Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my colleague from Vermont, Senator Bernie Sanders, wrote what I feel was a terrific op-ed about why we should not and do not need to close down the government, why we can do our work and why we should, and that people rely on us, too. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, according to Landmine Monitor, which is the world's best source of data on the production, use, export, stockpiling, and clearance of landmines, cluster munitions, and other unexploded ordnance, 2016 was a terrible year for casualties caused by mines and other UXO. In 2016, the Monitor recorded 8,605 casualties, of which at least 2,089 people were fatalities. That is the highest number since 1999, and it includes the most casualties of children ever recorded. Civilians represented 78 percent of recorded casualties in 2016. There are still 61 countries that are known to be contaminated with landmines. On the positive side, approximately 232,000 landmines were destroyed in 2016, and 66 square miles of land were cleared of mines and other UXO. International donors and UXO affected countries increased support in 2016 for UXO clearance programs by $40 million above the previous year to $564.5 million. The United States was, like previous years, by far the largest donor. It is also encouraging that, since March 1, 1999, when the international treaty banning antipersonnel landmines came into force, 163 countries have joined. That is an extraordinary achievement for a treaty that owes its existence to the vision and perseverance of hundreds of advocacy, human rights, arms control, humanitarian organizations, and journalists, around the world, and the leadership of former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy; yet despite this progress and substantial declining in the past few years, the number of innocent people maimed and killed by mines has steadily increased. There are several explanations for this. Rebel groups like ISIS routinely use landmines and other improvised explosive devices. The wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen have been largely responsible. It may never be possible to completely eradicate the use of landmines by rebel groups, for the weapon is so cheap to manufacture while causing such harm. But the major powers that have not joined the treaty--the United States, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India--also share the blame. Antipersonnel landmines, which are designed to be triggered indiscriminately by the victim, whether an unsuspecting farmer or an enemy or friendly combatant, have no place in the arsenals of modern militaries. It is hypocrisy to claim on the one hand, as our military does, that it uses every precaution to avoid harming civilians and prides itself on its precision weapons, and on the other hand to insist on the right to use a weapon that is the antithesis of precise and overwhelmingly harms civilians. I have spoken more times than I can count about the scourge of antipersonnel landmines and the need for the United States to join the Mine Ban Treaty so we are no longer an excuse for other countries not to join. Our military has not used landmines for more than two decades. In fact, U.S. policy now strictly limits the use of antipersonnel mines to the Korean Peninsula, but we do not need them. What we need is the best protection for our troops to maneuver safely through minefields. We should have banned these indiscriminate weapons a long time ago, and we would have if landmines were blowing off the arms and legs of children in this Nation the way they are in others, but we have learned that the Pentagon is not in the habit of giving up weapons, even if they are weapons that deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history. That decision will only be made by a President who is willing to do what is morally right. Landmines have been aptly described as weapons of mass destruction in slow motion. President Trump reacted with anger and disgust, as he should have, when Syria's President Assad used chlorine gas against his own people. He should react the same way toward antipersonnel landmines and set an example for the rest of the world. I ask unanimous consent that a January 6, 2018, New York Times editorial on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back the time on this side.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly. While I voted to keep the government going, this is not the way to govern. We should not be doing stopgap measures. We will be back here soon. We will have a relatively short time--a couple of weeks--to finally do our work, the work we should have done for the last 6 months. We will have to address sequestration on both sides of the ledger--on defense and nondefense--and raise the caps for both. We have to speak on one of the greatest issues in our country today, and that is the Dreamers, and we have to address that and have votes up or down on the Senate floor. I intend to vote to protect Dreamers. We have to vote on the Children's Health Insurance Program. There are so many others. I want Senators on both sides of the aisle to know--and I have talked to both Republicans and Democrats--Senator Cochran and I and others have tried to keep the appropriations process going. We will continue to do that. We will do that when we come back. There will not be another continuing resolution without a bipartisan budget agreement. Mr. President, this is not how we should govern in the U.S. Senate. We have once again found ourselves on the edge of a manufactured, made- in-Washington crisis. Once again, we are forced into political games at the eleventh hour by the imminent threat of a Republican shutdown. This time that threat has fallen right before Christmas and the holidays. There is no reason we should find ourselves in this situation. There has always been a proven path forward to avoid this crisis, and that path is to reach a bipartisan budget deal that is based on parity. Sequestration has had devastating consequences on our country that will impact a generation, and we must raise the budget caps on both sides of the ledger--defense and nondefense. This is not an academic exercise. Our decisions are having real and devastating consequences. We are letting our infrastructure crumble. We are letting down our veterans. We are allowing our education programs to fall behind, and we are harming our military's readiness. Regrettably, our Republican Colleagues took the path of delay, no compromise, government by crisis. Here we are, 3 months into the fiscal year without a budget. The continuing resolution that is before us provides a 1-month extension to fund the government, but we are no closer to a bipartisan budget deal. I intend to vote for this continuing resolution because a government shutdown helps no one, but I implore my fellow Senators to use the next month wisely. We owe it to the American people. Those on the other side of the aisle need to come to the table to negotiate an agreement that will provide funding for healthcare to our veterans, build infrastructure for a growing economy, and make us more secure. But this is not the only thing we must accomplish in the coming month. Our list of unfinished business is long. We also need to pass the Dream Act. President Trump's decision to end the DACA program was as cruel as it was senseless. Dreamers are American in every way except on paper, having been brought here as children through no fault of their own. By definition, Dreamers are law-abiding strivers, serving our communities as doctors and teachers and defending our homeland as brave men and women in uniform. Instead of working with Congress to find a permanent legislative solution while keeping DACA protections in place, the President yielded to xenophobic nativists in his administration and terminated protections for our Nation's Dreamers. I am greatly disappointed that Republicans would not consider including the Dream Act on this continuing resolution. We simply cannot fail to pass the Dream Act, and we must do so, and we must do so soon. The future of Dreamers--and I believe the fate of the American Dream itself--lies in our hands. We also need a permanent reauthorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program. It has been 3 months since Congress let funds expire for the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, putting at risk the 9 million children nationwide who depend on the program for health insurance coverage. Vermont's CHIP program, known as Dr. Dynasaur, covers over 5,000 children whose families are now worried whether their kids will be covered next year. Instead of moving forward with a bipartisan reauthorization for 5 years, as has been proposed in the Senate, this continuing resolution extends the program only temporarily. What is worse, the majority is insisting on offsetting this extension by cutting funding for prevention and public health programs. