Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it was 6 years ago that Tropical Storm Irene tore through my home State of Vermont, and I remember it like it was yesterday. I remember going around the State the next day in a helicopter with the head of our National Guard and reviewing the damage. We are still trying to recover. In the days after the storm, I came to this Chamber, and I asked for the support that Vermont needed to recover and rebuild. I remember with gratitude that Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate, from across the country, stood with the people of Vermont. I remember how much the calls of support from Republican and Democratic colleagues meant to me. Today, we have to do the same for the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. More than 3\1/2\ million Americans--remember, these are Americans--have seen their homes and communities destroyed by the double blow of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The destruction is catastrophic. The details are still coming in. The vast majority of Puerto Rico is without power and remains in the dark. At least 44 percent--almost half of its people--are without potable water, and some estimates put it even higher. The vast majority of hospitals in Puerto Rico are without power. The food supply is dwindling. Cell phone sites are down, crippling communication on the island. People can't find out what has happened to their families. We are on the verge of a humanitarian crisis right here on U.S. soil. President Trump, leaders of FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense have all got to act quickly. We have to put the full force of the United States behind these efforts, as we would in any State where this might happen. Earlier this month, Congress approved $15 billion in emergency funding for disaster relief following Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I was happy to support that. These resources should be put to work in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as well. But it is not going to last for long. This money will run out within a couple of weeks. We have to sustain our commitments to rebuilding and recovering from all of these hurricanes for the long haul--not just in the continental United States but in all parts of the United States, which include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. I would ask the administration to prepare an emergency aid request as soon as possible. The Appropriations Committee is ready to move on it, but the Congress--the House and Senate--should act very quickly. We have to stand by each other in times of disaster. When there is a storm, one of us braces for it, and the others have to help pick up the pieces. That is who we are. That is why we act. That is why we are Americans. We are the United States of America--all of us. Now we must make sure that we respond not just in Texas, as we should, not just in Florida, as we should, but in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are part of our country. Healthcare Mr. President, the Senate finds itself today in a familiar situation: Deeply partisan efforts to repeal and replace the landmark Affordable Care Act have hit a wall. By their own admission, the Senate majority has, with their backs against a wall and a looming deadline to advance legislation by a simple majority vote, put forward one last-gasp effort to roll back access to healthcare for millions of Americans--not because it is sound policy, but in an effort to meet a campaign promise, regardless of its harm to millions of Americans. It is as irresponsible as it is dangerous. These efforts put lives at risk. This zombie project should be abandoned, and we should get back to the constructive and promising bipartisan work toward strengthening troubled insurance markets. Instead of working on a responsible budget, or disaster relief for Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, or on any of the many pressing issues facing our country, we began this week in a situation virtually identical to where we were in July. In fact, it reflects the state of the Senate for much of this year, where policymaking has been replaced by partisanship and politics. When we considered a healthcare reconciliation bill in July, in spite of multiple drafts and a go-it-alone, hyperpartisan philosophy, the majority leader was still unable to garner enough support within his own Caucus to pass a sweeping healthcare bill. I joined with many Democrats to offer motions to get the Senate back to regular order and have the appropriate committees study the effects of these policies on Medicaid beneficiaries and those with disabilities, on women and children, on seniors, and the most vulnerable, but Republicans voted down those efforts and plowed ahead, seemingly unaware or willingly blind to the real-life impacts of what they were trying to do. During July's debate, the Senate also considered multiple amendments to rewrite the Affordable Care Act. Each of these amendments would have caused tens of millions of Americans to lose insurance and would have made it harder for those with preexisting conditions to obtain coverage. When those amendments failed, the Republican leadership attempted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act. That did not work either. Instead of learning from that painful process, the Republican leadership emerged from the August recess with a new plan. Released just last week and revised several times since, the proposal of Senators Graham, Cassidy, Heller, and Johnson was intended to revive the healthcare reconciliation bill the Senate already defeated. Unfortunately, their bill contains all of the problems of previous versions and includes new, troubling provisions that would fundamentally change healthcare in this country for the worse. This Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill--just the latest version of TrumpCare--would make dangerous changes to our healthcare system resulting in millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage, including Vermonters. In fact, based on previous estimates, a provision in this bill would cause 15 million Americans to lose insurance and premiums to increase by an average of 20 percent on day 1. This hasty proposal would allow insurance companies to charge seniors, those with disabilities, those with preexisting conditions, and women more for coverage. These are all discriminatory policies that the Affordable Care Act changed. Like previous versions of TrumpCare, this bill would end Medicaid as we know it by capping spending in the program and forcing States to cut eligibility, benefits, or both. What is worse, this new version of the bill would fully repeal the tax credits and subsidies created under the ACA and instead give States inadequately funded block grants with no requirement that the funding goes to those in need. States like Vermont have done the right thing. Because of Vermont's Medicaid expansion, thousands of Vermonters now have access to lifesaving health insurance and care. That is never been more critical than now as we continue to grapple with the opioid crisis. This latest Republican proposal would hurt States like Vermont, simply for doing the right thing and expanding coverage. In the latest version of the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal, there seems to be no consistency to how block grant funds are divvied between States, leaving some to conclude the formula is merely a ham-fisted attempt to appease some reluctant Republican Senators to support this measure. By 2027, all States lose under this proposal as the block grant funding created under this proposal runs out. You cannot consider legislation of this magnitude, with such far-reaching truly life-and-death consequences, with no debate and no meaningful consideration. This is not the way the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should conduct such expansive and impactful policies. This is not the Senate that I know and respect. Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee held the only hearing in the Senate on TrumpCare. We heard how devastating this bill would be for millions of Americans who depend on subsidies to purchase health insurance. We heard how reduced funding would force States to choose what services to cover for children, pregnant women, and those with disabilities who depend on Medicaid. Benefits like maternity coverage or homecare will be at risk as States choose to relax the insurance requirements under the ACA. Remarkably, experts disagreed with the authors as to what this amendment would mean for those with preexisting conditions. One thing the hearing made abundantly clear is that this sweeping policy needs further examination. The Congressional Budget Office says it needs at least a couple of weeks to fully examine this proposal. How many will lose insurance? How much will premiums increase? How many will lose access to health care? These are fundamental questions to which we do not and will not have answers before the majority's arbitrary timeline is up. The preliminary estimate released late Monday by the CBO says that ``millions'' of Americans would be uninsured as a result of the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal. What is more, I have not heard from a single health-related group that supports this measure. So why does the majority insist on pushing forward? It seems they are so intent on voting on anything that they would have us consider an unexamined, hastily cobbled together bill solely to repeal the ACA--for the express purposes of fulfilling a crassly partisan campaign promise. This would be nothing more than legislative malpractice. Their desire to undo any of the success of the Obama administration, at any cost, would have them push forward a proposal that would devastate our health insurance markets, cause millions to lose insurance, and fundamentally change the Medicaid Program, and the best reason the Republicans can come up with for supporting this new attempt is ``because we said we would.'' In Vermont, the effects of TrumpCare would be disastrous. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Vermont has made exceptional progress to cut the rate of uninsured Vermonters by half. The number of uninsured Vermonters is now below 4 percent. Because of the Medicaid Program and the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as Dr. Dynasaur in Vermont, 99 percent of children have health insurance in our State. TrumpCare, in any version, places Vermont's progress at risk. Vermont has also worked on new and innovative ways of delivering healthcare, which has brought down costs and increased coordination of care. One of the most significant ways Vermont has done this is through existing flexibility in Medicaid. It is through the Medicaid Program that Vermont has offered comprehensive treatment and counseling services for those suffering with opioid addition. In Vermont, 68 percent of those receiving medication assisted treatment for opioid addiction are Medicaid recipients. If hundreds of billions of dollars are cut from the Medicaid Program, States will be forced to limit coverage, jeopardizing Vermont's ability to overcome this crisis. Provisions that cap Medicaid spending do not create ``flexibility'' in Medicaid. This policy would instead force States to ration care. Let's talk about what that means to Vermonters. This week I heard from Deborah in Waterbury, VT, who wrote to me urging me to vote to protect Medicaid funding: For a while Medicaid paid for medical care my son and I needed. Later Medicaid funding, and the cancer care it paid for, literally saved my life. It turns out many Americans find out that they or someone they love needs medical care or disability services that only Medicaid covers. Medicaid not only helps individuals and families who need medical care or disability services in the community; it also pays for approximately 64 percent of the people in nursing homes-- financial help that is necessary because so many people spend down their life savings in the first few years of care. I am glad that over the years some of my tax dollars have paid for needed services for others. I believe we must and can improve the quality, affordability and effectiveness of health care in this country; but we won't do it by denying so many Americans basic health and disability services. Consider this deeply personal story from Allyson in Brattleboro: About a year ago, I got a migraine. it never went away. Instead, it got worse and worse, and turned into what is called a hemiplegic migraine. These migraines look and feel like strokes, but are `just' migraines. I started having seizures soon after that; they would later be diagnosed as psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. I have also had rheumatoid arthritis for five years. The saving grace in all of this has been Medicaid, made available to me through the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion. I have not had to worry about affording the care I've needed (probably close to $100,000, plus $80,000 in prescriptions), which has taken one huge worry off my plate. I could go to the seizure monitoring unit at DHMC for a week without stopping to wonder how I was going to pay for it. I could fill my--prescription ($4,000 a month) without worry, and continue to walk around and look after my kids. I could try several medications for migraine to try to get better. And I could get good, solid therapy for mental health treatment. Without these things, and the Medicaid that pays for them, I would be far sicker than I am now. I would not be able to care for my children, or work even a little bit. I would likely die young. Instead, I am making it through, spending time with my children, and healing. Please continue fighting for my healthcare, for my life. Vermonters came to Washington Monday in their efforts to attend the sole hearing on the hapless Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal. They waited in line for hours, and they were not granted access to the hearing, held in a smaller room despite the known public interest in this hearing. Waiting in line for a hearing he was not allowed to attend, Drew from Readesboro said: ``[T]his is my second time down here. I'm here to finally kill this bill as it will result in the deaths of millions of Americans and significant loses to Vermont's funding.'' Todd from Bennington said: The reason I oppose the bill is being I'm a walking pre- existing condition. Diabetes, high blood pressure. It's getting under control, but it wouldn't without healthcare. Mari from Lincoln said: I'm here because I have to. Like Marcelle [Leahy], I've been a nurse for almost 30 years and if it weren't for the Affordable Care Act many of the patients that I'm caring for now in the inpatient cardiology unit at the University of Vermont Medical Center would either not be alive or would be in a much more devastating situation. Many of the young adults that I care for in the cardiology unit have opiate addiction and are there with serious infections because of that. And if it weren't for the part of the Affordable Care Act that allowed young adults up to 26 to still be covered by their parents insurance, many of these young adults would not be alive. So I've been fighting for health reform in Vermont for decades now . . . This is THE most immoral bill I've seen in my 58 years of life . . . I'm appalled and I'm angry, and I'm very motivated. I wish we didn't have to be here but I'm so proud to be here. These are real stories, real lives. This matters. These TrumpCare proposals are not healthcare bills. A true healthcare bill would not kick millions of Americans off health insurance. A true healthcare bill would not allow insurance companies to charge people more for less coverage. A true healthcare bill would not move us backwards to a time when healthcare was unaffordable. Where there are deficiencies, let's fix them. Where we can find common ground, let's act. One of the first things we should do is stabilize the insurance market by making cost-sharing payments permanent. Earlier this month, the Senate was doing just that. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held bipartisan hearings aimed at stabilizing our insurance market. This week, the Finance Committee reached an agreement on a 5-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is important progress that should not be cast aside. We should also be working to shore up funding for our health centers, which will see a 70 percent cut at the end of the month if we fail to act. One of the issues I hear most about is the cost of prescription drugs, which is why I have introduced a bill along with Senator Grassley that would help reduce drug costs by helping generic alternatives come to market faster. The American people expect us to work on real solutions. We should not be pushing a plan that hasn't been vetted where the primary goal seems to be to get to 50 votes, rather than actually improving our health insurance system. Was the Affordable Care Act absolutely perfect when it was passed? No, and we acknowledged the need for continual improvement as the ACA would be implemented, but unlike with other important social programs that have been created over the years--such as Social Security and Medicare--Republicans have not allowed us the opportunity to improve, strengthen and perfect it over time. Those programs were also not perfect, but instead of playing partisan games, Republicans and Democrats came together to get something done, time and time again. We did not vote to repeal the Social Security Act. No, we came together, and we discussed what needed to be done to better help the American people, not unravel their safety net. We must end this dangerous exercise of considering sweeping policy solely for the purposes of fulfilling a nearly decade-long partisan campaign promise. We should move forward in a responsible way. We should act in the best interests of our constituents and not resort to cynical, bumper-sticker politicking. At its best, the Senate has been able to act as the conscience of the Nation. I hope now is such a time and that the Senate will rise to the occasion and abandon these harmful efforts. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the most pernicious threats to the right of employees and consumers to access our judicial system has been the rise of forced arbitration. This practice unfairly eliminates access to our courts for millions of Americans. When used by employers, forced arbitration serves to shield corporations from the consequences of harmful behavior, such as discrimination or sexual harassment. Today, the Senate is considering a nominee for the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, who has advocated in favor of forced arbitration in the employment context. Mr. Emanuel's support for stripping American workers of their rights is an important reason why I am opposing his nomination. The shadow justice system brought about by forced arbitration results in real harm to employees while serving only to protect powerful corporate employers. In a high-profile example from last year, former FOX News host Gretchen Carlson was barred from speaking publicly about her allegations of sexual harassment against the company's former chairman, Roger Ailes. Had she not spoken out and instead complied with the private arbitration clause in her contract, her case would have been hidden from public view, denying other victims of harassment the knowledge that they were not alone. In another disturbing case reported earlier this year, hundreds of current and former employees of Sterling Jewelers, a company that earns $6 billion in annual revenue, have for years alleged that the company is engaged in pervasive gender discrimination and has fostered a culture that condones sexual harassment. According to reports, this shocking behavior dates as far back as the early 1990s. Despite decades of allegations from women at the company, these claims were hidden behind closed doors because of private arbitration. The full details are still unknown today. These are just two examples that highlight the serious harm forced arbitration can cause employees. During the Obama administration, the NLRB found that the use of forced arbitration by employers to limit employees' rights to enter into class or collective actions violated the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Emanuel participated in key cases related to this decision. I am concerned that his history of advocacy on this issue could lead to his prejudging the outcomes of subsequent cases that come before the Board. Unfortunately, Mr. Emanuel declined during his confirmation hearing to recuse himself from decisions related to forced arbitration should he become a member of the Board. His other answers on this issue did not sufficiently allay my concern that he would work to undermine the rights of employees to access our judicial system. As someone who has fought for years to protect Americans' access to the courts and has introduced legislation to limit the harms caused by forced arbitration, I must oppose his nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, recently, I heard from Mayor John Hollar and City Manager Bill Fraser of Montpelier, VT, about a wonderful gesture by Philippe Saurel, the mayor of Montpellier, France, who is also the president of Montpellier Mediterranee Metropolis. The story is this: the city of Montpellier, France, ordered soccer jerseys to support its soccer club. They were printed with the name Montpelier--the way we spell it in Vermont--rather than Montpellier, as it is in France. As a result, Mr. Saurel, with M. Laurent Nicollin, the president of the Soccer Club of Montpellier, offered to send these jerseys to the Montpelier, VT, high school soccer teams. As the only U.S. Senator ever born in Montpelier, VT, I was thrilled and wrote to the mayor of Montpellier, France, with gratitude. The more I thought about it, the more I wanted to make sure the U.S. Senate heard about this generous act. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Mayor Philippe Saurel to Mayor John Hollar. The tie between our two great nations and our two beautiful cities continues.