Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the holiday season having just passed is a wonderful reminder that the products of many small, local businesses often make the best gifts. I would like to take some time today to highlight Maple Landmark Woodcraft, a Vermont business that I have turned to year after year for gifts for our children, grandchildren, other relatives and friends. Today, Maple Landmark is one of the most prominent handmade wooden toy manufacturers in the United States. However, like many businesses, it started small, in Mike Rainville's family woodshop in rural Vermont in the 1980s. Mike's business began with building and selling mostly cribbage boards and tic-tac-toe games, but quickly grew to encompass a wide range of toys, games, puzzles, and home decorations. Among Maple Landmark's most famous products are the wooden letter train sets that have graced the bedrooms of millions of children across the country. They are also in the Leahy homes. Over the past 40 years, due to its beautiful craftsmanship and joyful products, Maple Landmark has been able to expand its sales operation to toy stores and distributors throughout the United States and abroad. All the while, it has maintained all manufacturing and sourcing operations in Vermont, at their facility in Middlebury. Mike and his team's devotion to their craft has allowed for the development of a strong homegrown business in Vermont that has helped to show the world all that our State has to offer. In March 2020, as much of the world shut down and many families and children began learning, working, and spending more time at home, the popularity of Maple Landmark's toys and games exploded. Facing an unprecedented increase in orders from across the United States, Maple Landmark has been firing on all cylinders. This past holiday season was its busiest yet. Unfortunately, Landmark Maple has not been immune to the labor shortages that continue to strain businesses nationwide. While labor shortages are nothing new for many businesses across rural communities in Vermont, those brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic have been particularly challenging. The inability to find a sustainable workforce coupled with the greater effort necessary to recruit and train new workers has made it more difficult for Landmark Maple to take advantage of rising demand that would otherwise be a boon for the business. The story of Landmark Maple is far from unique, and it reaffirms that we need to do all we can to control the pandemic, vaccinate the population, and fully restore the economy. Everyone who can get vaccinated must get vaccinated. Everyone who is eligible for a booster shot, must get their booster shot. If we make these responsible choices and continue to prioritize the collective health and safety of our families and communities, more Americans will be willing and able to enter, reenter, and remain in the workforce. In doing so, we will be able to ensure that businesses like Maple Landmark Woodcraft can continue to operate and contribute to their communities for years to come. Maple Landmark was profiled in a November 10, 2021, article published in the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that the article titled, ``Ho, ho, no: For maker of wooden toys, the struggle ahead of Christmas is not finding supplies, but finding workers'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, February 7th, 2022, marks the 60th anniversary of the day the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba first went into effect. Just think of that--60 years. It is three generations, 12 Presidents, 60 sessions of Congress, six transformational decades ago, and dating all the way back to the middle of the Cold War. The goal of the embargo, which has been expanded multiple times, was unmistakable. It was to depose the Cuban Government by imposing a vast web of punitive sanctions designed to crush the Cuban economy and incite a popular uprising. In fact, to be precise, in a declassified April 1960 State Department memo confidently entitled ``The Decline and Fall of Castro,'' they said the purpose was ``denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation, and the overthrow of [the] government.'' What a remarkable, humanitarian attitude on the part of people who had absolutely no idea of what history is or what might happen. Sixty years later, hunger and desperation are pervasive in Cuba, but the Cuban Government remains under the firm grip of the Communist Party. No opposition party has been allowed to function or to challenge it. Free and fair elections are as elusive as they were 60 years ago. Political dissent is not tolerated. But the U.S. embargo, which we proudly and consistently have kept, is opposed by every other nation in this hemisphere. In fact, it is opposed by every other nation in the world except Israel. In other words, after 60 years, we have convinced only one other government-- just one--to join us and not a single government in our own hemisphere. This failed attempt to isolate Cuba succeeded only in isolating ourselves. Those responsible for this administration's policy toward Cuba have apparently decided that, despite Candidate Biden's pledge to the contrary; despite the failure of the embargo to achieve any of its objectives, which the CIA acknowledged in a declassified report back in 1982; despite a worsening human rights situation; and despite contributing to the misery of the Cuban people, whom the White House insists it wants to help, there is no reason to change course. Today, hard hit by COVID and the administration's cutoff of remittances and restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba, life for most Cubans is an increasingly desperate struggle. Popular protests against the government's mishandling of the pandemic, mishandling of the economy, and autocratic rule have been met with a fierce crackdown, summary trials, and lengthy prison sentences, including for young people. I have spoken many times about the stark disconnect between the administration's policy toward Cuba and the reality in Cuba, so I am not going to repeat what I said before. I am as outraged by the crackdown on protesters in Cuba as anyone. Unlike many others, I have actually said that to Cuban authorities. No one condones acts of vandalism or violence, but provocations and abuse of peaceful protesters are inexcusable. I also know that trying to bludgeon the Cuban authorities into submission does not work. What is the proof of that? We tried it for 60 years, and it hasn't worked. It has only made things worse. It emboldens the hardliners in the government who can then blame the United States for their own failed policies. They are determined to hold on to power, and if they fail at something, they just blame it on the United States. But it hurts the Cuban people, impeding their ability to obtain medical supplies as basic as syringes and masks to fight COVID and preventing small businesses from accessing U.S. products. I visited a lot of those small businesses. They actually want to deal with America, and we are cutting them off. It flies in the face of our belief in the power of diplomacy through engagement with countries whose governments we disagree with, especially a country 90 miles away whose people we share so much in common with. Sooner or later--and I hope it is sooner--the administration needs to face the fact that continuing Donald Trump's policy of punitive sanctions and vitriol has backfired. The longer they delay that day of reckoning, the worse it will be. And we can do better than this. We can defend human rights, as we should. We can stand up for the right of people to choose their leaders in free and fair elections, as we should. We could also do what we do with virtually every other government in the world with which we disagree: find areas of common purpose for the benefit of the people in both countries. So on this 60th anniversary of a Cold War policy of sanctions and isolation that has failed in every conceivable way, let's dedicate ourselves to a new way forward that our allies and partners in this hemisphere will support, that the American people support, that supports the Cuban people, and most importantly, that we can show the rest of the world it is worthy of the United States, worthy of us. What we are doing right now is not. We can do better. We must do better. I think of so many young people I have talked to and met in Cuba who want a different world and can't understand why the United States slams the door on them. We can do better. We have to do better. I pray we will do better. