Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak briefly, as I know the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska is waiting to speak. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have been concerned. As I read the press and talk with officials, I learn more about the troubling connections between the Russian Government and President Trump's campaign and administration. We already knew--it is very, very factual--that Russian President Putin ordered a multifaceted campaign to undermine public faith in our election and to help President Trump win in November. That is something all of us as Americans should be concerned about. Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, when you have that kind of an attack on our democracy, it is a concern to all of us. Reports indicate that Trump officials were in repeated contact with senior Russian intelligence officials during this time. This comes on the heels of the President's National Security Advisor having to resign after providing misleading details on conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador concerning U.S. sanctions. But there is a lot we still don't know, including the extent of the contacts, who directed them, whether people who at one point or another left the Trump campaign were involved, whether there was collusion, and, of course, the obvious question: What did the President know and when he did he know it? The American people deserve to know the facts. They deserve a full and fair investigation that is free from any political influence. The White House has already demonstrated it is not going to respect the independence of this investigation. The fact that the White House Chief of Staff attempted to use the FBI--in violation of Justice Department policies--to suppress news reports about Russian contacts reveals why we really can't trust the White House to play by the rules. And, of course, the rules are very, very clear. For these reasons, I am calling on Attorney General Sessions to step aside on this issue and to appoint a special counsel to conduct an independent investigation. That is not an attack on Attorney General Sessions. I have known him for 30 years. I just want to make sure we do not have these continuing questions about what the President knew and when he knew it. Even a cursory review of the Justice Department's recusal standards reveals that the Attorney General does not--indeed, cannot--have the independence necessary to assure wary Americans that this investigation will be driven by the facts, not by relationships. Certainly those who have served as prosecutors--Attorney General Sessions has; I have--know that there are times when the prosecutor has to step aside and let someone else do it just so that everybody can be confident in the investigation. In fact, Justice Department regulations mandate that ``no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with . . . [a]ny person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation.'' Of course, a ``political relationship'' is defined as ``a close identification with an elected official . . . arising from service as a principal adviser thereto.'' Prior to his confirmation, when we were holding the confirmation hearings on then- Senator Jeff Sessions, I asked him whether he met the standard. It is not really a close call. The rule perfectly describes the relationship between Attorney General Sessions and President Trump. But he brushed the question off, claiming that he was ``merely . . . a supporter of the President's during the campaign.'' Well, that is an obvious mischaracterization of the role he played as a top adviser to the Trump campaign. Attorney General--then-Senator-- Sessions was widely recognized as a central figure in the campaign. He had his fingerprints all over the President's policies. In fact, one of the President's top advisers, Steve Bannon, even called him the President's ``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy.'' That is a pretty close connection. I could hardly think of anything closer. To suggest the Attorney General was just ``a supporter'' and that he did not have a ``political relationship'' with the Trump campaign, when you look at the Bannon comments, that is patently false. If the Attorney General refuses to follow the Department's recusal standard--now as the head of the Department, well, then, I would hope he would follow his own recusal standards. Last year, just days before the election, then-Senator Sessions and other Trump campaign surrogates wrote an op-ed. He criticized then-Attorney General Lynch for not recusing herself from matters involving Secretary Clinton. The basis of his complaint was a ``39-minute conversation''--to use his words--that Attorney General Lynch had with former President Bill Clinton in Phoenix, AZ. I would hope he would set the same standard for himself that he sets for others because it is kind of hard to talk about a half-hour conversation and say that requires recusal when it comes to the Clintons, but a year's worth of vigorously campaigning with and vigorously advising does not when it comes to the Trump campaign. A year working on the Trump campaign doesn't count, but 39 minutes talking to former President Clinton does? Come on. If that is the standard for recusal in one case--I won't do the math on how many times 39 minutes goes into a year, but I would say, using Jeff Sessions' own standards, he has far, far, far more reason to recuse himself in this matter. During the 20 years I have worked with him, Jeff Sessions has often spoken of his commitment to the rule of law. I know he feels strongly about that, just as I do. As Senators, every one of us should. Certainly every one of us who has had the privilege to be a prosecutor should have a commitment to the rule of law. Well, Attorney General Sessions' commitment is now being tested. Whether we apply the Justice Department's recusal standard, which is very, very clear, or use the Jeff Sessions' 39-minute recusal standard, it is clear that Attorney General Sessions must step aside. In fact, nothing less than the integrity of our democracy is at stake with this investigation. And I do not say that lightly. Nothing less than the integrity of our democracy is at stake with this investigation. What did everybody know? When did they know it? It is essential that the investigation be led by someone who--in both appearance and in reality--is impartial and removed from politics. That does not describe someone who was in the trenches of a political campaign with the subjects of the investigation while they were allegedly engaged in the activity under investigation, or somebody who has been described by Steve Bannon as a ``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy'' for President Trump. For the good of the country, for the good of all of us--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--the Attorney General really has just one thing to do: Appoint a special counsel and let the public have the answers. What did everybody know? When did they know it? It is pretty simple. The people of Vermont, and I suspect throughout the country, would like to have those answers that go to the bedrock of our democracy. In my 42 years here, I have never seen anything that has concerned me so much as another country that does not have the best interests of the United States at heart trying to interfere in our election, another country trying to determine what the United States does. This is a country that does not have the United States' best interests at heart but a country that wants to manipulate the United States. This U.S. Senator, for the time I have in office, will continue to speak out against it.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, of course, I will yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if I might respond to my good friend and senior Senator from Illinois, he has been a friend and colleague for decades. The Judiciary Committee and the whole Senate has benefited from his knowledge. What the leader of Poland said to the distinguished Senator is a very chilling thing, Madam President. He knows from his own family ancestors how bad an area can be if it is under the domination of something like the then-Soviet Union and now Russia. He also knows from his own experience as an American how important it is that we have the freedoms we have. I was privileged, along with my wife Marcelle and several others-- Senator Cochran, Senator Udall, and Senator Bennet and Congressman McGovern--to visit Cuba and have long discussions with people who would like to see real democracy come, and then to go to Colombia where they have fought for over 50 years a terrible internal civil war with countless deaths and atrocities and to see how they were trying to bring back the rule of law and the rule of democracy. And we just sit there, and it is so easy for us who grew up in an era in which we believe in our democracy and we believe in our voices being heard, where sometimes we win elections and sometimes we lose them, but we believe in the fairness of it. It is so easy to sit there and think: But we do it right. This makes me wonder. Can we continue to say that? Can we be the beacon to the rest of the world? Can we say: Do as the United States does because we are open, we are transparent, we are honest. Well, this has not been open, transparent, or honest. Let's make it so. Let's not let it drag on. Let's go to it now so people can then start debating issues. I expect there will be areas where I will agree with the new administration and there are areas where I disagree with the new administration. But I want to know I am agreeing and disagreeing with an American administration, not with Vladimir Putin's administration. So I am moved by what my friend from Illinois has said. I hope the rest of the country listens because we are supposed to be the example. We pride ourselves on being the example. We are the oldest existing democracy in the world. Let's not do anything that will come back to haunt us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today Mr. Ross joins the growing list of billionaires appointed by the Trump administration. It is not their wealth that concerns me, but their past conflicts with the agencies they are promoted to lead and support, providing guidance for policy and for administration of the laws. It is for this reason I cannot support Mr. Ross today. Every American has a stake in the strength of our economy. We rely on the Department of Commerce to facilitate trade, investment, and innovation in a direction that ensures long-term benefits for Americans. Today while the wealthiest among us continue to profit, middle class families are working long hours to pay their bills and put food on their tables. The cost of living is outstripping their family budgets, and we must get ahead of this curve. Mr. Ross has a background of buying fledging companies, and while he might turn around the profit margins of those companies, it is at the cost of American jobs. He has been called fair and practical, but has also committed his career in business by expanding in low-cost countries like Mexico and China. The economic policies of this country cannot be built on representing the interests of rich investors, but must also be creative in spurring job growth in American communities where industry has disappeared. We can shape our global trade policy in ways that benefit the United States, without having to do so under the assumption that the United States needs to operate in isolation in order to realize economic success. We can build industry at home, while partnering abroad in trade for our products. But it will take the commitment of the next Secretary to focus on our human capital as innovators and not as mere cost considerations. Although America's role in the global market is expanding, our closest trade partner remains across our northern border. Each year, we export hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of goods and services to Canada, making it our largest export market in the world. Vermont is an active contributor to this flow of commerce. Supporting initiatives that strengthen this partnership will benefit local businesses in Vermont and across the Nation. Mr. Ross wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, and while we can debate the merits of NAFTA, the talk of renegotiating this agreement without the partnership of Mexico and Canada has many Vermont businesses concerned about the implications for their future and for the Vermont jobs that depend on our export markets. We live in a global economy, and I work with Vermont businesses every day who rely on importing goods and materials in order to successfully create a final products that are a combination of U.S. and foreign made. This is the reality for many businesses today. I do not criticize the decisions a businessowner makes for the quality of their product. But every large corporation makes a choice between cheaper overseas labor and materials or investing in the workforce here at home for greater gains in the future. That is a choice that Mr. Ross has made on several occasions for the benefit of profits not workers. I have said it time and again, but America thrives when our middle class is strong. As Secretary, Mr. Ross will be expected to represent the interests of all Americans. I hope he takes this commitment seriously and works across party lines to create new industry and opportunity that take root in the very communities that suffer from lack of it. The Secretary of Commerce cannot look at individuals as statistics of profit or loss, but must understand the innovative spirit that brings opportunity where it may otherwise be lost.