Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont's business landscape boasts dozens of cutting-edge startups and successful small ventures. True to this entrepreneurial and independent spirit found throughout the Green Mountains, Concept2, based in Morrisville, VT, has once again put our small, rural State on the world stage. Concept2 is a manufacturer of rowing equipment, founded in 1976 by two brothers, Dick and Pete Dreissigacker, dedicated to the sport of rowing. There, they first designed and started selling composite racing oars. Many years and many innovative models later, these Concept2 products have become an integral presence in the rowing community and have unmistakably changed an international sport. Propelled by these lightweight, Vermont-crafted Concept2 oars and sculls, 32 Olympic rowing teams recently brought home medals in the summer 2016 Olympic Games regatta in Rio de Janeiro. Bob Beeman of Morrisville was sent to Rio as a representative and on-site technician for Concept2. As a trusted and true employee, Beeman, too, was recognized with a medal and certificate from the International Olympic Committee for Concept2's continuous and fair support of the athletes and their equipment. With a nod to Vermont's core values of ethical business standards and giving back to our communities, the mission of Concept2 is to support the international rowing community and create equal opportunity for all. Regardless of nation or team flag, the crew has worked with rowing teams from around the world to combine Concept2 technology with human skill and training. Characterized by honesty, fairness, and integrity, these values of Concept2 embody the true Olympic spirit to level the playing field and allow the best team to win. As Vermonters, we are proud to see such a passionate and committed company rise to the global platform and help athletes accomplish their Olympic dreams. My grandson, Roan, and I still talk of our visit to Concept2 when he was on his high school rowing team. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the September 2, 2016, article, ``Concept2 Oars Used in Majority of Olympic Rowing Wins,'' from the Stowe Reporter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, those who call the Green Mountains home know that Vermonters value hard work and community in equal measure. The two often go hand in hand when individuals give back to the institutions and communities that played roles in their success. Today I am honored to recognize both an outstanding individual and an exceptional institution for their respective roles in supporting the future of medical excellence in Vermont. Dr. Robert Larner and his wife, Helen, recently donated $66 million in a bequest to the University of Vermont, UVM, medical school, which has since been renamed in honor of the 1942 alumnus. The Robert Larner, M.D., College of Medicine at the University of Vermont will continue to provide a first-class medical education while encouraging groundbreaking research in the medical field, from cancer to infectious diseases, to neuroscience and beyond. Born in Burlington's Old North End in 1918, Robert Larner is the youngest of seven children, and the only one among his siblings to go to college. He attended the University of Vermont after receiving a scholarship for winning a Statewide debate competition and finished his undergraduate studies in just 3 years. After completing college in 1939, he pursued his medical degree at the UVM College of Medicine and graduated in 1942. Dr. Larner then served in World War II before settling in southern California to establish his own medical practice. Though he remained in California for many years, the Vermont native credits his home State's flagship university for providing the education he needed to succeed. To ensure that future generations also receive a similar experience, regardless of personal finances, Dr. Larner and his wife have made a number of generous contributions to his alma mater. For example, the Larner Scholars Program has created a culture of giving by encouraging alumni to support current and future medical students. In 2012, the Larners contributed $300,000 for the purchase of five cardiopulmonary simulators for the UVM/Fletcher Allen Clinical Simulation Laboratory. These are just some of the contributions that in 2013 led the university to recognize Dr. Larner with the UVM Lifetime Achievement in Philanthropy Award. It is through the generosity of Vermonters like Dr. and Mrs. Larner that ensure bright futures for Vermont's students and the patients they ultimately will serve. Combined with the excellent education offered by the University of Vermont, the Larners' contributions create opportunities for first-class physicians and researchers who will undoubtedly go on to transform the medical field.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the reason I have come to the floor today-- and I will be joined by Senator Grassley--is to share my concern and his concern about the EB-5 Regional Center Program. The authorization of this program is set to expire at the end of the month, but Senate leadership wants to extend the EB-5 Program as part of the continuing resolution. I want the Senators to know that if this flawed program is not reformed, I believe it should end. I can no longer support a straight extension of the program. For years, I strongly supported the EB-5 Program. I even championed its reauthorization. I did so because EB-5 was designed to bring in investment and jobs to underserved rural and urban communities. For some time, that is what it did. In my home State of Vermont, communities such as Warren and Vergennes used EB-5 to create and save jobs during difficult economic times. They are EB-5 success stories, but that was the EB-5 yesterday. The EB-5 Program today is mired in fraud and abuse. It has strayed from its important policy goals. The incentives Congress created to direct investment to underserved areas-- the very reason I supported this program--have been rendered meaningless. The program has become an unintended boon for the wealthiest business districts in the country. Affluent areas now dominate the program. They exploit incentives that were intended for underserved areas, a practice Department of Homeland Security Secretary Johnson has rightly described as gerrymandering. It has reached the point where a luxury hotel in Beverly Hills, CA, qualifies as a distressed urban area. Only in the world of EB-5 is Beverly Hills considered economically distressed. This type of abuse today is not the exception, it is the rule. Currently, 90 percent of EB-5 capital goes to areas that rely on gerrymandering to qualify as distressed--90 percent. That is why the civil rights community, led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, has so strongly criticized this program. Far from being a tool for economic development and job creation, EB-5 is now serving as a corporate subsidy for wealthy developers, allowing them to save tens of millions of dollars in financing. It is no wonder these developers fight so hard against reforms that would restore incentives for EB-5 to do what it was supposed to do when it began-- promote investment in rural and poor urban areas. I am not suggesting that affluent areas should never qualify, I am merely suggesting they should not qualify for the unique incentives that Congress intended for underserved communities because these underserved communities have far more trouble attracting capital to create jobs. Unfortunately, gerrymandering and abused incentives are only part of the problem. In recent years, EB-5 has become riddled with fraud. Review after review--conducted by the GAO, the Inspector General, and by Senator Grassley and me on the Judiciary Committee--have revealed serious vulnerabilities in the program. Investors have been defrauded. They have lost money and their immigration benefits have been put in jeopardy. Communities that once hoped to benefit from this program have been left to pick up the pieces. From California to Florida, and from Texas to even my home State of Vermont, allegations of fraud have stained this program. Since 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed dozens of EB-5-related enforcement actions. As of last year, over 50 more Federal investigations were ongoing. Fraud will continue unabated until we give the Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs to guard against abuse. We have an obligation in Congress to ensure that Federal agencies can do their job. The Department of Homeland Security has made some administrative improvements to EB-5, but Secretary Johnson has made it clear to both me and Senator Grassley that congressional action is necessary. For 5 years, I worked with both Democrats and Republicans to reform EB-5. In 2013, I included EB-5 reforms in the Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform. That received a bipartisan vote of 68 votes in the Senate, but the House of Representatives failed to allow a vote on those reforms. Since then, I have continued to work with Senator Grassley to review and reform the EB-5 Program. Last year, he and I negotiated far-reaching reforms with our counterparts in the House Judiciary Committee. Senator Grassley and I pushed to have that four corners agreement included in the omnibus appropriations bill at the end of last year. But big city developers still viewed our reforms as a threat to their bottom line, and they have worked aggressively to block our efforts. Unfortunately, leaders in Congress sided with the developers and extended the EB-5 Program without reform. Senator Grassley and I are not going to relent in our efforts to reform this program. I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa on the floor. He will be speaking on this, but I would note that at the very beginning of the new year, we worked together to continue a series of public hearings to keep pushing for reform. We are united in our belief that it is unacceptable that Congress has failed to respond to an overwhelming consensus for reform. A full revamping of the program is required. A Band-Aid is not good enough. Powerful corporate interests must not be allowed to derail improvements that can guard against fraud, protect investors, and also help our most distressed communities. The powerful developers want only ``window dressing'' reform proposals that do little to change the status quo. We cannot accept so- called reforms that the SEC believes would, in fact, leave holes in enforcement efforts. Senator Grassley and I, along with our counterparts in both parties in the House Judiciary Committee, have put forward meaningful reforms. These reforms were developed in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and the SEC. They are tailored to prevent the rampant fraud we are seeing today. They are necessary to save EB-5 from itself. As the American people learn more about how the EB-5 Program is being abused, the louder the calls will be for its reform or even its termination. I believe we could still fix EB-5, but I cannot support simply extending it yet again. I do not come to this decision lightly, but I cannot support a continuing resolution that leaves these flaws in place. The time has come, either reform EB-5 or get rid of it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe we had arranged for Senator Grassley and me to speak at this point. I see my distinguished colleague on the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, he wanted me to speak, and then he was going to speak. If I might continue, this will be fairly brief.