Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, without losing his right to the floor, I thank my distinguished neighbor in New England and ask through the Chair if he is aware that the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed for years to close the glaring loopholes in the background check system to try to prevent criminals from buying guns. Is the Senator aware that today you could have three murder warrants and a conviction for armed robbery and walk to a gun show and buy any kind of weapon you want without having to go through a background check or have a license?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another question without losing his right to the floor, the Senator knows that three years ago the Judiciary Committee reported out these commonsense measures. We actually had broad support for measures to stop illegal gun trafficking, provide for universal background checks, and provide grants for schools to improve their security and ban assault weapons. The Senate Republicans filibustered our effort, which a majority of Americans supported, to make commonsense reforms that would make our country safer. I do not even want to think about how many Americans-- although I do every day--have been killed since then. I believe I speak for most Americans when I say we are tired of the status quo. Congress has to act to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. My question to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is, in order for background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, do we need to give law enforcement new tools--in other words, the tools we have now are not enough--to stop a suspected terrorist, or somebody who has recently been under investigation for terrorism, from buying a gun?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question without losing his right to the floor, we know that a person can go to a gun show or go online and buy a gun without being subjected to a background or identification check. One of our local newspapers had an article about a reporter who communicated with an individual online--they had never met before--and then met that person in a parking lot and bought an assault weapon for cash. The person selling the weapon insisted on cash. When the reporter was asked if he had any identification, he said that he preferred not to give him any. The seller of the weapon said: OK. You look old enough. The seller sold the weapon to him for $500 from the trunk of a car. I ask the Senator from Connecticut, through the Chair, if we made universal background checks mandatory and made it illegal to sell guns without a universal background check, might that make a difference?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I again ask through the Chair if the Senator will yield further without losing the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I consider myself a responsible gun owner. I think common sense tells us that if we have assault weapons that are designed for the battlefield, they really have no place on our streets, in our schools, in our churches, or in our communities. I move to support an assault weapons ban. We do not even allow them for hunting in Vermont. Does the Senator agree with me?

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know that Vermont has very few gun laws, but we at least restrict the number of rounds that one can put in a semiautomatic gun during deer season. I would like to see as much restriction and protection for the children who are walking our streets, the people in our churches or our synagogues, and the people gathering for social reasons as we do to protect the deer herd. My final question is one that I get from Vermonters all the time. These Vermonters--many are gun owners and many are not--are all repulsed and saddened not just by what they saw this past weekend in Florida but by what they see with numbing consistency on our news. Day after day after day they see people being gunned down in the streets of America. They ask me: What is Congress doing? They ask me why Congress is not responding by giving law enforcement the tools they need. Certainly law enforcement wants to stop this. I suspect the questions I get asked in Vermont are similar to the questions that my friend from Connecticut gets. How do we respond to these Americans--thousands in Vermont and millions throughout this country--who say: What in heaven's name are you doing in Washington to make life safer for us?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Marcelle and I, along with all Vermonters, were devastated by the news of the attack in Orlando, and our hearts go out to the victims and their families. All Americans deserve to feel safe in their communities regardless of their race, age, sex, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. In the wake of the worst mass shooting in American history, all of us must stand with the people of Orlando who have been so shaken by this hateful act of terrorism and violence. And in particular, as we celebrate Pride Month, we must stand with and support the LGBT community, both in Orlando and throughout the Nation. We are so thankful for the law enforcement officers and first responders who rushed to the scene in the middle of the night to confront the killer and save lives. We also are grateful for the work of the doctors and nurses who fought and continue to fight to save even more. My wife, Marcelle, is a registered surgical nurse, and we have been deeply moved to see the outpouring of support by people across Florida and the country who are donating blood and doing what they can to support the victims and their families. In the wake of tragedies like this, whether the victims are members of the LGBT community, African-American church parishioners, first graders in an elementary school, college students, moviegoers, or others in our community, we are called as Americans to come together in solidarity. We come together in grief and in shock. We come together in support of the victims, their families, law enforcement personnel and first responders, and the entire community. And we come together to try and find a way to prevent further acts of senseless violence. We are at our best as a nation when we come together. When we are united in strength and in courageous acts of selflessness and kindness, our country can move forward with a greater sense of purpose and hope. We must not allow ourselves to be divided by the bigoted actions of a murderer or by any fear that the killer sought to foment. He took an assault rifle into a nightclub, one that was known as a special place in Orlando's LGBT community. He fired on a crowd of innocent, unarmed people. This man was no fighter and certainly no soldier. This was either the act of a murderous bigot trying to shroud his hatred by professing allegiance to ISIL or the actions of a cowardly terrorist seeking to paralyze and divide us with fear--or perhaps both. In either case, we cannot let his heinous acts lead us to turn on one another. Some are already using this horrific attack as an opportunity to further divide us. The Republican Party's presumptive Presidential nominee continues to peddle his corrosive rhetoric of fear by proposing to ban all Muslims from entering the