Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate considers the nomination of Elaine Chao to be the Secretary of Transportation. Ms. Chao has served in a number of roles in both the public and private sectors throughout her career, ultimately serving as the Secretary of Labor during the administration of George W. Bush. I look forward to working with Secretary Chao as we find solutions to modernize and grow our country's crumbling infrastructure. We can all agree that investment in our country's transportation infrastructure means safe bridges, paved roads, completed railways, and expanded airports. We can also all support innovative approaches to meeting these needs while guarding public health and environmental protections. With a long-term vision, Congress is not only repaving roads, but it is investing in the future of our vibrant communities. In a rural State like Vermont, it is essential that rural communities have the transportation options they need to access basic things like grocery stores, doctors' offices, schools and churches, and banks. These investments are essential to connecting rural America to the economic opportunities they need for success. The importance of this connection was made clear in Vermont after the devastation of Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. Entire communities were isolated for days and weeks after the storm until temporary bridges and roads were able to reconnect us. It was because of substantial Federal and State commitments that Vermont rebuilt and improved our dams, roads, wastewater facilities, and rail lines across our State. As disruptive as the storm was to the rhythm of our everyday lives, it provided Vermont an opportunity to assess our State's vulnerabilities and to invest in upgrades. But it should not take a category 4 storm to allow a State the opportunity to improve its transportation services. That is why I was encouraged by the Obama administration's continued investment in programs that were formed as a response to the financial crisis of 2008. The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, TIGER, grant program is providing funding to States for multimodal programs not considered under traditional transportation programs. Vermont has received several grants through this program. Under Secretary Foxx's leadership, there has also been a renewed focus on transit investment, not only in facilities, but in technology. Vermont has relied on these programs to enhance our services for the elderly and disabled, as well as to launch new programs like Green Mountain Transit's mobile phone application that delivers bus arrival times and schedule information. Finally, Vermont has 12 State-owned airports that continue to contribute to Vermont's economic engine. If not for the commitment to rural airport investment, Vermont would not have been able to fund our airports' expansions and improvements necessary to grow and add to our State's commerce and tourism. America is starving for infrastructure investment. I hope that Secretary Chao will work with Congress to establish a long-term investment plan that propels our transportation infrastructure and technology in both urban and rural areas into the 21 Century.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the nomination of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. Mr. Tillerson is an intelligent, hard-working, and successful businessman. He is also, in my view, the wrong choice to be our Nation's top diplomat. To effectively confront the many challenges our country faces in an increasingly globalized and volatile world, we need a Secretary of State who, with credibility and conviction, can clearly and effectively articulate our interests and values and who has experience advocating for them abroad. We need someone who will work with the international community to combat climate change, bring to justice war criminals like Bashar al- Assad, and stand up to corrupt, abusive regimes that violate international humanitarian law and territorial integrity as Russia has done in Syria and Ukraine. We need someone who will advocate for fundamental human rights and democratic values when they are threatened by friend or foe. I am unconvinced that Mr. Tillerson is that person. As an accomplished businessman, Mr. Tillerson's lone qualification for Secretary of State seems to be his success in tirelessly circumnavigating the globe to negotiate oil deals. There is no doubt he has helped ExxonMobil expand its business and made a lot of money doing so. But contrary to the view being promoted by the Trump administration, running a for-profit business is fundamentally different from running a large Federal agency. As the CEO of ExxonMobil, Mr. Tillerson worked closely with corrupt autocrats like Vladimir Putin who were actively undermining U.S. interests and acting in ways that were counter to our values. In doing so, Mr. Tillerson served his shareholders, but he disregarded the national interests of the United States. Unlike some in this body, I believe we should have relations with governments we disagree with. But I also believe that, in doing so, we must act in accordance with our principles and values. And I don't believe that being the CEO of one of this country's wealthiest companies entitles you to ignore those values for the sake of making money. Mr. Tillerson's confirmation hearing provided him the opportunity to reconcile his track record of a lifetime in the oil business with the responsibilities he would have as Secretary of State. In his testimony, he stated that ``American leadership requires moral clarity.'' I agree. But he was challenged by Senators Rubio, Murphy, and others who observed that despite this statement, Mr. Tillerson was unwilling to label the relentless bombardment and destruction of Aleppo by Russian forces as a war crime or the extrajudicial killings of thousands of civilians in the Philippines as a blatant violation of human rights, to cite only two examples of well-documented cases of atrocities he refused to recognize as such. I worry that Mr. Tillerson will too often be inclined to subjugate fundamental human rights to what he perceives as overriding economic or security concerns. There is nothing in the record to suggest that he recognizes that the protection of human rights is itself a national security imperative or that he would differ from the President on these issues that have become even more important since January 20. We also have no idea what Mr. Tillerson thinks about the President's misguided, discriminatory, and probably illegal decision to ban entry to the United States of all citizens of Syria and half a dozen other Muslim countries because he has been conspicuously silent, even though the State Department will have a key role in enforcing it. Our diplomats posted overseas will bear the brunt of the retaliatory actions by outraged governments in countries targeted by this arbitrary and self-defeating Executive order. Nor do we know what he thinks of the President's draft Executive order that signals a drastic reduction in our support for and influence in the United Nations. Will the President consult with Mr. Tillerson before issuing that order? Does Mr. Tillerson think it is a smart way to protect our interests and reassure our allies? We don't know. ExxonMobil, while Mr. Tillerson was CEO, lobbied to overturn section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank legislation which is designed to stop the illicit flow of revenues from oil and gas extraction to corrupt governments. Senator Lugar, who played a key role in that bipartisan legislation, said at the time that stopping such corruption is a national security and economic priority for the United States. Does Mr. Tillerson think that shrouding in secrecy corruption involving hundreds of billions of dollars by governments who steal from their own impoverished people is in our national interest? We don't know because he doesn't say. My other abiding concern with this nominee is that we are being asked to confirm the head of the world's largest oil company to be the country's top diplomat, at a time when I believe the most challenging issue we and the world face is climate change resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels. Uniting the world to combat climate change will not be possible without unprecedented U.S. leadership. Leadership requires credibility, and on this issue, Mr. Tillerson has next to none. He has devoted his professional career--and become a billionaire in the process--to extracting and selling as much oil as possible. If, at his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson had said that he recognizes the causal connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change, that he understands the grave threat it poses, and that he is determined to use the position of Secretary of State to build on the record of the Obama administration to combat climate change, I might feel differently. But he said nothing remotely like that. To the contrary, when asked at his confirmation hearing if ExxonMobil concealed what it knew about climate change while funding outside groups that raised doubts about the science, Mr. Tillerson said he was ``in no position to speak'' for the company, even though he had been the CEO until only a few days before. When asked whether he lacked the knowledge to answer or was refusing to do so, he replied ``A little of both.'' That should concern each of us. Based on his professional record and his responses at the hearing, I do not believe Mr. Tillerson is the right person to be representing the United States in negotiations to reduce carbon emissions, one of the defining issues of our time. I was also disappointed by Mr. Tillerson's responses to a number of other questions submitted for the record, including regarding U.S. policy toward Cuba and the right of Americans to travel there. By simply repeating the Republican talking points that he would act consistent with the Helms-Burton Act, he appeared to embrace a law that has failed to achieve any of its objectives and has prevented Americans from traveling freely to Cuba or U.S. companies from doing business there. Does Mr. Tillerson believe that Cuba, an impoverished island of 11 million people who overwhelmingly have a positive opinion of the United States, should remain the country with the most U.S. sanctions of any in the world? He didn't say. I hope that, if confirmed, Mr. Tillerson will evaluate our policy toward Cuba objectively and in a manner that favors diplomatic engagement--as the overwhelming majority of Cubans and Americans want-- over isolation. I understand that nominees are often unwilling to take hard positions or unable to discuss in detail at this early stage all of the issues they will be required to manage in their new job. But we should expect a nominee for Secretary of State to be willing and able to recognize and condemn horrific violations of human rights and to speak out against actions by foreign governments and our own that are obviously inconsistent with our interests and values. President Obama did not achieve every foreign policy goal he set out to achieve, nor did I always agree with President Obama's or Secretary of State Kerry's priorities. But we worked together, and with our international partners, we made notable progress over the past 8 years on human rights, climate change, reducing poverty, and many other issues--progress we must continue to build on. With nationalism and isolationism on the rise and democracy and fundamental freedoms under threat, we need a Secretary of State who has demonstrated a track record and commitment to more than economic enrichment. If Mr. Tillerson is confirmed, which I expect he will be, I will continue my longstanding support for the funding to enable the State Department to carry out its vital mission to protect and promote U.S. interests and values abroad. When he and I agree, I will support him. When we disagree, I will be vocal in my opposition as I was during the Obama administration. I hope Mr. Tillerson will also be a strong advocate for the State Department's budget and personnel, including by protecting the integrity of the Dissent Channel to ensure that alternative views on important policy decisions can be expressed and considered without fear of retribution. Even the best policies in the world are worth little more than the paper they are printed on without the funds and the people to implement them. We should always remember that the face of the United States is its people. Leadership is possible only through the hard work of the diplomats serving around the world to promote our values, defend our interests, and engage constructively with friends and adversaries. Their service, dedication, and expertise are the reason we are able to effectively confront an increasingly dangerous world. Our success at home is inextricably linked to their success abroad. That is why, just as we support the men and women of our military, so should we recognize and support the diplomats at the Department of State. The State Department's indispensable role, made possible by its outstanding workforce, is recognized by the many widely respected senior U.S. Armed Forces officials, current and retired, who have repeatedly called for increased funding for diplomacy and development. They know better than anyone that preventing wars is far less costly than fighting them and that wars rarely if ever turn out the way one predicts, as the past 50 years painfully illustrate. Regardless of whatever differences of opinion we may have, I hope Mr. Tillerson will consult regularly with Republicans and Democrats, as has been the custom with past successful Secretaries of State of both parties. I have been here a long time, and I would be the first to say that we have had outstanding top diplomats from both parties. I put James Baker in that category, and I sincerely hope that Mr. Tillerson proves me wrong and joins their ranks. We all want what is best for the American people and the Nation, and we are stronger when we work together and with other nations to find a common way forward.