico would pay for it while knowing, of course, that Mexico would not pay a cent for it. Then he failed to get a deal with his own party even during the 2 years when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives. He also failed to get a deal after he forced the country into a 35-day government shutdown over the issue--a shutdown, incidentally, that cost our country at least $11 billion, to say nothing of the number of people whose lives were so disrupted that many either lost their apartments, were unable to pay their mortgages, were unable to pay their bills, or were unable to pay for the medical care they needed. Yet, in the face of all of these failings, he has decided to go it alone. He has decided to stretch his powers--beyond all recognition-- under the National Emergencies Act. There is no rational basis to justify the use of this authority. So we should look at what a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats wrote--a group of 58 former senior national security officials who had to help secure our country under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. They wrote: ``There is no factual basis for the declaration of a national emergency'' on the southwest border. I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Declaration of Former United States Government Officials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the reality, of course, is that apprehensions at the southwest border have dropped 75 percent since 2000. The reality is that many of the southern border communities have violent crime rates that are lower than our national average. The reality is that the vast majority of the drugs that are apprehended at the border are seized at the ports of entry, and a wall would do nothing to stop this. The President is either out of touch with reality, willfully ignoring it, or not even reading the material he gets from his administration. Presidents do have emergency powers, but they should be invoked only in true times of crises. It is an abuse of power to invoke these authorities simply as a political step to energize a President's base. It is an abuse of power to invoke these authorities to fulfill a cynical campaign promise he never should have made. The President knew he would never keep his word or the promise he had made that Mexico would pay for this border wall. When Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to convey these powers to the President, it assumed whoever sat in the Oval Office would have enough respect for the office and the power being conveyed not to abuse it. President Trump has failed that test. Since 1976, Presidents of the United States--Republicans and Democrats alike--have upheld and passed the test. President Trump has failed the test. Look what he wants to do. The President wants to raid money that is meant for military housing and military base improvements to pay for his wall. This is at a time when studies are coming out that show how our men and women in the military are being housed in inferior or dangerous conditions. Sometimes the buildings have mold and decay, and it affects their health. The buildings are rat invested and roach infested, but the President wants to take the money away from them to build a wall that we do not need. The President has repeatedly decried the amount of drugs coming across our border. But now he wants to raid money that Congress has appropriated for proven drug programs and counter-drug programs to pay for his wall. Let me repeat that. In order to build a wall that would do very little to stop drugs from coming across our border, President Trump wants to take money away from law enforcement programs that actually prevent drugs from coming across our border or from programs that enhance military readiness. I wish I were making this up. It sounds like something you hear on a comedy program, but it is not comedy, it is reality, and I have to ask, what is going on? In the days and weeks ahead, the President's emergency declaration-- which amounts to an end run around both the Constitution and Congress-- is going to be challenged, and it should be. 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. Are we a democracy, or are we an authoritarian government? It is a pretty basic question. I have been here with every President since President Gerald Ford. They upheld the Constitution, Republicans and Democrats, and they believed in the separation of power. All of them did. We simply cannot afford to now remain silent in the face of such an unprecedented violation of the separation of powers. It is interesting. As I sit here, I remember some of my Republican friends--and they are my friends--when President Obama was President. They shouted from every rooftop about the lurches of an imperial Presidency. In every Executive order, they saw a threat to Congress's power. In every speech, they surmised the machinations of a lawless strong man--a man Donald Trump claimed wasn't born in the United States. Now, when they are faced with a President who is literally using his Executive powers to fund what Congress specifically would not, my Republican friends should echo the same concerns. I am glad that some in the Republican Party have begun expressing their reservations about President Trump's national emergency declaration. Certainly a number of Republicans who serve in national security positions who signed on to the material I have put in the Record did. But fleeting comments to reporters in the hallway are meaningless unless they are willing to follow up their words with their votes. Today, the House will vote to disapprove the President's declaration. I believe that joint resolution of disapproval will pass the House. In short order, the Senate will have to vote on it. That is going to be the true test. That will be the metric history uses to determine whether Republicans are willing to put our country, our Constitution, and Congress itself over party. While the President's emergency declaration stumbles its way through the courts, I hope my Republican friends take a moment to take stock of where we are. President Trump will be just a blip in our Nation's history. But for the sake of appeasing a man who hundreds of times made a foolish campaign promise, never grounded in reality, will they forever change the course of the separation of powers in our country? 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? We are the longest surviving democracy on Earth today because there are checks and balances. I am reminded of words of caution written by George Washington, our Founding Father and our Nation's first President, in his Farewell Address. The words are as true today, and we read this Farewell Address every year on the floor of the Senate. Here is what President Washington wrote over 223 years ago: It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. . . . If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. That is what George Washington said. He warned us against despots. Remember, this was a man who could have remained President for life, and he voluntarily stepped down after a second term. He was a man who did that because he wanted democracy to thrive. He spoke of the three coequal branches of government--the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary--and he was reminding us that if you let one encroach upon the other, you start down the path of despotism. We don't need that in this country, especially in this age. We don't. We know what despots are like. We see them around the world. We see them in South America today, in one country in particular. We see them in North Korea, where the despot had his uncle executed, his own brother murdered, and thousands of people are imprisoned, starved, and dying. A despot who continues to build nuclear weapons to keep himself in power even as his people die of starvation. In a democracy, that doesn't happen. We have checks and balances for a reason. I am going to vote aye on this joint resolution of disapproval. I urge all Senators to do the same. Have checks and balances. I remind the President to treat emergency declarations the same way they have been treated since 1976, the way--certainly in my experience--Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama did. That preserved democracy. Was it frustrating to each of them at times? Of course it was. I remember long discussions with President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, President George W. Bush, President Clinton, and President Obama. They would say: We want to do this. A number of us had to say: You don't have the authority to do that. And they realized that. It is not the person who holds the office. It is not the Presiding Officer. It is not me. It is not the other 98 Members of this body. It is not the President of the United States. It is not the Members of the House. It is not the members of the courts. What rules this country is our Constitution. We are a