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, serving in the U.S. Senate for as long as I have, I have seen dedicated, talented staffers come and go from my team. Some come to my office fresh out of college, spend some time, and move on to other opportunities or to further their education. Some have come to stay for years. And others join my team, already seasoned veterans of the Senate--and leave for higher office. So is the story of my dear friend, Sonceria Ann Berry, the 34th Secretary of the Senate, and my former deputy chief of staff. It was with great pride when, on March 1, 2021, I administered the oath to Ann as she became our own Madam Secretary. And it should come as no surprise that Ann brought to the esteemed position decades of experience in the Senate. A seasoned professional who has seen changes in leadership through the Congresses, Ann has counseled and mentored, quite literally, hundreds of staffers young and old. Her appointment as the Secretary of Senate was a source of great pride for me, and I am sure the other Members for whom she worked, including Senator Carper and former Senator John Edwards, as well as the late Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Howell Heflin, share that pride. Secretary Berry is a 1978 graduate of the University of North Alabama, where she earned her bachelor degree in education. She recently returned to the University of North Alabama to deliver the fall commencement address. I found her words inspiring to the new graduates she addressed and instructional for those embarking in postgraduate life. I would like to ask unanimous consent that Secretary Berry's commencement remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 1961, when I was deciding where to attend law school, I was looking for an institution where I could not only learn about the law in the abstract, but also how it is applied, interpreted, and written. I was immediately drawn to the Georgetown University Law Center, given that is steps from the U.S. Capitol and Supreme Court. The education that I received in my years at Georgetown Law helped me to understand that the way in which the law is written directly impacts the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, affirmed the importance of working to uphold and improve the law, and guided me toward a career in public service. And I am not the only person in the Senate who had this experience at Georgetown Law. Senators Hirono, Durbin, Van Hollen, and Sullivan all count themselves as alumni. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was my classmate. Graduates of Georgetown Law also work in offices across the Capitol, including my own, using their legal education to help serve constituents, drive measureable change in our communities, and better our legal system. For many Americans, the events of the past few years have brought into focus the importance of preserving our Nation's institutions and the collective work that must be done to ensure that they work better for all Americans. As a result, thousands more Americans have flocked to law school in recent application cycles. With its location in Washington, DC, and its wealth of courses, incredible practitioners and faculty, and innovative research centers, Georgetown Law has been well- positioned to take advantage of the heightened interest in the legal field. For the 2021-2022 academic year, Georgetown University Law Center received a record 14,052 applications, an increase of 41 percent of the previous year. This incredible achievement demonstrates Georgetown Law's strength as a leader in the field of legal education. Congratulations to Georgetown University Law Center for this exceptional record. I have full confidence that Georgetown Law will continue to shape future leaders for years to come, preparing them to address the myriad challenges our society faces and to fight for justice for every person and every community. Dean William Treanor does a superb job of leadership, and we often speak of the inspiring path of the law center over so many decades. Georgetown University Law Center was featured in an article in the Washington Post late last year. I ask unanimous consent that the article titled, ``The country's most popular law school got an unexpected jolt'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join with the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby, in honoring Joanna Capps on her retirement on January 21, 2022, after more than 33 years of distinguished service to the Congress. Joanna, better known as Jodi, has supported the annual appropriations process throughout her career. Republican and Democratic staff of both Chambers hold Jodi in high esteem for her deep expertise of appropriations law and budget process and for her steady, even-keeled collegiality. Jodi came to Capitol Hill in 1989, joining the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee. For 4 years she worked as a professional staff member of the full committee, productively and reliably working for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to support the orderly development of appropriation bills by coordinating the compilation and presentation of scoring data across all subcommittees. During her time at the committee, Jodi gained invaluable expertise and insight into the highly detailed and fast-paced nature of appropriations-related work, as well as the myriad budget-related rules and procedures that govern Senate consideration of those bills. In 1994, Jodi transitioned to a new role within the Congressional Budget Office's Budget Analysis Division, where she has worked as a scorekeeper for the past 28 years. In that capacity, she has been a valuable asset to eight CBO Directors. Initially tasked with scoring the Energy-Water and Interior appropriation bills, Jodi served as the primary or backup scorekeeper for multiple bills, expanding her substantive expertise and institutional knowledge along the way. For the past several years, she has handled both the vast Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill and the legislative branch bill, coordinating CBO's analyses of the President's budget request for those bills and compiling scores for countless versions at each stage of Congressional consideration. She also supported the production of baseline projections, cost estimates for authorizing legislation, CBO's annual report