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to address the issues at the heart of S. J. Res. 39, the resolution introduced by Senators Paul, Murphy, Lee, and Franken regarding the sale of $1.15 billion in military equipment to the Government of Saudi Arabia. Despite obvious differences in our systems of government and concerning the rights of women and other issues, the United States and Saudi Arabia have a longstanding partnership that has benefitted both countries. For roughly six decades, security cooperation has been an important part of the relationship, fueled by military sales to Saudi Arabia under both Republican and Democratic administrations. For its part, the Government of Saudi Arabia has pledged to work with the United States in countering terrorism in the region. But what has been unfolding in Yemen since the spring of 2015 should concern all Senators. There have been frequent, credible reports of Saudi Arabian armed forces indiscriminately attacking civilian- populated areas, targeting civilians, and otherwise misusing U.S.- origin weapons; of humanitarian access being impeded; and of a lack of serious investigations of, and accountability for, those who have alleged to have caused civilian casualties. I am not opposed to training and equipping our allies or selling them the weapons they require to combat terrorism. But the conditions under which we provide such support must include a commitment to avoid civilian casualties and to ensure that if egregious harm is done to the civilian population there are thorough investigations, punishment if warranted, and assistance is provided to the victims. We should also be confident that the strategy and tactics of our allies are achieving goals that we share. Since the earliest reports of harm inflicted by Saudi forces on the civilian population in Yemen, I have repeatedly raised this issue with the Department of State. Although the Department and Saudi officials have offered assurances that effective steps are being taken to avoid civilian casualties and to investigate when they occur, the attacks and casualties have continued. Efforts by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct an independent investigation into war crimes in Yemen have to date been rebuffed by the Saudi Government. There is scant evidence that the assurances reflect a meaningful change in strategy or tactics or that the Saudi military operations in Yemen are achieving their goals. That is why I cannot support the provision of military equipment, particularly on this scale, to any country as long as legitimate concerns regarding the manner in which such equipment is being used remain unaddressed. It is inconsistent with the laws of war, and it implicates, at least indirectly, the United States. I need to be convinced that the Saudi Government is taking effective steps to reduce civilian casualties, to address the harm caused by its operations, and to support the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to those in need. Therefore, I will support the resolution and oppose the motion to table.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters have long believed that the preservation of our history, from buildings to manuscripts to celebratory traditions, inform the present and future as much as they honor the past. Last month, the people of Orleans County, in Vermont's rural Northeast Kingdom, came together to restore an historic school house to its original location. What makes this story all the more remarkable is that the physical journey to return the schoolhouse was undertaken by a team of 40 oxen assembled by residents and chapters of the 4-H. It was Alexander Twilight's vision, as headmaster of the school, to have a central school in every Vermont county that would bring together and educate Vermont's students from neighboring towns. Born and raised in Corinth, VT, Alexander Twilight studied at Middlebury College and became the first African American known to have graduated from a U.S college or university. An active community member, Twilight was not only an educator, but also served as a local minister and politician. In Vermont, we take great pride in being a forward-thinking State. This progressive nature dates back to the mid-1800s, pre-American Civil War, when the town of Brownington in Orleans County was an intellectual hub in New England. Twilight, and his beloved Orleans County Grammar School, have become a symbol of these times. The recent move of the schoolhouse by the pulling of a team of oxen, coaxed on by area children as they walked beside the team, would surely have delighted Mr. Twilight. I ask unanimous consent that an August 2, 2016, article from The Burlington Free Press, ``1823 school to move by oxen to original site,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have come to this floor many times to speak about the toll the abuse of prescription opioids and heroin has taken on our communities. When I talk with Vermonters about this crisis, whether at our Judiciary Committee field hearings in Vermont or in conversations at kitchen tables or on street corners, I hear how opioid abuse destroys lives, tears apart families, and overwhelms communities. As a lifelong Vermonter, I am proud of our small State. I see law enforcement and community leaders joining together. They have taken a real constructive approach to fighting addiction. They have created innovative and successful programs, such as the Rapid Intervention Community Court in Burlington and Project VISION in Rutland. The Boys & Girls Clubs throughout Vermont are working with schools and public health officials to help children affected by this epidemic. They are trying to keep them from being swept up into that world. Our local television stations are participating in public awareness campaigns. They are educating our citizens about drug abuse. These are the positive efforts that make me proud to be a Vermonter. But I am not just here to praise the good work in my State. I am here to work for my State and for all States that are coping with this drug addiction scourge--because all States are. Earlier this year, Congress took an important step forward by passing the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. This new law treats addiction as the public health crisis it is. I was proud to support this legislation in the Senate. But the final product fell short. CARA did not include the funding necessary to put its programs to work. The final legislation stripped out many of the best practices that were included in the Senate bill, including, among others, my provision to authorize the anti-heroin task force program I helped to establish. This provision was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate, and I thank my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--who joined with me on that. But it was stripped out at the last minute by the House. That was really a shortsighted decision. It could hamper law enforcement agencies' ability to keep illegal opioids out of our communities. So today I am introducing bipartisan legislation along with Senator Grassley to help ensure that State and local law enforcement agencies can get the necessary funding and the support for anti-heroin task forces around the country. Our bill would authorize the Attorney General to provide grants to law enforcement agencies--those agencies that are engaged in statewide collaborative efforts to investigate and stop the unlawful trafficking of heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, and prescription opioids. The bill also authorizes grants to support task forces to combat the trafficking of methamphetamines. Our States are seeing an influx of powerful, deadly opioids that have never been seen by law enforcement before. Communities that have been struggling with heroin and prescription drug abuse are now encountering opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil. What is so frightening about these is that they can kill the user even in small amounts. So I think we have a responsibility--all of us in Congress--to support smart policies and reduce the demand for these poisons. We must support targeted enforcement efforts to keep them out of our communities in the first place. Now, I know these task forces work. Last month I heard from Vermont law enforcement officials who shared examples of how the Vermont Drug Task Force is helping to combat heroin trafficking in our State. The Vermont Drug Task Force has seen a significant increase in heroin investigations so far this year--up 70 percent from the same period last year. The task force has seized the equivalent of more than 94,000 bags of heroin this year alone, with a street value of more than $1 million. Now, in an urban area that might not seem like much, but our State has 625,000 people. The largest city in our State has 38,000 people. We are being hammered by this. But there is good news. The recent addition of five new investigative positions, as a result of Vermont's $1.4 million anti-heroin task force grant, could not come at a more critical time. So this legislation will provide the anti- heroin task force program with the resources they need to help more States, just like it is helping in Vermont. I say this because we should know and the American public should know that our work in Congress on opioid abuse and addiction did not end when we passed CARA. In fact, I would say that it only began. If we are serious about combating drug addiction--and all of us will say we are against it, but if we are really serious--then we have to invest in our communities. Let us build on what we know is working. Let us give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to do their job effectively. In my State of Vermont, I spend considerable time every month. I was there just a couple of days ago. We are a special State because you can talk with people. My wife Marcelle and I will talk with people coming out of church on Sunday or in the grocery store or just walking down the street to pick up our paper. Some of the stories we hear are so sad. We hear from people we have