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today I must vote to oppose the confirmation of Scott Pruitt as the President's nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. While I believe that the President enjoys some privilege of selecting administration officials, the views that Mr. Pruitt and I hold on a wide range of key environmental issues are completely irreconcilable. I was deeply disturbed by Mr. Pruitt's lack of specificity and his evasiveness during his hearing and in response to written questions. While no one would expect Mr. Pruitt to detail the new Trump administration's policies on these complex issues, we do expect the nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency to share with us his own views on important matters, including whether there are any EPA regulations he supports, or whether he would fully recuse himself from making decisions in all legal cases in which he was an original party-- but no. Instead, he testified that he had not conducted a comprehensive review of existing EPA regulations. With respect to recusals, he asserts that he would simply follow the recommendations of the EPA's ethics office. That is not good enough. I am deeply disturbed by Mr. Pruitt's evasive responses. This does not bode well for his future interactions with Congress where he will certainly be required to appear before committees and provide testimony, briefing materials, and other information in a timely manner. Under oath before the Environment and Public Works Committee, he told the committee members, U.S. Senators, to go to the back of the line, to make records requests to his home State if they wanted information. This is information that Mr. Pruitt could and should have provided to the committee. As a result, information needed by the Senate to judge his fitness for this position has yet to be revealed. Committee members were told 19 separate times to get the information they were requesting from his own office, the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, an office that has more than a 2-year backlog for such requests. That is not the spirit of openness and transparency we expect and must demand from witnesses, let alone from nominees who come before the U.S. Senate. How can the Senate adequately fulfill its responsibility of advice and consent if nominees will not cooperate? Mr. Pruitt has stonewalled the committee and the entire Senate on answers to basic questions about possible conflicts of interest. He has refused to provide relevant emails and other documents. This is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to advance and approve this nominee without a clear and complete view of his record and his close relationships with the very companies he will be tasked with regulating. With respect to the Agency that he has been nominated to lead, it is imperative that we not reverse or halt the tremendous progress that has been made in achieving strong, scientifically based environmental protection goals. The EPA itself was born out of an environmental crisis in this country, in the wake of elevated awareness of and concern about pollution. This came after our Nation watched in horror as the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH, burst into flames again as it was so saturated with sewage and industrial waste that it oozed rather than flowed. That pollution was a byproduct of unchecked pollution from industrial wastes. Over its 46 years, the EPA has made enormous progress and become one of the world's most successful protectors of public health and the environment. Americans now expect clean air and clean water, where, before the EPA was created, we expected nothing more than burning rivers and polluted air. While cleaning up the environment, we have also grown jobs and strengthened our economy. However, we continue to face an environmental crisis of our own making with climate change, and EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment reminds us that the tasks of this Agency are essential to every single American. Americans care about having clean air to breath, safe drinking water, and swimmable and fishable rivers and streams. They want their food to be free of pesticides and their workplaces to be healthy and safe. They want their children to have a future that is free of the dangers of climate change. Sadly, Mr. Pruitt refuses to accept the scientific community's overwhelming consensus that unchecked increases in greenhouse gas emissions will have catastrophic effects. The science is crystal clear that the impacts of climate change will increase in frequency and scale. Even the Department of Defense recognizes that climate change will impact the complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities. Climate change cannot be dismissed as merely a political issue. We need to address the unfettered release of carbon and other greenhouse gases and have a strong resilience strategy to address the plight of future generations and the hazards already plaguing this one; yet we continue to have political claims thrown about that the EPA's work to address climate change and limit carbon emissions is to blame for the decline in the coal industry. At their base, these are more ``alternative facts.'' This was confirmed yet again this week as the owners of the Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant in Arizona, voted to close the facility at the end of 2019. It was not EPA regulations or the Clean Power Plan that were cited as the reason for the closure of the coal-fired plant. No, it was the fact that, in a market that is saturated by cheap natural gas prices, the plant was no longer economical to operate. Attempts by the President and this nominee to spread alternative facts and to misleadingly promise to prop up an industry, by blaming action on climate change, is not the way to move our country forward and stimulate innovation that will create good, new American jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. For the benefit of the Senate record on this nominee, I would like to take this opportunity to share some of the messages that I have received from thousands of Vermonters over the past few weeks about this nominee. One Vermonter from Norwich, VT, a student studying sustainability and environmental management, said she is fearful of Mr. Pruitt's focus on eliminating and defunding any programs that could help to stop climate change. She went on to describe the importance of peer-reviewed scientific research on climate change and how Federal support for our leading academic institutions to complete this research is in our national interest as we monitor the Earth's vital signs. I also heard from a constituent from Essex Junction, Vermont, who shared with me how he has seen firsthand at his technology company how the Federal promotion of research and development has directly promoted innovation and technological change. This innovation and these technical advances have led to new technologies that have radically changed many aspects of our lives and have transformed our economy, creating jobs, and invigorating our entrepreneurial spirit. He was concerned that Mr. Pruitt would seek to dismantle work that the EPA has done to find better ways to solve environmental problems, from research and technology to regulation, community programs, and external partnerships as they work to find creative ways to achieve results. I also heard from Vermont farmers like one in Bristol, VT, who shared with me how her family farm has experienced the firsthand chaotic effects of climate change and has responded to the call to be more resilient. She voiced her willingness to cooperate with government regulations to protect our air, water, and soil and that we ``need the EPA to use science and enforcement to lead the charge.'' She went on to say that the head of the EPA should be working to ensure that our air is clean to breathe and our water is safe to drink, not to ensure that polluters get a free pass. I agree wholeheartedly with her. From rural Hartland, I heard from one Vermonter who said that ``the health and wellbeing of Americans must be a priority--not the wealth of a few corporations and the individuals that benefit from that wealth. America must be a global leader when it comes to addressing climate change if all nations are to take appropriate measures.'' As Vermont's ski resorts have enjoyed over ample snow in the last week, I have heard from hundreds of snow sport enthusiasts who are deeply worried about Mr. Pruitt leading the EPA. They know that climate change is a threat to our planet and to our economy. In recent years, we have seen abnormally high temperatures that severely hurt our ski and tourism industries in Vermont. Many ski areas saw business down 20 percent, and some saw a drop of as much as 40 percent. This does not just affect our ski areas and our mountains, but also our restaurants, our local hotels, contractors, and countless other businesses that are driven by the vitality of our ski industry. For the State of Vermont, the revenue from ski slopes is an important part of our economy, and we need an EPA Administrator ready to tackle the problems of climate change, not one whose primary goal is supporting business as usual for the worst polluters. I agree with the thousands of Vermonters who have contacted me concerned about this nominee. I believe that Mr. Pruitt's nomination sends exactly the wrong signal to the country and to the world as we are combatting the global impacts and causes of climate change. His nomination represents a massive shift away from putting public health and the environment first, and towards ``Polluters `R' Us''--the industries that directly benefit from being given free rein to pollute. His past conduct suggests that he will do everything he can to support those polluters and put their profits ahead of the public good. The decisions made by the Administrator of the EPA affect the air we breathe, our scenic rivers, our precious resources, the water that our children drink, and the rate at which the United States contributes to the rapidly changing global climate. This appointee's work will have a long-term global impact and a major impact on all of our children and grandchildren and on our shared heritage and our natural legacy as Americans. In my years in the U.S. Senate, I have evaluated many nominees and I have supported nominations from both Republican and Democratic Presidents, despite my reservations on some views they held. I have also opposed some nominees because their records were so clearly contrary to the public interest. Rarely have I seen a nominee so totally unqualified and so profoundly a threat to our environment. The views Mr. Pruitt and I hold on protecting Americans' health and our environment and addressing climate change are far too conflicting to allow me to support his nomination. The Senate will confirm Mr. Pruitt. Of this, there is no question. But then we will begin our duty to provide dogged oversight of his actions at the EPA. Public trust and confidence demand the highest level of accountability to ensure the stewardship of our federal funds, to safeguard the integrity of the EPA, to base decisions on rigorous, fact-based, peer-reviewed science, for the protection of both public health and our environment. I worry that confirming Mr. Pruitt will turn the Environmental Protection Agency into the ``Polluters Protection Agency.'' I cannot support his confirmation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about President Trump's admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom most objective observers regard as a murderous thug and a kleptocrat. As we consider the President's statements lauding Putin for being a ``strong leader'' and his silence about the imprisonment and assassinations of Putin's critics and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, and atrocities in Syria, I am reminded of the remarks delivered on December 13 by Samantha Power, former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at the U.N. Security Council. Ambassador Power delivered a passionate appeal to the Security Council to take action to protect civilians under assault in Aleppo, including to hold in contempt the governments of Syria, Russia, and Iran for their war crimes in Syria. Her remarks stand as a stark contrast to what we are hearing from the White House today. This is a time to condemn Vladmir Putin's aggressions against the people of Russia, of Ukraine, and of Syria--not to regard him as an example of a leader to emmulate. It is also a time for Republicans to stand up for our own democracy, after the Russian Government, at Putin's direction, actively sought to sway the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election. The unanimous conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies is that Putin, a former KGB agent, ordered a cyber attack on our electoral system in favor of Donald Trump. Russia's goals ``were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.'' Yet the White House and Republican leaders in Congress have been silent, apparently unconcerned about a foreign assault on our electoral system, refusing to even support an independent investigation. Imagine what they would be saying if their candidate had lost. They would be demanding a new election and trying to shut down the government. I ask unanmious consent that Ambassador Power's remarks be printed in the Record to serve as a reminder of the scale of the humanitarian disaster in Syria perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin and our moral obligation to pursue accountability for those responsible.