on Expired and Expiring Authorizations of Appropriations, and other vital efforts related to the Budget Analysis Division functions. Throughout her congressional career, Jodi nurtured strong, collaborative relationships that enabled her to act as a trusted and effective liaison between appropriations staff and CBO analysts. Staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee value her candor and ability to juggle multiple requests with a calm, steady demeanor. Within CBO, Jodi is regarded as a generous and amiable team player who goes out of her way to support colleagues, both professionally and personally. Jodi is also known for her many creative talents and her civic- mindedness. From setting out trays of homemade scones for CBO colleagues to enjoy with their morning coffee to leading lunch-time tutorials on how to create a floral centerpiece, Jodi has an eye for elegance and enjoys sharing her gifts. She is a committed volunteer who makes time to support causes that benefit her community and boost people's spirits. But perhaps above all, Jodi is famously known as an avid animal lover, a passion she shares with her husband of many years, Alan. Jodi's expertise, institutional knowledge, and generous spirit will be sorely missed throughout Capitol Hill. We are grateful for her 33 years of exemplary service to the Congress and wish her the best in the years to come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, from the sweeping Green Mountains to the shores of the iconic Lake Champlain, one need look no further than Vermont to find the beating heart of America. To this day, communities across Vermont are welcoming refugees from around the world and most recently from war-torn Afghanistan. It is our history as a nation of immigrants that make these United States, as George Washington put it, the Great Experiment. But with each passing moment, it seems this simple foundation of our Nation is under attack. Nationalism is on the rise and, with it, the threat that bedrock principles of our democracy are threatened. The strength of our Nation rests not in what divides us, but in what unites us. By sharpening the division, we edge toward authoritarianism, as Vermonter Haviland Smith wrote earlier this month in his column, ``Rural Ruminations.'' Another of our great Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, so clearly said, ``A house divided cannot stand.'' Those words, now nearly 164 years old, are as true today as ever. I would invite everyone to read Haviland's recent column, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. Its observations, and importantly the questions he pose, deserve thoughtful consideration.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, they are sometimes called the Fourth Estate. The dedicated writers, researchers, editors, and investigators of the media, new and old. Their reporting writes the first draft of history. What an awesome responsibility. But today, I want to recognize one particular set of reporters: the press photographers. Their images, also part of the first draft of history, bring the words to life. The photos they capture tell stories through images--sometimes moving, sometimes horrific--a language so universal that, sometimes, they need no words. Many have written about the events of January 6, when a violent mob of insurrectionists attacked the Capitol and, indeed, our very seat of government. I was here that day, like so many Members of Congress, both the House and Senate, and so many staffers. And what I saw was unlike anything I have seen in my 47 years in the U.S. Senate. The press saw it, too--going on air to give accounts of what was happening, filing stories on the wires as the events were unfolding--and snapping the photographic evidence of the violence, the fear, the vandalism, and, yes, the determination of that day. Scott Applewhite, a longtime photographer for the Associated Press, earlier this month published a piece for ``The Public's Radio,'' recounting his experiences that day and sharing several of the photographs he took that document the events that unfolded. It is well worth a read, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. For anyone who is unaware of or who doubts the role of the press, and of its vigilant photographers, know this: While we work to make history, it is they who write it, as they capture and document it in their images. And make no mistake: Their jobs are as critical today as ever before.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I couldn't help but think today that the distinguished Presiding Officer and I both had the opportunity to be prosecutors. And I thought today about prosecutors--I listened to what former President Donald Trump said. I listened to him with horror and disbelief, especially when I saw it on television, and he was obviously reading his words off a teleprompter and knew exactly what he was saying. He basically said that if he was reelected, he would be inclined to give Presidential pardons to the people who stormed the U.S. Capitol a year ago, January 6--the people who came in here as insurrectionists; the people who came in here doing enormous damage and injuries; the people who caused many to die; the people who set up a gallows outside the Capitol with a noose on it with Vice President Pence's name on it, saying that if he is not willing to ignore the law and suddenly give the Presidency to Donald Trump, a man who had lost by millions of votes, this is what he deserved, the gallows. It is the sort of thing that if you saw it in a B-rated horror movie, you would say this is so unbelievable, but here it is real. You had people committing terrible crimes--destruction of property, injuries to people, trying to kill and eventually did kill police officers. I remember that day, and I am sure the Presiding Officer does, because we were all on the floor of the Senate as the Vice President was rushed off the dais where the Presiding Officer is right now and where I opened the U.S. Senate just minutes ago. And then, before we knew what was going on, we suddenly saw several other plainclothes police officers come in here and a big one in a uniform carrying a submachine gun with a vest that said ``POLICE.'' We were told we had to leave and go to the safe room and were escorted out by armed police officers. If it weren't for some of the brave operations of these officers, we had Members of both parties who could have been victims of the mob. And just minutes after we were escorted from here, this place was stormed by some who thought it was the House of Representatives. I mean, they just obviously had been inspired to come up here and storm the Capitol. They wanted the election turned over at the request of Donald Trump to give it to him even though he had lost. And I thought-- I never thought I would see something like this. I remember when I was a young law student at Georgetown Law School, I would come up here and sit in the Gallery and watch this place, this body, and watch both Republicans and Democrats debate everything from civil rights to voting rights and routine matters. I thought, ``What a place to be.'' These extraordinary Senators from both parties from all over the country speaking about the laws and the Constitution of our country. I remember, even after I went back to Vermont after I was practicing law and became a prosecutor, I thought of the days I was here with my parents and others just watching this body and how thrilled I was when I came here, thinking