known for years--wonderful families, pillars of the community--who will tell us of their son or daughter suffering from opioid and other addictions. The saddest, though, are those people we have known who have lost a member of their family because of the powerful new drugs coming on the market. I saw a lot of terrible things in this area when I was a prosecutor, but nothing like what we are seeing today. So let us look at the legislation that Senator Grassley and I are introducing. Let us stop trying to fight this with slogans and goodwill. Let us fight it with real tools. Again, I would add, let us not just rely--any of us--on saying we are against this. Let us do something. It is too bad the House stripped out much of what we had done well in our bill, but there is no reason why we cannot fight to put it back in. There is no reason why we cannot get the funding necessary. This will only work if we have the tools and the money. I know that in our State it is not just law enforcement but the faith community, educators, parents, Boys & Girls Clubs, and medical professionals who are all working together. It is not just numbers. Every one of us--almost every one of us in our State--knows people who have suffered. I want to go back home and say that we are doing something to help them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have come to this floor many times to speak about the toll the abuse of prescription opioids and heroin has taken on our communities. When I talk with Vermonters about this crisis, whether at our Judiciary Committee field hearings in Vermont or in conversations at kitchen tables or on street corners, I hear how opioid abuse destroys lives, tears apart families, and overwhelms communities. As a lifelong Vermonter, I am proud of our small State. I see law enforcement and community leaders joining together. They have taken a real constructive approach to fighting addiction. They have created innovative and successful programs, such as the Rapid Intervention Community Court in Burlington and Project VISION in Rutland. The Boys & Girls Clubs throughout Vermont are working with schools and public health officials to help children affected by this epidemic. They are trying to keep them from being swept up into that world. Our local television stations are participating in public awareness campaigns. They are educating our citizens about drug abuse. These are the positive efforts that make me proud to be a Vermonter. But I am not just here to praise the good work in my State. I am here to work for my State and for all States that are coping with this drug addiction scourge--because all States are. Earlier this year, Congress took an important step forward by passing the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. This new law treats addiction as the public health crisis it is. I was proud to support this legislation in the Senate. But the final product fell short. CARA did not include the funding necessary to put its programs to work. The final legislation stripped out many of the best practices that were included in the Senate bill, including, among others, my provision to authorize the anti-heroin task force program I helped to establish. This provision was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate, and I thank my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--who joined with me on that. But it was stripped out at the last minute by the House. That was really a shortsighted decision. It could hamper law enforcement agencies' ability to keep illegal opioids out of our communities. So today I am introducing bipartisan legislation along with Senator Grassley to help ensure that State and local law enforcement agencies can get the necessary funding and the support for anti-heroin task forces around the country. Our bill would authorize the Attorney General to provide grants to law enforcement agencies--those agencies that are engaged in statewide collaborative efforts to investigate and stop the unlawful trafficking of heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, and prescription opioids. The bill also authorizes grants to support task forces to combat the trafficking of methamphetamines. Our States are seeing an influx of powerful, deadly opioids that have never been seen by law enforcement before. Communities that have been struggling with heroin and prescription drug abuse are now encountering opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil. What is so frightening about these is that they can kill the user even in small amounts. So I think we have a responsibility--all of us in Congress--to support smart policies and reduce the demand for these poisons. We must support targeted enforcement efforts to keep them out of our communities in the first place. Now, I know these task forces work. Last month I heard from Vermont law enforcement officials who shared examples of how the Vermont Drug Task Force is helping to combat heroin trafficking in our State. The Vermont Drug Task Force has seen a significant increase in heroin investigations so far this year--up 70 percent from the same period last year. The task force has seized the equivalent of more than 94,000 bags of heroin this year alone, with a street value of more than $1 million. Now, in an urban area that might not seem like much, but our State has 625,000 people. The largest city in our State has 38,000 people. We are being hammered by this. But there is good news. The recent addition of five new investigative positions, as a result of Vermont's $1.4 million anti-heroin task force grant, could not come at a more critical time. So this legislation will provide the anti- heroin task force program with the resources they need to help more States, just like it is helping in Vermont. I say this because we should know and the American public should know that our work in Congress on opioid abuse and addiction did not end when we passed CARA. In fact, I would say that it only began. If we are serious about combating drug addiction--and all of us will say we are against it, but if we are really serious--then we have to invest in our communities. Let us build on what we know is working. Let us give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to do their job effectively. In my State of Vermont, I spend considerable time every month. I was there just a couple of days ago. We are a special State because you can talk with people. My wife Marcelle and I will talk with people coming out of church on Sunday or in the grocery store or just walking down the street to pick up our paper. Some of the stories we hear are so sad. We hear from people we have known for years--wonderful families, pillars of the community--who will tell us of their son or daughter suffering from opioid and other addictions. The saddest, though, are those people we have known who have lost a member of their family because of the powerful new drugs coming on the market. I saw a lot of terrible things in this area when I was a prosecutor, but nothing like what we are seeing today. So let us look at the legislation that Senator Grassley and I are introducing. Let us stop trying to fight this with slogans and goodwill. Let us fight it with real tools. Again, I would add, let us not just rely--any of us--on saying we are against this. Let us do something. It is too bad the House stripped out much of what we had done well in our bill, but there is no reason why we cannot fight to put it back in. There is no reason why we cannot get the funding necessary. This will only work if we have the tools and the money. I know that in our State it is not just law enforcement but the faith community, educators, parents, Boys & Girls Clubs, and medical professionals who are all working together. It is not just numbers. Every one of us--almost every one of us in our State--knows people who have suffered. I want to go back home and say that we are doing something to help them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, for every pivotal moment in history, behind the faces of the political leaders, the negotiators, the protestors and the agreement-seekers, there are stalwart citizens, seeking to find the common ground for the common good. Last month, one such advocate in the march for peace in Ireland, Robert J. Dunfey, Sr., passed away. Bob Dunfey was a successful businessman, the founder of what today we call the Omni Hotel chain, who gave back to his community, his state, his country and his world. A public servant who spent decades advancing peace-building efforts in his ancestral home of Ireland, Mr. Dunfey was widely regarded by leaders of all walks in Ireland. He worked to support initiatives in Northern Ireland, as well as those in Ireland. A trusted partner, Bob Dunfey sought neither credit nor the spotlight; he worked behind the scenes, a true hallmark of public service. Marcelle and I were touched when Bob welcomed us and our family into his home in Ballyferriter, Ireland. He leaves behind family and friends in his native New England, across the country and around the world. His is a friendship I will miss. I ask unanimous consent that the full obituary for Robert Dunfey, Sr., be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if I can take a moment. I don't think people realize how many men and women on both sides of the aisle work so hard to make the Senate work, to keep things going. I've often said, only partially in jest, that U.S. Senators are merely constitutional impediments to the staff who do all the work. One of those people is Tim Mitchell. I have been here from the day he began, 25 years ago tomorrow. I know his wonderful wife, Alicia, and his son, Ben, who is in my grandson's class. We see them playing sports together. If I am ever feeling down about the prospects of the Red Sox, I simply ask Tim, and know the sun will come up tomorrow because Tim will point out we still have a chance because of this or that. I have also been at the White House with him when the Red Sox came to town with their World Series trophy. More importantly, Tim is a true professional, and one of the most honest people I've known. If it is bad news, he will give you the bad news, but he is so nice, it is almost acceptable. I can always go to him because he will keep confidences if we ask him to. He understands the Senate, every single aspect of the Senate, as well as anybody I have ever worked with and I have been here 42 years. He is a person that everyone who works for the Senate should model themselves after. He works very well with his Republican counterparts, and has the respect of all Senators. I don't want to embarrass Tim, but as the Dean of the Senate, the one who has served here the longest, I think it is safe for me to say that I know of no one finer. He is a wonderful person, and I commend him. I commend the sacrifices that Alicia and Ben have made, because there are some nights we are here very late. I know what it is like to miss a child's game, play or school event. Tim has had to do that. I would like to address this part to Alicia and to Ben. Ben, you should be extraordinarily proud of your father and Alicia, I know you love, respect and are proud of your husband. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for 2 years, President Obama's five eminently qualified nominees to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims have been awaiting a vote. This court has been referred to as the ``keeper of the nation's conscience'' and ``the People's Court.'' It was created by Congress approximately 160 years ago and embodies the constitutional principle that individuals have rights against their government. As President Lincoln said, ``It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals.'' That is what this Court does: it allows citizens to seek prompt justice against our government. Yet 2 years of obstruction by a single Senator, the junior Senator from Arkansas, has forced the court to operate without one-third of its allotted judges. While these five nominees have been waiting for a vote, another judge retired, leaving the court with only 10 judges for 16 seats, or a vacancy rate of 38 percent. This takes Senate Republican obstruction of judicial nominees to a new level. The court's jurisdiction is authorized by statute, and it primarily hears monetary claims against the U.S. Government deriving from the Constitution, Federal statutes, executive regulations, and civilian or military contracts. For example, the court has presided over such important cases as the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans. It also presides over civilian and military pay claims and money claims under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. I have heard no objections to the qualifications of any of the five nominees to this court. One of these nominees, Armando Bonilla, would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a seat on the Court. He is endorsed by the Hispanic National Bar Association. He has spent his entire career--now spanning over two decades--as an attorney for the Department of Justice. He was hired out of law school in the Department's prestigious honors program and has risen to become the Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department. Mr. Bonilla should be confirmed without further delay. Another nominee, Jeri Somers, also has a long record of public service. She served her country in the Air Force, retiring with the rank of lieutenant colonel. She spent over two decades serving first as a judge advocate general and then as a military judge in the U.S. Air Force and the District of Columbia's Air National Guard. In 2007, she became a board judge with the U.S. Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and currently serves as its vice chair. Armando Bonilla and Jeri Somers are just two of the five nominees that Senate Republicans have been denying a confirmation vote. These are two individuals that have done right every step of the way in their careers and are willing to serve the American people on this important Court. They have dedicated the majority of their careers in service to our Nation. They deserve better than the treatment they are receiving from the Senate. During the Bush administration, the Senate confirmed nine judges to the Court of Federal Claims, with the support of every Senate Republican. So far, during the Obama administration, only three Court of Federal Claims nominees have received confirmation votes. That is nine CFC judges during the Bush administration to only three so far in the Obama administration. It appears that the Senate Republicans' obstruction playbook leaves no court behind. It spans from the very top, with their complete refusal to give a hearing and a vote to Chief Judge Merrick Garland, to the article III circuit and district courts, to the article I Court of Federal Claims, where citizens go to sue their government. This blockade of all five CFC nominees makes no sense, especially because not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee raised a concern about these nominees either during the committee hearings on these nominations 2 years ago or during the Committee debate 2 years ago or last year. None of President Bush's nominees to the Court of Federal Claims spent longer than 4 months on the Senate floor before receiving a confirmation vote. Two of them waited only a single day. After 2 years, it is well past time for these five nominees to receive a vote so they can get to work on the shorthanded Court of Federal Claims.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters are proud of the innovation and creativity that generate successful businesses in our small State. And for years, Vermont's tech incubator, the Vermont Center for Emerging Technology, VCET, has been providing space for entrepreneurs to take the next steps in driving their startup businesses. As demonstrated in a recent profile of VCET in the New York Times, any objective observer can see Vermont as more than just an outdoor enthusiasts' playground-- but also as an oyster community of emerging technologies and innovative thinking in building smart cities and the infrastructure to go with them. It is no secret that Vermont is full of entrepreneurs eager to take the next steps in their respective fields. From ice cream to craft beverages, digital forensics to game programming, our State is home to many successful business endeavors. The Vermont Center for Emerging Technologies plays a key role in expanding Vermont's tech network while addressing the skilled labor shortage in the State. At its helm is president and fund manager David Bradbury, whose vision for the city of Burlington as an east coast Silicon Valley has driven the nonprofit's development and success. Housed in a brick building in downtown Burlington, VCET is powered by a city-owned green energy grid with an enviable fast internet connection. The small but skilled team not only manages the Vermont Seed Capital Fund to administer initial funding for high-opportunity businesses and teams but also provides mentoring and advice to new startups. In collaboration with other Burlington-based companies and nonprofits, including BTV Ignite and Vermont HITECH, VCET encourages technology pioneers to dream big. With the help of local colleges offering courses in high growth fields, students learn the skills needed to thrive in a fast-changing economy. In turn, Vermont employers benefit from a larger pool of skilled technology workers, while employees gain access to better jobs and benefits. The success of David's vision to grow Burlington into a technology hub while addressing the lack of skilled workers is rooted in something deeper than the rapidly expanding field of technology. Vermont's community and socially focused values bring neighbors together to benefit from shared experiences while providing local, sustainable, and accessible services. Corporate responsibility and attention to green energy reflect Vermont's commitment to lessening our environmental footprint while promoting energy conservation and efficiency. Whether encouraging Vermonters to pursue their passion for technology or forging new paths in the field, VCET is spurring economic development and technology jobs throughout our Green Mountain State. I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times article from July 20, ``A `Smart' Green Tech Hub in Vermont Reimagines the Status Quo,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next month, on the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court will begin its new term. The question we have before us as Senators is whether there should be an empty seat on the dais when the Supreme Court convenes. On the first Monday in October, we have always been accustomed to seeing all nine Justices there. For 7 months, the Court has been missing a Justice, and because of that vacancy, it has been repeatedly unable to serve as the final arbiter of the law. There have been eight Justices. There has been a vacancy most of this year. The President fulfilled his constitutional duty in nominating somebody. We have failed to do our constitutional duty of advice and consent. The uncertainty in the law has been harmful to businesses, law enforcement, and to families and children across the country. It is a constitutional crisis. Worst of all, this constitutional crisis is wholly of the Senate Republicans' making, and they have the power to stop this constitutional crisis. In February, the Republican leader claimed, because it was an election year, the Senate would somehow be justified in not doing its job in denying any consideration of the next Supreme Court nominee. Based on my conversations with Vermonters across the political spectrum and in every poll taken on this issue, the American people reject this partisan justification. There is no election-year exception to Senators doing their jobs, there is no election-year exception to the President doing his job, and there is no election-year exception to the independent judiciary doing its job. Each branch of our government has its duty under the Constitution. The Republican leadership has said the Senate is going to reject its duty. It will damage the function of our Supreme Court. That needs to stop. Since public confirmation hearings began in the Judiciary Committee for Supreme Court nominees a century ago, the Senate has never denied a nominee a hearing and a vote. The late Justice Scalia received a hearing 42 days after his nomination. Justice Kennedy, who was the last Justice confirmed in a Presidential election year, received a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, which was under the control of Democrats, just 14 days after President Reagan nominated him in a Presidential election year. The Democrats held a hearing in 14 days for this Republican nominee. Contrast that to Chief Judge Garland's nomination that has been pending for 176 days. It is a totally unprecedented situation, and certainly that unprecedented delay has provided enough time for Senators and their staff to become familiar with his record in preparation for a hearing on debate. The press may be focused on what might happen in a lameduck session, but this Vermonter is focused on his job now. The time for the Senate to act on the Supreme Court nomination is now. We should have a hearing next week. The Judiciary Committee can debate and consider the nomination the following week, and then the full Senate can debate and vote on his confirmation by the end of September. We have taken far less time in the past to confirm Supreme Court Justices, as the Senate has realized the urgency of having a Court at full strength. Chief Judge Garland is ideally suited to serve on the Supreme Court on day one. He is currently the chief judge on the DC Circuit, which is also known as the second highest court. He has been a Federal judge for nearly two decades. He has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history. As a former Federal prosecutor, he has been praised for his work leading the Justice Department's efforts on the ground in Oklahoma City in the days after the worst act of homegrown terrorism in our country's history. Republicans and Democrats alike have recognized Chief Judge Garland as a brilliant, impartial judge with unwavering fidelity to the rule of law. Republicans serving in this body, as well as Democrats in this body, said so when they voted for his confirmation to the DC Circuit. Republicans should let this Chamber finally get to work on Chief Judge Garland's nomination. Bring the Supreme Court back to full strength in time for the first oral argument of October. Of all the challenges facing our country, ensuring that our Supreme Court can serve as high as its constitutional function should not be one of them. This is a promise that Senate Republicans are making, but it is one they could easily solve this month. Let's do our job. We took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Let's show that when we raised our hand to swear to uphold the Constitution, we really meant it. The President fulfilled his oath; it is time for us to do our job and fulfill ours. I see my friend on the floor seeking recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will just yield for a moment.