country. This week he went even further by suggested that the entire Muslim American community was somehow complicit in this heinous act. This is irresponsible fear- mongering--plain and simple. It is guilt by association. And it makes us less safe. We should all condemn this bigotry and reject attempts to foment fear and hatred. We are stronger and safer when we reject such attempts to divide us. The Republican standard bearer has also questioned the motivations and patriotism of the President of the United States. These insinuations are dangerous. They are beyond the pale, and I reject them emphatically and categorically. I call on every Member of this body to do the same. We are a better nation than this. The American people are rightfully demanding action instead of rhetoric. They are tired of hearing that the tragedy in Orlando and the countless others we have endured are not about our gun laws. We must recognize that we have a security weakness in this country and ISIL is exploiting it. Our enemies know that in the United States you can go online or to a gun show and buy a gun. You don't need to have identification. No background check will be run. You can simply acquire a semiautomatic weapon that can kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes. We must have universal background checks. That is simply common sense. We have had background checks for decades. I am among millions of responsible gun owners in this country who undergo background checks when we purchase a firearm. And, like millions of responsible gun owners, I understand that this check is necessary to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. It is common sense that we need to close the loopholes that allow people to evade background checks altogether. And we must also make sure that the background checks are effective. That means giving law enforcement the power to stop a suspected terrorist, or someone who has recently been under investigation for terrorism, from buying a gun. It is also common sense that assault weapons designed for the battlefield have no place on our streets, in our schools, in our churches, or in our communities. I have moved and supported an assault weapons ban for this simple reason. These changes make sense, and they fix glaring vulnerabilities in our system. This is not about politics. This is about keeping Americans safe. This is about stepping up and taking action and not just resigning ourselves to the repeated call for moments of silence, tragedy after tragedy. I am a responsible gun owner, and I do not take this issue lightly. I have fought for years to pass these commonsense measures, and I will continue to do so. Americans have shown throughout the course of history that we can live up to the principles of freedom, equality, and liberty that have guided us for so long. Now is the time to stand defiantly against the petty politics of fear. Despite what others may say, we are a great nation. Now is the time for Congress to act to pass commonsense measures that have languished for too long and could save American lives.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in recent months, the high cost of pharmaceutical products has been front and center in national news, sometimes with astonishing examples like the unconscionable price-hike by Turing Pharmaceuticals of their drug for patients with HIV from $13.50 to $750 per pill overnight. Pharmaceutical companies should be compensated for their important work developing life-saving treatments, but when companies engage in predatory practices at the expense of consumers, we must act. That is why today, I am introducing the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples, CREATES, Act, bipartisan legislation to end inappropriate delay tactics that are used by some brand-name drug manufacturers to block competition from more affordable generic drugs. The first delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the withholding of drug samples that generic manufacturers need to gain regulatory approval. Federal law requires generic competitors to prove that their low-cost alternative is equally safe and effective as the brand-name drug with which they wish to compete. Unfortunately, some brand-name companies are preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining the samples they need to make the necessary comparison. This simple delay tactic uses regulatory safeguards as a weapon to block competition. The FDA has reported receiving more than 100 inquiries from generic product developers who were unable to access samples of a brand-name drug to compare their generic product. The second delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the development of shared safety protocols. For some high-risk drugs, federal law requires a generic drug manufacturer to join the brand-name drug manufacturer in a single, shared safety protocol for distribution of the drug. Despite this requirement, some brand-name companies are refusing to negotiate a shared safety protocol with potential generic competitors, again undermining those competitors' ability to gain FDA approval for their generic version of the drug. These exclusionary practices thwart competition and deny consumers the benefit of lower drug prices. They also undermine the careful balance created in the Hatch-Waxman Act and the more recent Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which are designed to reward and incentivize innovation while ensuring that consumers ultimately benefit from the entry, after an appropriate time, of generic or biosimilar versions of a drug. Innovative companies can and should gain the benefit of their inventions. But when companies artificially extend the period of those benefits by using dilatory tactics to delay generic entry, the thoughtful balance of the Hatch-Waxman Act and BPCIA are plainly undermined. I share the concerns of Vermonters and Americans across the country that many pharmaceutical products are simply too expensive for consumers. Nearly \3/4\ of the public view prescription drug costs as unreasonable, and one in four patients say they have not filled a prescription because of cost. Parents should not be forced to choose between putting food on the table and getting their children and themselves the medicine they need. When drug prices are artificially inflated, patients suffer, illnesses become protracted, and families, government programs, and other payers in the healthcare system ultimately bear the cost. That is why this legislation is supported by consumer groups, physicians, insurance companies, pharmacists and hospitals who all see firsthand the impact of unreasonably high costs of some prescription drugs. Earlier this month, Vermont set an example for the Nation when it passed into law drug transparency legislation that will require pharmaceutical companies to justify large increases in their drug prices. Here in Washington, the Senate Aging Committee and other Committees have been doing important work to analyze the root causes of high drug pricing and find practical solutions. Solving this issue will require nuanced, thoughtful work on all sides to ensure that consumers are protected and that pharmaceutical companies that act in good faith can continue to innovate for patients. With the