Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of further quorum calls be equally divided between the two leaders.

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

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this Friday, November 30, at noon, Vermonters will be gathering to see a large crane carefully hoist a 14\1/2\-foot carved statue of Ceres, the goddess of agriculture, atop the newly gilded dome of the statehouse in Montpelier. I was born in Montpelier, and I am proud of this because it is going to be a great moment for our State and for everyone involved in the project, which has captured the attention of not only Vermonters but of those who have been following the project from great distances with the help of social media. The new version of Ceres replaces a 1938 replica of the original statue that was removed last April after too many severe Vermont winters took a toll on the wood figure. Since that time, Vermont artists Jerry Williams and Chris Miller have been hard at work creating the new Ceres, first sculpting a model and then, out of a big piece of mahogany, they chiseled the final mahogany figure. Marcelle and I and my sister Mary, along with David Schutz, had the pleasure of visiting the Vermont Granite Museum in Barre, VT, a few months back to witness Mr. Miller at work. I am the grandson of two stone carvers. One of my grandfathers immigrated to Vermont from Italy. The other, my Irish grandfather, carved stone in Barre. So it was a thrill to see how Mr. Miller used the original tools of the trade. He took raw wood and turned it into the fine details we now see, from Ceres' flowing robes to the distinctive veins in her hands. It was really remarkable to see this hunk of wood turn into a real person. Both artists learned their techniques by studying in the studios of Barre's stone carvers. It is a specialized art that requires intense dedication, patience, skill, and practice. We are so fortunate that artists such as these have carried on a tradition that makes Vermonters proud. It reminds me of the times as a child when I would go in and watch stone carvers at work in Barre, where my father was born, and watch them turn stone into pieces of pure art. In this case they are using wood. Incidentally, the reason the statue is made out of wood instead of stone is that wood weighs less, and there is only so much weight the dome can hold. I grew up in a home across the street from the Vermont State House. Ceres was always in our sights. Walking to school, coming back from school, doing my paper route, and being out with my brother and sister and my parents, we would always see Ceres. She is a strong figure, one that befits a State where farming and soil and hard work are so closely linked to our lives. Frankly, over the past few months, when I have been home in Vermont, going by the statehouse and seeing it without Ceres has been odd because it has always been part of my life. So this Vermonter and Vermonters like my wife Marcelle and others are going to be glad to have her back. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this November 10 article from the Barre, VT, Times Argus, profiling these two sculptors be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is with great appreciation and a touch of sadness that I note the upcoming retirement of Sarah Carpenter. Her retirement culminates 20 years of dedicated service as the executive director of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, VHFA. Through her enduring commitment to affordable housing, Sarah has helped tens of thousands of Vermonters into homes and helped to establish and shape our State's affordable housing infrastructure. Sarah's career spanned four decades during which time she was a consistent leader in the affordable housing community. As executive director of Cathedral Square Corporation between 1983 and 1998, Sarah worked to develop and manage housing that met the needs of differently abled and aging Vermonters. She oversaw the operation of 430 units of supportive housing and provided housing development and management assistance to 20 projects across the State. As executive director of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, Sarah advanced the agency's mission to finance and promote affordable, safe, and decent housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income Vermonters. Sarah oversaw $2.2 billion in lending in Vermont, and in her time with VHFA, the agency closed over 10,000 home loans, making a significant contribution to homeownership in the State of Vermont. She has been an effective leader whose work has expanded the amount of permanent supportive housing dedicated to people experiencing homelessness. Not only was Sarah an inspiring leader, she was also a strong and compassionate manager. Since 2015, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce and Vermont Business Magazine have included VHFA on their list of Vermont's Best Places to Work. Sarah's contribution to the affordable housing community extends into her community service. She is a founding member of the Housing Vermont board and a founding member of the Burlington Community Land Trust. She has been a member of dozens of boards and special committees dedicated to various aspects of housing finance and the promotion of safe, affordable, and decent housing for Vermonters of all means. Her service has been recognized by numerous awards, including the Senator Patrick Leahy Leadership Award from the Committee on Temporary Shelter in 2007. Sarah is a lifelong Vermonter who has dedicated her career to ensuring those in her home State can afford a home. She was a key architect of the system that today creates and finances the production and preservation of affordable rental housing across the State. She has worked closely with my office to improve the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, including ensuring priority is given to projects that propose to target 25 percent of their units to Vermonters who have experienced homelessness. Sarah's informed advocacy has strengthened this and other Federal housing programs so they can work for Vermont and Vermonters. I commend her service to the State and thank her on behalf of the countless Vermont families that she has helped into homes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for her comments. She has had a strong voice of reason and conscience throughout this whole debate. This is not a normal confirmation vote. I have now served in the Senate for 19 Supreme Court nominations, more than any other Senator. I have never seen so much at stake with a single seat. I have never seen this much at stake precisely because this is about so much more than one seat. Indeed, the integrity of two of the three coequal branches of our Republic is at stake. This vote will decide whether the U.S. Senate--which, at its best, can serve as the conscience of the Nation-- causes the Supreme Court to be indelibly tainted in the eyes of millions of Americans, perhaps more than half of the country. To be clear, my opposition to Judge Kavanaugh is not because he was nominated by a Republican President. In my 44 years in the Senate, I have voted for more Republican-appointed judges than almost every single Republican Senator serving today. That includes, of course, voting to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts. But Judge Kavanaugh is not a typical conservative nominee. My opposition is driven by my firm belief that his confirmation will bring great harm to the court, to this body, and to millions of hard-working Americans. Judge Kavanaugh has been relentlessly dishonest under oath. I am not just referring to the fact that he was not telling the truth about his high school drinking or the obvious misogyny in his yearbook or whether he is ``Bart O'Kavanaugh,'' who passed out from drunkenness. All of that, of course, does speak to his credibility, as he concocted far- fetched story after far-fetched story, all to avoid conceding facts that would corroborate the Brett Kavanaugh as described by Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez. But it is much more than that--much, much more than that. Every single time Judge Kavanaugh has testified before the Senate--in 2004, in 2006, and twice in 2018--he has misled and dissembled. On issues big and small, anytime he has been faced with questions that are incriminating, or would place him in the middle of controversy, he has shown that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. He misled the Senate. Following questions by both Republicans and Democrats, he misled the Senate about his role in a hacking scandal and thefts from the U.S. Senate. He misled the Senate about his role in confirming several controversial judicial nominees and in shaping the legal justifications for some of the Bush administration's most extreme and eventually discredited policies. I have never seen a nominee so casually willing to evade and deny the truth in service of his own raw ambition. For