Mr. LEAHY. Could the Senator give me some idea how long he will be?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is hard to believe that 15 years ago this Sunday the Twin Towers fell, smoke from the Pentagon could be seen from miles away, and a plane went down in a Pennsylvania field. For those who lived through that horrible day, the memory still feels fresh. Of course, this is especially true for those who lost loved ones. This weekend, Americans across the country will gather to remember the thousands of innocent lives that were taken so callously and indiscriminately in those terrorist attacks. And we remember the first responders, law enforcement, intelligence, and military personnel who work every single day to keep our country safe. This year, we must also take a moment to remember the spirit that united us in the days after the attacks. Americans of all races, religions, and backgrounds stood together in solidarity to support one another and stand against the cowardice of terrorism. Following the attacks, President George W. Bush visited a mosque. At a joint session of Congress, he reminded Americans that ``no one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.'' In the years after September 11, our country did not always live up to those words, but we must remember the ideals, values, and humanity that sustained us through those first dark days. In today's political environment, it is easy to lose sight of that common spirit. Some are trying hard to divide us. A Federal judge has been accused of bias because of his ethnic heritage. Religious and ideological tests for visitors to the United States are discussed as though they are serious policy proposals. The sacrifices of war heroes and Gold Star families are belittled. And that is just the beginning. On this 15th anniversary of September 11, we must reject this divisiveness. While Americans will continue to mourn the loss of so many on September 11 and in the wars that followed, we will never lose sight of the core principles that so many generations of Americans fought to protect.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suspect there are not many Americans who have either visited or know much about Laos. It is a poor country, geographically about the size of Utah, with less than 7 million people. It is wedged between Vietnam and Cambodia. I am sure that back in the 1960s and 1970s, even fewer Americans had heard of Laos, and virtually no one was aware that the United States was involved in a war in Laos. For nearly a decade, from 1964 to 1973, the United States military unleashed more than 2 million tons of ordnance on Laos during some 580,000 bombing missions. That amounts to a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years. Laos became, and still is, the most heavily bombed country per capita in history. It was part of a U.S. war in Laos that was never declared or publicized. It was kept secret. It was done to support the Royal Lao government against the Pathet Lao and to interdict the Viet Cong along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, but the bombs destroyed many villages and displaced hundreds of thousands of Lao civilians. As is so often the case with landmines, cluster bombs, and other types of munitions, wars end but the suffering continues. The Vietnam War ended in 1975. In April of 1975, the Senate Armed Services Committee, by a one-vote margin, voted to finally end the authorization for that war. I remember it very well because that was the first vote I cast as a member of the Armed Services Committee. The war ended, but the casualties continue from the bombs that failed to explode. All this ordnance is scattered on or beneath the surface of the ground. A child is walking to school, a farmer is working in the field, a woman is collecting water or firewood, and they step on one of those and they are killed or maimed. Of the 270 million U.S. cluster bombs that were dropped on Laos during that period, it is estimated that as many as 80 million did not detonate, but they remain ready to explode if they are disturbed by an unsuspecting farmer or child. Nearly 40 years later, only a small fraction of these munitions have been destroyed. But progress has been made. Today there are just under 50 new UXO casualties in Laos each year. That is down from more than 300 a decade ago. The majority of the accidents result in death, and nearly half of the casualties are children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show a photograph to my colleagues on the Senate floor.

Mr. LEAHY. This photograph of a Laotian girl was taken a number of years ago. She was actually one of the lucky ones because she survived, but as you can see her left leg is gone and she uses a homemade crutch. This is what cluster munitions do to civilians. This happened after the war ended, and she stepped in the wrong place. I first became concerned with this problem in the late 1980s, and in 1990 the first assistance from the Leahy War Victims Fund was provided to help victims of U.S. cluster bombs in Laos. Since then, the Leahy War Victims Fund, administered by USAID, has provided medical and related assistance for thousands of Laotians. Also, as either chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, I have included funding each year above the amounts requested by successive administrations, Democratic and Republican, to support programs to locate and destroy unexploded ordnance in Laos. Since fiscal year 1995, the United States has contributed more than $100 million for UXO programs in Laos. There is $19.5 million for UXO clearance in fiscal year 2016, which has bipartisan support, including the current chair of our subcommittee, Senator Graham, and of the House subcommittee, Representative Granger, and the House ranking member, Representative Lowey. I appreciate their support for this. But I have long felt that the United States should do more, and so I am very pleased that President Obama--the first American President to visit Laos--announced earlier today that the United States will increase its support for UXO programs in Laos. The President pledged $90 million over the next 3 years to continue clearance, victims' assistance, and risk education programs at the fiscal year 2015 level of $15 million annually. The balance of $45 million is going to be used to support a national UXO survey. The survey is extremely important. As I said, Laos is about the size of Utah. The survey will establish a baseline for contaminated land that remains to be cleared so the Lao Government and international donors can plan their future clearance activities and accurately forecast how much time and money it will take to make Laos UXO impact-free. Earlier this year, in anticipation of President Obama's trip to Laos, Tim Rieser from my office met twice with White House staff. They discussed ways to increase funding for UXO programs in Laos. I applaud President Obama for publicly recognizing that we have a responsibility to do more to end this tragic legacy by accelerating our efforts. I will do all I can to ensure that Congress does its part to appropriate the funds, so that in the not too distant future all Laotians can walk in safety. I think what President Obama is doing is similar to what President George H. W. Bush did, the first President Bush. Even though we had fought a war with Vietnam, even though it divided this country, after the war he decided we needed to do something to begin to reengage with Vietnam and to show our appreciation for those who had helped us with MIAs in Vietnam. He worked with Bobby Muller, Tim Rieser, me, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and used the Leahy War Victims Fund there. I visited it at the time and could see what a difference it can make. I look forward to going to Laos and seeing what a difference the Leahy Fund and our country's efforts will make there. Judicial Nominations Mr. President, as most of us do in August, I traveled around my State. Vermont--the land area is only the second largest State in New England, which makes it not that large. I can travel all over it. I heard from Vermonters all around my home State about the issues that are important to them. One thing I heard at almost every stop I made--whether it was for a Republican group, a Democratic group, or an Independent group, whatever their age, whatever they did for work, they said: What about the Supreme Court? Why has the Senate failed to act on the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland? I told them that the Senate is returning from the longest recess in nearly 50 years, and perhaps the Republican leadership was hoping that Americans had forgotten about the unprecedented obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee. But I can assure you that Americans--and certainly Vermonters--have not forgotten. They have not forgotten the fact that Senate Republicans have refused to hold a hearing for Chief Judge Garland, and they have not forgotten this unprecedented step in not allowing a hearing. They have not forgotten that some Senators still have not even afforded Chief Judge Garland the courtesy of a meeting. This means the Supreme Court continues to be hindered by the lack of a full bench of Justices. Chief Judge Garland's nomination has been