CREATES Act, the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights are using our roles to address anticompetitive behavior that blocks competition and delays the creation of affordable generic drugs. I thank Senators Grassley, Klobuchar and Lee for joining me in this effort, and for agreeing to hold a hearing on this bill as soon as next week. Drug affordability is a bipartisan issue that impacts each and every one of us. I hope other Senators will join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate approved a Defense authorization bill of tremendous scope and containing a number of harmful provisions. I was against the decision by the majority leader to end debate on this bill after a period of consideration that resulted in consideration of only a handful of the over 600 amendments filed. Now, I am disappointed by its passage in the Senate. A bill this big deserves substantial, open, public debate. With less than 2 weeks of debate on legislation that authorizes nearly $600 billion, I continue to believe that the Senate was unable to properly consider the bill. Not only was more time needed to explore and debate this lengthy bill, during the brief period of consideration it was given, many on both sides of the aisle, myself included, determined that the Defense authorization contains an assortment of harmful language. This is unfortunate, because the Defense authorization also contains provisions that I support. It authorizes spending to promote our national interests, provides vital resources to our military personnel, and reaffirms our commitment to partners abroad. It also furthers our military readiness through investment in next-generation technology. It is this kind of reasonable content that should be the universal rule for a defense authorization. Regrettably, that is only a portion of this bill. This year's Defense authorization will once again prevent the President from closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The bill would extend the unnecessary prohibition on constructing facilities within the United States to house Guantanamo detainees, continue the counterproductive ban on transferring detainees to the United States for detention and trial, and maintain the onerous certification requirements to transfer detainees to foreign countries. Regrettably, the bill also adds several new restrictions, including a provision to bar detainee transfers to any country subject to a travel warning by the State Department. This sweeping prohibition is unnecessary and would even include some of America's allies. While this year's bill does contain some modest improvements to current law, the Defense authorization once again fails to provide the Obama administration with the flexibility it needs to finally close the detention facility at Guantanamo. With the costs of more than $4 million per year per detainee to keep the detention facility at Guantanamo open, I agree with our retired military leaders who tell us that it is in our national security interest to close the detention facility. Doing so is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do, and I strongly oppose the needless barriers to closing Guantanamo contained in this bill. Also unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, our Nation's premier transparency law, is directly undermined by the Defense authorization. Just yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Senate's FOIA Improvement Act, reaffirming our commitment to the principle that a government of, by, and for the people cannot be one that is hidden from them. However, just as we are about to bring more sunshine into the halls of power on FOIA's 50th anniversary, this Defense authorization bill threatens to cast a long and dangerous shadow over our efforts. Without ever consulting the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has exclusive jurisdiction over FOIA, the Armed Services Committee included provisions in this bill that cut at the heart of FOIA. One particularly egregious provision would allow the Department of Defense to withhold from the public anything ``related to'' military ``tactics, techniques, or procedures.'' The terms ``tactic,'' ``technique,'' and ``procedure'' are either defined very broadly or not at all. The provision further states that this information can only be withheld if its disclosure would ``risk impairment'' to the Department of Defense's ``effective operation'' by ``providing an advantage to an adversary or potential adversary.'' But it is entirely unclear what if any limitation this language would impose, given that none of the operative terms-- impairment, effective operation, advantage, or adversary--are anywhere defined. While the Department of Defense might call those ``terms of art,'' it is law and not art that the Congress passes. Given the breadth of this language, this provision amounts to what could be a wholesale carveout for the Department of Defense from our Nation's transparency and accountability regime. If enacted, this bill would empower the Pentagon to withhold a wealth of information from the American public. For example, the Pentagon could withhold the legal justifications for drone strikes against U.S. citizens, preventing the American people from knowing the legal basis upon which their government can employ lethal force against them. It could withhold from disclosure documents memorializing civilian killings by U.S. forces, depriving the American people of knowledge about the human cost of wars fought in their name. And if enacted, the Pentagon could withhold information about sexual assaults in the military, masking the true extent of sexual violence against servicemembers who risk their lives defending our country. In short, this bill could effectively drape a shroud of secrecy over all five corners of the Pentagon. It would unravel decades of work we have done to make our government more transparent to the American people and threaten the progress we have just made with the FOIA Improvement Act. This unprecedented disappearing act from our Nation's premier transparency law should have never been considered without a full consultation of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On the eve of FOIA's 50th anniversary, I urge all Senators to stand on the side of sunshine, not shadows, and oppose these provisions within the Defense authorization. My concerns are not limited to Guantanamo Bay and FOIA. The bill also includes massive changes to our military's procurement and management systems, rolling back reforms that have been in place since Goldwater- Nichols and putting at risk Federal employees and businesses that sell to the Department. These specific sections include the elimination of the office that coordinates major acquisitions, separating development of new technology and plans for its long-term sustainment. The changes have been promoted under the guise of saving money and reducing bloated command structures, when they in fact only confuse an already complex process and will likely result in needless future waste. I also remain deeply concerned about the impact of the caps on general officers to the National Guard. While I was grateful to see that adjutants general and assistant adjutants were exempted, there are other joint general officers