democracy. We must keep it as a democracy. Look what happens in those countries where they ignore democracy and have despots. In Venezuela, people are going without food and medicine. In the Philippines, where there is a despot, there have been murders of people who are just under suspicion, encouraged by him. We have seen the deaths of thousands of people in North Korea because of a despot who does not care and has no sense of morality. America is so much better. Follow our Constitution. Obey our Constitution. Realize there are checks and balances. Have both Republicans and Democrats stand up and join. Remember what George Washington said. It was good advice back then; it is good advice today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as someone who has been here for some period of time, I was glad to see Republicans and Democrats, both in the House and the Senate, come together in the past few weeks, especially this week. We ignored the distractions and tweetstorms coming from the White House. We reached an agreement to fund our government and make responsible investments for the American people. Not one of us--none of the final four who did the negotiations, sitting in that room, felt that this was an agreement that any one of us would have individually written. There are things in this bill that I support and things I disagree with, but that could be said by all four of us, Republicans and Democrats. You try to find as much common ground as you can. Everybody had to give something, but we ended up with a bipartisan compromise. We had to deal with facts that are based on reality, not rhetoric based on political fantasy. Democrats have always supported border security, but we support smart border security, targeted strategies that address the real problems facing us at our southwest border. That is what we tried to accomplish here. We stood together. We rejected the toxic and hate-filled immigration tweets coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The agreement does not fund President Trump's wasteful wall. After all, he gave his solemn promise to the American public that Mexico would pay for it, so let them work on that. It does not fund President Trump's requested deportation force, and it rejects the unjustified and dramatic increase in the detention bed levels the President would have used to enforce his extreme immigration policy. But just as important as what this agreement rejects is what we were able to accomplish. We invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new technology to stop the flow of illegal drugs through our ports of entry. All Republicans and all Democrats supported that. We provide funds to hire more judges to address the immigration backlog in our country. We provide more than half a billion dollars to support Central American countries, addressing the root causes of undocumented migration. We included $400 million to improve medical care and address the humanitarian concerns at the border. Every one of us has seen enough of what is going on there; we are trying to show that America--the greatest Nation on Earth, also the wealthiest and the most humanitarian--will address it. This is what a compromise looks like. This is how the American people expect our government to function--not by tweets but by reasonable, reality-based compromise. Unfortunately, often lost in this debate over border security were the more than 800,000 public servants and their families who were held hostage by the Trump shutdown for weeks. They once again lived in fear and uncertainty that their next paycheck may not come because the President chose to use them as hostages. This agreement ensures that these public servants remain on the job doing the important work of the American people through the end of the fiscal year, and also all those who are not on a government payroll but support all our different Agencies that were involved in this. They weren't paid either. This agreement funds nine Federal Departments. Keep in mind--it is not just the borders; it is nine Federal Departments and their related Agencies. I will give a couple of examples. It increases funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. It supports our national parks. It rejects the anti-science know-nothingism of the administration by supporting research and our dedicated scientists. This is extremely important to me because Senator Crapo and I wrote the last Violence Against Women authorization. We wrote the expansion of that law. Our bill today provides the highest funding level ever for the Office on Violence Against Women to support programs that prevent domestic violence. It also provides more than half a billion dollars to combat the opioid crisis. In my earlier career, I saw too many deaths because of the violence against women. I saw too many deaths of young people from drug overdoses, and the numbers have only dramatically increased from the days when I was a prosecutor. Supporting the Violence Against Women Act brought Republicans and Democrats together. The agreement invests in rural America, secures our interests abroad, rebuilds our highways, and supports public housing. This week, four of us met--first in Chairman Shelby's Appropriations Committee office and then later into the evening several times in my office here in the Capitol. Senator Shelby, Representative Lowey, Representative Granger, and I proved that we can set aside the political struggles in Washington to find a path to progress for the American people--two Republicans and two Democrats who are four of the most senior Members of the House and the Senate. I thank them for their effort. If I can go to a personal matter for just a moment, I want to thank Senator Shelby for his friendship and his partnership. Senator Shelby and I come from different parts of the country. We are much different politically, but he is one of the closest friends I have here. He and his wonderful wife, Dr. Annette Shelby, my wife Marcelle, and I have traveled to so many places together. Some were very grim areas of this world. But we understand how grownups have to act in the Congress and how they have to work together. We worked together with our House counterparts--the senior Democrat and senior Republican in the House-- on this conference. We worked together. We didn't pass just Homeland Security; we passed all 12 appropriations bills on a bipartisan basis. I hope we do the same thing for fiscal year 2020. I hope that we can begin very soon, with Senator Shelby and me working together, to pass the fiscal year 2020 bills. We passed the ones last year out of our committee virtually unanimously. We were able to get Members of both parties to join us. I thank him. I also thank the Appropriations Committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. I joke that Senators are merely constitutional impediments to their staff. Evening after evening, sometimes into the wee hours of the morning, weekend after weekend, I saw dedicated men and women in the Appropriations Committee staff working line by line to try to get us through this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I conclude by saying it takes a lot of long days and it takes a lot of long nights to produce a bill of this magnitude. I appreciate their hard work. I think we may have others who will want to speak. Mr. President, how much time do we have before the vote?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in his tortuous attempt to make a case for billions of taxpayer dollars to wall off our southern border, President Trump claimed that a wall would stop human trafficking, which has been touted as a priority of this administration. On several occasions, the President has depicted human trafficking as women and girls smuggled across the border with their hands and legs tied and duct tape across their mouths. No doubt there are such cases, but the overwhelming majority of trafficking victims in this country are U.S. citizens, and among non-citizen victims, nearly 80 percent cross through legal points of entry. As we have seen time and again, President Trump makes short shrift of the truth and relies on scare tactics, rather than evidence, to gamer support for his misguided policies. Not only would the President's border wall do next to nothing to combat the most common instances of human trafficking in the United States, his administration's policies have actually harmed trafficking victims, especially non-citizen victims. Last year, the administration announced that applicants who are denied a T visa--an immigrant visa that enables certain victims of sex or labor trafficking to temporarily remain in the United States--may be required to appear in immigration court, the first step in deportation proceedings. This policy has reportedly had a self-censoring effect on victims and victims' advocates who are hesitant to apply or to encourage their clients to apply for a visa that may ultimately land them in immigration court. The administration also eliminated grant funding for criminal record sealing or expungement for survivors of human trafficking, previously made available by the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime. Survivors may have a criminal record associated with their trafficking, such as an arrest for prostitution or for a charge tangential to their trafficking such as loitering or theft. Helping survivors clear their criminal record is a critical step in their recovery, one that gives survivors a greater chance at securing stable employment, affordable housing, higher education, visas and green cards, and more. So once again, we are forced to try to reconcile the President's rhetoric with the actions of his administration. They don't align. If this White House were serious about combating human trafficking, it would focus less on creating a false narrative about trafficking across our southern border and instead devote the resources to ensure that trafficking victims can come forward knowing they will be protected and assisted on their path to recovery.