blocked by Republicans in the Senate for 174 days. Nearly half a year has passed since President Obama nominated Chief Judge Garland to the Supreme Court after Justice Scalia's untimely death--and Senate Republicans have done nothing about it. At no time in the history of our country has something like this been done. I think the Senate should get to work and fulfill its constitutional duty of providing advice and consent on the nomination and then have the guts to vote either yes or no to ensure that we have a fully functioning Supreme Court. Instead of doing our job, we are voting ``maybe.'' Over the recess, the Majority Leader bragged that one of his ``proudest moments'' was when he unilaterally declared that he would not allow the Supreme Court vacancy to be filled by President Obama. Such cynical rhetoric is beyond disappointing. The partisan decision to refuse any sort of consideration of a highly qualified nominee such as Chief Judge Garland is an embarrassment. It is not an accomplishment of which the Senate can be proud. We must all be reminded that this stubborn refusal to consider Chief Judge Garland has real world consequences that go beyond politics. The Republican obstruction of Chief Judge Garland has diminished the Supreme Court. It has impacted millions of families across the country. This summer when the Supreme Court completed its most recent term, the damage became clear. In seven separate cases, the eight remaining Justices could not serve as the final arbiter of law when they were unable to issue a final decision on the merits. In another case involving a death penalty appeal--a matter of life and death--the Court also deadlocked. Just last week, the Court deadlocked on consideration of an election law case that will impact the constitutional rights of millions of voters ahead of this year's election. Notwithstanding that, Senate Republicans, who are in the majority, have taken this unprecedented step--the only time in the history of the country. For months, in poll after poll, two-thirds of the American people want a public hearing for Chief Judge Garland. They continue their blockade in the hope that their party's Presidential nominee wins in November. It is disappointing that they continue to hold our highest Court hostage in support of an intemperate political candidate who has demonstrated contempt for the rule of law and who has said that some judges aren't qualified because their forebears were Mexican. The Republican nominee for president is a man who opposes the bedrock principle of freedom of the press. He is a man who attacked a Federal judge based on his race and heritage. He is a man who repeatedly attacked the gold star parents of a brave, selfless Army captain who was killed in Iraq while protecting his fellow soldiers. Despite these and several additional episodes demonstrating that the Republican nominee represents an unacceptable risk to our country, Senate Republicans continue to block Chief Judge Garland in the hope that their nominee is elected and can appoint judges. The Republican obstruction and disregard for a coequal branch of government also extends to the lower Federal courts. Since taking over the majority last year, Senate Republican inaction has allowed judicial vacancies to more than double and to reach 90 vacancies. This amounts to more than 10% of the Federal bench. Vacancies have reached what the Congressional Research Service calls ``historically high'' levels. The American people are left waiting for justice as the number of vacant seats pile up. Yet the Republican leadership refuses to allow a vote on any of the 27 judicial nominees who are already pending on the Executive Calendar. These nominees are the result of the President working with home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats, to make a nomination. Each of these nominees was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. For example, the next Federal district court nominee ready for a vote is Edward Stanton from Tennessee. Mr. Stanton is the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee. He has the support of both of his Republican home state senators and was voice voted out of the Judiciary Committee. Yet this excellent nominee, who has been serving the people of Tennessee as one of the state's top Federal prosecutors, has been languishing on the floor since last October. I think both Senators from Tennessee will agree with me that there is no good reason why Mr. Stanton should have waited this long for an up-or-down vote. In 2008, George W. Bush was President. He was in the last year of his term. Democrats controlled the Senate. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. All Senators, whether Republican or Democratic, actually worked together to fill these lower court vacancies. In September 2008, we confirmed 10 judicial nominees in 1 day. We actually did it in September. And not a single nominee was left on the Executive Calendar. Of those 10 nominees, nine had support from home state Republican Senators. I was proud to work with Senators Arlen Specter, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, John Warner, Mel Martinez, Wayne Allard, Bob Bennett, and Orrin Hatch to confirm nominees to fill vacancies in their states, and help ensure that the people of those states had access to justice in our Federal courts. Today, 13 judicial nominees from States represented by 16 Republican Senators are ready for confirmation votes. These nominees have been waiting two, three, even 10 months for a simple vote. I hope that these 16 Republican Senators are able to impress upon their leadership just how important it is to allow the Senate to do its job and vote on these nominees who would serve their States. I despair somewhat because even though they are nominees from their States and are here with their approval, they are not getting their leadership to move forward, just as not a single Republican Senator has been able to get their Republican leadership to allow a hearing and a vote on Judge Garland. I hope the Republican leadership will reconsider their outright refusal to allow a hearing and vote for Chief Judge Garland's nomination on the Supreme Court. This unprecedented, unwarranted stance has already undermined one term of the High Court, but there is still time to avoid harming another term. It is good that we actually show up now and then in Washington to do our work. There is plenty of time to have a hearing and vote on Chief Judge Garland's nomination. It is time for the Senate to get back to work. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will realize what they have done to the Supreme Court and will reverse this. It is able to be blocked only because all Republicans stood with their leader and blocked the Supreme Court nominee. I think that is wrong. It has never been done before. In fact, the last time there was a vacancy--I mention this for the young pages who are here. They will get a little history lesson, and it is something the Senators should know. The last time there was a vacancy in a Presidential election year, there was a Republican President and Democrats were in control of the Senate. We confirmed that nominee in the Presidential election year, and the vote was unanimous. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Refugee Protection Act, along with Senators Franken, Durbig and Hirono. The world is confronting the worst refugee crisis since World War II. There are more than 65 million people who have been forcibly displaced around the globe. In the face of such staggering human suffering, we must not lower our torch--we must raise it higher. The Refugee Protection Act of 2016 takes important steps to bolster and update our laws to address the urgency of today's crisis. Now, more than ever, we must reaffirm our role as a humanitarian leader and renew our commitment to those fleeing persecution across the world. The ongoing conflict in Syria makes clear the enormity of the humanitarian crisis we face. The terror inflicted by Bashar Al-Assad's regime and ISIS, which now subjects vast swaths of the region to its barbaric rule, has forced more than half of Syria's 23 million people from their homes and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians Currently, there are more than 4.8 million registered Syrian refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and children. The United States must assert its leadership in efforts to resettle the innocent victims of this catastrophe. That is precisely the call so many of us respondedjiipj:st a year ago when the world came together stunned and heartbroken over the image of a 3-year-old Syrian child's lifeless body washed up on a Turkish beach. His tragic death touched our hearts and focused our attention on the desperate plight of this population. We must not forget him or the plight of the thousands of other children who are attempting the same terrifying journey to safety. We also cannot ignore the humanitarian crisis that is closer to home. Ruthless armed gangs in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala continue to brutalize women and children with impunity. El Salvador and Guatemala have the highest child murder rates in the world--higher even than in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. These three Central American countries also account for some of the highest rates of female homicide worldwide. The violence and impunity in the Northern Triangle has forced thousands of mothers and children to flee and seek refuge wherever they can find it. The administration's Central American Refugees Minor, CAM program and its expansion of the Refugee Admissions Program in Central America are an acknowledgment of the unique protection needs resulting from this crisis. In response to these challenges, and so many others around the world, we must adapt our laws to make good on our commitment as a nation of refuge and freedom. It is our moral obligation but it is also in our national interest. Our refugee program sends a powerful message to the rest of the world: America is not your enemy. We stand against persecution and terrorism in all its forms. A strong refugee program undermines the hateful propaganda of ISIS that there is a war between Islam and the West, that Muslims are not welcome here, and that the ISIS caliphate is their true home. By offering refuge to the world's most vulnerable people, regardless of their religion or nationality, our refugee program lays bare those lies. The landmark Refugee Act of 1980 affirmed the commitments we made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Refugee Protection Act of 2016 that Jam introducing today would reaffirm the spirit of those commitments and ensure that our law is up to meeting the humanitarian crisis of our time. First, our bill would repeal harsh and unnecessary hurdles that exist in