the U.S. Senate can and should be the conscience of the Nation. And then I looked on television and saw a man who was decisively defeated for reelection to the Presidency, saying to his followers: If I am elected President again, I can pardon all these criminals who came in here, these insurrectionists--people, actually, many whom it is very clear were encouraged to come here and storm the Capitol at his request. We are a nation of laws. We are not a nation of individuals; we are a nation of laws. And we survive as a nation and we excel as a nation if we follow the law, if all of us do. On the Senate floor, we can debate. Both parties can disagree on things, and we do often. I think we all believe in the fact that we have laws, and you must follow them. When I was a prosecutor, I thought, if somebody broke the law, there are consequences for it. I cannot imagine what it would have been like as a young prosecutor if I heard somebody running for high office in my State--in this case, a Governor--who said: Go ahead. Break every law you can to help me get elected because I will pardon you as soon as I get in there. I think I would be before a grand jury pretty quickly talking about that candidate. Yet that is what we see. How could anybody be so blinded to what this Nation is that they will ignore what this Nation is? How can anybody be so blinded to the laws of this country that they can ignore those laws? How can anybody be so blinded to our Constitution that they can ask people to violate the Constitution? ``Commit crimes in my name, and don't worry, I will take care of you. I will make sure you are pardoned.'' This country has to get back to--Republicans and Democrats alike-- believing in the rule of law. Disagree if we want, disagree at the ballot box, but follow the law and stop giving the impression to the rest of the world that we are some kind of a pending dictatorship, where the law and the Constitution are set aside for the whim of whoever is elected. I will speak more on this at another time. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has spoken out on this matter before. I greatly admire what she has said, and I will continue to speak out. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before the holidays, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, USCC, released its 2021 Report to Congress. As is customary, the report reflects a bipartisan consensus, with unanimous support from the 11-member commission. It includes 32 recommendations to the Congress, each of which is worth serious consideration, especially in light of the announcement that Chinese President Xi Jinping will rule for at least another 5 years. This is not the first time that I have spoken about China and the importance of increasing our Nation's competitiveness. I think we all recognize that it is an issue that impacts, directly or indirectly, the lives of every American. Today, I want to call attention to China's expansionist foreign policy, particularly one section of the USCC's report that discusses Chinese investments in Latin America and the Caribbean. Chinese foreign policy has become increasingly bold, with goals that are both economic and political. China's economic goals are twofold: increasing access to raw materials while developing new markets for Chinese products. China has supported growth in parts of Latin America by financing mining, transportation, electric power generation, large scale agriculture, and other infrastructure projects. However, there is a dark side to this increased investment and trade. Countries' reliance on commodity exports and China's control over supply chains strengthen China's influence in Latin American and Caribbean economies. With so much of these countries' economies dependent on continued trade and positive diplomatic relations with China, it is no wonder that we see some governments bypassing regulatory standards in order to obtain further investment opportunities. This increased dependence can undermine democratic institutions, weaken environmental and social safeguards, and encourage corruption and violations of human rights. The Chinese Communist Party is promoting its own political agenda by supporting authoritarian regimes, promoting pro-China media, and strong-arming governments into isolating Taiwan. The USCC makes five recommendations to counter these trends: first, respond to Chinese economic, diplomatic, and security initiatives by expanding U.S. funding mechanisms for infrastructure projects, the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, and educational exchanges; second, increase support for governments in Latin America and the Caribbean to create foreign investment review processes and require the Department of State to report to Congress on progress; third, require the Director of National Intelligence, Department of State, and Department of Defense to submit an unclassified report detailing the implications of Chinese investment in port infrastructure, Chinese military presence at such ports, and the potential for leveraging such ports for Chinese military purposes in the future; fourth, require that all applications for U.S. foreign assistance include a disclosure of debt owed to Chinese entities; and finally, create a partnership between coastal Latin American countries and U.S. Government authorities identified in the Maritime Security and Fisheries Enforcement Act to increase maritime domain awareness and combat illegal Chinese fishing. I urge the administration to consult with Congress on a path forward to implement each of these recommendations. The Senate's fiscal year 2022 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill includes $653.8 million for assistance for the countries of Central America, including $100 million for localized development in the Northern Triangle. Additional funds are included for economic and security assistance for the Caribbean countries. We must support programs in these countries that prioritize the well-being of their citizens, protect their national sovereignty, and encourage fair trade and investment by supporting community policing, maritime security, energy independence, elementary and secondary education, anti-gang programs, employment opportunities, programs to improve government transparency and accountability, and by strengthening civil society. These are long-term investments, but they will provide the most effective alternatives to Chinese influence.