Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I listened to what my good friend from Iowa said about the standards that he is afraid an Obama nominee would utilize. I note that in the dozens and dozens of cases--probably hundreds--that Obama nominees have been voted on, my friend from Iowa did not mention a single case where they applied it to anything but the law, and I suspect that standard would apply to anybody the President would nominate. Now, Mr. President, on another matter, I want to set the record straight. Contrary to the remarks of the Senate majority leader yesterday, Vermont has not recently passed a GE food-labeling law. I mention that because I am old-fashioned enough to like to have things clear and accurate in this Chamber. It was in May 2014--nearly 2 years ago--that after 2 years of debate, more than 50 committee hearings featuring testimony from more than 130 representatives on all sides of the issue, the Vermont Legislature passed and the Governor of Vermont signed into law a disclosure requirement for genetically engineered ingredients in foods. Now, in this body: After one hearing 5 months ago that was only tangentially related to the issue, and without any open debate on the floor, the Republican leadership has decided that it knows better than the State of Vermont. Today we are being asked to tell Vermonters and constituents in other States with similar laws that their opinion, their views, and their own legislative process simply doesn't matter because we can decide on a whim to ignore them. We are actually being asked to tell consumers that their right to know isn't, frankly, theirs at all. I think in my State, in the Presiding Officer's State, and all the other Senators' States, consumers think they have a right to know. Now we are telling them: Not so much. I hear from Vermonters regularly and with growing frequency that they are proud of Vermont's Act 120. It is a law that simply requires food manufacturers to disclose when the ingredients they use are genetically engineered. It doesn't tell them they can't use those ingredients; it simply says: Consumers have a right to know. Tell us what you are doing. Vermonters are concerned and some are actually outraged that the Congress is trying to roll back their right to know what is in the food that they give their families. Vermont is not the only State whose laws are under attack; we just happen to be the State with the fastest approaching deadline for implementation. The bill we are considering today is a hasty reaction--a reaction with no real, open hearing--in response to a 2-year-old law that is set to finally take effect and doesn't fully take effect until the end of this year. Instead of protecting consumers and trying to find a true compromise, this bill continues the status quo and tells the public: We don't want you to have simple access to information about the foods you consume. You don't need to know what is in the food. Trust us. We know better. We, Members of the Senate, know better than you do, so we are not going to let you know what is going on. It is no wonder that people get concerned. Vermont's law and others like it around the country are not an attack on biotechnology. Vermont's law and others like it merely require factual labeling intended to inform consumers. All we are saying is, if you are going to buy something, you ought to know what you are getting. If you want to buy it, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But you ought to be able to know what is in it. Producers of food with GE products have nothing to hide. Let's take Campbell's, which is a multibillion-dollar brand. It is certainly one of the biggest brands in this country. They are already taking steps to label their products. They have to do that to comply with similar laws in other countries. They said: Sure, we will comply, and we will label our packages. Our ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow, has had commitments from other CEOs in the food industry who are ready and able to move ahead with labeling and national disclosure. They actually know that consumers really care about what they are getting. Now the U.S. Senate wants to tell those millions of consumers ``You have no right to know. We are going to block your chance to know, and we are going to keep you from knowing what is in your food.'' And some of these large companies are saying that they agree with the consumer. An asterisk, a symbol, a factual notation on a product label is not going to send our economy into a tailspin and cause food prices to spiral out of control. Again, let's get rid of the rhetoric. I heard some on the floor in this Chamber argue that Vermont's labeling law will cost consumers an average of $1,000 more per year on food purchases. Wow. The second smallest State in the Nation passed a law that simply tells companies to disclose the ingredients in the food consumers are buying, and somehow that law is going to cost consumers $1,000 more per year in food purchases? If the claim wasn't so laughable, we might be able to ignore it. But we found out where that cost estimate came from. It came directly from a study paid for by the Corn Refiners Association and is based on every single food manufacturer in the United States eliminating GE ingredients from their food. We are not asking anybody to eliminate anything--this is not what anyone is asking companies or farmers to do. We are just saying: If I buy something and I am going to feed it to my children--or in my case, my grandchildren--or my wife and I are going to eat it, I would kind of like to know what is in it. All we are asking for is a simple label. At a time when too much of the national discourse is hyperbolic at best, why don't we set an example for the rest of the country? Try a little truth in this Chamber. GE labeling should be the least of our woes. In fact, the bill before us today is an attack on another Vermont law. That law has been on the books for only, well, 10 years. Oh my God, the sky is falling. It is actually similar to a law that is on the books in Virginia these are genetically engineered seed labeling laws. Farmers in both Vermont and Virginia have benefited from this law, and those selling seed to other States have complied with it. Why preempt State laws that have worked well for 10 years and with which companies are already complying? Are we going to do that because one or two companies that are willing to spend a great deal of money feel otherwise? GE labeling is about disclosure. It gives consumers more information, more choices, and more control on what they feed themselves and their families. If we hide information from the consumers, we limit a measure of accountability for producers and marketers. I don't know what people are trying to hide. Our producers and marketers in Vermont are proud to showcase not just the quality of their products but the methods by which they are produced. We are not blocking our markets to anybody, whether it is GE foods or otherwise. If it works, we ought to give people a choice. Why have 100 people here say: Oh no, we know better than all of you. I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Merkley's bill. It provides for a strong national disclosure standard. It would give manufacturers a whole variety of options to disclose the presence of GE ingredients in their food, and they can pick and choose how they do it. I am equally grateful to Senator Stabenow. She has fought hard to negotiate a pathway toward a national disclosure standard. We should not move forward with this bill without an open and full debate. We shouldn't just say to consumers throughout the country: We know better than you. I am not going to support any bill that takes away the right of Vermont or any State to legislate in a way that advances consumer awareness. If we don't want to have a patchwork of State disclosure laws, then let's move in the direction of setting a national mandatory standard. Some of the biggest food companies in this country are moving forward and complying with Vermont's law. This week is Sunshine Week, so let's hope the Senate rejects efforts to close doors and not let the American public know what is in their food. I hope they will oppose advancing this hastily crafted legislation and work towards a solution that actually lets the consumers in Texas, Iowa, Vermont, or anywhere else know what is in their food. I see the distinguished majority deputy leader on the floor. I have more to say, but I will save it for later.