current law. It would eliminate the requirement that asylees file for asylum within one year of arrival. This is an arbitrary deadline that has prevented many deserving people from pursuing legitimate protection claims. It is particularly harmful to those individuals who may be slow to come forward and recount their trauma, such as victims of rape or torture. The bill also includes important safeguards to ensure that victims of gender-based persecution and LGBT asylum-seekers receive the protection they deserve. Second, our bill provides critical protections for children and families. It would enable vulnerable minors seeking asylum to have their cases adjudicated by an asylum officer in a non-adversarial setting. Importantly, our bill would require the Attorney General to appoint counsel for children and other vulnerable individuals, allowing those who cannot advocate for themselves to receive a fair day in court. It is unconscionable that young children are being brought before U.S. Immigration judges without a lawyer to represent them. And, it would provide that all children in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security must be adequately screened for protection needs. Our legislation also includes important protections for refugee families. It would allow certain children and family members of refugees to be considered derivative applicants for refugee status if they have undergone the requisite security checks. Refugees escaping persecution should not have to choose between finding refuge and keeping their families together. Third, our bill promotes a more efficient asylum and refugee process. It would require timely notice of immigration charges and provide for updated conditions of detention, preventing individuals from languishing in detention at taxpayer expense and encouraging efficient case adjudication in our immigration courts. It includes measures to provide particularly vulnerable individuals with a full and fair opportunity to seek protection in the United States. The bill would also establish a secure ``alternatives to detention'' program to ensure the appearance of individuals in removal proceedings. Finally, our bill would facilitate the integration of refugees into our communities, which is a longstanding tradition in this country. It ensures that the Reception and Placement grants, which help refugees become self-sufficient, are adjusted on an annual basis for inflation and cost of living. It would also provide that resettled refugees who work for our government overseas do not face unnecessary hurdles in their adjustment to lawful permanent residence. Our bill also authorizes a study of our refugee resettlement program and improves the collection of data to ensure that our resettlement system uses resources efficiently. I am proud of the role Vermont has played in welcoming refugees. Since 1989, our State has welcomed nearly 8,000 refugees from more than a dozen war-torn countries. RecerThy, Mayor Christopher Louras and members of the Rutland community announced plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees. I applaud their decision, which should serve as an example to other communities in Vermont and across the country. I am confident that Vermont will do its part to provide a welcoming home for these families. I am hopeful that if we pause and remember the role refugees and asylum-seekers have played for generations in making our communities strong and vibrant, we will be able to move past the hateful, ugly rhetoric of this campaign season. Our moral obligation to innocent victims of persecution demands it, and our national interest requires it. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2016.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my friend John Lewis often says that ``the right to vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy.'' I could not agree more with him. We are a better and more representative Nation when more Americans participate in our democracy, and we can help foster greater participation by modernizing the way we register our voters. That is why today, I am introducing the Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2016, a bill to require states to automatically register citizens who are eligible to vote by working with State and Federal agencies. Individuals have the option of declining automatic registration, but this bill would provide for a registration process that is more efficient and accurate. Importantly, the information used by the agencies to automatically register individuals will remain private and secure, and can only be used for voter registration, election administration, or prosecution of election crimes. The bill also takes steps to streamline the voter registration process, by providing for online registration and greater portability of registration when an individual moves to a different location in the same state. Under this bill, no individual can be unfairly penalized for inadvertent registration, and punishment is preserved only in cases of intentional registration fraud or illegal voting. These are all common sense measures that would make it easier for Americans to maintain accurate voter registration information, and they further help to ensure that our voter rolls are current and up-to-date. My efforts in trying to extend automatic registration to every State is consistent with efforts in Vermont, which became just the fourth State to pass an automatic voter registration bill this past April. The State of Vermont and its superb Secretary of State--Jim Condos--have been leaders in improving access to the ballot box. I cannot offer enough praise for what they have done. State election officials have estimated that Vermont could add 30,000 to 50,000 voters to the State's rolls when its new automatic voter registration law takes effect after the 2016 election. Now imagine if we can provide similar improvements to the registration rolls for every State in this great Nation. Our union can only become stronger and more representative with the participation of a broader electorate. According to a report from the Brennan Center released in September 2015, a comprehensive automatic voter registration plan could potentially add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls. Moreover, not only would it save money and increase accuracy, but it would also reduce the potential for fraud and protect the integrity of our elections. There is no reason why every eligible citizen cannot have the option of automatic registration when they visit the DMV, sign up for healthcare, or sign up for classes in college. These are just some of the agencies or institutions that would work with the States to provide for automatic voter registration. We live in a modern world, and we should strive to have a registration system that reflects that. I would like to thank the Brennan Center for Justice for working so closely with me and my staff on this bill. I would also like to thank Senators Klobuchar and Durbin for joining me in introducing this bill. A House companion bill is being introduced by Congressman Brady of Pennsylvania, the Ranking Member on the House Committee on House Administration. I am proud to join all of these individuals in fighting to increase access to the ballot box for all Americans. The Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2016 is common sense legislation that all members of Congress should be able to support. However, this bill is part of a larger set of voting reforms that we must take on without further delay. We cannot talk about voting without mentioning the fact that this will be the first presidential election where the American people will be without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act since its original passage. It has now been more than three years since the Supreme Court's devastating decision in Shelby County v. Holder. In that case, five justices severely weakened the Federal government's ability to prevent racial discriminatory voting changes from taking effect before those changes occur. The ruling's impact on voters across the country has been even worse than imagined. Before the ink dried on the Court's opinion, elected officials in several states rushed to exploit the decision by enacting voting laws that disproportionately prevent or discourage minorities from voting. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 17 states have passed new voter restriction laws for the 2016 election. Millions of voters risk being disenfranchised for this election, and yet, this Republican majority--in both the House and the Senate--refuses to even hold a hearing on the issue. The fundamental right to vote is too important for partisan politics. We must restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that no American's right to vote is infringed, and we must implement an automatic voter registration system to ensure that every American who wishes to vote is able to do so. This is an issue that cannot wait. It is long past time for Congress to respond with action.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Refugee Protection Act, along with Senators Franken, Durbig and Hirono. The world is confronting the worst refugee crisis since World War II. There are more than 65 million people who have been forcibly displaced around the globe. In the face of such staggering human suffering, we must not lower our torch--we must raise it higher. The Refugee Protection Act of 2016 takes important steps to bolster and update our laws to address the urgency of today's crisis. Now, more than ever, we must reaffirm our role as a humanitarian leader and renew our commitment to those fleeing persecution across the world. The ongoing conflict in Syria makes clear the enormity of the humanitarian crisis we face. The terror inflicted by Bashar Al-Assad's regime and ISIS, which now subjects vast swaths of the region to its barbaric rule, has forced more than half of Syria's 23 million people from their homes and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians Currently, there are more than 4.8 million registered Syrian refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and children. The United States must assert its leadership in efforts to resettle the innocent victims of this catastrophe. That is precisely the call so many of us respondedjiipj:st a year ago when the world came together stunned and heartbroken over the image of a 3-year-old Syrian child's lifeless body washed up on a Turkish beach. His tragic death touched our hearts and focused our attention on the desperate plight of this population. We must not forget him or the plight of the thousands of other children who are attempting the same terrifying journey to safety. We also cannot ignore the humanitarian crisis that is closer to home. Ruthless armed gangs