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on January 6, 2022, I made a statement about the extreme hardships and insecurity that are a daily reality for the people of South Sudan, despite independence 10 years ago that held so much promise and hope for that country. That independence came as a result of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which took years of negotiations facilitated by the United States, Norway, and the United Kingdom, and it provided a roadmap for political stability, economic development, respect for human rights, and justice. Since then, two former warlords, President Kiir and Vice President Machar, who were never elected, have dominated the political landscape in South Sudan. It is they, throughout these critically important formative years, who have had the executive power and the responsibility to transform the aspirations of independence into tangible improvements in the lives of their people. Ten years later, it is fair to ask a simple question: What have they done? I would answer that question with these questions: After ten years, is South Sudan a country at peace where the rights of the people are respected and their basic needs, such as safe water, sanitation, food, shelter, and health care are being met? Has South Sudan's vast oil wealth been invested wisely in public infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, public transportation, roads, and bridges after decades of civil war? Is the country's agricultural economy expanding and reaching new markets? Are children in school and are teachers receiving a decent salary? Are South Sudan's youth, who make up a majority of the population, able to find jobs? Do the security forces have the training, equipment, food, and barracks they need to maintain the peace, and are soldiers and officers receiving adequate pay? Are government ministries led and staffed by trained and honest professionals? Is the Parliament defending the people's interests? Is the judiciary independent, and the courts accessible and trusted by the people? Have those who committed crimes against humanity and other gross violations of human rights been prosecuted and punished? Have the many thousands of South Sudanese refugees and internally displaced been able to return home to rebuild their lives? Is civic space being protected so civil society activists and independent journalists can function without fear of harassment or threats? Has the necessary work been done to create the conditions for transparent, free, and fair elections in which candidates from all political parties can participate? Has sustained progress been made in any of these areas? I think the answers are obvious, and the people of South Sudan know the answers. Despite billions of dollars in international aid and billions of dollars in oil revenues, the government of South Sudan has failed every test. Today, South Sudan ranks as among the world's most corrupt country and, despite its oil wealth, one of the hungriest country in the world. We should remember that the Republic of South Sudan would not exist were it not for the sacrifice of millions of South Sudanese who gave their lives in the fight for independence. But it is also a fact that had it not been for the support of the United States, South Sudan would not be a Republic today. I have been a U.S. Senator for 47 years, so I remember when South Sudan existed only in people's dreams. I remember when John Garang would visit the U.S. Congress seeking support. He was an inspiring leader, and we supported him. I supported him. And we welcomed South Sudan's hard-fought independence. But since John Garang's tragic death in 2005, we have seen how greed and personal ambition can thwart the aspirations of an entire population. The January 21 response of the office of the President of the Republic of South Sudan to my statement of January 6 was as revealing as it was predictable. The office of the President accuses me of calling for ``regime change through uprising and violence.'' Anyone who read my statement, as the author of that accusation surely did, knows it to be absurd on its face. There is not a single word in my statement that remotely suggests what the office of the President accuses me of. Their resort to fabrication and intimidation is the all-too-common tactic of governments to deflect attention from their own failures. We have seen it even in our own country. The people of South Sudan have experienced far too much war, far too much violence, far too much displacement, far too much insecurity, and far too much hunger and misery. The last thing they need or want is more violence, and nothing I have said would suggest otherwise. There are countless examples. Just a few days ago, on January 23, 5 kilometers from Bor, the capital of Jonglei State, armed militia reportedly slaughtered 35 and injured 17 civilians, including women and children. Property was looted, and huts were burned down. The people of South Sudan know too well that these violent acts are orchestrated or condoned by the country's leaders. In a letter dated November 25, 2020, addressed to the President of the U.N. Security Council from the Panel of Experts on South Sudan, they reported the following: Political and security disputes within President Kiir's coalition have contributed to conflicts that have killed and displaced civilians in Jonglei and the Greater Pibor Administrative Area. Rival factions within the Government supplied weapons to various ethnic militias from the Government's stockpile. Between May and August, eight humanitarian staff were killed, humanitarian facilities were looted and destroyed, and thousands of civilians were displaced at a time of widespread flooding in Jonglei and the Greater Pibor Administrative Area. The killings on January 23 were part of the same pattern, yet those who bear responsibility for these attacks accuse advocates for peaceful change of promoting violence. Rather than falsely accuse me and South Sudanese civil society organizations that have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to non-violence, the government should put a stop to these attacks and ask itself the questions I have posed. It should also reflect on the fact that U.S. S. Res. 380 passed unanimously, with the support of 100 U.S. Senators, Democrats and Republicans, less than 2 months ago. I remind the office of the President what we said: Whereas despite years of fighting, widespread suffering of South Sudanese civilians, punitive actions by the international community, and 2 peace agreements, the leaders of South Sudan have failed to build sustainable peace, and critical provisions of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict [R-ARCSS] . . . remain unimplemented; Whereas the leaders of South Sudan have consistently failed to uphold their responsibilities to create the conditions for peace and prosperity, have prioritized self-preservation and corruption over the needs of the people they represent, have acted in bad faith in the implementation of cease fire and peace agreements, and have betrayed the cause of freedom, resulting in the loss of millions of lives; and Whereas South Sudan has not held an election since its independence and the current leaders of South Sudan were appointed or installed through transitional arrangements based on peace agreements. That Resolution also urged the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury: (A) to prioritize investigations into illicit financial flows fueling violence in South Sudan; (B) to work with the Secretary of State to update, on a regular basis, the list of individuals and entities designated under the South Sudan sanctions program, including individuals at the highest levels of leadership in South Sudan and from within the National Security Service; and (C) to coordinate, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, with the United Kingdom and the European Union on South Sudan-related sanctions designations and enforcement. So rather than make up falsehoods about those asking such questions, including me, the People's Coalition for Civil Action, and other South Sudanese activists and organizations that want nothing more than for the promise of the R-ARCSS to be realized so the people of South Sudan can enjoy the security and prosperity they are entitled to, I urge President Kiir and Vice President Machar to put their country first. Rather than falsely accusing others of violence or resorting to provocations to create a pretext for persecuting and silencing them, they should listen