Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Murray in introducing the Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2018. This legislation, if enacted, will establish critical privacy protections for Americans by limiting the unjustifiably wide ``border zone'' within which Department of Homeland Security officers may-- without a warrant--stop vehicles and search private land for the purpose of patrolling the border. The current 100 mile ``border zone'' was established through regulatory fiat. While the Fourth Amendment allows limited exceptions to the warrant requirement at or close to the border, this 100 mile zone is neither limited nor reasonable. It includes marine borders. At present, it encompasses almost two-thirds of the population of the United States. This includes major cities such as New York, Seattle, Chicago, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, even the ``border town'' of Richmond, Virginia, as well as entire states such as Maine, Delaware, and Florida. The need for this legislation has never been clearer. The Trump administration's aggressive yet wasteful use of immigration enforcement resources has subjected law-abiding citizens to needless and intrusive searches at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoints far from the border. Not only do these searches produce minimal value to border enforcement, they violate the constitutionally protected privacy of citizens and residents of border regions, including in my home State of Vermont. Recently, CBP agents in Vermont have boarded Greyhound buses in Burlington without a warrant and inquired about the citizenship of passengers. They have targeted international college students for questioning about their legal status. In the nearby States of Maine and New Hampshire, they have shut down interstate highways with immigration checkpoints. In Montana, a CBP agent even stopped an American citizen simply for speaking Spanish. This should not be a partisan issue. This is about ensuring that every person in this Nation receives the constitutional protections to which they are entitled. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute have sharply criticized these practices as problematic under the Fourth Amendment. Vermonters have rightly been concerned about these expanded border zone searches. They believe, as I do, that once inside our country the phrase `show me your papers' does not belong inside the United States of America. The Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act is based on an amendment that Senator Murray and I successfully attached to immigration reform legislation in 2013 during the Obama Administration. The 100 mile ``border zone''--and the similar 25 mile zone where many types of warrantless property searches are permitted--predates this current administration, but the actions of this administration have shown just how much we need legislation like this today. The Fourth Amendment does not stop 100 miles from our land and sea borders. Its protections extend whether in the heart of Kansas or in the middle of Vermont. Ensuring that the protections of the Fourth Amendment are available to everyone within the United States should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope all Senators will support this commonsense measure to ensure the Fourth Amendment is upheld.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Hawaii. I have enjoyed working with both of them because look where we are. This is somewhere we have not been for a number of years. It is where we used to be--certainly for the first few decades I was here. It is where we were when Senator Alexander or my hero, Senator Baker, were here. What we are doing is voting on final passage of the first package of Senate appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019. The minibus before us contains a string of appropriations bills: the Energy and Water appropriations bill, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, and the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We will have these votes in a matter of half an hour, and they will only take a few minutes, but there are hours and hours and days and weeks that went into this by both Republicans and Democrats. Chairman Shelby and I worked very closely with Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer. Both Senator Shelby as chairman and I as vice chairman committed to getting the appropriations process back on track. We both have been here when the Senate has been in a better place because the appropriations process worked. Our strategy has been to advance appropriations bills that have bipartisan support, comply with the budget deal and are free of poison pill riders or controversial authorizing legislation. What we have before us is the first test of that strategy. I think both Republicans and Democrats should be pretty pleased with the result. We had a good debate on this package of bills, including the last eight rollcall votes. We adopted a managers' package that contained 32 amendments on which we have reached agreement. This minibus is the result of hard work and compromise on the part of the chair and ranking member of each subcommittee, and I urge Senators to vote aye on final passage. Importantly, during the debate on this package of bills, as just mentioned, the Senate voted to table a controversial amendment offered by Senator Lee to overturn the 2015 clean water rule related to waters of the United States. This rule was designed to prevent pollutants from spreading through tributaries into our Nation's drinking water supply. I felt that the amendment not only would have driven a stake through the heart of the clean water rule, it would have done so without having to abide by the Administrative Procedure Act, it would have effectively eliminated the American public from any participation in the process, and it would have sidestepped and allowed arbitrary and capricious standards, which we cannot have, if we had repealed the rule. I opposed this amendment not only because I believe that repealing the clean water rule would be shortsighted, and that doing it in this manner would set a terrible precedent for the next bedrock environmental regulation, but also because this is precisely the type of poison pill policy rider both Republicans and Democrats have worked so hard to avoid. The adoption of the Lee amendment would have endangered our ability to complete our work on the minibus. We tabled the amendment, and we had votes from both sides of the aisle, including from Senators who agreed with the substance of the Lee amendment, but they recognized this reality as well--that adopting it would stop the whole bill. That is how the process should work. By focusing on funding matters, by avoiding controversial policy riders, we have ended the Senate debate with a bipartisan product that both Democrats and Republicans can support. I went on at some length on this because I am concerned that the House is pursuing a different path. They are taking up partisan bills and filling them with poison pill riders that cannot and will not pass the U.S. Senate, and they know that, including a rider similar to the defeated Lee amendment. Democrats proceeded to this package of bills in good faith, and we will go into conference negotiations with that same approach, but if our progress is to continue, we cannot sign conference reports on bills that can't pass the Senate. They must be bills that can pass the Senate, bills that both Republicans and Democrats can vote for, and that means they have to be free of poison pills from the right or the left. This minibus provides significant 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. It should not be used as a vehicle to advance a partisan political agenda. Before concluding my remarks, there is one issue we were not able to address in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill that must be addressed in conference. The bill still does not provide enough money to cover the costs associated with the VA Choice Program, which was transferred to the discretionary side of the budget under the MISSION Act. The MISSION Act only provided funding for this program through May of 2019, leaving the balance unaddressed. To cover the shortfall, we are going to need an estimated $1.6 billion more in fiscal year 2019 and an additional $8.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 and $9.5 billion in fiscal year 2021 to cover the Veterans Affairs Choice Program. These costs were not accounted for when we negotiated the budget caps in the bipartisan budget deal, so the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee were unable to address the shortfall within their allocation without cutting funding for other important programs. Senator Shelby and I filed an amendment--the Complete the MISSION amendment--which would have provided the flexibility needed to make sure we fulfill this commitment to our veterans without triggering sequestration or without having to cut other valuable veterans programs. I would note that on June 19, we received a letter from 33 veterans service organizations representing millions of veterans, servicemembers, and their families in support of the amendment Chairman Shelby and I filed. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement to get a vote on our amendment or have it included in the managers' package, but Chairman Shelby and I remain committed to solving this problem in conference. If we don't do so, we will jeopardize the healthcare and well-being of the men and women who have faithfully served our country, who relied on the promises made by our country when they served our country, and I am not willing to accept going back on our country's promise. I thank Chairman Shelby, and I thank the Republican chairs and the Democratic ranking members of each subcommittee for their hard work. As the longest serving Member of this body, I think we provided a roadmap to consider the rest of the appropriations bills, going back to doing it the way we have done it under both Republican and Democratic leadership and where the country is better off. I also want to thank Shannon H. Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, David Adkins, Tyler Owens, Jen Armstrong, Adam DeMella, Meyer Seligman, Rachel Littleton, Molly Marsh, Sarah Boliek, Lucas Agnew, Patrick Magnuson, Jennifer Bastin, Joanne Hoff, and Carlos Elias of the majority staff and Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Doug Clapp, Chris Hanson, Samantha Nelson, Melissa Zimmerman, Jean Kwon, Chad Schulken, Jason McMahon, Jessica Berry, and Jordan Stone on the minority staff for their work on these bills.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I do not see anybody seeking recognition. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is with a mixture of pride and sadness that I recognize the life of a friend, Francis ``Fran'' Voigt, the cofounder of the New England Culinary Institute of Montpelier, VT. Fran passed away in May, leaving a strong legacy and many family and friends. Fran Voigt was an innovator, who originally came to Vermont to teach at Goddard College. In 1969, he came to Vermont with his wife, poet Ellen Bryant Voigt, who would later serve as Vermont's poet laureate. He was part of a faculty and staff at Goddard that changed the culture of central Vermont. While at Goddard, Fran developed programs in many fields, including social ecology and art therapy. Fran believed in hands-on education, both at Goddard and later at the New England Culinary Institute, known locally as NECI, which he cofounded in 1980. The New England Culinary Institute, which began in the basement of Montpelier's Capitol Plaza Hotel and Conference Center, grew quickly and garnered national attention. Fran and NECI were soon at the forefront of our country's progressive culinary education movement and were recognized by President Bill Clinton as first runner-up for the Nation's small business of the year in 1994. In 2000, Fran was named Vermont Citizen of the Year by the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. Vermont's culinary landscape was forever changed by the New England Culinary Institute, as its students opened and worked at restaurants throughout the State. In memory of Fran Voigt, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Stephen Mills in the May 22 edition of the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, ``NECI founder revered for student model,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was simply going to add to what the Senator from Tennessee was saying. Senator Shelby and I have tried to keep things that are inappropriate out of the appropriations bill so that we may actually pass some appropriations bills. So I will join the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have been in the Senate long enough to think that maybe the Senate can start to go back to being the Senate. A Senate that votes on things and debates things and reflects the will of the people--not what is dictated from the White House. Perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part, because in just the latest example of the ``cut first and ask questions later'' policies of the Trump administration, we are now going to vote on a bill that will claw back billions of dollars from children's health insurance, affordable housing investments, infrastructure, rural development, and innovative energy programs. This is the same White House that just forced through Congress a $1.9 trillion--not billion, but trillion--tax giveaway, most of which goes to billionaires and corporations. Then, they say we have to cut children's health insurance because we have to reduce the deficit. We can give billionaires and corporations $1.9 trillion, but this might increase the deficit. So we have to cut children's health insurance, affordable housing investments, infrastructure, rural development, and innovative energy programs. That goes beyond laughable. It is unconscionable. President Trump is seeking to cut $7 billion from funding for children's health insurance. If you strip this funding from the Children's Health Insurance Program, we leave children unprotected from unforeseen events like a flu outbreak or a natural disaster. This takes away the ability of Congress should be able to make critical investments in healthcare and education. Even if the money can no longer be dedicated to CHIP, we should reinvest it in other important programs as we have done in the past--programs that support our Nation's children and families. I don't think there is any Member of this body who, when they are campaigning, doesn't talk about how important children and their families are to them. I hope those same families will ask them: How much money did you take out from children and families? Earlier this year, the Congress did what they were supposed to. Republicans and Democrats came together to direct this funding to the Federal response to the opioid epidemic, the childcare and development block grants, Head Start, and the National Institutes of Health. These are investments in our country. They are not tax giveaways. They are investments in our country. If you strip this funding, it is penny wise and pound foolish. President Trump wants to claw back billions of dollars from infrastructure programs. I see so many of these photo ops he does, speaking about how we want to have better infrastructure. However, we don't want to pay for it so we will take the money back. Let's look at what the money is that he wants to take away. It is programs to do everything from supporting loans to helping factories produce more efficient vehicles to building bridges in small communities. These are programs that directly support American jobs. They are not jobs overseas. They are jobs right here, and now they want to take the money out. For an administration that is perpetually in ``infrastructure week,'' it doesn't make sense if you are trying to cut funding for infrastructure. How do we put ``America first'' when you strip funds that support Americans jobs? In a continued push to leave rural America behind, Mr. Trump's rescission package would cut millions of dollars from rural development programs. Every single Senator in this body has rural areas in their State, and they know that these programs help to ensure that the same basic services are offered in rural areas that we see in urban areas-- things that we rely on, like schools or healthcare, for instance, or police stations. Are we saying that only urban areas can have that but rural areas can't? In the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby and I have been focused on moving forward through the fiscal year 2019 process. We are trying to return the committee to regular order--something that most Republicans and Democrats in this body say they want. We have successfully kept poison pill riders and controversial authorizing language out of the appropriations bills, whichever side of the aisle they came from, and we passed, by an overwhelming margin, seven bipartisan bills out of our committee. It has been years since we have seen that happen. Here we have seven bipartisan appropriations bills come out of committee, and almost all Republicans and all Democrats voted for them. Even with the Interior appropriations bill--that is a bill that has been historically bogged down with poison pill riders and usually forced into a massive omnibus appropriations bill because we could not reach an agreement. In the past we had to put it in an omnibus bill because we couldn't agree on it--guess what happened. We passed it out of committee unanimously. I don't recall that happening in nearly a decade. Now, if we go forward with this rescission package, it is going to derail the process. The rescission bill undermines the bipartisan budget deal that Republicans and Democrats struck just four months ago. If we go forward with this package, another will fall, and another, and another, even further undermining the agreement. I will remind everybody that if they haven't gotten around to reading the Constitution, it does grant Congress the power of the purse, not the executive branch. Congress decides spending priorities, not the President. We ought to actually do our job. We should exercise our right. We should reject this rescissions package. We should uphold the bicameral, bipartisan budget agreement. So I urge all Senators to reject this rescissions package and to oppose the motion to discharge. Madam President, I don't see any other Senator seeking the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I appreciate the comments from my friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. As many know, Chairman Shelby and I have been friends for decades. We have traveled to different parts of the world and tried to promote the U.S. agenda. We have worked very closely together. That is why we are opening debate on the first set of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019. The minibus before us contains the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, and the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. These bills have strong bipartisan support. On each subcommittee, I compliment the chairs and ranking members, who worked very closely together and set aside partisan labels to get these bills before the full committee so that Senator Shelby and I could then bring them up for votes in the full committee. So far, we have reported from the committee 7 of the 12 annual appropriations bills, each with overwhelming bipartisan support--I almost want to reemphasize that: each with overwhelming bipartisan support--at a time when it is as though nothing can be done in a bipartisan way. I think we have set the example of the way the Senate was, should be and can be. As one who has been in this body for almost 44 years, I like to see the Senate work the way it should. In fact, we are going to mark up three of the five remaining bills this week. The chairman and I are committed to making the appropriations process work again. So far, in committee, it has. In that respect, I thank, again, my good friend Senator Shelby for his leadership and bipartisan cooperation, which has helped us achieve these results so far. Our best chance for restoring regular order and avoiding the need to do an omnibus spending bill at the end of the year is to abide by the bipartisan-bicameral budget agreement and avoid poison pill riders from the left or the right. The bill before us does just that. The chairman and I--and we are the ones who have to spend the time on the floor--want a real debate of the spending measure. Members should come to the floor, offer amendments, and debate them. Yet, if we are going to succeed in moving this bill through the Senate, Members on both sides of the aisle need to show restraint as we did when we marked up these bills in committee and refrain from offering controversial legislative matters or other poison pills as amendments. Offer those on authorizing bills, where they should be, and debate them there. The appropriations bills that make up the minibus before us contain funding for important programs and make a real difference in people's lives, certainly in the lives of those in every Senator's State--in Vermont and across the Nation. We should not derail this process because of unrelated policy riders. If we do this--if both sides of the aisle can show restraint--we will take a very important step in getting this process back on track and putting the Senate back to where it should be. Let's