in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala continue to brutalize women and children with impunity. El Salvador and Guatemala have the highest child murder rates in the world--higher even than in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. These three Central American countries also account for some of the highest rates of female homicide worldwide. The violence and impunity in the Northern Triangle has forced thousands of mothers and children to flee and seek refuge wherever they can find it. The administration's Central American Refugees Minor, CAM program and its expansion of the Refugee Admissions Program in Central America are an acknowledgment of the unique protection needs resulting from this crisis. In response to these challenges, and so many others around the world, we must adapt our laws to make good on our commitment as a nation of refuge and freedom. It is our moral obligation but it is also in our national interest. Our refugee program sends a powerful message to the rest of the world: America is not your enemy. We stand against persecution and terrorism in all its forms. A strong refugee program undermines the hateful propaganda of ISIS that there is a war between Islam and the West, that Muslims are not welcome here, and that the ISIS caliphate is their true home. By offering refuge to the world's most vulnerable people, regardless of their religion or nationality, our refugee program lays bare those lies. The landmark Refugee Act of 1980 affirmed the commitments we made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Refugee Protection Act of 2016 that Jam introducing today would reaffirm the spirit of those commitments and ensure that our law is up to meeting the humanitarian crisis of our time. First, our bill would repeal harsh and unnecessary hurdles that exist in current law. It would eliminate the requirement that asylees file for asylum within one year of arrival. This is an arbitrary deadline that has prevented many deserving people from pursuing legitimate protection claims. It is particularly harmful to those individuals who may be slow to come forward and recount their trauma, such as victims of rape or torture. The bill also includes important safeguards to ensure that victims of gender-based persecution and LGBT asylum-seekers receive the protection they deserve. Second, our bill provides critical protections for children and families. It would enable vulnerable minors seeking asylum to have their cases adjudicated by an asylum officer in a non-adversarial setting. Importantly, our bill would require the Attorney General to appoint counsel for children and other vulnerable individuals, allowing those who cannot advocate for themselves to receive a fair day in court. It is unconscionable that young children are being brought before U.S. Immigration judges without a lawyer to represent them. And, it would provide that all children in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security must be adequately screened for protection needs. Our legislation also includes important protections for refugee families. It would allow certain children and family members of refugees to be considered derivative applicants for refugee status if they have undergone the requisite security checks. Refugees escaping persecution should not have to choose between finding refuge and keeping their families together. Third, our bill promotes a more efficient asylum and refugee process. It would require timely notice of immigration charges and provide for updated conditions of detention, preventing individuals from languishing in detention at taxpayer expense and encouraging efficient case adjudication in our immigration courts. It includes measures to provide particularly vulnerable individuals with a full and fair opportunity to seek protection in the United States. The bill would also establish a secure ``alternatives to detention'' program to ensure the appearance of individuals in removal proceedings. Finally, our bill would facilitate the integration of refugees into our communities, which is a longstanding tradition in this country. It ensures that the Reception and Placement grants, which help refugees become self-sufficient, are adjusted on an annual basis for inflation and cost of living. It would also provide that resettled refugees who work for our government overseas do not face unnecessary hurdles in their adjustment to lawful permanent residence. Our bill also authorizes a study of our refugee resettlement program and improves the collection of data to ensure that our resettlement system uses resources efficiently. I am proud of the role Vermont has played in welcoming refugees. Since 1989, our State has welcomed nearly 8,000 refugees from more than a dozen war-torn countries. RecerThy, Mayor Christopher Louras and members of the Rutland community announced plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees. I applaud their decision, which should serve as an example to other communities in Vermont and across the country. I am confident that Vermont will do its part to provide a welcoming home for these families. I am hopeful that if we pause and remember the role refugees and asylum-seekers have played for generations in making our communities strong and vibrant, we will be able to move past the hateful, ugly rhetoric of this campaign season. Our moral obligation to innocent victims of persecution demands it, and our national interest requires it. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2016.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my friend John Lewis often says that ``the right to vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy.'' I could not agree more with him. We are a better and more representative Nation when more Americans participate in our democracy, and we can help foster greater participation by modernizing the way we register our voters. That is why today, I am introducing the Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2016, a bill to require states to automatically register citizens who are eligible to vote by working with State and Federal agencies. Individuals have the option of declining automatic registration, but this bill would provide for a registration process that is more efficient and accurate. Importantly, the information used by the agencies to automatically register individuals will remain private and secure, and can only be used for voter registration, election administration, or prosecution of election crimes. The bill also takes steps to streamline the voter registration process, by providing for online registration and greater portability of registration when an individual moves to a different location in the same state. Under this bill, no individual can be unfairly penalized for inadvertent registration, and punishment is preserved only in cases of intentional registration fraud or illegal voting. These are all common sense measures that would make it easier for Americans to maintain accurate voter registration information, and they further help to ensure that our voter rolls are current and up-to-date. My efforts in trying to extend automatic registration to every State is consistent with efforts in Vermont, which became just the fourth State to pass an automatic voter registration bill this past April. The State of Vermont and its superb Secretary of State--Jim Condos--have been leaders in improving access to the ballot box. I cannot offer enough praise for what they have done. State election officials have estimated that Vermont could add 30,000 to 50,000 voters to the State's rolls when its new automatic voter registration law takes effect after the 2016 election. Now imagine if we can provide similar improvements to the registration rolls for every State in this great Nation. Our union can only become stronger and more representative with the participation of a broader electorate. According to a report from the Brennan Center released in September 2015, a comprehensive automatic voter registration plan could potentially add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls. Moreover, not only would it save money and increase accuracy, but it would also reduce the potential for fraud and protect the integrity of our elections. There is no reason why every eligible citizen cannot have the option of automatic registration when they visit the DMV, sign up for healthcare, or sign up for classes in college. These are just some of the agencies or institutions that would work with the States to provide for automatic voter registration. We live in a modern world, and we should strive to have a registration system that reflects that. I would like to thank the Brennan Center for Justice for working so closely with me and my staff on this bill. I would also like to thank Senators Klobuchar and Durbin for joining me in introducing this bill. A House companion bill is being introduced by Congressman Brady of Pennsylvania, the Ranking Member on the House Committee on House Administration. I am proud to join all of these individuals in fighting to increase access to the ballot box for all Americans. The Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2016 is common sense legislation that all members of Congress should be able to support. However, this bill is part of a larger set of voting reforms that we must take on without further delay. We cannot talk about voting without mentioning the fact that this will be the first presidential election where the American people will be without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act since its original passage. It has now been more than three years since the Supreme Court's devastating decision in Shelby County v. Holder. In that case, five justices severely weakened the Federal government's ability to prevent racial discriminatory voting changes from taking effect before those changes occur. The ruling's impact on voters across the country has been even worse than imagined. Before the ink dried on the Court's opinion, elected officials in several states rushed to exploit the decision by enacting voting laws that disproportionately prevent or discourage minorities from voting. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 17 states have passed new voter restriction laws for the 2016 election. Millions of voters risk being disenfranchised for this election, and yet, this Republican majority--in both the House and the Senate--refuses to even hold a hearing on the issue. The fundamental right to vote is too important for partisan politics. We must restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that no American's right to vote is infringed, and we must implement an automatic voter registration system to ensure that every American who wishes to vote is able to do so. This is an issue that cannot wait. It is long past time for Congress to respond with action.