to them. They should listen to the voices of the people, expressed in the National Dialogue, that South Sudan needs a new beginning. Rather than claim to have taken significant steps to put South Sudan's failing economy on a solid footing, which fools no one, they should open up the government's books so people can see the receipts and expenditures. Rather than hide behind the R-ARCSS to preserve the status quo, they should implement it in letter and spirit, including by unifying rival security forces, by promulgating a new constitution, and by opening up the political space in the country. Rather than make excuses to delay elections as they have repeatedly done before, they should set a date, in accordance with the R-ARCSS, for national and Parliamentary elections, and they should support a roadmap for creating the necessary conditions for the refugees to return and for multiparty democratic elections to succeed with the support of the army. And without delay, they should declare their unconditional commitment not to contest the next election and to relinquish power as soon as South Sudan's newly elected leaders take office. The sad reality is that while the South Sudanese people won their independence from Sudan, they remain captives of the same ruthless and corrupt warlords who created so much ethnic conflict, bloodshed, and misery during the civil war and who have not been held accountable. They simply reinvented themselves as political leaders, with a stamp of legitimacy from the international community, while continuing to act like the warlords they are and always were. They have shown no interest in implementing the R-ARCSS or any other peace agreement. They have shown no interest in the welfare of their people. They have shown no interest in anything except holding onto power, avoiding justice, and enriching themselves. It is time to listen to the people of South Sudan and for the United States to reassess its policy toward South Sudan. The White House and the State Department need to recognize that the status quo in South Sudan has been a dead end for years and consult with Congress on a new way forward. As a first step, the U.S. should use the authorities that already exist, including the Global Magnitsky Act, to sanction key officials in South Sudan's National Security Service, which has long functioned as a criminal enterprise that engages in extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture, and other heinous crimes. Real peace requires justice, and it requires respect for fundamental rights regardless of ethnicity, race, or religion. It requires free and fair elections and equitable economic development. These should be at the heart of our policy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this has been an interesting day of debate. It actually feels good to hear people really speak on an issue. As President pro tempore, I sat in that chair where my distinguished friend from Maine is sitting now as Presiding Officer. I sat there for hours today and listened to the debate and heard many I found extremely good and then I heard some others. But I appreciate the fact that I had the opportunity, as President pro tempore, to hear so many of the Senators of both parties speak. You know, I spoke yesterday about protecting everyone's vote on the ballot and how important that is. I know that because in my own State of Vermont, when I first ran, it was a very Republican State. I have been on the ballot, between my time as State's attorney and Senator, between primaries and general elections--I have been on the ballot in Vermont 24 times. I never questioned that the ballots would be counted accurately and honestly, even though, in several of the elections, 80 to 90 percent of the people counting the ballots were the town clerks, and they were Republicans. So after those 24 times, I think I have some idea of how the Senate works, and I can also say that with seniority comes a bit of experience. This is my 48th year here in the U.S. Senate, having been elected by those same Vermonters whom I praise for the way they protected the sanctity of the ballot 48 times. I am still the only Democrat sent to the U.S. Senate by the voters of Vermont. I have become the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the former chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary and Agriculture Committees, and then honored three times to be elected as President pro tempore. So let me just take a couple minutes of your indulgence to talk about what the Senate was, what it has become, and what it can be again. I think my experience qualifies me to say that. My conscience compels me to say that. We, each of us, stand on the shoulders of giants. The Senators from across the political spectrum and from around this Nation who forged a path for America, they met the moment of the time not with timidity or fear but with action and with decisiveness. Now, was the road taken an easy one? No. Was the struggle short? No. But was it worth the sacrifice, the dedication, the commitment, and, yes, the compromise, to meet it? Of course. But before the Senate today is the issue that is at the heart of our very government, the right to vote--the one thing we can hold sacred, no matter what party we belong to, the right to vote. Time and time again, the Constitution has been amended to expand the right to vote, not to restrict it but to expand it. Look at the 15th Amendment, the 19th, the 24th, the 26th. These each gave greater access to the ballot box for Americans; it furthered the shared goals that ours be the most inclusive and most democratic Nation on Earth. But today, we do have a scourge of laws--no matter what we say on the floor, the facts are we have a scourge of laws making their way through partisan legislatures across the country. They roll back the tides of time, ruining the most fundamental right, all at a time when technology and pure common sense should tell us that voting should be a lot more accessible than it is and coupled with a challenge from the Supreme Court that the Congress affirmatively act. Remember, the Supreme Court said why doesn't Congress step in and act to restore the long bipartisan Voting Rights Act. There is no more important time than now for us to meaningfully address this constitutional right, this foundational right. Now, there are some honest questions to ask here of ourselves and each other. Do we really want to make it more difficult for Americans to vote legally and safely? Is that what democracy means to you, to me? Do we really want to allow States to make it more difficult for blue-collar workers or the poor or the disadvantaged to vote, when the great advances of time and technology are there where you can easily make it easier--easier--to vote, not more difficult. Are we really going to turn back the clock to an era where State and local jurisdictions can blatantly discriminate against certain voters-- yes, people of color and minority populations--by simply rigging the systems of voting or counting or changing the map, to erase the progress of generations and make meaningless the fight of lions like John Lewis, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many others? Is that really what we stand for in this century? Were we elected by our constituents to flatly obstruct any action in this body simply because our party is not in the majority or were we elected to tacitly agree with a prescribed agenda? The Senate and those who stand in it owe more to our