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Trump's Executive order banning Muslims from seven countries, none of which was a source of terrorists who have carried out attacks in this country, was un-American, arbitrary, inhumane, and it will likely spur an increase in violence targeting Americans. I will have plenty more to say about it and other reckless actions by this White House in the days and weeks ahead. In the meantime, I want to say a few words about the bizarre back and forth between the Trump administration and the news media regarding attendance at the inauguration and who is telling the truth and who is not. One might think that with all that is happening in the country and the world and the rush by the President to sign Executive orders that would dramatically affect the rights, and the priorities, of millions of Americans, the question of how many people were at the inauguration would not generate such controversy. But it turns out that this is about much more than that, as it goes to the heart of the role of a free press in this country and whether the American people can have confidence that the President is telling the truth. We already knew that candidate and now President Trump is prone to bragging and making wildly unrealistic promises and inaccurate claims, many of which he later disavows. He frequently ignores or misstates basic facts and refuses to correct those falsehoods. So it was no surprise when he predicted that the crowd at his inauguration would be ``an unbelievable, perhaps record-setting turnout.'' It was also no surprise, as usually happens at inaugurations and large public demonstrations, that high-elevation photographs were used to estimate the number of participants. To anyone who attended both the Obama and Trump inaugurations, it was obvious that the number of people at President Obama's inauguration was far larger than at President Trump's inauguration, as photographs clearly showed. President Trump, however, insisted the photographs were fabricated. The morning after the inauguration, he said he could see from the stage on the West Front of the Capitol that there were ``a million'' or ``a million and a half'' people on the Mall. When reports clearly showed only a fraction of that, he accused news organizations of lying, calling them ``among the most dishonest human beings on Earth,'' and warned that they would regret it. Later that day, the President's spokesman, Sean Spicer, also accused the press of lying. He said the photographs were deceptive, and he insisted that President Trump's inauguration was ``the most watched ever.'' That, of course, was a clever distortion of what the President actually said. President Trump was unmistakably talking about the number of people who were actually present on the Mall when he was sworn in, which seems to matter more to him than it does to anyone else. Mr. Spicer expanded that number by an indeterminable amount to include anyone who had watched anywhere in the world on a cell phone, television, or other electronic device. A day later, Mr. Spicer berated the press for being unfair by reporting on this. Perhaps he had forgotten that it was President Trump who initiated the whole thing by publicly promising something that did not happen and then falsely accusing the press of lying, as did Mr. Spicer, after being proven wrong. Mr. Spicer also may have forgotten that, shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, the Senate majority leader announced that the Republicans' No. 1 priority was to prevent him from being elected to a second term. Failing that, they spent 8 years trying to obstruct, sabotage, and discredit everything President Obama tried to do. During much of that time, Donald Trump carried on an utterly false campaign accusing President Obama of lying about his birthplace. Two days later and without citing any evidence--because no evidence exists--President Trump resurrected his false claim that that he lost the popular vote because 3 to 5 million ``illegal immigrants'' voted. Mr. Spicer echoed this same claim, citing unnamed ``studies.'' This, of course, is patently false and absurd, but one can assume that it will be repeated by Republicans to justify more onerous, discriminatory voter suppression voting requirements which have been a crusade of theirs, particularly in areas with large minority populations that traditionally vote Democratic. To add insult to injury, Kellyanne Conway, the President's counselor, announced that President Trump will not be releasing his tax returns. This after candidate Trump repeatedly promised to do so once a routine audit is completed, and he even said he looked forward to doing that. Ms. Conway--who also came up with the phrase ``alternative facts''-- claimed that the fact that Mr. Trump won the election is proof that no one cared about his tax returns. There are at least two problems with that. First, it is the only way the American people can know what President Trump's assets are, what conflicts of interest may exist, whether he has been telling the truth about what he owns, and whether he is working for the American people or to enrich himself and his family. The polls indicate that today between 60 and 74 percent of the American people want President Trump to release his tax returns, including 49 percent of his own supporters. A few days later, Stephen Bannon, the White House strategist, said the media should ``keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.'' Ignoring that democracy is impossible without a free press, Bannon called the media the ``opposition party . . . that [does not] understand this country.'' There is an even more disturbing aspect to this. Besides denigrating the press, candidate and now President Trump has attacked Muslims, the CIA, Mexico, Meryl Streep, the cast of ``Hamilton,'' Congressman John Lewis, politicians, undocumented migrants, or whoever else he thinks of at any particular moment, for meddling in the election or for any other reason, with one glaring exception: Vladimir Putin, one of the world's worst gangsters. Despite credible evidence that the Russian Government, at Putin's direction, actively sought to sway the outcome of the U.S. election in favor of Donald Trump, candidate and now President Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Mr. Putin. Think about what this means. The unanimous conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies is that Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, ordered a cyber attack on our electoral system in favor of one candidate over another. Russia's goals ``were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.'' Can you imagine what the response would be from the Republican leadership if the tables were turned? They would have threatened to shut down the government until a new election was held. And if that failed they would have demanded that an independent commission be established to investigate Russia's cyber attacks. Such a commission is, in fact, what Senator Durbin, I and others have called for and what the Republican leaders, who should care no less about the integrity of our democracy, have summarily rejected. What was candidate and President Trump's response to Russia's acts to undermine our democracy? He continued to praise Vladimir Putin. This should concern every American because, for years, Vladimir Putin has engaged in a systematic campaign to weaken the alliances and norms that the United States and our democratic allies have painstakingly built over the course of more than seven decades, for our national security and for global stability. Putin would like nothing more than to discredit our democracy, weaken NATO, fracture the European Union, and in doing so deflect criticism at home and abroad of the repression and rampant corruption that have become the hallmarks of his iron-fisted rule. While Mr. Spicer blithely spoke of the United States and Russia teaming up against ISIS, Russia has used its military power in Syria for one overriding purpose: to ensure the survival of Bashar al Assad's government, one of Russia's staunchest and most brutal allies. We have learned that President Trump is also an admirer of Egyptian President al-Sisi and Philippine President Duterte, two populist leaders who have abused their authority to silence their critics and trample on the rights of their citizens. If allying ourselves with the likes of Presidents Putin, al Sisi, and Duterte, bringing back black CIA detention sites and so-called ``enhanced interrogation''--commonly known as torture--and declaring entire nationalities of men, women, and children fleeing war and devastation as ineligible for resettlement in this country is what the future looks like, we should think long and hard about what it will mean for our reputation as the oldest democracy and leader of the free world. I have made a career of working across the aisle and with Republican and Democratic Presidents on legislation to help solve the country's problems. I hope to be able to continue doing so, as I learned early on that bipartisanship is the only way the Congress can succeed. I have voted to confirm several of President Trump's Cabinet nominees. I expect to vote for others, and there are several I expect to vote against. I have never believed that we should keep doing things a certain way just because it is the way we have always done them or that the government cannot be made more efficient and more accountable to the people. Of course it can be. But in times like this, each of us should rededicate ourselves to defending the things that made this country great in the first place because ours is a great country and a good country. I believe that above all it was, and must continue to be, the integrity of our democratic system, our free, fair, and transparent elections and the checks and balances of our three equal branches of government bolstered by a free press, and our commitment to uphold the fundamental rights of all Americans. Donald Trump was not elected President to weaken any of that, and we in Congress have a responsibility to do our best to prevent it from happening.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize two exceptional members of the Smithsonian Institution's board of regents: John W. McCarter, who has served as chair of the board, and Shirley Ann Jackson, who has served as the vice chair. I have had the honor of serving with both of them and believe that their dedication and leadership have greatly benefitted the Smithsonian. Both are stepping down from their roles, and while John will continue to serve on the board, Shirley will be moving on to dedicate her considerable talents to other initiatives. John W. McCarter, Jr., of Illinois has had a long and distinguished career. He was first appointed as a regent in 2009 and was elected chair in 2013. In addition, John has lent his expertise and wisdom to a number of the regents' other committees. During his tenure, John has overseen a number of important strategic initiatives, including the search for the Smithsonian's 13th secretary; the development of the Institution's relationship with the Victoria & Albert Museum in London; the reopening of the Arts and Industries Building to the American public; and most recently, the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. These opportunities will help to ensure the Smithsonian's continued success. John also led the charge in reopening the historic Arts and Industries Building on the National Mall to the public. The building, shuttered since 2004, was reopened to the public for the secretary's installation ceremony in October 2015 and was the site of a very successful pop-up cultural exhibition over Memorial Day weekend in May 2016. John's vision and leadership have made this national treasure available to the American people once more. A tireless advocate for the Smithsonian in his home State of Illinois, John has raised the institution's profile across the Nation and around the world. Thanks to his recruitment efforts, the Smithsonian advisory boards are more diverse, more dynamic, and more engaged than ever before. Through all of these initiatives, John has pushed the Smithsonian to be more ambitious and to renew its commitment to ``the increase and diffusion of knowledge.'' I want to thank John for his exceptional leadership as chairman of the board of regents, and I look forward to working with him through the remainder of his term as a regent. Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson of New York is the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She was appointed as a regent in 2005 and has served as board and executive committee vice chair since 2013. Shirley was the regents' representative for the successful events that opened the Smithsonian's 19th museum, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, in September 2016. Alongside other notable guests, Shirley helped inaugurate the newest Smithsonian museum by delivering remarks at the museum's dedication ceremony. As she noted during her speech, the museum furthers ``the Smithsonian's founding mission, to promote `the increase and diffusion of knowledge,' by opening a museum dedicated to the African-American experience in the United States, and its crucial place in the American experience.'' Shirley has a remarkable life story: She was the first African- American woman to earn a doctorate from MIT, and since 1999, she has served as the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--marking the first time an African-American woman has led a top research university. She was also the first woman and the first African-American to serve as chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shirley is emblematic of everything the Museum was founded to celebrate about the African-American experience, and we were proud to have her serve as the board's representative at all of the opening ceremonies. The Smithsonian has also benefitted from Shirley's demonstrated commitment to the sciences. As a trained physicist, she is particularly passionate about inspiring the next generation of scientists and conservationists. As vice chair, she has been a staunch advocate for the Smithsonian's scientific researchers, trumpeting their successes and inviting them to speak at Rensselaer. She has made a point of going beyond the brick and mortar of the Smithsonian museums to visit the Smithsonian's many research centers, including the Smithsonian Tropical Research Center in Panama. This past year, Secretary David Skorton tapped into Shirley's extensive leadership and management experience, asking her to cochair the institution's initiative to create a new strategic plan for 2017- 2022. Shirley has rolled up her sleeves, asking tough questions and meeting with a variety of stakeholders regarding the institution's priorities for the next 5 years. As a chief architect of this plan, Shirley will be instrumental in charting the future of the institution long after she has left the board of regents. As a member of the board of regents, it has been my honor to serve alongside Shirley. I believe her contributions to the Smithsonian community will be witnessed and appreciated by generations to come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the majority leader may be coming to the floor to make a request. If he does, I certainly would be willing to yield to him, and I hope I won't lose my right to the floor. Mr. President, a lot has happened here in Washington in the last few days. Marcelle and I knew that a number of Vermonters were coming down for the Women's March on Washington. We said to them, ``Look, if any Vermonters are coming down, why don't you join us for coffee?'' We arranged it right here on Capitol Hill, so they could. At first, we didn't know how many would show up until we started getting the responses. Marcelle and I were there, along with members of my staff, shortly after 6 in the morning, and people started pouring in. Eventually, we had 500 or 600 from the little State of Vermont who joined us. I had a chance to speak to them. My wife, Marcelle, gave one of the most powerful speeches, totally ad-libbed, that I have heard, pointing out the stakes of what is happening in this country. Of course, she pointed to the Supreme Court just next door. What got me is that these people came from all walks of life in Vermont. Some I knew, and a lot I didn't. Some are Republicans. Some are Democrats. Some are Independents. All were very concerned. Most came down in buses and drove all through the night, a little over 500 miles, to show that our brave little State says no to hate. We had thousands more who marched in my State capital, Montpelier. Let me put this in perspective. Our State capital--I was born there, and I know it very well--is home to only 8,500 people, but 15,000 Vermonters stood on our statehouse lawn to show the President that they are paying attention, they want their voices to be heard, and the American people will hold him accountable. I got some of the most enthusiastic emails and tweets. My 14-year-old granddaughter, Francesca, told me how thrilled she was to be there. One Vermonter who took part in the enormous Women's March in Montpelier told a member of my staff, ``This is the first time I have been able to smile since Election Day.'' In Washington, Marcelle and I were proud to march with our daughter, Alicia, and 12-year-old granddaughter, Sophia. I was proud to see this 12-year-old holding her head high, knowing the respect that was being shown to her and her mother, as well as to Marcelle and me. She knew that respect went to her in a way that reflected everybody--Black, White, no matter what you might be. People cared. We have heard disrespectful, offensive and dangerous comments seep into our national discourse. The millions of men and women who participated in marches across the country this weekend offered a powerful statement that they will not tolerate policies that restrict the rights of women or treat women like second-class citizens. They will not treat my wife as one, they will not treat my daughter as one, they will not treat my three wonderful granddaughters as one, and all five of our grandchildren will be treated the same. Unfortunately, the Trump administration ignored the voices of millions of Americans and is already undermining the rights of women. Two of the President's first Executive Orders targeted women. His first Executive Order attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which throws into limbo the health insurance arrangements of millions of American women who have been guaranteed maternity coverage as part of their health care plans, who have been able to have affordable birth control for the first time, who have been able to tell insurance companies that no, pregnancy is not a preexisting condition. In other words, women can be treated the same as men when they seek insurance. President Trump also reinstated the so-called Mexico City policy, a policy that would be illegal and unconstitutional in this country--that will only result in more abortions and more pregnancy related deaths in developing countries. A former Republican Senator whom I respected highly, when he was chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee--he was strongly against abortion, but he said this kind of a policy is only going to result in more abortions and more pregnancy-related deaths in developing countries, and he is right. He is right. Affordable health care, affordable birth control, and the availability of these services would bring down abortion and pregnancy-related deaths, whether in the United States or the countries we help. Mr. President, Americans are watching. From what I heard and saw from Vermonters on Saturday, I could tell you that they are fired up and ready to go. We need a President who is committed to equality and opportunity for all people, no matter their sex, gender, or race. We will not stand for policies that turn back the clock on so much progress we have made. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, we have to accept finite disappointment, but we must not give up infinite hope. Only light can crowd out the darkness. I was proud to see so many Vermonters speaking up. They are not going away, and, as I pledged to them on Saturday, I am not going away. I am going to speak. I am going to speak the same way I did when Marcelle and I walked with our daughter and our granddaughter in the million women march. I will continue to speak up, as the people in my office in Vermont did, in Montpelier. I will speak up for all five of our grandchildren, for Francesca and Sophia and Fiona, but also for Patrick and Roan. I will speak up for all Americans. I will speak up for all Vermonters. They expect nothing less and they deserve nothing less. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has become fashionable, particularly among supporters of the Trump administration, to accuse the United Nations of just about everything. This is, however, nothing new. The U.N has been an easy target, especially for some Republicans, for a long time, because like any unwieldy international organization comprised of member states with very different priorities and interests it will probably never be as efficient or effective as we would like. But there is simply no question that the U.N. serves many vital functions that are fully consistent with key U.S. interests and values. For that reason, it is essential that the U.S. continues to play a leadership role in the U.N., which we were instrumental in creating seven decades ago, in a manner that strengthens the institution. At times, I have expressed my own frustrations with the U.N. It wastes inordinate amounts of time debating and adopting redundant resolutions that accomplish next to nothing. It has suffered from personnel policies that make it difficult if not impossible to fire underperforming employees. It pays its officials at rates that dwarf what many could earn in their own countries. It has been too slow to implement procedures to ensure transparency and accountability, including for whistleblowers who have suffered retaliation for exposing corruption and other misconduct. So there is no dispute that the U.N. needs to do better. The new Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, knows this as well as anyone and he has made clear that he is going to do his best to put the institution on a road to real reform. But, of course, he cannot do that by himself. He is empowered only to the extent that the U.N. member states, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council, support him. Attempts by past the Secretary Generals to implement reforms have been partly stymied by resistance from governments that prefer the status quo. While I believe the prospects for U.N.reform have never been better, that will not be possible without the active leadership and skillful diplomacy of the United States. And that is where our U.N. Ambassador comes in. I have known many of them, although I was only 7 years old in 1947 when Warren Austin of Vermont, nominated by President Truman, became our third U.N. Ambassador. The position of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. has also been held by such accomplished people as Henry Cabot Lodge, Adlai Stevenson, George H.W. Bush, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Thomas Pickering, and Madeleine Albright. Each was recognized and widely admired across the political spectrum for his or her depth of foreign policy experience and wisdom. Today we are considering the nomination of Nikki Haley to be the next U.S. Ambassador. Governor Haley's record as Governor of South Carolina was decidedly mixed, and I will not take time today to discuss that record. What is most relevant here, however, is her dearth of experience for the job she has been selected for. That is not so much a criticism of Governor Haley as it is of President Trump, as there are certainly well qualified, seasoned diplomats in the Republican Party who would be well received by members of both parties. Instead, we are asked to support a nominee who will no doubt be confirmed but will be starting from square one. If there ever were a case of having to learn on the job, this will be it. That might not concern me if it were not for the indispensable role of the United Nations in an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, the importance of this position, and the complex challenges the next U.S. Ambassador will face on her first day on the job. It was painfully apparent during her confirmation hearing that virtually everything Governor Haley said in her opening remarks and in her responses to questions of Senators, she had learned in the previous 2 months since she was chosen for the job. Her answers largely parroted popular Republican talking points with little substance to back up her response and revealed only an elementary understanding of how the U.N. functions. Her stated interest in U.N. reform is well placed, but it did not appear that she grasps what U.N. reform entails or what it takes to build the necessary support for reform. Again, I do not blame her for that. Her career has focused entirely on issues relevant to the State of South Carolina. But that does not make her qualified to be our Ambassador to the U.N. As Governor, she jumped on the politically expedient bandwagon and opposed the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in her State over ``security concerns,'' although it being a Federal decision some Syrians have been resettled there. In other words, she supported a blanket prohibition against an entire nationality of people--men, women, and children--regardless of the merits of their individual status as refugees fleeing war. She stated, in spite of the fact that all of our major European allies supported the nuclear agreement with Iran, that Russia's and China's support was a ``red flag,'' without acknowledging the reality that without their support it would be impossible to achieve an agreement to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program or any of our other key objectives at the U.N. She condemned the U.S. abstention on U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 regarding Israeli settlements and incorrectly implied that it is inconsistent with longstanding U.S. policy and interests. In fact, she insisted that the resolution, not settlements themselves, makes peace negotiations more difficult--a view with which I disagree. She seemed to acknowledge that the U.S. does not support settlement construction, but stated that the U.S. should have vetoed the resolution anyway. She mischaracterized U.S. law regarding our share of dues in support of U.N. peacekeeping missions that the U.S.--Republican and Democratic administrations--voted for, failing to acknowledge that we have a treaty obligation to pay 28.5 percent of U.N. peacekeeping costs. She made little mention of and gave little if any credit to the troop- contributing countries themselves, other than to highlight incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse. This is a critical issue that I and others here have been working with the U.S. Mission to the U.N. to address, and progress is being made in developing meaningful accountability procedures. She stated that the cut-off of U.S. funding for UNESCO as a result of the vote of a majority of its members to accept Palestine as a member state, which led to our loss of influence, is a ``good thing'' and that she would continue to support the cut-off of funding. She and I disagree about that and what it could mean for the future. I think even the Israeli Government has come to recognize that it is better for the U.S. to be at the table, using our influence to deflect attempts to unfairly target Israel, than on the sidelines. Governor Haley suggested that the U.S. may want to reconsider participation in and funding for the U.N. Human Rights Council, despite overwhelming evidence that our role serves to protect our interests and has reduced substantially the council's disproportionate and wasteful focus on Israel. At no time did she acknowledge the many council resolutions that are fully consistent with U.S. interests or that the influence lost by the U.S. is simply ceded to the very governments she opposes having a say in the council. On the other hand, Governor Haley did repeatedly reject what she described as ``slash and burn'' tactics when it comes to budget cutting, and on that, I fully agree with her. She said she supports moving our embassy to Jerusalem, although there is no compelling need to do so, it is strongly opposed by our ally Jordan, would likely incite a violent reaction in Arab countries, and could do more to drive a nail in the coffin of what little remains of the Middle East peace process than anything else. In responses to written questions she betrayed a serious lack of understanding about Cuba, its economy, and the failures of the 55-year- old U.S. embargo. Indeed, if she were to apply her answers regarding Cuba to other countries with repressive governments, we would have to close dozens of U.S. Embassies, end diplomatic relations, and impose ineffective, unilateral sanctions against each of them. I urge Governor Haley, as our U.N. Ambassador, to listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans and Cubans, including many Republican Members of Congress, who support a policy of engagement. I urge her to travel to Cuba and see and hear for herself, unlike those who continue to favor a Cold War embargo that has been exploited by the Cuban Government to justify its repressive policies and that has hurt the Cuban people. I have been a congressional delegate to the United Nations three times, after being nominated by Presidents of both Republican and Democratic parties. I appreciated that opportunity because I have long believed that it is in the strong interest of the United States to play an active, leadership role in the U.N. That is only possible if we, by far the world's wealthiest country, meet our financial commitments. And it is only possible if we build coalitions through skillful diplomacy and refrain from the tactics that some critics of the U.N. advocate, such as bullying and ultimatums, which are often self-defeating. I recognize that Governor Haley will be confirmed, and I wish her the best. I hope she becomes a great U.S. Ambassador. I urge her to seek out and listens to a wide range of views, particularly on controversial issues like the Middle East, Iran, and how the U.S. can best help make the U.N. work better for everyone. I will do everything I can to support Secretary General Guterres, the budget of the U.S. Mission to the U.N., and funding for U.N. agencies like the World Food Program, the U.N. Development Program, UNICEF, the U.N. Environment Program, the U.N. Population Fund, U.N. Women, the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and so many others that carry out lifesaving humanitarian and development programs around the world. And if there are other ways that I can help soon-to-be Ambassador Haley to defend the values and effectively advance the interests of the United States at the U.N. and to bring about needed reforms I will gladly do so.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand the order was for the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon to be recognized next. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Oregon on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes and then yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LEAHY. Tonight, the Senate will vote on the President's nominee to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. As I said on Friday, I do not believe the Senate should rush to confirm such a critical position, without the opportunity for debate or discussion. We are having that debate today, and that is why on Friday, I supported a motion to proceed to this nomination. Our intelligence agencies have an enormous task ahead. The challenges they face range from state-sponsored information warfare to countering violent extremists around the world. Among those who will lead these efforts will be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The importance of the CIA cannot be overstated. Now, perhaps more than ever, we need a Director who will manage the Agency with the full confidence of the American people. This confidence is based not only on a future Director's ability to comprehend security challenges, but on his or her ability to safeguard the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans and to uphold and advance United States leadership in protecting human rights. I have serious concerns with President Trump's nominee to lead the CIA. Congressman Pompeo has called for the re-establishment of the bulk collection of Americans' phone records, and has even argued that the intelligence community should combine that metadata ``with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'' He went on to say that ``[l]egal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.'' But Congress outright rejected the bulk collection of Americans' records when it passed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis--the very program that Congressman Pompeo said that he wants to bring back. During his testimony last week, Congressman Pompeo attempted to diffuse this and other questions about his more alarming positions by affirming his appreciation of the supremacy of law. It sounded to me, like the tried and true confirmation conversion. I appreciate that he testified that he understands the responsibility of a Director to uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. But I remain deeply concerned that he advocated for such dangerous measures in the first place. And I am concerned that he will push to remove ``legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance''--just as he said last year. We face grave threats from around the world, whether from Russia, from ISIS, or other adversaries. The Director of the CIA must be trusted by all Americans to protect us from these threats, but also to protect our nation's core values. I don't question Congressman Pompeo's loyalty to our nation. I do question his stated beliefs that immediate security concerns can be used as a justification for eroding the fundamental rights of all Americans. For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon for letting me take this time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I will vote for James Mattis to be the next Secretary of Defense. General Mattis stands out as a top practitioner