talk about the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It dedicates considerable resources to the support and care of our veterans, including $2 billion to address the maintenance backlog at our VA hospitals and clinics. We agreed to that in the bipartisan budget deal, and we have it in this bill. It also has critical funding for medical care and research, hospital and clinic construction, and disability and pension programs. The Energy and Water Development bill invests in our country's water infrastructure and energy programs. It also provides funding to support our rural communities and farmers, which will benefit not just Vermont but the rest of the Nation. All of us have rural areas in our States, and this will benefit them. I am pleased that the bill supports much needed repairs and improvements in our environmental infrastructure and in our energy infrastructure and that it strengthens innovative ways to deliver these critical assets. From a parochial point of view, I know it makes Vermont more resilient to the change in climate and violent weather events. All one has to do is look at the map. It makes every State more resilient, which is what we need. Once again, the bill includes strong funding for the weatherization program and, of course, helps families in Vermont, the Northeast, and northern States across the country. Families in Vermont can struggle with high home heating prices during the cold winter months, when it is not unusual to have days or a week during which it is below zero. The bill wisely rejects several of the administration's budget proposals by making real investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. That is going to accelerate diversified and sustainable energy production in every part of our country and support American innovation in the private sector as well as the many world-class research institutions across the country. I want to see American innovation being supported. This bill will create and sustain American jobs. The Legislative Branch bill provides funding for the Senate at large, as well as to cover the House of Representatives, the Library of Congress, the Copyright Office, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Capitol Police. In addition, it supports the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office, which are essential to our oversight functions. I support this package of bills that came from the committee, and I urge other Members to do the same. Let me just mention one issue briefly that relates to veterans' healthcare. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill has one serious problem, and Chairman Shelby and I are committed to fixing it. The bill does not provide money to cover the costs that are associated with the VA Choice Program, which was transferred to the discretionary side of the budget under the VA MISSION Act. It will become part of a new consolidated community care program to be funded in this bill. Unfortunately, the MISSION Act provides funding for this program only through May of 2019, leaving the balance unaddressed. To cover the shortfall, we are going to need an estimated $1.6 billion more in fiscal year 2019 and an additional $8.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 and $9.5 billion in fiscal year 2021. These costs were not accounted for when we negotiated the budget caps in the bipartisan budget deal, so the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee were unable to address the shortfall within their allocation without cutting funding for other important programs. We do our veterans no favors if we promise care but then not back it up and say: Oh, by the way, we are not going to pay for it. Senator Shelby and I are working to find a solution to provide the flexibility needed to make sure, having made this promise to our veterans, we can carry out the promise. We hope to offer an amendment later this week to address this issue. In conclusion, I look forward to the debate on the appropriations bill before us, and I ask Senators--all 100 of us--to work with us to restore the appropriations process. We can only achieve success if we return to regular order and pledge to work together. To give an example that Chairman Shelby and I have set, the 31 members of the Senate Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle for these bills. So I thank the chairman, and I also thank the subcommittee chairs and ranking members because they worked like mad, and they got it done. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will approve its version of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. It is right and fitting to name this bill after the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has for years been a stalwart advocate for our military and our national defense. Unlike the defense authorization bills of recent years, this bill is streamlined and straightforward. It is focused on improving strategic Department of Defense thinking and aligning resources to meet that strategy. It also conforms to the bipartisan budget agreement reached earlier this year. I am pleased that this bill renews a commitment to securing America's leading edge of technological innovation. This is great news for States large and small, including Vermont. The bill includes provisions to improve the long-term strategic development and purchasing of microelectronics for the defense industry. It includes a partial solution to the delays of Federal recognition for members of the Guard receiving their State commissions. It fixes the TRICARE dental plan management and options that have frustrated Vermonters. It includes numerous provisions to support small businesses in the industrial base, including to improve cyber security. Building on last year's language, the bill adds to the accounting of usage of the long-chain molecules that have been found to have dangerous health effects, particularly its use in Air Force firefighting foam. These are all appropriate issues to be dealt with through the defense authorization bill. Like any product of compromise, however, this bill is not perfect. I am frustrated that, despite a bipartisan majority of Senators voting in support of further debating the bill's treatment of low-yield nuclear weapons, we are advancing to a vote on final passage without that debate. Low-yield nuclear weapons are dangerous and add nothing to our nuclear deterrence. Any administration should at least have to specifically ask to build them. Similarly, a bipartisan majority of Senators rejected the tabling of an amendment to prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens; yet the bill includes no such provision. The underlying bill also continues the mistake of the Guantanamo Bay detention mission. On balance, the final bill on which the Senate votes today is truly bipartisan. I will support this National Defense Authorization Act. (At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for those of us who read history, we know that throughout history, including at times in our own country many years ago, the forcible separation of families was used as an instrument of terror. I struggle to imagine a more damaging and inhumane governmental policy than to forcibly and needlessly tear children away from their parents. For decades, the United States has rightly led the world in condemning such practices as flagrant abuses of government power and human rights. Yet, today, in an extraordinary breach of our most basic values, the Trump administration is now regularly employing these very tactics. It is true that some children were separated from their parents during the previous administration. I vocally and forcefully opposed it then, because I believed and I am still convinced that there are alternatives that are far more humane and effective than the tearing apart of families. But the family separation we are seeing today is so vastly different both in purpose and in scope than what occurred during the Obama administration. There is no comparison. Separation is no longer limited to narrow circumstances where it is arguably in the best interest of the child. Separating children, even infants, from their parents is now being carried out as a blanket policy. It is frightening. This disturbing policy is happening by design. The Trump administration's decision to criminally prosecute every adult who arrives at our border without documentation establishes a de facto family separation policy that is going to rip thousands of innocent children away from their loved ones. The administration's claim that this policy is necessary to deter illegal border crossings rings hollow. The administration has also separated families who follow the rules and lawfully present themselves at ports of entry with claims of asylum. They are asking for asylum. There is simply no way we can sanitize the cruelty of this policy. The anguish we are inflicting is evident in the story of each parent who is losing a child. Let me tell my colleagues a couple of those stories. Here are the words of Maria, who was separated from her children, ages 7 and 2, just last month when she sought asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. She said: [A]t about 8 a.m. they called just my two children and I went out and they said, ``Miss, only they are going.''. . . . [T]he officer said, ``They are here for them. Can the little one walk?'' ``Yes,'' I told the officer. ``Let him down,'' they told me. The older one took his hand and they started to walk. Then they turned around to look and when they saw that I was not going after them, they cried. I will tell another story, the ordeal of another mother with two sons, age 4 and 10. She is seeking asylum from El Salvador. I was only given five minutes to say goodbye before [my sons] were torn from me. My babies started crying when they found out we were going to be separated. It breaks my heart to remember my youngest wail, ``Why do I have to leave?''