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. If we can pass a tax cut that benefits the wealthiest Americans and which will add, at a minimum, $1.5 trillion to our deficit, we should be able to reauthorize CHIP--for longer than 3 months--without undermining public health. We should not have to make this choice, but here we are, being forced to choose between a misguided short-term patch or a wholesale government shutdown. Again, I call on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to use the next month to negotiate solutions to these real problems. That includes having a debate about American's privacy rights. Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act was intended to be a powerful foreign intelligence surveillance tool, and it is, but it also sweeps up massive amounts of Americans' communications, which can then be accessed without a warrant. That has long been a concern of mine, and I have stated that we should reauthorize 702, but we should not do so at the expense of our own civil liberties. A 1-month extension gives Congress an opportunity--and I believe, an obligation--to debate this program on the floor, just like we did in 2012. All Members deserve an opportunity to weigh in on this critical surveillance tool, and this short, clean reauthorization of Section 702 allows for just that. To be clear, the Republicans are in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House. It is clear that they bear the burden of bringing us to this crisis point, and they need to answer to the American people for the unfinished business before us. We should never have gotten to this point. We can still reach a bipartisan budget deal. I remain ready to work with Chairman Cochran, the Appropriations Committee, and Members from both sides of the aisle to secure the funding agreements we need to complete our appropriations, keep the lights on, and resolve the other pressing matters before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the unfolding political crisis, which is also a crisis for justice, in Peru. Peru transitioned to democracy in 2000, after two decades of internal armed conflict and authoritarian rule. The country has made important strides in rebuilding its democratic institutions, consolidating the rule of law, and combating impunity, but today, efforts by a majority in the Peruvian Congress to arbitrarily remove judges from the country's highest court, the Constitutional Tribunal, and to oust the attorney general for courageously doing his job, threaten to undermine those gains and reverse Peru's democratic progress. As a former prosecutor and the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am especially concerned about the attempt by the majority in Peru's Congress to impeach Attorney General Pablo Sanchez in the midst of his office's investigation into allegations that the Presidential campaign of Keiko Fujimori received illegal contributions in 2011. The effort to remove Attorney General Sanchez strongly suggests a deliberate strategy to obstruct justice and to undermine the autonomy of the attorney general's office. This would represent a grave setback for hard-fought gains to reestablish an independent judiciary and the rule of law in Peru. It would have serious ramifications for U.S.- Peruvian relations. Credible allegations of corruption must be thoroughly investigated, without prejudice to party or power, and with due process for the accused. I urge members of Peru's Congress to support those who are acting on behalf of the Peruvian people in the pursuit of truth and justice. Key to this is respect for the autonomy of the office of the attorney general and of the Constitutional Tribunal, institutions that are guarantors of human rights and the rule of law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 2018 marks the 100-year anniversary of the influenza pandemic that killed an estimated 50 million people, including 670,000 Americans. I suspect most people assume that, given the remarkable advances in modern medicine since 1918, nothing so disastrous could happen again, but in fact, it could, and next time, it could be even worse. The spread of infectious diseases and drug resistance, and the accompanying threats to global security, are on the rise, and the international community is woefully underprepared to fight back. The several large-scale infectious disease outbreaks of the last two decades, including SARS, H1N1, and Ebola, have revealed the extent to which individual countries and the international community at large need to dramatically improve their preparedness to respond to such potentially catastrophic health crises. The stark reality is that the threat is increasing. An ever-growing, increasingly mobile global population will provide the breeding ground for the emergence and contagion of existing and new infectious diseases. The potential threats from infectious disease outbreaks include not only catastrophic loss of life, but severe economic harm and social and political instability. The 2014-15 Ebola outbreak, for example, which began with the death of a 2-year-old boy in a remote Guinean village, ultimately killed more than 11,000 people across six countries, left thousands of children orphaned, caused an estimated economic loss to those countries of nearly $3 billion, and resulted in many people losing confidence in their country's public health system. It is important to note that Ebola, which is spread through direct contact and terrified millions of people including in this country, is hardly the most infectious known disease. Several other disease agents, such as measles and influenza, can be spread through the air and can develop into epidemics or pandemics much more rapidly. That is one of the reasons why many global health experts fear that an infectious disease outbreak far worse than Ebola will occur sometime in the next 20 years and that the number of outbreaks will become more frequent. Despite improvements in access to safe water and sanitation, vaccine development, and other public health advances to combat infectious diseases, an enormous amount of work remains. One of the most important lessons learned from the Ebola outbreak is that time is of the essence. The lack of a rapid, coordinated global response resulted in many preventable deaths. Disease surveillance systems were poor or nonexistent in the severely impacted countries, there was a lack of trained personnel to rapidly deploy, and no effective public communication system was in place to inform and update local communities. An additional problem was the inability to quickly mobilize resources. Countries and NGOs around the globe lacked a reserve of available funds. The Congress took a step toward addressing this issue in the fiscal year 2017 State and foreign operations appropriations bill, which included a $70 million emergency reserve fund to address infectious disease outbreaks around the globe. In the fiscal year 2018 Senate version of the State and foreign operations bill, Chairman Graham and I included $130 million for programs to prevent and respond to such emerging health threats. However, as I have said before and I will say again, far more needs to be done to build the public health infrastructure to prevent and respond to disease pandemics. As the international community works to be more prepared for infectious disease outbreaks, the U.S. should continue to play a leading role in preparedness planning. Unfortunately, President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget would cut funding for these very programs, including for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which played an indispensable role in responding to the Ebola and Zika outbreaks, as it has to many other international health crises. It is time we invest and prepare for pandemics in a similar way as we invest and prepare for war, nuclear disasters, or other large-scale threats to global security. The potential consequences are no less serious. I urge the White House to face up to this reality and dramatically increase funding for these programs at CDC, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other Federal agencies that play a role in global health security.