in his field. He has earned--and rightly deserves--near- universal respect. While I opposed the hurried waiving of a carefully considered statutory cooling off period for members of the military before they can become eligible for this civilian position, I made clear then, and restate now, that my opposition to this waiver was never about General Mattis himself. I was grateful when General Mattis said in his confirmation hearing that, even from his first days as a marine, he has observed that, in the photographs on the walls of Department of Defense establishments, the civilians in suits were above those of the men and women in uniforms. I was pleased that he vowed to uphold that meaningful tradition. I am confident that, as the President's top adviser on matters of defense, as Secretary, General Mattis will carefully provide considered defense advice, maximizing the wisdom of not only the Active, Reserve, and National Guard, but the whole of the Department of Defense, including Department civilians. Donald Trump will sorely need that experience and advice. Last weekend, President Trump again denigrated our NATO allies, a partnership that President Kennedy very much had in mind when he vowed at his own inauguration to ``pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.'' General Mattis clearly understands the value of our NATO alliance. His condemnation of Russia's efforts to ``break'' NATO stands in stark contrast to the position of the man who has nominated him and, to me, demonstrates the sound, experienced reasoning that will provide a necessary balance to President Trump. I do harbor reservations about General Mattis's past statements as a private citizen related to equality within the ranks of our servicemembers. I would have much preferred to hear General Mattis renounced those past statements, but I do appreciate that, in his confirmation hearings, he said that there is nothing innate about gender or orientation that makes someone a better soldier than another. I believe the results of the progress made under President Obama will show clearly that the Nation succeeds when it has the best individuals serving to their fullest potential in the position that best matches his or her abilities. The Secretary of Defense is, of course, a critically important position. There are countless difficult choices General Mattis will have to make in steering the Department in a direction that more effectively utilizes its budget to respond to today's rapidly evolving challenges. And whether it is the persistent, shockingly high rates of sexual assault within the Armed Forces and of suicide among young veterans, or the need for far more rigorous oversight of Defense resources to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, the next Secretary will need to demonstrate that the Department is capable of effectively addressing its own internal problems, in addition to defending the Nation. In these unsettling times, General Mattis will provide a voice of experience and reason to what, by all accounts, looks to be an undisciplined, impulsive, and inexperienced Commander in Chief. On the Appropriations Committee and in other ways, I look forward to working closely with General Mattis in this new role. Mr. President, the Senate today considers the nomination of John Kelly to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. A retired marine, General Kelly is no stranger to security efforts. Over more than four decades of service in the Marines, General Kelly distinguished himself through multiple commands and tours of duty. He is well respected by elected officials, military officers, the Marines under his command, and the law enforcement and intelligence communities. I have no reason to doubt that he is a man of integrity. But General Kelly is nominated to a far different post than those he occupied during his distinguished military career. The Department of Homeland Security--a civilian agency within our government--is charged with a far-reaching mission. From protecting national security to implementing immigration policies, from our emergency response to domestic crises, to assisting in the unending fight against drugs in our communities that today features opioids and heroin as its most prevalent threat, the Department of Homeland Security faces challenges as unique as they are numerous. While I am confident that General Kelly is well equipped to exert leadership on many of these challenges, his nomination has also raised concerns. As we look ahead to the policies and practices this new administration will seek to implement, we cannot forget the work left unfinished in the Obama administration due to the obstruction of congressional Republicans. In 2013, after a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate, truly comprehensive immigration reform legislation was sent to the House of Representatives, where Republican leaders there refused to even bring it to a vote. That legislation addressed a litany of issues facing our broken immigration system, from securing our borders to reforming visa programs, from bringing the undocumented out of the shadows to reuniting families. After House Republicans failed to bring that bill to a vote, President Obama took executive action to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and establish the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA, programs. These actions would have offered a reprieve for young people and parents so that they could remain in the country, with their families, and without fear of deportation. It is fundamentally unfair for the new administration to revoke a policy designed to bring vulnerable immigrants out of the shadows and then to use information gained from that policy to punish them. I was disheartened when a Federal court issued an injunction preventing implementation of these policies. I was more disheartened when the Supreme Court was unable to resolve this court challenge, again, due to obstruction from congressional Republicans in the consideration of President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. Now, this new administration is poised to withdraw these executive orders. General Kelly is no stranger to the problems we face along the southern border. As the commander of U.S. Southern Command, he is familiar not only with immigration challenges, but with drug trafficking. While I am grateful that he has not subscribed to the singular approach that President Trump has thus far proposed with respect to constructing a wall along our southern border, I am deeply concerned that he has admonished so-called sanctuary cities and has testified that accelerating the deportation of undocumented immigrants will provide the solution to our broken immigration system. These views are not supported by the facts, and they are contrary to the work undertaken by the Senate just 4 years ago to comprehensively address these problems. I am also concerned about his tenure as the military officer in charge of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, given reports that he opposed its closure and limited press access to the facility. Vermonters know that the explosion of heroin and opioid abuse across the country can, in many ways, be attributed to the cross-border trafficking of illegal drugs. General Kelly has been a strong defender of a U.S. counternarcotics strategy which, in my view and the view of many others, has been a costly failure. Since President Reagan's first Andean Counter Drug Program, the interrelated problems of drugs, corruption, and violence that have plagued countries in South and Central America, and spilled over into our own country, have gotten progressively worse. I do not doubt that General Kelly will be confirmed to this post. Knowing that, I do want to work with him to build on successful policies such as preclearance operations, TSA Precheck, and the visa waiver program. I look forward to partnering with him to ensure the continuation of efforts to keep our northern border secure, while remaining open to the trade and commerce we conduct with Canada, our largest trading partner. I look forward to working with General Kelly to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is fully supported and able to respond to domestic disasters. And I look forward to working with General Kelly to address vulnerabilities in our cyber infrastructure. There are many challenges ahead. The Department of Homeland Security was hastily created in the wake of the September 11 attacks and, in my view, has become an unwieldly bureaucracy that suffers from inadequate transparency and accountability. This has resulted in adverse, sometimes severe consequences for many vulnerable people and their families who deserved better from this country. The Department needs significant reform in order to effectively confront these challenges, and I urge General Kelly to seek the input of a wide range of experts, as well as Congress, in identifying and implementing long overdue reforms. And above all, I hope General Kelly, as the Secretary of Homeland Security, will provide a thoughtful and reasoned balance to the extreme proposals thus far put forward by President Trump.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with what the distinguished Senator from Oregon has said. My concerns--and they will be in my full statement about Mr. Pompeo--are his suggestions in the past of sweeping authority for the government to collect bulk information on all Americans; that is, every American in this room, every American in this city, and every American in this country. We have strong bipartisan legislation that we have worked for years on, trying to get Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum to set into law what the rules should be. His statements show that he wants to throw it all overboard. So I have concerns. Mr. President, our intelligence agencies have an enormous task ahead. The challenges they face range from state-sponsored information warfare to countering violent extremists around the world. Among those who will lead these efforts will be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The importance of the CIA cannot be overstated, and now, perhaps more than ever, we need a Director who will manage the agency with the full confidence of the American people. This confidence is based not only on a future Director's ability to comprehend security challenges, but on his or her ability to safeguard the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans and to uphold and advance United States leadership in protecting human rights. I have serious concerns with President Trump's nominee to lead the CIA. Congressman Pompeo has called for the reestablishment of the bulk collection of Americans' phone records, and has even argued that the intelligence community should combine that metadata ``with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'' He went on to say that ``[l]egal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.'' But Congress outright rejected the bulk collection of Americans' records when it passed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 on an overwhelming bipartisan basis--the very program that Congressman Pompeo said that he wants to bring back. During his testimony last week, Congressman Pompeo attempted to diffuse this and other questions about his more alarming positions by affirming his appreciation of the supremacy of law. It sounded to me like the tried and true confirmation conversion. I appreciate that he testified that he understands the responsibility of a Director to uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. But I remain deeply concerned that he advocated for such dangerous measures in the first place. And I am concerned that he will push to remove ``legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance''--just as he said last year. We face grave threats from around the world, whether from Russia, from ISIS, or other adversaries. The director of the CIA must be trusted by all Americans to protect us from these threats, but also to protect our Nation's core values. I don't question Congressman Pompeo's loyalty to our Nation. I do question his stated beliefs that immediate security concerns can be used as a justification for eroding the fundamental rights of Americans. For these reasons, I cannot support Congressman Pompeo's nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is faced with a clear but complicated choice: support this expedited legislation that will pave the way for the confirmation of the next nominee to be Secretary of Defense or embroil one of the most consequential Cabinet positions--and with it the lives of thousands of men and women, as well as our national defense--in what would surely become a legal and legislative morass. The Framers of the Constitution established that the Senate should provide advice and consent in the appointment of such Cabinet nominees. Congress subsequently, in the aftermath of World War II, sought to implement limitations on who could serve as Secretary of Defense, specifically, a cooling off period for members of the military nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense. The goal? To ensure that America's military would remain under civilian control. Circumventing these limitations requires an act of Congress. It has been done just once before, ironically almost immediately after Congress first enacted those limitations. In Gen. Mattis, the President-elect--who is inexperienced in the world of military affairs and has sometimes proven rash in his public comments--has identified an able leader, who is tremendously popular and who has time and again shown himself worthy of the respect he has earned. I believe he will be a voice of reason in the Department of Defense and was encouraged to hear at his confirmation hearing this morning that he understands the importance of civilian control of our Defense Department and intends to preserve that tradition. As Senator Reed said earlier today in the Armed Services Committee, this is a once-in-a-generation waiver. Chairman McCain similarly emphasized that he supports the law that this legislation would temporarily waive. I do not support efforts to change the law to permanently eliminate this statutory cooling off period. I am disappointed that the Senate majority has insisted on creating an expedited debate on such a critical question. I cannot support such an abrupt and accelerated revision of the law, even in the form of a one- time-only exemption. I couldn't support such a haphazard process, regardless of who the President, President-elect, or the nominee is. As I said in December when the Senate considered the legislation that paved the way for this rushed process today, my vote on this bill does not foreshadow my vote on Gen. Mattis's nomination. I do believe that Gen. Mattis can respect the boundaries that make our Armed Forces the strongest in the world. I believe Gen. Mattis will offer a critical perspective to an inexperienced and sometimes volatile incoming Commander in Chief. And those are reasons why I believe he may receive my support when the Senate considers his nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how am I recorded?

