Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, first, I should note how much I agree with the senior Senator from New Hampshire and her comments about the appropriations process. I mentioned on the floor yesterday that in the Appropriations Committee, we reported 12 bills, including the State and foreign operations bill. It passed, 30 to 0. It and the other bills have now been put on a shelf to collect dust by the House Republican leadership. We will probably never get a chance to vote on them. By doing so, by deciding to put the government on autopilot and drafting another continuing resolution instead, they will reduce by almost $500 million the amount that the Senate provided for fiscal year 2017 for the security of our diplomats and embassies abroad. It is very similar to what the House did when they refused to support the Senate's higher amount for embassy security prior to the Benghazi attack. They didn't want to admit it, as they spent tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money investigating the lack of security in Benghazi, blaming everyone but themselves. It will be interesting to see if they acknowledge that they are again cutting funds for embassy security.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on another matter, I have noted for months, actually for years, in the lead-up to the November 8 election, that congressional Republicans spent millions of taxpayers' dollars to air their unsubstantiated concerns about corruption at the highest levels of our government. If they were trying to get on television doing it, we might want to take a look at what they said. They said the Clinton Foundation should be dissolved, notwithstanding the amount of good work it is doing around the world. Every action, every meeting, every activity of the Clinton Foundation should be revealed, they said. We cannot allow such a foundation to run so close to the Oval Office, they said. So it is ironic, sadly ironic, actually it is madly ironic, that since November 8, I have heard neither a shout nor a whisper from congressional Republicans echoing the same concerns about our President-elect's personal and profitable business dealings. No outrage that the President-elect's family may charge the American taxpayers millions of dollars to rent space for the Secret Service at Trump Tower. No demand that the President-elect--the chairman and president of The Trump Corporation--dissolve the interests he owns. Today we hear how the President-elect plans to address these conflicts of interest which he calls a ``visual'' problem rather than an ethical one. But unless he does what I and others have called for--divest his interest in and sever his relationship to the Trump Organization and put the proceeds in a true blind trust--it is nothing more than lipservice. Until we know more about what role his family will have, both in his business interests and the government's operation under a Trump administration, no one should consider this serious concern as addressed. And here is the duplicity of congressional Republicans' double standard. After years of partisan witch hunts and millions of wasted taxpayer dollars investigating bogus allegations against Hillary Clinton, and by extension the Clinton Foundation, if they fail to demand the same of Donald Trump that they demanded of her, they will, as E.J. Dionne said so eloquently in his column in the Washington Post, ``be fully implicated in any Trump scandal that results from a shameful and partisan double standard.'' Madam President, I am hearing from Vermonters. They are worried. They are uncertain. Some of them are scared. Congress could do a great service to all our constituents if it led by example, not just by convenient spoken platitudes that might give you a few seconds on the evening news. If my colleagues want to actually be the leaders that they claim they are, do not start by validating an offensive and dangerous double standard. Have the same standard for Republicans as you do for Democrats. You can't condemn Democrats on something but say it is perfectly okay if Republicans do it. It doesn't work that way. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the column from the Washington Post of November 27, 2016, by E.J. Dionne entitled ``An ethical double standard for Trump--and the GOP?'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I do not see anybody else seeking recognition, but let me just say just a little bit more on these issues. Yesterday I commended my Republican colleague, Senator McCain. He complained about the decision of his own party to do away with regular order in our appropriations process. He's absolutely right. We should have debated and passed those bills the way we used to do. Ten months ago that's what the Republican leadership said they wanted to do, and they are in control here. And we worked hard in the Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats together, and we reported out all our appropriations bills. Hundreds and hundreds of hours of work by members, even more by their staffs. Almost every one of these bills was bipartisan, and they passed usually by a unanimous vote or close to it. All that goes for naught. I commented about just one of these, and of course that is the State and foreign operations bill. Both before Benghazi and since Benghazi, the Republican chairman of the subcommittee and I have put in money, a considerable amount of money, for the security of our embassies and our personnel abroad. Rather than acknowledge their own responsibility for having cut funding for security prior to Benghazi, the House Republicans wasted tens of millions of dollars on hearings to blame the administration. Madam President, maybe double standards make for a sound bite on the evening news, especially if it sounds good and the people putting it on haven't done the research to find out what's really going on. But it's no consolation to the men and women serving at our embassies and throughout the world to represent the American people. Oftentimes in danger, as we just saw within the last couple of days in the Philippines. It does them no good to see Congress spend tens of millions of dollars to decry the lack of security, tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars on hearings that proved nothing, to get on television for political purposes, and then scrapping the appropriations bills and supporting instead a continuing resolution that will cut funds for embassy security by half a billion dollars. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the past 2 years, the Republican Party has enjoyed solid majorities in both the House and Senate. They control the schedule and they control the process. They can decide which legislation to call up for debate, and frankly, for all intents and purposes, they can decide whether anything gets done around here. A good example is the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. If he had been treated like all other Supreme Court nominees throughout the entire history of this country in a Presidential election year, he would have received a hearing and a vote, and he almost certainly would have been easily confirmed, just as he was when he was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals. Instead, the Republican leadership did not even give Judge Garland a hearing, much less a vote. Republican Senators refused to do their job. And there are countless examples of this. It would behoove people in this country who complain about the ``do nothing'' Congress to remind themselves that Congress is controlled by Republicans in both the House and the Senate. They can make it possible for work to get done if they want to, or they can make it impossible. Their track record for the past 2 years speaks for itself. Instead of a Congress that sets the standard for the world's democracies, we have been treated to a lesson of how not to get things done. The latest example is the fiscal 2017 appropriations bills. I went back and reviewed the record. For months, the Republican leadership extolled the virtues of regular order, and I totally agreed with them on that. They spoke with great optimism and confidence about passing appropriations bills--individual bills, not even an omnibus bill that has become the norm. I agreed with the Republican leadership. They said over and over that they were going to do their job this year and pass these bills, the way we used to. We on the Democratic side fully supported Republicans in that goal. We negotiated 12 individual appropriations bills that were reported, with 1 exception, with bipartisan majorities--in most cases, overwhelming majorities--by the Senate Appropriations Committee. That was 5 months ago. Senator Lindsey Graham and I wrote the fiscal year 2017 State and foreign operations bill. As we always do, we wrote a balanced bill, and it was reported unanimously by the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to 0. Our staffs have been meeting for weeks with their House counterparts to hammer out a conference agreement that the House and Senate can vote on and the President can sign. We could easily be finished by December 9, when the current funding resolution expires. So what is the problem? It is simple. Donald Trump was elected President, and now the Republican leadership has a different idea. Forget all those uplifting