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be the Secretary of the Treasury. It is a nomination I simply cannot support. The Treasury Department plays an essential role in the development of the economic policies that financially secure the United States in world markets, that expand the opportunities available to all Americans, and that help set the stage for a sound and growing economy. Our country's economic engine must be one that is accessible to all Americans, not just the wealthy few. Regrettably, while Mr. Mnuchin may have a knowledge of the inner workings of Wall Street, he seems to know shockingly little of the hardships faced on Main Street. One need look no further than his role during the height of the housing crisis in foreclosing on tens of thousands of American families. Reducing these actions to mere administrative matters belies the true struggles of those who don't boast the personal coffers Mr. Mnuchin enjoys. I simply cannot accept his explanation of his role in these actions. We cannot forget the devastation and hardship that the recent financial crisis brought upon our country, its people, its neighborhoods, its small businesses, and its communities. People lost their homes and their jobs, and our markets crashed. Many have still have not recovered from those losses. As Congress worked to find the answers, it became clear that many large investment banks and insurance companies hid the insecurity of their finances from stockholders and from the American people. While many people lost their life savings, corporate executives received outrageous severance packages. As the country lurched into a financial downward spiral, Mr. Mnuchin's company, One West, administered aggressive foreclosure tactics that added to the devastation of these families, including veterans. It was wrong. Mr. Mnuchin, in his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, may have tried to convince the American people that his was an innocent role in the crisis. But given that he could not provide a valid reason for failing to disclose that he was the director of an offshore account worth more than $100 million, domiciled offshore in the Cayman Islands, I just cannot buy what he is selling--and neither can Vermonters. In 2010, Congress worked hard to pass the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation included a number of financial reforms to change the way financial institutions and banks take on risk, while adding protections for customers of these institutions, and creating a new regulatory council in order to provide more effective oversight of the industry. President Trump has indicated that he will seek to roll back Dodd-Frank regulations, and Mr. Mnuchin reinforced this pledge in front of the Finance Committee. Since its inception in 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPBP, has received and sent to companies for review upward of 700,000 complaints from consumers across the country, ranging from abuses in debt collection and credit reporting, to student loans. I worry about the future of the CFPB under President Trump's administration. Its value and importance in protecting Americans from predatory practices, like those of OneWest, cannot be overstated. I cannot support a Secretary who would unravel the reforms we worked hard to enact and that protect the American people from the devastation of runaway corporate greed. For the last 8 years, we have focused with considerable success on rebuilding our economy. The unemployment rate is lower than it was before the financial crisis. Small businesses are growing. It is imperative that we continue to make economic progress and that we find additional ways to help those who have been left behind, without returning to the destructive policies that brought about the crisis in the first place. I am not convinced that Mr. Mnuchin is the right nominee to lead the Treasury Department and to continue this forward progress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Senate has spent the last few weeks considering controversial nominee after controversial nominee, it is a refreshing break to consider Dr. David Shulkin to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Shulkin is a man defined by his professionalism, competence, and dedication to the mission of the agency he is tapped to lead. The son of an Army psychologist and an experienced hospital system administrator, Dr. Shulkin was selected by President Obama to restore trust and confidence at the Veterans Health Administration after years of struggles punctuated by the horrible scandal of wait times in Phoenix. Under his leadership, the VA has made great progress. Amid a sea of questionable Cabinet nominations, Dr. Shulkin is one about which I have no question. Of course, Dr. Shulkin will face immense challenges. The VA needs significant overhaul, not just in its practices and policies, but in its facilities and technology. In eliminating the backlog for access to health care and in the midst of tackling the backlog in claims, facilities have been short-changed with respect to needed improvements and upgrades, while experiencing increased usage. New technologies provide new opportunities for providing care, but they also require new investments. Areas that are finally receiving the attention required include mental health, posttraumatic stress, and other lingering invisible wounds of war. It has been one of my priorities to ensure that the best science and practices with respect to mental health and posttraumatic stress can be spread to the communities where veterans live and work, like the rural communities of Vermont. Only then will we see progress in improving the lives of veterans in those areas. Dr. Shulkin must also rebuild the confidence of a VA workforce that has been unfairly targeted and vilified by some for the actions of a few. The Federal employees who work at the VA are among the most dedicated anywhere. Their devotion to improving care for veterans is inspiring, but their jobs have been made more difficult by both the disappointing actions of some individuals and the frustrating policies and organizational structures that sometimes get in the way of them serving veterans. I believe that Dr. Shulkin is up to this challenge. It is evident from his testimony before the Veterans Affairs Committee and through his public statements that he believes in the VA and in the importance of its mission. It is evident that he understands the value of looking to the community for health care answers when that makes sense and that he also understands that the Nation should never ignore its solemn responsibility to care for veterans through all possible avenues. I am also reassured by his pledge not to dismantle the VA or turn its delivery of care into a voucher system. It is evident that he intends to speak his mind about what makes the most sense for leading a missive health care system focused on providing quality care to each individual veteran. I will support Dr. Shulkin's nomination, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a simple unanimous consent request, but before I do, I congratulate the new Senator from Alabama. It is unusual that I have someone here taller than I am. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield the remainder of my time on the issue before us to the senior Senator from New York.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Cabinet nomination we are considering today is one of great consequence. The reach of the Department of Health and Human Services is extensive, with direct and indirect consequences for the health and well-being of all Americans. Like many other nominations that this body is rushing to confirm, Representative Price has not satisfied the many questions that have been raised about his ability to defend programs that are vital to so many Americans. In fact, his record in Congress runs counter to these goals. I have always believed that all Americans deserve access to quality, affordable health care. We made a tremendous step in this direction through the Affordable Care Act, ACA, which has extended health insurance coverage to more than 20 million Americans and their families through cancer screenings, immunizations, and preventative health care at little or no cost-share. The law has ensured that vulnerable populations have access to quality care through State expansions of Medicaid. The ACA stopped insurance companies from discriminating against women, seniors, and individuals with preexisting conditions. And it has already saved taxpayers billions in Federal health care costs, while bolstering reserves for our Nation's Medicare and Social Security Trust funds. Unfortunately, Representative Price does not see it this way. As one of the first lawmakers to draft legislation calling for the full repeal of the ACA, Representative Price believes that health care should once again be under the largely unfettered control of big businesses and insurance companies. He may say that he wants more Americans to have ``access to affordable coverage,'' but his record in the House shows otherwise. It is not only the Affordable Care Act that Representative Price has put in the crosshairs, but virtually every Federal, health program. Representative Price's track record in opposing programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security is extensive. As Congressman, he has proposed dissolving or block granting Medicaid and replacing Medicare with vouchers, unadjusted for income, for consumers to purchase private plans on the market. In November, he released an agenda proposing across-the-board cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He has also long fought against women's healthcare and access to family planning services. And he has advocated banning abortions and abolishing funding for Planned Parenthood, which would make it far more difficult for women to have access to health care. Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are crucially important to patients and their families. Medicaid provides vulnerable populations, including children, with essential and comprehensive health benefits, like mental health care and substance abuse treatment, which are required to be covered by Medicaid under the ACA. And for decades, Medicare and Social Security have offered health care protections to low-income Americans and seniors, offering guaranteed resources in retirement. These are earned benefits that hard-working Americans have paid into throughout their lives. It is only fair that these people should expect to have these resources when they enter retirement. We cannot deny the vital health protections of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to our Nation's families. And I cannot in good conscience support someone who does not share this game goal. Lives, literally, are at stake. I am also deeply concerned about allegations of Representative Price's violation of the STOCK Act, which prohibits Members of Congress from making investment decisions based on information they receive as a result of their roles in Congress. Serious questions of his all-too- coincidental trading with medical companies, after introducing legislation that supports these very companies, are troubling, and signal that this nominee is unfit to lead the very agency responsible for protecting the health of Americans. I am glad the minority members of the Senate Finance Committee refused to join the business meeting scheduled to move Representative Price's nomination last month. There remain serious questions relating to potential conflicts he would have as Secretary. Despite these concerns, Republicans on the Finance Committee made the unprecedented decision to change the rules and confirm Congressman Price without even one Democratic member present. This move runs counter to the majority's own rules. But more importantly, it contradicts what we stand for in promoting the interests of Americans as their elected officials. If confirmed, there are valid reasons for the American people to be concerned that Representative Price's agenda will make its way into the Department of Health and Human Services, and Americans will suffer for that. It is the responsibility of this agency to uphold and protect the well-being of the people of this great and good country, and it would be counter to this goal to allow someone like Representative Price to oversee such efforts. That is why I will strongly oppose his nomination, and I encourage all in the Senate to do the same.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota for her comments. She speaks from experience and knowledge, as has the senior Senator from Washington State, on this issue. In my years here, I have seen thousands of confirmation votes, literally at all levels, up to and including Cabinet members and Supreme Court justices. I have voted for a large majority of a President's nominations--both Republican and Democratic Presidents. Some may not have been those I would have chosen, but I felt that, at least, the President should be given the prerogative, if the person is qualified. Now, ideology is one thing, and qualification is another. Out of those thousands of confirmation votes, I have a hard time remembering any that were like this one. This one had a whirlwind confirmation hearing and committee vote. It was almost as though they were afraid to have the nominee actually have to appear and answer questions. And now the Senate is going to vote on the nomination of Betsy DeVos to lead the Department of Education. I will be very blunt. On the very little time that she was allowed to be shown to the public, she showed--and I certainly believe this--that she does not have the qualifications to uphold the Department of Education's primary goal--that of ensuring that all students--all students, not just the wealthy, but all students--have access to a quality, public education that allows them to succeed. I am both a father and a grandfather, and I am proud of it. I watched my children go to school. And now I see my grandchildren going to school. I understand well the impact of education on our children. When students have access to strong public education from the very beginning, they are more apt to succeed in the long run. Our Nation's public schools--as is the case in my home State of Vermont--hold the promise of student success through strong State accountability measures and legal protections regardless of one's race, income, or learning ability. They offer nutritious meals for underserved students, many of whom receive their only meals of the day at school. Any teacher will tell you that if you have a hungry child, you have a child who cannot learn. If a child is fed, you have a child who can learn. Public education means strong teachers and school leaders, technology in the classroom, an assessment to test not just how well a student can memorize material for an exam on a particular day of the year, but how much they have grown over the course of many months. Many of the schools have counselors and nurses. They operate under a modern infrastructure to support those with disabilities and children in foster