Mr. LEAHY. I join my colleague from Vermont, and I vote no.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the 115th Congress convened just last week. I had hoped that with all the turmoil in the country that we would begin the year with a renewed sense of cooperation. But I am sorry to say, my friends in the Republican Party have chosen a different path. The very first thing on the agenda is to press forward with a sham budget. If you ask why we have a sham budget, a fake budget, an unrealistic budget--we find out that its only purpose is to set up a process to repeal the Affordable Care Act with a simple majority vote. Why? Because they know the American people would never allow a repeal to pass otherwise. So instead of working to finalize appropriations bills for this year--already more than 3 months in--or to invest in our Nation's critical infrastructure, or to truly bolster our Nation's cyber security, when we see countries such as Russia and other places attacking our cyber systems, or even to improve the Affordable Care Act so we can ensure that more people can receive affordable coverage, I am afraid the Republicans are recklessly rushing forward solely to fulfill an ill-considered campaign promise. They are pushing American families over the cliff with the vague promise: Yeah, we will repeal it, but don't worry because eventually we will come up with a plan to replace it. Jump first, plan later is anything but a responsible formula for someone's health, for sound decisions; and all the more so when the health insurance of tens of millions of Americans and American families all over the country--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike-- is at stake. The majority leader and others have said the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is only the first step. They say that a full repeal is necessary to pave the way for a replacement. They say: Let's leave ObamaCare in the past. Well, when you strip away the rhetoric and get rid of it, the only alternative they offer the American people is don't get sick--because if you get sick, you are in trouble. The American people have a right to know what a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act really means. A repeal of this law would not just take away the rights and care of millions of patients and their families; it would eliminate insurance coverage for millions more-- especially the aging, the elderly, men and women with preexisting conditions, and the most vulnerable children. A repeal of the Affordable Care Act would turn back the clock to a bad time in this country where once again women would have to pay more for health insurance than men, where insurance companies could rescind a health insurance policy simply because someone gets sick, and coverage could forever be denied to someone born with a disease or ailment, and that includes children. So you could buy a health insurance policy so you were covered in case you got sick, but the insurance companies could then say: Oh, you are sick. Sorry, no more insurance. Now, in my State of Vermont, the Affordable Care Act has reduced the number of Vermonters without insurance by 53 percent. Tens of thousands have gained coverage under the expansion of Medicaid. And because the Affordable Care Act closed the prescription drug ``donut hole,'' more than 10,000 Vermont seniors saved $12 million in prescription drugs in 2015 alone. And this is just in the second smallest State in the Union. Can you imagine what it is like in larger States? I have heard stories from many Vermonters about how vital this law is to them and their families. I have heard from family doctors, like one in the southwest corner of our State in Bennington, who remembers when his patients couldn't afford treatment because of lifetime and annual limits on health care coverage, something that was very common. Or a woman from Westminster, VT, whose family hit hard times--she moved from job to job. She couldn't afford continuous health coverage until the Affordable Care Act offered her a quality plan she could keep. Now, we are talking about throwing her off. Other young Vermonters are able to pursue careers in public service or the arts because they can stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26. Countless others have underscored that because of previous health issues, such as diabetes or cancer, health coverage would otherwise be unaffordable. It would be a vicious cycle. They had a disease, but they couldn't afford to do anything about it, and they would go into greater debt. Now, even though they have a preexisting condition, they have guarantees and subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act so they can have health coverage, instead of health coverage being unaffordable. Opponents of the Affordable Care Act have gone to new lengths to repeat and prolong this political battle. And that is all this is. They have had 6 years to propose a better alternative. Instead, congressional Republicans and the President-elect have decided to put the cart before the horse. They want to dismantle our health care system, and they don't want to figure out how to fix it. They just want to figure out how to get rid of it. And, by the way, they say somebody is going to come up with a bright idea for something better. The American people rightly expect us to work together and make progress on the many challenges that we face today. Instead, we are engaging in dangerous political gamesmanship that will not affect Members of the Congress, but the millions of families we represent throughout this country because they will not have health insurance, and their children will not have health insurance. Just think what this is eventually going to cost Americans--a lot more than we pay now. I will not support a return to less protection, less coverage, less fairness, and higher costs because that is what a repeal means. The Affordable Care Act extended health insurance to millions of families, not only in Vermont, but across the country. Those who represent the American people in Congress should stand ready to get to work for their constituents. Not to make their constituents sick, but to give them a program that works. I will not support an effort to reverse the many reforms and achievements we have made through the Affordable Care Act and instead cobble back together a broken system that for too long burdened most American households with health coverage uncertainty and crippling costs. I am not going to go and tell Vermonters: Too bad that you have cancer. Tough. We just fixed it so you can't have insurance. Too bad that you have diabetes. We just fixed it so you can't get insurance. Too bad that your child was born with a physical defect. Too bad. We just fixed it so you can't get insurance. Or to the person who just lost a job who doesn't have insurance: Too bad that you are without health insurance. Better pray you don't get sick because, if you do, you will lose a lot more than your job. No, I can't look Vermonters in the eye and say that is what I support. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate Judiciary Committee convenes for the first time in the 115th Congress, and we mark an historic moment in the committee's 200-year history. Last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein was named the committee's ranking member, the first time in American history that a woman has served in this capacity. It is striking that 352 Members have served on the committee, and only six of those--all Democrats--have been women. Three of those six women are proudly serving on this important committee today: Senator Feinstein, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Hirono, whom we welcome back to the committee. Senator Feinstein has long been a leading voice on this committee. I have enjoyed working with her on countless issues ranging from national security to immigration reform to Supreme Court nominations. Senator Feinstein has broken down barriers throughout her career, and her new role as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee is only the latest example. As the committee grapples with some of the most pressing issues facing our country, we will all be counting on Ranking Member Feinstein's leadership. We should all congratulate her on this historic moment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mara Greenberg, a detailee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Zachary Blau, a fellow on the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted Senate floor privileges for the duration of the 115th Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week the junior Senator from Texas spoke about Secretary of State Kerry's recent speech explaining the administration's decision to not veto U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 and supporting a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The Senator asserted that Secretary Kerry ``equated'' Israel and Hamas, that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are ``relentless enemies of Israel'' who ``consider the existence and creation of Israel to be a disaster.'' He said their actions toward Israel were intended to ``facilitate assaults on the nation of Israel.'' He also accused them of ``turning a blind eye'' to terrorism. Anyone who reads Secretary Kerry's speech will recognize the fallacy of those baseless and inflammatory accusations. To the contrary, Secretary Kerry eloquently and compellingly and with a foreboding sense of urgency about the receding prospects for a two-state solution reaffirmed the administration's condemnation of terrorism and incitement, its unprecedented support for Israel's security, and his own longstanding commitment to Israel's survival as a democratic state, living in peace with its Arab neighbors. I urge all Senators to read his speech and to arrive at their own conclusions. The situation the Secretary describes should be alarming to anyone who wants peace and security for Israel and a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, which are of vital importance to the national interests of the United States. While the Secretary's speech is too long to be printed in the Record in full, I ask unanimous consent that the first half of his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the complete text of the Secretary's speech, which, again, I urge all Senators to read in its entirety, can be found at the following Web site: https://www.state.gov/secretary/ remarks/2016/12/266119.htm.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Congress has now passed the bipartisan Promoting Travel, Commerce, and National Security Act. In 2015, I hailed the signing of a new agreement between the United States and Canada designed to improve cross-border travel, commerce, and security between our two countries. Since then, there has been legislation introduced in both the Senate and the House to allow for full implementation of that expanded Canada preclearance agreement. Thirty business associations both in the United States and Canada support this legislation, and the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Justice fully support its passage. Let's be clear about one thing: U.S. preclearance operations are already under way, in Canada and elsewhere. Preclearance facilities allow travelers to pass through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, inspections on foreign soil, prior to traveling to the United States. Preclearance operations relieve congestion at U.S. destination airports, facilitate commerce, save money, and strengthen national security. The United States currently stations CBP officers in select locations in Canada to inspect passengers and cargo bound for the United States before departing Canada. This legislation will pave the way for additional U.S. preclearance facilities in Canada in the marine, land, air and rail sectors. In particular, this legislation will advance important projects in Vermont: the creation of a preclearance facility at Montreal's Central Station, reestablishing train service between Vermont and Montreal; and improvements to air service between Burlington International Airport and Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. This legislation will promote two key national goals: enhancing our national security and increasing efficiency for travelers and commercial exchanges. With respect to national security, by placing CBP personnel at the point of departure, screening occurs before a person boards a flight, increasing our ability to prevent those who should not be flying to the United States from doing so. In 2014, preclearance stopped more than 10,000 inadmissible travelers worldwide before they left foreign soil. And with respect to commerce, the United States and Canada enjoy one of the largest bilateral economic relationships in the world, with $1.4 trillion in bilateral trade and investment and two-way trade in goods and services valued at $759 billion in 2014. Each day, more than $1.8 billion in goods and services and nearly 390,000 people cross the U.S.Canadian border. Preclearance helps further facilitate this important economic relationship. Preclearance is an issue about which both Democrats and Republicans can and do agree. It will enhance border security and stimulate economic growth. I look forward to the President signing this bill into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the election of Donald Trump as our next President has ignited a rash of speculation about the future of U.S. policy toward Cuba. What we know is that the President-elect has said contradictory things about President Obama's decision to resume diplomatic relations with Cuba, as he has about some other issues. Among other things, he has tweeted that he plans to reverse the Obama administration's regulatory changes relaxing restrictions on U.S. engagement with Cuba unless the Cuban Government agrees to a ``better deal.'' Despite that, we don't actually know what he will do. I hope, before making a decision, he listens to advocates on both sides of the issue, including Cuban-Americans, a growing majority of whom support the resumption of diplomatic relations. As someone who has traveled to Cuba many times and seen firsthand the benefits of the policy of engagement for both the Cuban people and the American people, I will do whatever I can to encourage the President-elect to continue that policy. The decision to resume diplomatic relations has been enthusiastically supported here and around the world. One of our closest allies in South America--their Ambassador talked to my wife Marcelle and me the day our flag went up for the first time in over 50 years at our Embassy in Havana. He said: You know, our country has always strongly supported the United States. But we are also friends of Cuba, and the relationship between the United States and Cuba was always like a stone in our shoe. Today, when your flag went up over your Embassy, the stone came out of our shoe. The number of Americans who travel to Cuba has risen dramatically in the past two years. U.S. airline companies and cruise ships are carrying passengers there. Hotel deals have been signed. But the same 5 Members of Congress--3 in the Senate, 2 in the House, of the 535 Members of the House and the Senate--these 5 Members have steadfastly opposed the new opening with Cuba. They continually say that the only Cubans who have benefited from the new opening are Raul Castro and the Cuban military. Of course the Cuban Government has benefited. That is unavoidable. It happens in any country with state-owned enterprises with which we also have diplomatic and commercial relations. There are many like that. But it is false and misleading to say that they alone have benefited. In fact, the Cuban people, particularly Cuban entrepreneurs, have benefited. So have the American people, and they overwhelmingly want this opening to continue. I have met many times with Cuban Government officials. I have also met with Cuban dissidents who have been persecuted and imprisoned. No one is a stronger defender of democracy and human rights there than I am. I raised the issue of dissidents being imprisoned, first face-to- face with Fidel Castro many years ago, and later with Raul Castro. Like President Obama, we all want the Cuban people to be able to express themselves freely and to choose their own leaders in a free and fair election. But I resent the assertions of those who remain wedded to the old, failed policy that to favor diplomatic relations is a form of appeasement to the Castro government. I am as outraged as anyone when Cubans who peacefully advocate for human rights and democracy are harassed, threatened, arrested, and abused, just as I am when such violations of human rights occur in other countries, including countries by governments whose armed forces and police annually receive hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid. For 55 years we have tried the approach of isolating and pressuring Cuba that is still advocated by a dwindling, albeit passionate, minority in Congress. That approach has failed miserably. The Castro family and their shrinking circle of aging revolutionaries are still in power. Cuba is still a country where political dissent is not tolerated. No one