speeches about passing appropriations bills. Forget about so-called regular order. Forget about doing our jobs. What is their new plan? Throw 10 months of work into the trash can. Now we will punt the ball down the field for another 4 months. After that, who knows? Maybe we will do it again and have a continuing resolution for the rest of the year. There is no way to predict. For Members of Congress who may not be familiar with the intricate operations of Federal agencies and would prefer not to think about it, the idea of another 4-month continuing resolution may not be a big deal. For those of us on both sides of the aisle who do know, it is an example of government at its worst. Funding the government by continuing resolution means putting priorities and budgeting decisions on autopilot. It stops us having any kind of a voice in what our government does. It negates the hard work that has gone into reevaluating priorities from one year to the next. It negates the careful process of looking at Federal agencies account by account to make adjustments as warranted. It means largely making a carbon copy of an earlier appropriations bill or bills regardless of changed circumstances or compelling need to modify earlier priorities. I can give all kinds of examples in the appropriations bills. Here are a few examples of what it means for the State and foreign operations bill, which comprises only 1 percent of the Federal budget. A continuing resolution will provide $433 million less than Senator Graham's and my bill for economic development, governance, and security programs, such as the Power Africa Initiative. It will mean $59 million less for programs to counter violent extremism. These programs have strong bipartisan support--and did in the Appropriations Committee--because they are the building blocks for stability where we have critical national security interests that affect all Americans. A continuing resolution will provide $162 million less than our bill for global health, including for maternal and child health programs, such as vaccines for children, and to combat malaria and tuberculosis. These programs literally mean life or death for millions of people, which is why they have bipartisan support--or at least they did before the Republican leadership scrapped the appropriations bills that we passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, one of the things a continuing resolution will do is provide $454 million less than Senator Graham's and my bill for security for U.S. diplomatic and consular personnel, for security upgrades to U.S. Embassies and facilities overseas, and for cyber security programs. I mention that because the Republicans in the other body spent tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money decrying the lack of security at our embassies, even after they had already voted to cut money for embassy security, and now they are going to cut another $454 million. Will they stop using their talking points about how we should spend more to protect our diplomats posted overseas? Of course not, because they hope the American people will not pay attention to the fact that they have cut another half billion dollars. When the Republican leadership blames others for not doing enough on security for our embassies and diplomats, as they have a habit of doing, they need to only look at themselves in the mirror. At the same time, the continuing resolution provides $538 million more for U.S. contributions to international financial institutions, than the amount Senator Graham and I put in our bill. That is because the 2016 omnibus provided $220 million for the Strategic Climate and Clean Technology Funds, which is not needed in fiscal year 2017 because the United States will not be contributing to either of those funds in fiscal year 2017. The balance of $318 million is not needed because U.S. contributions to several international financial institutions are lower in fiscal year 2017 than in fiscal year 2016. It boggles the mind. They cut money for the security of our diplomats and embassies, but then they spend half a billion dollars for contributions we don't need to make. In fact, the continuing resolution provides $161 million more than Senator Graham's and my bill for contributions to international organizations. We don't need to pay that additional amount because of reductions in assessments in exchange rate costs. It would be nice if, instead of wasting this money on things we don't need, we used it to protect our embassies. The continuing resolution will provide $90 million more than our bill for assessed contributions to international peacekeeping. Again, we don't need to pay that additional amount because of reductions in several peacekeeping missions. These are just examples for State and foreign operations. Every appropriations bill has its own laundry list of reasons why a continuing resolution makes no sense. It wastes taxpayer dollars and wreaks havoc for the agencies that run the government. Continuing resolutions beyond a few months are illogical, wasteful, and harmful. We end up spending less for things both Republicans and Democrats strongly support, and we waste money on things we don't need and nobody wants. It is bad government 101. It is what the Republican leadership 10 months ago said they wanted to avoid, and we all agreed with them. But that was then and this is now. Now it's forget what we said before. We have changed our mind. Let's just put the government on autopilot and waste the money. I heard Senator McCain, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, denouncing his colleagues for abandoning the regular appropriations process. He knows the problems it will create for the U.S. military. Senator Mikulski, the vice chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, has called it ``absolutely outrageous.'' She called it ``procrastinating'' instead of ``legislating.'' I agree with her. Another 4-month continuing resolution is completely unnecessary, not to mention outrageous, wasteful, and irresponsible. It can still be avoided. Speaking for State and foreign operations, we can complete our conference agreement in less than 1 week. We are perfectly willing to work into the evenings to do that. I suspect the other subcommittees could do the same or close to it. Certainly, we could finish these bills before Christmas. So why don't we? That is what the Republican leadership said they wanted. That is what regular order is. That is how the Congress is supposed to work. We should do it. We ought to show the American people, for once, that we will actually do the job we were elected to do. That is what this Vermonter wants. I would hope others would also. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for decades people around the world have witnessed seemingly intractable conflict in the Middle East, and those who live there have suffered through generations of violence. While the peace sought for that region has been elusive, organizations such as the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies in Southern Israel have continued the struggle to promote conflict resolution and unity to counter forces of hate and violence. Vermont Rabbi Michael Cohen is one of the founding faculty members of the Arava Institute. In October, Rabbi Cohen wrote of the Women Wage Peace movement in Israel after thousands of people from different political and religious backgrounds joined together to march in support of peace in that troubled region. The Women Wage Peace movement, founded by a small group of Israeli women, has grown over the years in both force and numbers. Its mission: to demand a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The rallies took place throughout the country, with a final march, the March of Hope, taking place in Jerusalem. Rabbi Cohen, together with many other students, staff, and faculty of the Arava Institute and community members from Kibbutz Ketura where he currently teaches, attended one of the rallies at the official Israeli- Jordanian border crossing along the Eilat promenade, and, the following day, at Qasr al-Yahud, the Jordan River baptismal site. At the baptismal site one of the members of Kibbutz Ketura recognized a man sitting on the Jordanian side of the river who had visited the Arava Institute earlier in the summer. The man had come to support the March of Hope from the Jordanian side, while members of the Arava Institute showed their support from the Israeli side. The two men exchanged warm words from across the river epitomizing the goals of the movement. The Middle East is facing one of its most unstable and dangerous periods in modern history. Entities like the Arava Institute, along with the Women Wage Peace movement, offer hope that peaceful coexistence is possible in the Middle East. Women, men, Israelis, Palestinians, Christians, Muslims, Jews, youth, and elders have joined together to remind us that we are all connected as members of one international community. I ask unanimous consent that Rabbi Cohen's October 26, 2016, post, ``A rabbi in the desert: A reminder of what can be,'' from the Arava Institute blog be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters understand the value of hard work and perseverance, and we take pride in passing those values from generation to generation. Our communities thrive on