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Klobuchar for introducing the Freedom to Export to Cuba Act, of which I and Senator Enzi are cosponsors. I urge other Senators to join us. This bill is about ending the anachronistic prohibitions in U.S. law that for decades have limited U.S. engagement with Cuba, including preventing American companies from exporting their products to Cuba. The fact that legislation to do so is even necessary is illustrative of the absurdity of the situation in which we find ourselves. Companies from Europe, Russia, China, Mexico, and every other country can sell their products to Cuba, which is just 90 miles from our coast, but American manufacturers and retailers are largely shut out of the Cuban market. For example, Cuba buys rice from Vietnam and powdered milk from New Zealand, half a world away, not from Alabama, Vermont, or Michigan. That makes no sense. This bill would enable American companies to compete, which every believer in a free market should support. It is also important for Senators to know that punitive actions by the Trump administration last year to further restrict the right of Americans to travel to Cuba have had devastating consequences for Cuba's fledgling private sector, the very people the White House and supporters of the restrictions profess to want to help. The fact that they have said nothing about the harm they are causing Cuba's struggling entrepreneurs demonstrates that they care more about continuing their failed policy of sanctions, regardless of who they hurt, than about helping the Cuban people or about protecting the right of Americans to travel freely. The latest ill-conceived attempt by the White House to punish Cuba would permit Title III of the Helms-Burton Act to go into effect. This would allow, among others, individuals who were Cuban citizens when their property in Cuba was expropriated half a century ago to sue in U.S. courts any Cuban, foreign, and even American company whose business in Cuba today uses that property. That could be an airport, port, warehouse, hotel, restaurant, you name it. Virtually every American and foreign company investing in Cuba would suddenly be liable for treble damages. The purpose, as the law's authors made clear when it was enacted 23 years ago, is to harm Cuba's economy by making it completely inhospitable for foreign investment. As my friend in the House, Representative Jim McGovern, has pointed out; ``It's no mystery why Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump blocked Title III from going into effect every six months for the past 23 years. It is hypocritical--it penalizes companies for doing what American companies do all over the world. It is contrary to international law, which recognizes the right of expropriation and requires compensation. It is an extraterritorial sanction that guarantees a response from our trading partners, like Canada, Spain and the EU, including complaints at the World Trade Organization. And if you care about agriculture, be warned: It will open a new front in the trade war, with all the repercussions that can bring. It will allow Cuba to claim victim status and rally international support. It will clog our courts with lawsuits. It will make it impossible to negotiate compensation for U.S. claims in Cuba, and, in the end, hurt the very Americans who seek compensation for the property they lost. It will divide us from friends and allies who are now working for a peaceful solution in Venezuela. And it will guarantee that new investment in Cuba will come from the Russians, Chinese and others who are hostile to the United States, and whose state-owned companies can't be sued in U.S. courts.'' I agree with my friend in the other body. What the White House is considering would trigger an avalanche of unintended consequences that would bring U.S. commerce with Cuba to a halt, harm relations with our allies in this hemisphere and beyond, and make resolving property claims more difficult. I ask unanimous consent that a piece by William Leogrande on Title III of the Helms-Burton Act published in the February 13, 2019 issue of OnCubaNews be printed in the Record following my remarks. Like many issues, Members of Congress have strong feelings pro and con about U.S. relations with Cuba. It is no secret that, after more than half a century of a policy of isolation that has achieved none of its objectives and primarily hurt the Cuban people, I, like Senators Klobuchar and Enzi and many others in this body, favor closer relations. Conversely, there are those in Congress and the Trump administration who believe strongly that we should ratchet up the pressure on the Cuban Government in an attempt to achieve those elusive goals. I have often spoken publicly about the lack of political freedom and civil liberties in Cuba, but I also think it is important to try to be objective: to criticize when called for and to acknowledge positive changes when they occur. I recognize that those who favor maintaining the failed economic embargo have a longstanding, visceral antagonism and resentment toward the Cuban Government. While they rarely, if ever, mention the corrupt and brutal Batista regime that enjoyed unqualified U.S. support until it was overthrown in 1959, they have legitimate reasons to criticize the mistreatment of the Cuban people by the current government and its support for the corrupt and repressive Maduro regime in Venezuela. But they too should acknowledge that threatening and bullying Cuba has not worked. In fact, it has made the situation worse and provided an excuse for the Cuban Government to blame its own failures on us. They should also acknowledge positive changes in Cuba, but they never do--not ever. It is almost as if they are psychologically, ideologically, or emotionally incapable of saying one positive thing about the Cuban Government, no matter what positive things it does. Perhaps they are afraid that, if they did, they would alienate their donors in the Cuban-American community. Of course, we know that Cuban- Americans are divided about the U.S. embargo. Some are hardcore believers in the embargo, and they always will be. But at least as many--and increasing numbers--oppose the embargo, especially those who were born after the Cuban revolution. I wonder what the pro-embargo isolationists would say if the Cuban Government were to stop harassing and abusing dissidents who favor a more democratic system. Would those who oppose the embargo say anything positive? What if the Cuban Government decided to embrace a free market economy and let private businesses flourish? Would those who oppose the embargo say anything positive? I doubt it. I doubt it because no matter what positive reforms occur in Cuba, they will continue to defend the embargo until Cuba is a full- fledged democracy and those who currently hold power either die or are voted out of office. We all want Cuba to become a democracy, where civil and political rights are respected, and the sooner the better, but those same defenders of the embargo support billions of dollars in U.S. aid--and weapons sales--to countries that are led by authoritarian, brutal, and corrupt dictatorships and monarchies, some of which have held power for decades or generations. How do the pro-embargo diehards reconcile that? They don't, and they can't. The fact is, Cuba is changing--not nearly as fast as we and the Cuban people would like, but it is changing in ways that few would have predicted not very long ago. Last year, Raul Castro's hand-picked successor, Miguel Diaz-Canel, became President, and he promised a government more accessible and responsive to the people's needs. How he delivers on that promise remains to be seen. Since 2010, after the Cuban Government recognized that the internet is essential if Cuba wants to be part of the modern world, internet