. . . . My youngest cried and screamed in protest because he did not want to leave my side. My oldest son was also confused and did not understand what was happening. In tears myself, I asked my boys to be brave, and I promised we would be together again soon. I begged the woman who took my children to keep them together so they could at least have each other. This is a description from a father seeking asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry: I was told I was going to be separated from my son. I suffer from high blood pressure and felt as though I was having a heart attack. . . . I feel like I was in shock and do not remember what happened next or even how I got to the detention center after that. All I can remember is how much my son and I were both crying as they took him away. The anguish inflicted on these parents and children at the moment they are separating is excruciating. For those of us who are parents, it is inconceivable, but it is just the beginning. Parents are given limited information--sometimes none at all--about where their children are being held, in whose care, or for how long. Some have begged the courts for information, frustrating judges who know little more than the parents. Some are deported while their children remain in unknown locations in the United States. Pediatricians describe the trauma that can be inflicted on these children as toxic stress. It results in lasting damage to a child's health. Who here would tolerate such a thing if it were happening to American children? Who would defend such an abhorrent practice that was happening in another country--say, Russia or any other country? None of us would. We would condemn it. But all of this lays bare the ugly truth about the true intent of this policy: to strike fear into the hearts of families who are seeking refuge from gang violence, chaos, murder, and rape in their home countries. The message could not be clearer: If you try to seek refuge in the United States, which is your right under international law, if you seek your right, if you seek refuge, if you seek the right you have under international law, we in America will punish you and punish your family because you are not welcome here. This policy unquestionably flouts our domestic and international legal obligations. Worse, it flies in the face of who we are. In the past, we have shown the world that protecting our homeland is not incompatible with providing refuge to the vulnerable. We have proven that being a nation of laws is not antithetical to being a country of compassion. We have demonstrated that our unmatched power is derived in part from how we treat the most powerless among us. But President Trump's policy abandons our principles. Actually, it abandons our identity as a moral beacon for the world. Republicans and Democrats must speak with one voice to condemn this cruelty. Family separation is no more a Republican policy than a Democratic policy. It is neither. It is an un-American policy. The United States, this great country that beckoned my maternal grandparents to come to the United States and Vermont, or my great- grandparents, paternal grandparents to come to the United States and Vermont--this great country must not be seen as terrorizing children to score political points. That is beneath the greatness of the United States. It is wrong. It is abhorrent. We must not be seen as pursuing policies with the intent of inflicting pain and anguish on vulnerable people, on children. I hope Senators of both parties with join me in condemning this outrageous practice of forced family separation. We are a nation that is better than this. We have always thought of ourselves as better than this. Well, it is time we acted like we are better than this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see nobody else seeking the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many of us here are familiar with the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, known as CICIG. The U.S. Congress and Republican and Democratic administrations have supported it for years, and with few exceptions, it is strongly supported by the Guatemalan people. That is because CICIG, working closely with the Office of the Attorney General, has proven what many Guatemalans thought impossible, that even the most powerful government officials who commit major crimes believing they are above the law can be brought to justice. CICIG was created in December 2006, when the United Nations and Guatemala signed a treaty-level agreement setting up CICIG as an independent body to support the Office of the Attorney General, the National Civilian Police, and other Guatemalan Government institutions in the investigation and prosecution of particularly sensitive and difficult cases. I vividly remember that time, when impunity for even the worst crimes was a virtual certainty in Guatemala. During more than 35 years of internal armed conflict an estimated 200,000 Guatemalans, mostly rural Mayan villagers, were murdered--the vast majority by the army. Many were rounded up and never seen or heard from again. Thanks largely to the efforts of the Guatemala Forensic Anthropology Foundation, the tortured remains of many hundreds have been found in unmarked mass graves, some on former military bases. Hardly anyone has been punished for those atrocities, and past attempts to investigate and prosecute some of the individuals responsible were stymied. Even in the years since that dark period, almost anyone, especially those in positions of authority, got away with anything, including assassinations and robbing the public treasury. Today, few crimes involving official corruption and violations of human rights are prosecuted, and even fewer result in conviction and punishment. But those that have been credibly investigated and brought to trial are due to the courageous efforts of CICIG and its commissioner, Ivan Velasquez, a respected Colombian jurist, and the recently retired attorney general, Thelma Aldana, who carried on the tradition of independence and integrity established by her predecessor, Claudia Paz y Paz. These prosecutors have given hope not only to victims who long ago lost faith in Guatemala's dysfunctional justice system, but also to many members of the business community who recognize that, without an independent judiciary and confidence that the rule of law will be enforced, Guatemala will never attract the foreign investment it needs to develop. Predictably and throughout its history, CICIG has come under attack from those who have enriched themselves at public expense and escaped justice, including for heinous crimes. Fearing prosecution, they have sought to challenge CICIG's legitimacy and impugned the character and conduct of its commissioner. Each time, CICIG has survived, thanks to the support of the international community. Today, CICIG is once again being attacked, including by some senior officials, who have sought to exploit factual misrepresentations, including those echoed in the Guatemalan and U.S. media, about a troubling case involving members of a Russian family who entered Guatemala with fraudulent passports. This has even resulted in a portion of the funds appropriated by Congress for CICIG to be temporarily blocked from disbursement. Without recounting the bizarre facts of that case, suffice it to say that not a shred of credible evidence has been presented to support the allegations of abuse of authority leveled at CICIG and in particular at Commissioner Velasquez. That, however, does not appear to matter to those who have long sought an excuse to replace Velasquez with someone who is susceptible to intimidation. The Bitkov case, which has all the makings of a made for TV tragedy, should be appropriately resolved in the Guatemalan courts. The family should be treated justly and humanely. But CICIG is not the problem. It is important to reiterate what the Guatemalan people know: CICIG is an absolutely essential institution that has enabled the office of the attorney general to break through the wall of impunity in ways that would never have been possible without CICIG's support. It is that simple. Without CICIG, there is no reason to believe that any case involving high-ranking officials or members of organized crime networks with the ability to intimidate and bribe prosecutors and judges and threaten or assassinate witnesses will be brought to justice. It is also a fact that CICIG is only as effective as its commissioner and that, while even those who want to rein in CICIG publicly claim to support it, they make little secret of their goal to get rid of Velasquez. Commissioner Velasquez is an experienced, courageous jurist with integrity. That is why he was hired for the job, and by all indications, he is guilty of nothing more than doing the job he was hired to do. The more he does so, the more those who fear prosecution will try to find ways to stop him. It is therefore very important at this time that the international community, including the United States, reaffirms its support for Velasquez and the fight against corruption and impunity in Guatemala. It is noteworthy that the former attorney general has consistently voiced her support for Velasquez because, if anyone should know if there is a grain of truth to the allegations against him, it would be her. She knows from experience the motivations of those who are aligned against CICIG because they have also tried to intimidate her. In order for CICIG and Commissioner Velasquez to effectively carry out CICIG's mandate through the reminder of its current term that ends in September 2019, he needs the support of the Guatemalan Government, the United Nations, the United States, and other governments that support justice in Guatemala. I commend the Department of State and U.S. Ambassador Arreaga for recognizing what is at stake and for seeking ways to ensure that CICIG and Commissioner Velasquez can carry out their responsibilities transparently and effectively. I also know that a majority of Democrats and Republicans respect Commissioner Velasquez and want CICIG to receive the funds it needs. I am confident that the funds will be released, that CICIG and the role of the Commissioner will be enhanced, and that the cause of justice for the Guatemalan people will be served.