decades, that ambition has let him, step after step, evade the truth if it is in any way going to stop his ambitions. The truth is, we are just beginning to learn about Judge Kavanaugh's dishonesty under oath. His false testimony during his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings only came to light as the Judiciary Committee obtained some of his White House emails--some because Senate Republicans blocked access to 90 percent--90 percent--of his White House records. Compare that to when Justice Kagan was here, we made sure that Republicans and Democrats had 99 percent of her records, and they were briefed on the remaining 1 percent. Here, 90 percent was blocked. So everything we have learned about his prior dishonesty comes from just 10 percent of his record. Many more of these records are eventually going to become public after today. In fact, I joined a lawsuit, led by Senator Blumenthal, to force the National Archives to release these records. So if 10 percent of his records show dishonesty, what are the chances that the other 90 percent do not contain additional evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's dishonesty under oath? I would say the chance is about zero. It is not just Judge Kavanaugh's veracity that is disqualifying; it is also his temperament and his partisan zeal. When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004, he was known only as a hyper-partisan political operative. Because he was seen as so hyperpolitical, it took 2 years to get him confirmed. Since Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, I had wondered whether his earlier partisan zeal that held him up for 2 years has remained. Well, it was confirmed last week that it does remain. I have never seen a nominee, either Republican or Democrat, so consumed by partisan rancor. In testimony that veered into a tirade, he angrily attacked Senators and dismissed Dr. Ford's testimony as part of a smear campaign to ruin his name and sink his nomination. His conspiratorial ramblings--attributing the allegations to ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons,'' wherever that came from--were an insult to Dr. Ford and to survivors of sexual violence everywhere. It is not how a patron of the President of the United States continues to deride victims of sexual violence. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee--actually, he was the first nominee I was able to vote on as a U.S. Senator, and I voted for him. This Republican appointee, well-respected Supreme Court Justice, declared that Judge Kavanaugh's unhinged performance last week demonstrates ``potential bias.'' Justice Stevens said that ``for the good of the Court,'' Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation ought not to proceed. Just yesterday, contrary to the statements made on the floor of the Senate, the American Bar Association announced that it is reopening its evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh's fitness to serve as a judge. These developments--both unprecedented--should serve as flashing red warning signs to any Senator inclined to vote yes at this time. And there are more flashing red signs. Dr. Ford's credible and compelling testimony captivated the Nation and inspired survivors of sexual violence across the country. Every minute of her testimony was credible. She disclosed the abuse long before Judge Kavanaugh was a household name. She remembered vivid details of that night. She expressed 100 percent certainty that Judge Kavanaugh was her abuser. In a moment that I will never forget, when I asked her: Doctor, what is your strongest memory--something that she could not forget--she testified: ``Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two'' as a teenage Brett Kavanaugh and a friend drunkenly assaulted Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford had nothing to gain by coming forward. I believe her, just as I believed Anita Hill. In my view, no one who truly believes Dr. Ford can credibly justify voting yes. Unfortunately, the Senate appears to be on the brink of failing Dr. Ford, just as it will fail Ms. Ramirez, and just as it failed Anita Hill. The FBI investigation completed over the last few days falls short of any standard. And it fell short by design. We have already heard about its deficiencies from Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and numerous other witnesses who attempted, unsuccessfully, to share relevant information with the FBI. Senate Republican leadership in the White House did everything in their power to ensure this investigation was not a search for truth but rather a search for cover. Even a basic search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford, as well as her husband and her therapist. A search for truth would have allowed the FBI to view numerous high school and college classmates who come forward saying they could provide information about Judge Kavanaugh's conduct during those years that was consistent with the allegation. A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview a man who wrote a sworn statement asserting he could corroborate Ms. Ramirez's allegations or two women who contacted authorities with evidence that Judge Kavanaugh tried to head off Ms. Ramirez's story before it became public. That was in clear contradiction to his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to at least speak with Julie Swetnick, a third accuser. As Vermonters said to me last weekend when I was home, if they have nothing to hide, why the rush? If they have nothing to hide, why don't they take the time to find the whole truth? Instead of calling on the FBI to take these basic investigatory steps, inexplicably, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee has solely tried to discredit these women. The committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of Ms. Swetnick. This individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident but instead wanted to describe the alleged sexual preferences of Ms. Swetnick. According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence--one of the most nonpartisan and respected voices on Capitol Hill--this shameless attempt to smear the victim violates the intent of the Rape Shield law. Look what happened. On the one hand, you have the President of the United States at a rally trying to shame the victim, who, of course, is a woman. Then, on the other hand, we have Ms. Swetnick, who has never even been interviewed by the FBI. She was ignored. She was silenced. Then, to follow the routine of this administration, she was shamed. It is outrageous she has been treated that way. Republicans have also claimed the other individuals Dr. Ford identified at the gathering where she was assaulted have refuted her testimony. These Republicans know that is false. Those individuals stated publicly they do not recall the event. As Dr. Ford told the Judiciary Committee, this is not surprising, as ``it was a very unremarkable party . . . because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening.'' One of these individuals has said publicly she believes Dr. Ford. Republicans have claimed the investigation failed to review core objective evidence for any of these allegations. Despite the numerous restrictions placed on this investigation, that simply is not true, but a predicate fact for developing thorough corroborating evidence is a thorough investigation. This investigation fell far short. When I was a prosecutor, I never would have allowed an investigation to have left out so many salient points. It is a disservice to Ms. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, Ms. Swetnick. It is a disservice to survivors everywhere. The manic rush to place Judge Kavanaugh on the bench was more important to many in this Senate than these women. Pushing toward confirmation while so many leads remain unexamined will forever taint a Justice Kavanaugh, and, unfortunately, the Supreme Court itself. Yet truth can be dogged. It has a way of coming out, eventually. For any Senator who votes yes while troubling new developments in this nominee are occurring in real time, it will be on their conscience when more disqualifying information later emerges--and it will. I urge them to think carefully about what a ``yes'' vote would mean to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, to the integrity of the Senate, and to the increasing divisiveness in our Nation. As partisan as this process has been, this is not a partisan dilemma. Many prominent conservatives will make a fine Supreme Court Justice. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I voted for more Republican nominees than almost any Republican Senator in this body, but these other people would not cast a shadow over the Supreme Court and a shadow over the U.S. Senate. Judge Kavanaugh is not that choice. To avoid risking permanent damage in the integrity of our institution as a government, I urge Senators to join me in voting no on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. 