family-owned businesses built on these values. They form the roots of success in our Green Mountain State, and it is those who own and operate them who are providing the leadership that will carry our State into the future. Today I want to recognize one exceptional Vermont family for the success of their multigenerational Vermont enterprise and their continued commitment to Vermont values. Founded in 1870, Allenholm Farm is Vermont's largest apple orchard. At its helm is Ray W. Allen, whose great-grandfather Rueben Allen planted the farm's first apple trees more than 150 years ago, and Ray's wife and partner, Pam. After graduating from the University of Vermont with a degree in agriculture, Ray returned to the family farm he had worked as a child, eventually purchasing it from his father in 1960. More than five decades of running the farm haven't slowed Ray down, and he can still be found fixing machinery, giving tours of the orchard, and loading delicious Vermont apples into trucks for shipment. Like many Vermont businessowners, Ray knows the value of diversification. In addition to the apples it sells to local grocery stores and cider makers, the farm harvests raspberries, blueberries, and cherries, some of which are sold to Vermont's world-renowned Alchemist Brewery. Ray and Pam, his wife of 31 years, work together to make hundreds of apple pies that are then baked fresh on demand. The autumn season brings thousands of guests, often multigenerational families themselves, for pick-your-own apples and visits to Willie and Sassafras, the farm's pet donkeys. Visitors may also enjoy maple creemees, a soft serve ice cream that is as unique to the State as the patented Vermont Gold apple variety is to Allenholm Farm. Ray's dedication to his farm is matched only by his commitment to his family's legacy. As he hands down his knowledge of the apple business to his children, grandchildren, and now great-grandchildren, he passes on something else: a commitment to building on the past to create a successful Vermont for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that an October 1 story from the Burlington Free Press about the successful Allenholm Farm in South Hero, VT, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate reiterates its commitment to our Nation's law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other first responders. Forty years ago, we created the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, PSOB, to support first responders who made the ultimate sacrifice. We have now passed legislation to make much needed improvements to the claims adjudication process, which for too long has been plagued by red tape and delays. Today's legislation builds upon my past efforts to improve the PSOB program. In 2003, I worked with a bipartisan group of senators to pass the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act, which recognized that law enforcement officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes in the line of duty also deserve benefits. In 2009, I introduced the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act, which became law in 2012 and extended PSOB benefits to nonprofit Emergency Medical Service, EMS, providers. This change covered an estimated 1,200 EMS personnel in Vermont alone. Today's legislation will add transparency to the PSOB's decisionmaking process and should help expedite the review of applications for benefits. The legislation also includes an amendment I offered in the Judiciary Committee that improved this bill in three important ways. First, it ensured that children are not disqualified from receiving education benefits due to delays within the PSOB program, which can approach 10 years. At a Senate Judiciary hearing in April, a law enforcement official described this as unconscionable. I agree. My amendment ensures it will never happen again. Second, a fallen officer or first responder's family should not have their claim denied simply because their employer fails to provide necessary paperwork to the PSOB office. My amendment requires that the PSOB office use every investigative tool it has to obtain what it needs from third parties to process a claim. This will ensure that officers and their families who are entitled to benefits are not further victimized by delays beyond their control. Finally, as originally drafted, this legislation only applied to claims filed after it becomes law. I want these improvements to help those currently stuck in the backlog, and my amendment fixed this issue. One hundred twenty-three law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty so far in 2016. These families deserve a working and responsive PSOB program. This legislation, while only a modest step, demonstrates our shared commitment to those officers and their families. I urge the House of Representatives to quickly pass this legislation and send it to the President for signature.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, I strongly believe that we should have regular, yearlong appropriations, not continuing resolutions. I would like to remind my friend from Arizona that, by tradition, appropriations bills begin in the other body, in the House of Representatives. They have not yet sent over regular appropriations bills. It was just reported in the last few hours that Donald Trump has told them not to have regular appropriations bills, but to have a continuing resolution until the end of March. Frankly, the Senator from Arizona is right. I agree with him. We should have appropriations bills on all subjects. I am sorry the President-elect has decided that in his spare time he will also run Congress and will not allow full appropriations bills to be passed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while we are on the subject of the President-elect, he has indicated some of the appointments he will make. Some, of course, will require advice and consent by this body, and I hope we will do that, even though this body has refused to advise and consent on the Supreme Court nomination now pending before it. There are others he can appoint without being confirmed by the Senate. It is amazing that the President-elect, having said that he wants to bring the country together, that he wants to be a President for all of us, would then appoint to his inner circle, someone with the ear of the President, Stephen Bannon. Let me just read part of an editorial in the Chicago Tribune. ``The problem is that Bannon, who will sit at the right hand of a president, also works as a conduit to hate and intolerance. Bannon has said Breitbart is `the platform for the alt-right.' Yet the `alt-right' is a repellent, nationalist political movement that breeds racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny. The alt-right miasma `opposes feminism, diversity, gay rights, globalism, gun control and civil rights,' according to Baruch College professor Thomas Main, who is writing a book on the movement. At the fringes of alt-right is where you will find American neo-Nazis and the Klan, two groups evidently thrilled by Trump's victory.'' Those aren't my words. Those are the words from the Chicago Tribune. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Record the full editorial.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, everybody, whether we supported Donald Trump or not--and, obviously, I did not--wants to give any President a chance to bring this country together. Throughout the country, during this campaign, we have become terribly divided. Even in my own State of Vermont, we heard of some of these divisions. I feel fortunate that Vermonters reelected me. I have never run negative campaign ads, and did not this time. I was opposed by somebody who ran a completely negative campaign. I think people reject negativity. There are so many positive aspects to America. We talk about making America great again, and there is no other country we would trade it for. What country would we trade our country for? None. We are a great nation. But what makes us great is our diversity and our ability to come together. That is what we should be doing. I hope the President-elect will reconsider naming Stephen Bannon as his chief White House strategist and understand what kind of signal this sends to the country. We do not need more division. We certainly do not need people who might attack someone because of their religion. We need people who will realize the United States is an inclusive country, not an exclusive country. This is not the message we should send within our own country or throughout the world. Mr. Bannon wants to continue making these horrible and offensive comments, as he has a First Amendment right to do at Breitbart News, but let us not have that be the example set from the White House, by the President of the greatest nation on Earth. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, people talk about partisan gridlock and the do-nothing Congress. There is plenty of justification for it. Judge Merrick Garland, nominated to the Supreme Court on March 16, has been waiting for a hearing, not to mention a vote, for more than 6 months. None of the appropriation bills to fund the government in 2017 will be enacted before the end of this fiscal year, just 2 days from now, even though every one of them has been reported by the Appropriations Committee. We are once again voting on a stopgap continuing resolution to keep the government running until December 9. As part of the continuing resolution, I proposed including a provision that would give American businesses a level playing field against their foreign competitors. Right now, the Export-Import Bank cannot approve financing totaling more than $10 million, because the Republicans have refused to vote on the President's nominee for the third member of the Ex-Im Bank's board of directors. Under current law, that means the Bank lacks a quorum, and it is severely limited in what it can do. My provision would have permitted the current board members to approve financing over $10 million, for the period of the continuing resolution. This was not a farfetched idea. In fact, both House and Senate fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills that are waiting for a vote include a similar provision. By including it in the continuing resolution, we would simply be doing what majorities in both appropriations committees have already agreed to. According to the Ex-Im Bank, it currently has a pipeline of more than 30 transactions, each of which exceeds $10 million, valued at over $20 billion in total that are stalled because of the quorum requirement. In other words, the Republican leadership is blocking financing to U.S. companies that are ready to compete for contracts to sell their products and services overseas. They may not get the chance. One would think, since Republicans regularly insist that they are the party that cares more about American business, this would not be difficult. They talk about wanting to help U.S. companies so they will not move offshore. They talk about standing up for American workers. They talk about a lot of things. But did they include it? No. There wasn't even a debate. They just said no dice because a tiny minority of their members opposes it. That is what has happened to the Congress. Because the Republican leadership either supports or is unwilling to challenge obstructionists on their fringe, nothing happens. There are countless examples of it. I hope the American people are paying attention. I hope businesses around the country that pay taxes and need support from the Ex-Im Bank are paying attention. Elections do matter, and this is just one of many reasons.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on H.R. 5578 we take an important step forward for victims of crime by establishing key protections for survivors of sexual assault in our criminal justice system. I was proud to work with Senator Shaheen on this legislation when it passed in the Senate earlier this year. Her Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights Act addresses the unique challenges faced by sexual assault survivors. This bipartisan bill received overwhelming support in the Senate. The House has acted on a companion bill, H.R. 5578, that is nearly identical to what Senator Shaheen championed in the Senate. Today we pass the House measure and ensure that it will become law. In many jurisdictions across the country, survivors of sexual assault face a labyrinth of complex policies that deter them from pursuing justice. We have seen that even when survivors make the decision to come forward, sometimes evidence is not properly preserved or tested. This is not acceptable. Survivors of sexual assault should never feel abandoned by our criminal justice system. Senator Shaheen's Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights Act treats survivors with the dignity and respect that they deserve. It guarantees basic rights to survivors and serves as a model for reform across our Nation. It strengthens notice requirements to ensure that survivors understand their rights, and know the status of their cases. Senator Shaheen was an original cosponsor of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which was signed into law in 2013 and significantly increased resources for survivors of sexual assault. We are building on that progress today by passing the Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights Act, but our work is not done. I urge the House to pass my bipartisan Justice for All Reauthorization Act, which increases protections for victims of crime and provides resources to ensure key evidence is tested. The Senate passed this bill in June by voice vote, and I hope the House will act soon so that it can become law. Today, I stand with survivors of sexual assault and with Senator Shaheen, whose work to protect the rights of victims is of great importance.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday President Obama nominated Jeffrey DeLaurentis to be U.S. Ambassador to Cuba. If confirmed, Mr. DeLaurentis would be the first U.S. Ambassador in Havana in more than half a century. I have known Jeff DeLaurentis since he became the U.S. chief of mission in Havana, and he is the obvious choice to be ambassador. He is a career diplomat who is universally respected by his peers and by Democrats and Republicans in Congress for his intellect, his integrity, and his thoughtfulness. The decision to resume diplomatic relations with Cuba has been widely supported, and the number of Americans traveling to Cuba is increasing dramatically. We need an ambassador who knows Cuba, who is respected by the Cuban Government, and who will stand up for U.S. interests and values. Jeff DeLaurentis is that person. The Cuban people have their ambassador in Washington. The American people need their ambassador in Havana. Not surprisingly, one Senator who has opposed the resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba criticized the nomination of Mr. DeLaurentis. While he did not challenge Mr. DeLaurentis's qualifications for the job, since he is obviously exceptionally well qualified, the Senator instead said ``rewarding the Castro government with a U.S. ambassador is another last-ditch legacy project for the president that needs to be stopped.'' He said the nomination ``should go nowhere until the Castro regime makes significant and irreversible progress in the areas of human rights and political freedom for the Cuban people.'' He was joined in his opposition to Mr. DeLaurentis's nomination by another Senator. Having been to Cuba many times where I have met with Cuban Government officials, as well as with critics of the government, including some who have been persecuted and imprisoned, no one is a stronger defender of human rights there than I am. 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. For 50 years, we have tried the isolationist approach advocated by a dwindling minority of Members of Congress, and it has failed miserably. The Castros are still in power, and Cuba is still a country where political dissent is not tolerated. No one who knows Cuba expected the resumption of diplomatic relations to quickly result in an end to repression or free elections. But I am confident that, in a lot less than 50 years, the Cuban people will have a lot more freedom than they have had for the past 50 years. Consider for a moment what it would mean if we did what these Senators advocate. Not only would we have no ambassador in Cuba, to be consistent, we would have no ambassador in China, Vietnam, Russia, South Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, or in any number of other countries where human rights are routinely violated, where political opponents, journalists, and human rights defenders 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. Is that what the Senators want, or are they just concerned about human rights in Cuba? Their argument is as illogical as it is inconsistent. The purpose of an ambassador is to represent the interests of the U.S. Government and the American people. Appointing a U.S. Ambassador is not a reward to a foreign government, any more than their ambassadors are a reward to our government. Do the Senators think that our ambassador 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, repressive policies? Does anyone think that Russia's ambassador is somehow a reward to the Obama administration? Or that our ambassador in Vietnam legitimizes the repressive policies of that government? Does anyone think that the Cuban Government regards its ambassador here as a reward to us? Let's be sensible. The United States has interests in every country, even if it is just to stand up for the rights of Americans who travel, study, or work overseas. But there are many other reasons like promoting trade and investment, protecting national security and public health, and supporting educational and cultural exchange. We could do as these Senators urge and downgrade our diplomatic presence and withdraw our ambassadors from every country where there is a repressive government. That, of course, would mean that our lower- ranking diplomats would be relegated to meeting with foreign officials of lesser rank than ambassador. And, of course, those governments, like Cuba, they would still have their ambassadors in Washington, with access to officials of comparable rank in our government. Would that help us advocate for U.S. interests, for U.S. values, for the American people? We either believe in diplomacy or we don't. We either empower our diplomats or we don't. The Cubans, after a year of difficult negotiations, agreed to reopen embassies. Now, with their ambassador here conducting business, we are