who knows the Castro government expected the resumption of diplomatic relations to quickly result in an end to oppression of free elections. Those who label the policy of engagement a failure after just 2 years because the Castro government continues to persecute its opponents are either naive or not to be taken seriously. Change in Cuba will happen incrementally, as it does in most countries. But I have no doubt that in a lot fewer than 55 years, the Cuban people have a lot more freedoms than they have had in the past 55 years. The record is indisputable. Bullying the Cuban Government and making threats and ultimatums have achieved nothing in more than half a century. In fact, it isolated the United States and damaged our own interests. Consider for a moment what it would mean if we did what these five Members of Congress advocate. Not only would we have no Embassy in Cuba, but to be consistent we would have to withdraw our Ambassadors and impose a unilateral embargo against China, Vietnam, Russia, Ethiopia, and many other countries where human rights are routinely violated, where political opponents and journalists and defenders of human rights are imprisoned and tortured, where there is no such thing as a fair trial, where civil society organizations are threatened and harassed, and where dissent is severely punished. And when we withdraw, others will happily fill the vacuum, as they have in Cuba, which trades with countries around the world, including with many of our closest allies. In fact, I recall a meeting I had with the Ambassadors of at least a dozen European and Asian countries and with representatives of major companies from those countries. They told me: We love your embargo. Keep your embargo. Our companies can do business here and they don't have to compete with American businesses. Is that what these isolationist Members of Congress want, or are they just concerned about human rights in Cuba? Would they rather have Cubans buy rice grown in China or in Louisiana? Would they rather have Cubans buy milk from New Zealand as they do now or from the United States? Would they prefer that China and Russia build ports and airports in Cuba while we lower the flag at our Embassy, pound our chest, and demand the Cuban Government to relinquish power? That argument is as illogical as it is inconsistent. For 55 years, Americans have been free to travel anywhere--Iran, Russia, Vietnam, any country in the world--but not to Cuba, which is only 90 miles away. One of my fellow Senators, a Republican Senator, who has traveled often to Cuba, said: It is one thing if a Communist country tells me I cannot come to their country, but I don't want my country telling me I can't go there. Last year, more than half a million Americans visited Cuba. This year, the number is even higher. Even from my little State of Vermont, so many people just drive a few miles to the airport in Canada and fly down. These Members of Congress want to turn back the clock and make it a crime for Americans to travel to only one country in the world--Cuba. If North Korea will let you in, you can go there, but not to Cuba. If you go to Egypt, which is cracking down on dissent, that is fine, but not to Cuba. I could go on and on. Fortunately, more Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate support the right of Americans to travel freely to Cuba, the right of U.S. farmers to sell their products on credit to Cuban buyers, and the rights of Cuban private entrepreneurs who are already benefiting directly from the new opening with the United States. They will benefit even more when the U.S. embargo--a failed, self-defeating, vindictive policy if there ever was one--has finally ended. I have talked with the Cuban owners of these private businesses. They say they are now able to make far more money than before because as things have opened up, as more Americans travel there, these businesses have expanded to meet the growing demand. Those who continue to defend the embargo should listen to these people. I hope the President-elect will listen to them. The purpose of a policy of engagement is to protect and defend the interests of the United States and the American people and to promote our values and our products. Diplomatic relations is not a reward to a foreign government; it is what we do to protect our own interests. Do the isolationists think our Embassy in Russia is a reward to President Putin, or that having an Ambassador in Moscow somehow conveys that we agree with President Putin's corrupt and repressive policies? Does anyone think that Russia's Embassy here in Washington is somehow a reward to the United States or to President Obama? Does anyone think the Cuban Government regards its Ambassador here as a reward to us? The United States has interests in every country, even if it is just to stand up for the rights of Americans who travel and study or work overseas. But there are many other reasons, such as promoting trade and investment, protecting national security, law enforcement cooperation, and stopping the spread of contagious diseases. These are all in the interest of the United States but they are far harder to pursue without diplomatic relations. We either believe in the benefits of diplomacy or we don't. We either empower our diplomats or we don't. Cuba, after a year of difficult negotiations, agreed to reopen embassies. Americans are traveling to Cuba in record numbers, including representatives of American companies, chambers of commerce, and State and local government officials. Our two governments have signed new agreements paving the way for cooperation on a wide range of issues, from the resumption of regular postal and commercial airline service, to cooperation on law enforcement and search-and-rescue. I urge Members of Congress to get briefed on the many ways our countries are cooperating, to our benefit. It might be an eye-opener. I understand this is an emotional issue for some Cuban-American families, including some who are Members of Congress. I have met with a number of these families. But I have also met with many who have gone to Cuba even though their property was confiscated by the Cuban government, even though they thought they would never go back, but now they can go and visit old friends, and they have changed their views. In fact, after 55 years, survey after survey, poll after poll shows that most Cuban-Americans support the new policy of engagement. They want the United States to have an embassy in Havana. They are not saying they agree with the Cuban government, but they are saying they want the United States to have an embassy in Havana. There is a time for family politics, and there is a time for what is in the best interest of the Nation as a whole, all 50 States. Diplomatic relations serve the national interest. I urge these Members of Congress to put what is in the interest of the American people above their personal interest. Listen to the overwhelming majority of the Cuban and American people. They want the policy of engagement to continue because they believe it is the best hope for a free and prosperous Cuba. Marcelle and I had a delightful time in Vermont a few months ago when we went and cheered on a group of Little Leaguers from all over our State. They were going to Cuba to play with Little Leaguers in Cuba. Marcelle and I gave them an American flag that had been flown over the U.S. Capitol. Those kids were grinning from ear to ear while holding it, and they sent me pictures of them flying the American flag on the baseball fields in Cuba where they were playing ball and being photographed, the Cuban teams with their flag and the Vermont team with ours. Only a few years ago that would not have happened--the U.S. flag flying in Cuba with the Cuban people cheering. One of the photographs I remember the most from that trip was taken by a member of my office, Lisa Brighenti. The picture was from the back, and one team wore red T-shirts and the other wore blue. There they were--so much like you see with Little Leaguers--walking off the field, their arms around each other's shoulders, and they just played a game together. You don't have to see their faces or which T-shirt says ``United States'' and which one says ``Cuba.'' You know it is one of each, and they are together because of their shared love of the game. I think of the times during the worst part of the Cold War, and I have gone to countries behind what we then called the Iron Curtain. I would be talking to Foreign Ministers, Defense Ministers, people in key positions, and they would say ``My niece went to Stanford'' or ``My son is studying at the University of Kentucky,'' and some would tell me about my own alma mater, Georgetown. These were openings that everybody from our diplomatic corps to our intelligence community would tell me were very important because they would learn about us, and, just as importantly, we would learn about them. So I urge President-Elect Trump to carefully weigh the pros and cons of this issue. I believe that if he follows his instincts, if he listens to Cuban private entrepreneurs, he, too, will conclude that it makes no sense to return to a failed policy of isolation. That policy has been used by the Castros as an excuse to justify their grip on power and their failed economic policies, it has divided the Cuban and American people, and no other country in this hemisphere supports it. As that Ambassador said to Marcelle and me: When your flag went up, the stone came out of our shoe. The Cuban and American people share much in common--our history, our cultures, our families, our ideals, our hopes for the future. We are neighbors. Our economies are increasingly intertwined. We should no longer be isolated from one another. As the Castro era ends, our policy today is focused on the next generation of Cuban entrepreneurs, activists, students, and leaders. They are Cuba's future. We should endeavor to engage with them in every way we can. I met with some of them, as did a bipartisan group of House and Senate Members, earlier this week. They are bright, motivated young people. They are starting their own businesses. What a refreshing attitude they have toward life. Will everything change overnight? No. But Cuba is changing. I want to yield the floor, but before I do, I will say that I will speak on this many more times. I think our relationship with Cuba is important not only for the United States but for the whole hemisphere. The stone has come out of the shoe; let's not put it back in. Let's work to help the Cuban people--not the Cuban Government but the Cuban people. By helping the Cuban people, we help ourselves. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to put the government on autopilot for the next 4 and a half months. Coupled with the continuing resolution we are currently under, that is 7 months of fiscal year 2017 priorities funded--or not--under the terms of the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill. Freezing in place an earlier year's priorities--ignoring the many hearings and the committee work and the debates and the oversight that the Appropriations Committees have invested in genuine, full-year funding bills for next year--by definition means this stop-gap bill is chock-full of great mismatches between our current priorities and those set long ago for an earlier fiscal year. By definition it means wasted diversion of funds to past priorities and giving short shrift to changing circumstances, needs and priorities. What does that mean to Vermonters? It means cuts to food assistance needs. It means halted homeland security preparedness grants. It means uncertainty for affordable housing developers and transportation planners. It means we here in Congress didn't get our job done. What makes the vote on this continuing resolution all the more frustrating is the fact that we didn't need to be in this predicament today. The Senate Appropriations Committee carefully considered 12 individual appropriations bills. All but one were reported with broad if not unanimous support. Through September, October, and into November, we negotiated in good faith and in a productive way with our counterparts in the House of Representatives. That is until the order came to stand down. The word was that the President-elect didn't want us to pass a responsible, full-year budget. The word was that he wanted Congress once again to kick the can further down the road. Then Democrats in both the Senate and House were shut out of the process--no consultation and no negotiations. In the absence of what could have been an achievable omnibus appropriations bill, this continuing resolution does fulfill a few key priorities. It avoids a government shutdown, just before the holiday season. It provides the millions of dollars authorized earlier this week in the 21st Century Cures Act to fight opioid abuse and cancer. It rejects the National Defense Authorization Act's proposal to increase base defense spending through an increase in overseas contingency operations funds. It provides billions of dollars in emergency disaster assistance for recent natural disasters. It supports additional funds to care for unaccompanied children from Central America and Mexico. And at long last, it provides overdue funds--fully offset through the Water Resources Development Act authorization--to address the shameful lead contamination crisis in Flint, MI. The people of Flint have waited far too long, while Congress has dragged its feet, to finally have access to the needed resources for the children and families suffering there. These are, surely, all reasons to support this continuing resolution. But, as with most things, there is another side to this story. The continuing resolution extends, without desperately needed reforms, the EB-5 immigrant visa program. I opposed the current continuing resolution for this same extension. As I have said numerous times, the EB-5 program has become mired in fraud and abuse. Almost everyone agrees it is broken. It is time we fix it. If EB-5 cannot be reformed due to a paralysis of leadership, the time has come for it to end, not be extended, without debate, in a continuing resolution. This continuing resolution--again, negotiated behind closed doors by Senate and House Republicans--does nothing to resolve the questions about how to sustain health care for miners and miners' widows. The Senate Finance Committee approved legislation in September to address this crisis in a bipartisan vote of 18 to 8. The Republican leadership has chosen--chosen--to not bring that legislation forward. Instead, now mine workers will be forced to spend the last dollars in their multiemployer health plan to cover this 4-month extension. What promises do we have that there will be a real commitment to provide for these men and women come next May? None. These mineworkers cannot afford thousands of dollars in monthly health care bills on the small pension payments they receive. Further, the continuing resolution includes a troubling, precedent- setting provision to expedite consideration of waiver legislation for the President-elect's announced nominee to serve as Secretary of Defense. The Framers of the Constitution provided that the Senate should provide advice and consent in the appointment of such Cabinet nominees. Congress subsequently sought to implement limitations on who could serve as Secretary of Defense, thereby ensuring that America's military would remain under civilian control. Circumventing these limitations requires an act of Congress. It has been done just once before and not with any deal of levity. This continuing resolution, however, seeks to truncate the Senate's debate over granting, for only the second time in history, such a waiver. My opposition to the inclusion of this language stands apart from the nominee himself, as well as the legislation granting such a waiver, each of which should be debated fully. I oppose limiting the Senate's debate over the granting of such a waiver. That is what this language does. The Senate is the most deliberative body in the world. With this provision, we cede that designation, at least a bit, and pave the way for further erosions. Nonetheless, we face what is ironically both a complicated and straightforward decision: allow for a government shutdown, 2 weeks before the winter holidays, or approve this continuing resolution that casts aside Congress's responsibility to enact meaningful appropriations bills for the fiscal year. As the incoming vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I don't take this decision lightly. I want the record to be clear. To Senate Republican leaders and Republican leaders in the House; to the President-elect and the Vice President-elect: Democrats will not rubberstamp a partisan agenda in the 115th Congress. We will not tolerate being shut out of negotiations about how our taxpayers' dollars are spent. And we will not allow Congress to continue to buck its constitutional duties to quite simply do its job.