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a sense-of-senate resolution commending Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos for his extraordinary leadership in protecting Colombia's natural environment. Anyone who has lived in, traveled to, or read about Colombia knows it is a country of exceptional beauty and biological diversity. It is also home to many indigenous groups who have played an indispensable role as environmental stewards of their territories. During the years of his Presidency, President Santos's efforts have not only established Colombia as a global environmental leader, they will provide lasting benefits to future generations and to the international community. On September 21, President Santos will be honored by the National Geographic Society for his efforts to protect Colombia's natural environment, and I believe the U.S. Senate should also recognize his achievements. S. Res. 263 Whereas Colombia is one of the world's ``megadiverse'' countries, hosting close to 10 percent of the planet's biodiversity and producing an estimated 15 percent of the world's oxygen; Whereas Colombia occupies-- (1) first place worldwide in the number of birds and orchids; (2) second place in species of plants, amphibians, butterflies and fresh water fish; (3) third place in species of palm trees and reptiles; (4) fourth place in biodiversity of mammals; and (5) fifth place in marine and continental ecosystems; Whereas Colombia's extraordinary mix of ecological, climatic, and biological components are dispersed among its 311 ecosystems and 59 protected areas; Whereas Colombia's biodiversity is at risk, mainly because of habitat loss, urbanization, illicit drug cultivation and production, mining and other extractive industries, deforestation, and overfishing; Whereas on the day of his inauguration in 2010, and continuously since that date, President Santos has made environmental management and resource conservation top priorities of the Colombian Government; Whereas since his inauguration, 14,800,000 hectares of territory have been incorporated into the National System of Protected Areas, including Chiribiquete National Park, Corales de Profundidad National Park, Acandi, Playon and Playona Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Bahia Portete -Kaurrele National Natural Park; Whereas Colombia now has 28,400,000 hectares incorporated into the National System of Protected Areas; Whereas the Colombian Government approved the establishment and expansion of indigenous reserves to protect indigenous cultures and curtail deforestation of critical ecosystems; Whereas the Colombian Government adopted measures to reduce carbon emissions resulting from deforestation in the Colombian Amazon; Whereas the Colombian Government developed a national strategy to combat climate change; Whereas, through the Vision Amazonia initiative, the Colombian Government has set an ambitious goal of achieving zero net deforestation in the Colombian Amazon by 2020; Whereas for the first time in 2016, the Colombian Government completed a greenhouse gas emissions inventory that includes data from both department and municipal levels; and Whereas Colombia played a primary role in the Rio+20 Conference agenda for a green economy and continues to be an active member in the international environmental dialogue: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) President Juan Manuel Santos has restructured and significantly strengthened the environmental sector and management capacity of the Colombian Government and has led the country to become a global environmental leader; (2) President Santos has enhanced public awareness of the importance of protecting indigenous cultures and of the indispensable role of indigenous people in protecting the environment; (3) President Santos' efforts to protect Colombia's biodiversity will provide lasting benefits to future generations of Colombians and to the international community; and (4) President Santos should be recognized and commended for these efforts and achievements.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a provision that was included for the first time by myself and Senator Lindsey Graham in the fiscal year 2018 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which was reported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 7. Specifically, the committee-reported bill includes $15 million to implement a U.S. interagency strategy, led by the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, to support and protect civil society activists, including human rights and environmental defenders and independent journalists, in countries where such activists have been threatened or killed for peacefully exercising their rights of free expression, association, and assembly. Nearly 1,000 violations were reported against human rights defenders in 2016, including killings, detentions, judicial prosecutions, physical attacks, and other threats and harassments. Civil society activists are targeted by both state and nonstate actors, including private companies and investors, seeking to obstruct the rights of voters, minorities, landowners, environmentalists, indigenous peoples, and refugees, among other vulnerable groups. These attacks are not limited to a particular region or a handful of countries--they are common in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East--nor are they limited to countries with authoritarian governments, such as Cambodia, Rwanda, Eritrea, Egypt, and Russia. Democratically elected governments are also culpable, such as Honduras, Philippines, Kenya, Ecuador, and Turkey. Ultimately, democracy cannot survive if the rights of civil society and the independent media are not protected. Last year was the deadliest year on record for land and environmental defenders. There were more deaths reported in more countries than ever before. Competition for land and natural resources has intensified to an alltime high, with companies around the globe putting greater emphasis on profit margins than on environmental protection or land ownership rights. As these pressures increase, the risk to civil society activists will also increase. Similarly, although the number of journalists killed on assignment dropped slightly in 2016, the number of journalists in prison reached its highest level yet. More than 250 journalists are imprisoned worldwide because of their work. This is an egregious violation of the universal right of free expression. These statistics are almost certainly underestimates, given the suppressions of free speech and lack of transparent and effective judicial systems in many countries where civil society activists face the most severe threats to their work and lives. It is important for all of us to be aware of the growing threats to civil society activists worldwide, as well as the relevant funding and language included in the committee-reported Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This should be the first step in developing an interagency strategy to focus attention and resources on this critical problem. I ask unanimous consent that the language in the committee report describing this provision be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the funding to combat HIV/AIDS in the fiscal year 2018 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which was reported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 7. In May, the Congress received the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request, which included a $1 billion cut to international HIV/AIDS programs. The White House proposed to focus the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief--the PEPFAR program--in 12 priority countries, while only maintaining current treatment levels in the other 24 countries in which PEPFAR works. This would mean no lifesaving drugs for new patients in any of those 24 countries and the end of initiatives PEPFAR has undertaken to accelerate progress in those countries. Fortunately, the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Graham and of which I am ranking member, rejected the President's proposed cut and restored HIV/AIDS funding to the current level. The committee-reported bill includes a total of $6 billion for HIV/AIDS programs, including $4.32 billion for PEPFAR, $1.35 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and malaria, and $330 million for HIV/AIDS programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The committee report accompanying the bill also reaffirms the key role PEPFAR plays in HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment around the globe. In 2016, PEPFAR supported more than 11 million people with lifesaving antiretroviral treatment and provided testing and counseling for more than 74 million people. During the committee markup of the Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, I offered an amendment that would have increased PEPFAR by $500 million. Funding for PEPFAR has been stagnant for several years, and the additional funds in my amendment would have enabled millions more people infected with the AIDS virus to receive lifesaving treatment. Regrettably, my amendment failed on a party-line vote. Nonetheless, the bill still succeeds in rejecting the administration's nonsensical and unacceptable reduction to HIV/AIDS funding. I want to be sure that all Senators are aware of this critical funding, which has received widespread, bipartisan support for many years.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2004 the United States voted to establish the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, to police the country following years of political turmoil. While MINUSTAH was successful in bringing a semblance of order to the country, its mission was severely impacted by the 2010 earthquake which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and left hundreds of thousands more in need of assistance. Haiti has not fully recovered since then. Unfortunately, that was not the only tragedy that befell Haiti in 2010. In October of that year, a cholera outbreak spread throughout the country, sickening hundreds of thousands and claiming the lives of more than 9,000. Even more tragically and unlike the earthquake, the outbreak could have been prevented, and the UN peacekeeping mission-- tasked with protecting the people--was at fault. The cholera outbreak was caused by an act of extreme negligence, when some UN peacekeepers disposed of human waste in a manner that contaminated the local water system. Before it happened, cholera was not a problem in Haiti. Today it is. In 2016, after years of refusing to accept responsibility, the UN acknowledged its role in the cholera outbreak and established a trust fund to address the problem, but so far, very little has been contributed. A provision I authored, which was adopted unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee and included in the fiscal year 2018 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, would provide the Trump administration with the authority to enable the United States to do its part to help. With MINUSTAH winding down in Haiti, $40 million in unused contributions are available to donor countries, and the UN has agreed that those credits may be used to help address the cholera problem caused by its own peacekeepers. The United States share of those credits is $11.7 million, and the provision I mentioned makes clear that the committee believes contributing to the trust fund would be an appropriate use of those funds. While this amount still falls far short of what is needed, if we believe in accountability for the UN, we should join other nations in providing our share of these funds to address this tragedy. This is not a tragedy that only harmed a few families. Nearly 10,000 innocent people lost their lives through no fault of their own. They need help, and this is a small way for us to contribute. When the United States responds to natural or manmade disasters, whether the tsunami in Indonesia, earthquakes in Nepal, drought in Africa, or war in Syria, we don't debate whose responsibility it should be to care for the victims. We respond because we are able to, and that is what global leaders do when tragedy strikes. We did not cause the cholera outbreak in Haiti any more than we have caused countless other calamities around the world, but we can help. Even $11.7 million will make a difference in Haiti, including by leveraging contributions from other governments. I hope other Senators will follow the lead of the Appropriations Committee and lend their voices in support of this effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its founding, I would like to share a few remarks about the Nyumbani Children's