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak about a subject that other Senators should be aware of. Many Members of Congress have visited the Philippines, a country with which we share a long history of strategic, economic, cultural, and other interests. We also know that, for many years, the Philippine Government has been fighting an extremist insurgency in Mindanao. The United States has been supporting the Philippine Government in that effort. According to information I have received, on February 21, 2018, the Philippines State Prosecutor filed a legal petition to declare over 600 persons as ``terrorists,'' alleging that they are members of the Communist party of the Philippines, CPP, and the New Peoples Army, NPA, two groups designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations. The list was published after the collapse of the peace negotiations between CPP-NPA and the Philippine Government last year. By itself, that might not be objectionable. There are terrorists in the Philippines. The problem with this ``terrorist list'' is that the government is apparently using it to persecute people who have nothing to do with terrorism, but who have engaged in legitimate, peaceful dissent and protests in opposition to government policies that threaten their way of life. The list includes a number of indigenous rights defenders who, as far as I am aware, are not at all affiliated with the CPP-NPA. These individuals are known and respected nationally and internationally for their consistent, lawful efforts to protect human rights for the most vulnerable and marginalized populations in the Philippines. By criminalizing their work and including these activists on an official terrorist list, the administration of President Duterte is endangering the lives of these and other human rights defenders and community leaders. It is a misuse of the justice system to deny their rights to free expression, association, and assembly--rights we take for granted and that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The affected individuals are now subject to warrantless arrests, surveillance, and freezing of assets. Their lives and the lives of their families are in danger. Human Rights Watch has described the petition as ``a virtual government hit list,'' noting the ``long history in the Philippines of state security forces and pro-government militias assassinating those labeled as NPA members or supporters.'' In March 2018 alone, there were reportedly at least three cases of extrajudicial killings of indigenous leaders, all known for their work to organize communities for the protection of indigenous lands. Two of the more high-profile targeted activists, Joan Carling and Victoria Tauli Corpuz, were fortunate to have been out of the country when the list was published. Carling is an indigenous activist from the Cordillera region in the Philippines. She has been working on indigenous issues at the grassroots and international levels for more than 20 years. Ms. Carling has been elected twice as the Secretary General of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, AIPP, representing AIPP's 47 member-organizations in 14 countries. She was appointed by the U.N. Economic and Social Council as an indigenous expert-member of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues for 2014-16. Victoria Tauli Corpuz was appointed as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples by the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2014. She is an indigenous leader from the Kankana-ey Igorot people of the Cordillera region in the Philippines. As an indigenous activist, she has worked for over three decades to protect indigenous rights and as an advocate for women's rights. As a consequence of the Duterte administration's action, these women suddenly have no home to return to. They cannot risk going back to the Philippines. Still, they are fortunate compared to those targeted leaders who remain in the country. The terrorist list also includes members of indigenous communities in Mindanao who were displaced from their lands in President Duterte's antiterrorism sweep and now live precariously in evacuation camps. Much of this reportedly has to do with powerful business interests in collusion with corrupt officials in the government. In the recent past, the Philippine Government has fast-tracked priority infrastructure development projects. Some of these projects are reportedly planned to be built on ancestral indigenous lands, despite opposition from indigenous communities and the failure to secure indigenous peoples' free, prior, and informed consent as required by Philippine law and as contained in the 2007 U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous leaders have objected to these projects, insisting that the government respect their rights and obtain their consent for projects that affect them. The United States has long supported efforts of the Philippine Government and civil society to unlock the country's potential to achieve inclusive, sustainable economic growth. As ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, I have supported programs to help the Philippines combat poverty, strengthen democratic institutions, enhance maritime security, and protect the rights of its people. Criminalizing these indigenous rights defenders would reverse progress the country has made and threaten the functioning of civil society which is fundamental to any democracy. Joan Carling, Victoria Tauli Corpuz, and other indigenous leaders and activists who from all indications are guilty of nothing more than defending their territories and cultures do not belong on a ``terrorist'' list. Instead, the government should be defending their rights and protecting their safety and the safety of other indigenous leaders and human rights activists. Our own government, the Departments of State and Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as international financial institutions we support, should ensure that development activities are carried out in accordance with the rights of local communities, including the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior, and informed consent. We all oppose terrorism wherever it occurs, but our collective approach to preventing terrorism has too often made the problem worse, especially when the result is the curtailment of basic freedoms. Labeling as ``terrorists'' political opponents or civil society activists who do not advocate or engage in violence and who, to the contrary, have been threatened and attacked for defending their rights is one example of this, and it is an increasingly common tactic of governments; yet there are few if any ways more likely to cause people to resort to violence than by misusing government power to suppress legitimate dissent. Far from stopping terrorism, adopting such abusive tactics sets back our collective efforts against terrorism.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, who some here also know from his service as Jordan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations and as Jordan's Ambassador to the United States. The High Commissioner has held his post since September 1, 2014, and his term will end on August 31, 2018. He has carried out his responsibilities with exceptional courage, compassion, commitment, and even humor, qualities that are indispensable for any successful U.N. High Commissioner. In so doing, he has been the target of relentless attacks by government officials who abuse their authority by manipulating their countries' electoral processes and security forces to arrest, imprison, abuse, and even assassinate their critics, whether independent journalists, members of political opposition parties, or civil society activists. In a speech delivered Tuesday at an international conference marking the 25th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted on June 25, 2003, in response to the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia, the High Commissioner warned that human rights are under siege in many parts of the world, including Europe. He said, ``This anniversary could be the occasion for a polite celebration of the achievements of my Office over the past two and a half decades--and they are many. But today is not a time for soporific complacency. Human rights are sorely under pressure around the world-- no longer a priority: a pariah. The legitimacy of human rights principles is attacked. The practice of human rights norms is in retreat. Here in Europe, ethno-populist parties are in the ascendant in many countries--fueling hatred and scarring their societies with deepening divisions.'' No one should be surprised by this. We see the consequences every day, including in countries that are friends and allies of the United States. Legitimate dissent is labeled ``terrorism.'' Those who defend human rights are themselves maligned and targeted. Dictators are feted, and their crimes are ignored. Xenophobia and racism are treated as legitimate responses to domestic problems. As the High Commissioner noted, it is incumbent on each of us to defend human rights and to counter those who promote hatred and intolerance. What is the alternative? Despotism. Fascism. Isolationism. Forces and ideologies we have resisted and fought against for generations. We owe it to past and future generations, as the High Commissioner said, ``to stand by our achievements and the advances which have been made.'' This is not only a moral imperative for upholding the values our country stands for and preserving our international reputation, but a pragmatic necessity for protecting our interests at home and abroad. I want to thank the High Commissioner for his extraordinary efforts during the past 4 extremely challenging years. He has been a tireless, principled defender of universal human rights, and in doing so, he has set a high bar for those who follow in his footsteps. I ask unanimous consent that the High Commissioner's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, right now, in a small town in West Virginia 90 miles outside of our Nation's capital, dedicated employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) are diligently searching through millions of firearms sales records at the National Tracing Center. They are busily responding to urgent requests from detectives and agents to trace firearms found at crime scenes throughout the country. By the end of the day, they will likely have completed more than 1,000 requests, providing law enforcement with information that can lead to arrests, prosecutions, and ultimately justice for victims of violent crime. The tracing center plays a critical and unique role in keeping our communities safe. It is the only crime gun tracing facility in the country. Its sole purpose is to help track down and hold criminals accountable. One would expect Congress to fully and unequivocally support this mission. Yet, inexplicably, Congress has done the opposite. Relenting to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress placed archaic hurdles on crime gun traces, prohibiting the ATF from digitizing or electronically searching through firearms records. These restrictions were born out of an unfounded fear that can only be described as a conspiracy theory: that allowing records to be electronically searched would lead to firearms--presumably to include my own--being seized by the government en masse, in clear violation of both the Second and Fourth Amendments. This unworldly fear is having a very real-world impact. In an era when an electronic trace could be completed in an instant, the ATF is instead forced to locate individual records by visiting Federal firearms licensees or searching by hand through the records housed at the National Tracing Center; these National Tracing Center records currently number 800 million, and are growing by an additional 2 million each month. Some of these records have been damaged by flooding and mold. Countless more have been relegated to rented shipping containers in the parking lot, as the floor of the tracing center is structurally unable to support the