somehow better off without an ambassador there? Of course not. I understand that this is an emotional issue for some Cuban-American families. But after 55 years, Cuban-Americans overwhelmingly support the new policy of engagement. They want the U.S. to have an ambassador in Havana. There is a time for family politics, and there is time for what is in the interest of the nation as a whole. Ambassadors serve the national interest, and that is what Jeff DeLauentis would do, and he would do so as a career diplomat with years of experience. Finally, I want to quote from Alan Gross, who as we all know, spent 5 long years in a Cuban prison. This is what Mr. Gross said about Mr. DeLaurentis's nomination: ``I advocate for the appointment of a U.S. Ambassador to Cuba and I have a very high regard for Ambassador Jeff DeLaurentis. Had there been diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba in December 2008, a U.S. Ambassador could have prevented the loss of five years of my life. Any one in Congress who opposes this nomination goes against the best interests of the United States.'' We should listen to Alan Gross. He suffered in Cuba, as do thousands of Americans imprisoned overseas. They depend on our ambassadors to assist and advocate for them, just as we would if it were a member of our families. I urge these Senators to put what is in the interests of the American people over their personal interests and to not obstruct the confirmation of Jeff DeLaurentis, a superbly qualified nominee, from becoming ambassador to Cuba.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this summer, GEN Gordon Sullivan, a man who has dedicated his life to caring for and developing world-class leaders, retired from his role as chairman of the Norwich University Board of Trustees, a position he held for 13 years. At the same time, he retired from his role as president of the Association of the United States Army, a post he held for 18 years. General Sullivan's lifetime of service began in 1959, when he earned his degree in political science from Norwich University and assumed a commission in the Army as a second lieutenant of armor. Like so many from this prestigious Vermont institution, he went on to excel among his peers. He completed two distinguished tours in Vietnam, earning the Purple Heart. General Sullivan could have justifiably concluded his military service then, and his contributions to that point would have been impressive, but he continued to serve, and in clear recognition of his tireless devotion to soldiers, he was eventually appointed as the Army's top officer. As the 32nd Army Chief of Staff, General Sullivan directed a post- Cold War downsizing that spanned the administrations of two U.S. Presidents. These transitional years saw unprecedented reorganization within the Department, occurring amid ongoing, complex global peacekeeping operations. By continuing to prioritize the men and women he was tasked with leading, General Sullivan navigated this critical era with a skill and tact that few can match. In 1995, he retired from the Army to begin a new chapter. In 1998, General Sullivan began his tenure as president of the Association of the United States Army, AUSA, the Nation's largest Army- oriented, nonprofit organization. As president of the association, he was known for focusing efforts on improving conditions for soldiers and their families. General Sullivan served as head of AUSA while maintaining close ties to Norwich University, and that connection was further solidified in 2003 when he became chairman of the Norwich University Board of Trustees. As chairman of the board, he directed and supervised countless improvements to the university, while always adhering to Norwich's core values. During his 13 years leading the board, General Sullivan assisted with the meticulous design of the school's 2019 plan. His influence helped bring about some of the most significant improvements in Norwich's history, including the expansion of student housing, academic resources, and athletic facilities. Perhaps most notably, he played an integral role in building the school's reputation as an internationally known center for education in cyber security. Like Norwich's founder, Captain Alden Partridge, General Sullivan has contributed to Vermont and our Nation's academic prosperity in so many ways. I would like to recognize GEN Gordon Sullivan for his contributions to Norwich University, the Army, and the Nation as a whole. It gives me great pride to know that General Sullivan benefited so strongly from a Vermont-based education, and I know that our State has benefited from a longtime relationship with him. I am confident that General Sullivan's contributions will continue, and I wish him well as he further expands his already proud and accomplished legacy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to briefly call the Senate's attention to a Vermonter who, more than any other individual, has been responsible for the sport of cross-country skiing becoming a winter pastime and passion for countless Americans of all ages. I count myself and my wife, Marcelle, among them. There have been many articles written about former Olympic combined skier John Caldwell of Putney, VT, who in 1964 wrote the how-to guide to cross-country skiing, and about his sons and daughter and granddaughter Sophie and grandson Patrick, each of them outstanding cross-country skiers in their own right, two of whom, son Tim and Sophie, have represented the United States at the winter Olympics. Chances are they are not going to be the last Vermonters with the Caldwell name to do so. I will not repeat what those articles have said, but I ask unanimous consent that one of them, published in the Rutland Herald on February 23, 2014, entitled ``Vt. ski pioneer sustains Olympic spirit,'' be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. It gives you a pretty good idea of the 87-year-old Vermonter I am talking about. John Caldwell, known to his many friends as Johnny, is a pioneer and legend in every sense of the words. After the 1952 Olympics, he embarked on a lifelong campaign to teach and coach others to enjoy the sport of cross-country skiing as he did, whether as a simple way to get out in wintertime and experience the snow-filled woods and fields of Vermont or to ski competitively. I think it is fair to say that just about every cross-country skier in this country, from the fastest racers to the recreational ski tourers like me and Marcelle, owes our love of the sport, directly or indirectly, to Johnny. He got us started. He convinced us to not be deterred by up hills or down hills or subfreezing temperatures and to get outside and enjoy a sport that requires nothing more than a pair of narrow skis and poles, a bit of wax, and a love of using your own power to glide silently over the snow. Johnny has a way with words, and the Rutland Herald article captures a bit of it. He is dry wit who doesn't suffer fools easily, a fiercely loyal Vermonter who I think it is fair to assume finds a lot to like in the words of Robert Frost, whose poem ``New Hampshire,'' a long poem that compares the people, geography, and traditions of various States, ends with these lines: ``Well, if I have to choose one or the other, I choose to be a plain New Hampshire farmer With an income in cash of, say, a thousand (From, say, a publisher in New York City). It's restful to arrive at a decision, And restful just to think about New Hampshire. At present I am living in Vermont.'' There is a lot more I could say about John Caldwell, who besides coaching and writing about skiing, among other things taught mathematics for 35 year at the Putney School, has been a longtime gardener and wood splitter and for years was a tireless maker of maple syrup. But most important are his personal qualities: a devoted husband to his wife, Hester, affectionately known to everyone as ``Hep,'' who he first met at the Putney School 75 years ago; a role model for his children and grandchildren in good times and sad times; an inspiration to everyone who puts on boots and skis and propels themselves forward in all kinds of weather; and an octogenarian who will be out on skis for years to come, even if it is just to cheer on others a fraction his age, who has contributed in exceptional and lasting ways to the sport of skiing, to the Putney community, to Vermont, and to this country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with what the Democratic leader said. We have waited far too long. I would like to give some history. Eleven years ago this week, following the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Senate confirmed John Roberts to the Supreme Court and as Chief Justice. He had his Judiciary Committee hearing in September and was given full and fair consideration by the Senate. He was confirmed about 2 weeks later, September 29. All of us, whether or not we supported John Roberts, felt it was important to get this done so that the Supreme Court was not missing a Justice when it began its term on the first Monday in October, as it always does. The Senate acted responsibly. That was 11 years ago. There was a Republican in the White House. I was one of those who voted for Chief Justice John Roberts. There are others who voted against him, but he was confirmed. That is what we did then with a Republican