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are all too familiar with President Trump's ``fake news'' mantra, which he has repeatedly used to discredit unfavorable news reports and undermine the credibility of the media in our country. This mantra and the accompanying threats to freedoms of speech and of the press have now spread far beyond our borders. Autocrats and dictators around the world are enthusiastically using the concept of fake news and the legitimacy granted to it by the President of the United States to further undermine and restrict press freedom and fact- based reporting on corruption, human rights, and other abuses in their own countries. For example, in response to an Amnesty International report on thousands of military prison deaths in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad remarked, ``You can forge anything these days, we are living in a fake news era.'' Similarly, in response to news reports on persecution of the Rohingya ethnic minority group in Myanmar, an officer in Myanmar's Rakhine state security ministry stated, ``There is no such thing as Rohingya. It is fake news.'' The list goes on and includes comments from autocratic leaders in the Philippines, Venezuela, Russia, China, and Turkey, among others, who have used the fake news mantra to legitimize harassment, arrests, and prosecutions of journalists. Last week, the Committee to Protect Journalists, CPJ, released its annual census of imprisoned journalists worldwide, which has hit an historical high of 262. The total does not include the many more journalists who were imprisoned for a period of time during the year before being released prior to the December 1 census. A CPJ statement published with the report noted that: ``Far from isolating repressive countries for their authoritarian behavior, the United States, in particular, has cozied up to strongmen such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Chinese President Xi Jinping. At the same time, President Donald Trump's nationalistic rhetoric, fixation on Islamic extremism, and insistence on labeling critical media `fake news' serves to reinforce the framework of accusations and legal charges that allow such leaders to preside over the jailing of journalists.'' The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has inspired people around the world for over 200 years. It was reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and versions of it have been included in the constitutions of many countries; yet while the United States has long been a global leader for freedom of expression, the White House is now actively working to undermine press freedom. President Trump's reckless rhetoric has not only harmed our credibility and our reputation, it has emboldened foreign dictators who fear nothing more than for their misdeeds to be exposed by the media. The consequence is journalists threatened and imprisoned, journalists assassinated with impunity, publishers who are intimidated, and the ultimate casualty is the truth.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize the achievements and contributions of a renowned political scholar, remarkable educator, and a personal friend. This year, Garrison Nelson will conclude five decades of teaching at the University of Vermont, where he is recognized as a legend in the department of political science. Garrison, the inaugural Elliott A. Brown Green and Gold Professor of Law, Politics, and Political Behavior, is known by some Members of this body, as well as legislators throughout the country who rely on him to offer political insight. Widely considered a leading expert on congressional history, Garrison has authored more than 150 articles and professional papers on national politics with a major focus on the U.S. Congress and elections in Vermont. His works have educated students worldwide and can be found in close to 500 libraries in the United States and 13 countries around the world. An Irish native of Boston, Garrison has resided in the Green Mountain State for most of his adult life, adding much richness to the State's political landscape. I have known Garrison since he served as an aide in my office shortly after my first election to the Senate. Garrison is as revered as he is brilliant. His skill and affinity for the esoteric is evident in both his teaching style and his storytelling, perhaps most notably his magnum opus, ``John William McCormack: A Political Biography.'' Works like this one have made significant contributions to our Nation's historical library, offering profiles and untold stories of the political icons of our time. In today's political environment, such citations of success and failure can offer us precious insight into improving our own oath to serve. As Garrison departs the Old Mill at the University of Vermont at the end of this year, he will leave a legacy that has reached more than 13,000 students. With them and many others, he has shared his appreciation of and reverence for the American political system and the need for participation to ensure the success of our democracy. I am grateful for his commitment to inspire the next generation of political leaders. In recognition of Garrison's timeless contributions, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Terri Hallenback. appearing in Vermont's own Seven Days, about Garrison's achievements be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Monday, the head of the Honduras Supreme Electoral Tribunal declared Juan Orlando Hernandez the next President of Honduras. Shortly thereafter, the Secretariat of the Organization of American States, one of the principal international observers, announced that it could not certify the election as free and fair and called for a new election. Yesterday, after his top advisers rebuked the OAS for infringing on Honduras's sovereignty, President Hernandez, stating that ``the Honduran people have spoken,'' declared himself President-elect. On December 5, I spoke at length about the Honduran election, and I have made several statements since then. I will not repeat what I and many others have already said about the troubling process orchestrated by President Hernandez and his associates over the past several years to lay the groundwork for his reelection for an unprecedented second Presidential term, nor about the many irregularities that have caused masses of people to take to the streets in protest since the vote on November 26. As of today, at least 12 protesters, and perhaps as many as 20, have been killed and many more injured, mostly from military police firing live ammunition. I was disappointed that, in his speech yesterday, President Hernandez made no mention of those tragic deaths. As we await the Trump administration's decision on whether to support the OAS's call for a new election or accept President Hernandez' claim to a second term, I want to make three points. First, if this flawed election had been held in a country not led by a President whose consolidation of power and reliance on the military and police have had the strong backing of the White House and the State Department, it is doubtful that it would be accepted as free and fair. Instead, the White House, which has been willing to excuse the Hernandez government's corruption scandals and crackdown on the press and civil society, would likely be calling for a recount or, if the integrity of the ballots could not be assured, a new election. Second, the OAS deserves the thanks of people throughout this hemisphere for the role it has played as an impartial observer and for standing up for a free and fair election in Honduras at a time when democratic processes, freedom of expression and association, and independent judiciaries are threatened not only in Honduras but in many parts of Latin America. Next year, Presidential and Parliamentary elections are