Home. Marcelle and I have always enjoyed learning about and celebrating the continued growth and successes of Nyumbani. Those successes are because of the people who choose to dedicate their time, valuable skills, and scarce resources to a noble cause--that of saving and improving the lives of others. We have been particularly touched and moved by the stories of the children of Nyumbani. Despite confronting tremendous personal medical and social challenges, these young people have been nurtured, nourished, educated, and cared for in a safe and loving environment. These children have also benefited from advances in medical and therapeutic care that were unimaginable when this refuge was founded on September 8, 1992. To know that many of the children raised there have now grown into magnificent young people is a testament to the mission of this center. When the Nyumbani Children's home was founded, there was certainly no assurance that these results would necessarily follow. The inspired efforts of our friend, Father Angelo D'Agostino, or Father D'Ag, have led to these successes. Father D'Ag was a man of faith who combined an incredible work ethic with vision and an insatiable, indomitable will. He was a man whose friendship I cherished. Father D'Ag realized that the terror, stigma, and uncertainties associated with the transmission of the AIDS virus was responsible for a generation of orphans. Cruelly, AIDs also denied these children a home because Kenyan orphanages would turn them away out of fear and an inability to provide appropriate medical care, but Father D'Ag would not walk away. It began when Father D'Ag took on the care of three children who had been abandoned and were destined to die alone. From that modest beginning, the Nyumbani Children's Home became a forerunner in providing care to those affected by the scourge of HIV. In the decades since, Father D'Ag's vision has grown to encompass not only the original Children's Home, but also an advanced diagnostic laboratory, the unique Nyumbani Village, and an indispensable community outreach program that provides medical care to residents of distressed communities in Nairobi. As a doctor and Jesuit priest, Father D'Ag innately understood the principle that every life has value and dignity. His character and his knowledge compelled him to act when others stood paralyzed by fear and doubt. Sharing his compassion and conviction from the outset was Sister Mary Owens, Nyumbani's remarkable executive director since Father D'Ag's passing in 2006. Each of us is enormously thankful for the work of extraordinary people like Father D'Ag and Sister Mary. We are grateful for the many lives that have been saved and all that has been accomplished by Nyumbani over the past 25 years and look forward to success stories in the next 25 years. Nyumbani is a representation of what good can come when dedicated people cast aside fear and doubt, bring forward the true human spirit, and help those in need. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to thank Senator McCain and Senator Reed for their leadership in producing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. Both veterans, they have a particular understanding of the sacrifices that members of our Armed Services make every day. Every year, this authorization bill is drafted to reflect our commitment to the men and women serving in uniform, to authorize resources needed to maintain our national security, and to demonstrate the values and principles on which our country was founded. While I believe this bill reflects many sound defense policies, I regrettably cannot support its passage. Yet again, this Defense authorization bill continues to include the shameful and counterproductive measures that block us from ending the terrorist recruitment tool that is the Guantanamo Bay detention mission, but the core reason for my opposition to this bill is the reckless price tag its implementation carries. This bill authorizes $700 billion in Defense spending, far above the caps currently established by the Budget Control Act and far more than the increase requested by the President in his budget proposal. If we met this authorization with real dollars, sequestration would take effect for Defense spending. Secretary Mattis has testified about the perils of sequestration. His message was clear: We must raise the budget caps. What is more, this authorization relies on the same tired gimmick we have seen for years and includes $60 billion in overseas contingency operations funding. For fiscal hawks who call for us to reign in Federal spending to reduce the deficit, we cannot continue to treat OCO funds as privileged dollars--outside the scope of our budget caps--as a means to pay for what should be base spending. Further, we cannot unilaterally boost Defense spending without similarly addressing other budgets that contribute to our national security. Earlier this year, in a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis clearly asserted that ``history is pretty clear, nations that did not keep their fiscal house in order and their economies strong lost their military power.'' We cannot simply raise spending for the Department of Defense without investing in programs that advance our diplomatic missions overseas and strengthen our domestic security through economic development, infrastructure improvements, environmental protections, and that meet the core needs of all Americans. Inflating our Defense spending at the cost of all other programs makes us neither stronger nor more secure. I do want to thank Senator McCain and Senator Reed for including, through managers' packages, more than 100 amendments from both Republicans and Democrats, including some that I filed. This kind of collaborative process is what has, in the past, yielded results in the Senate. I regret that the amendment process was not more extensive, but hyperpartisan amendments that seek to upset the discussions of how to responsibly fund our government are not the way to reach consensus for further votes. Make no mistake: This authorization bill invests in our men and women in uniform and their families, and it supports competition to keep our Defense industry healthy, as it should. I hope the reasons for my objection to its passage at this point in the process will be resolved as we move to conference this bill with the House. I believe that, through an agreement to address the current budget caps, those objections can be resolved.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support the disaster relief package that is before us today. It is going to provide much needed assistance to the thousands of families and communities who were devastated by Hurricane Harvey. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I looked at it very carefully, and I know it provides a short-term increase to the debt limit to ensure the U.S. Government has access to the resources it needs. It funds the government with a continuing resolution through December 8, enabling Congress to work to complete the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills. It is a responsible approach to addressing the needs of our Nation. As a Vermonter, as a human being, it was heart-wrenching to watch the devastation march through Texas as Hurricane Harvey made landfall, only to see it turn toward Louisiana. Now, Hurricane Irma has struck Puerto Rico and continues on its path toward Florida and the east coast. Hurricanes Jose and Katia are swirling in the Atlantic. They are threatening our coast. This is a horrific time. My fellow Vermonters and I are all too familiar with these images. It was only 6 years ago that Tropical Storm Irene tore through our small, special Green Mountain State and left a wound we are still trying to heal today. A disaster of this magnitude demands the full support of the U.S. Government, and that includes all of us here. I am glad this disaster relief package is before us today. My Appropriations Committee staff has worked so hard on it. If we don't act and act fast, FEMA exhausts its funds by the end of this week. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate stood by my side in 2011 and in the following years to help Vermont rebuild after Irene, and I will stand in support of Texans and Louisianans now. And I will stand in support of Floridians, if and when they need it. This is only a fraction of what we will need to help recover and rebuild after these storms. It is going to require years of Federal support, and we cannot let our commitment fade. We live in a world where 100-year storms seem to occur every year, so we have to invest in technology, conservation, and infrastructure that will mitigate further damage and make our communities more resilient in these crises. Our ability to respond doesn't just depend on emergency assistance. Each year, in the annual appropriations bills, we fund programs that help us prevent and respond to severe weather events and invest in the necessary infrastructure. The National Weather Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Sea Grant program, the Flood Map Modernization Program, Watershed Flood Prevention Operations, Regional Coastal Resilience Grants, Community Development Block Grants, and State and Local First Responder Grants--just to name a few--are all critical to these efforts. We cannot and should not accept the deep cuts that have been proposed by President Trump to these critical investment programs. Now, I thank Chairman Cochran for his leadership and cooperation to advance these bills. It is through these bills we can fund important priorities. I have been asking since March to begin bipartisan budget negotiations to establish responsible topline funding levels for both defense and non-defense programs based on parity. The current budget caps do not allow us to produce 12 responsible bills. Absent a budget deal, deep cuts are mandated for both defense and non-defense programs. We have to move forward with urgency. So my heart goes out to all of those affected by Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma. My vote goes out to help them, and I will continue to fight for them. This Senate amendment is really the first step and I support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we had promises from the White House that the President would treat DACA recipients with great heart. I don't believe it is great heart when he abandons protections for our Nation's Dreamers. It is an unfortunate pattern, and I hope it changes, facing historic low approval ratings, the President desperately rallies his dwindling supporters by exploiting fear and resentment. Such conduct is shameful and unbecoming of the presidency, an office intended to represent our proudest ideals--not play to basest instincts. I have been here with every President since President Ford, both Republicans and Democrats. We agreed on some things and disagreed on some things, but the Presidents have always seemed to want to present and represent America's proudest ideals. We live in an unprecedented time when our President prefers to divide us, rather than unite us. Instead of honoring the sacrifice made by transgender individuals serving in our Armed Forces, President Trump decided to ban them from serving at all. When white supremacists violently rallied around hate in Charlottesville, resulting in the murder of Heather Heyer, the President equated those who promote bigotry with those who oppose it. There is no equation. The bigotry shown there and the hate shown there is wrong. This week the President targets another vulnerable population-- Dreamers. Dreamers are American by almost any definition. They came to the United