within the Guard, and I am worried hard caps on the number of general officers will mean that the best man or woman for the job becomes less important than whether the Army or the Air Force has space under its respective cap. I am likewise concerned that decoupling the statutory requirement that the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau be a lieutenant general--a decoupling that did not occur for the vice of any other member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--will force the Army or Air Force to give up a three-star position to someone who statutorily does not report to their service secretary. I am also concerned that by removing the statutory requirement that the commander or deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command be a member of the National Guard, we run the risk of entering a major national disaster without a leader of the principal Federal response force having any experience with how the States deal with disasters individually and together. The bill includes a provision, section 1204, which would prohibit joint or multilateral exercises and conferences between the Department of Defense and the Government of Cuba, even though the Department and the Cubans have worked together on issues related to the security of Guantanamo for many years. Senator Flake and I, along with Senators Cardin and Durbin, proposed some exceptions to this provision in order to permit the Department to continue to engage with the Cubans on Guantanamo and to cooperate on other security matters, including search and rescue and counternarcotics. Unfortunately, Senator Cruz, the author of section 1204, was unwilling to compromise, and we were not able to obtain a vote on our amendment. Perhaps the most predictable flaw of this bill is that it continues the reliance on overseas contingency operations funds to operate the Department. The original intention of this fund has been routinely ignored, and it continues be used as a free-for-all spending pool. Borrowing to sustain our national defense objectives only increases the already significant burden placed on the working families who are most impacted by this irresponsible practice. We must put in place mechanisms to begin responsibly ridding ourselves of the growing debt, rather than continuing to employ irresponsible practices that only take us farther away from anything resembling a solution. The National Defense Authorization Act provides the Senate with a yearly opportunity to responsibly address our security priorities and to take care of our men and women in uniform, while bolstering our overall military capabilities. However, this year's bill proposes too many damaging provisions far beyond the scope of the Department of Defense. Despite the agreeable content found within the bill, the damage that will be caused by many of these measures far outweighs the benefits of approving this authorization. For that reason, I cannot give it my support.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in recent months, the high cost of pharmaceutical products has been front and center in national news, sometimes with astonishing examples like the unconscionable price-hike by Turing Pharmaceuticals of their drug for patients with HIV from $13.50 to $750 per pill overnight. Pharmaceutical companies should be compensated for their important work developing life-saving treatments, but when companies engage in predatory practices at the expense of consumers, we must act. That is why today, I am introducing the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples, CREATES, Act, bipartisan legislation to end inappropriate delay tactics that are used by some brand-name drug manufacturers to block competition from more affordable generic drugs. The first delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the withholding of drug samples that generic manufacturers need to gain regulatory approval. Federal law requires generic competitors to prove that their low-cost alternative is equally safe and effective as the brand-name drug with which they wish to compete. Unfortunately, some brand-name companies are preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining the samples they need to make the necessary comparison. This simple delay tactic uses regulatory safeguards as a weapon to block competition. The FDA has reported receiving more than 100 inquiries from generic product developers who were unable to access samples of a brand-name drug to compare their generic product. The second delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the development of shared safety protocols. For some high-risk drugs, federal law requires a generic drug manufacturer to join the brand-name drug manufacturer in a single, shared safety protocol for distribution of the drug. Despite this requirement, some brand-name companies are refusing to negotiate a shared safety protocol with potential generic competitors, again undermining those competitors' ability to gain FDA approval for their generic version of the drug. These exclusionary practices thwart competition and deny consumers the benefit of lower drug prices. They also undermine the careful balance created in the Hatch-Waxman Act and the more recent Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which are designed to reward and incentivize innovation while ensuring that consumers ultimately benefit from the entry, after an appropriate time, of generic or biosimilar versions of a drug. Innovative companies can and should gain the benefit of their inventions. But when companies artificially extend the period of those benefits by using dilatory tactics to delay generic entry, the thoughtful balance of the Hatch-Waxman Act and BPCIA are plainly undermined. I share the concerns of Vermonters and Americans across the country that many pharmaceutical products are simply too expensive for consumers. Nearly \3/4\ of the public view prescription drug costs as unreasonable, and one in four patients say they have not filled a prescription because of cost. Parents should not be forced to choose between putting food on the table and getting their children and themselves the medicine they need. When drug prices are artificially inflated, patients suffer, illnesses become protracted, and families, government programs, and other payers in the healthcare system ultimately bear the cost. That is why this legislation is supported by consumer groups, physicians, insurance companies, pharmacists and hospitals who all see firsthand the impact of unreasonably high costs of some prescription drugs. Earlier this month, Vermont set an example for the Nation when it passed into law drug transparency legislation that will require pharmaceutical companies to justify large increases in their drug prices. Here in Washington, the Senate Aging Committee and other Committees have been doing important work to analyze the root causes of high drug pricing and find practical solutions. Solving this issue will require nuanced, thoughtful work on all sides to ensure that consumers are protected and that pharmaceutical companies that act in good faith can continue to innovate for patients. With the CREATES Act, the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights are using our roles to address anticompetitive