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Iowa for his remarks. As he knows, I have worked for years on improving FOIA along with my friend, the senior Senator from Texas. We are celebrating Sunshine Week, a time to pay tribute to one of our Nation's most basic values--the public's right to know. Our very democracy is built on the idea that our government should not operate in secret. James Madison, a staunch defender of open government and whose birthday we celebrate each year during Sunshine Week, wisely noted that for our democracy to succeed, people ``must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.'' It is only through transparency and access to information that the American people can arm themselves with the information they need to hold our government accountable. We are also celebrating the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, our Nation's premier transparency law. I was actually at the National Archives yesterday, and I looked at the actual bill signed into law in 1966 by then-President Johnson, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and Speaker John McCormack, all who were here long before I was. I was thinking that, 50 years ago, the Freedom of Information Act became the foundation on which all our sunshine and transparency policies rest, so I can think of no better way to celebrate both Sunshine Week and the 50th Anniversary of FOIA than by passing the FOIA Improvement Act. This bipartisan bill, which I coauthored with Senator Cornyn, codifies the principle that President Obama laid out in his 2009 executive order. He asked all Federal agencies to adopt a ``presumption of openness'' when considering the release of government information under FOIA. That follows the spirit of FOIA put into place by President Clinton, repealed by President Bush, and reinstated as one of President Obama's first acts in office, but I think all of us felt we should put the force of law behind the presumption of openness so that the next President, whomever he or she might be, cannot change that without going back to Congress. Congress must establish a transparency standard that will remain for future administrations to follow--and that is what our bill does. We should not leave it to the next President to decide how open the government should be. We have to hold all Presidents and their administrations accountable to the highest standard. I do not think my friend, the senior Senator from Texas, will object if I mention that in our discussions we have both said words to the effect that we need FOIA, whether it is a Democratic or Republican administration. I do not care who controls the administration. When they do things they think are great, they will release a sheath of press releases about them. However, it is FOIA that lets us know when they are not doing things so well. The government works better if every administration is held to the same standard. The FOIA Improvement Act also provides the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, with additional independence and authority to carry out its work. The Office of Government and Information Services, created by the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act in 2007, serves as the FOIA ombudsman to the public and helps mediate disputes between FOIA requesters and agencies. Our bill will provide OGIS with new tools to help carry out its mission and ensure that OGIS can communicate freely with Congress so we can better evaluate and improve FOIA going forward. The FOIA Improvement Act will also make FOIA easier to use by establishing an online portal through which the American people can submit FOIA requests, and it will ensure more information is available to the public by requiring that frequently requested records be made available online. Last Congress, the FOIA Improvement Act, which Senator Cornyn and I wrote, passed the Senate unanimously. The House failed to take it up. So as the new Congress came in, to show we are bipartisan with a change from Democratic leadership to Republican leadership, Senator Cornyn and I moved quickly to reintroduce our legislation in the new Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved our bill in February 2015. Sometimes it is hard for the Senate Judiciary Committee to unanimously agree that the sun rises in the east, but on this issue, we came together. Our bill has been awaiting Senate action for over a year. I urge its swift passage today. I want the House to take it up. I want the President to sign it into law. I am proud to stand here with my good friend, the senior Senator from Texas.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator Cornyn and I have worked together to improve and protect the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA--our Nation's premiere transparency law--for many years and look forward to continuing this partnership. The bill we passed today codifies the principle that President Obama laid out in his 2009 Executive order in which he asked all Federal agencies to adopt a ``presumption of openness'' when considering the release of government information under FOIA. This policy embodies the very spirit of FOIA. By putting the force of law behind the presumption of openness, Congress can establish a transparency standard that will remain for generations to come. Importantly, codifying the presumption of openness will help reduce the perfunctory withholding of documents through the overuse of FOIA's exemptions. It requires agencies to consider whether the release of particular documents will cause any foreseeable harm to an interest the applicable exemption is meant to protect. If it will not, the documents should be released.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank Senator Cornyn for his comments, and I agree with his characterization of the intent behind the 25-year sunset and the deliberative process privilege. This new sunset should not form the basis for agencies to argue that the deliberative process privilege somehow has heightened protection before the 25-year sunset takes effect. Similarly, the deliberative process privilege sunset is not intended to create an inference that the other privileges--including attorney-client and attorney work product, just to name a few--are somehow heightened in strength or scope because they lack a statutory sunset or that we believe they should not be released after 25 years. Courts should not read the absence of a sunset for these other privileges as Congress's intent to strengthen or expand them in any way.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Texas. He has worked tirelessly on this, and I think we both agree that the best government is one where you know what they are doing.