scheduled in many countries in Central and South America, and the OAS, which has been a strong defender of democracy and human rights in Venezuela, has a vital role to play in seeking to ensure that those elections meet international standards of fairness and transparency. It is therefore particularly important and reassuring that the OAS Secretariat has insisted on such standards in Honduras by calling for a new election, and it is just as important that the United States stands with the OAS at this time. Third, it is ultimately for the people of Honduras to decide what kind of a government they want and whether to accept the result declared by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, which has little credibility outside of President Hernandez's National Party. It is clear that the country is sharply divided politically, socially, and economically. Absent an electoral process that is widely accepted as free and fair, that divisiveness will imperil the progress that is urgently needed in combating poverty, violence, organized crime, corruption, and impunity that pose immense challenges for the future. But the international community and particularly the people of this hemisphere also have a stake in this election and in Honduras's future. In the past decade alone, the United States has provided many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Honduras, much of which I supported, but that aid has not achieved the results that the Honduran people and we wanted, and the reason for that, I believe, is primarily because successive Honduran Governments were not serious about addressing many of the key problems I have mentioned, yet the aid kept flowing. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the current government is sufficiently serious about this, either. Honduras today desperately needs a freely and fairly elected leader who can unite the country. Unfortunately, this election lacked the conditions of fairness and transparency necessary to produce that result. If a new election is held under such conditions, it is entirely possible that President Hernandez may win--or he may not. But for him, or any candidate, to obtain the mandate required to unite the country and make a credible case that his government is a deserving partner of the United States, it will need to be by rejecting the serious flaws of this election and demonstrating to all the people of Honduras and this hemisphere what real democracy looks like. I ask unanimous consent that today's Bloomberg View editorial calling for a new democratic election in Honduras be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, little more than a month ago, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was unveiled in the Senate. Just a few short weeks later, we are on the verge of passing a colossal bill, publicly available for just 4 days, that makes sweeping changes to every aspect of our economy. We are moving so fast that the American people would be forgiven for thinking we were addressing a national emergency; yet fires are still blazing in California, power in Puerto Rico is still not fully restored, and victims around the gulf of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria are still struggling to pick up the pieces and rebuild. There are indeed national emergencies we should be addressing, but instead of doing so, Republicans in Congress are focused first on passing tax cuts for corporations and billionaires--tax cuts that will add an estimated $1.5 trillion to the deficit. The process that led to the bill we are voting on today has been fundamentally flawed from the outset. From the beginning, this bill has been written behind closed doors by Senate Republicans. No hearings were ever held on this bill, denying the American people an opportunity to add their voices to the debate. When the Senate voted on its version of this bill in the dead of night, Senators only received the text a few hours before the vote, and even then, the text was hastily put together, with scribbles written into the margins. We discovered that lobbyists knew more about what was in it than those of us who had the responsibility to vote on it. No wonder that it was loaded with last- minute special interest giveaways. There is serious doubt this bill will benefit the middle class, as Republicans claim. What we do know is that it will result in millions of fewer insured Americans and higher healthcare premiums for millions more. At the same time, corporations will receive a windfall in permanent tax cuts that will bust our budget for decades to come. Even more appallingly, it includes special provisions that will directly benefit the President and some Members of Congress. It doesn't end there. Republicans have yet to address the $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and other programs vital to the American people, which will be spurred by the passage of this bill. This bill cynically and surreptitiously sets the stage for those slashing cuts. This is a bill that cheats our future for the sake of a tax-cut windfall for the 1 percent. It does absolutely wonderful things for the wealthiest taxpayers, like the President, his cronies, and his family. If he wants to dispute that, he should finally release his tax returns and prove to the American people that the ``Christmas present'' the President talks about will not, in fact, benefit his bottom line. What we do know is this bill does not advance the common good. It offers little but crumbs on the table and coal in the stockings of hard-working Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations reap the rewards of this bill, with the false promise of trickle-down benefits to everyone else. The wealthiest are doing just fine, and big corporations already are pulling in record profits, which they are not investing but salting away. More than 400 millionaires have urgently told Congress that they don't need more tax cuts. Republicans will continue to claim that their bill represents serious tax reform, but the public isn't fooled. Poll after poll shows that the American people see this bill for what it is: a betrayal of the middle class and a betrayal of American values. They have seen enough of trickle-down economics to know that the benefits never flow to them. At the end of the day, it is clear that this bill was never really about the middle class; it was about the Republican donor class. I wish we had gone down a different path, one where both parties worked together to provide real relief to the working families we all represent. It belies the storied history of this institution to rush through such a sweeping bill, through an arcane process of reconciliation intended to secure the lowest possible number of votes to succeed, without the benefit of public opinion, or even public review. After one of the least productive sessions of Congress that I can recall, Republicans are so desperate for a win that they will mortgage away our future. This bill is not tax reform. This is a cartoonish caricature of what real tax reform should look like. It is dishonest to its core. It is cynical, and it can only breed more cynicism by the public. It is bad policy, it is indefensible policy, and it is wrong. It is said that every generation has a responsibility to leave our Nation better, brighter, and stronger for the generations that follow. This tax bill accomplishes none of those goals. I strongly oppose--I reject--this conference report, and the crass, partisan path that brought us here.