care. But public education also means that both the States and the Federal Government are held accountable for everyone having access to the same excellent resources. In fact, just over 1 year ago, this body agreed to these protections. We passed the Every Student Succeeds Act here in the Senate by a vote of 85 to 12--an amazing, overwhelming, bipartisan vote. It was the firm agreement among the majority of the Senate--Republicans and Democrats alike--that all students deserve access to critical public school resources in order to succeed. We made a promise that we would do better by our students; that public schools would be the premier standard for outstanding education for all. Unfortunately, the nominee before us--in the very little time that she was allowed to testify and be questioned in the confirmation hearing--showed that she does not share these same goals. Instead, she has referred to public schools as a ``dead end.'' Well, if you are a billionaire, you have a choice to go wherever you want to school. Maybe these people in a public school are not good enough for you? Well, then, go buy a school if you want. Most people don't have that option. Most people are hard working. My wife and I were when our kids were in school. Our children are today. What does Betsy DeVos advocate for? She advocates for the privatization of education. She has funneled millions of dollars into organizations and initiatives to promote private school vouchers and school choice. These efforts have diverted public funds toward private schools, schools that are not held to any antidiscrimination or accountability standards. These schools can discriminate all they want. At her confirmation hearing--in the very little time that she did speak--she did not understand the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This is a landmark law. It is a Federal law that public schools in all 50 States must follow. Lastly, Mrs. DeVos and her family have contributed to anti-LGBT causes and anti-women's health efforts, which are in direct conflict to the one who is supposed to lead the Department of Education. How can a nominee disagree with the mission of the Department of Education and be fit to oversee that agency and promote the civil rights of schools and college campuses? She also appears to oppose efforts to expand college access, in an era when college is so important. Again, in the little bit of time she was allowed to testify before the Senate HELP Committee in January, Mrs. DeVos, when asked, would not agree to work with States to offer free community college to eligible students, instead saying that ``nothing in life is truly free.'' This is an easy thing to say if you are a billionaire. She also admitted to knowing little about the Pell Grant Program and Federal student loans, as neither she nor her children have ever had to use such resources. As most of us know our children will have to use them, this is simply out of touch with the real life expectations of millions of students and families who rely on these funds to make college attainable. It is what I hear from hard-working families in Vermont. Parents tell me that their child is going to be the first one in their family to go to college, and the only reason they can do it is because they can get Pell grants or Federal student loans. Mrs. Devos's answer is: What are those? College tuition rates have climbed more than 300 percent in the last decade. It is unacceptable to deny students Federal financial resources. To say, well, if you are rich, you can have them, but otherwise, tough. As it is, students are increasingly saddled by insurmountable student loan debt. Many forgo starting a family, or buying a house or a car. Many of these students have also fallen prey to for-profit institutions, many of which continue to offer the false promise of gainful employment upon graduation. In reality, many of these institutions offer nontransferable credits or unaccredited degrees, and are increasingly shuttering their doors, leaving students with egregious debt and nowhere to turn to finish their degrees. The Department of Education has an extremely important role to ensure that all students--of every race, income level, or whether that student has disabilities or not--have access to the critical tools provided by public schools and by student financial aid programs. Thousands--thousands--of Vermont- ers have called or written to me worried that Mrs. DeVos does not agree with these principles. When I say thousands, to put that in context, we are the second smallest State in the Union. Thousands have contacted me. I share these concerns of my fellow Vermonters. They know my children went to public school. They want to be able to send their children to public school too. They want the best education. I am telling these Vermonters I will not support this confirmation. It is dangerous and shortsighted to confirm someone who has so much to learn about our Nation's public schools and the challenges they face. Universal free public schools were a revolutionary American invention. It has helped make America the great Nation it is today. So in the United States, we should strengthen public schools, not snub them. Mrs. DeVos is the wrong choice for our children but also for our Nation's future. Our public schools need strong leadership, not someone who has made it her life's work to undermine their success. So I oppose this nomination. I hope my fellow Senators will too.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Schumer.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week we have to decide whether Senator Sessions, somebody whom many of us have known and worked with for many years--I certainly have during all of the time he has been in the Senate--is the right person to lead the Department of Justice. I thought long and hard on it. I decided he is not. I would like to share a few reasons why. In fact, the Trump administration itself underscored what is at stake with this nomination. When the administration accused Acting Attorney General Sally Yates of having ``betrayed the Department of Justice,'' it exposed a view of the Justice Department that is disturbing and dangerous. The claim that Ms. Yates ``betrayed'' the Department by refusing to defend the President's illegal and shameful Executive order--you have to believe that in the Attorney General's office, your job is to defend the President at all costs. That is wrong. I think Senator Sessions knows that. There is a reason the Justice Department is not led by a Secretary of Justice: the Attorney General is the people's attorney, not the President's attorney. The Trump administration has already shown us why this distinction matters. Within its first two weeks, the current administration found itself rebuked in numerous Federal courts around the country. Its extreme agenda cast a shadow over all the President's nominees. This is an administration that was even criticized yesterday by a very conservative Republican, John Yoo, in a New York Times op-ed entitled, ``Executive Power Run Amok.'' You know there is a problem when the same man who twisted the law in order to green-light torture thinks you have gone too far. The President seems to have a penchant for going too far. During the campaign he promised--and he said this a number of times; it was covered in the press--he would implement a Muslim ban. He actually stood before the cameras and said that. As President, he then signed an Executive order that barred immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries but created an exception that gave preference to members of minority religions in those countries; that is, non-Muslims. He even spoke to a Christian press organization stating he would protect Christians. That is nothing more than a Muslim ban by another name. My parents and grandparents fought religious biases in this country. I have always felt one greatness of this country is when we said there would be no religious bias and we would actually stand up for the First Amendment. The First Amendment says you can practice any religion you want or none if you want, and it gives you freedom of speech. Now if you have a country and a government that protects your right to practice any religion you want and protects your right of free speech, then that same government is protecting diversity, and if you have diversity, it is very easy to have democracy. When a Federal judge in Washington State temporarily blocked this order, President Trump did not express respectful disagreement as every President I have ever known, Republican or Democrat, would. He took to Twitter--Twitter, like a teenage kid--to attack the judge's legitimacy, labeling him a ``so-called judge.'' President Trump attempted to blame this judge who was nominated by a Republican President and confirmed by a Republican-led Senate for any future terrorist attack on this country. The President's words are beyond outrageous. It is almost as though he wants to precipitate a constitutional crisis. That is why the question of who should be our next Attorney General is so critical. This is a President who must have an Attorney General who is willing to stand up and say no for going beyond the law. Sally Yates knew that. Two years ago, Senator Sessions asked Ms. Yates: ``Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that? But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?'' Ms. Yates answered that her duty was to the Constitution. Just two years later she proved that by telling the President that his travel ban was indefensible under the law. Perhaps she was remembering the commitment she made to Senator Sessions, and that is exactly what she did. Many around Senator Sessions felt that she never should have stood up to President Trump. She should stand up to President Obama but not President Trump. I have reviewed Senator Sessions' long record. I have reviewed his responses to many questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am not convinced that he is capable of telling the President no. Under oath, Senator Sessions denied that he was involved in creating the Muslim ban Executive order. Well, I will take him at his word, but Senator Sessions' views on this issue are well known to Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 2015 I offered a simple resolution in the committee. It expressed the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion--a very simple resolution. Every Democrat, most of the Republicans--including the Republican chairman, Senator Grassley--voted in support of my resolution. The committee recognized that imposing a religious test for those who seek to enter this country violates our most cherished values, but Senator Sessions broke away from the majority of his Republican colleagues, and he strongly opposed the resolution. I found that deeply concerning in 2015 when he was a Member of the committee. I find it even more disturbing now that he seeks to be our Nation's top law enforcement official. We need an Attorney General who will stand in the way of religious discrimination, not one who endorses it. Today I am introducing a very similar resolution. It reaffirms that no one should be blocked from entering into the United States because of their nationality or their religion. I invite Senator Sessions--and I invite all Senators--to cosponsor this resolution. Senator Sessions is still taking an active role in the Senate, including voting on controversial Cabinet nominees for President Trump. If he cosponsored it, it would help to reassure Americans that he stands against religious discrimination and religious tests. But my concerns about whether Senator Sessions would be willing to tell President Trump no extend well beyond religious tests. In fact, in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, he did not demonstrate to the Judiciary Committee that he would be willing to tell the President no on any issue, no matter how objectionable. Take, for example, the President's many conflicts of interest. For months, there has been media coverage about President Trump's conflicts of interest and the constitutional concerns they present. Yet Senator Sessions repeatedly evaded my written questions on this topic by claiming that he has ``not studied the issue.'' I asked Senator Sessions whether President Trump should follow guidance from the Office of Government Ethics and divest from assets that might create a conflict of interest. Senator Sessions said that he has not studied the issue. I asked Senator Sessions whether President Trump receiving payments from entities controlled by foreign governments raises any concerns under the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which forbids such payments absent Congressional consent. Senator Sessions said that he has not studied the issue. I asked Senator Sessions whether President Trump's family members who are running the organization that he still owns should participate in policy discussions or meetings with foreign governments. Again Senator Sessions said that he has not studied the issue. Senator Sessions has refused to acknowledge that there is a conflict of interest for a President to have a personal financial stake in the policies pursued by his administration. Actually, that is definition 101 of a conflict of interest. The President should not personally profit from their decisions. This answer was particularly troubling because I know that he knows the right answer. Senator Sessions told Senator Feinstein at his hearing: ``I own no individual stocks because I want to be sure that I don't have conflicts of interest.'' He added, ``I want to adhere to high standards.'' Well, I appreciate that. But Senator Sessions--and I assume Attorney General Sessions--apparently refuses to hold the President to any standards at all. In fact, his woeful blindness extends even to the Russian interference into our democracy. In response to questions in the Intelligence Committee's report on Russian interference--the intelligence community found without a doubt that we had Russian influence in our democracy--he said: ``I have not reviewed the report, but I have no reason not to accept the intelligence community's