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, it is extraordinary where we find ourselves today. We are on the verge of a cloture vote and possibly a confirmation vote for Judge Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court. At the same time, we have credible allegations of sexual assault against a nominee, and they are not just lingering; they are developing. The FBI investigation that we hoped would be full and fair has turned out to be neither after the Trump White House and Senate Republicans appear to have successfully imposed so many restrictions as to render it almost meaningless. I am afraid that from the very beginning of this nomination, the vetting of Judge Kavanaugh has never been a genuine effort to discover the truth. Instead, at every turn, it has been a transparent and partisan attempt to keep the American people in the dark about the vulnerabilities of a controversial nominee who, if he is confirmed, is going to shape our lives for a generation. From start to finish, at every step, this has been a unilateral effort by the Trump White House and Senate Republicans to protect their nominee instead of protecting the American people or--I might say--to protect the Supreme Court. They have been driven by the impulse to rush and to conceal. I want to commend my friends Senator Jeff Flake and Senator Chris Coons for working together in good faith to demand more from this process. An investigation into the serious allegations of sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh is the first step, but it should have happened weeks ago. Until now, such investigations have been routine any time new, derogatory information surfaces about a nominee. Unfortunately, the investigation completed over the last few days falls short of any reasonable standard. I think it fell short by design. We have already heard about many of its deficiencies from Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and numerous other witness who attempted unsuccessfully-- attempted unsuccessfully--to share relevant information with the FBI. The Senate Republican leadership and the Trump White House did everything in their power to assure that this investigation was not a search for truth but rather a search for cover. A search for truth would have allowed the FBI to interview Dr. Ford's husband and her therapist, both of whom have stated that Dr. Ford mentioned Kavanaugh as her assaulter years ago. A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview numerous high school and college classmates who have come forward saying they could provide information about Judge Kavanaugh's conduct during those years that was consistent with the allegations and which contradict Judge Kavanaugh's sworn testimony. A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview a man who wrote a sworn statement asserting that he could help corroborate Ms. Ramirez's allegations or two women who contacted authorities with evidence that Judge Kavanaugh tried to head off Ms. Ramirez's story before it became public. That was an apparent contradiction--a total contradiction--with his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. In fact, a search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to at least speak with Julia Swetnick, a third accuser. A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to speak with Mark Judge's ex-girlfriend, who recalled that Mr. Judge told her ``ashamedly'' about a sexual incident that eerily mirrors both Dr. Ford's and Ms. Swetnick's allegations. There is no mistake here: This investigation was rigged by the White House and Senate Republicans. Instead of calling on the FBI to take these basic investigatory steps, inexplicably, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee has solely tried to discredit these women. The committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of Ms. Swetnick's. This individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident but instead salaciously described the alleged sexual interests of Ms. Swetnick's. According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence--one of the most nonpartisan and respected voices on Capitol Hill--this shameless attempt to smear a victim violates the intent of the rape shield law. And to add to it, Ms. Swetnick was never even interviewed by the FBI. She was ignored. She was silenced. Then she was shamed. It is outrageous, the way she was treated. Republicans have also claimed that the other individuals Dr. Ford identified at the gathering where she was assaulted have ``refuted'' her testimony. Well, that is just false. These individuals stated publicly that they do not recall the event. As Dr. Ford told the Judiciary Committee, that is not surprising, as ``it was a very unremarkable party . . . because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening.'' Yet one of these individuals has said publicly that she believes Dr. Ford. After reviewing the FBI's report this morning, within minutes, Republican Senators claimed there is a lack of corroborating evidence for any of these allegations. Despite the numerous restrictions they placed on this investigation, that claim is simply not true. But a predicate fact for developing thorough corroborating evidence is a thorough investigation. That is basic. And this investigation false far short. It is a disservice to Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and Ms. Swetnick. I would go further to say that it is a disservice to survivors anywhere in this country. Dr. Ford's credible and compelling testimony captivated the Nation and inspired survivors of sexual violence across the country. In a moment that I will never forget, when I asked her for her strongest memory, something from the incident she couldn't forget, she replied: ``Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two'' as a teenage Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned Dr. Ford down to the bed and attempted to sexually assault her. I believe what she said. The reason that a thorough, independent investigation is so critical is not because we need additional proof that Judge Kavanaugh was not telling the truth about his high school drinking or the obvious misogyny in his yearbook or whether he is ``Bart O'Kavanaugh'' who passed out from drunkenness. All of us here know he wasn't telling the truth in his testimony about that. The reason we needed a thorough investigation is that these women have offered credible accusations, and they have identified potential corroborating witnesses and evidence, and the Senate needs to know all of the facts before it can place the accused on the Nation's highest Court for a lifetime appointment. A thorough investigation is essential for another reason: We simply cannot take Judge Kavanaugh at his word. On issues big and small, anytime Judge Kavanaugh has been faced with questions that would place him in the middle of controversy, he has shown he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Every single time he has testified before the Senate over the years, he has misled and dissembled. He misled the Senate about his role in a hacking scandal, in confirming controversial judicial nominees, and in shaping the legal justifications for some of the Bush administration's most extreme and now discredited policies. His appearance before us last week was no different. He gave testimony that veered into a tirade. He angrily dismissed Dr. Ford's testimony as part of a smear campaign to ruin his name and sink his nomination. His conspiratorial ramblings--attributing the allegations to ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons''--were an insult to Dr. Ford, and they are an insult to survivors of sexual violence across the country. He evaded--as he always has when under oath--basic factual questions, choosing instead to show his disdain for members of the committee who had the audacity to ask him about his behavior during the time of the allegations. In my 44 years in the Senate, I have voted for more Republican- appointed judges than almost all serving Republican Senators. That includes voting for Chief Justice Roberts. But I have never seen such a partisan performance by a nominee of either party to the Supreme Court or any other court. I have never seen a nominee so casually willing to evade and deny the truth in the service of his own raw ambition. If truth under oath means anything at all, Judge Kavanaugh has disqualified himself over and over and over again. He has neither the veracity nor the temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in our Nation. The truth has an odd way of coming out, one way or another. To avoid risking permanent damage to the integrity and legitimacy of our Nation's highest Court, I urge Senators to join me in voting no on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Mr. President, I do not see anyone else seeking the floor, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Americans are taking to the skies like never before. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a new high of 74.8 million domestic and international passengers flew in June of 2018, a 5.8-percent increase compared to last year and a 1- percent increase compared to May. June was the fifth consecutive monthly increase in system-wide passengers. In the midst of this growth, Congress has been working on legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, which sits at the center of this tremendously important industry. Today we are sending a 5-year FAA reauthorization to the President's desk. While certainly not perfect, on balance, this is a good bill that takes positive steps for airline workers and customers and also reauthorizes funding for key programs that help rural airports. At a time when the Trump administration has sought to either eliminate or dramatically slash discretionary funding for the Essential Air Service, EAS, this bill sends a strong, bipartisan signal about the importance of EAS to rural communities across the country. In addition, this agreement will end the requirement that airports use toxic firefighting foam that can poison groundwater. Communities in Vermont have been forced to confront the aftereffects of the use of these dangerous chemicals. It is long overdue that we put an end to their use. I am also pleased that this bill contains a small but important provision I worked to include that will authorize reimbursement for preclearance activities in the rail environment. As a longtime advocate for preclearance, I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Chairman Grassley to work with me and Senator Johnson on this language, which is necessary for establishing preclearance facilities at Canadian rail stations. I am concerned, however, about one unrelated piece of legislation attached to this bill that grants vague and overly broad authority to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to mitigate threats posed by drones. The Preventing Emerging Threats Act would allow the government to take control over, destroy, and wiretap drones that pose a ``credible threat'' to an undefined class of Federal property. Crucially, it exempts DOJ and DHS from the protections contained in the Wiretap Act and the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Act, opening the door to warrantless wiretapping. While there is undoubtedly potential for drones to be misused in a manner that could pose a serious threat to citizens and government buildings, this bill fails to achieve the right balance between granting DOJ and DHS reasonable authority to confront such threats and protecting civil liberties. The vague definitions of ``credible threat,'' ``safety and security'' and ``covered facility or asset'' leave the door open for serious abuse. It is imperative that Congress remain vigilant in conducting oversight to prevent misuse of this vague authority. Despite my serious concerns about the Preventing Emerging Threats Act, I am supporting this package because it brings stability and certainty to the FAA and includes other important provisions that benefit airline passengers, employees, and Vermont. I appreciate the hard work that went into crafting this compromise. I do not support everything in this bill, but on balance, it is legislation I will vote in favor of.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama. Before I start, I should note that we have votes scheduled for 12 noon, and I may go a little bit over that, so I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my whole statement.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama and I have been friends for decades. Our wives have been friends, as the Presiding Officer knows. We have different political philosophies, but we join together in wanting to make the Senate work the way it should work and the way it used to work. We have done that in these appropriations bills. It means that the Senator from Alabama has had to decline some things in this bill that he might have liked otherwise, but I have had to do the same. That is why we are here today. The two bills in the package before us--the Defense bill and the Labor-HHS-Education bill--are a product of hard work and bipartisan cooperation. I am pleased that those of us working together have been able to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills. It goes way beyond the procedures, way beyond working together. These bills make important investments not only in our national security but also in the future of our country for us, our children, and our grandchildren. They demonstrate the importance of the bipartisan budget agreement we reached earlier this year. The Labor-HHS-Education bill makes new investments in healthcare and education. We increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, the jewel that we have here in this country. We invest in working families by improving access to childcare and promoting college affordability. We provide new resources to combat the opioid epidemic-- something that hits every single State represented in this body. The Defense bill provides critical resources to support our men and women in uniform and their families and invest in national security. I am glad we do not have controversial poison pill riders on either the right or the left in here. What we did is we did our job. We focused on what we should be doing--making responsible, thoughtful decisions on how to fund these Federal agencies. We left controversial policy issues out of it. If people want to have debates on those, then bring up separate bills and debate them up or down. We have a continuing resolution to keep Federal agencies up and running through December 7. That is to make sure we don't face a government shutdown in the event we don't finish our work on the remaining bills. We never want to fund the government by continuing resolution; that is inefficient and actually wastes money. That is why Chairman Shelby and I have worked so hard to get the appropriations process back on track. We have more work to do. We are still in conference on a four-bill minibus. We should finish that work and send it to the President's desk before the start of the fiscal year so we won't have a CR on those agencies. This will be a far more effective, cost-saving, efficient way of doing things, and it can be done. In fact, I think the chairman would agree we are very close to an agreement. Most of the funding issues have been resolved. We do have some controversial poison pill riders. We shouldn't delay this package over unrelated policy matters that have no place on must-pass spending bills. Get the poison pills out and pass the bills. There are four bills--the Interior bill, the Financial Services bill, the Agriculture bill, and the Transportation-HUD bill. These are programs that are important to the American people. They should not be frozen at fiscal year 2018 funding levels--not even for a few months. The rest of them are so close. Look at the Agriculture bill. It provides critical support for our farmers all over the country and rural communities through investments in rural development and housing, agriculture research, and clean water programs. Every State in this Nation has rural communities--and I think of especially my own State of Vermont--and farm economies that benefit from these programs. They shouldn't have to operate under a CR. The Financial Services bill supports regulatory agencies that the American people rely on to protect them from unfair, unsafe, or fraudulent business practices. We should fund these agencies in a responsible way, not put them on autopilot. I am also pushing to include cost-of-living adjustments for Federal civilian workers in the final bill. That is not provided for under the CR. Failure to pass this bill on time and with a cost-of-living adjustment included will mean 2.1 million Federal workers will not see a pay raise, including doctors and nurses serving our veterans and FEMA employees responding to Federal disasters. The Interior bill is important. It means our children and grandchildren will enjoy clean air and clean water. It supports important conservation programs, including funding for our national parks. It also provides funding for fire suppression. We just had a fire season that has been one of the worst in recent memory. Finally, we are close to a deal on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill. I hope we can finish negotiations on this bill this week. This is our Nation's infrastructure bill. I worked very closely with Senator Shelby on this. We want to rebuild our crumbling bridges and roads. We want to invest in our communities and create jobs for thousands of workers across this country. Funding the government is one of Congress's basic responsibilities. I would urge my friends in the other body to do what Senator Shelby and I have done. Drop poison pill riders so that we can send this bill to the President before October 1. We can do it. I realize we need 60 votes in the Senate. We don't have poison pill riders, so that should be easy to do. We can get 9 of the 12 bills across the finish line by October 1. I am pleased we are going to be voting on the Defense and Labor-HHS package today. I thank Chairman Shelby and the chair and ranking members of the subcommittees, Senators Blunt, Murray, and Durbin, and the staff of the Appropriations Committee. We never could have done this without the hard work of both the Democratic staff and the Republican staff. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of all those staff members.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I think we are ready to vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a member of the British-American Parliamentary Group, I would like to take a moment to recognize the 70th anniversary of the creation of the United States-United Kingdom Fulbright Commission. In the aftermath of the Second World War, Congress took steps aimed at creating a more peaceful and prosperous world. The Fulbright Program, along with the World Bank and the IMF, are reminders of the importance of collective action for the common good. Since 1946, the Fulbright Program has fostered bilateral relationships through educational exchanges with postgraduate and postdoctoral scholarships. In the words of Senator J. William Fulbright, ``the vital mortar to seal the bricks of world order is education across international boundaries, not with the expectation that knowledge would make us love each other, but in the hope that it would encourage empathy between nations . . . .'' Those words are as relevant today as they were back then. Over the last 70 years, thousands of students from the United States and the United Kingdom have crossed the Atlantic to deepen their understanding of each other's countries and cultures. Fulbright scholarships have not only been the catalysts for great artists, journalists, scientists, lawyers, independent scholars, and many others; they have cemented friendships around the globe for generations. I invite my fellow Senators to celebrate the many Fulbright scholars and emerging leaders who have worked in countless ways to foster tolerance and understanding in their communities, countries, and around the world. In my 44 years in the Senate, I cannot think of a time when those attributes were more needed than they are today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, American taxpayers are facing an uncertain time. After rushing to pass an enormously complex, budget-busting tax bill late last year, Republicans in Congress have set the table for the upcoming tax season to be a time of serious confusion for the public. At the center of this sits the IRS, which is in the midst of trying to modernize its systems, effectively perform its tax collection functions, and implement this boondoggle of a tax law. Today the Senate considers a nominee to head the IRS. While I strongly disagree with most of the tax policy decisions that this administration has made, I am supporting this nominee because the IRS deserves to have dedicated leadership at the top. There is little debate over Mr. Rettig's qualifications for this position. By all accounts, he has extensive tax law experience and has worked closely with the IRS in advisory roles over the years. Perhaps, most importantly, he would ensure that the IRS has full-time leadership in place, which stands in stark contrast to how the administration has chosen to run the agency to date. Rather than putting an Acting Commissioner in place who would serve exclusively in that role, the administration chose instead to have a political appointee in the Department of Treasury split his time between his policy role in the Department and the critical role of leading the IRS. There is no doubt that this does a disservice to American taxpayers. It also raises questions about the political independence of the IRS. I appreciate that many Senators will be opposing this nomination because of the egregious decision made by the administration in July to end the reporting of so-called ``dark money'' donors to the IRS. In a time when Russia has been shown to use these types of organizations to funnel money as part of an effort to influence our elections, ending the reporting of donor information raises serious questions about who this administration is aiming to protect. I was proud to join a letter led by Senators Klobuchar and Wyden urging the Department of Treasury to reinstate the reporting requirements. At the same time, we have seen the impact that the lack of dedicated leadership and the disastrous budget cuts adopted over the years by Republicans has had at the IRS. Its website crashed on tax day, crippling the ability of millions of Americans to file their taxes on time. Rural Americans are struggling to get the help they need to file their taxes. It still needs to provide guidance to taxpayers on how the Republican tax law will impact them. Without a full-time leader in place, I worry that the IRS will be rudderless at the top. Ultimately, such an outcome would be unfair to hard-working Vermonters who just want to pay their taxes as quickly and easily as possible. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fight for the funding the IRS needs to meet the many challenges it faces and repair the damage caused by years of budget neglect. I will also be supporting the nominee today, despite my unequivocal opposition to the IRS dark money decision, so that the agency has the leadership it needs as well.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on this. Today, the Senate will consider final passage of the ``Minibus #1'' conference report. This package contains the Legislative Branch, Energy and Water Development, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills. I agree with what Vice Chairman Shelby has said. When we first considered this package in June, we held our first real debate on the Senate floor on an appropriations bill in many years. We had eight rollcall votes on amendments. We adopted a managers' package that Senator Shelby and I submitted. It contained 32 more--a step toward returning to regular order. Today, we are going to take another step. This is not exactly the bill I would have written. I think it is safe to say it is not exactly the bill Chairman Shelby would have written. We know you have to have compromise. You have to work things out. I also knew I could rely on his word, and he could rely on my word. That is why we are here today voting on this bipartisan package. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill includes significant new investments in mental health and opioid abuse treatment. We are not just talking about things we would like to do to address opioid abuse; we are actually including it in a bill. It invests $1 billion in new funding over fiscal year 2017 levels for mental healthcare programs and suicide prevention and $454 million over fiscal year 2017 for opioid treatment and prevention. This bill also provides resources important to Vermonters. It increases funding for long-term, noninstitutional care programs like the Veterans Independence Program in Vermont, which partners with community providers to support veterans who prefer to continue living in their own homes, avoiding costly nursing home care and offering better quality of life. It provides funding for homeless veterans programs, such as the Grant and Per Diem program that offers supportive transitional housing to homeless veterans, and it includes a $40 million increase for Supportive Services for Veteran Families to help veterans and their families secure permanent affordable housing. The bill nearly doubles funding for the popular Adaptive Sports Grant Program and expands it so that more service-disabled veterans, including those who suffer from invisible injuries like PTSD and brain injuries, can participate in lifelong sports in their communities, or train to showcase their mental and physical training at national competitions. This bill also includes a $40 million investment for the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and its evidence- based approach to the treatment of veterans bearing the hidden wounds of war. However, I am extremely disappointed that House Republicans and President Trump refused to accommodate funding for the costs associated with the VA Choice Program. The program is going to face a shortfall beginning in May 2019. We are not helping our veterans if we make promises we don't keep. We cannot just take funding from other programs for veterans or terminate programs to help low-income Americans or important research at the National Institutes of Health, even though the President is proposing it. We must adjust the budget caps to accommodate programs for our veterans that have already passed Congress and been signed into law. We made a promise to veterans. The chairman and I will work hard on making sure Congress keeps that promise. In the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, we make significant