States as children through no fault--and by no choice--of their own. Those of us who have had children or grandchildren know they don't make those kinds of choices. They play by our country's rules. They grow up. They have no criminal records, and seek only the chance to contribute to their communities and make them better. America is their home. Often, it is the only country they have ever known, just as my maternal grandparents came from Italy and found a home in Vermont or my great grandparents--paternal grandparents came from Ireland and found a home in Vermont. They wanted that to be their home. That was the American dream. When you threaten the Dreamers, you threaten the American dream itself. The President's attempt to justify this decision as deference to Congress or respect for our courts is disingenuous, at best. It strains reason that a President who signed 90 Executive actions in his first 100 days suddenly cares about deference to the Legislative Branch. It borders on laughable that a President who doggedly defends a Muslim ban found likely to be unconstitutional by multiple courts, is now cautious about the litigation risk of defending DACA in court. Dreamers are our friends and neighbors. They are students in our schools and universities in all our States. They serve our country in the military. They are among the first responders who come to save your life when there is a fire. Consider, for example, Jesus Contreras, a Dreamer and a paramedic, who saved American lives during Hurricane Harvey. If we had thrown him out, he wouldn't have been there saving those lives. The President's decision to end DACA is nothing but a cynical ploy to rally the anti-immigrant voices within his base while attempting to escape responsibility for deporting some of the most inspiring Americans in our country. On Tuesday, I received a letter from Dr. Juan Conde, a DACA recipient and resident of Vermont. Dr. Conde was brought to the United States by his mother as a child. In 2007, his mother lost her life battling cancer. This tragedy inspired him to find a way to help cancer patients like her. Unable to pursue his dream of being an oncologist due to his immigration status, he initially decided to pursue a Ph.D. in cancer research. But Dr. Conde wanted to treat cancer patients, not just study the disease. After receiving DACA status, he was able to pursue his dream of directly helping patients, applying to and being accepted into the University of Vermont's Larner College of Medicine, where he is currently pursuing his medical degree. He hopes to spend his career here in the United States treating cancer patients and researching the disease that has taken the lives of millions of Americans, including members of my own family. Dr. Conde is the face of DACA. Dreamers have enormous potential and determination to contribute to the only country they have known since childhood. To deny them these opportunities because they were brought here as children by their parents would be cruel and inhumane, motivated more by the toxic xenophobia of this administration than by any coherent policy goals. Stories like Dr. Conde's reveal why President Trump's decision to rescind DACA is as senseless as it is callous. Now the fate of DACA is in the hands of Congress. We can bring up a vote on this if the Republican leadership will allow that in the House and the Senate. Some Republicans have spoken out against the President's decision. It is easy to speak out. Act on it. Vote on it. We Democrats stand ready to protect our Nation of Dreamers. We stand ready to defend the American dream. I hope we are not standing alone. I would invite our Republican friends--stand up with us. Stand up with those Dreamers. I guarantee you, you have some living in your State. I guarantee you, just as my grandparents and my great-grandparents did, they can make America a better country. Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on September 13, 2017, the Vermont Community Foundation will pay tribute to Sister Janice Ryan for the many contributions she has made to our State of Vermont and its residents. The foundation will present Sister Janice with its Lifetime Achievement Award for Community Service--just 1 day before she celebrates her 81st birthday, having been born September 14, 1936, on the family dairy farm in Fairfield, VT. In the case of Sister Janice, ``community service'' extends well beyond the borders of our small State. Through her lens, the community is global. Perhaps it was the work ethic and the duties of stewardship that she learned growing up on the farm or the responsibility that comes with being raised the eldest of six children, but since joining the Sisters of Mercy as a teenager, Sister Janice rose to whatever challenge she was presented and brought her trademark energy, compassion, and influence to every task. Before most of us even heard the phrase ``mainstreaming,'' Sister Janice worked tirelessly to ensure that children with special needs received the education they deserved, first at the State level, and later in her work as a staff member in the U.S. Senate. Later, serving as project director of the Catholic Campaign to Ban Landmines, she was a great ally with me in the work we did in the 1990s and since then to rid the world of landmines. Her passion and commitment to that issue inspired me and many others. Sister Janice's titles have been many and varied: professor and college president, deputy corrections commissioner, criminal justice reformer, human rights advocate, and, of course, Catholic nun. What is common to all of her work is her heartfelt belief that we cannot and we must not lose sight of the poor and vulnerable among us. Representing the Sisters of Mercy, Sister Janice has always done this work in a quiet but most effective manner. Her no-nonsense personality cuts straight to the core of the issue and to the pressing need. She is masterful at bringing opposing sides together and finding the common language needed to move us forward. In these times we live in, we need many more people like Sister Janice in the world. Upon receiving an honorary degree from the University of Vermont in 2008, Sister Janice spoke about the role that faith has played in her life. She told an interviewer that she was first drawn to the Sisters of Mercy because of its emphasis on education and its work with immigrants. ``I truly believe we have purpose and that it is related to some greater force,'' she said at the time. ``It is almost impossible to imagine my life without a belief in a higher power, to put it in secular terms. There is so much in the universe that calls out for it.'' Marcelle and I have seen Sister Janice answer that calling many times over. For that, our State, our Nation, and our world are better. We are so very grateful.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Brandon del Pozo proudly serves as the chief of police in Burlington, VT--Vermont's largest city. He arrived in Vermont 2 years ago, after serving for nearly two decades with the New York Police Department, where he rose through the ranks and learned hard lessons on the streets of such a large urban center. One needs only to sit with Chief del Pozo for a short while to understand his commitment to community service and to community. So it comes as no surprise that Chief del Pozo grew alarmed when he heard President Trump recently tell a law enforcement gathering that police should not be ``too nice'' to those who are placed under arrest, seeming to suggest that police should go against the very policies that exist to protect against police misconduct. We cannot tolerate this kind of public comment and certainly not from the President of the United States. There is nothing the least bit humorous in any of this. In fact, President Trump's comments have undermined the efforts of police departments across our Nation to build trust within their communities at a time when that trust is most needed. As a doctoral candidate holding three master's degrees, Chief del Pozo is well studied in the rules of engagement. He is also a talented writer. In an essay he submitted to CNN, Chief del Pozo responded directly to the President's comments, writing: ``Policing requires dealing with the emotions cops are bound to feel when they witness the worst things one person can do to another. It is criminals who act on these emotions and attack other people. Restraint is what separates policing from vigilantism.'' It is a viewpoint that is real, told through the eyes of an experienced street cop who works in reality, not reality TV. I ask unanimous consent that Chief del Pozo's full CNN essay be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is a privilege for each of us to represent our constituents, and it is a great honor to be able to recognize the contributions many of them make to our communities at home. On this occasion, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Mary Alice McKenzie, a fixture in the Burlington, VT, community. Ms. McKenzie has served as the executive director of the Boys & Girls Club of Burlington since 2007, and during her tenure at the club, she has had a lasting impact on the lives of thousands of Vermont children. The community is grateful for her service. Ms. McKenzie comes from a business and legal background--a nontraditional path to her current position that provided her with a unique set of skills. Mary Alice began her work at the Boys & Girls Club after serving as the chief executive officer of McKenzie Meats from 1985 to 2000. She then spent several years in the Vermont State college system as general counsel and served with the law firm Paul Frank & Collins before taking over at the Boys & Girls Club of Burlington in 2007. At the Boys & Girls Club, Mary Alice has focused her efforts on education. When she realized how few club kids were going on to higher education, she enacted the Early Promise program, which targets children at a young age who may need additional academic services and then provides college scholarships to older youth. As of today, the scholarship fund has investments totaling $2.3 million from which to draw. In a short time, the club hopes to be able to help 60 Burlington children achieve their academic goals in high school and beyond. The Boys & Girls Club plays an important role in the lives of more than 1,000 Burlington children. Aside from the academic services, the club also works to ensure a safe and stable community for its young members. When Ms. McKenzie began hearing reports of suspected drug use occurring in a park across the street from the club, she assembled a task force of local law enforcement officials, social workers, and policymakers to work towards a solution that would ensure the safety of club kids. The Boys & Girls Club expanded activities in the park and eventually took over use of an old storage building which is now an academic center. Ms. McKenzie has also focused her efforts on children who have experienced trauma. Under her leadership, the club has started a program to help children deal with the issues that stem from trauma at a young age. Their goal is to create stability for children whose home lives may be turbulent due to issues such as homelessness and addiction. These are profoundly difficult situations for youth to handle, and the efforts of the staff at the Boys & Girls Club are surely appreciated. These efforts have not gone unnoticed. Not only is Ms. McKenzie beloved by members of the club who tell stories of her kindness and generosity, but in 2014, Ms. McKenzie was granted Champlain College's Distinguished Citizen Award for her years of service to the community. This award was well deserved; there are few people who dedicate themselves to service in the way that Mary Alice McKenzie has. During her tenure at the Boys & Girls Club of Burlington, Mary Alice McKenzie has repeatedly identified significant issues within the community and worked to find creative and lasting solutions. As she concludes her years of service with the club, it is clear that her efforts have paid off. The Boys & Girls Club has more teens moving on to college than ever before, and the club continues to expand, providing an invaluable space for Burlington's youth to spend their free time. I am very grateful for Mary Alice's tireless dedication, and I look forward to seeing what the future of her career brings. Marcelle and I think of her as a dear friend.