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on another matter--and I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for not seeking recognition immediately. I ask unanimous consent that as soon as I finish, I can yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the woman in the photograph next to me is Berta Caceres, an indigenous Honduran environmental activist who was murdered in her home on March 3. Ms. Caceres was internationally admired, and in the 12 days since her death and since my remarks on the morning after and on the day of her funeral on March 5, there has been an outpouring of grief, outrage, remembrances, denunciations, and declarations from people in Honduras and around the world. Among the appalling facts that few people may have been aware of before this atrocity is that more than 100 environmental activists have reportedly been killed in Honduras just since 2010. It is an astonishing number that previously received little attention. One might ask, therefore, why Ms. Caceres' death has caused such a visceral, explosive reaction. Berta Caceres, the founder and general coordinator of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, COPINH, was an extraordinary leader whose courage and commitment, in the face of constant threats against her life, inspired countless people. For that she was awarded the prestigious 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize. Her death is a huge loss for her family, her community, and for environmental justice in Honduras. As her family and organization have said, it illustrates ``the grave danger that human rights defenders face, especially those who defend the rights of indigenous people and the environment against the exploitation of [their] territories.'' This is by no means unique to Honduras. It is a global reality. Indigenous people are the frequent targets of threats, persecution, and criminalization by state and non-state actors in scores of countries. Why is this? Why are the world's most vulnerable people who traditionally live harmoniously with the natural environment so often the victims of such abuse and violence? There are multiple reasons, including racism and other forms of prejudice, but I put greed at the top of the list. It is greed that drives governments and private companies, as well as criminal organizations, to recklessly pillage natural resources above and below the surface of land inhabited by indigenous people, whether it is timber, oil, coal, gold, diamonds, or other valuable minerals. Acquiring and exploiting these resources requires either the acquiescence or the forcible removal of the people who live there. In Berta Caceres' case, the threats and violence against her and other members of her organization were well documented and widely known, but calls by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for protective measures were largely ignored. This was particularly so because the Honduran Government and the company that was constructing the hydroelectric project that Ms. Caceres and COPINH had long opposed were complicit in condoning and encouraging the lawlessness that Ms. Caceres and her community faced every day. The perpetrators of this horrific crime have not been identified. Since March 3, there has been a great deal of legitimate concern expressed about the treatment of Gustavo Castro, the Mexican citizen who was wounded and is an eyewitness, and who has ample reason to fear for his life in a country where witnesses to crime are often stalked and killed. In the meantime, for reasons as yet unexplained, the Honduran Government suspended, for 15 days, Castro's lawyer's license to practice. That concern extends to the initial actions of the Honduran police who seemed predisposed to pin the attack on associates of Ms. Caceres. This surprised no one who is familiar with Honduras's ignominious police force. The fact is we do not yet know who is responsible, but a professional, comprehensive investigation is essential, and the Honduran Government has neither the competence nor the reputation for integrity to conduct it themselves. There have been countless demands for such an investigation. Like her family, I have urged that the investigation be independent, including the participation of international experts. With rare exception, criminal investigations in Honduras are incompetently performed and incomplete. They almost never result in anyone being punished for homicide. As Ms. Caceres's family has requested, the Inter-American Commission is well suited to provide that independence and expertise, but the Honduran authorities have not sought that assistance just as they refused the family's request for an independent expert to observe the autopsy. The family has also asked that independent forensic experts be used to analyze the ballistics and other evidence. The internationally respected Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation, which has received funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development for many years, would be an obvious option, but the Honduran Government has so far rejected this request, too. Like Ms. Caceres's family, I have also urged that the concession granted to the company for the Agua Zarca hydroelectric project be cancelled. It has caused far too much controversy, divisiveness, and suffering within the Lenca community and the members of Ms. Caceres's family and organization. It clearly cannot coexist with the indigenous people of Rio Blanco who see it as a ``permanent danger'' to their safety and way of life. It is no wonder that two of the original funders of the project have abandoned it. The Dutch, Finnish, and German funders should follow their example. This whole episode exemplifies the irresponsibility of undertaking such projects without the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous inhabitants who are affected by them. Instead, a common practice of extractive industries, energy companies, and governments has been to divide local communities by buying off one faction, calling it ``consultation,'' and insisting that it justifies ignoring the opposing views of those who refuse to be bought. When a majority of local inhabitants continue to protest against the project as a violation of their longstanding territorial rights, the company and its government benefactors often respond with threats and provocations, and community leaders are vilified, arrested, and even killed. Then representatives of the company and government officials profess to be shocked and saddened and determined to find the perpetrators, and years later, the crime remains unsolved and is all but forgotten. Last year, President Hernandez, Minister of Security Corrales, and other top Honduran officials made multiple trips to Washington to lobby for Honduras' share of a U.S. contribution to the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity of the Northern Triangle of Central America. Among other things, they voiced their commitment to human rights and their respect for civil society, although not surprisingly they had neglected to consult with representatives of Honduran civil society about the contents of the plan. The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act includes $750 million to support the plan, of which a significant portion is slated for Honduras. I supported those funds. In fact I argued for an amount exceeding the levels approved by the House and Senate appropriations committees because I recognize the immense challenges that widespread poverty, corruption, violence, and impunity pose for those countries. Some of these deeply rooted problems are the result of centuries of self-inflicted inequality and brutality perpetrated by an elite class against masses of impoverished people. But the United States also had a role in supporting and profiting from that corruption and injustice, just as today the market for illegal drugs in our country fuels the social disintegration and violence that is causing the people of Central America to flee north. I also had a central role in delineating the conditions attached to U.S. funding for the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity, and there is strong, bipartisan support in Congress for those conditions. They are fully consistent with what the Northern Triangle leaders pledged to do and what the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development agree is necessary if the plan is to succeed. I mention this because the assassination of Berta Caceres brings U.S. support for the plan sharply into focus. That support is far from a guarantee. It is why a credible, thorough investigation is so important. It is why those responsible for her death and the killers of other Honduran social activists and journalists must be brought to justice. It is why Agua Zarca and other such projects that do not have the support of the local population should be abandoned. And it is why the Honduran Government must finally take seriously