constituents and to this Nation than blind party loyalty. We owe it to the Nation to do what is right. We owe it to our conscience to do what is right. Partisan disagreements, divisions, and stalemates dot the pages of our young Nation's history when you go back and read it, but it is the moments of bipartisanship that punctuate it. So I would ask a question of our two leaders. Mr. Majority Leader, should we not have a debate, a real debate, on these issues, with amendments, unbound by deadlines or time limits? In answer to that, I also ask of the minority leader: Do we not have an obligation to Americans, to your constituents and mine, to at least talk about these issues, offer honest and meaningful proposals, and then vote them up or vote them down? Are we not intended to be the greatest deliberative body in the world? It probably was when I came here, but these days, we surely are not. History will remember this moment--a moment when we stood for the foundational right of our democracy--the right to vote--or we stood against it. Long have I said on this floor that the conscience of the Nation rests in the U.S. Senate--or it should. Today, we--each of us who has sworn to uphold the Constitution as a Member of this great body--must examine our own conscience. We must decide whether it will be the politics of exclusion or the justice of inclusion that will be the indelible mark of the 117th Congress, and we must decide if the Senate envisioned by our Founders can be restored. The giants, the lions of the Senate, are the Members who rise above to meet these moments and who have the courage to do what is right. If our jobs were easy, anyone could do them, but throughout history, fewer than 2,000 Americans have had the honor, the privilege, and the responsibility to hold the title of ``U.S. Senator.'' I have been proud to serve with one out of every five of those Senators--some I agreed with, some I disagreed with. But I can say this: We, the 100 here today, are caretakers of a legacy far greater than our own. We shoulder the responsibility of a nation--a nation founded under the principle that governments are instituted among their people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. I fear that, if we let this moment--this pivotal moment--pass us by with no debate, no action, and no advancement, we will not only be derelict in our duty, but we will betray the very oath we swore when we stood in front of the desk at which the Presiding Officer is sitting and pledged to defend the Constitution and to continue the endless goal of forming a more perfect Union. We should pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, but we should at the very least have the courage to debate it. I feel such privilege in serving Vermont. I feel such privilege to have been on the ballot 24 times in our State because I can always trust that everybody who wanted to vote could. Today, we have the technology and the ability to have far more people vote. Don't we owe it to this country and don't we owe it to our oath of office to do that? I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the remarks of our distinguished majority leader, and I know it comes from the heart because what he is saying publicly, he has also always said both publicly and privately. And I also join with him in the condemnation of the attack on the synagogue this weekend. I know, in my State of Vermont, the faith community--the Jewish, Protestant, Catholic--all came together with prayers for the safety of the people in the synagogue. But more than just the safety of what happened then, let us pray, all of us, whatever faith we have, that such attacks do not continue in our country. We have seen too many attacks against people based on their religion or based on their race or based on their country of origin. That is wrong. In this country, in this country, especially--I was thinking of this when I led the Senate this morning in the Pledge of Allegiance, and I thought, ``[O]ne nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' Well, it is a constant battle to make sure that we have liberty and justice for all, and we have to do that.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week I spoke on the floor, and I reflected on the unthinkable events of January 6, 2021. We all remember when a violent mob attempted to snuff out one of our democracy's most sacred traditions: the peaceful transition of power. That mob's attack on our Nation's Capitol was fueled by our former President's Big Lie, the utterly false alternate reality that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election through widespread fraud. But the January 6 insurrection, as nightmarish as it was, was not the only thing that was spawned by the Big Lie. Inspired by the former President's baseless conspiracy theory, dozens of States have passed new laws suppressing voters and making it easier for partisan officials to overturn the will of their constituents. These have been billed as ``election integrity'' or ``election security'' laws. Even George Orwell would be impressed by these brazen euphemisms. Disenfranchising tens of thousands of minority voters does nothing to improve the integrity of our elections, and empowering partisan actors to disqualify ballots and ignore the popular will actually makes our elections more insecure. A record number of these voter suppression laws are being considered and enacted as we head toward a major midterm election that will shape the direction of our country. Many of these laws would not see the light of day if the Department of Justice still possessed its preclearance powers under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. However, the Supreme Court unwisely decided to gut the Justice Department's preclearance powers in the Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013. And then, adding insult to injury, the Supreme Court toppled another critical pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the 2021 Brnovich decision, even further limiting the Federal Government's tools to combat voter suppression. So with a green light from our Nation's highest Court and constant prodding from a man who refuses to accept reality, partisan State actors have breathed new life into the Big Lie--not by breaking laws as the January 6 mob did but by making them. Now, I happen to have a bipartisan bill to restore the Justice Department's powers to oversee and prevent States from enacting discriminatory voting laws: the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I worked very hard to craft a compromise bill that has garnered Republican support here in the Senate, so it was truly a low point when Republicans recently refused to even allow debate on my bipartisan legislation--wouldn't even allow debate. Isn't that the whole point of being a Senator--to debate and vote on bills? How can you justify telling your constituents that you refuse to even allow debate on a voting rights bill with a 56-year record of bipartisanship? Are we that afraid to simply do our jobs? It bears repeating, but the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would simply restore and update provisions of the Voting Rights Act that have been overwhelmingly supported by both parties throughout the law's history. The Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized by large bipartisan majorities in Congress five times and proudly signed into law by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. That is not what you might call