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I supported Christopher Wray's nomination in the Judiciary Committee to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I did so because I believe he is qualified and--critically--I believe he will stand up for the independence of the FBI. Such independence has never been more at risk. We need a new FBI Director now because the President fired the last one, Director James Comey. The President's reason for doing so was disturbing: to take pressure off of the FBI's investigation into-Russian interference in our democracy and connections between the Kremlin and the President's campaign and administration. This came after the President first sought Director Comey's loyalty, then pressured him to terminate the ongoing investigation into Michael Flynn, and then misled the Nation as to the reason for Director Comey's firing. Time and again, this White House has shown it does not respect boundaries between politics and law enforcement or understand that an official's loyalty is to the Constitution, not the President. The President routinely attacks the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, special counsel, Acting FBI Director, former FBI Director, and countless others. Each attack seems more outrageous than the last. Attorney General Sessions was required by Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. It was not discretionary. The President launched a weeklong Twitter tirade against him anyway, stating he would have never hired the Attorney General had he known he would recuse himself. In other words, the President would not have hired our Nation's top law enforcement official had the President known he would actually follow the law. Make no mistake, whether he asks for it or not, the President will demand loyalty from Mr. Wray. He has shown there are consequences for those who dare to maintain independence and follow the rules. Through Twitter attacks and firing top officials, the President is attempting to intimidate and improperly influence the behavior of our Nation's top law enforcement officials. This is not normal. We should not treat it as such, nor should these officials be solely responsible for protecting the independence of our law enforcement institutions. All of us, Republican and Democrat, must stand up to a President who seems to only stand for himself and whose relentless attacks on the rule of law harm the entire Nation. The next FBI Director will face many tests of integrity. He will be forced to make decisions, as Director Comey was, that will test his commitment to the rule of law. I believed Mr. Wray when he testified in response to my question that he would sooner resign than follow an unlawful or unethical order from the White House. While he served as the head of the Justice Department's criminal division in 2004, the White House attempted to authorize a warrantless surveillance program over the Attorney General's objections. Mr. Wray offered to resign in solidarity with then-FBI Director Robert Mueller and then-Deputy Attorney General Comey. He takes his integrity and the integrity of our Nation's law enforcement agencies seriously. I expect Mr. Wray will tenaciously guard the independence of the FBI, and I will vote to confirm his nomination today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Vice President cast a tie- breaking vote to move to debate on a healthcare reconciliation bill, the contents of which even now remain a mystery to most of us. This vote to proceed without a transparent path forward underscores a process that has, from the beginning, been politics and policymaking at their worst. You would think that, after 7 years of campaigning to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the majority would have a plan in place to do just that. Instead, a dozen or so male, Republican lawmakers met behind closed doors, shielded from public view, to negotiate a grand plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act and make devastating cuts to the Medicaid Program--no hearings, no debate, no process. This is not the path taken when we considered, debated, and approved the Affordable Care Act. This is not the way the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should conduct such far-reaching and impactful business. This is not the Senate that I know and respect. In spite of multiple drafts and a go-it-alone, hyperpartisan philosophy, the majority leader was still unable to garner enough support within his own Caucus to pass a sweeping healthcare bill. I joined with many Democrats to offer motions to get the Senate back to regular order and have the appropriate committees study the effects of these policies on Medicaid beneficiaries and those with disabilities, on women and children, on seniors and the most vulnerable, but Republicans voted down those efforts and plowed ahead. During this debate, the Senate has also considered multiple amendments to rewrite the Affordable Care Act. Each of these amendments would have caused tens of millions of Americans to lose insurance and would have made it harder for those with preexisting conditions to obtain coverage. When those amendments failed, the Republican leadership attempted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act. That did not work either. The collapse of these ideas should have resulted in a renewed spirit of bipartisanship, where we could work together to stabilize and improve the health insurance markets. Instead, the Republican majority is so intent on voting on anything, that we are considering voting to repeal two or three policies from the Affordable Care Act solely in order to get something through the Senate and into conference with the House. This is nothing more than legislative malpractice. We are presumably considering a bill that will devastate our health insurance markets, and the best reason the Republicans can come up with for supporting final passage is ``because we said we would.'' The notion that this majority would reduce themselves--and the Senate--to finding the lowest common denominator in order to move ahead with a policy of this magnitude is not only absurd, it is dangerous. While all the versions of the Republican plans we have seen differ slightly, they all have the same, basic structure. Let's call these plans what they are: a massive tax cut for the wealthy on the backs of pregnant women, children, and the disabled who depend upon Medicaid for their health coverage. It is a tax plan in the guise of a health plan. We are considering massive entitlement reform bills that the Republican majority is trying to sell as fixes to the Affordable Care Act, but we know that these bills would fix nothing and would instead create tremendous new challenges. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, each of the various Republican proposals would cause at least 22 million people to lose their health insurance. For instance, the CBO projected that the Senate Republican's first proposal would result in marketplace enrollees paying on average 74 percent more towards their premiums for a plan in 2020 than under current law. Another proposal offered by the majority would result in higher deductibles, rising from $3,600 under current law to $6,000. Under this one proposal, Americans would be expected to pay more money for less care. And as if the Medicaid cuts in the House bill were not deep enough--which caused the President to call the bill ``mean''--another Senate Republican proposal would double down and even deepen Medicaid cuts beginning in 2025. The Senate's proposals have certainly not been less ``mean'' than the House bill. If anything, the Senate's bills are meaner. In Vermont, the effects of any of these bills would be disastrous. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Vermont has made exceptional progress to cut the rate of uninsured Vermonters by half. The number of uninsured Vermonters is now less than 4 percent. Because of the Medicaid Program and the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as Dr. Dynasaur in Vermont, 99 percent of children have health insurance in our State. TrumpCare, in any version, places Vermont's progress at risk. Vermont has also worked on new and innovative ways of delivering healthcare, which has brought down costs and increased coordination of care. One of the most significant ways Vermont has done this is through existing flexibility in Medicaid. It is through the Medicaid Program that Vermont has offered comprehensive treatment and counseling services for those suffering with opioid addition. In Vermont, 68 percent of those receiving medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction are Medicaid recipients. If hundreds of billions of dollars are cut from the Medicaid Program, States will be forced to limit coverage, jeopardizing Vermont's ability to overcome this crisis. Provisions that cap Medicaid spending do not create ``flexibility'' in Medicaid. This policy would instead force States to ration care. This spring, I met a Vermont mother who has two young daughters. Both of her daughters suffer from cystic fibrosis. Luckily, they have the disease mutation that allows them to benefit from new drug therapies, but it is because of Medicaid that they have the resources necessary to afford the $20,000 per month that it costs to provide medication for each of her children. How can we tell this mother that her daughters might no longer be able to take this medication because of fiscal constraints in Medicaid? How can we tell future children who should have access to Medicaid that it was more important to give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut? I heard from another woman in Norwich who shared this story with me: ``Five years ago, both on the same day, my husband and I were diagnosed with cancer. The fact that we are both alive today is entirely thanks to President Obama. My treatment alone involved two hospital admissions, four months of chemotherapy, and fourteen surgeries. I still take drugs every day. There is no way we could have afforded any of this without Obamacare. Before the ACA, our health insurance costs-- both premiums and deductibles--were sky high. My husband and I used to avoid going to the doctor, reserving that luxury for our three children. Without Obamacare, it's entirely possible that we wouldn't have had the check-ups that led to our diagnoses.'' These TrumpCare proposals are not healthcare bills. A true healthcare bill would not kick millions of Americans off health insurance. A true healthcare bill would not allow insurance companies to charge people more for less coverage. A true healthcare bill would not move us backwards to a time when healthcare was unaffordable. Instead, we should be working on proposals that improve our existing system. Where there are deficiencies, let's fix them. Where we can find common ground, let's act. One of the first things we should do is