investments that support scientific research, make America more competitive in clean energy and increase funds for renewable energy. Congress rejected President Trump's shortsighted attempt to eliminate ARPA-E, which researches and invests in new energy technologies, and increased its funding by $60 million over fiscal year 2018. Thanks to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, investments in the Office of Science are increased by $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2017, paving the way for new and groundbreaking scientific research. And with Hurricane Florence set to make landfall on America's East Coast, this package includes the highest ever level of funding for the Army Corps' Civil Works program of nearly $7 billion. For every dollar invested, it is estimated that there is a $16.60 return by mitigating flood damage and transportation rate savings from moving goods on our waterways. The Energy and Water bill also makes important investments in our rural communities through regional commissions, including $20 million for the four-State Northern Border Regional Commission. We once again provide strong funding for the Weatherization Program, which helps so many families in Vermont and other northern States who struggle with high home heating prices during the cold winter months. Ad I am pleased that the bill supports much needed repairs and improvements in our environmental infrastructure and energy infrastructure and strengthens innovative ways to deliver these critical assets that will make Vermont and the entire country more resilient to the changing climate and violent weather events. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill includes funding to pay congressional interns for the first time. A congressional internship offers an entrance to a career in public service, but many dedicated, young adults do not have the means to spend a summer working for free in Washington or in our home districts. By paying interns for their work, we open the door to a wider and more diverse pool of applicants looking to serve their country. I have long realized the potential benefits to our country of providing this opportunity to talented young people from diverse backgrounds. That is why, since my first day in the Senate, in 1975, I made sure there were the resources available in my office to compensate our interns. I am glad this opportunity will now be available in every office, both House and Senate. For the first time in the legislative branch bill, we are also requiring Senate candidates to file electronic campaign finance reports, something the House has required since 1995. This will increase transparency in campaign finance and finally bring the system into the 21st century. This is a compromise bill. It makes significant investments in the American people. It was not an easy path to get to where we are, but the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell-Schumer agreement we entered into--the four of us--has laid the bipartisan framework for a path forward. This package does have bipartisan support. It is free of poison pill riders, and it is in line with the bipartisan budget agreement. I commend my friend Richard Shelby for his leadership. I also thank Senators Alexander, Feinstein, Boozman, Schatz, Daines, and Murphy for their vital contributions. This is the only successful path forward for the remaining appropriations bills, and I am hopeful that House Republicans will continue to engage with this process. I also remain hopeful that President Trump will join this bipartisan and bicameral vision for the appropriations process. However, the President's repeated shutdown threats are not helpful. Just last week, at a campaign style rally, the President threatened to shut down the government after the midterm elections--an attempt that would avoid the immediate political consequences of his brash and short-sighted decision to hold the American people hostage for his useless and ill-considered border wall, which he has repeatedly promised Mexico would pay for. A government shutdown is not a political talking point. It has real consequences on real people, and I hope the President will leave his rhetoric at his rally and work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress. In the Senate, we have come together, Republicans and Democrats. We have made more progress than we have in decades in appropriations. I hope that we will continue down this path and pass the two additional minibus appropriations bills that are in conference before the end of the fiscal year. Funding the government is one of Congress's most basic responsibilities, and we owe it to the American people to do our jobs. Lastly, I often say I am a constitutional impediment to my staff-- Chuck Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, Jay Tilton, and Jean Kwon, as well as Chairman Shelby's staff, Shannon Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, and David Adkins, as well as the staff on both sides of the aisle for each of the three subcommittees. It takes a lot people to get a bill like this across the finish line, and I thank them for their hard work and dedication. I am ready to vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken before about Suvash Darnal, an extraordinary Nepalese Dalit activist who was tragically killed in a traffic accident in Virginia on August 15, 2011. Mr. Darnal was only 31 years old when he died, but he had already made more of his life than many people who live to be twice or three times his age. He grew up impoverished, with nothing to look forward to. In large measure because of the adversity he experienced and his inherent thirst for knowledge, he became a passionate advocate for his people at home and around the world. As I have said before, his integrity, his humility, his vision, and his dedication live on as an inspiring example of why caste discrimination has no place in the 21st century, in Nepal or anywhere else. From 2008 to 2009, Mr. Darnal was a fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy. Carl Gershman, President of NED, was among Mr. Darnal's admirers and has helped to convey the lessons of Mr. Darnal's life to a wider audience. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gershman's account of recent events in Kathmandu in remembrance of Suvash Darnal be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in the last few months, the Senate has achieved record progress in going through our appropriations bills. As we return from the Labor Day weekend, the Senate has already passed 9 of the 12 Appropriations bills by overwhelming bipartisan margins. The Appropriations Committee has reported the remaining three bills, again, with bipartisan support. The end of the fiscal year is only a few short weeks away, but looking at the record pace of our work here in the Senate, there is no reason we can't conference all of these bills with the House and send all nine to the President's desk before October 1. It would be quite an accomplishment. It would show the American people that when it matters, Congress can come together and do the job we were sent here to do. That includes passing responsible, thoughtful, and well-considered appropriations bills on time and on budget. When I became vice chairman of Appropriations, with Senator Shelby as chairman of Appropriations, we pledged to each other and the Senate that we would move these bills in a way they had not been moved in years and that we would do it in a bipartisan way. It is important that we conference all of the bills we have passed in the Senate so far and then send them to the President's desk. We cannot just pick and choose and say: We will do this one based on political expediency but not this one. That would put us right back in the trap in which we had been in past years. We have to show the American people that the Senate actually knows how to do its work. The hard work has been done. We know the issues we need to resolve, so now we ought to take these bills across the finish line. It may sound archaic, but let me talk about minibus No. 1, which contains the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill, and the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. It provides much needed resources for the support and care of our Nation's veterans and their family members, and it makes critical investments in our country's water infrastructure and energy programs. Yesterday, we held a public conference with the House of Representatives on the first minibus, and I am pleased to report that we have made some significant progress. One of the reasons we are successful in moving bills in the Senate is that we advance appropriations bills that are free of poison pill policy riders from either the left or the right. In fact, my experience and the experience of many others tell us that is the only path to success in the Senate, where we rightfully need 60 votes to advance legislation, and it is the only path to success for conferencing