weight of so many thousands of boxes. Other records are stored as images on microfilm, forcing ATF employees to reel through up to 10,000 records on a single roll to find the one desired firearm. Tracing requests are processed every single day, 24 hours a day, so that when a homicide detective finds a firearm believed to have been used in a murder, the detective can determine the chain of custody for that firearm, which may lead to a suspect. I asked the ATF about the impact of these restrictions on crime gun traces at a recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee Acting Director Thomas Brandon stated that in these criminal investigations, ``time matters, [and] getting accurate information can develop the critical lead.'' He testified that if the ATF were able to electroncially search through records it would be ``beneficial for public safety.'' I agree. That is why today I am introducing the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act, which will bring our nation's tracing capabilities into the 21st century. This legislation would empower the ATF to digitize and electronically search through its firearms records, so that it can quickly and accurately connect crime guns with purchasers. Yet this legislation is also narrowly tailored; it only permits the ATF to search through firearms sale and disposition records that it already has access to, and only for the purposes of criminal and national security investigations, and it strictly prohibits searches using an individual's name or other personally identifiable information. This legislation represents only a modest step, but an important step. There are few signs more revealing of Congress's inability to responsibly legislate gun policy than its insistence that law enforcement not be allowed to effectively search through records already in its possession. The gun lobby cannot be permitted to tie the hands of agents and detectives investigating violent gun crime. We cannot let a baseless conspiracy theory drive our public safety policies. It is time for Congress to fix our mistakes. It is time to bring one of our Nation's premier law enforcement agencies, which in turn serves every Federal, State, and local agency in the country, out of the Stone Age. It is no surprise that this legisation is supported by important voices within the law enforcement community, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, and Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. I am also proud that March For Our Lives, led by the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, strongly supports this legislation. We in Congress owe it to those who have been victimized by gun violence to do something. There are many commonsense steps we can and should take right now. That includes removing indefensible restrictions on law enforcement that waste public safety resources and delay critical investigations of violent gun crime. I urge my fellow senators to join me and Senator Nelson in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, right now, in a small town in West Virginia 90 miles outside of our Nation's capital, dedicated employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) are diligently searching through millions of firearms sales records at the National Tracing Center. They are busily responding to urgent requests from detectives and agents to trace firearms found at crime scenes throughout the country. By the end of the day, they will likely have completed more than 1,000 requests, providing law enforcement with information that can lead to arrests, prosecutions, and ultimately justice for victims of violent crime. The tracing center plays a critical and unique role in keeping our communities safe. It is the only crime gun tracing facility in the country. Its sole purpose is to help track down and hold criminals accountable. One would expect Congress to fully and unequivocally support this mission. Yet, inexplicably, Congress has done the opposite. Relenting to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress placed archaic hurdles on crime gun traces, prohibiting the ATF from digitizing or electronically searching through firearms records. These restrictions were born out of an unfounded fear that can only be described as a conspiracy theory: that allowing records to be electronically searched would lead to firearms--presumably to include my own--being seized by the government en masse, in clear violation of both the Second and Fourth Amendments. This unworldly fear is having a very real-world impact. In an era when an electronic trace could be completed in an instant, the ATF is instead forced to locate individual records by visiting Federal firearms licensees or searching by hand through the records housed at the National Tracing Center; these National Tracing Center records currently number 800 million, and are growing by an additional 2 million each month. Some of these records have been damaged by flooding and mold. Countless more have been relegated to rented shipping containers in the parking lot, as the floor of the tracing center is structurally unable to support the weight of so many thousands of boxes. Other records are stored as images on microfilm, forcing ATF employees to reel through up to 10,000 records on a single roll to find the one desired firearm. Tracing requests are processed every single day, 24 hours a day, so that when a homicide detective finds a firearm believed to have been used in a murder, the detective can determine the chain of custody for that firearm, which may lead to a suspect. I asked the ATF about the impact of these restrictions on crime gun traces at a recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee Acting Director Thomas Brandon stated that in these criminal investigations, ``time matters, [and] getting accurate information can develop the critical lead.'' He testified that if the ATF were able to electroncially search through records it would be ``beneficial for public safety.'' I agree. That is why today I am introducing the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act, which will bring our nation's tracing capabilities into the 21st century. This legislation would empower the ATF to digitize and electronically search through its firearms records, so that it can quickly and accurately connect crime guns with purchasers. Yet this legislation is also narrowly tailored; it only permits the ATF to search through firearms sale and disposition records that it already has access to, and only for the purposes of criminal and national security investigations, and it strictly prohibits searches using an individual's name or other personally identifiable information. This legislation represents only a modest step, but an important step. There are few signs more revealing of Congress's inability to responsibly legislate gun policy than its insistence that law enforcement not be allowed to effectively search through records already in its possession. The gun lobby cannot be permitted to tie the hands of agents and detectives investigating violent gun crime. We cannot let a baseless conspiracy theory drive our public safety policies. It is time for Congress to fix our mistakes. It is time to bring one of our Nation's premier law enforcement agencies, which in turn serves every Federal, State, and local agency in the country, out of the Stone Age. It is no surprise that this legisation is supported by important voices within the law enforcement community, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, and Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. I am also proud that March For Our Lives, led by the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, strongly supports this legislation. We in Congress owe it to those who have been victimized by gun violence to do something. There are many commonsense steps we can and should take right now. That includes removing indefensible restrictions on law enforcement that waste public safety resources and delay critical investigations of violent gun crime. I urge my fellow senators to join me and Senator Nelson in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to associate myself with Chairman Shelby's remarks. Since the inception of the Choice Program in 2014, it has been riddled with delays, programmatic problems, and fiscal instability. In many areas of the country, the networks that were established left providers unhappy about the speed of reimbursement and veterans often trying to navigate a cumbersome system. Congress has had to provide $4.2 billion within the last year alone, just to keep the program afloat. That is why I am pleased that Senators Isakson and Tester worked in a bipartisan way to try and fix Choice by establishing a streamlined and consolidated program that will make non-VA care more efficient. However, to truly address these problems and provide the care that our veterans deserve, we need to not only fix the policy, but we must also provide the funding to enact that policy. This bill does not do that. The MISSION Act appropriates $5.2 billion in mandatory spending, $1.3 billion of which will merely fill the fiscal year 18 shortfall in the current Choice program. The remaining balance of $3.9 billion will provide enough funding for Choice through May 2019, but leaves the program short between $1 and $1.5 billion for the rest of the fiscal year when the new program shifts to the discretionary side. According to CBO the cost only goes up in the out-years, with the major components of the new Community Care program costing another $8.67 billion in fiscal year 20 and more than $9.5 billion in fiscal year 21. This is unsustainable under the BCA non-defense discretionary caps, which are set in law and were negotiated prior to the passage of this bill and without accounting for these costs. We do our veterans no favors by promising care without backing it up with resources. I will not stand in the way of the new policy created in this bill, as I do believe it creates a better Community Care program, but Chairman Shelby and I have a proposal that will help us fulfill our promise to our veterans by allowing for an adjustment to the caps to help us pay for this program. We intend to address this issue when the Senate MilCon/VA appropriations bill comes to the floor by offering an amendment that keeps the promises we are making today, and I would like to ask both Senator Isakson and Senator Tester for their full support with this effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has often been called the world's greatest deliberative body, where we can thoroughly and respectfully debate weighty matters, regardless of pressures imposed by any given moment. While we do not always live up to this ideal, it is one for which we should always