stabilize the insurance market by making cost-sharing payments permanent. We should also be working to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, which is why I have introduced a bill, along with Senator Grassley, that would help reduce drug costs by helping generic alternatives come to market faster. The American people expect us to work on real solutions. We should not be voting on a cobbled together plan where the primary goal seems to be to get to 50 votes, rather than actually improving our health insurance system. Importantly, no Member should vote on a proposal unveiled at the eleventh hour, with no debate--a proposal that will impact such a large component of our economy and tens of millions of Americans. Was the Affordable Care Act absolutely perfect when it was passed? No, and we acknowledged the need for continual improvement as the ACA would be implemented. Unlike other important social programs that have been created over the years--such as Social Security and Medicare-- Republicans have not allowed us the opportunity to improve, strengthen, and perfect it over time. Those programs were also not perfect, but instead of playing partisan games, Republicans and Democrats came together to get something done, time and time again. We did not vote to repeal the Social Security Act. No, we came together and we discussed what needed to be done to better help the American people, not unravel their safety net. I hope that we can end this dangerous exercise and move forward in a responsible way. Let us act on the best interests of our constituents and not resort to cynical, bumper-sticker politicking. At its best, the Senate has been able to act as the conscience of the Nation. I hope now is such a time and that the Senate will rise to the occasion to defeat this harmful bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont is a place of natural, exquisite beauty. From the expansive, rolling Green Mountains, to the crystal shores of Lake Champlain, Vermont is home to some of the most iconic geographic scenery our country has to offer. I am so proud to call Vermont my home. Vermont is also continually ranked as having the most artists per capita than any other State. Our many artists--writers, photographers, painters, sculptors, potters, and more--help capture the iconic beauty that has long made Vermont a destination for visitors from across the country and around the world. One such artist, Sabra Field, is among the most gifted and extraordinary of them. Sabra first came to Vermont in 1953 to attend Middlebury College. An Oklahoma native, she has since been lauded as a ``Vermont Living Treasure.'' Perhaps most well-known for her vivid landscapes, Ms. Field's impressive and iconic paintings are now of signature familiarity across our State and beyond. Any Vermonter who sees a painting of purple mountain majesties against a starry, blue night sky knows they are looking at one of her paintings. In 1991, Sabra was commissioned by the U.S. Postal Service to create a postage stamp of a red barn, blue sky, and green hills, a stamp which sold more than 60 million copies. She has also designed images for IBM, the Rockefeller Center, and UNICEF. Yet what most suspect only to be Ms. Field's effort to capture Vermont's impressive geography may be surprised to discover that the meaning behind her artwork spans much further. In a new exhibit of Sabra's six-decade long career, showcased by the Middlebury College Museum of Art, her artistry takes on a deeper meaning, as told by the artist herself. The Middlebury exhibit showcases some of Ms. Field's most iconic pieces, with each painting accompanied by a description of the memory or inspiration behind it. For instance, in a caption situated under an illustration of a family of hippopotamuses, Sabra writes of her first child who was hit by a car just short of his 10th birthday and died tragically 2 days later. In a 2011 panorama painted of Hawaii, she captions the story of the passing of her late husband, Spencer, who passed away on his favorite island of Kauai from complications related to cancer. The exhibit also depicts her work beyond that of a pastoralist, with self-portraits and paintings inspired by her personal exploration of spirituality, mythology, the cosmos, world history, and life after death. These images and others reveal the often somber trials of Ms. Field's life. They also expose the ways in which her artistry has helped her heal and grow over time. Ms. Field is hoping this new exhibit will help avoid her being known as purely a pastoralist, as she feels her art is both an expression of beauty and a representation of the obstacles and rebounds of her life. Marcelle and I would like to congratulate Sabra on her new exhibit at Middlebury College and on her career of record accomplishments. Her treasured paintings have long been a gift to Vermont and the world, and we know her work's timeless beauty will tell stories for generations to come. Our home proudly displays many of her works of art. We are so proud to call Sabra our dear friend. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article ``Sabra Field Show Reveals Personal Peaks and Valleys,'' published in the Vermont Digger on July 16, 2017, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on July 13, Global Witness, a widely respected international nongovernmental organization that reports on corruption and other criminality involving the exploitation of natural resources, released a report entitled, ``Defenders of the Earth--Global Killings of Land and Environmental Defenders in 2016.'' According to the report, 2016 was the worst year yet for environmental and land rights defenders. At least 200 were killed in what has become a global crisis, pitting local communities, particularly impoverished indigenous groups, against multinational mining, logging, agribusiness, hydroelectric, and hydrocarbon companies that are often supported with foreign financing. The report says the number of such killings is increasing, up from 185 in 2015 and spreading to new countries--24 in 2016 compared to 16 in 2015. However, because many of these attacks occur in remote areas, the actual number is likely much higher. The number of killings is also only part of the appalling story. Death threats, arbitrary arrests, sexual assaults and other forms of abuse, and misuse of the legal process are among the tactics used to try to intimidate environmental activists. Often, when faced with peaceful resistance to the construction of dams that displace people from their homes and to logging and mining operations that destroy the forest and pollute the water, the response of the companies, backed up by local security forces, is to accuse the protestors of being ``against development,'' try to divide them with bribes and promises that are later broken, and eventually to silence them with force. The companies get rich and move on, local officials collect payoffs, the electricity or minerals are exported to cities or other countries, and the people whose land was destroyed or water contaminated are immeasurably worse off. As one activist, who has for years spoken out against Latin America's largest open pit mine, told Global Witness, ``[t]hey threaten you so you will shut up. I can't shut up. I can't stay silent faced with all that is happening to my people. We are fighting for our lands, for our water, for our lives.'' The reports states, ``[t]he battle to protect the planet is rapidly intensifying and the cost can be counted in human lives. More people in more countries are being left with no option but to take a stand against the theft of their land or the trashing of their environment. Too often they are brutally silenced by political and business elites, while the investors that bankroll them do nothing. . . Almost 40 percent of those murdered were indigenous, as land they've inhabited for generations is stolen by companies, landowners or government officials. Projects are typically imposed on communities without their free, prior and informed consent, backed up by force: police and soldiers are suspected perpetrators in at least 43 murders. Protest is often the only option left to communities exercising their right to have a say about the use of their land and natural resources, putting them on a collision course with those seeking profit at any cost.'' The report notes the criminalization of these courageous activists, including in the United States. ``They are often painted as criminals, facing trumped-up criminal charges and aggressive civil cases brought by governments and companies seeking to silence them.'' It is the responsibility of governments to defend the lives and rights of their citizens. Instead, too many governments are violating their own laws and aiding and abetting in these attacks and assassinations--either by the conduct of their security forces or by their failure to conduct credible investigations of these crimes and to bring those responsible to justice. Honduran activist Berta Caceres is but one example. Instead of protecting her, the government and the company treated her like a criminal. She was killed for having the courage to defend the rights and territory of the Lenca people. In Honduras alone--a country the size of Kentucky with just 8 million people--more than 100 environmental defenders have reportedly suffered similar fates since 2009, for which no one has been convicted and punished. I hope this report will spur governments, companies, foreign banks, and international financial institutions to take far stronger action to respect the territorial rights of affected people, to defend freedom of speech and association, to protect the environment, and to uphold the rule of law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC has as its newest treasure, the National Museum of African American History and Culture. It is the work of many and would not be there without its founding director, Dr. Lonnie G. Bunch III. I know as a member of the Smithsonian board of regents that Dr. Bunch is the single most important person bringing about this magnificent museum and one which will speak to the history of African Americans in this country more than anything else. We all know that history has seen an enormous amount of pain caused by violence and deaths resulting from racism in America. When you come into that moving museum, as I have many times, the last thing you would expect is someone who would leave the ultimate symbol of racism, a noose, hanging in it. I know the dismay felt by people of all races when it was found, but probably what has helped the healing the most is the op-ed of June 23, 2017, in the New York Times, written by my friend, Lonnie Bunch. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the op-ed, so that all can see it and so that it will be part of the history of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last night in the Kennedy Caucus Room, the U.S. Capitol Historical Society honored the Senate Appropriations Committee with a celebration of its 150th anniversary. Past and present committee members and staff gathered to reflect on the history of the committee, and Senate Historian Betty Koed gave a wonderful keynote address. Established on March 6, 1867, the committee's powers are rooted in article 1, section 9, of our Constitution which states, ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' The Founders recognized the power of the purse as one of the most important tools Congress has to ensure our system of checks and balances and to conduct oversight of the executive and judicial branch--but it is much more than that. The Appropriations Committee is where we translate the priorities of a nation into the realities of the people. Our country is not a business, where we allocate resources only according to the bottom line. We do not invest in order to make a profit or a one-for-one dollar in return. We invest in those areas where it is uniquely right for government to take the lead. We invest in the areas that make a difference in the everyday lives of Americans and that help build the foundations of our country and our economy-- infrastructure, national security, our environment, education, science and research, healthcare. I want to thank the U.S. Capitol Historical Society for organizing this anniversary celebration, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the remarks given by Senate Historian Betty Koed be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Ireland's Ambassador to the United States, Anne Anderson, on the occasion of her retirement. Since 2013, Anne has served as Ireland's 17th Ambassador to the United States, the first woman to serve in this role. She has done much to further the close relationship long shared between the United States and Ireland. My great-grandparents were Irish immigrants, settling in Vermont, where I was born and raised. I have long been aware of the contributions Irish immigrants make to our Nation. Ambassador Anderson first represented her Ireland's interests in the United States in 1983, when she became the Embassy of Ireland's economic attache and then press attache. After moving back to Ireland in 1987, she served as counsellor in the Anglo-Irish division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and then became Assistant Secretary General in Corporate Services. In this role, Ambassador Anderson greatly influenced the fight for equal treatment of women in the workplace and worked to pass fair employment legislation in the North of Ireland. Ambassador Anderson assumed the role of diplomat again in 1995, when she became Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations in Geneva. During her time in Geneva, she acted as chair of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights and vice president of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. She then moved to Brussels to serve as the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the European Union in 2001. After some time as Ambassador to France, she returned to the United States once more to become the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations in New York until 2013, when she was named the Ambassador of Ireland to the United States. Her focus in her time as ambassador has been in advocating on behalf of immigration issues and undocumented Irish immigrants in the United States, pursuing her passion for inclusivity and equality in human rights and women's rights, and fostering the cultural art connections between the two nations. The foundations of our relationship with Ireland are built upon and solidified by the great work of diplomats and public servants such as Ambassador Anderson, who seek to facilitate international relationships that rise above any national differences. While she may be retiring from her diplomatic roles, my friend Anne will forever be a diplomat in the truest sense of the word. Marcelle and I congratulate her on her retirement and thank her for her years of service and friendship and her dedicated efforts to strengthen the U.S. relationship with Ireland.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his comments. I ascribe to them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, four years ago, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. That 5 to 4 decision crippled the Federal government's ability to protect minority, elderly, and disadvantaged voters across the country. The impact of this disastrous ruling has been even worse than imagined. Before the ink even dried on the Court's opinion, Republican officials in several States rushed to enact laws making it harder for minorities to vote. Prior to Shelby County, the Federal government had the ability to prevent racial discriminatory voting changes from taking effect before those changes occur. Proposed laws and new voting procedures would first have been reviewed by the Federal courts or the Department of Justice to ensure that voting rights would not be harmed if the changes went into effect. But without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County, discriminatory laws quickly passed Republican legislatures in several States. Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion in Shelby County noted several times that the protections of the Voting Rights Act are no longer appropriate because our ``Country has changed.'' It is true that our Nation has changed--we have made progress. But there is no question that the scourge of racial discrimination still exists. There are still those within our society intent on suppressing the right to vote and keeping minorities from exercising their constitutional right to participate in our democracy. Since the Shelby County ruling--and now emboldened by the Trump Administration--these forces are more concerning than they have been in decades. Unfortunately, what has transpired in the aftermath of the Shelby County decision makes the need for the full protections of the Voting Rights Act unmistakably clear. Voter suppression efforts have found renewed life in numerous jurisdictions across the country. Thankfully, in some cases the courts have been able to provide a backstop. Based on strong evidence that hundreds of thousands of minority voters have been disproportionately prevented or discouraged from voting by Republican- enacted voting restrictions, Federal courts have blocked or rolled back many of these laws. Importantly, Federal courts have repeatedly found that these States enacted laws with the intention to discriminate. Just last month, the Supreme Court left in place the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocked North Carolina's harsh voting restrictions, including a strict photo identification law. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the Republican legislature had passed the law with the intent to racially discriminate against African Americans, and found that ``the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' In April of this year, Federal district court ruled for a second time that Texas's photo ID law was enacted with the intent to racially discriminate and had a racially discriminatory effect on Hispanic and Black voters. This ruling came after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the Texas law should be struck down because of its discriminatory effect on minority voters. But just weeks ago, the Republican-led Texas legislature and Governor enacted a new law in an attempt to escape the court's rulings. Federal courts in Kansas and North Dakota have also acted as a bulwark against attempts by Republican officials to disenfranchise minority voters. In Kansas; courts have issued rulings rejecting repeated attempts by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach from making voter registration more difficult. In North Dakota, a Federal district court held that the State's strict photo ID law disproportionately burdened Native Americans and blocked its implementation in the 2016 election. These decisions are only the tip of the iceberg of what has transpired since Shelby County. While our courts are acting to guard against attempts to block minorities from accessing the ballot box, each of these cases requires years of litigation, money, and resources. And these are just the voting changes Republicans are enacting at the State level. Many of the efforts at the local level have gone unnoticed but have equally devastating effects on the voting rights of minorities. The original Voting Rights Act would have prevented many of these discriminatory laws. But the Supreme Court's decision has taken this country back to an era before the Civil Rights movement--a bad time in our history where some states openly discriminated against minority voters. We are constantly reminded how costly the fight for voting and civil rights has been in this country. Just yesterday, we marked the 53rd anniversary of three civil rights activists who were killed in Mississippi for registering minorities to vote. James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman gave their lives in 1964 when they were murdered while fighting in Mississippi for racial equality and free access to the ballot box. Their example, and the example of generations of civil rights activists who gave their sweat, blood, and sometimes their lives must inspire us and drive us to do more. It is now imperative for us to do everything in our power to correct the Shelby County decision and reinstate the full protections of the Voting Rights Act for the next generation. The legislation I am introducing today would restore and update the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 not only modernizes the Voting Rights Act in response to Shelby County, it also modernizes the law to provide tools to combat current forms of voter discrimination. This bill responds to calls from community leaders and grassroots activists working in communities whose voting rights have been threatened or suppressed. It responds to voting rights experts and civil rights leader who have called for strong legislation to counter the voter intimidation and patently discriminatory efforts that were unleashed after the Shelby County ruling. I am proud to introduce this bill with forty-six original cosponsors, nearly every single member of the Democratic caucus. I am also proud to be joined by Senator Durbin, who worked with me to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006. In addition, the House of Representatives is today introducing a companion bill led by Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Congresswoman Judy Chu, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham, my friend Congressman John Lewis, and over 175 members of the House Democratic caucus. We are all joining together to introduce this bill today because we will not let systematic and persistent efforts to suppress Americans' right to vote go unchecked. We will not stand idly by while this country reverts to a bygone era where it was acceptable to disenfranchise our own citizens because they were Black, Hispanic, or disadvantaged. These unconstitutional and discriminatory efforts deserve a strong response. Protecting Americans' constitutional right to vote is not a partisan exercise. The original enactment and every reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act has always been bipartisan. When we last reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, I worked closely with the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees--former Senator Arlen Specter and Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. And past reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act have been signed into law by Republican presidents. But now, the Republican majority--in both the House and the Senate-- refuses to protect the right to vote, restore the Voting Rights Act, or address other critical civil rights issues. Since the Shelby County decision, Republicans at every level of our government have acted to make it harder to vote. This has become the legacy of today's Republican Party. They should think seriously about reversing course, rather than trying to reverse the gains we have made in history. One significant step would be to join with us to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the historic and critically-needed protections of this landmark civil rights law.