conclusions as contained in the report.'' Well, if he hasn't read the report on something as critical as this, I suspect he is one of very few Senators who hasn't. I asked him whether the activities described in the report are illegal: Are they a threat to our democratic process? For anyone other than President Trump, that is not a difficult question. Reading the report, the answer should be an obvious yes, but Senator Sessions refused to answer. If Senator Sessions is not willing even to acknowledge facts that make President Trump uncomfortable, how can we believe that Attorney General Sessions will ever say no to President Trump? Senator Sessions also refused to answer questions from all nine Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on how he would respond if President Trump pressured him to end any investigations into Russian interference in our elections. There is absolutely nothing in Senator Sessions' testimony before the Judiciary Committee that gives me confidence that he would be willing to stand up to the President. He has demonstrated only blind allegiance. This is a President who first cited what is now called ``alternative facts'' to deny his small crowd size at the inauguration, but now he is citing ``alternative facts'' to excuse murders and assassinations by Putin's regime. That should alarm us all. It shouldn't matter what party you belong to; as Americans, that should alarm us. Later tonight I will describe my concerns about Senator Sessions' record on civil rights issues. But I have one concern that is made much worse, given Senator Sessions' lack of independence from President Trump. I am particularly worried that, if confirmed, Senator Sessions will fail to protect Americans' constitutional right to vote. There is nothing more sacred in a democracy than the right to vote. Yet Senator Sessions called it ``a good day for the South''--not for the country but for the South--when the Shelby County decision, which effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act, was handed down, something that virtually every Republican and Democrat in both the House and Senate voted for that President Bush signed into law. The fact that Senator Sessions voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006 doesn't give me much comfort when immediately after that unanimous vote, he turned around and argued, notwithstanding his vote, that it was unconstitutional. We cannot view his record on this issue in isolation because if he is nominated and confirmed to be President Trump's Attorney General--well, we know the President has his own views on voting in America. Several Republicans, like the Speaker of the House, Mr. Ryan, and our own colleague Senator Graham, have rightly condemned President Trump's wild conspiracy theory that there millions of illegal votes cost him the popular vote, which he lost by nearly 3 million votes. I fear that continuing this dangerous falsehood can be used to justify further attacks on the hard-won right to vote for racial minorities, students, poor and elderly citizens. What bothers me the most is that Senator Sessions again refused to acknowledge the fundamental and plainly visible fact that the President is flat out wrong that there were 3 million illegal votes cast. Senator Sessions responded to me that he doesn't know what data the President may have relied on. Well, the rest of us know there isn't any such data, but Senator Sessions refuses to admit as much. So his close ties to President Trump and the important role he played in forming President Trump's agenda raise important questions about his impartiality in matters involving the President. I asked him several times, What is the scenario in which he would recuse himself, given clear conflicts of interest? But he brushed those questions off. He claimed he was ``merely . . . a supporter of the President's during the campaign.'' Well, that would be fine, but I think Senator Sessions is selling himself short. He was widely reported to be a central figure in the Trump campaign. A key figure in the Trump campaign, Steve Bannon, called him the President's ``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy.'' This relationship appears to fly in the face of the Justice Department's recusal standards. The Department's standards mandate recusal when the attorney has ``a close identification with an elected official . . . arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof.'' I asked Senator Sessions the obvious question--whether that language would apply to his relationship with President Trump, but he refused to say one way or the other. The Justice Department has to be independent because it is the chief law enforcement department in our government. But I worry about that independence in this administration. It is already clear that if you say no to this President, there goes your job. Now more than ever, we need an Attorney General who is willing to pay that cost for the good of the country--for the good of the country. Country outweighs any partisan interest of a particular officeholder or a particular President. I am not convinced that that kind of independence describes Senator Sessions. He has not demonstrated the independence that he himself used to demand of nominees. David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, recently wrote an article in the Atlantic addressing whether someone should accept an invitation to serve in the Trump administration, given the real risks that there may be tremendous ``pressure to do the wrong thing.'' The ``very first thing to consider,'' said the former Bush speechwriter, is, ``How sure are you that you indeed would say no? And then humbly consider this second troubling question: If the Trump administration were as convinced as you are that you would do the right thing--would they have asked you in the first place?'' In the case of the nominee before us--the Trump administration's ``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy,'' as Mr. Bannon called him-- I fear the answer to these questions is clear. That is why I am going to be voting against this nominee. It is ironic that as we consider the nomination of Senator Sessions to be the Attorney General, a position which he is going to be responsible for is defending the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people--all of us--whether you were supporters during the last campaign of President Trump or Secretary Hillary Clinton. But even though Senator Sessions is supposed to defend our fundamental rights, we see President Trump continuing to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for freedom of speech, of association, of due process, and of the rule of law. In less than a week the President has attacked a Federal judge for performing his constitutional duty. He has called unfavorable polls ``fake.'' He has continued to discredit as ``dishonest'' any media outlet that dares criticize him. His spokesperson, Sean Spicer, echoes these sentiments. They sound remarkably like what one would expect to hear from Vladimir Putin. In fact, President Trump has done this while reiterating his support of torture and his admiration of Putin. Remember, Putin's critics continue to turn up dead. Putin has stolen tens of billions of dollars that were taken in bribes from oil and gas and other industries. President Trump seems unaware of this, or is unconcerned about it, even though everybody knows about it. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, after repeatedly lauding Putin's leadership, Trump is now attempting to emulate Putin's efforts to spread misinformation, chastise his critics, and intimidate those responsible for upholding the law. His assaults on anyone he perceives to be standing in his way, including a Federal judge nominated by President George W. Bush, is even worse than his routine expressions of contempt for political norms that seem to be coming straight out of Stephen Bannon's playbook. Not only has the President expressed little, if any, concern that every U.S. intelligence agency--every U.S. intelligence agency--believes that Russia sought to influence, and quite possibly did influence, the Presidential election, and that Putin himself was involved, but Senator Sessions, who campaigned for the President, refused to recuse himself from decisions related to Russia's cyber attacks. Can anybody imagine what the Republican leadership would be saying if the table was turned? They would try to shut down the government to hold a new election. Failing that, they would demand that an independent commission be established to investigate the Russian hacking, and they would insist that the nominee for Attorney General pledge to recuse himself. Well, along with Senator Durbin and others, I have called for such an independent commission outside of Congress, but the Republican leaders have summarily rejected it. It is cynical politics at its worst that puts partisanship over the integrity of our elections. President Trump and Senator Sessions both speak about the importance of law and order. President Trump and Vladimir Putin seem to agree about what those words mean. Senator Sessions has said nothing to suggest that he disagrees, even though the Congressional Republican leadership recognizes Putin as a dangerous thug who tramples on the rule of law. Why does our President keep praising this man who assassinates his critics, who has killed people who have criticized him in the media, who has stolen so much money, and taken so many bribes? He has become one of the wealthiest people in the world, but he is not a person to praise. We have a lot of leaders in our own country--both Republicans and Democrats--whom we can praise, but not Vladimir Putin. I think we have to be careful. We have to care about the integrity of our democracy, about due process, the rule of law, and about the constitutional checks and balances that distinguish this country from autocracies like Russia. We should expect the nominee for Attorney General to demonstrate that he will defend these principles, not to remain silent when they are attacked, even if the person attacking them is the President of the United States. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that more than 65 million people have been forcibly displaced around the globe by the end of 2015. In the face of such staggering human suffering, we must not shutter our doors and abandon our foundational principle of religious freedom. Yet that is exactly what our new President would have us do with the Executive order he signed 2 weeks ago. This is not something I support, and for good reasons. Our freedom of religion was enshrined in the Constitution 225 years ago. Since forging this promise, we have been a confident Nation welcoming those of all faiths. The Executive order issued by the new Republican President threatens these founding ideals and the very freedoms we enjoy as Americans. It singles out Muslim refugees and those fleeing violence in Syria, and it suspends the refugee program as a whole. This is not the America I know. It is contrary to our values and contrary to the example America needs to set for the world. The ongoing conflict in Syria makes clear the enormity of the humanitarian crisis we face. The terror inflicted by both Bashar Al- Assad's regime and ISIS has forced more than half of Syria's 23 million people from their homes and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Currently, there are more than 4.8 million registered Syrian refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and children. Communities across the country, including some in Vermont, started the process to welcome these refugees who have undergone years of security screenings and vetting. Rutland, VT, is prepared to welcome 100 refugees, but to date only two families have arrived. One of these families shared that their own children ``were exposed to a lot of terror, and the sound of bombs and the sound of bullets and gunshots all day long.'' This is no way to live. That is why I strongly agree with Rutland's mayor Christopher Louras, who said accepting refugees ``is just the right thing to do from a compassionate, humanitarian perspective.'' We must do more. There are other humanitarian crises impacting the world. Closer to home, ruthless armed gangs in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala continue to brutalize women and children with near impunity. We have a moral obligation to respond, and it is in our national interest to do that. National security leaders agree that anti-Muslim rhetoric is not only contrary to our values, it also makes us less safe. FBI Director Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee in November 2015 that part of ISIL's narrative is to depict the United States as anti-Muslim. The Defense Department has made a similar point. House Speaker Ryan has also denounced a ban on Muslims, noting that it is ``not conservatism'' to impose a religious test. A bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed in December 2015 when it passed my amendment confirming that ``the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion.'' The chaos and confusion caused by this Executive order at our airports in the United States as well as around the world highlights the recklessness of this administration's attempt to bar people based on their religion and national origin. The devastation this is causing to lawful immigrants and refugees fleeing violence is immeasurable. I fear for my constituents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States who also happen to be nationals of one of the seven targeted countries. Due to the widespread outrage expressed by thousands of concerned citizens and legal challenges across the country, the Trump administration has now clarified that the Executive order should not apply to legal permanent residents. But there continues to be an understandable fear that the Trump administration may again attempt to bar them from this country. Like them, I fear that the Trump administration may again seek to bar lawful immigrants from returning to their homes, work, and families in Vermont. I also fear for the young Somali refugee in Vermont who has been patiently waiting for the completion of the resettlement process so that his pregnant wife and young son will be saved from the squalor of a refugee camp and reunited with him in Vermont. And the man from Sudan who has been waiting for his two young sons to finally be granted their visas to join him and the rest of their family. And the husband whose Libyan wife was recently granted a visa and has been waiting for the International Organization for Migration to arrange her flight to the United States. I am concerned for these families and for so many others in Vermont and around the country. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals. Among those ideals are tolerance and diversity. They unite us as a nation; they make us stronger. That is the message we should be embracing--one of inclusion, not one of exclusion and division. Federal District Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford perfectly encapsulated this sentiment at a naturalization ceremony for 31 new Americans in Rutland, VT, last week. The summary of his powerful remarks, which he directed particularly to our new Muslim citizens, was this: ``You are equal in the eyes of the law.'' This simple message is clear, and unequivocal: You are welcome, you are equal, you are protected. That is why I am introducing a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that no one should be blocked from entering the United States because of their nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender. Adoption of this resolution simply reaffirms the basic principle that this country does not have a litmus test. It will also show that the Senate will not allow fear to undermine the very principles and values that we cherish and that we have sworn to defend. The resolution is consistent with the strong bipartisan actions taken by the Senate less than 4 years ago when we passed comprehensive immigration reform legislation that included protections for refugees and asylum seekers. I urge Senators to come together once again in support of my resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is fascinating. I say to my colleagues, I have served here longer than any other Member of this body. I have been here 42 years. I have been here when the Democrats were in the majority and when the Republicans were in the majority, with Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. I have never, ever seen a time when a Member of the Senate asked to put into the Record a letter especially by a civil rights icon and somebody objected. It has always been done. I have had letters that people have asked to be put in that were contrary to a position that I might take. Of course, I would not object. They are allowed to do it. I have seen letters when Members of both sides of the aisle have debated back and forth and the other side would put in letters that were contrary to their opponents' positions, and of course nobody objected. Don't let the Senate turn into something it has never been before. I would hope that cooler heads would prevail, and we go back to the things that made the Senate great, that made the Senate the conscience of the Nation, as it should be. I have never once objected to a Senator introducing a letter, even though they took a position different than mine. I have never known of a Republican Senator to do that, and here we are talking about a letter from a civil rights icon. Let's not go down this path. It is not good for the country. It is not good for the Senate, it is not good for democracy, and it sure as heck is not good for free speech. I admire the Senator from Rhode Island. He is a man of great integrity, a man who was attorney general of his State and U.S. attorney in his State. His request was something that is normally accepted automatically. I would hope Senators would reconsider. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke at length about my fear that Senator Sessions' would not have the ability to act as an independent Attorney General. The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer. He or she is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. And he or she must faithfully serve all Americans. Even if Senator Sessions could demonstrate independence from President Trump, my review of his extensive record leaves me unconvinced that he is capable of serving and protecting all Americans. In 1986, Senator Ted Kennedy called Jeff Sessions a ``throwback'' because of his conduct on civil rights issues. I regret to say that, since the Judiciary Committee's bipartisan rejection of Senator Sessions' nomination to be a district court judge in 1986, Senator Sessions has not allayed our concerns. In his 20 years in the Senate, he has not shown a commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. Time and again, when the rights of women, LGBT individuals, and disenfranchised communities have been debated here in the Senate, Senator Sessions has not sought to protect their civil and human rights. Too often, he has been the one standing in the way. That is why National Nurses United has written to me to express their opposition to Senator Sessions. They wrote: ``We provide the best care we possibly can, without regard to race, gender, national origin, religion, socio economic circumstances, or other identifying characteristic. That is what caring professionals do. Unfortunately, that is not what Jeff Sessions has done in his role as a public servant.'' I ask unanimous consent that their full letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. That is why my friend John Lewis testified before the Judiciary Committee in opposition to Senator Sessions. Congressman Lewis stated that, ``When faced with a challenge, Senator Sessions has frequently chosen to stand on the wrong side of history.'' Senate Republicans should be listening to these concerns and those of protesters in our streets and airports standing up for our Constitution. We should not subject those concerns to a gag rule. Yet Senator Sessions and his supporters have painted a different picture of his record. They have argued that he has a strong record on civil rights. So I asked Senator Sessions in written questions to identify areas in which racial inequalities persist. He could have talked about sentencing or about areas where the Civil Rights Division has found patterns and practices of police departments violating people's rights or about the kind of voter suppression efforts that an appeals court found ``target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' Senator Sessions did not identify a single example of racial inequality in modern America. That is astonishing. No one can uphold the rights of all Americans if he is unwilling to pay attention when those rights are being violated. Some have suggested that Senator Sessions' record on civil rights has been criticized unfairly and he is held to a different standard because he is a conservative from the South. I disagree. When the Judiciary Committee rejected Senator Sessions' district court nomination in 1986, one of the votes against him came from Senator Heflin, who was a conservative from Alabama. Moreover, I and most other Democrats just voted to confirm as U.N. Ambassador another conservative Southerner: Nikki Haley. In 2015, then-Governor Haley made the decision to remove the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse grounds. She said, ``[I]t should never have been there'' and that she ``couldn't look my children in the face and justify it staying there.'' When Senator Sessions was asked about this and other efforts to remove the Confederate flag from public buildings, he argued that such efforts ``seek to delegitimize the fabulous accomplishments of our country.'' It can come as no surprise that the civil rights community is concerned by his nomination. But I will speak to my own experiences with Senator Sessions' views on civil rights laws. In 2009, Senator Sessions opposed expanding hate crime protections to women and LGBT individuals, groups that have historically been targeted based merely on who they are. He stated, ``I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.'' Thankfully, a bipartisan majority of Senators saw it, and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is now law. These protections are needed now more than ever. According to recent FBI statistics, LGBT individuals are more likely to be targeted for hate crimes than any other minority group in the country. Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, wrote a letter last month opposing Senator Sessions' nomination. She was concerned not just by Senator Sessions' opposition to the law that bears her son's name, but by how Senator Sessions viewed such hate crimes. She wrote: ``Senator Sessions strongly opposed the hate crimes bill-- characterizing hate crimes as mere `thought crimes.' Unfortunately, Senator Sessions believes that hate crimps are, what he describes as, mere `thought crimes.' ``My son was not killed by 'thoughts' or because his murderers said hateful things. My son was brutally beaten with the butt of a .357 magnum pistol, tied him to a fence, and left him to die in freezing temperatures because he was gay. Senator Sessions' repeated efforts to diminish the life- changing acts of violence covered by the Hate Crimes Prevention Act horrified me then, as a parent who knows the true cost of hate, and it terrifies me today to see that this same person is now being nominated as the country's highest authority to represent justice and equal protection under the law for all Americans.'' But that was not all. Senator Sessions also said that ``the hate crimes amendment . . . has been said to cheapen the civil rights movement.'' I asked him about this comment and whether he still felt that way at his hearing, but he did not respond to the question. I asked him a second time, in a written follow-up, what he meant by that comment. He replied that ``Those were not my words,'' but again did not explain what he had meant by that remark. So I asked him a third time. The third time, he finally conceded. He wrote to me that ``it is not correct to say it cheapens our commitment to civil rights.'' If it is not correct to say that, then why did Senator Sessions quote it in the first place--and why did it take him three tries to acknowledge the error? Senator Sessions also opposed the 2013 Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate with support from a majority of Republican Senators. During his hearing, and again in written questions, Senator Sessions refused to commit to defend this important law's constitutionality. He said only that he ``will carefully study'' it to discern whether it is ``reasonably defensible.'' His refusal to voice support for VAWA is all the more troubling in light of reports that the Heritage Foundation's budget blueprint, which is reportedly being relied on by the new administration, calls for eliminating all VAWA grants. I asked Senator Sessions to commit to stand up for victims and preserve these critical programs. Again, he refused. Amita Swadhin, who appeared before the Judiciary Committee and bravely shared her story of being raped as a child, explained why this issue is so important: ``We need an Attorney General who will continue the progress we have made since the initial passage of VAWA, someone committed to improving and enforcing our laws to ensure the most vulnerable victims of crime can come forward to seek accountability and to access healing.'' This law and these grants are a matter of life and death to many people across the country. We need an Attorney General who understands that. The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, which has never before taken a position on an Attorney General nomination, wrote to the Judiciary Committee because they do not believe Senator Sessions understands that. The letter states: ``Senator Sessions' senate record of strenuous objection to protections for historically marginalized populations, coupled with his record of selective prosecutions, demonstrate his unwillingness to protect marginalized victims' access to justice and disqualify him from holding the position of Attorney General of the United States, a position charged with the responsibility of securing justice for all.'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Senator Sessions and his supporters have tried to minimize his opposition to the Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill by pointing out that he did vote in committee for the Republican substitute amendment. Let me explain what that amendment would have done. It would have cut authorization levels by 40 percent, hampering efforts to prevent violence and provide services to victims in need. It would have removed all provisions intended to ensure that victims can receive services, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. It would have removed important provisions to let tribal justice systems reach the many criminal and civil cases that fell through the cracks. That amendment would have gutted core elements of the VAWA reauthorization that go to the heart of what VAWA does. A vote for that amendment hardly demonstrates a commitment to victims. Another issue that concerns me is criminal justice reform. For years, I have worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. These sentences have created perverse disparities within our justice system. Racial minorities still receive nearly 80 percent of them. Our bipartisan effort has had the strong support of the Justice Department and many others in law enforcement, but not Senator Sessions. In recent years, no one in the Senate has fought harder against even modest sentencing reform than he has. I am also concerned about Senator Sessions' commitment to ongoing civil rights litigation. I asked whether he would maintain the Justice Department's position in certain important cases. He would not commit to maintaining the Department's position, even in voting rights cases where courts have already found that certain voter ID laws are discriminatory. Senator Sessions would not commit to even maintaining cases that are already at the Supreme Court. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The Justice Department filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner, arguing that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires states to provide more than de minimis educational benefits and in fact ``give eligible children with disabilities an opportunity to make significant educational progress.'' Even though it would be extraordinary for the Justice Department to take a new position after oral argument has already been heard, Senator Sessions would not commit to maintaining the Department's position in this case. I pointed to a lawsuit the Justice Department filed last year in Georgia alleging that Georgia's treatment of students with disabilities violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. In this lawsuit, the Justice Department noted that some of the facilities used by students with disabilities ``are located in poor-quality buildings that formerly served as schools for black students during de jure segregation.'' I asked Senator Sessions whether he would continue to pursue this case, and bring others like it where States are in violation of the ADA. He refused to commit to continuing this case. The ADA also contains a waiver of State sovereign immunity, which is a critical tool for enforcing that landmark law. Twice during the Bush administration, the Justice Department argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the waiver was a valid exercise of Congressional power under section V of the 14th Amendment, but Senator Sessions would not commit to defending the constitutionality of that provision. Senator Sessions' record on disability rights is also of concern because of the way he spoke about students with disabilities. He once argued that mainstreaming causes a ``decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over America.'' As with my hate crimes amendment and VAWA, the problem is not just that Senator Sessions has opposed protections for the most vulnerable, it is also the language that he uses when opposing them, which denigrate those the laws seek to protect. That is why a group of 18 disability rights organizations have written to Senate leadership expressing their strong opposition to Senator Sessions' nomination. Senator Sessions has also demonstrated a shockingly brazen attitude when I asked him about the offensive rhetoric used by some of his political associates. I asked him whether he would condemn certain remarks by David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, and others. Senator Sessions received awards from these individuals. He regularly attended their conferences. He has given media statements in support of their organizations and the views they put forth. Yet, when Senator Sessions was directly asked to respond to some of their statements, he effectively shrugged his shoulders. These included comments: referring to Muslims as ``Islamic Nazis'' who ``want to kill Jews, that's their agenda''; alleging that President Obama ``is an anti-American radical and I'm actually sure he's a Muslim, he certainly isn't a Christian. . . . He's a pretend Christian in the same way he's a pretend American''; alleging that two Muslims members of Congress have ``longstanding Muslim Brotherhood ties''; arguing that a Muslim member of Congress should not be allowed to serve on the House Intelligence Committee because of his ``extensive personal and political associations with . . . jihadist infrastructure in America''; claiming that married women by definition cannot be raped by their husbands; calling for ``railroad cars full of illegals going south; and calling President Obama a traitor. Senator Sessions responded that he does not hold those views. That is fair enough. But he did not explain why he chose to associate with such individuals. When someone accuses President Obama of treason, it is not at all enough to say, ``I do not hold that view.'' That is why, last month, Muslim advocates and 36 other civil rights organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civic and Human Rights and the NAACP, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing strong concern that ``Senator Sessions has closely aligned with anti- Muslim hate groups, accepted their awards and accolades, and publicly praised their leadership. Senator Sessions' appointment will only embolden these groups and activists and serve to further fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry already burning in this country.'' If Senator Sessions cannot condemn David Horowitz and Frank Gaffney, who the Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly called ``extremists'' who run hate groups, for calling President Obama a traitor, it is fair to ask whether he will have the courage to stand up to the President of the United States, as Sally Yates did. The Attorney General is charged with enforcing the laws that protect all Americans. No one can fulfill that obligation who is not clear-eyed about the threats facing the most vulnerable in our communities. We need an Attorney General who will aggressively confront those who appeal to hate and fear. I do not believe that person is Senator Sessions. The Senate and the Judiciary Committee have heard from a multitude of civil rights, civil liberties, and domestic violence organizations, as well as nurses and numerous faith leaders, who oppose this nomination. This Senator stands with them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since 1989, Vermont has accepted more than 8,000 refugees from around the world. Most recently, two families from war-torn Syria were placed in Rutland. Vermonters understand the meaning of community, of supporting one another through tough times and celebrating together in seasons of joy. Over the last three decades, the meaning of community has expanded to include numerous nationalities as Vermonters have welcomed new neighbors from countries including Somalia, Sudan, and Bhutan, among others. Over the last 25 years, Vermont's growing diversity has infused vitality and a diversity of culture into our rural State as locals open their arms--and their hearts--to new cultures and ways of life. New Vermonters hail from the world over and are greeted in the Green Mountains by support groups and refugee associations. Some organizations aid new arrivals by offering workforce developments and translation services, while others host furniture and clothing drives. Many refugees are able to find jobs in Vermont's bustling tourism industry, as they work to save for future endeavors. These support networks expand as the same individuals who once relied on refugee organizations begin to offer guidance to others. For some, this means years of saving before opening restaurants or stores with food and products that feature their home countries. Others focus on engaging recently arrived refugees in the very communities that they were welcomed into. As their roots grow deeper and their communities wider, Vermont's cultural vibrancy increases. At the end of the day, however, these refugees have become part of the fabric of our communities. Vermont has become a home, if not their first home. In an article featured in POLITICO in November 2016, one refugee, Ramadan Bahic, a Bosnian Muslim who fled their Serb-controlled town during the Bosnian civil war said, ``My language is my language, my accent will stay, but if you ask me, I'm a Vermonter.'' To Mr. Bahic and to those refugees recently settled in Vermont--or hope to do so in the future--I say welcome home. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a November 2016 POLITICO article, ``My Language is My language, But I'm a Vermonter,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to honor Father Ray Doherty, a fellow Michaelman and a pillar of the St. Michael's College community. Father Ray, as he is warmly known, exemplifies so many of the qualities we Vermonters hold dear. His compassion and leadership have contributed to a vibrant college campus and has inspired those beyond its borders. As a member of the Society of Saint Edmund, whose members founded the college in 1904, Father Ray has embodied a commitment to social justice throughout his lifetime of service. Father Ray first came to St. Michael's as a 17-year-old freshman. He spent his college years as both a student and an athlete, gracing the baseball program with his talents as pitcher before graduating in 1951. Father Ray then served as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean conflict. It was there that Father Ray saw the importance of loyalty and strong leadership, leading him to join another brotherhood following his discharge. As an Edmundite priest for more than six decades, Father Ray had advised and supported countless students at Saint Michael's. His leadership on campus focuses on setting a good example through actions rather than words. Father Ray's commitment to social justice and involvement in campus service organizations has fostered peace and justice with in the college community. Though honored with an array of awards, including induction into the college's athletic hall of fame and the establishment of a scholarship in his name, Father Ray remains humble. His role as an administrator, leader, and friend is rooted in a sense of selflessness and an everlasting commitment to the community around him. To my friend Ray, I say, ``Semper Fi.'' The St. Michael's College Magazine recently highlighted Father Ray's service, and I ask unanimous consent that that featurette be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have come to this Chamber to pay tribute to Dermot Gallagher, an Irish diplomat and civil servant who I was deeply saddened to hear passed away on January 15, 2017, after a lifetime dedicated to public service. Dermot Gallagher was a friend of the United States. His career overseas was bookended by tours here, having first been posted at the Irish consulate in San Francisco in 1971 before serving at the United Nations in New York, the Irish Embassy in London, with the European Commission in Brussels, as Irish Ambassador to Nigeria, and ultimately returning to the U.S. as the Irish Ambassador in Washington. He is perhaps best known for his role in the Northern Ireland peace process. For decades, Dermot was involved in efforts to bring about peace and reconciliation. He was involved in the Sunningdale negotiations in 1973, implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the late 1980s, and ultimately the negotiations and implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, when he used his ``emollient style of negotiation and diplomacy,'' as former junior minister and former Senator Martin Mansergh aptly described, to make significant contributions. Dermot was also my friend. Over the course of his 6 years as Ambassador, my wife Marcelle and I came to know Dermot and his wife, Maeve, and I was fortunate to retain his friendship long after he returned to Ireland to advance the cause of peace. I fondly recall our discussions about the relationship between the U.S., and particularly Vermont, and Ireland over dinner while he was Ambassador, visiting with him over a decade later when he had returned to Ireland and I visited on a trade mission, and the many conversations between about our families, our shared heritage, and our passion for U.S.-Ireland relations and the cause of peace. I shared a personal memory in Ireland nearly 20 years ago that is worth sharing again because it speaks to who Dermot was as a person. While he was Ambassador, I was discussing my family's Irish ancestry, and I told him I wished my father, Howard Francis Leahy, had still been with us to know my family was planning a trip to Ireland. Dermot said to me, ``Pat, don't you think your father knows?'' It brought tears to my eyes. He was as personable and genuine as he was a skillful diplomat. Perhaps his legacy has been best conveyed by the reaction of his former colleagues on learning of his passing, who described him as a ``gentleman,'' ``distinguished diplomat,'' and a ``brilliant, creative and warm human being.'' President Michael D. Higgins noted his significant contribution to the peace process. Minister for Foreign Affairs Charlie Flanagan lauded his ``talented service,'' marked by ``great loyalty and constant commitments.'' Prime Minister Enda Kenny described him as a ``patriot, an outstanding public servant who embodied the best of Ireland and its people.'' Dermot was all of these things, and he will be greatly missed, but affectionately remembered. Marcelle and I send our deepest condolences to his wife, Maeve, and to their children, Fiona, Aoife, and Ronan.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, has the distinguished majority leader finished?