President but not today. In fact, under Republican leadership, the Senate is deliberately leaving the Supreme Court shorthanded. None of us, whether for or against Justice Roberts, felt we should delay and have the Court come into session with a four-four makeup. I believe Chief Judge Merrick Garland deserves the same consideration that Chief Justice Roberts received 11 years ago. What is the difference? There was a Republican President then, a Democratic President now. This is playing politics with the U.S. Supreme Court, and it hurts the credibility of our whole Federal court system. Like Chief Justice Roberts, Chief Judge Garland is eminently qualified. Like Chief Judge Roberts, he hails from the Midwest. He is a D.C. Circuit judge who has earned the respect and admiration of those who work for him. But, unlike Chief Justice Roberts, who was confirmed in about 2 months, Chief Judge Garland has been pending before the Senate for more than 6 months. I mentioned that to my colleagues. I went back and checked the history. No Supreme Court nominee in the history of our country has waited that long. There has been no hearing, no vote, no consideration at all by the Senate because the Senate refuses to do its job--the job we are required to do under the Constitution. Maybe the Republicans feel this somehow benefits their party. It doesn't. Our independent judicial branch is fundamental to our constitutional system of government. The Senate's duty to consider judicial nominations under the Constitution is not a political game. This Republican obstruction has consequences for all Americans. Because Senate Republicans refuse to do their jobs, the Supreme Court has been repeatedly unable to uphold its essential constitutional role as a final arbiter of the law. The uncertainty in the law has been harmful to businesses, and it has been harmful to law enforcement and to families and children across our country. I don't know if the American people realize how much this refusal of the Republican leadership to do their jobs has hurt them. This term, the Supreme Court will consider cases that will impact our voting rights--all of us--our religious rights, our access to fair housing, even the ATM fees we pay. The Court may also decide to hear important cases on the right of transgender students to be treated equally, environmental protection and climate change, women's reproductive health, and money in politics. The Supreme Court should be at full strength and provide the American people certainty and clarity of our rights under the Constitution. The same Republicans who expedited consideration of Chief Justice Roberts have since February used the excuse of the election year to justify their unconstitutional, prolonged obstruction. Yet there is no election-year exception in the Constitution for the President's duty to nominate Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution says the President shall nominate. The President did that. It also says that every one of us who held up our hand and took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution--it says that we shall give advice and consent on these nominations. There is no election-year exception in the Constitution. None of us hold up our hands and say we will uphold the Constitution, so help me God, except in an election year. There is no election-year exception in the Constitution for the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of the law. Our history proves this case. There have been more than a dozen vacancies in election years--in fact, most recently, Justice Kennedy. I was here. We had a Democratic- led Senate. It was President Reagan's last year in office. It was a Presidential election year, and it took a Democratic Senate just over 2 months to confirm Justice Kennedy. President Obama's nominee, Chief Judge Garland, has been pending in the Senate with no action for 195 days; 195 days and we haven't done one solitary thing. When we had a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican President's last year in office, we confirmed him in 65 days. The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in the examination of Supreme Court nominees, reviewing the nominee's records and holding public hearings so that the American people can hear from that individual. 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. The current Republican leadership has broken with this century of practice to make its own shameful history. 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 agreement regarding President Bush's Supreme Court nominees. This is an important point. Senators are free to make their own decision to vote against a Supreme Court nominee, but that does not justify the complete refusal to provide any process whatsoever. I have heard the other side offer the example of some Republican Senators pledging to vote ``no'' on Justice Fortas's nomination to replace Chief Justice Warren in an election year as justification for their obstruction today. That example does little to prove their point. In 1968, there was no current vacancy on the Court, as Chief Justice Warren's resignation was conditional upon the confirmation of his successor. That meant that there was never any fear that the Supreme Court would be operating at less than full strength. Just as importantly, public hearings went forward and the full Senate was able to consider the nomination. Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader who also served as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee at the time, did not sign on to that pledge and proceeded to work with the chair of the committee to move forward with hearings. We worked across the aisle to ensure that the Supreme Court would be fully functioning with Chief Justice Roberts' nomination 11 years ago. Thirty years ago, the Senate voted to confirm both Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist. More than a dozen Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in the month of September. That is not surprising given that the Supreme Court begins its terms on the first Monday in October. By the standards the Democrats gave to Republicans, Chief Judge Garland should have been confirmed by Memorial Day. We have had more than 6 months to examine his record. It is not as though the Senate has been consumed and overworked considering other nominees; the last time we confirmed any judicial nominee was on July 6. Republicans refuse to allow votes even on uncontroversial district court nominees who have been pending more than a year, even those supported by Republicans in their States, and our independent Federal judiciary is suffering as a result of this unprecedented obstruction, as a result of the Senate not doing its job. It is long time past for the Senate to do its job. We have to treat our coequal branch of government with respect. There is no reason the Senate should not do its job in an election year. There is much work to be done. Senate Republicans are calling for another very long recess. The resolution introduced today by the senior Senator from Connecticut would keep the Senate here to do its job for Chief Judge Garland's nomination. It should not require a resolution to keep us accountable to the oath we all swore to uphold the Constitution. The Senate majority leader should let us get to work for all American people. We have had more recesses than anytime since I have been here. Why not take a few days and immediately consider Chief Judge Garland for the Supreme Court of the United States? Our highest Court should not be diminished further by Republican obstruction in the Senate. When the Supreme Court comes into session on the first Monday in October, the American people deserve to have nine members on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court deserves to have nine members, and the American people deserve to have us do our job. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to from myself and Senator Hatch be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to bring the Senate's attention to the Ethiopian Government's brutal crackdown on protestors over the past 9 months. According to Human Rights Watch, more than 500 people have been killed by Ethiopian security forces in antigovernment demonstrations since November 2015, including over 100 gunned down in early August of this year alone. These protests by the country's two largest ethnic groups, the Oromos and Amharas, reflect enduring tensions brought on by the Ethiopian Government's longstanding marginalization and persecution of these communities. But such grievances are shared by even broader segments of Ethiopian society, including from other communities that have been forcibly evicted from their land in the name of development and the journalists, civil society activists, and countless other political prisoners sitting in Ethiopian jails for speaking out against the government's repressive rule. The international community, including the United States, has paid too little attention to the Ethiopian Government's repressive policies, focusing instead on the country's rapid development gains and the government's cooperation on regional security. But it is time for the Ethiopian Government to acknowledge that grievances stemming from marginalization, abuse, and exclusive governance cannot be effectively addressed through the provision of basic services alone. The United States should set an example by redefining its relationship with Ethiopia, starting with the recognition of this reality. In too many developing countries, legitimate concerns about unaccountable governance are given short shrift as aspirational and inconvenient tradeoffs for positive relations with host governments. But the quiet diplomacy of the past--backroom condemnation and public praise--has proven unable to ensure the sustainability of U.S. investments by failing to protect and promote stability, let alone encourage meaningful reform by the Ethiopian Government. It is precisely because Ethiopia is a strategic partner of the U.S. that we should encourage remedies to the underlying tensions in the country. That does not mean we walk away from our partnership, but we should examine the type of assistance we provide to the Ethiopian Government to ensure it aligns with shared interests and activities that contribute to government capacity in a manner that addresses local concerns. This is not without its challenges, and the only government that has the ability to successfully reform Ethiopia is its own. Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and the rest of the Ethiopian leadership should begin by reassessing its crowd control tactics and ensuring accountability for those who have committed abuses. I support the call by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for an independent, transparent, thorough, and effective investigation into violations of human rights committed during the unrest, and if the Ethiopian Government is interested in demonstrating its legitimacy, it would welcome such an inquiry. I look forward to working with other Members of Congress, the Obama administration, and their successors to determine how best we can ensure that the assistance U.S. taxpayers provide to Ethiopia serves our long-term interests in the region.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak about a matter in Egypt, a longtime ally of the United States, a country with a rich history and culture, but whose people have suffered for years due to corrupt, repressive governments and an anemic economy that stagnates under excessive statist control. This is the situation despite more than $75 billion in U.S. economic and military aid for Egypt over the past 50 years. Today, more than 5 years after public protests led to the resignation of President Mubarak, followed by the election of the Muslim Brotherhood, the military-supported coup that forcibly removed and imprisoned President Morsi and thousands of his followers, and the election that brought President al-Sisi, a former army general, to power, the United States and Egypt are struggling to preserve a long history of security cooperation. That cooperation is important to the Middle East region as a whole, but U.S.-Egypt relations face increasing challenges as President al- Sisi tightens his grip on power by persecuting political opponents, silencing members of the media, including deporting American and other foreign journalists who criticize his policies and imprisoning representatives of civil society. The brutal torture and killing of Giulio Regeni, an Italian student and journalist who many believe was an innocent victim of the Egyptian police, occurred only 4 months after the Egyptian army attacked a convoy of tourists in September 2015, killing 12 and injuring 10, including an American who continues to suffer from her injuries for which she has received no compensation. Just last week, a court in Cairo froze the assets of some of Egypt's most prominent human rights defenders in an attempt to silence them and put their organizations out of business. The State Department responded by urging the Egyptian Government to ease restrictions on association and expression. These and other incidents have cast a dark cloud over efforts to find a common way forward with the al-Sisi government. In May 2015, after repeated appeals by me, Secretary of State Kerry, and others, the Egyptian Government finally released Mohammed Soltan, a young Egyptian-American who was imprisoned, along with his father, for nearly 2 years. His crime, if one can call it that, was taking part in a public protest. In return for his release, he was forced to give up his Egyptian citizenship, a Hobson's choice that no citizen of any country should have to make. In the meantime, on May 1, 2014, the government arrested Aya Hijazi, 29 years old and also an Egyptian-American, whose husband, an Egyptian citizen, was also arrested, along with Sherif Talaat Mohammed, Amira Farag, and eventually Ibrahim Abd Rabbo, Karim Magdi, and Mohammed al- Sayyed Mohammed, for operating a nonprofit organization called the Belady Foundation, which is dedicated to helping abandoned and homeless children. Backing up for a moment, Aya's mother and father came to the United States to pursue master's degrees and because Aya's grandmother, who lived in Virginia, wanted her family nearby. Three of Aya's uncles, an aunt, and their families live in Houston and are all American citizens. Aya grew up here, went to middle school and high school in Virginia, and graduated from George Mason University. At George Mason, she was a volunteer for Search for Common Ground, a respected peacebuilding organization based in Washington. After graduating, Aya moved to Cairo where she met Mohammed Hassanein, whom she married, and who, like Aya, wanted to be involved in social work. Together they founded Belady, which means ``our country,'' and which Aya and the members of her organization call ``an island of humanity.'' That same year, Aya was accepted to study at the American University in Cairo, a prestigious institution that receives funding from the U.S. Government, focusing on social work and children's welfare, but she and her husband were arrested before she began her studies. The charges against them are as salacious as they are farcical: sexually abusing children and paying them to participate in antigovernment demonstrations. Since then, Aya, her husband, and the five Belady volunteers have been in prison. After more than 2 years, the government has yet to disclose a shred of evidence to support the allegations, and Aya, her husband, and the other defendants are still awaiting a fair, public trial and a chance to defend themselves. Aya Hijazi's case fits a pattern. We have seen it time and again, not only in Egypt, but in other repressive societies where governments are unaccountable and abuse the judicial process to silence dissent and intimidate those who are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be engaged in activities that may reflect poorly on the authorities. We all want relations with Egypt to improve, just as we want the Egyptian people to enjoy the rights and opportunities they deserve. With ISIS and other extremist groups infiltrating throughout the Middle East and beyond, impoverished Egyptian youths, who have few educational and professional options, are particularly vulnerable to ISIS recruitment. But the more governments curtail the rights and ability of people with grievances to express themselves and to seek redress through peaceful means, the more likely it is that they will resort to violence. This is not a new concept. Anyone who has read the Declaration of Independence understands it. It is what ultimately brought about the downfall of President Mubarak. The Egyptian Government has imprisoned Aya without trial for more than 850 days. That alone is inexcusable and a violation of Egyptian law, which holds that no one can be subjected to pretrial detention for more than 2 years without being released with or without bail. On February 3, 2016, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights published a petition signed by 25 Egyptian human rights organizations against the detention of the Belady founders and volunteers. On May 20, 2016, the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organization submitted Aya's case to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, seeking her release. On May 21, Aya's trial date was postponed, yet again, to November 19, 2016. Last week, White House officials called for her release. Aya has suffered emotionally and physically. She is often prohibited from writing to or receiving correspondence from her family, and her reputation and that of the other defendants, as well as her organization, has been tarnished by unproven allegations. She and the others should be immediately released. Absent proof, made available for all to see, that they have committed a punishable offense, the charges should be dismissed. Egypt was among the 48 countries that voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. That is a vote to be proud of, but the al-Sisi government's persecution of Aya Hijazi and others who have been subjected to lengthy imprisonment without trial or whose only offense is to criticize government corruption and abuse or to participate in nonviolent social activism makes a mockery of Egypt's vote. The Universal Declaration, among other rights, includes the following: article 9, No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; article 10, Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him; article 11(1), Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense; article 19, Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers; and article 20, Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Each of these articles has been violated in Aya Hijazi's case. On January 20, 2017, the next President of the United States will take the oath of office. That is 116 days from today. The next President will immediately face every imaginable challenge, foreign and domestic, including the instability and violence in the Middle East and North Africa. I therefore urge the Government of Egypt, in the remaining months of the Obama administration, and in particular President al-Sisi, who also has a daughter named Aya and who I believe, if he examined this case, would agree that Aya Hijazi does not belong in prison, to recognize this opportunity and take steps to enable our next President to immediately engage with Egypt in a manner that brings our countries closer together, not farther apart. A key step would be the satisfactory resolution of the cases of Aya Hijazi, her husband, and the Belady volunteers and of United States nongovernmental organizations that have been prevented from working in Egypt on behalf of the Egyptian people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, according to recent reports, more than 3,000 people have been killed in the Philippines in the 12 weeks since President Duterte announced his campaign to wipe out illicit drug use. More than 1,000 of those deaths were at the hands of the Philippine National Police during counternarcotic operations, compared to 68 such killings this year in the months prior to President Duterte taking office, half of which happened in the period between his election and inauguration. The rest were killed apart from police operations, incited by President Duterte's violent rhetoric, which has been well documented. The vast majority of these individuals were low-level drug users, victims of a government seeking to make up for years of ineffective, corrupt law enforcement and rampant crime by terrorizing the population into submission. As the ranking member or chairman for more than 25 years of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds U.S. foreign assistance programs, I have been frustrated that we often fail to learn obvious lessons when it comes to foreign assistance investments. One example is that economic opportunity and security alone cannot assure stability. Stability requires legitimate governance and the protection of human rights. This is not just an aspiration; it is a practical, strategic imperative. As a former prosecutor and now ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I know the difference between those who need help versus those who deserve to be punished. I also know, as do most people, that, when governments condone extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances and prey on vulnerable populations, they are sowing the seeds of instability, not preventing it. For roughly 700,000 Filipino drug users, the prospect of being summarily executed on the street has led them to turn themselves into the authorities. That would seem to be a good thing. But given the shortage of drug treatment centers, these individuals are either told to pledge that they will remain drug free and sent home to recover on their own, or they are imprisoned in overcrowded, inhumane conditions. By failing to address the needs of those who have risked coming forward, President Duterte is missing an opportunity to combat the drug trade in one of the most sustainable ways possible: by helping hundreds of thousands of people get the help they want to beat their addiction. No amount of killing will result in reforms that improve the judiciary, end corruption and impunity in law enforcement, or rehabilitate those caught in the vicious cycle of addiction. To the contrary, if President Duterte is serious about improving conditions in the Philippines, he should be focusing on improving services for Filipinos, not casting them aside; holding law enforcement accountable, not giving them a blanket license to kill suspects; and strengthening the judiciary, not undercutting it. In a troubling sign that these concerns are falling on deaf ears, President Duterte's most vocal opponent of his antidrug policies, whom President Duterte has publicly accused of being involved in drug trafficking and attempting to smear him, was recently removed from her position as the head of the senate human rights panel investigating the killings. She was replaced by a senator who supports giving the police the authority to arrest anyone without a warrant. I know that as ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Cardin also has concerns with the situation in the Philippines, and I yield to him for any remarks he may wish to make.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, like the Senator from Maryland, I am deeply concerned with these events, and I believe that, if the extrajudicial killings and state-sanctioned violence continue and there is no accountability for the abuses that have been committed, there will need to be an appropriate response by the U.S. Government.

Mr. LEAHY. I share the Senator's views about the importance of the U.S.-Philippines alliance and his concerns with the implications of President Duterte's antidrug policies for that alliance. I wrote the Leahy Law, which applies worldwide, to ensure that the U.S. is not complicit in human rights violations committed by forces that might receive U.S. assistance and to encourage foreign governments to hold accountable perpetrators of such abuses. While there are ways we can find out which units were involved in these abuses, if President Duterte's government is unwilling to work with us, including by refusing to investigate allegations of abuses, then we are faced with a broader issue that cannot be remedied simply by withholding assistance from specific units or individuals. The Leahy Law should be used to encourage reform and accountability, but to address these systemic challenges, it may be necessary to consider further conditions on assistance to the Duterte government to ensure that U.S. taxpayer funds are property spent and until that government demonstrates a commitment to the rule of law. I have asked the State Department to discuss this with us to help inform our deliberations on current assistance for the Philippines and on decisions we will make for appropriations in fiscal year 2017.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from Maryland for his leadership on the Foreign Relations Committee and for his interest in this issue. I look forward to working with him to respond to the challenges President Duterte's policies pose to our relations with his government, as we seek to continue our strategic cooperation with the Philippines. Mr. President, on a separate but related matter, we are seeing another missed opportunity to reform the criminal justice system in Indonesia. President Joko Widodo took office in 2014 amid the hopes of many that he would improve on the country's history of human rights abuses. Instead, he reinstated the death penalty for drug trafficking, and the head of his government's antinarcotics agency recently expressed his approval of President Duterte's approach to combating illicit drugs. To the contrary, it is a serious mistake, and I urge President Joko to reverse course and focus on improving his police force and judicial system. Any government that uses capital punishment risks taking innocent life. But it is a particularly egregious practice in a country like Indonesia, where executions are peddled as effective justice despite a weak judicial system that is vulnerable to abuse, and to the detriment of its reform--nor is torturing and burying those suspected of involvement in the drug trade effective law enforcement. It is an abuse of power, it prevents remedies to deeply flawed practices within the security forces, and it belies the legitimacy of the government. We have a complex relationship with both Indonesia and the Philippines due to our own history in the region. However, we also share many interests. I have supported assistance for both countries, but I have also supported conditions on U.S. assistance related to progress on human rights and reform of the judiciary, police, and armed forces. Unfortunately, I fear that the progress that has been made is now at risk of being eroded. Often, we are presented with the false choice of supporting human rights or national security. I see no such dichotomy here. Consider the impact of our complicity in these governments' actions, both on our own legacy and on the efforts we are undertaking to help improve security and stability in the region. The Philippines and Indonesia cannot combat extremism or profess to govern legitimately by murdering innocent and nonviolent people, by creating a culture of lawlessness and impunity. The United States is far from perfect. We have not done as well as we should in addressing the illicit drug problem in our own country. Many Americans need and want treatment and cannot get it. But we should not support those who make a practice of using excessive force or the death penalty, rather than protecting the rights of due process and fair trials. I ask unanimous consent that two articles on this subject, both published in the New York Times last month, be printed in the Record.