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Northern Triangle countries of Central America--El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala--face many similar challenges: poverty, gangs, violence, corruption, and organized crime. Another one of these challenges is weak judicial systems. For as long as anyone can remember, judges in these countries, no matter how unqualified, have been selected through opaque processes which have benefited those with personal or political connections or the ability to curry favor. Attorneys general have often turned out to be corrupt and in cahoots with organized crime, or they have been harassed and threatened to the point that they have declined to pursue cases against powerful elites or have left the country out of fear for their own safety or that of their families. But there are some signs that things are changing for the better. Today, each of these countries has an attorney general who is working to end the history of impunity that has enabled almost anyone, including members of the police and armed forces, to get away with the most heinous crimes. In Guatemala, Attorney General Thelma Aldana Hernandez; in El Salvador, Attorney General Douglas Melendez Ruiz; and in Honduras, Attorney General Oscar Fernando Chinchilla Banegas have each shown that they take seriously their responsibility to act with professionalism and impartiality in pursuit of justice. For doing so, they have each faced attempts to thwart their efforts through intimidation and threats. In the U.S. Congress we recognize the challenges and dangers they face, and we strongly support them. No democracy can survive without a justice system that has the confidence and respect of the people. There is nothing more fundamental to a credible justice system than an independent judiciary and professionally trained prosecutors who are trustworthy. Equal access to justice is a necessity for all people, regardless of economic status, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or political affiliation. It is in the interest of each of these attorneys general to share best practices; to collectively reinforce the importance of investing in stronger judicial institutions; to develop a joint strategy for using their offices to help promote economic and social development and the rule of law; and to establish a regional mechanism for collecting and sharing information to support crime prevention, investigations, and prosecutions. It is also critically important that they continue to work cooperatively with regional independent judicial institutions, like the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, the Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Before I was a Senator, I was a prosecutor. I know the challenges of the job and that there is nothing more important for a prosecutor than having the respect, the trust, and the support of the people. As a Senator, I have long served as either the chairman or ranking member of our Judiciary Committee. I have strongly defended the principle of independence of the judiciary as a cornerstone of a democratic system of government. Judges should be selected transparently on the basis of professional qualifications, temperament, and integrity. And as the chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds our foreign assistance programs I will continue to support attorneys general who, like the three I have mentioned, have courageously demonstrated a commitment to upholding the rule of law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have served in this Chamber for 42 years and served as chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for nearly two decades. I have seen a lot of debates, even contentious ones, and good-faith disagreements between Senators. But what Senate Republicans did this year to shut down Chief Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court--well, it might be the most outrageous act of obstruction and irresponsibility that I have seen in my entire time in the Senate. It is a dangerous step toward politicizing our highest Court, in a judicial system that long has been the envy of the world. Now that there is a Republican President about to be sworn in, I predict that all of a sudden we will hear Republicans talking about the importance of the Supreme Court having its full nine Justices. But make no mistake, these will be the same Senators who turned their backs on the Court and the American people for nearly a year by refusing to fill the vacancy since February. Senate Republicans cared more about preserving that vacancy for a Republican president than they did about an independent Supreme Court. The result was that they blocked one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees in this Nation's history. Chief Judge Garland is an exceptional jurist with a stellar record and impeccable credentials. He has the most Federal judicial experience of any Supreme Court nominee ever. Republicans and Democrats alike have recognized Chief Judge Garland as a brilliant and impartial judge with unwavering fidelity to the rule of law. In this day and age, he was as much of a consensus Supreme Court nominee as one could find. The senior Republican Senator from Utah and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee has previously noted that he would be confirmed easily. It is not hard to see why Chief Judge Garland has received significant bipartisan support in the past. When the American Bar Association reviewed his nomination, it unanimously awarded him its highest rating of ``Well-Qualified.'' To reach that rating, lawyers from across the country assessed his integrity, professional competence, and temperament. One said, ``Garland is the best that there is. He is the finest judge I have ever met.'' Another said ``He is a judge's judge, with a very high standard and legal craftsmanship, a fine sense of fairness to all parties, a measured and dignified judicial temperament, and the highest respect for law and reasoned argument.'' One even said that Chief Judge Garland ``may be the perfect human being.'' And yet Republicans have refused to provide him with any process whatsoever--no hearing, no vote. The result is that Chief Judge Garland is now the longest pending Supreme Court nominee in history. No Supreme Court nominee has ever been treated this way. Republicans set a new standard this year. It is the American people who have been harmed and spurned by this unprecedented blockade. Until this year, Senate Judiciary Committee members had always taken their responsibility seriously. Ever since the Judiciary Committee started holding public confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees more than a century ago, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. Even when a majority of the committee has not supported a Supreme Court nominee, the committee has still sent the nomination to the floor so that all 100 Senators can fulfill their constitutional role of providing advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. When I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 during the Bush administration, I and Senator Hatch--who was then the ranking member-- memorialized in a letter this longstanding tradition regarding Supreme Court nominees. The current Republican leadership has broken with this century of practice to make its own shameful history. But Senate Republicans have spent 8 years insisting on a different set of rules for President Obama. Republicans rolled the dice this year, subjecting the Supreme Court and the American people to their purely political gamble. They will tell us they have won. But there is no victor--for their partisan game, this body, the Supreme Court, and the American people all suffered. As we go forward under the new President-elect, I urge those Republicans to think carefully about their own words about the voice of the American people. I remind those Republicans that, in last month's election, Secretary Clinton received over 2.5 million more votes from the American people than the President-elect. That 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 undermine safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, or the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, or the Voting Rights Act. President Obama made the best possible choice for a Supreme Court nominee, and any other Supreme Court nominee will face a difficult comparison to Chief Judge Garland's experience, brilliance, integrity, and support from across the political spectrum. Chief Judge Garland is an honorable, decent man and a model of public service. What Senate Republicans have done to him is unfair and unwarranted, and it is an insult, not just to him, but to all Americans who expect all of us to do our jobs and uphold our oath to the Constitution. As the Republican leadership brings the 114th Congress to a close, they do so having established another record for inaction on judicial nominations. Despite the fact that there are dozens of qualified, consensus nominees pending on the Senate floor right now, we will finish this Congress having confirmed just 22 judicial nominees in 2 years. That is the lowest number since Harry Truman was president. There are currently 30 judicial nominees awaiting a vote, all with the support of their home State Senators and bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee. We have not had a single confirmation vote on a judicial nominee since July. Because the Republican leadership shutdown judicial confirmations, the number of judicial vacancies in our Federal courts will increase to over 100 for the first time in almost 6 years, a vacancy rate of nearly 12 percent. And of those, the number of judicial emergency vacancies will exceed 40. This did not happen overnight. It is the result of a sustained effort that the Republican leadership chose. If we had just followed regular order, like them majority leader promised time and again, all of these nominees would have been confirmed months ago. Republicans cannot claim that President Obama has not made enough nominations to solve this crisis. They cannot say that he has not worked with them to find consensus nominees. Of the nominees awaiting a vote, 13 have the support of either one or two home State Republican Senators, and 28 were reported by voice vote. The majority leader has repeatedly come to the floor to justify his obstruction by claiming he has treated ``President Obama fairly with respect to his judicial nominations'' in comparison to President Bush. That is not even close to accurate. Even more to the point, our constitutional duty of advice and consent is not about comparing one President to another. It is to ensure our Federal courts have the judges they need in order to provide Americans the speedy justice the Constitution promises. And right now, that is not the case when one of every nine judgeships across the country is vacant. Currently, there are 13 judicial emergency vacancies in Texas alone. Compare the record of the Republican Senate today to that of Senate Democrats in 2008, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the last 2 years of the George W. Bush administration. Senate Democrats confirmed 68 judicial nominees, accounting for two-thirds of all of the judicial nominations President Bush made in those 2 years. In contrast, since last January when Republicans took the majority, they have confirmed just 22 judicial nominees-barely one-quarter of the nominations President Obama has made during this Congress. To reach parity with President Bush, this Senate would need to confirm an additional 31 nominees. We could make that happen right now by voting on the nominees currently pending on the Senate floor. During the final year of the Bush administration, Senate Democrats confirmed 28 circuit and district nominees, all of whom the Judiciary Committee reported to the floor that year. This year, Republicans have allowed confirmations of just nine circuit and district nominees, each of whom the Judiciary Committee reported last year. So the majority leader has failed to even begin this year's work on nominees. When the Senate operated under regular order, consensus nominees like the ones we have pending on the floor were confirmed before long recesses and at the end of the year. Instead, the Republicans' standard operating procedure has been to refuse votes on consensus nominees. At the end of 2009, they refused to vote on 10 judicial nominees. At the end of 2010 and again in 2011, they left 19 judicial nominees pending, almost all of whom were consensus nominees. At the end of 2012, they blocked votes on 11 judicial nominees pending. After blocking 10 nominees at the end of 2013 and then 6 in 2014, Senate Republicans once again blocked 19 nominees at the end of last year. This year, they set a new record by leaving 30 judicial nominees pending. All 30 are qualified and have bipartisan support, and there is no good reason we should not have voted on them already or before we adjourn this month. The vacancy crisis has happened because 8 years ago, rather than adhering to regular order, Republican leadership granted the wishes of rightwing legal groups who lobbied them to engage in ``unprecedented'' obstruction of President Obama's nominees. They have proven again that pure partisanship matters more to them than ensuring our courts have the resources they need to uphold the rule of law and provide justice for all Americans. Republicans have set a new standard for judicial nominees: it involves confirming only 11 nominees per year, routinely holding nominees over in Committee, and routine cloture votes and roll call votes on every district nominee. That is the way to ensure the President-elect's nominees are treated as ``fairly'' as President Obama's nominees. In the President's second full month in office, Senate Republicans wrote to him, demanding that he consult with them on judicial nominations. The President did just that. His first nominee was David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, a nomination made in consultation with, and with the support of the most senior Republican Senator, Richard Lugar. Senate Republicans nonetheless filibustered the nomination. These were the same Republicans who used to claim that the filibustering judicial nominations was unconstitutional. Since then, Senate Republicans have obstructed and delayed just about every circuit nominee of this President. They filibustered Robert Bacharach's nomination to the 10th Circuit, even though he had the support of his two home State Republican Senators. That was the first time a circuit nominee had been successfully filibustered after receiving bipartisan support in Committee. That filibuster meant that his confirmation was needlessly delayed for 8 months, after which he was confirmed unanimously. When George W. Bush was President, the average circuit nominee spent just 18 days waiting for a vote on the Senate floor. The average circuit nominee of President Obama's waited exactly 100 days longer than that. There is no good reason these nominees should have had to wait six and a half times as long for a vote. Senate Republicans delayed confirmation of Judge Patty Shwartz of New Jersey to the Third Circuit for 13 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Richard Taranto to the Federal circuit for a full year. They delayed confirmation of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 11 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit and Judge William