behavior that blocks competition and delays the creation of affordable generic drugs. I thank Senators Grassley, Klobuchar and Lee for joining me in this effort, and for agreeing to hold a hearing on this bill as soon as next week. Drug affordability is a bipartisan issue that impacts each and every one of us. I hope other Senators will join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Freedom of Information Act, our Nation's premier transparency law, is on the eve of its 50th anniversary, July 4, 2016. It is fitting that FOIA shares its birthday with our Republic itself. Our democracy is built upon the principle that a government of, by, and for the people cannot be one that is hidden from them. Today we recommit ourselves to this ideal by sending to the President the FOIA Improvement Act. This bill, which I coauthored with Senator Cornyn, ushers in the most significant reforms to FOIA since its enactment 50 years ago. With the House's unanimous passage of our legislation today, we ensure FOIA will remain strong for another 50 years. First and foremost, the FOIA Improvement Act codifies a ``presumption of openness,'' putting the force of law behind the notion that sunshine, not secrecy, is the default setting of our government. This is the same language President Obama laid out in his historic memorandum in 2009 and which now applies to government agencies. This policy was first put into place by President Bill Clinton, but then it was reversed by President George W. Bush. President Obama reinstated it as one of his first acts in office. However, self-imposed executive orders provide the executive branch overly-broad latitude in adhering to its letter and spirit. We must remember, the executive branch uniquely conducts much of its business behind closed doors, which is why we need strong legislation ensuring accountability and transparency. By codifying the ``presumption of openness,'' we ensure that all future administrations operate under the presumption that government information belongs in the hands of the people. Furthermore, our bill provides the Office of Government Information Services--OGIS--an office Senator Cornyn and I created in the OPEN Government Act of 2007--additional authority to operate more independently and communicate freely with Congress how FOIA is operating and what improvements can be made. And to bring FOIA into the digital age, our bill creates a singular online portal through which the American public can submit FOIA requests and requires the proactive online disclosure of frequently requested records. The reforms in our bill enjoy broad bipartisan support. The Senate has unanimously voted for our FOIA Improvement Act twice. Last Congress, the Democratically controlled Senate unanimously passed this bill, but Republican leaders in the House failed to bring it up. Senator Cornyn and I promptly reintroduced our legislation, which passed the Senate earlier this year, and finally, the House has followed suit. The legislative branch has now spoken in one voice, reaffirming its commitment to the American people's right to know what their government is doing. I urge President Obama to swiftly sign our bill into law in time for FOIA's 50th anniversary. The FOIA Improvement Act is undoubtedly a legislative achievement worth celebrating. However, we must not rest on our laurels. Just as we are about to bring more sunshine into the halls of power with this new law, the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 2943, being considered by the Senate, threatens to cast a shadow over our efforts. Without ever consulting the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has exclusive jurisdiction over FOIA, the Senate Armed Services Committee included provisions in the NDAA that directly undermine central pillars of FOIA. One particularly egregious provision is so broadly drafted that it could create a wholesale carveout of the Department of Defense from our Nation's transparency and accountability regime. If enacted into law, this could empower the Pentagon to withhold a nearly limitless amount of information from the American public. For example, the Pentagon could withhold the legal justifications for drone strikes against U.S. citizens, preventing the American people from knowing the legal basis upon which their government can employ lethal force against them. It could withhold from disclosure documents memorializing civilian killings by U.S. forces, depriving the American people of knowledge about the human cost of wars fought in their name. And if enacted, the Pentagon could withhold information about sexual assaults in the military, masking the true extent of sexual violence against soldiers who risk their lives defending our country. I will continue to oppose inclusion of this provision in the final NDAA. Fifty years from now, on FOIA's centennial anniversary, the next generation will look back to this moment. They will gauge our commitment to creating a government that is open to its people. With today's passage of the bipartisan FOIA Improvement Act, we have chosen to let the sunshine in.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. What is our parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wanted to speak based on my experience over the years as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee--as the ranking member, as the chairman--on something very public that has happened. Many Senators in both parties have appropriately condemned the racist comments recently made by the Republican Party's presumptive Presidential nominee about Judge Curiel. Sadly, these baseless allegations he has made against a distinguished Federal judge come as no surprise. We have seen for months that personal insults are the calling card of the Republican standard bearer. But I would say, similar to what many in both parties have said, anyone seeking the highest office of this great Nation has to understand the fundamental role that judges play in our democracy. The rule of law protects all of us, but only when administered by an independent judiciary. I am deeply troubled by this attack on a sitting Federal judge, but make no mistake--it is not the first, nor will it be the last Republican attack on the independence of our Federal judiciary. This may be the most extreme example, but it is just the latest in a series of Republican actions that seek to undermine and compromise a coequal branch of government. For more than 7 years, Senate Republicans have tried to block judicial nominations through stalling and delaying. They have even distorted the records of the men and women nominated to serve on the Federal bench. This systematic--and it has been systematic--obstruction has hurt courts across the country. But it is not just the courts I am worried about; it is the American people who go to those courts seeking justice. Judicial vacancies have soared under Republican leadership, even though we have dozens of nominations that have bipartisan support, and they are languishing on the Senate floor. Earlier this year, Senate Republicans took their obstruction one totally unprecedented step further. Within hours of the news of Justice Scalia's passing, the Republican leader declared his unilateral refusal to allow anyone to be confirmed to the Supreme