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut for his words. The Senator from Connecticut is a former prosecutor who knows law enforcement backward and forward. I can only imagine the grief felt in his State. As a neighboring New England State, I recall the vigils, the people coming to pray, and the sadness from what happened in our neighboring State of Connecticut. But as so many have said, we can express grief--and we should--but we have to do what the Senator from Connecticut and others have suggested, which is actually take some steps that might stop these things. So I applaud him for what he said. Let me speak on another issue. This week, we voted on three circuit court nominees, just one step below the Supreme Court. All three of these nominees are extreme. One is objectively unqualified. The fact that we are so quickly casting floor votes on these troubling nominations, all of whom were reported out of the Judiciary Committee just last week, is a symptom of the Republicans' willingness to abandon decades of Senate tradition so that this body can serve as a rubberstamp for President Trump's nominees. The Senate will not be the conscience of the Nation or the check and balance it was always designed to be, but instead, a rubberstamp for the President. Let me just cover a couple of things. Don Willett is a sitting justice on the Texas Supreme Court. That should mean something. Sitting judges have an obligation to exercise good judgment; to not say anything that would lead individuals to question their impartiality. A question I ask nominees all the time is: Can someone who comes into your court--whether they are Republican or Democrat, plaintiff, defendant, rich, poor, whatever--look at you and say: Well, at least this judge is going to show impartiality. Maybe I will win or maybe I will lose, but it will not be because the judge wasn't impartial. When you look at this sitting justice, Don Willett, he fails the standard of impartiality. A few weeks ago, I questioned him about his tweet telling a young transgender woman, who was interested in playing softball to ``Go away, A-Rod.'' Justice Willett claimed that this tweet was in jest. But, let me say it again--a sitting justice telling a transgender teen to ``go away'' sends an unmistakable message to marginalized, vulnerable communities: Not all are welcome in my courtroom. Well, that is not a laughing matter. This was not the first time that Justice Willett has worn his bias on his sleeve. As an aide to George W. Bush while he was Governor of Texas, he objected to then-Governor Bush declaring a ``Business Women's Week.'' He opposed the proclamation's mention of ``glass ceilings, pay equity . . . [and] sexual discrimination/harassment.'' He dismissed these very real barriers to women in the workforce as ``hype.'' For these and other reasons, I seriously question his judgment or that he would be seen by people coming into his courtroom as impartial. Then we have James Ho, who is another troubling nominee. His views on social issues are, not surprisingly, extreme. He has even offered effusive praise for Jeff Mateer, another Trump nominee who has publicly proclaimed that transgender children are part of ``Satan's plan.'' Even as a judge, he has complained about the Supreme Court. Remember, these judges are supposed to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court. He has complained about the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision. He said that it is going to lead to ``people marrying their pets.'' I don't think any legal scholar anywhere from the right to the left would agree with that interpretation. Mr. Ho praised Mateer for ``protecting and enforcing the . . . civil liberties of every Texan.'' Well, it is not every Texan--just those he agrees with. Of course, this race to confirm Mr. Ho that is zipping through here means that we will not have fully vetted him for this lifetime appointment. When he served in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, he authored a memorandum that was cited in one of the shameful ``torture memos.'' These torture memos have turned out to be a blot on the conscience of the United States. Mr. Ho has refused to answer questions about his involvement, despite the fact that the torture memos are now very much in the public domain. Unfortunately, these kinds of non-answers are considered sufficient as of late, since Republicans are more interested in rubberstamping President Trump's judicial nominees than asking serious questions of them as a coequal branch of government. I cannot believe that any Republican leadership would allow a nominee of a Democrat who would have been involved in the drafting of a key and controversial memorandum to be confirmed unless they are willing to answer questions about it. Then we have Steven Grasz, whom the American Bar Association unanimously rated him as unqualified for the Federal bench. In the past 40 years, I recall seeing a unanimously unqualified rating only a few times, and those people never made it through. After an exhaustive review including more than 200 interviews about Mr. Grasz, the ABA concluded he could not separate his personal beliefs from his duties as a judge--a fundamental obligation of a judge. This is almost unprecedented to have a rating like this. To have at least a qualified rating from the ABA is a basic qualification for a nominee to the Federal bench. Certainly, Republicans would insist on it if it was a Democrat's nominee. The Republicans made it very clear that if a Democrat nominated somebody who got a ``not qualified'' rating--I don't recall it happening, but if they did--they made it very clear that person would never be considered. Well, here is somebody who is declared ``not qualified,'' and yet they whipped him through. You would think ``qualified'' would at least be the bottom line for a nomination. You would think whoever is President, they are at least nominating somebody who could hit the threshold of being considered qualified. Republicans are now casting aside the ABA as a biased institution; some have accused the ABA of opposing Mr. Grasz simply because of his opposition to abortion. Well, that is absurd. The ABA has rated 46 of President Trump's 50 nominees as ``qualified.'' Let's not delude ourselves, does anyone think that any of the 46 Trump nominees that the ABA rated as qualified support abortion rights? They would never get out of the White House if they did. So that argument--like so many others used to support these extreme nominees--does not pass the laugh test. As the longest serving member of the United States Senate and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have spoken up about the steady erosion of the Committee's norms and traditions. The Committee has processed un-vetted, extreme nominees at an unprecedented rate. President Trump will have four times as many circuit court nominees confirmed in his first year than did President Obama. The reason President Trump has four times as many circuit court nominees confirmed in his first year than did President Obama is because Republicans removed any and all guardrails on our confirmation process--the guardrails they insisted on when there was a Democratic President. No matter how careful the Democratic President was in picking that person, they had to have these guardrails. I thought, actually, the guardrails made sense. The second you have a President who nominates extreme judges, they decided we don't need those guardrails anymore because President Trump would never make a mistake. Nominees have had hearings scheduled before we even had the ABA ratings. Multiple circuit court nominees are regularly stacked on single panels. That is something Republicans insisted should not be done when there was a Democratic President. Now, unfortunately, the chairman--who is a friend of mine and a man I respect--has reversed his own blue-slip policy. He has begun to advance nominees without favorable blue strips from both home State Senators. That is the first time this has been done in the last two Presidents. I fear we are doing lasting damage to our nomination process. I fear we are making the advice and consent process a completely laughable exercise. The three nominees who are set forth this week are evidence of that. I am going to vote no on each of them because they are not qualified. I have voted for many Republican nominees. I might disagree with them philosophically, but they were qualified, just as I voted for many Democratic nominees. Some I disagreed with, but they were qualified. These nominees aren't qualified. They are extreme. I want the standard I always asked for; that whoever you are, when you come into a courtroom, you can look at the judge and say: OK, whether I am a plaintiff or defendant, rich or poor, facing the State as the respondent, no matter my political background, I am going to be treated fairly. I will win or lose my case on the merits, not on the judge's bias. We are closing our door to that. We are closing our door to it when the President of the United States turns the selection process over to an extreme political, partisan group and then asks Republicans to rubberstamp it. I respect my Republican colleagues, but I can't imagine many of them ever standing for a Democratic President doing anything like this. I wouldn't. I wish they would bring the Senate back to where we should be, where we can be, and where the country is better off when we are. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, those of us who remember the massacre at El Mozote, El Salvador, are reminded that last week was the 36th anniversary of that horrific tragedy. For those who are not aware, on December 11, 1981, Salvadoran soldiers, including an elite battalion trained and equipped by the United States, systematically murdered more than 900 innocent men, women, and children. The Salvadoran military high command falsely denied the crimes had occurred, and their denials were echoed by the U.S. Embassy and the State Department. For more than 35 years, the perpetrators of the massacre avoided justice, due to the cover-up and an amnesty law passed in 1993, but in 2016, the Salvadoran Supreme Court overturned that law and the case was reopened. Let us hope that those who ordered, participated in, and covered up those crimes against humanity will finally receive the punishment they deserve. On December 2, good friend Congressman Jim McGovern traveled to El Salvador. More than any other Member of Congress, Jim has been a tireless advocate for human rights and justice in that country. After returning to Washington, on December 11, Jim spoke about the El Mozote massacre in the House of Represenatives. I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week, the Federal Communications Commission--FCC--is preparing to give a giant, early Christmas present to a few, deep-pocketed telecom companies, as it prepares to repeal critical net neutrality protections. Net neutrality is the simple principle that the internet should be kept free and open by preventing the corporations who control the connections to selectively throttle or block certain content, especially that of competitors. Repealing net neutrality rules will benefit just a few powerful corporations--and it will do so at the expense of small businesses, consumers, and hard-working Americans, whose persistent and passionate voices on this issue have been completely ignored by the FCC's Republican majority. Despite calling for public hearings when the current net neutrality protections were developed, Chairman Pai has failed to heed his own advice now that he is in charge of the FCC. It seems the only people he listens to are those with deep enough pockets to afford high-powered lobbyists. If you are a concerned citizen or small business owner, your voice doesn't matter to this FCC. As someone who held public hearings on this issue in 2014, I can tell you that there is widespread and overwhelming support for net neutrality just about everywhere except at the FCC itself. If the Chairman took the time to listen, as I did, he would hear from small business owners like Cabot Orton at the Vermont Country Store, who told me, ``We're not asking for special treatment, incentives, or subsidies. All the small business community asks is simply to preserve and protect Internet commerce as it exists today, which has served all businesses remarkably well.'' Just today, we received a letter from businesses in Northern New England, including Vermont's own Ben & Jerry's, Cabot Creamery Cooperative, and King Arthur Flour, discussing the ``crippling effect'' a repeal of net neutrality rules would have on rural businesses. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Chairman Pai would hear from libraries, which for some rural communities are the only way to access the internet. As Vermont's State librarian, Martha Reid, told me: ``All Americans-- including the most disenfranchised citizens, those who would have no way to access the Internet without the library--need to be able to use Internet resources on an equal footing.'' Chairman Pai would also hear from independent content creators whose voices are too often not heard on traditional media. As actress, writer, and producer Ruth Livier told me: ``In the unprecedented world of an open, nondiscriminatory Internet, no longer did low-budgets and no connections mean there was no way in. Never again could we be disregarded by anyone who essentially asks, `Who are you to have your story be told?' '' These are the voices being ignored. They are the people, the Americans, who stand to lose the most in the Chairman Pai's misguided plan. This is not about partisanship. Republicans and Democrats alike, in my State and every other State, benefit from the power of an open Internet, and equally stand to be harmed if the rules of the road ensuring its openness go away. I know there are some people with a lot of money who want to do away with net neutrality. They are even filing fake comments with the FCC saying they want to repeal these protections. One of those comments came to my attention. It had my name and my home address on it. Most people, when they saw it, just laughed, because they knew it was fake. None of us should support a process that willfully dismisses the voices of our constituents. I hope that all Senators will join me in calling on the FCC to abandon this reckless vote to repeal net neutrality.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nima Binara, a detailee on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, I applaud the Senator from Alaska. He makes us all want to be there. Mr. President, let me speak for a moment in my role as vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee about the continuing resolution that the distinguished majority leader has just mentioned. The current spending caps set in place by law will not responsibly fund the government or alleviate the consequences of sequestration on both our domestic priorities and our military readiness. Since March 1, along with many others, I have constantly repeated that we must reach a bipartisan budget deal that is based on parity, free of poison pill riders, not waste taxpayer dollars on a useless border wall, which we will never be reimbursed for by Mexico. But with the current continuing resolution expiring tomorrow, we are running out of time to reach an agreement. The continuing resolution before us today will allow us more time to reach a bipartisan agreement and keep the government's lights on during negotiations. I will join with the distinguished majority leader in voting for this, but the key to successful negotiation during that time is parity. Sequestration has had devastating consequences on our country that are going to impact a generation, but we have to raise the caps on both sides of the ledger--defense and nondefense. Anywhere you go, the vast majority of Americans will agree that it is not an academic exercise. The decisions we make here today have real impacts on people's lives. There is no question that sequestration has hurt our military readiness, but it has also hurt our Nation's economy, and it has led to a decline in critical government services on which millions of Americans depend. Our veterans have been shortchanged. An average of 558,000 veterans fail to get a healthcare appointment during the 30-day standard. The average wait time for the VA to process a benefit appeal is over 3 years. Our infrastructure is crumbling. America, this great Nation, now gets a D-plus rating from the American Society of Civil Engineers. This means that the roads, the bridges, the dams, the drinking water, the public parks, and the schools we all use and depend on have a near- failing grade. Education programs have suffered. The purchasing power of the maximum Pell Grant now covers only 29 percent of the average price for college. Our elderly citizens are getting shortchanged. More than 1 million Social Security benefits appeals are backlogged an average of 605 days. An estimated 10,000 people die each year before their appeals are completed. I could go on and on. If we raise the caps for defense programs but do not also raise the caps to properly fund our nondefense priorities, we will still shortchange our men and women in uniform. If we don't invest in our Nation's economy and educate our youth, the military will not have the expertise, qualified soldiers, or advanced research that it needs to be the best in the world. If we don't invest in diplomacy, our