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Republicans in both Chambers have introduced a resolution to permit oil, gas, and mining companies to continue making secret payments--involving billions of dollars--to corrupt foreign governments in exchange for access to their countries' natural resources. This resolution would overturn legislation on which I worked closely with former Republican Senator Richard Lugar and Senator Cardin and was included as section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide greater transparency when such payments are made and help better inform investors and combat massive corruption in the process. One would think that everyone here would support a commonsense rule that will protect investors and make it a lot harder to get away with the theft of billions of dollars in public funds in some of the poorest countries of the world. But apparently, that is not a concern, at least not to the sponsors of this resolution or those who intend to support its passage. Some Republicans and their friends in the oil and gas industry say this rule creates unacceptable burdens. That is utterly without merit, as I will explain in a moment. But even assuming there were a grain of truth to that, rather than proposing to amend the underlying legislation, which would require bipartisan support, this resolution is being advanced under the Congressional Review Act, to enable a simple majority vote to completely dismantle the rule with minimum debate. Keep in mind that the rule is simply the product of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, implementing bipartisan congressional intent and would not take effect until the end of 2018. Despite what some have claimed, the SEC has not twisted the statute in any way when they developed this rule. But if this rule is overturned, the SEC will be prevented from issuing any substantially similar rule, potentially in our lifetimes. In other words, what we are doing here is, for all practical purposes, the death knell for global efforts--involving most of our closest allies--to combat massive corruption resulting from the extraction of natural resources and help investors assess risk in the often murky and unstable oil, gas, and mining sectors. This is an issue on which the United States, until now, has been a global leader. I mention this because the sponsors of this resolution have said that they support the goals of this rule, and all they want to do after overturning it is make some minor adjustments to it. That is the epitome of disingenuous. The rule does not take effect until the end of 2018. If that was what they really wanted to do, they would propose an amendment, and we could discuss it. Their real purpose, even if they are reluctant to say so, is to prevent disclosure. This rule has two primary purposes. First, it is to protect investors. Investors whose combined net worth exceeds $10 trillion, support this rule and its equivalency with the rules adopted by some 30 other governments. And second, to protect the public. The practical effect of overturning this rule is that U.S. and foreign companies will be able to continue to make secret payments to corrupt foreign autocrats like Vladimir Putin and kleptocracies in Africa like the governments of Angola and Equatorial Guinea. By doing so, these companies will be aiding and abetting those kleptocrats when they pocket the proceeds for their personal use. We have seen this for years. The people of those countries barely survive on $1 or $2 per day, while their leaders drive Mercedes, fly private jets to vacation homes on the French Riviera or in Santa Monica, and pay off the armed forces to keep themselves in power. And where does the money come from that pays for that grotesque flaunting of wealth? From the royalties paid by U.S. and other foreign companies. Do we really want to be complicit in that kind of thievery and immorality by shielding it from public scrutiny? Do we really think that the American people want to be tarred with it indirectly through the shady activities of American companies? Do we really want to hide important information from investors who are trying to assess risk in the companies they invest in? Of course not. Anyone who reads this rule and pays the slightest attention to the estimated $1 trillion lost to crime, corruption, and tax evasion in these countries and the millions of deaths attributed to corrupt practices where these extractive companies operate will recognize the fallacy of the baseless attacks by those who oppose it. The sponsors of this resolution claim that this rule puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage. What are they talking about? The rule applies to both U.S. and foreign companies and complements existing laws elsewhere in the world. In fact, Chinese state-owned companies, like PetroChina and Sinopect, are covered by the U.S. law. Great Britain, the EU, Canada, and Norway are just four examples of governments that have adopted similar rules, with Russian state-owned companies like Rosneft and Gazprom covered in the U.K. I challenge the sponsors of this legislation to provide any objective facts to support the argument that U.S. companies are disadvantaged by this rule. That is a pernicious myth. The sponsors have also repeated the self-serving claims of the petroleum industry that complying with this rule would unacceptably increase their cost of doing business. While that has become the predictable complaint of the business community whenever such a rule is promulgated, in this instance, they base it on an outdated and discredited analysis. The irony is that, even if one were to agree with their most farfetched, worst-case scenario, it pales compared to their immense profits. If we overturn our rule, what prevents others from doing the same? And then we are right back where we started. Once again, we will have paved the way for secret payments and billions of dollars stolen from the public treasuries and squirreled away in Swiss bank accounts by the Robert Mugabes of the world. There is another aspect to this that no one has talked about, and that is the connection between corruption and terrorism, particularly in Africa. Terrorist groups flourish where government corruption contributes to incompetent, corrupt military forces. Terrorists benefit when revenues from these activities are kept in the dark, enabling them to radicalize and recruit an impoverished and resentful population. By overturning this rule, Senators should know that violent extremists, terrorists, and other criminal enterprises will be among the beneficiaries. Corruption is among the most corrosive forces that breed instability and violence, and then countries like ours end up trying to feed and shelter the innocent people who bear the brunt of it. It not only wreaks havoc on the people of those countries; it hurts American companies trying to do business there, and it hurts Americans who invest in these risky companies. If the norm is nondisclosure, then bribery becomes an unavoidable and accepted way of doing business. That is what companies from countries like Russia and China that compete with American companies would prefer because corruption is what they are best at. But this rule requires those foreign companies and others to similarly disclose their profits. Are the sponsors of this resolution even aware of this? This rule will enhance U.S. competitiveness. This rule protects investors and the public. When it was first passed, section 1504 put the United States at the forefront of transparency and government accountability efforts. And as I have already said, that leadership paid off. Other countries have followed our example. This resolution will jettison a decade of work here and abroad. There is no excuse for it. There is no need for it. If there are legitimate concerns about section 1504, then let's talk about ways to amend it and improve it. But let's not, by overturning this rule, tell the world that we don't believe in transparency and good governance, that we will turn our backs on the theft and misuse of payments made by U.S. companies, that we do not care about the people of those countries who suffer the consequences, and that we do not care about American investors who deserve this critical information so they can have confidence in the companies they invest their hard-earned money in. This resolution is an affront to the values and to the citizens of our great and good Nation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we began public hearings on the Supreme Court nominees in 1916. Since we began those, the Senate has never denied a hearing or a vote to a pending Supreme Court nominee--never, since 1916 until last year. Last year Senate Republicans waged an unprecedented blockade against the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a fine judge with impeccable credentials and with strong support from both Republicans and Democrats, a man who should be on the Supreme Court today. This is the first time since 1916 that had ever been done. Instead, bowing to the extreme right of their party, Republicans who knew him and who even had said publicly before how much they respected him and how he should be on the Supreme Court refused even to meet with him, let alone accord him the respect of a confirmation hearing--even though the Constitution says that we shall advise and consent and even though each one of us has raised our hand in a solemn oath saying we will uphold the Constitution. So this is exactly what happened. The Republicans held hostage a vacancy on the Supreme Court for a year so that their candidate for President could choose a nominee. The blockade of the Merrick Garland nomination was shameful, but I think it is also corrosive for our system of government. Candidate Donald Trump, who verbally attacked a sitting Federal judge in what Speaker Ryan called ``a textbook example of a racist comment,'' encouraged Senate Republicans to ``delay, delay, delay.'' Candidate Trump then went further. He said he would outsource the vetting of potential nominees to far-right organizations, many of them lobbying organizations, that want to stack the judiciary with ideological conservatives who are outside the mainstream. He promised a nominee who would overturn 40 years of jurisprudence established in Roe v. Wade. With the selection of Judge Gorsuch, it appears as though he is trying to make good on that promise. When we confirmed Judge Gorsuch for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals--and I was a Member of the Senate at the time--I knew he was conservative, but I did not do anything to block him because I hoped he would not impose his personal beliefs from the bench. In fact, at his confirmation hearing in 2006, Judge Gorsuch stated that ``precedent is to be respected and honored.'' He said it is ``unacceptable'' for a judge to try to impose ``his own personal views, his politics, [or] his personal preferences.'' Yet, just last year, he tried to do that. He called for important precedent to be overturned because it did not align with his personal philosophy. From my initial review of his record, that I have just begun, I question whether Judge Gorsuch meets the high standard set by Merrick Garland, whose decisions everybody would agree were squarely within the mainstream. And with the ideological litmus test that President Trump has applied in making this selection, the American people are justified to wonder whether Judge Gorsuch can truly be an independent Justice. So I intend to ask him about these and other important issues in the coming months. Republicans rolled the dice last year. They subjected the Supreme Court and the American people to a purely political gamble. They ignored the Constitution and did something that had never been done before in this country. I know President Trump likes to boast that he won the election in a massive landslide. Well, of course he didn't. Secretary Clinton received more than 2.8 million more votes from the American people than President Trump. But more importantly, due to Senate Republicans' political gambit, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly lost in this election. This is really no way to treat a coequal branch of government, and it is certainly not the way to protect the independence of our Federal judiciary--something that is the bedrock of our Constitution.- The President's electoral college victory--which was far narrower than either of President Obama's victories--is hardly a mandate for any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on the rights of women, LGBT Americans, or minorities; or a nominee who would use theories last seen in the 1930s to undermine all we have accomplished in the last 80 years. If he follows these right-wing lobbying groups who helped vet him for the President, if he follows what they want, then critical programs, like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, key statutes, including the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Clean Air Act, could well be at risk. So after nearly a year of obstruction--unconstitutional, unprecedented obstruction--I really don't want to hear Republicans say we now must rush to confirm Judge Gorsuch. I know the President thinks they should, but I also wonder how seriously even he takes this. His announcement yesterday was like he was announcing the winner of a game show: I brought in these two people, and now here is the winner. We are talking about the U.S. Supreme Court; treat it with the respect it deserves. For all of the Republican talk of Democrats setting the standard with the confirmations of Justice Sotomayor and Kagan, they ignored the standard they set in the shameful treatment of Chief Judge Garland. In fact, I remember when--and I was chairman at the time--when we set the schedule for the hearings and the vote on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and I remember the Republican leader rushing to the floor and saying: Oh, this is terrible. You are rushing it. You are moving it so fast. I pointed out that we were setting the schedule to the day--to the day--the same as we set for Chief Justice John Roberts. So I asked the obvious question: Are you telling me the schedule was OK for him but not OK for her? We followed the schedule. We need time to look at all of these nominees. I would note, as one who has tried cases in Federal courts, as a lawyer, and as one who has chaired the Judiciary Committee, I would say the courts are a vital check on any administration, especially one that, like this one, has found itself on the losing side of an argument in Federal court in only its first week--they lost on something that a first-year law student could have told them they were going to lose. But with great political fanfare, the President issued an order. Fortunately, the order was seen for what it was: No Muslims need show up in our country. Judge Gorsuch, to be confirmed, has to show that he is willing to uphold the Constitution even against President Trump, even against the lobbying groups the President had vetting him. His record includes a decade on the Federal bench. The Judiciary Committee must now carefully review his decisions. We have to conduct a thorough and unsparing examination of his nomination. That is what I will do, just as I have done for every nominee--everybody currently on the Supreme Court and many before them. Whether nominated by a Republican or a Democrat, I did a thorough and unsparing examination of their nomination. The Senate deserves nothing less. More importantly, the American people deserve nothing less. I yield the floor.