Court until the following year, even though he said this in February. It was an extraordinarily partisan decision, and there is no precedent for it in the United States Senate under either Democratic or Republican leadership. Since confirmation hearings began a century ago, never, never has the Senate denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. Recently, two law professors extensively analyzed the history of the Supreme Court. They concluded that there is no historical precedent for this refusal to consider Chief Judge Garland's nomination. In fact, according to their report, there have been 103 prior times in history when an elected President has filled a Supreme Court vacancy prior to the election of the next President and has done so with the advice and consent of the Senate-- 103 times. The Republicans' unprecedented obstruction--and I quote here--``threatens to damage the appointments process in the future and risks significant harm to the Court.'' The Senate Republican leadership has chosen to put the functioning of our highest Court in jeopardy for more than a year. That is the partisan attack on our independent judicial system that more Americans need to understand. When the dust settles on this latest series of accusations by the Republican's standard bearer, I hope the American people remember what this says about his disrespect for the rule of law, what it says about his disrespect for our justice system, what it says about how he will treat those who may disagree with him, and what it says about those who fail to hold him accountable. Our Founders understood that this great Nation needs an independent judiciary. They designed our courts to be insulated from the political whims of the moment. They designed our judiciary to serve as a check on the political branches, including on the power of the President. Can you imagine a future President who does not respect the role judges play? A President who thinks judges should be disqualified from doing their jobs simply based on their race or their gender? For the good of the country, I call on my Republican friends to stop diminishing our independent Federal judiciary. It is too important to be treated like an election-year pawn. Our Federal courts, from the Supreme Court all the way down, deserve to be at full strength, and the Senate needs to treat fairly the dozens of nominees before us, all of whom have earned bipartisan support. It is not fair to attack sitting judges for political gain when they cannot even respond to the attack. It is also not fair to make allegations against judges who, as nominees, cannot respond because Senate Republicans refuse to have a public hearing. If the Republican leaders of this body want to distinguish themselves from the rhetoric of the campaign trail, they should change course here in the Senate. Actions speak louder than words. They should allow Chief Judge Garland a public hearing and a confirmation vote this month. They should allow an up-or-down vote on the 22 judicial nominees who have been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee and who just sit here, waiting for a vote. The American people deserve leaders who respect and support our Federal courts and have the courage to take action. Let me say from a personal point that I remember the day I stood before the Vermont Supreme Court as though it was yesterday. I took my oath as the newest lawyer in Vermont, and I was the youngest lawyer in the State of Vermont. I was very conscious of that, being both the youngest and the newest. But I remember the senior partner of our law firm, who was a well-known conservative Republican throughout the State, and as a young lawyer he told me: Do the best job you can. Always tell the truth. But you do not criticize the judges. You might not like their decisions. You can always appeal them. Maybe you will win; maybe you will lose. But protect the integrity of our courts. They are above politics. They should not be brought into it. Frankly, the attacks against a judge born in Indiana, a man who has defended our Constitution, the people of this country, even when his life was threatened--to attack him, to make racist comments about him, to demean the courts, to demean our judiciary, our Federal system, the best in the world--it made my skin crawl. It was puerile; it was wrong. I hope that all of us in both parties will stand above that and protect the integrity of our Federal judiciary. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia. Amendment No. 4549

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator McCain, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, believes that $602 billion is not enough for the Department of Defense. Rather than reject unnecessary spending for weapons and other programs the Pentagon says it does not want or need, the Senator from Arizona not only says we should fund them, he also proposes to spend another $18 billion on defense. I will leave it to others to defend or contest the assumptions on which Senator McCain's amendment is based. But I do want to speak briefly in support of the second degree amendment offered by the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed of Rhode Island. Because if there is one thing we have learned over and over, it is that protecting U.S. national security is not only about a strong military that can respond when all other options fail. It is also about homeland security, including border control and maintaining critical infrastructure. It is about law enforcement within the United States. It is about cyber security. It is about educating the next generation of Americans and creating jobs that lead to advancements in science and technology. And it is about strengthening the capabilities of foreign partners and acting as a leader in international diplomatic efforts to prevent and respond to threats to global security. The fiscal year 2017 budget allocation for the Department of State and foreign operations is $591 million below fiscal year 2016. That, coupled with the fact that the President's budget underfunds programs for refugees and other victims of disasters by $1 billion, presents us with an untenable budgetary situation. The amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island would help to alleviate this shortfall. While there are many foreign crises, Senator Reed's amendment focuses on one area where the situation is particularly dire. It authorizes $1.9 billion to support the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development to implement their portions of the Integrated Campaign Plan to Counter ISIL. The funds would also support embassy security, as well as additional assistance for Israel, and for Jordan and Lebanon which have been severely impacted by the influx of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. This is directly related to U.S. security interests in the Middle East at a time when the stability of the entire region is under threat. In a June 2 piece in Time Magazine, Retired GEN James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Retired ADM James M. Loy, former Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, wrote that: . . . the security challenges our nation faces today are not the same as when we began our service during the Cold