world will become less safe and we will be less safe. As our Secretary of Defense said: If you are not going to invest in diplomacy, you better buy me more bullets. And we would fail to provide the level of care for our veterans that they deserve. I have talked with both Republicans and Democrats. I am confident we can reach an agreement that addresses our country's needs and responsibly funds our government. As we in the Congress work on it, it is discouraging that the President has cast doubt on these negotiations. He has even invited a ``good [government] shutdown.'' His party is in charge, so I don't know why he would say that. Even more discouraging is a recent Washington Post story that said the President has told his confidants that a government shutdown would be good for him politically. Well, there are 325 million Americans who are going to be affected by a government shutdown. It is irresponsible. It is no way to govern. In all my years in the Senate, with Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, never have I heard such damaging rhetoric come from either a Republican or Democratic President of the United States. The last Republican shutdown in 2013 dealt a devastating blow to the Nation's economic growth. It amounted to an estimated $1.5 billion lost for each day of the 16 days of the shutdown. Federal workers were furloughed through no fault of their own for a combined total of 6.6 million days, stalling important research and grinding our government to a halt. I know the Republicans are in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House. If there is a Republican shutdown this fiscal year, it is because they want one. I have talked to a lot of Republicans and Democrats, whom I respect and work with every day, who hope the 2-week continuing resolution before us is an indication we will not go down that path. I hope these Republicans will work with Democrats to produce a responsible, bipartisan budget deal that meets the needs of our Nation. We have squandered enough time. I stand ready, as I have been since March, when we negotiated a budget agreement that kept us from having a shutdown last time. I will work with the Republican leadership, as I did then, to secure the funding agreements we need to complete our appropriations work for this fiscal year. This 2-week continuing resolution will give us that chance. I urge my Democratic colleagues to join with the Republican leader and vote aye. Mr. President, how much time is remaining before the vote?

Mr. LEAHY. And how much time is there on the other side?

Mr. LEAHY. So we will not vote unless time is yielded back. I believe there are no other speakers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on both the Republican and Democratic sides.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters have a legacy of service unmatched in the Nation. While new generations carry on this tradition, we continue to owe so much to the bravery of those men and women who served in the past. One of the members of this distinguished community is Wallace ``Wally'' Mattison, a native of Bennington, VT. Mr. Mattison served in the famed 29th Infantry Division, 115th Regiment as a light machine gunner. He fought on the frontlines in Normandy and throughout Europe from 1943 to 1945, during which time he was wounded. His commitment unwavering, he returned to service after his recovery. Our State and Nation have praised Mr. Mattison's essential contributions, but the recognition of his service extends beyond our shores. Earlier this month, France, a country Mr. Mattision helped liberate from Nazi control, awarded him with their highest civil and military distinction: the Legion of Honor. With the receipt of this award, he joins an exclusive group that includes Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and select others who have served and sacrificed on behalf of the citizens of France. It is impossible to fully express the gratitude I feel for Mr. Mattison's service. Vermonters, Americans, and citizens of the world owe him a debt that cannot be repaid with words or awards. We can, however, share these stories of bravery and sacrifice. That is why today I would like to pay tribute to Wallace ``Wally'' Mattison, and I ask unanimous consent that a Bennington Banner article highlighting his past service and recent receipt of the Legion of Honor, entitled, ``To us, you are a true hero,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the question would be suitable for the game show ``Jeopardy:'' Name the oldest long-distance hiking trail in the United States. Answer: What is the Long Trail? The 272-mile trail that runs the spine of the Green Mountains in my home State of Vermont was built over the course of two decades, from 1910 to 1930, and has provided countless hikers with spectacular climbs and remote camping in the decades that followed. No hiker's pack would be complete on the journey without a small pocket reference book simply known as the Long Trail Guide, a bible of sorts for these backwoods adventurers. The guide was first published by the Green Mountain Club, the steward of the Long Trail, in 1917 and has since been revised 27 times. So when the club recently decided to chronicle 100 years of Long Trail Guide history to mark the anniversary, they turned to a very experienced hiker and a dedicated volunteer to take on the job: Reidun Nuquist. I have had the pleasure of knowing Reidun and her husband, Andrew, for many years. They reside in my hometown of Montpelier, and like so many other Vermonters, they share a deep respect and appreciation for the natural wonders that make Vermont such a special place to live. They also share a generosity of spirit, dedicating much of their spare time to preserving our natural habitat and helping maintain the Long Trail for generations to come. I was very pleased to read about Reidun's latest effort in a recent edition of the Vermont publication Seven Days, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next week, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, will consider a proposed rule, that, if approved, will end net neutrality as we know it and will threaten the foundation of a free and open internet. Net neutrality is the simple proposition that internet service providers should treat all internet traffic the same; they should not be able to exploit their power to charge for preferred treatment, allowing big corporations to dominate the internet. The Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, wants the FCC to undo its protections for net neutrality. His proposed ruling is perversely styled as ``Restoring Internet Freedom,'' when in fact it would do the opposite. It would allow internet service providers to decide which websites will be privileged and which will be throttled or even blocked. Make no mistake: This will mean that the big firms that can afford the ``fast lane'' will be protected, while harming consumers, startups, and potentially even freedom of speech online. Alarmingly, Chairman Pai has decided to ignore millions of comments submitted by individuals across the country, citing concerns that they are not ``unique.'' As a Member of Congress accountable to my constituents, this is a particularly offensive posture. Unique or not, comments and concerns submitted to my office by Vermonters are treated with the same weight and value as any other. Until the FCC fully and meaningfully considers the more than 21.7 million comments it has received about this proposed rule, it should not proceed with this vote. A recent New York Times article by Farhad Manjoo, entitled, ``The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality Hastens That Death,'' lays out clearly why the FCC's proposed repeal of net neutrality will bring the open internet one giant leap closer to becoming a corporate playground. If, as expected, Chairman Pai jams through his proposed rule change next week, it will be clear that he has done so to the benefit of a few deep-pocketed corporations and to the detriment of everyone else who relies on the internet to support commerce, communication, and community. I ask unanimous consent that the article by Mr. Manjoo be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to alert all Senators to the situation in Honduras. Those of us who care about Central America have watched