its responsibility to protect the rights of journalists, human rights defenders, other social activists, COPINH, and civil society organizations that peacefully advocate for equitable economic development and access to justice. Only then should we have confidence that the Honduran Government is a partner the United States can work with in addressing the needs and protecting the rights of all the people of Honduras and particularly those who have borne the brunt of official neglect and malfeasance for so many years. Madam President, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was disturbed to hear Senator McConnell's remarks on the floor last week questioning my commitment to supporting survivors of human trafficking. I think anyone who follows our efforts to stop this terrible crime knows the ridiculousness of that claim. I was particularly surprised to hear it coming from Senator McConnell who, along with Senator Grassley and other Republicans, voted against reauthorizing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Violence Against Women Act--two watershed laws that changed the way this country approaches human trafficking and other violence against women. I am deeply committed to supporting victims of crime and have been for my entire career. I started out as a prosecutor, and I have never forgotten the terrible crime scenes I saw. Those images serve as a constant reminder of how important it is to do all we can to support survivors and their families. And those efforts must include a commitment to providing real money--not just lip service--to support survivors as they rebuild their lives. That is why last Congress, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I led the effort to reauthorize the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act. That historic, bipartisan legislation--and the funds it authorized--signaled our country's commitment to ending all forms of human trafficking, both here at home and around the world. I also led the effort to pass the historic Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act, which included vital updates to help women on college campuses, tribal lands, immigrants, and new protections for those in the LGBT community to ensure that every victim in need gets the lifesaving services they deserve. These impactful laws were enacted 3 years ago, and they are making a real difference in peoples' lives. Senator McConnell may have forgotten about what we did in 2013 to greatly expand protections for victims of violence, but I have not. I will continue fighting for our most vulnerable populations and work across the aisle to make real progress. I was glad to see the Senate return its attention to the issue of human trafficking this Congress with the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which I supported. However, the Senate should have also passed my bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, critical legislation to prevent trafficking in the first place. That bill would authorize funding to provide shelter and services for some of our most vulnerable kids, kids who are literally walking prey for traffickers. Unfortunately, Senators McConnell and Grassley opposed that effort. Republicans cannot pretend to stand up for the rights of trafficking victims while leaving these children behind. They had a chance to help and they said no. That is not leadership. Senator McConnell also suggested that I had somehow ignored the opioid epidemic gripping our Nation and my State of Vermont and let the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act ``languish'' in the Judiciary Committee. Again, anyone who knows my record is aware of how focused I am on helping ensure that communities are getting the resources they need to respond to this devastating problem. I have been holding Senate Judiciary Committee field hearings on heroin and opioid addiction since 2008. Long before the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA, was introduced, I worked to deliver funding--real dollars--for antiheroin task forces across the country. And when we did first introduce the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act in September 2014, I was an original cosponsor of that legislation and have worked tirelessly to see it enacted. At the same time, I have worked to change the focus from imposing harsh and arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences on those who abuse drugs to actually providing treatment. I know that bumper sticker slogans and the ``war on drugs'' are failed approaches. It is unfortunate that Republicans in the Senate are unwilling to put real money behind CARA to ensure its programs will succeed. Just last week, Senator McConnell led the Republican opposition to Senator Shaheen's amendment that would have provided emergency supplemental appropriations. Ending this crisis is going to cost money, and it is disappointing that Senator McConnell and other Republicans are not willing to dedicate the resources that are so desperately needed by law enforcement and health care providers throughout this county. Passing one bill in one Congress is not the answer to addressing the very serious problems facing our communities. It takes a sustained commitment. I am proud of my record to support victims of human trafficking and communities struggling to respond to the opioid epidemic. Unfortunately, too often, Republicans have blocked efforts to provide real funding for these priorities. I will not stop working until we are able to end these scourges.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 8 years ago, I convened the first in a series of hearings in Vermont where the Senate Judiciary Committee examined the growing problem of drug addiction in rural communities. As we gathered in Rutland in March 2008, the mayor noted in his opening statement that there was a part of him that wished that the committee did not have to be there in his city that day. He wished that his community was not facing the scourge of drug abuse and addiction that was creeping across rural America. But in true Vermont fashion, Mayor Louras and the other community leaders, law enforcement officials, and health professionals who gathered with us that day in March 2008 did not shy away from the problem. Instead, we had an honest discussion about how to fight this problem together and about how the Federal Government could help. Over the past 8 years, we have continued this important conversation at other hearings I convened in St. Albans, in Barre, and again in Rutland. We have heard testimony from community leaders and officials throughout Vermont about the growing problem of opioid addiction. In St. Albans, for example, Dr. Fred Holmes told us tragic stories about teenagers getting hooked on OxyContin and other opioids and then committing crimes to support their habits. These stories have been heartbreaking. Despite these difficult circumstances, I am struck by the determination of Vermonters to come together to address this crisis-- and to do so not just through law enforcement and locking people up, but through comprehensive prevention, treatment, and recovery programs. In Rutland, for example, Project VISION brings together city officials, law enforcement, and social services to work together, all in the same office, to confront the problems of drug abuse and related crime. What they have found is that something as simple as sharing office space improves communication and coordination and begins to turn the tide. Mary Alice McKenzie, executive director of the Boys & Girls Club, testified at the most recent hearing in Rutland about children who are neglected because their parents are opioid addicts and how there is sometimes no money for food because parents have spent it on drugs. Kids are also becoming addicts at younger and younger ages. The Boys & Girls Club has responded by extending evening hours and staying open on Saturdays. They now serve dinner 6 nights a week and drive kids home after dark. They provide safety for these children. They are also working with schools and