the three minibus bills. I challenge the House Republicans to come to terms with that reality. No one should mistake--and I want to emphasize this--Democratic cooperation in the Senate for a sign that we will support a conference report that contains poison pills. We will not. Minibus No. 2 contains four appropriations bills--the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill; the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill; the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill; and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. The House plans to appoint conferees to this minibus later this afternoon, and I encourage the Senate to follow soon thereafter. Let me take these one by one. The Agriculture appropriations bill is a win for farmers, families, and rural communities. Every State in this Nation has rural communities--the Presiding Officer does; I do; every State does--and farm economies that benefit from these important programs. From clean water programs to investments in rural broadband and from rural housing assistance to agricultural research, this bill touches millions of Americans all across the country. In the wake of the uncertainty and chaos that has been caused by trade wars and unnecessary tariffs, our farmers and rural communities deserve better than inaction on appropriations. Both the House and the Senate have passed their versions of the bill. So let's just get to work and send the conference bill to the President. The same goes for the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, which makes critical infrastructure investments across the Nation, and we desperately need them. Improving the Nation's infrastructure was one of President Trump's key campaign promises, but instead of proposing realistic solutions, he has criticized the very budget deal that has made increases in infrastructure possible. Instead of improving our infrastructure, he has proposed cutting--not increasing--funding in his budget for infrastructure programs. Here we have an opportunity to invest in our country and to start addressing our crumbling bridges and roads. We cannot and should not kick the can down the road. There is not a single Senator here who cannot point to the needs of the bridges and roads in his or her State. Then we have the Interior bill that makes critical investments in programs that help to ensure we have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe and that funds our national parks and other public lands. The Financial Services bill funds regulatory agencies that U.S. citizens rely on to protect them from unfair, unsafe, or fraudulent business practices, like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Congress now stands poised to deliver to the American people, but we have to get moving. Leaving these important agencies to limp along in a continuing resolution is unwise and unnecessary. We have laid the groundwork to finish these bills. Now we just need the will to do it. This brings me to minibus No. 3, which contains the Defense appropriations bill and the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. It funds our national security and many of our domestic priorities, and it demonstrates the importance of the bipartisan budget agreement that was reached earlier this year. In this combination of bills, we see the priorities that are outlined in that agreement made into real policy to improve the lives of the American people. It is not empty rhetoric but real policy, and that is why so many Republicans and so many Democrats voted for it. As a result of the bipartisan budget deal, the Senate's Defense appropriations bill provides the men and women of our Armed Forces with the resources they need to carry out their missions effectively and safely. This is a goal that Republicans and Democrats share as Americans, and I know that in working with our House counterparts, we can produce a good bill for our troops and our Nation. Then there is the Senate's Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. I think of the way Senator Patty Murray has worked so hard with Republicans and Democrats--with all of us--to put together a bill that reflects the interests of all of the country. Look at the investments in healthcare and education. It increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $5 billion over fiscal year 2017. The NIH, the National Institutes of Health, is one of the treasures of America. It backs our commitment to increase access to higher education by increasing college affordability spending by $2.3 billion over fiscal year 2017. My family came to Vermont in the mid- 1800s. I was the first Leahy to get a college degree--my sister, the second. Then, when our children came along and our grandchildren, we never doubted it; of course, they would go to college. Yet that is not the same for an awful lot of people in this country, so we need this bill. It also increases access to childcare by $3.2 billion over fiscal year 2017, and it invests nearly $3 billion to combat the opioid crisis that has plagued communities across this country. The House did not follow the Senate's bipartisan efforts. The House produced a partisan Labor-HHS bill that shortchanged programs for working Americans and was loaded with poison pill riders that could never pass in this body--from attacks on the Affordable Care Act to restrictions on family planning. My staff and Senator Shelby's staff--several of us--have been working days and weeks and weekends, and we will continue to do that in order to work out these differences. The differences are challenging but are not insurmountable. The reason we have to have a compromise is we have to get 60 votes in the Senate, and with this hodgepodge of poison pills that the House has passed there are not 60 votes. I have said many times that if we are to have a strong national defense, we need to have a strong economy, an educated and healthy citizenry, and an able workforce. The programs that are funded in the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill are critical to doing that. The deep ties that run between defense and nondefense priorities make it fitting that we have packaged these two bills together, but they have to stay together if we are going to get them across the finish line by October 1. If they are decoupled, it will destroy the bipartisan process we have worked so hard to establish, and it will not go through. It is possible that the CR will be included in this bill, so it is essential that it be bipartisan and free of any controversial matter. Again, the reason we have been so successful in this Senate in moving appropriations bills is that we have worked together. Chairman Shelby as chairman and I as vice chairman have worked together. Republicans and Democrats alike who are on the Appropriations Committee have worked together. We have cooperated with each other. We have met over and over again. Each side has shown restraint in pursuing issues we have felt strongly about because to have done so would have imperiled the whole process. There are certain things that I would have liked in this bill, and there are certain things my Republican counterparts might have liked in the bill, but we all know that the bill would not have gone anywhere if we had done that. Instead, we have come together on those things that can pass. Both sides have had to trust the other, as we have done, so we could reach agreement to move these bills forward. Let's finish what we have started in the way we started it--through bipartisanship and cooperation. That means the Defense and Labor-HHS bills must remain together in one package. We cannot drop one and finish the other. That is a nonstarter. Everybody knows that. It also means the Senate must stand together if the House insists on producing partisan conference reports that contain poison pill riders. They cannot pass. Finally, it means we have to remain committed to finishing all three packages of bills and sending them to the President. If House Republicans decide to delay minibus No. 2 until after the election and drop the Labor, HHS, and Education bill from minibus No. 3, it will mean the $18 billion increase for Defense that is assumed in the bipartisan budget agreement will be enacted while the $18 billion increase of nondefense programs could be left in the dust--a clear violation of the bipartisan budget agreement that was based on parity between defense and nondefense programs agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats. I predict it could not pass. Funding the government is one of our most basic constitutional responsibilities. Americans expect us to work together, as the U.S. Senate did, and across the aisle to reach agreement on these bills. The programs funded in these bills make a real difference in people's lives, and they should not be held up due to partisan differences. Let's do what we were sent here to do and pass these bills before the start of the new fiscal year. We can do it, and we have shown