strive. The Constitution entrusts us with the task of serving as a check against the executive branch, providing our advice and--if appropriate--our consent to the Executive's nominees to lead our government's most critical agencies. During my time here, at its best, the Senate can be and actually should be the conscience of the Nation. So as we move to vote on the nomination of Gina Haspel, with very little debate and gaping holes in her record, I fear the Senate is failing to fulfill its basic duty to provide advice and informed consent to her nomination. Remember, we are supposed to advise and consent, and worse yet, we are failing in our duty to serve as the Nation's conscience. Now much of what is publicly known about Ms. Haspel's role in the CIA is disturbing. To begin with--and I have listened to Senators on both sides--I do not question Ms. Haspel's commitment to our country or to our national security that, I think, she has established. But what I question is her judgment and her fidelity to a core value of our Nation: that all people have certain inalienable rights. Underlying these inalienable rights is our belief in the basic dignity of human beings, a dignity that is incompatible with inhumane practices like torture. Torture should never be part of America's way of leading the world. During the height of the CIA's torture program, Ms. Haspel ran one of the Agency's most notorious ``black sites'' in Thailand. There, under her leadership, brutal torture techniques were employed. From available accounts, according to that which has been made public, this included waterboarding detainees, slamming them against walls, and confining them in coffin-shaped boxes for extended periods of time. At the time, there was a benign euphemism for this treatment. It was called ``enhanced interrogation techniques.'' But we know better. This wasn't ``enhanced interrogation techniques.'' This was government- sanctioned torture, pure and simple. Torture is immoral. Torture is inhumane. Frankly, torture is un-American. I agree with our colleague Senator John McCain--he is one who speaks with a distinct moral clarity on this issue--that Ms. Haspel's refusal to condemn torture as immoral is disqualifying. For that reason alone, I cannot, in good conscience, support her nomination. But it is worse than that. Ms. Haspel also reportedly advocated for destroying the videotapes of these torture sessions--now, that was against the advice of the CIA's own lawyers. More than that, it was in contravention of a Federal judicial order requiring that they be preserved. The CIA's former general counsel said Ms. Haspel was one of the ``staunchest advocates . . . for destroying the tapes.'' Notwithstanding the advice of the CIA's lawyer, notwithstanding the federal judicial order, she claimed that destroying the tapes was necessary to protect the security of CIA officers conducting these interrogations. But that explanation withers under even the slightest scrutiny. If that were really the concern, then the CIA could easily have copied the tapes with the officers' faces blacked out and only then destroyed the originals. All of us are used to seeing news items with the faces of certain witnesses and others blacked out. Nor do we have access to the only independent account of Ms. Haspel's role in the destruction of the tapes--the Justice Department's Durham Report. I joined nine Senators on the Judiciary Committee in a request for access to the Durham Report, but our request has not been accommodated. As a result, we will not know the full story of the tapes' destruction before we are asked to vote on Ms. Haspel's nomination today. This is just what we know through public reports. There is much more the American people don't know about Ms. Haspel's actions because it remains classified. The American people have been kept in the dark in part because Ms. Haspel herself has been responsible for what information about her record is declassified. It is a brazen conflict of interest that Ms. Haspel can decide what to release and what to conceal about her past. The CIA has declassified glowing facts about Ms. Haspel's work with Mother Teresa, but refuses to disclose basic information that would shed light on her past actions and what values would guide her as CIA director. This process has been reduced to a farce. I have reviewed classified materials on Ms. Haspel's long career at the CIA, and I find these materials to be deeply disturbing. I am not able to discuss any of the details revealed in these materials, again, because Ms. Haspel has decided to keep them cloaked by classification. Candidly, I do not believe a Senator can provide his or her informed consent to this nominee without first reviewing these materials. Now, I recognize, and I must say I appreciate, that Ms. Haspel has committed to not allowing the CIA to resurrect the use of torture if she is confirmed. I also recognize that that commitment, while commendable, is not optional. Torture is illegal; that is simply what the law demands. But what about the next immoral action that this President might ask her to commit? Should we trust that she will have the moral compass to stand up and say ``no''? Based on what we have seen, I do not. The world is watching closely today. Our allies and our enemies--and our own future generations--will view this vote as nothing less than a referendum on torture. If the Senate--this body that I cherish--gives its blessing to a nominee who is synonymous with the CIA's interrogation program, then the demons of our past--from Abu Ghraib to the CIA's black sites--may haunt us anew. I do not believe that this blight on our history represents who we are or what we stand for. I really do not believe that this is the soul of America. But it is a terrible mistake. I believe we must clearly demonstrate that we are capable of learning from and moving beyond our darker chapters as a nation. If we make a mistake, we should admit it and take steps not to have it happen again. For that reason, I will vote no on Ms. Haspel's nomination. Mr. President, I do not see another Senator seeking recognition. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr President, millions of Americans were outraged last year when the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, voted to repeal the strong and enforceable net neutrality rules that were adopted in 2015. As a supporter of a free and open internet, I share the public's outrage over the loss of these critical protections, which is why I am voting in favor of this resolution to restore the previous rules. By repealing net neutrality rules, the FCC and its supporters in Congress have achieved little more than to plunge consumers and small businesses into a fog of uncertainty. Instead of having concrete legal protections in place against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, internet users now have little more than vague promises from broadband providers about how they will treat content online. These promises could disappear with little notice or no recourse for those affected. This is the wrong way to approach policy for the greatest engine of economic growth and free speech ever devised. The uncertainty created by Republicans at the FCC and blessed by too many here in Congress jeopardizes the success of small businesses and startups across the country. One of the main concerns I hear from small businesses in Vermont is fear of paid prioritization. Without clear rules in place, broadband providers can set up pay-to-play schemes that disadvantage small businesses against deep-pocketed competitors. In a pay-to-play online world, small businesses will be forced to decide whether or not to pay tolls in order to avoid being stuck in the slow lane. These tolls do nothing to promote innovation, but they would impose a tremendous cost on entrepreneurs. These costs would come at the expense of investing in new equipment, new products, or new jobs. For those who choose not to pay, the cost would be access to customers, who today already make decisions based on how fast a page or application loads. A few seconds of lag time can mean the difference between a sale made or a sale lost to a competitor. Net neutrality rules matter because they provide small businesses with the certainty that paid prioritization will not happen. The promises and statements made by leading broadband providers following the repeal of the rules too often make no mention at all of their stance on paid prioritization. Others have quietly deleted promises not to engage in this behavior from their website. In February, the CEO of Sprint was quoted comparing the internet to roads, saying that, on many roads, ``you have a faster road and you pay more. There's nothing wrong with that.'' Concerns about paid prioritization cannot be dismissed when CEOs of leading companies are speaking openly about the benefits of toll roads on the internet. This should not be a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike should want to provide the small business community with the certainty that the internet will remain an equal playing field. The simple reality is that, without net neutrality rules, this certainty will not exist. The resolution we are considering today gives us the clearest path to restoring that certainty. I urge all Senators to stand with the American people, small businesses, and startups in supporting this resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, notwithstanding what we sometimes hear about a deadlocked Washington, there are times when both parties work together. Three months ago, Republicans and Democrats came together, and we reached a bipartisan budget agreement. Republicans and Democrats together reached an agreement to lift the budget caps and provide relief from sequestration but, most importantly, to make responsible and new investments in the American people over the next 2 years. Then, President Trump, as he stated earlier that he would do if we reached that agreement, signed it into law. But now, even though he signed it into law and even though the agreement had been worked out with Republicans, Democrats, and the White House together, the President has proposed--and, unfortunately, House Republicans have drawn up a proposal--to claw back vital funding for children's healthcare, to claw back funding for rural communities, to take back funding for our infrastructure programs, and to take back funding for law enforcement. These programs from which the White House and, apparently, their allies in the House want to raid the money aren't Democratic priorities. They are bipartisan, American priorities. Ivanka Trump has said that American families need relief. The policies that allow women with children to thrive shouldn't be just for a press conference or a photo