access has exploded. The government has opened hundreds of public Wi-Fi hot spots and cyber cafes in the past 5 years, and home internet access became legal and available in 2017. Today, almost half of the Cuban people have personal cellphones that were illegal just a decade ago. As others have pointed out, these changes have encouraged new forms of communication, networking, and organizing via social media. But change does not come easily in Cuba, as it does not in many countries. Last July, the government announced onerous new regulations on the private sector, covering a wide range of issues: food safety, labor contracts, procurement, taxation, limits on the size of private businesses. The new rules were an attempt by hardliners to crack down on the private sector, which was criticized for black marketeering. But private entrepreneurs resisted, and they challenged the regulations as contradictory to the government's own plans that recognizes the private sector as important to economic growth and employment. They appealed to government officials and spoke publicly about the harm the new rules would have on their businesses. When the final regulations were issued, several that had caused the most resentment were dropped. According to the Minister of Labor and Social Security, the decision to revise the rules was due to ``the opinion and experiences of those directly involved.'' The government also retreated on a new law--Decree 349--requiring artists, musicians, and performers to register with the state and pay a large commission on their earnings from private engagements, and it banned work with objectionable content and empowered inspectors to shut down any offensive exhibition or performance. Clearly, an attempt to further limit free expression. Since the 1980s, Cuban artists have had more freedom to be critical of the government than other social sectors, and so it was not surprising that Decree 349 ignited widespread protests. After social media was used to mobilize opposition within the Cuban arts community and among artists abroad, the government agreed not to enforce the law until implementing regulations are drafted in consultation with the arts community. According to one observer, ``during [the latter half of last year], nearly 8.9 million Cubans debated the draft of a new constitution in their workplaces, neighborhoods and schools. Communist Party members were told not to argue with even the most radical proposals for amendments, and the ensuing debates were freewheeling, often lasting past their scheduled time. Among the main topics: whether the president and state governors should be directly elected by voters; whether the concentration of wealth and property should be allowed; whether term limits and age limits for leaders were a good idea; and whether the Communist Party should be subordinated to the constitution and hence the law.'' Not long ago it would have been unthinkable to openly debate these issues, especially as part of a constitutional reform process. One article that attracted intense debate recognized same-sex marriage and was promoted by Raul Castro's daughter, a long-time activist for LGBTQ rights. The proposal sparked strong opposition from evangelical churches supported by the Catholic Church. Gay rights advocates countered with campaigns of their own. The chance of a significant ``no'' vote on the entire constitutional reform led the government to drop the provision from the final draft of the constitution with a pledge to consider it later. This surge in mobilization by well-organized constituencies utilizing social media to resist government policy, from burdensome private sector regulations to gay marriage, is unprecedented in Cuba. The government's willingness to not only tolerate these organized challenges but to change policies in response to them is significant. As has been noted, none of these issues dealt with the rigid structure of the Cuban system. Cuba remains a one-party state, in which those who challenge the system are treated as criminals, but the precedent of organized interest groups mounting successful campaigns to challenge and change government policy is now established, which is positive. None of the longstanding critics of the Cuban Government in the U.S. Congress or the Cuban-American community have acknowledged any of this, nor are they likely to. For them, anything less than a wholesale change of government in Cuba is unworthy of mention, even though they apply a very different standard--a double standard--to other authoritarian governments. In fact, they would ridicule anyone who regards such changes as positive or worthy of recognition. As we know from our own experience, political reform is difficult. Our own Electoral College, an anachronism designed to protect a slave- holding minority, remains in effect more than two centuries later. Five times, in the world's oldest democracy, it has prevented the winner of the most popular votes from being elected President. The Cuban people want to live better and they want a lot less government control over their lives. Armed with cellphones and the internet, they are going to make increasing demands of their government. This is happening at a time when Venezuela's economy is collapsing and the survival of the Maduro regime, Cuba's closest ally in the hemisphere, is in question. Not surprisingly, the Cuban Government is trying to limit the pace of change and to secure other benefactors. It is turning increasingly to Russia, Algeria, Iran, and other countries that welcome the chance to challenge U.S. influence in this hemisphere. This is a time for the United States to be actively and visibly engaged in Cuba, for Americans to be traveling to Cuba, for expanding educational, cultural, and professional exchanges between the U.S. and Cuba, and for American companies to be competing in Cuba. It is not a time to return to a failed policy of threats and ultimatums, driven by domestic politics rather than by what is in our national interests. That is why I am cosponsoring the Freedom to Export to Cuba Act, and it is why I intend to support other bipartisan legislation to replace our failed Cuba policy with one that serves America's interests, not the interests of a shrinking minority, and not the interests of Russia and other countries that are reaping the economic benefits of our self- defeating policy of isolation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from Illinois, the senior Senator from Illinois, for his comments. He knows what it is to have immigrants in your family, as do I. I was fortunate to have a little more understanding as my paternal grandparents immigrated to Vermont from Italy, and my wife's parents immigrated to Vermont from French-speaking Canada. I still struggle with the Italian I knew as a child. I have done a little better with French, in order to speak to Marcelle's family. But I see the diversity that came of it. I see it in our State of Vermont, and I hope our country is better for it. So I thank the Senator from Illinois. The last time William Barr was before the Senate was 28 years ago, during the George H.W. Bush administration, and I voted for him to be Attorney General. I did so despite having some reservations that I shared with him and the Senate at the time. Mr. Barr and I did not see eye to eye on many issues. We did not then, and we do not now. But he was clearly qualified for the position, and he had earned the confidence of the Senate. So I felt free to vote for him. I am concerned by some of the remarks that Senator Durbin has referred to which seem to indicate that Mr. Barr may feel that he is the lawyer for the President, not only the Attorney General of the United States. He is there to represent everybody--everybody--and to make sure the laws are upheld for everybody. Now we find ourselves considering his nomination under extraordinarily different circumstances than we did when my friend President Bush had nominated him. Multiple criminal investigations loom over the Trump Presidency. In fact, these investigations may ultimately define the Trump Presidency, and the President has reacted to it with apparently the only way he knows how. He just attacks relentlessly. He doesn't respond to them, but attacks. That includes attacking investigators, witnesses, even the justice system itself. That also includes firing both the FBI Director and his previous Attorney General for not handling one of the investigations as the President wanted, but instead as the law required. The President views the Justice Department as an extension of his power. He has repeatedly called on it to target his political opponents. He has even reportedly told his advisers that he expects the Attorney General to protect him personally. I have been here with eight Presidents. I have never known a President, either Republican or Democrat, to have such an outrageous and wrong--wrong--view of the Department of Justice. The