public health officials to provide education and prevent them from getting swept up in that world. At that same hearing, Vermont's health department commissioner, Harry Chen, described to us Vermont's innovative and successful ``hub and spoke'' treatment model. This system has two levels of care, with the patients' needs determining the appropriate level. Although challenges remain and waiting lists are still too long, I believe this system can be a model for the Nation's response to the opioid crisis. Earlier this year, we heard powerful testimony from Governor Shumlin about the progress that Vermont has made because of this comprehensive approach--but also about the work that still remains to be done. Vermont's focused and persistent efforts are now drawing attention and replication in communities across the Nation. In many ways, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, builds upon the work in Vermont. To specifically address the opioid problem in Vermont and other rural areas, I made sure that CARA will help get the overdose-reversal drug naloxone into more of our rural communities. Getting naloxone into more hands will save lives. I also ensured that CARA includes a new Federal grant program to fund expanded treatment options for heroin and opioid abuse and Federal funding to expand State-led anti-heroin task forces. I am proud to be a cosponsor of CARA, and I am glad to see the Senate pass this bill. This bill is historic because it marks the first time that we are treating addiction like the public health crisis that it is. We are not imposing harsh and arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences on those who abuse drugs. We are not condemning the poor and sick among us to be warehoused in our Nation's jails. Today I am hopeful that we have finally learned our lesson from the failed war on drugs. But our work is not done. The Senate missed an opportunity to provide real funding for this effort when Republicans blocked Senator Shaheen's amendment that would have provided for emergency supplemental appropriations, so we need to keep fighting to ensure that we provide the necessary resources to support implementation of this bill. In Vermont and across this country, there are few issues more pressing than opioid and heroin addiction, and I will not stop working with people throughout our State to help fight this epidemic.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today is the 51st anniversary of Bloody Sunday--a horrible abuse of American citizens that occurred in Selma, AL. Each year we commemorate the events of that fateful day, because it helped transform our Nation and proved to be a catalyst for the passage of the Voting Rights Act. For the last two years, this commemoration has been a sad reminder of what five justices did to that cornerstone civil rights law. In Shelby County v. Holder a narrow majority of the Court drove a stake through the heart of the Voting Rights Act when it struck down the coverage formula for its preclearance provision in Section 5. I mentioned that because under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Federal Government has the authority to examine and prevent racially discriminatory voting changes from going into effect before those changes disenfranchise voters in covered jurisdictions. By striking down the coverage formula that determined which States and jurisdictions were subject to Federal review, the Court rendered Section 5 unenforceable. Unfortunately, even though almost every single Republican and Democrat in the House and Senate voted for the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court, by a 1-vote margin--notwithstanding that 535 of us had voted--drove a stake through the heart of the Voting Rights Act by striking down the coverage formula for its preclearance provisions in Section 5. Since then Republican Governors and State legislatures have exploited Shelby County by enacting sweeping voter suppression laws that disproportionately prevent or discourage black Americans from voting. This includes the State of Alabama, which not only enacted a burdensome photo identification law after the decision, but then they made it even harder for many of its black citizens to obtain identification when the State closed more than 30 DMV offices in mostly poor, minority neighborhoods last October. It is hard to fathom that in 2016, well over 100 years after the Civil War and passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, and after transformative moments, such as Bloody Sunday, that States would continue to pass laws and take actions that would undermine black Americans' rights to vote. This past weekend, Congresswoman Terri Sewell, who represents the 7th District of Alabama--which includes Shelby County, Birmingham, and Selma--held a public forum in Birmingham to examine the harm caused by the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision. Several witnesses at that forum testified that the State had made it harder for their citizens to vote, and that a disproportionate number of those citizens were minorities. They also spoke about the urgent need to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Congressman John Lewis, our great civil rights hero, was in attendance, and it is heartbreaking to realize that so many of the gains that he was able to help secure through his civil rights activism are being undone today. Despite the compelling testimony about the urgent need for Congress to address voting rights, most Republicans in Congress continue to disregard the urgency of this issue. More than two and a half years since the Shelby County decision, and despite the introduction of two separate bipartisan bills that would restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act, the Republican chairs of the Judiciary Committee from both houses of Congress refuse to even hold a hearing on this issue. Instead, Republican leaders have only paid lip service to the issue, supporting the award of congressional medals for brave civil rights leaders. That is not enough. Recently, the Speaker of the House stated that he was supportive of one of the bipartisan voting rights restoration bills. In the same statement he explained that nothing could be done because the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee refuses to take up the bill or to have a hearing. This is not leadership. The American people expect more than talk. This pattern of Republican obstruction reached unprecedented heights recently when a few Senate Republicans declared that they would not even hold a hearing for the next Supreme Court nominee even before the President has even announced a nominee. Republicans have apparently decided that rather than be transparent and hold public hearings and votes on the most significant issues of the day--including voting rights, comprehensive immigration reform, and the next Supreme Court nominee--they would simply shut down the process. Instead they are making important and timely decisions affecting hundreds of millions of Americans behind closed doors. It is not good for our democracy and it is not good for the American people. We need hearings and a vote on the voting rights bills. And we need a hearing and a vote on the next Supreme Court nominee. We remember what came to be known as Bloody Sunday because the blood that was shed led to greater democratic participation and a more inclusive union. What Republicans are doing now undermines the hard-fought legacy of Bloody Sunday and the Civil Rights Movement. For the good of the Nation, I urge that Republican leaders in the Senate and the House change that shameful course. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote to bring us one step closer to passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act or CARA. Last week I suggested that we stay in session and do our job on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday so we could finish the bill, but I understand the Republican leadership wanted to take a long weekend, so we did not finish it, but now we can. I am a cosponsor of this bill because it addresses the growing problem of prescription opioid and heroin addiction that has had devastating impacts on communities all over the country, including my home State of Vermont. This bill represents an important shift in the way we approach the issue of substance abuse and addiction. It sets a comprehensive framework to reduce opioid deaths, prevent addiction, and improve treatment. It will also help those who suffer from opioid use disorders achieve recovery, and perhaps most importantly this bill reflects the consensus of this body that the Nation cannot arrest or jail its way out of this addiction problem. Since my first field hearing in Rutland, VT, on this topic in 2008, I have been inspired by how my fellow Vermonters across the political spectrum have shaped the discussion about this public health crisis and how they have served as a model for communities across the Nation. I certainly feel this bill represents important progress, but we cannot be satisfied with just passing this one bill. We also need a significant commitment of targeted funding so we can carry out and implement the programs authorized by this bill. It is one thing to say we are going to authorize these great programs even though we are not going to pay for them, but don't you feel good that we authorized them. Now we can all go home and tell our constituents we care. We authorized it, but we will not pay for it. At least Senator Shaheen stood and proposed an amendment that would have provided emergency funding to do just that. Her vital amendment had the support of a majority in this body, but Republican Senators blocked it from being considered and adopted. It is unfortunate because Senator Shaheen's amendment would have provided the resources to strengthen both the law enforcement and public health components that would have delivered the necessary resources to health care professionals all over the country who are overwhelmed by a need they cannot meet. I believe there is bipartisan agreement that we have to stop the loss of life caused by opioid abuse. There should be a bipartisan agreement to provide the money necessary to do so. There is an opportunity to make the bill better. Many Members have filed amendments to improve CARA. A number of amendments were filed by both Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, the Republican leader has not allowed us to have an open amendment process, and contrary to what he said earlier, a number of Senators have been blocked from offering their amendments. I tried to work--and did in a bipartisan way with Senators Grassley, Whitehouse, and Klobuchar--to consider this bill and report it to the Senate floor. We have continued our bipartisan effort to reach agreement on a number of amendments that could improve the bill. I hope those important bipartisan efforts will continue this week so we can consider these amendments and have final passage this week. Let us have an open process. These amendments can be voted on up or down or adopted by consent. It is one thing for us to talk about what we want to do, it is another thing to have the courage to vote for it. If we do not vote for it, we are just voting maybe. Let us vote yes or no. As we work toward Senate passage of CARA, our goal should be to make this the best bill possible. Addiction is nothing less than an epidemic and CARA treats it like one. This bill demonstrates that Congress now sees addiction for what it is--a public health crisis all over our country. We need to equip our communities with both the programs and resources they need to get ahead of addiction. CARA will save lives. It is worth putting the money in there to make sure it works. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the American people sent all of us here to solve problems, to strengthen and support our Nation and its people, and to help make ours a more perfect union. They expect us to govern responsibly and to work together to improve our communities. This week we are considering the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. Few problems in our country have had as devastating an impact on American families as opioid addiction. From Vermont, to Kentucky, to Ohio, communities across the country are struggling, and they are reaching for answers and for help. It is clear there is a strong, bipartisan interest in Congress to address the problems associated with opioid addiction. The legislation before us is a good bill. It demonstrates that Congress now sees addiction for what it is--a public health crisis. But CARA will not by itself pull our communities out of addiction. CARA is an unfunded framework. Addiction is too knotted and massive a challenge to address with a mere change in philosophy. We cannot pretend that solving a problem as large as opioid addiction costs nothing. The emergency funding amendment by Senator Shaheen is an essential part of this effort. It puts real dollars behind the rhetoric to ensure that the carefully crafted programs authorized in CARA can actually be implemented and can succeed. Congress has approved much larger emergency funding bills in the past. Just last year we approved more than $5 billion to combat the Ebola outbreak in Africa, far from our shores. To be clear, I believe this funding was appropriate. But we must now turn our attention to the public health crisis here at home, in our own communities. More than 40,000 Americans are dying each year from drug overdoses. In Vermont, State leaders like Governor Shumlin have tackled opioid addiction with an all-hands-on-deck approach. Other community leaders, like the Boys & Girls Club of Burlington, have done wonderful work expanding education efforts to prevent young people from becoming addicted in the first place. I am proud of their efforts, but they will be the first to acknowledge that many challenges remain. As in other States, addiction has spread across our State, and more Vermonters are dying from drug overdoses. Several have died while on waitlists for treatment. Addiction is nothing less than an epidemic, and to solve it, this crisis must be treated as an epidemic. More resources for targeted efforts will save lives and help stabilize families, neighborhoods, and communities. That is why we need Senator Shaheen's amendment. This amendment would have provided resources to strengthen both the law enforcement and public health components needed to tackle the crisis. Her legislation would have delivered support to State and local law enforcement agencies, anti-heroin task forces, and treatment alternatives to incarceration. It would have also delivered necessary resources to health care professionals who are overwhelmed by a need they cannot meet. No one should be turned away when seeking treatment for the terrible disease of addiction. If cancer patients were refused treatment, we would not hesitate to act, and this should be no different. We must make a real investment in combatting this ravaging epidemic, and the Shaheen amendment would have ensured that. Actions speak louder than words, action requires resources, and budgets are where we set priorities. The American people are watching and waiting. It is time for us to stop talking and start acting. It is time for us to start investing in our own country, our own communities' needs, and our own people. Vote Explanation

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator may well recall--he was here when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 during President Bush's administration, the ranking member was then Senator Hatch--we put together an agreement about how the committee would consider Supreme Court nominees. We wrote: The Judiciary Committee's traditional practice has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the committee has completed its consideration. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee. Does the Senator recall that at that time the Republican leader of the Senate, Senator Lott, even read that letter into the Record to say that this is the way the Senate should operate?

Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with other Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee for 30 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one, so we fully understand, we are perfectly willing to have--even though we don't hold Judiciary Committee meetings every week as we used to--we would be perfectly willing to have a meeting that was not in a backroom but open so the press would see it. It is important to have such meetings open, for the press and anybody who wants to come in. It is unfortunate that we have had--with the Supreme Court vacancy--there has been a closed-door, back-room meeting. That is when a small handful of Republican Senators decided, with the Republican leader, to say the President should not follow his constitutional duty and nominate a Supreme Court nominee, and, in an unprecedented fashion, the Senate Judiciary Committee would not follow its constitutional obligation of advice and consent. In that small closed-door meeting, it was decided that Senators should not follow the solemn oath they have taken on this floor when they say they will uphold the Constitution ``so help me God.'' We have had enough closed-door meetings, especially closed-door meetings that tell us to violate an oath where they said ``so help me God'' and to not follow the Constitution. I think it is important that we have these meetings since the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. There is certainly a disagreement over how to move forward in filling the Supreme Court vacancy, but I think the American people want us to do our job. This is a time we should have an open conversation about it, not closed-door meetings, where afterward self-serving press releases are issued, which may or may not accurately represent what went on in those meetings. The American people deserve to have us do our job, hear us discuss and debate the committee's next steps in fulfilling our constitutional duty. Last night, my friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, decided to postpone this meeting rather than have it in public. Now we have to wait another week before the committee can sit down in public so the American people can discuss an issue that is so important. The move to postpone today's meeting is troubling, given that last week's meeting-- a meeting that should have happened with the participation of all the committee members in a room open to the public, showing us doing our jobs--was also postponed. So we didn't have a meeting in public. We weren't doing our job. Instead, last week the committee's Republicans decided to meet behind closed doors--the public couldn't follow what they were doing--without any Democrats so they could hatch a partisan plan to obstruct any effort to consider the next nominee to the Supreme Court and do that no matter what the Constitution says. There was no consultation with any Democrats serving on the committee. There was no public discussion of any kind. Certainly, in my 40 years here, whether Republicans have been in control of the Senate or Democrats, I cannot think of any precedent for this kind of closed-door discussion of how we avoid doing our job. Instead, 11 Republican Senators unilaterally decided the Senate would abdicate its responsibility and block all of us from fulfilling our constitutional obligation of advice and consent. They block all of us from doing our job. Supreme Court nominations are a unique priority for the Judiciary Committee. Since I have served in the Senate--I voted on every member currently on the Supreme Court and on several who have since retired-- the Judiciary Committee has always held hearings on Supreme Court nominees, and they have always reported them to the full Senate for consideration. When I took over as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001, George W. Bush was President. I did not agree with much of what his administration was already doing--I was very frank in discussions with President Bush to tell him that--and I was not sure if I would approve of any Supreme Court nominations he might have the opportunity to make, but even with those reservations, I wrote a letter with then-ranking member Senator Hatch memorializing an agreement we reached--which Republicans gave their word to follow--about how the Judiciary Committee would consider Supreme Court nominees. In that letter that Senator Hatch and I wrote, he gave his word and I gave mine: The Judiciary Committee's traditional practice has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the Committee has completed its considerations. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Hatch and I gave our word on that. The Republican leader at the time, Senator Lott, then read our letter into the Congressional Record to ensure that it was available to all Americans to see, and I took the word of Republicans in this body that they believed what they were saying. It showed the long understanding of the Senate Judiciary Committee's commitment to an open, fair process, even when the majority does not agree with the opposing party's President. The priority of the Judiciary Committee has afforded Supreme Court nominees is exemplified by its consideration of two of the most contentious nominations to the Court: Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. In both instances, then-Chairman Biden moved the nominations to the full Senate, even though a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee did not support the nominations. In other words, the majority did not support the nomination, but we still moved them forward. In Robert Bork's case, a committee vote to report out his nomination favorably failed by a vote of 5 to 9, with both Republicans and Democrats voting against it. At the time, the Reagan administration was quietly asking him to withdraw his name, but he still wanted to have a vote, and the committee then voted to report his nomination with an unfavorable recommendation. He was reported out unfavorably by a vote of 9 to 5 so the full Senate could consider him. Some Democrats voted for him. Many Democrats voted against him. Some Republicans voted for him. Many Republicans voted against him, but he had his vote. In Clarence Thomas's case, the committee voted to report out his nomination favorably. That failed by a vote of 7 to 7. The committee then voted to report his nomination without recommendation, and by 13 to 1 we voted to give him a chance to be heard on the floor. Even when a majority of committee members have not supported a nominee, as was the case with Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas, we have not denied the full Senate--or the American people--the opportunity to debate and consider a Supreme Court nominee. We were not going to say this Senate shouldn't do its job. The Judiciary Committee has a strong tradition of transparency. I remember when I first came on, there was one of the most conservative Senators as chairman, Jim Eastland. We have done it with all who have been chairs. I believe the American people have a right to see and hear what we are doing. They have a right to know whether we are doing our job. They have a right to weigh in on the decisions we make. Nowhere does transparency matter more than a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in our land. You can't decide a question of somebody going on the highest Court of our land, with a lifetime appointment, and do it with a small group behind closed doors. That is not doing our job. There is no place for backroom deals for something so important. Public confirmation hearings are a vital part of our democracy. That is not just about us. Public hearings are how Americans meet the nominee. Public hearings allow every American the opportunity to watch and listen to this person whose decisions may have a lasting impact on their lives. Ultimately, what this small group of Republican members of the committee meeting behind closed doors unilaterally