how to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the decision, announced last Friday, by Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales to not renew the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG, after its current term expires next September, was a profound mistake. That mistake was further compounded on Tuesday when the government announced that the CICIG Commissioner, Ivan Velasquez, a respected Colombian jurist, had been summarily declared a ``national security threat'' and barred from reentering the country. That is the kind of fear-provoking mischaracterization one might expect from an authoritarian government that will use any outlandish justification to silence its critics but not from a democracy. I urge President Morales to reconsider and to reverse these actions for the benefit of the Guatemalan people, in the interests of justice and on behalf of Guatemala's relations with the United States and its international reputation. There may still be time to turn this political and judicial crisis into a positive outcome for the country. At the time of his public announcement to not renew CICIG, President Morales was joined on the podium by dozens of uniformed military and police officers. At the same time, military vehicles carrying officers armed with heavy weapons--vehicles provided by the United States for legitimate law enforcement purposes--lined the street in front of CICIG's office. They also drove past the Constitutional Court and the U.S. Embassy. It was an intimidating display reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s, and the intended message was clear: The commanders of Guatemala's security forces--which in recent years have been reliable partners with the United States--have sided with those in power to shut down the only credible mechanism for combating the corruption and impunity that plague that country. Not yet determined is the fate of CICIG's 45 or so international lawyers and investigators, whose work permits have expired. If Commissioner Velasquez is not allowed to return and CICIG's other employees are forced to leave the country, CICIG will, for all practical purposes, cease to exist. President Morales's decision to do away with CICIG in a manner that the U.N. Secretary General says ``does not appear to be consistent with the Agreement on the establishment of CICIG'' was reportedly precipitated by a decision of the Supreme Court, days earlier, to refer to Congress a petition by the Attorney General and CICIG to lift President Morales's immunity for violating campaign financing laws. It appears that President Morales is more concerned with his own legal vulnerability and that of his supporters than upholding the institutions of justice. It is also increasingly apparent that this attack on CICIG is only part of a broader attempt that has been gaining steam over the better part of a year to destroy the independence of the constitutional court, weaken civil society, intimidate human rights defenders and journalists, and undermine the rule of law. It is an existential confrontation between the forces of corruption and impunity and Guatemala's fledgling judicial institutions. Ever since CICIG was established 11 years ago to help combat the pervasive corruption, infiltration by organized crime, and near total impunity in Guatemala, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy have consistently supported CICIG, as have Republicans and Democrats in Congress. We are all familiar with the historical links between organized crime, drug traffickers, Guatemala's security forces, and public officials. It has been widely recognized by the Guatemalan people that, because of CICIG and Guatemala's Public Ministry, working together, the cause of justice--including convictions of corrupt senior government officials--has been significantly enhanced. Without CICIG, these achievements would not have been possible. On Saturday, September 1, Secretary Pompeo responded to President Morales's announcement with a bizarre tweet that did not even mention CICIG. Instead, the Secretary expressed appreciation for Guatemala's ``efforts in counternarcotics and security.'' That is a bit like being told that the courthouse is on fire and responding that the stock market is up. The State Department should condemn what is occurring in Guatemala, reaffirm its support for CICIG and Commissioner Velasquez, and make clear that corrupt Guatemalan officials will be sanctioned under U.S. law. Otherwise, it will share complicity in the unraveling of years of U.S. investment in CICIG and in judicial and law enforcement reform in Guatemala. Perhaps the State Department is worried that, if President Morales is prosecuted and convicted of campaign financing violations and removed from office the way his predecessor was, U.S. security cooperation with Guatemala might suffer. What it really should be worried about is what will happen to the fight against corruption and organized crime if President Morales succeeds in dismantling CICIG. If the country loses its most effective anticorruption institution, the progress that has been made in recent years in strengthening the rule of law is likely to be reversed, allowing drug cartels and other criminal organizations to grow unchecked. This is particularly alarming with national elections in Guatemala scheduled for next year. The integrity of Guatemala's democratic process--not simply the survival of CICIG--is threatened by the corrupt influences of organized crime. Like any institution, CICIG is not without imperfections. Several constructive reforms have been proposed, and I have encouraged CICIG, the United Nations, and the Guatemalan Government to find a way forward that strengthens oversight and transparency while preserving CICIG's mandate and protecting the Commissioner from political interference. While that process has been eclipsed by recent events, there is still time to resurrect it. The United Nations, the United States, other governments that have supported CICIG, and the Guatemalan Government should urgently resume discussions to achieve such a solution. Ultimately, if other attempts fail, the future of CICIG, of its Commissioner and employees, and of the rule of law in Guatemala--not just under President Morales who has just over a year left to serve but also in the years ahead--will be in the hands of the Guatemalan people, the judiciary, and the Congress. As a former prosecutor and the senior member of our Judiciary Committee, I have long recognized that an independent judiciary is a cornerstone of democratic government. It is what gives practical meaning to the phrase ``rule of law,'' which is fundamental to strengthening democracy. To its credit, Guatemala's constitutional court has displayed that independence in the past. That independence is needed today. As a result of President Morales's actions, security cooperation with Guatemala and loans from international financial institutions are now in jeopardy. That is not in the interests of Guatemala or the United States. Recognizing what is at stake and in support of the courageous Guatemalans who are defending the Constitution and the rule of law, I will not support the expenditure of U.S. funds for assistance for the Guatemalan Government under the Alliance for Prosperity, including for the military and police forces, until the fate of CICIG and Commissioner Velasquez is satisfactorily resolved.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I am sure I can also speak for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we appreciate this vote, so we can move forward. We have spent the last week on the Senate floor. But, what many people have not seen are the hours and hours that Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have spent working together to get where we are today. Many people have not seen the countless of hours more being done by our staffs. Sometimes at 1 in the morning, they are still negotiating parts of this bill. We are just within an hour or so of doing something the Senate, as Senator McConnell pointed out, has not been able to do in years. I think we will pass a good, responsible and within-the-budget piece of legislation. Both Republicans and Democrats had a voice in the process. We held numerous votes in the Senate Appropriations Committee, all of them overwhelmingly bipartisan, many of them unanimous--with the exception of one or two votes--to get to where we are today. I see some of the chairs from our subcommittees who worked very hard to put together these bipartisan coalitions. I know a lot of people are anxious to get out of here, and soon they will be headed to the airport. Let's get this done. Let's show that the U.S. Senate is actually doing its work. Let's do what we were elected to do, what we know how to do, and what we can do. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have no objection.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that Act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.