integrity of the Justice Department has not been so tested since the dark days of Watergate. Yet when the Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of Elliot Richardson to be Attorney General in the midst of that national crisis, nominated by Richard Nixon, the nominee made numerous, detailed commitments to the committee. Mr. Richardson did so, in his words, to ``create the maximum possible degree of public confidence in the integrity of the process.'' That same principle applies equally today. Indeed, that may be the only way the Justice Department escapes the Trump administration with its integrity intact. In large part due to the relentless politicizing of the Department by the President, millions of Americans will see bias no matter which way the Department resolves the Russia investigation. Because of seeing such bias, our country is diminished. The justice system is greatly diminished. In my view, the Department has only one way out--transparency. The American people deserve to know the facts, whatever they may be. That requires the special counsel's report, and the evidence that supports it, be made public. Unfortunately, despite efforts from both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, Mr. Barr has repeatedly refused to make that commitment. Worse, much of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee left us with more doubts. Will Mr. Barr allow President Trump to make a sweeping, unprecedented claim of Executive privilege that allows him to hide the report? Will Mr. Barr, relying on a Department policy to avoid disparaging uncharged parties, not disclose potential misconduct by the President simply due to another policy to not indict sitting Presidents? We don't know the answer, but we do know that Mr. Barr's testimony on these issues could lay the groundwork for potentially no transparency at all. Mr. Barr also repeatedly refused to follow the precedent of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and commit to follow the advice of career ethics officials on whether he needs to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. He even declined my request to commit to simply sharing their recommendation with the Judiciary Committee. That is critical because there is reason to question whether an appearance of a conflict exists. Prior to his nomination, Mr. Barr made his unorthodox views on the special counsel's obstruction of justice investigation very clear. He did that with a 19-page memo sent directly to the President's lawyers. Mr. Barr spoke dismissively about the broader Russia investigation. He even claimed that a conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton was far more deserving of a Federal investigation than possible collusion, and this was notwithstanding the fact that, by that time, that conspiracy had been debunked. He was asked, in effect, whether this memo was a job application, because it is difficult to imagine that these views escaped the attention of the President. That makes it all the more critical that Mr. Barr follow the precedent of prior Attorneys General and commit to following the advice of career ethics officials on recusal. I am also concerned that, if confirmed, Mr. Barr would defend policies that I believe are both ineffective and inhumane. We heard Senator Durbin speak eloquently about the horrible, horrible program of separating families at the border, and I think the Nation is still reeling from that systematic separation. But, in light of that, Mr. Barr praised Jeff Sessions for ``breaking the record for prosecution'' of the misdemeanor offenses that forced families to be separated. In other words, on a misdemeanor, you take the child away from the parents and separate them. Nobody seems to know where everybody goes after that. Ask a 4-year-old: What are your parents' name? They will say, in whatever language: Mommy and daddy. Where do you live? We live in the house next to so-and-so. They don't know the addresses. They rely on their parents, and now they have been separated from them. It makes me think Attorneys General should be able to stand up for the rule of law. I remember a time when former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates stood up for the rule of law. She refused to defend President Trump's first iteration of his Muslim ban as a deeply flawed order. It was stained with racial animus, that even applied to individuals who were lawful permanent residents and had valid visas, Mr. Barr described Ms. Yates's decision as ``obstruction'' and a ``serious abuse of office.'' My God, this country should not have religious tests. If we did, my grandparents would not have been able to come to this country. Relevant to each of my concerns is Mr. Barr's extremely broad views of executive power. He is an advocate of the unitary executive theory, believing that the Constitution vests nearly all executive power ``in one and one only person--the President.'' He has said that an Attorney General has ``no authority and no conceivable justification for directing the department's lawyers not to advocate the president's position in court.'' This expansive view of a President's power would concern me no matter whose administration it was. In fact, if you go way back in history, it conflicts with Supreme Court Justice James Iredell's observation in 1792 that the Attorney General ``is not called the Attorney General of the President, but Attorney General of the United States.'' I find Mr. Barr's deferential view of Executive power especially concerning. We already know much of what President Trump intends to do. It includes taking billions of dollars that Congress has already appropriated and diverting it toward a wasteful and ineffective vanity wall. What would Mr. Barr do when confronted with such an order? He has essentially told us: Mr. Barr has argued that Congress's appropriations power provided under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is ``not an independent source of congressional power'' to ``control the allocation of government resources.'' That would come as great news to everybody--Republicans and Democrats--who has been an appropriator in any session of Congress. He even believes, that if a President ``finds no appropriated funds within a given category'' but can find such money ``in another category,'' he can spend those funds as he wishes so long as the spending is within his broad ``constitutional purview.'' Such views should concern all of us here--Republicans and Democrats alike--who believe, as the Founders of this country believed, that Congress possesses the power of the purse. Unfortunately, I fear that Mr. Barr's long-held views on Executive power would essentially be weaponized by President Trump--a man who we know derides any limits on his authority. Over the past two years, we have seen the erosion of our institutional checks and balances in the face of creeping authoritarianism. That can't continue. In conclusion, let me be clear. I respect Mr. Barr. I voted for him when President George H. W. Bush nominated him. As Attorney General, I do not doubt that he would stand faithfully by his genuinely held convictions, but I fear this particular administration needs somebody who would give him a much tighter leash, as Attorneys General have in the past. So because of that, I will vote no on Mr. Barr's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Thank you.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President. I read an article about Sarducci's celebrating 25 years in Montpelier. Marcelle and I have enjoyed eating at Sarducci's since it first opened and are thrilled with what Carol Paquette and Jeff Butterfield have done with the restaurant. I remember when they first opened and how Dorothy Korshak, the original founder, wondered whether anybody would come in. I remember telling Dorothy that, if they keep providing food that good, people will show up. My mother was born in Vermont, a first generation Italian-American. We always ate Italian food, both at my grandparents' home in South Ryegate, VT or at our home in Montpelier, VT. It feels like going home to go to Sarducci's. It is one of our favorite restaurants. I ask unanimous consent that the article from thebridge entitled ``Sarducci's Celebrates 25 Years in Montpelier'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, like many of my fellow Americans I listened to the President's State of the Union Address 1 week ago, and while there are any number of the President's false or misleading assertions that I could refute, I want to take a minute to highlight just a few. The President began his remarks with a focus on cooperation and compromise, calling for unity among both political parties to work together and break what he described as ``decades of political stalemate.'' The reality is that last Tuesday's address followed the longest shutdown in our government's history--a shutdown that resulted from the President's stubborn