decided last week was to reject the longstanding tradition of public hearings. In doing so, they are denying Americans--all Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike--the chance to participate in the consideration of a nominee. They deny Americans a chance to have us do our job. The Judiciary Committee is one of the busiest in the Senate. It considers some of the most consequential issues affecting millions of Americans. When we commit ourselves to what brought us here, to do our job and work together for our constituents, we can achieve great things. This is what happened 3 years ago when the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform. After six hearings and 3 weeks of markups--many lasting until very late at night--each of the 18 Senators serving on the committee participated in the process to draft that legislation. I allowed everybody who had an amendment to bring it up. We would go back and forth--one Democrat, one Republican, back and forth. We did this day after day, late at night sometimes, but all in public. It was all covered by television. Not all of us supported the bill, but all of us had a chance to debate and amend it. Even the staunchest opponents of the legislation, including some in the Chamber right now, praised the Judiciary Committee's transparent and fair process for consideration of that bill. A Vermont editorial at the time called our committee proceedings--because they were open, because everybody had a chance to participate, because the American people could see what we were doing, because we were doing our job--``a lesson in democracy.'' I think it is time for a refresher course. The legal issues before the Supreme Court are significant, and its importance in our constitutional democracy cannot be overstated, nor can the responsibility of both the President to follow his constitutional duty to nominate and the Judiciary Committee's responsibility to fairly consider a nominee to serve in the highest Court in the land. It is with deep concern I come to the floor. I urge my friend, the chairman, and all members of the Judiciary Committee to renew their commitment to transparency and regular order. I ask that you withhold judgment. I ask those who met behind closed doors to withhold your judgment until you can review the record of whomever the President nominates. I ask you to give the next nominee to the Supreme Court a fair hearing, as we have done in this body--the body should be the conscience of the Nation--for the last 100 years. The American people expect us to do our job. Senator Coons is on the floor. The distinguished Senator from Delaware is the ranking member of the Court Subcommittee. I wish to ask Senator Coons, through the Chair, what his understanding of the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee with regard to the next Supreme Court nominee is.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for clearing that up. I don't normally discuss what is said in meetings with the President, but so much has been reported by the two Republicans who were there, the distinguished Senator from Iowa and the distinguished Republican leader. Vice President Biden was also there, and he was very clear as to what he meant so that there would be no question. He also pointed out that right through September, 64 of the Republican President's nominees went through. I think during President Bush's last 2 years, I was chairman, and I moved 68 judges. We see a double standard by our friends from the Republican Party when it comes to the courts of appeals judges as well as district judges. In the majority, they have allowed only 16 of President Obama's judges. Facts do speak louder than words. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware for clearing up that matter. I know the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island also has something he wishes to say, and I will yield to him.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, could we have regular order.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He is a former attorney general of his State as well as a former U.S. attorney and is well familiar with what the Constitution requires, and I appreciate his urging the U.S. Senate to do its job and follow the Constitution. Mr. President, at this point I will yield to the distinguished senior Senator from New York.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize our time has expired, but I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield the floor for my colloquy but that I be followed for 5 minutes by the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut and that he be followed by the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota for 5 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I yield to answer the question, yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as one who has held a lot of hearings on opioids, as one who has brought together law enforcement, the medical community, parents, the faith community, and physicians in my State on the opioid matter, I am perfectly happy that the Republicans control the schedule and perfectly happy that they want to stay here today, tomorrow, the next day, and go forth.

Mr. LEAHY. Certainly.

Mr. LEAHY. We did hate crimes legislation on the floor at the same time we were doing a Supreme Court nomination. Those are pretty significant things. It can be done.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last night Honduras lost one of its most courageous, charismatic indigenous leaders, Berta Caceres. Ms. Caceres was the general coordinator of the National Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, and she was assassinated in her hometown of La Esperanza, Intibuca. According to initial reports, at least two people broke down the door of the house where she was staying for the evening and shot and killed her. Berta Caceres spent her life fighting in defense of indigenous rights, particularly to land and natural resources. In 2015, she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her outstanding activism and leadership. This horrific crime demonstrates that no one, not even an internationally known social activist, is safe in Honduras if they speak out against corruption or abuse of authority. Her death will have a profound impact on the many communities she worked with, her organization, Honduran civil society, and all who knew her. Berta Caceres and COPINH have been supporting land struggles throughout western Honduras. In the last few weeks, threats and violence towards Berta and the communities she and her organization support had escalated. In Rio Blanco on February 20, Berta, her organization, and the community of Rio Blanco were threatened as they engaged in a peaceful protest to protect the river and their way of life from the construction of a large hydroelectric dam by an internationally financed Honduran company. As a result of supporting the Rio Blanco struggle, Berta had received many threats against her life and was granted, like dozens of other endangered Honduran social activists, precautionary measures by the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights. Berta Caceres was an inspiration to people around the world, and her death is a great loss for all the people of Honduras. The immediate question is what President Hernandez and his government, which has too often ignored or passively condoned attacks against Honduran social activists, will do to support an independent investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible for this despicable crime and, beyond that, what steps will the government take to protect the many others, including members of COPINH, who are in need of protection, and to stand up for the rights of people like Berta who risk their lives peacefully defending the environment and their livelihoods. The answers to those questions will weigh heavily on the Congress's support for future assistance for that government.