War. . . . Twenty-first century problems require fine scalpels, and the military is a broad sword. We can start by better resourcing and strengthening our own institutions. The State Department, the Peace Corps and USAID are the front lines of keeping our country safe, but they are underfunded and undermanned. Mr. President, we should also remember that the Balanced Budget Act is based on parity. The spending caps we put in place have consequences for both the defense and nondefense sides of the ledger. Yet the Senator from Arizona's one dimensional approach ignores this bipartisan compromise. His amendment ignores the essential roles that development and diplomacy play in national security. It ignores the many domestic components to a strong defense, like a well-trained workforce and reliable infrastructure, like energy independence, like health systems that have the resources to protect the public from infectious diseases, contaminated drinking water, and unsafe food. If you ask the American people whether these investments are as important as more fighter planes and warships, they would emphatically answer ``yes''. And that is why the very name of the Balanced Budget Act includes the word ``balanced''. The amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island should be passed overwhelmingly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the June 2 article I referred to by General Conway and Admiral Loy.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Georgia would yield for me to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following the remarks of the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in this promising time, there are no resources too great to contribute to groundbreaking medical research. Key discoveries, new technologies and techniques, and tremendous leaps in our knowledge and understanding about disease and human health are being made every day. Biomedical research conducted by the Defense Department has been a critical tool in combatting rare diseases here in the United States and across the world. Since 1992, the Department of Defense's Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, CDMRP, has invested billions of dollars in lifesaving research to support our servicemembers and their families, veterans, and all Americans. I am proud to have been involved with starting this program, and I have fought year in and year out to support it. As the Senate continues to debate this year's National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, I am concerned that the Senate's bill includes two harmful provisions that would undermine medical research in the CDMRP and erode these paths to vital progress, taking hope away from millions of Americans. The CDMRP has long led to advancements in the field of medicine. From the development of early-detection techniques for diagnosing cancer and improving ways to restore mobility to patients suffering from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ALS, to advancing treatments for traumatic brain injury and progressing the approval of drugs to treat prostate and breast cancer. For more than two decades, this valuable medical research program has invested over $11 billion in the health of our servicemembers and their families and developed techniques to combat various cancers and the many rare and debilitating diseases faced by so many Americans. I was proud to be there from the start of the CDMRP. Those efforts evolved from linking a bill I coauthored in 1992 to create a national network of cancer registries to assist researchers in understanding breast cancer, with an effort led by former Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, myself, and several others, to redirect military funds to breast cancer research. With the help of the late Pat Barr of the Breast Cancer Network of Vermont and the many others who were the driving force behind national breast cancer networks, the CDMRP received its first appropriations of $210 million for breast cancer research in the 1993 defense budget. Since then, the program has invested $3 billion in breast cancer research, leading to exponential nationwide reductions in the incidence of the disease. It was due to these investments that Pat Barr herself was able to enjoy an active and fulfilling life for decades after her own diagnosis and was able to spend so many years fiercely fighting for the research that has touched, improved or saved millions of lives. The structure of the CDMRP has always advanced biomedical research for servicemembers and their families, as well as the public at large. It is shortsighted and frustrating that two needless provisions have been dropped into this year's NDAA, which would bar the Department of Defense from researching the medical needs of military families and veterans and require grant applications to comply with weapon system acquisition rules instead of the carefully peer-reviewed applications process from which all good science grows. To redefine the definition of who can benefit from lifesaving treatment and research to cancer and other diseases is misguided and counterproductive. If we are to advance medicine in one population, these tools should be made available to everyone. If we change the scope of these long fought efforts, we deny researchers the knowledge they need to carry out science that saves lives. It hinders medical progress for our children and grandchildren. Whereas proponents of these provisions claim they will bring cost savings in the long term, we all know this is simply not true. Disease does not discriminate between servicemember, family member, veteran, or civilian. When it comes to medical research, we shouldn't either. That is why I am proud to support the bipartisan Durbin amendment to strike these unnecessary and hindering provisions from the bill, which would needlessly block access to innovative discoveries in these burgeoning fields of medicine. Biomedical research is a proven tool that brings us closer every day to finding cures and expanding treatments for debilitating conditions across the world. We cannot allow this year's defense authorization bill to deny our veterans, the families of our servicemembers, and other Americans victimized by ravaging disease the promise of such groundbreaking medical knowledge. I urge all Senators to join me in supporting Senator Durbin's amendment and in defeating any provisions in the bill that threaten the continued success of the CDMRP. We must not lose sight of the progress we have made in the fight against breast cancer and other debilitating conditions. This valuable medical research program has paved the way for so many, and we must keep it strong for generations to come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate's final passage today of the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after 3 years of difficult negotiations, reflects the true nature of compromise. I am glad that we have finally come to an agreement to update our country's ineffective and outdated chemical regulatory program. While this is not a perfect bill, I believe that it goes a long way towards protecting American families from dangerous chemicals and serves as a fitting tribute to Senator Lautenberg, who was a tireless public health advocate. This