refusal to work with Congress--and was delivered by a President who has made a daily practice of making unfounded, personal attacks against Democrats and anyone else who opposes his xenophobic, ill-conceived policies. The President went on to call on Congress to make needed commitments to ``defeat AIDS in America and beyond.'' Who doesn't support that? The problem is that his administration proposed a $1 billion cut in fiscal year 2018 and a $1.2 billion cut in fiscal year 2019 to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. This is typical of this White House. The President makes outlandish claims, whether in ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth, in a transparent attempt to appear to care about solving problems his administration is actually making worse. Funding for these programs has been restored by Congress--not in partnership, but rather in spite of, the White House. Many Members of Congress, myself included, are waiting for the President's upcoming budget request for fiscal year 2020, to see if his professed support for HIV/AIDS programs will be backed up with the necessary funding. The President also mentioned a new ``government-wide initiative focused on economic empowerment for women in developing countries.'' That is a laudable goal that Republicans and Democrats have been supporting for years, but the reality is that this administration has repeatedly cut funding for family planning and other health programs that directly contribute to women's health and economic prosperity, as well as funding to combat gender-based violence and to support UN agencies focused on women's health, economic empowerment, and human rights. The President stated that our country has ``a moral duty to create an immigration system that protects the lives and jobs of our citizens.'' There is nothing remotely moral about forcibly and needlessly separating young children from their parents at our border and not even caring enough to keep a record of their whereabouts so they can be reunited with their parents. The President stated that he wants legal immigrants ``to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever.'' Is he even aware that his administration has slashed the refugee admissions cap from 110,000 per year down to 30,000, a record low for our country? The President recalled the countless Americans, like the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy 75 years ago, whose selfless sacrifices helped freedom triumph over fascism and solidified our Nation's place as the world's only superpower. He challenged us not to squander what we have inherited from ``the blood and tears and courage and vision of the Americans who came before.'' The irony of that message isn't lost on those of us who have worked, if sometimes unsuccessfully, to mitigate the impact of the President's relentless efforts to undermine the international order that those Americans strived to create to protect global peace and security for future generations. The President routinely injects uncertainty into our support for NATO, has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal despite Iran's compliance as confirmed by his own administration, removed the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, the Global Migration Compact, the UN Human Rights Council, and has otherwise threatened or taken steps to walk away from numerous multilateral commitments that provide the United States with a platform for global leadership. Without U.S. engagement in these arenas, our adversaries are unchecked to pursue their own interests, which are often at odds with ours. The President should heed his own words. The American soldiers at Normandy were not answering a call to unilateralism or isolationism. President Roosevelt, 4 years earlier, cautioned the country against those who ``believe that we can save our own skins by shutting our eyes to the fate of other nations.'' Addressing the threat of the Axis powers, he stated, ``I make the direct statement to the American people that there is far less chance of the United States getting into war if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack.'' Now, as then, we must do everything in our power to strengthen global alliances and confront threats to peace and stability head on. International diplomacy should be a tool of first resort, not a casualty of domestic politics. The President declares that his actions advance U.S. national security interests, but we know better. These are but a few examples of how the President's lofty rhetoric bore no factual relationship to the actions of his administration. The American people deserve to know the truth, not to be misled by the President of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Thursday, January 24, a good friend of mine, former Daily News photographer Harry Hamburg, died. Both Marcelle and I were in shock at the news. Harry is one of our dearest friends, and Marcelle and I loved him. I have lost count of the times we would share stories about his son Bruce and daughter Aren, and, of course, his grandchildren, Sophia, Ali, Dylan, and Will. Marcelle and I especially enjoyed the family conversations and the deep love he had for his late wife Becky. I think we knew more about each other's families than most people would. One of us would tell a story, and the other would say, ``Oh, that reminds me,'' and away we would go. Those of you who knew Harry Hamburg could see that happening. We also shared a love of photography. I have an office here in the Capitol with a great view of the Mall and the Washington Monument, and we would often meet there. We would talk about photography, current events, and friends. We called it ``prayer hour with holy water.'' We had our own particular choices of what holy water and what proof. Occasionally, Marcelle was able to join us. Often, my policy adviser, Kevin McDonald, was there. And, of course, Harry was a welcomed friend at all of our holiday parties and office gatherings. Kevin McDonald went to the funeral in Pennsylvania. He filled me in on how moving it was and the things he heard there. Even last night, when we were at my grandson Patrick's birthday party, our daughter and son-in-law, Alicia and Lawrence, talked about the conversations they had with Harry at our last office gathering. Those of us who enjoy or care about photography can understand the certain bond we had. He had an uncanny ability to email me the perfect picture at the perfect time. I could be coping with all kinds of things here in the Senate, and a photo would arrive. There is one Harry took in England, South Africa, or Pennsylvania. Some I called my warning shot. It would be a picture he took as he walked into the Capitol to come visit me. Every time, it made my day better. Anyone can use a camera. Only an artist can take a picture that truly lasts. He spent a lot of time in England. All of us could take pictures of Big Ben, the Eye, Parliament, and all the rest. He would take pictures of a shop on a small street or of people looking out at a bus going by or of walking along a beach. You would look at that picture and say: Wow, I was there. He was an artist. When you saw his pictures, whether of a current event or from his treasure of historical pictures, you were there. He enveloped you in the moment. Later, I am going to put into the Record--not quite yet--his obituary. Of course, we will not be able to show the pictures. I look at these pictures, and I remember he had one of Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve. They were filming Superman at the New York Daily News building. I know for a fact that Christopher Reeve liked that photograph, and for those of us who saw the movie--millions and millions of dollars making the movie--this picture captures as much as anything else in the movie. Or a serious one--Attorney General Ashcroft testifies before the House, but he gets a picture as he raises his hand with the Great Seal of the Senate behind him. You know, we have all been to hearings, and we have heard people talk about different things. He had two pictures of Muhammad Ali and our friend Michael Fox speaking at a Senate hearing, talking about research for Parkinson's disease. They both suffered from Parkinson's, and they pretended to be trading punches with each other. It was obviously in fun, but there was not a person who picked up the paper and saw that photo who did not read the article about Parkinson's and the need for research funding. That is what he would do. He enveloped you in the moment. You were there. That may seem like a cliche, but it was not. You knew what happened. Every one of us remembers most the photographs we have seen of historical events. He had photographs of historical events, but he had photographs of everyday life that made you think. Marcelle and I knew he faced serious surgery. His good friend Paul Hosefros made plans to come from England. He is a good friend of his, and he was going to help take care of him--as well as his good friend Pat and his son and daughter--when he recovered from the surgery. We reminded him, of course, that Marcelle is a registered nurse. We were ready to volunteer too. Before the surgery happened, he had a massive attack and died. All of us were ready to care for him, have him come back, take out the camera, compare photographs, have our prayer hour, whether it was with me or with anybody else and his friends, because he had so many. Both Marcelle and I loved him. The tears we have shed are tears for the loss of a true friend, and the memory of Harry will always be in our hearts. I know that no obituary could do justice to his talent, artistry, and humanity, but I was struck by the obituary in the New York Daily News. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that obituary be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few years, the national headlines have been dominated by stories about the high cost of pharmaceuticals. We have seen jaw-dropping examples of companies raising the cost of their products overnight, pricing too many families out of the prescription drugs they need to survive. Just last week, House and Senate Committees charged with oversight of the pharmaceutical industry heard heartbreaking testimony from family members of those dependent on insulin who have been forced to ration their treatment because the annual cost of insulin has nearly doubled since 2012. That is appalling, and putting Americans into that kind of situation is unacceptable. Lawmakers across the political spectrum, including President Trump, agree that Congress needs to act to rein in these spiraling prescription drug prices. Pharmaceutical companies should be compensated for their important work developing lifesaving treatments. But when companies engage in predatory practices at the expense of consumers, we must act. That is why today I am reintroducing the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act, bipartisan legislation to end inappropriate delay tactics that are used by some brand-name drug companies to block competition from more affordable generic drugs. I am glad to be joined by Senators Grassley, Klobuchar, Lee and 24 other Senators of both parties in introducing this bill today. The first delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the withholding of drug samples that generic manufacturers need to gain regulatory approval. Federal law requires generic competitors to prove that their low-cost alternative is equally safe and effective as the brand-name drug with which they wish to compete. Unfortunately, some brand-name companies are preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining the samples they need to make the necessary comparison. This simple delay tactic misuses regulatory safeguards as a weapon to block competition. The second delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the development of shared safety protocols. For some high-risk drugs, Federal law requires a generic drug manufacturer to join the brand-name drug manufacturer in a single, shared safety protocol for distribution of the drug. Despite this requirement, some brand-name companies are refusing to negotiate shared safety protocols with potential generic competitors, again undermining those competitors' ability to gain FDA approval for their generic versions of such drugs. The CREATES Act allows the FDA more discretion to approve alternative safety protocols, rather than require parties to develop shared safety protocols. Any safety protocol approved by the FDA must meet the rigorous statutory standards already in place. These exclusionary practices thwart competition and deny consumers the benefit of lower drug prices. Recognizing the effect these tactics have in keeping drug prices high, in May 2018, FDA for the first time publicly identified brand-name drug companies that abuse FDA's safety programs or enact their own restricted distribution systems to delay competition from generic and biosimilar manufacturers. The FDA's list shows 164 inquiries covering more than 50 prescription drugs where access to samples was at issue. In recent years, according to FDA testimony to Congress, the number of inquiries has increased. I share the concerns of Vermonters and Americans across the country that many prescription drugs are simply too expensive. I hear this again and again, from Vermonters in every corner of our state. When brand companies can artificially raise the price of drugs by using predatory practices, patients suffer. Illnesses worsen. Families, government programs, and other payers in the healthcare system ultimately bear those added, unnecessary costs. Making meaningful reform to reduce the cost of prescription drugs should be a top priority for all lawmakers. The CREATES Act is an important piece of that puzzle, and is widely supported across the political spectrum and has been endorsed by more than 90 groups. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the CREATES Act would lower Federal spending on prescription drugs by $3.9 billion and research shows that the savings to patients with employer-based health insurance and the health care system overall would be far greater--many billions of dollars more. Think for a moment about the impact of price hikes on the family of a patient facing a life-threatening illness. Across the country, hardworking Americans feel like the system is rigged against them by corporations that are looking to make a profit at any price. With examples like Turing and Mylan, it is no wonder they feel that way. The CREATES Act is one piece of the puzzle, addressing anticompetitive behavior that delays the creation of affordable generic drugs. Drug affordability is a bipartisan issue that affects each and every American. These reforms will make a difference. I hope we can finally act together to help put more affordable prescription drugs in the hands of Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few years, the national headlines have been dominated by stories about the high cost of pharmaceuticals. We have seen jaw-dropping examples of companies raising the cost of their products overnight, pricing too many families out of the prescription drugs they need to survive. Just last week, House and Senate Committees charged with oversight of the pharmaceutical industry heard heartbreaking testimony from family members of those dependent on insulin who have been forced to ration their treatment because the annual cost of insulin has nearly doubled since 2012. That is appalling, and putting Americans into that kind of situation is unacceptable. Lawmakers across the political spectrum, including President Trump, agree that Congress needs to act to rein in these spiraling prescription drug prices. Pharmaceutical companies should be compensated for their important work developing lifesaving treatments. But when companies engage in predatory practices at the expense of consumers, we must act. That is why today I am reintroducing the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act, bipartisan legislation to end inappropriate delay tactics that are used by some brand-name drug companies to block competition from more affordable generic drugs. I am glad to be joined by Senators Grassley, Klobuchar, Lee and 24 other Senators of both parties in introducing this bill today. The first delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the withholding of drug samples that generic manufacturers need to gain regulatory approval. Federal law requires generic competitors to prove that their low-cost alternative is equally safe and effective as the brand-name drug with which they wish to compete. Unfortunately, some brand-name companies are preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining the samples they need to make the necessary comparison. This simple delay tactic misuses regulatory safeguards as a weapon to block competition. The second delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the development of shared safety protocols. For some high-risk drugs, Federal law requires a generic drug manufacturer to join the brand-name drug manufacturer in a single, shared safety protocol for distribution of the drug. Despite this requirement, some brand-name companies are refusing to negotiate shared safety protocols with potential generic competitors, again undermining those competitors' ability to gain FDA approval for their generic versions of such drugs. The CREATES Act allows the FDA more discretion to approve alternative safety protocols, rather than require parties to develop shared safety protocols. Any safety protocol approved by the FDA must meet the rigorous statutory standards already in place. These exclusionary practices thwart competition and deny consumers the benefit of lower drug prices. Recognizing the effect these tactics have in keeping drug prices high, in May 2018, FDA for the first time publicly identified brand-name drug companies that abuse FDA's safety programs or enact their own restricted distribution systems to delay competition from generic and biosimilar manufacturers. The FDA's list shows 164 inquiries covering more than 50 prescription drugs where access to samples was at issue. In recent years, according to FDA testimony to Congress, the number of inquiries has increased. I share the concerns of Vermonters and Americans across the country that many prescription drugs are simply too expensive. I hear this again and again, from Vermonters in every corner of our state. When brand companies can artificially raise the price of drugs by using predatory practices, patients suffer. Illnesses worsen. Families, government programs, and other payers in the healthcare system ultimately bear those added, unnecessary costs. Making meaningful reform to reduce the cost of prescription drugs should be a top priority for all lawmakers. The CREATES Act is an important piece of that puzzle, and is widely supported across the political spectrum and has been endorsed by more than 90 groups. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the CREATES Act would lower Federal spending on prescription drugs by $3.9 billion and research shows that the savings to patients with employer-based health insurance and the health care system overall would be far greater--many billions of dollars more. Think for a moment about the impact of price hikes on the family of a patient facing a life-threatening illness. Across the country, hardworking Americans feel like the system is rigged against them by corporations that are looking to make a profit at any price. With examples like Turing and Mylan, it is no wonder they feel that way. The CREATES Act is one piece of the puzzle, addressing anticompetitive behavior that delays the creation of affordable generic drugs. Drug affordability is a bipartisan issue that affects each and every American. These reforms will make a difference. I hope we can finally act together to help put more affordable prescription drugs in the hands of Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the McConnell amendment expresses the sense of the Senate regarding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, an action I have long supported. Many Senators, including several of the cosponsors of the amendment, have supported the exact opposite position and would prefer to send more U.S. troops to both countries. I believe that our military and diplomatic presence in Syria and Afghanistan should be determined by strategy and not by Presidential whims. I believe that our strategy should be developed with the thoughtful input of experts, both in executive agencies and in Congress. I believe that strategy should be consulted and coordinated with allies and partners and that it should be debated thoroughly in Congress. I believe that our commitments should not be open-ended and should have realistic and achievable goals that bring them to completion. As the new Congress convened, amidst a government shutdown, the majority leader sought to bring S. 1, this so-called Middle East security bill, to the floor. Now, he has brought a hastily drafted amendment to the table, one that on its face seems to rebuke the President's impulsive announcement earlier this month that he was precipitously withdrawing troops from Syria. Congress should debate this issue. I support bringing our troops home from Syria and Afghanistan, and the manner and pace in which that occurs should be the subject of a full debate here in the Senate. We should have a debate about the scope of authorities under current authorizations for the use of military force, AUMFs, and whether new AUMFs are warranted. This amendment may be designed to put Members on the record opposing the President's announcement, but in Congress, we should have more meaningful debates that influence policy and practice rather than fuel headlines. I hope the majority leader will soon schedule that debate.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, no matter how intractable something might seem, the Senate is the Senate, and we should be the conscience of the Nation, and we can work things out. One of my closest friends in this body is the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. He and I were talking just a couple of minutes ago. We know that we can get these things done. The Senate can be the conscience of the Nation. There are 100 men and women of both parties who are here because they love this country, and they want it to be better. Now let's just sit down and do our work. Senator Shelby and I got every single appropriations bill last year through our committee, virtually unanimously in most cases. It worked. We proved it could work. It hadn't been done for years. We proved it could be done. We did not do it with press conferences. We did not do it with gimmicks. We did not do it with histrionics. We did it with hard work, sometimes late into the night. I say that in light of what we have seen during the Trump shutdown. For 35 days, President Trump robbed hundreds of thousands of American families of their paychecks and forced dedicated public servants-- professionals--to turn to food banks and unemployment benefits to feed and support their families. For 35 days, President Trump denied millions of taxpaying Americans access to public services. For 35 days, President Trump inflicted pain on the American people. Anyone who has taken the time for the briefing knows it has compromised our national security. And for what? The rest of the world looks at us and sees us as being weak. Our enemies have been able to exploit the fact that we have had this shutdown. And for what? All of this pain and suffering is going to end now, right where it began. On December 19 of last year, the Senate passed a bill by voice vote to fund the government to February 8. Virtually every Republican and every Democrat supported it, and it is nearly what the President has proposed today. We in the Senate did that back on December 19. The President was going to support it. He was then criticized by some in the conservative media, and he thought he had to break his word and precipitate this national crisis. Dozens of Vermonters have contacted my office to share the pain the Trump shutdown inflicted on their lives. Northfield, VT, is one of our prettiest towns. It is not far from where I was born. A number of my ancestors settled in that area. A Vermont family there found they could not complete their U.S. Department of Agriculture 502 direct home loan, and that closed the door on the American dream of owning a home, something so many Vermonters dream of. A small business owner in Brattleboro, who employs Vermonters and shows entrepreneurship is alive and well in our small State, wrote my office. What happened? He could not get the Department of Agriculture--because they were not there--to approve the packaging on their new products, and it crippled their growth in a competitive market. A Vermonter in the Coast Guard was worried about how he and his shipmates would make ends meet. These are real people who have suffered real consequences, and for what? For what? The shutdown was the American crisis. It was our national emergency-- not the southern border, where apprehensions have dropped 75 percent since 2000, and the majority of the people apprehended at our borders today are families--women and children feeling violence in their own countries. In this great country, which we are all proud to serve, the Trump shutdown should never have happened, and it never should have dragged on for 35 days. I hope the President is learning that Congress is a coequal branch of government. The American people are not pawns to be played with for political gain. I told Chairman Shelby that I will continue my bipartisan work with him to make responsible investments in the American people and border security, and I pray that President Trump does not repeat this national embarrassment. I am proud to be an American. I am proud to be a U.S. Senator in a body that should be the conscience of the Nation. But I see how people around the world are laughing at our country when the most powerful-- the most powerful--Nation on Earth is being crippled because of a whim and a tweet. That is not the America I know and love. We are a great country. Only we can make it less great. The shutdown has damaged us. It has damaged us internally. It has damaged our security. It has damaged our reputation around the rest of the world. So I hope we will promptly vote to reopen the government and end this national nightmare. I am prepared to work. As dean of the Senate, as Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I am willing to work with my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to make sure this foolish escapade doesn't happen again. I see other Senators on the floor. I yield the floor.