opportunity. They should be the norm. President Trump's proposal would claw back $7 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. If you can't keep a child healthy, what are they going to be like as an adult? CHIP currently provides health insurance for 8.7 million vulnerable children from low- income families. Millions of families from red States and blue States, urban and rural, depend on CHIP to keep their children healthy and happy and to make them the healthy and happy future generation. I don't know how pulling $7 billion out of this program aligns with the policies to allow children to thrive and to say that should be the norm. You can't say at a press opportunity: This will be the norm--to allow children to thrive--but oh, by the way, we are going to take back the money to make that work. And if the money can no longer be dedicated to the CHIP program, well, then reinvest it in other important programs as we have done in the past--programs that support our Nation's children and families, including Head Start, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, opioid prevention, and cutting-edge research at NIH. The President's proposal also takes away $159 million from our law enforcement. I began my career in law enforcement. I can't understand taking $159 million from law enforcement. The President claims that he is going to ``support our police like our police have never been supported before.'' This week is National Police Week. Today, May 15, is designated as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. This is when we pause to thank and recognize our Nation's law enforcement officers for their important work and those officers who sacrificed their lives. How does cutting $159 million in resources support our law enforcement? Then the President's proposal will claw back $462 million from infrastructure programs. The President has tweeted often that our infrastructure will, again, be the best in the world--the greatest in the world, he tweets. A tweet doesn't cost anything, but if you are going to match your actions and your words, it may cost something. It doesn't help if you are going to take almost half a billion dollars out of our infrastructure at the same time that you are saying and tweeting that we are going to make it the best in the world. He said he is going to cut $252 million that is meant to combat infectious diseases that threaten the United States and threaten millions of Americans who travel, work, serve, and study abroad. Just last week, there were confirmed cases of the Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is not a fight we should be retreating from. We shouldn't say we will stop money to fight infectious diseases but then we send our soldiers abroad. We send our Peace Corps abroad. We send our diplomats abroad, and Americans travel abroad. We have students who go abroad. Don't retreat from that fight. The United States will not be ready to face the flu pandemic until it improves its vaccines, its healthcare infrastructure, and its coordination with other countries--all of which we are told are top priorities for the White House, according to a National Security Council official who said on Monday: Influenza is a priority to the White House, and represents both a health security and a national security threat. Today, however, we cannot respond with the speed that we need to. This is probably because of the large number of deaths of Americans inside the United States during the last flu season. But what do they do? They cut back a quarter of a billion dollars meant to combat infectious diseases. The photo op where they say that we are against these kinds of infections in the United States looks good. Nobody is going to disagree with being against it. I hope my colleagues will disagree with cutting out the money we need to carry out the President's promise. Then, there is the proposal to claw back $1 billion meant to invest in our rural communities. Almost 2 months ago, in about March--it seems so long ago--Secretary Perdue testified before the Senate that ``prosperity in rural America is particularly vital, not just for the rural communities we love, that many of us call home, but also for our entire Nation.'' I agree with Secretary Perdue. Many of us do call rural communities home. My own town has 1,800 people in it. I love it, so I agree with him, but whether it is a rural community in my State or any of the 50 States, we don't invest in their prosperity, as the administration has promised, if we strip $1 billion in resources from them. In fact, the President's promises this will not be his last proposal. He is going to send another package in the coming weeks that would attack the foundation of the bipartisan agreement--an agreement Republicans and Democrats reached in Congress and was signed into law by the President. He is going to go back on that, adding even more rescissions. I am sure he is looking at the deficit. The President's tax giveaway to billionaires and corporations increased our Nation's deficit by $1.9 trillion. According to the CBO, the rescission bill the House will debate next week will save only $1 billion--a tiny, tiny fraction of what has been given away to billionaires and corporations. The President's actions should match his words. He says ``America First,'' but then just in the last few days, he has gone out of his way to fight to save jobs, but they are Chinese jobs. I would rather he fight to save jobs in our State. I wish that rather than spending his time fighting to save Chinese jobs, the President would work to save American jobs. We have people who could use jobs in our country. Let China worry about China's jobs. Don't have the President spending his time, first, cutting the money to create jobs in America and then spending time fighting to save Chinese jobs in China. You can't strip investments from the American people and say you are in favor of saving jobs in China and say that somehow this is making America strong. In the Senate, though, there is good news. We are focused on moving forward, on a bipartisan basis, on the fiscal year 2019 process. Just yesterday, Chairman Shelby and I announced a schedule. We will mark up all 12 of the appropriations bills by the end of June. Our staffs, Republican and Democratic alike, are going to be working nights and weekends to get us in this position. We, as Senators, are committed to spending whatever amount of time it takes--whether we have to go into the evening, whether we have to go throughout the week--to get all 12 of them marked up by the end of June. I hope the House Republican leader will abandon this ill-considered rescission bill. This is not the start to the fiscal year 2019 process I would have hoped for. Chairman Shelby and I have different patterns and different philosophies, but we want the Senate to work. We are working very hard together. I have great respect for him in putting together our 12 appropriations bills. We can do it. We will be a better body if we do it. Let's stop the tweeting and the sloganeering, and let's deal with substance.

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, I want to bring to the attention of all Senators the winners of the 2018 Goldman Environmental Prize, the world's largest and most prestigious award for grassroots environmental activism. Richard N. Goldman, 1920-2010, and his wife Rhoda H. Goldman, 1924- 1996, established the prize in 1989. They had devoted much of their lives to environmental protection, and they conceived of the prize in order to recognize ordinary individuals working at the grassroots level who protect and enhance the Earth's environment. As the Goldman Prize website states, ``It views `grassroots' leaders as those involved in local efforts, where positive change is created through community or citizen participation in the issues that affect them. Through recognizing these individual leaders, the Prize seeks to inspire other ordinary people to take extraordinary actions to protect the natural world.'' The award ceremony, held annually in both San Francisco and Washington, DC, is one of the year's most inspiring events. Since Richard and Rhoda Goldman passed away, their three children have continued the prize. In doing so, they have honored courageous individuals from Africa, Asia, Europe, islands and island nations, North America, and South and Central America who have struggled for years, often against overwhelming odds, to protect endangered ecosystems and species, combat destructive development projects, promote sustainable environmental and energy policies, and obtain environmental justice. Recipients of the prize are often from isolated rural communities or impoverished urban neighborhoods who have in common a lack of prior experience in activism, politics, or the law, but what they also share is that, when the forests, farmland, water, and air that their children, families, and communities depend on for their health and survival were faced with potentially existential threats, they took great personal risks to challenge those responsible, whether private industry, criminal networks, governments, or a combination of all three. Their struggles, beginning with one or a handful of concerned individuals, grew to encompass whole communities and in some instances ignited national movements. What first seemed like tilting at windmills was eventually, through dogged and brave perseverance, shown to be possible, often after exposing lies, unbridled greed, and corruption on the part of large corporations and their accomplices at the highest levels of government. By doing so, they have reminded us of the grave perils our planet faces today, that a single individual--regardless of his or her station in life--when moved to act can transform cynicism and despair into activism and change and that each of us has a responsibility to follow their example. This year's prize winners, who deserve our admiration and thanks, are as follows: Europe, Claire Nouvian of France; South and Central America, Francia Marquez of Colombia; islands and island nations, Manny Calonzo of the Philippines; Africa, Makoma Lekalakala and Liz McDaid of South Africa; Asia, Khanh Nguy Thi of Vietnam; and North America, LeeAnne Walters of Flint, MI. I urge all Senators to go to the Goldman Environmental Prize website and read the inspiring stories of these extraordinary, ordinary individuals. The people of their countries are rightfully proud of them and grateful for what they have done to protect the health of their communities and of future generations. Their governments should likewise afford them the respect and recognition they deserve. I commend the Goldman siblings for carrying on their parents' generous legacy and educating all of us about these role models for the world.