the election for Honduras's next President with increasing alarm. It has been more than a week since November 26, when the people of Honduras cast their votes. Since then, repeated delays and suspicious behavior, which suggests either incompetence or fraud, by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, TSE, that has been tallying the ballots, have incited large public demonstrations. Late last week, the government of President Juan Orlando Hernandez suspended constitutional rights and imposed a 10-day, 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. Several protesters, including a 19-year-old girl, have reportedly been shot and killed by Honduran troops, and hundreds more have been arrested. Salvador Nasralla, the main opposition candidate, called for a new election and reportedly urged the Honduran police and military to disobey orders of their commanders to fire on demonstrators. Even before the Honduran people went to the polls, the prospects for a free, fair, and peaceful election faced many challenges. The most obvious point of contention is that President Hernandez is seeking a second term, since until recently the Honduran Constitution had been interpreted to strictly limit Presidents to a single 4-year term. Ironically, in 2009 former President Manuel Zelaya was forced from power by a coalition of military officers, businessowners, and conservative politicians, including Hernandez, after they accused Zelaya of using a popular referendum on a proposed constitutional convention to extend his own rule. Zelaya's ouster was initially labeled a coup by the U.S. State Department, but it was not long before the United States accepted the result and resumed sending economic and military aid to the government of President Porfirio Lobo. During the next 3 years, the influx of illicit drugs and the incidence of violence, including assassinations of journalists and other civil society leaders, increased dramatically, and Honduras became among the most violent countries in the world. After Hernandez became president of the National Congress, he and his National Party replaced the Supreme Court with justices intended to support their political agenda. In 2013, Hernandez was declared President of Honduras after an election fraught with reports of vote buying and threats and assassinations of political opponents. Two years later, the same Supreme Court ruled that he could run for a second term, paving the way for last week's election. Just 8 years after former President Zelaya was pushed out for allegedly proposing that the Honduran people vote on the question of a second term, President Hernandez had consolidated his control by replacing the justices of the Supreme Court, appointing the TSE, maintaining a majority in the Congress, and using the state media to drown out his critics. It was widely predicted that he would coast to victory. President Hernandez's government, in addition to becoming increasingly autocratic, has been dogged by accusations of pervasive corruption. For these reasons and because of the opaque and bizarre conduct of the TSE during the vote tallying process, it is perhaps not surprising that the situation has deteriorated to the point of becoming a national crisis of confidence in the integrity of Honduras's democracy. Contrary to past practice, the TSE did not issue early results until the day after the polls closed. At that time, it announced that, with 57 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Nasralla, a former TV sports journalist, was leading by 5 percentage points. This indicated the possibility of an historic upset, and while based on past practice the final count was expected the next day, the process of tallying the votes dragged on behind closed doors with no further announcements. While Nasralla and his supporters celebrated and the third-placed candidate, Luis Zelaya of the Liberal party, conceded, President Hernandez and his allies in the press insisted that he would come out on top once the rural votes were counted. The TSE also said the rural vote count was delayed, and on Wednesday, after a long silence, the TSE indicated that Nasralla's lead had started to shrink, but the press reported that no technical reason was apparent to explain the delay as the results from all polling stations were reportedly transmitted electronically as soon as the polls closed. As time dragged on, suspicions of fraud escalated among Nasralla's supporters, and last Wednesday afternoon, the TSE said its computer system had inexplicably ceased functioning for 5 hours. Then on Wednesday night, the TSE reported that President Hernandez was ahead by several thousand votes, which triggered protests by Nasralla's supporters, some of them reportedly throwing rocks and lighting fires in the streets, who were met by troops firing tear gas and live bullets. According to press reports, the opposition is questioning ballots from 5,300 polling places and has called for a recount of ballots from three rural departments. Yesterday morning, after only a partial recount, the TSE announced its final tally in favor of President Hernandez by just 1.49 percent, a gap of 52,333 votes. The process has been so lacking in transparency, so fraught with irregularities and inexplicable delays, and coupled with reports of excessive force by the Honduran police and military against peaceful protesters, it is increasingly obvious that the TSE's announcement made a bad situation worse. There is too much suspicion of fraud and too much distrust. On Saturday, I asked the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa three simple but important questions about the delays, the TSE's tally of the votes, and the reports of shootings of protesters. It is late Tuesday afternoon, and I have yet to receive answers. This lack of responsiveness in such a time of crisis is troubling, and I hope it is not a new standard. Yesterday evening, the OAS issued a statement that ``the tight margin of the results, and the irregularities, errors and systemic problems that have surrounded this election do not allow the Mission to hold certainty about the results.'' There were also reports that large numbers of Honduran police officers, many of whom have longstanding grievances, are refusing orders to use force against the protesters. Earlier today, I was informed that there may be at least 15 fatalities and many people injured from gunshot wounds. There are reports that the police and military fired many shots, sometimes in the air and other times at the crowds. The importance of this election, which will determine who leads Honduras for the next 4 years, cannot be overstated. This is especially so because of the way it came about in the first place. There was already resentment toward President Hernandez for the double standard of participating in the coup against Zelaya and then orchestrating his own path to reelection. As one Honduran was quoted saying, they ``are reliving the entire crisis from the coup of 2009, and the majority of people don't really like that because it brings back some ugly memories.'' President Hernandez and Mr. Nasralla offer significantly different approaches to tackling the country's problems. Given the debacle of the past week and the growing popular outcry, it is apparent that establishing the credibility of the electoral process and the integrity of Honduras's democracy requires either recounting the contested ballots from each of the 5,300 polling places in the presence of representatives of the political parties, representatives of civil society, and international observers or holding a new election. In the meantime, it is the responsibility of the Honduran Government, particularly the police and the military, to respect and defend the right of the Honduran people to freely and peacefully express their opinions. Honduras faces a defining moment in its modern history. How the government resolves this crisis will determine the path of the country for the foreseeable future. It will also determine the extent of validity and support the next government receives from the United States because only a credible election, accepted widely by the Honduran people as free and fair, coupled with a demonstrable commitment to transparency, to freedom of expression and association, and to the rule of law, will justify that validity and support.