legislation overhauls the 40-year-old, outdated Toxic Substances Control Act and will bring more than 64,000 chemicals under the review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Under the old law, the EPA was required to approve chemicals using a burdensome and ineffective economic cost-benefit analysis, but this reform bill will require the EPA to make a decision based solely? on health and safety concerns. Additionally, the Lautenberg act gives the EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals, requiring safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce and a safety finding for new chemicals before they are allowed on the market. The House bill originally included a provision preempting State authority to regulate specific chemicals. State preemption is a significant concern for Vermont, especially with the discovery of perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA, contaminated water in the communities of North Bennington and Pownal. Unfortunately, due to shortcomings in the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, PFOA was one of many chemicals that had been presumed safe without any requirement for testing or review. While the inclusion of even minimal State preemption action in the final bill is unfortunate, the final compromise largely retains the Senate bill's provisions and allows States 12 to 18 months to enact tougher regulations through a waiver process after the EPA formally announces that it has started the review process for a chemical. There have been assurances to the Vermont congressional delegation from the EPA that Vermont will be able to retain its more stringent regulation of PFOA. I will continue to work with both the State and with the EPA to address PFOA contamination in Vermont. I am pleased that the final bill includes two mercury-specific provisions: The creation of a mercury inventory and the expansion of the export ban to certain mercury compounds. These provisions are sections of the Mercury Use Reduction Act that I was proud to cosponsor in the 112th Congress. Under the mercury inventory provision, the EPA will be required to prepare an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States every 3 years. This data will enhance our ability to reduce the health risks from mercury exposure. The second mercury provision builds upon the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, expanding the export ban currently in effect for elemental mercury to include certain mercury compounds that could be traded to produce elemental mercury in commercial quantities, thus undermining the existing export ban. This reform bill also includes new unprecedented transparency measures thanks to new limits imposed on what can qualify as ``confidential business information.'' The transparency provisions also ensure that State officials, medical professionals, and the public have access to health and safety information. In addition, the bill places time limits and requires justification for any ``confidential business information'' claims that must also be fully justified when made and will expire after 10 years if they are not re-substantiated. Like many Vermonters, I have been concerned for years about the need to improve chemical safety standards in the United States. While I had hope for more reforms in the bill, overall, the bill is a significant improvement over current law. It is a true testament to the groundwork laid by Senator Lautenberg that we have finally heeded the calls from the American people to reform this outdated law and better protect our families from dangerous chemicals.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the formative parts of my life was being a student at Saint Michael's College in Vermont. It was especially so because of the people I met there. One of my most memorable classmates is Dr. Frederick Burkle. Skip Burkle was one who cared greatly about what he was learning and showed moral leadership even then. As students, we both lived in dorms that resembled World War II-era barracks. Fortunately, the living conditions for students at Saint Michael's have improved since then. Last month, now-Dr. Burkle, spoke at Saint Michael's College giving the commencement address. Everyone who was there actually listened to a man who spoke of his own background. He spoke also to the moral compass he has developed both in school and since in the military and in his scientific work. So much could be said about his career. I agree when he said, ``My humanitarian work was the most meaningful I've ever done.'' That makes so much sense because few people I have ever known have begun to approach his life as a humanitarian. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that his speech to the graduating class be printed in the Record because I want those beyond Saint Michael's College to read what an outstanding person has said.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont athletes are no strangers to the U.S. Winter Olympic team. In 2009, the Hartland, VT, raised Kevin Pearce was readying himself to be a member of that team when tragedy struck. During a routine half-pipe training session for the 2010 Olympics, Kevin suffered a traumatic brain injury and was nearly killed when he crashed and struck his head. Since then, Kevin, with the support of his family, has worked to recover and heal from that terrible accident. I have heard firsthand from Kevin how instrumental his younger brother David was in providing positive feedback and encouragement as he completed his physical therapy. Together with his older brother, Adam, Kevin started the Love Your Brain Foundation, which offers support to survivors of traumatic brain injuries, their families, and their caregivers. The Love Your Brain Foundation recently held its free annual retreat in Lincoln, VT. The foundation's mission extends beyond simply providing support to survivors; it also works to raise broader public awareness about the condition. Kevin, Adam, and those who support the mission of the Love Your Brain Foundation believe that traditional treatment options, as well as alternative methods of care, can help survivors of traumatic brain injuries lead full and healthy lives. The foundation's annual retreat enables people from around the country, and some from Canada, who are dealing with traumatic brain injuries to share their own personal stories and to sharpen skills in workshops focused on music, yoga, and nutrition education. Whether the result of sporting accidents or from a vehicle crash, injuries sustained on the hiking trail or the battlefield, there is still much to be learned about traumatic brain injuries and how best to help those who sustain them recover. That is why the work of the Love Your Brain Foundation makes a real difference. Kevin Pearce's life forever changed the day of his accident. He and his family have taken that tragedy and turned it into an opportunity to advance public awareness. His story is one we can all be inspired by, and his road to recovery is one we should all from and seek to emulate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a May 28 article written by Vermont Associated Press reporter Lisa Rathke, entitled ``Injured snowboarder helps brain injury survivors,'' be printed in the Record.