Kayatta to the First Circuit for 10 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Ray Lohier of New York to the Second Circuit for 7 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Scott Matheson of Utah to the Tenth Circuit, Judge Felipe Restrepo of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit, and Judge James Wynn, Jr., of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 6 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Andre Davis of Maryland to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Stephanie Thacker of West Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to the Ninth Circuit for 5 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the 11th Circuit, Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the 11th Circuit, Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit, Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, Judge Chris Droney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit, Judge David Barron of Massachusetts to the First Circuit, and Judge Carolyn McHugh of Utah to the 10th Circuit for 4 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Michelle Friedland of California to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Nancy Moritz of Kansas to the 10th Circuit, Judge Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit, Judge Gerard Lynch of New York to the Second Circuit, Judge Susan Carney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit, Judge Cheryl Krause of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, Judge Jill Pryor of Georgia to the 11th Circuit, and Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio to the Federal circuit for 3 months. Even though they have been approved by the Republican-led Judiciary Committee, the three circuit nominees currently awaiting votes have been pending for months, too. Donald Schott of Wisconsin, nominated to the Seventh Circuit, has been waiting for 6 months. Jennifer Puhl of North Dakota, nominated to the Eighth Circuit, has been waiting for 5 months. Judge Lucy Koh, of California, nominated to the Ninth Circuit, has been waiting for 3 months. And then there was the unprecedented blockade of the D.C. Circuit, when Senate Republicans refused to allow President Obama to fill any of three vacancies that still existed in 2013. Republicans tried to suggest that filling vacancies was ``court packing'' and tried to eliminate three seats from that court. This unfortunate tactic was pioneered by one Senator 20 years ago to prevent President Clinton from appointing an African-American judge to the Fourth Circuit, ultimately forcing President Clinton to recess appoint Judge Roger Gregory as the first African-American judge on that court. The filibuster, even as Senate Republicans abused it again and again, had traditionally been reserved for ``extraordinary circumstances'' and extending debates about the merits of individual nominees. President Obama made three excellent, highly respected nominations to the D.C. Circuit, but Senate Republicans did not focus debate on their qualifications or their records. Rather they claimed President Obama should be denied the ability to make nominations under his constitutional authority. I said at the time that some called this blockade ``nullification,'' as Republicans tried to thwart the will of the majority of Americans who elected President Obama in 2008 and again in 2012. Little did the American people know that this blockade would be a precursor to what they would do with his next Supreme Court nominee. Republican obstruction and abuse of the filibuster also extended to district court nominees under President Obama. It is particularly troubling that many of these nominees were targeted on the basis of actions they took on behalf of clients. I remember what Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing: ``[I]t's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law. ``Our Founders thought that they were not being given their rights under the British system to which they were entitled, and by representing the British soldiers, he helped show that what they were about was defending the rule of law, not undermining it, and that principle, that you don't identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client, or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is critical to the fair administration of justice.'' To attack a judicial nominee on the basis of work they did for a client is to denigrate the rule of law and strike at the very foundations of the American legal system. It was wrong to filibuster Caitlin Halligan because special interests disliked a position she argued at the direction of New York's attorney general when she was that State's solicitor general. It was wrong to attack Edward Chen because he had worked at the ACLU and accuse him of having an ``ACLU gene.'' And it was appalling to filibuster John McConnell because of his work on litigation against tobacco companies. Nor was this limited to judicial nominations--the same shameful playbook was used against Debo Adegbile, an honorable and distinguished public servant who was nominated to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. It should concern all of us that one of the leaders of this effort to undermine the adversarial system might be our next Attorney General. Until Barack Obama was elected President, we had a different standard. In all but the most extreme circumstances, we deferred to home State Senators and their work with the President to find the right nominee for their state. In 8 years, I cast votes against just two of President Bush's district court nominees. Early in President Obama's first term, 37 Senate Republicans voted against two of his district court nominees in 1 day. In my 42 years in the Senate, I have opposed cloture on a single district court nominee. I did so because of his personal involvement with efforts to intimidate African-American voters. One important Senate tradition has remained intact: the Judiciary Committee blue slip, which represents Senators' important role in providing advice and consent for the President's nominees. During the almost 20 years that I have served as chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have steadfastly protected the rights of the minority through both Republican and Democratic administrations-and I have done so despite criticism from Democrats. I have only proceeded with judicial nominations supported by both home State Senators. I will put my record of consistent fairness up against that of any chairman. Chairman Grassley has stated that he will continue the practice of requiring both blue slips before proceeding with a nomination, and I applaud him for that commitment. I hope he will continue to honor that commitment, despite the criticism he might receive. The blue slip matters because it protects the Senate's constitutional role in providing advice and consent on nominations. The Judiciary Committee and the Senate are not rubberstamps; we are a check on Presidential power, and we have a meaningful role in making recommendations to the President and then evaluating nominees on their individual merits. A fair and thorough confirmation process is how we give meaning to the checks and balances in the Constitution. Our Federal judiciary is also strengthened when it better reflects the Nation it serves. I commend President Obama for having nominated such a diverse group of qualified judges. In his first term alone, President Obama appointed as many women judges as President Bush did during his entire 8 years in office. In just those first 4 years, President Obama also nominated more African Americans, more Asian Americans, and more openly gay Americans than his predecessor did in 8 years. This progress continued in President Obama's second term, and even without additional confirmations, he has appointed nearly twice as many women judges, more than two and a half times as many African- American judges, and more than five times as many Asian American judges as President Bush. All Americans can be proud of the Senate and the President's efforts to have the Federal judiciary better reflect the public it serves. Despite unrelenting Republican obstruction, President Obama worked hard with home State Senators to find judicial nominees who were qualified, in the mainstream, and who helped ensure the Federal judiciary reflects all Americans. President Obama's nominees included Judge Christina Reiss, the first woman to serve on the District of Vermont; Judge Andre Davis, just the third African American to serve on the Fourth Circuit; Judge Irene Berger, the first African-American Federal judge in West Virginia; Judge Abdul Kallon, the third African-American district judge in Alabama, whose nomination to be the first African American from Alabama to serve on a Federal appeals court is being blocked by that State's Senators; Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, the first Vietnamese American to serve as a Federal district judge and now the first Asian Pacific American woman to serve as a Federal circuit judge as well; Judge Dolly Gee, the first Chinese American woman to serve as a Federal judge; Judge Rosanna Peterson, the first woman to serve on the Eastern District of Washington; Judge Nancy Freudenthal, the first female Federal judge in Wyoming; Judge Benita Pearson, the first African- American Federal judge in Ohio; Judge Kimberly Mueller, the first woman to serve on the Eastern District of California; Judge Edmond Chang, the first Asian American Federal judge in Illinois; Judge Carlton Reeves, the second African-American district judge in Mississippi; Judge William Martinez, the second Hispanic to serve on the District of Colorado; Judge J. Michelle Childs, the second African-American woman to serve on the District of South Carolina; Judge Tanya Pratt, the first African-American Federal judge in Indiana; Judge Lucy Koh, the first Korean American woman to serve as a Federal judge; Judge Gloria Navarro, then the only woman and only Hispanic on the District of Nevada; Judge Barbara Keenan, the first woman from Virginia to serve on the Fourth Circuit; Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, the first African- American and just the second woman to serve on the First Circuit; Judge Albert Diaz, the first Latino to serve on the Fourth Circuit; Judge Mary Murguia, the first Hispanic and the second woman from Arizona to serve on the Ninth Circuit; Judge Denny Chin, who upon confirmation to the Second Circuit became the only active Asian Pacific American judge on our circuit courts; Judge Marco Hernandez, the first Latino to serve as a Federal judge in Oregon; Judge James Graves, the first African- American from Mississippi to serve on the Fifth Circuit; Judge James Shadid, the first Arab American Federal judge in Illinois; Judge Mae D'Agostino, the only woman on the Northern District of New York; Judge Jimmie Reyna, the first Latino on the Federal circuit; Judge Edward Chen, just the second Asian Pacific American to serve on the Northern District of California; Judge Arenda Wright Allen, the first African- American woman to serve as a Federal district judge in Virginia; Judge J. Paul Oetken, the first openly gay man confirmed to be a district judge; Judge Ramona Villagomez Manglona, the first indigenous person to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern Mariana Islands; Judge Bernice Donald, the first African-American woman to serve on the Sixth Circuit; Judge Cathy Bissoon, the first woman of color to serve on the Western District of Pennsylvania; Judge Sharon Gleason, the first woman to serve on the District of Alaska; Judge Morgan Christen, the first woman from Alaska to serve on the Ninth Circuit; Judge Nannette Brown, the first African-American woman to serve as a Federal district judge in Louisiana; Judge Nancy Torresen, the first woman to serve on the District of Maine; Judge Steve Jones, who became one of only two active African-American Federal judges in Georgia; Judge Paul Watford, who is one of only two African-Americans serving on the Ninth Circuit; Judge Adalberto Jordan, the first Cuban-born judge on the 11th Circuit; Judge Stephanie Thacker, the first woman from West Virginia to serve on the Fourth Circuit; Judge Shelley Dick, the first woman to serve on the Middle District of Louisiana; Judge Landya McCafferty, the first woman to serve on the District of New Hampshire; Judge Susan Watters, the first woman to serve on the District of Montana; Judge Elizabeth Wolford, the first woman to serve on the Western District of New York; Judge Debra Brown, the first African-American woman to serve as a Federal judge in Mississippi; and Judge Diane Humetewa, the first Native American woman to serve as a Federal judge. We can all be proud that our Federal bench today better reflects the broad diversity of our Nation and represents the best of the legal profession. However, the nominees that are being obstructed on the floor today include Armando Bonilla, who would be the first Hispanic judge to ever serve on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; Stephanie Finley, who would be the first African-American judge to serve on the Western District of Louisiana; Lucy Koh, who would be the first Korean American woman to be a circuit court judge; and Florence Pan, who would be the first Asian American woman on the district court in DC. I am also disappointed that we have not moved forward on the nomination of African-American Judge Richard Boulware to serve on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission currently does not have a single person of color serving as a commissioner--yet it impacts criminal justice issues that deeply affect communities of color. In the 20 years that I have been chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have worked with Republicans and Democrats to ensure that our committee has provided a fair and thorough process for judicial nominees. Our power of advice and consent is a critical check on any President, and by protecting the independence of the third branch, we uphold our Constitution. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to our independent judiciary as the crown jewel of our democracy, and he was absolutely right. I have worked to protect and strengthen that crown jewel during my time as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I will continue to do so in the years ahead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, whistleblowers play an essential role in providing transparency and accountability in the Federal Government and exposing waste, fraud, and abuse. It is important that all government employees have safe and effective avenues to come forward when they have evidence of wrongdoing, and to encourage them to come forward they must be afforded protections from retaliation. Unfortunately, under current law, FBI employees who report waste or misconduct are not afforded the same whistleblower protections as all other Federal employees. That is why I worked closely with Senator Grassley to author the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancements Act of 2016. The bill Senator Grassley and I drafted was a comprehensive package. Not only did it extend protections to FBI employees who report waste, fraud, or abuse to supervisors in their chain of command, but it also provided clear guidance on the investigation and adjudication of retaliation claims so that those same employees are not denied whistleblower protections without reason or without opportunity to appeal. Unfortunately, the bill we have passed today has been stripped of many of these worthy reforms. While I am pleased we will finally update the law to provide whistleblower protections for FBI employees who blow the whistle within their chain of command, I am disappointed that the bill we have before of contains only a fraction of the reform that Senator Grassley and I worked so hard to move through the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is a small but important step forward, but it is not sufficient. The Senate must work to pass comprehensive reform so that FBI employees are able to blow the whistle and not face repercussions for doing so. I hope we can revisit this important issue in the next Congress.