a liberal trio of Presidents. The most recent Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 2006 was a 98- to-0 vote here in the Senate. In fact, a number of Senators still serving today, both Republican and Democrat, voted to support that legislation, as did I. Now, the compromise bill I crafted with Senator Murkowski follows the very same blueprint of these other bipartisan efforts to restore the Voting Rights Act. Probably I am old-fashioned, but it would be a tragedy if Senators have completely sacrificed our sense of common purpose at the altar of partisanship. We used to believe that protecting our right to vote--the very right that gives democracy its name--is bigger than party or politics. We used to believe that a system of self-government--a government of, by, and for the people--is one that is worth preserving for generations to come. And we used to believe, regardless of party, that government exists to serve the will of the people, not the other way around. I would sincerely hope we still believe these things. The only way to prove it, though, is through our actions. I don't know what the next few weeks is going to have in store, but if we have an opportunity to consider the bipartisan John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, I hope that all of us--my Republican friends and Democrats--will at least have the courage of their convictions and allow a vote on it. And if you oppose a bipartisan bill to restore a landmark voting rights law that has had nearly six decades of unwavering bipartisan support, then have the courage to stand up on the Senate floor and vote against it. I, for one, will proudly vote yes. All the tweeting and partisan posturing that seems to consume most of our energy these days will quickly be forgotten. What will be remembered for decades is what the Senate did in our democracy's hour of peril. I hope--indeed, I pray--that the answer is not nothing. Too many hide behind parliamentary procedures not to have to vote on anything. What is wrong with us? We get 6-year terms. Don't be afraid to vote. Vote yes or vote no, but stand up and let the people know where you stand and vote. This ``Well, we are going to block this coming to a vote'' means, ``I don't have the courage to stand up and vote.'' That is all it means. If you want to stop these things from coming to a vote, it means you don't have the courage to vote; you are not willing to go on record and vote or you are afraid somebody might look at your vote someday and say: Hmm, why did he or she vote that way? I have voted more than 17,000 times on this floor. I have been proud to vote the way I have. I am sure I could look back over decades of voting and find a vote here and a vote there and say: You know, maybe I should have voted differently, but these issues always come back up again, and I will correct my vote--but not if we are not allowed to vote. I had one Senator say that the reason we want this kind of open voting is so that we can elect just Democrats. That is balderdash. My State of Vermont has probably the most open voting, the most accessible voting, of any State in the Union. We also have one of the highest turnouts of any State in the Union. Anybody can request an absentee ballot. Anybody can vote right up to the last minute. And is this for partisanship? I look at the last election a little over a year ago. We elect our Governor and our Lieutenant Governor separately. Voters all came to the polls in a record turnout. They elected a Republican as Governor and a Democrat as Lieutenant Governor. I think the Republican who was elected is proud of the way we vote, and I know the Lieutenant Governor who was elected, she is proud of the way we vote because it reflected that the voters actually vote for who they want, not in some partisan way. And we hurt this country and we hurt this Senate that I love if we are afraid to vote. I am proud to be the dean of the Senate. I am proud to be the President pro tempore. But I am not proud when we don't vote. I am not proud when we hide behind mechanisms and we don't vote. I am not proud to see partisan voting on nominees, something that has blocked--something where there has been far more votes against women in our Senate Judiciary Committee than I have seen in the decades I have served on that committee. We can't do this. Stand up and vote. Let people know where you stand. If it is your automatic thing to vote against women for nominations, I disagree with that, but have the courage to stand up and vote and show people where you are. That is what we have to do. If people are afraid to vote and have their votes heard, their votes recorded, then they don't belong in the U.S. Senate--not in a body that should be the conscience of the Nation. I hope that we will come together and vote these voting rights bills up or down. In this country, we have seen too many times in the past where people were not allowed to vote or were blocked from voting--from whatever way it was done. And think of every time that happened. Our country suffered. Our country suffered. What we are saying is, let everybody vote--whether Republicans, Democrats, or Independents--stand up and vote, have the ability to vote. Don't use artificial ways to block people from voting just because you think they may vote differently than you do, just as I have fought all my career to make sure that, in my own State of Vermont, everybody has a chance to vote. Marcelle and I have even done ads on our television saying: We want everybody to vote, whether you are voting for a Republican or voting for a Democrat. Get out and vote. Of course, I was hoping they would vote for me, and I am sure my Republican opponents hoped they would vote for them. But the point I was trying to make is, it is important that everybody votes, whether they are voting for me or against me. And that is why in Vermont we have one of the highest percentage of voters. And if we want to keep having these ``suppression of vote'' bills, we all suffer. The country suffers. Our image around the world suffers. Don't be afraid to vote. We are not going to get perfect people every time, but we can have a perfect way of voting. In the long run, the country is better off. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, these are among the most somber and sorrowful remarks that I have had to make as President pro tempore and also my several decades of service in this body. What an unthinkable event it is that we are marking today--an attempted coup incited not against a President but by a President, who promoted and still promotes a litany of lies to overturn the results of the election in order for him to hold on to power that he no longer possesses. We are in the business of words, but there are none to adequately capture the damage that he and his henchmen have done and are doing to our country. I am certain that no one serving here ever thought such an attack on our democracy by a violent insurrectionist mob who stormed the Capitol--the very citadel of our democracy--could ever happen in our beloved country, the world's most enduring democracy. This very Chamber where we are gathered today was breached. It was desecrated as was the rest of the Capitol. This morning, in my capacity as President pro tempore, I called the Senate into session. As I looked around the Chamber, so many memories came to mind. I first saw this Senate Chamber as a teenager, visiting from our home in Montpelier, VT, with my parents and my sister, coming to this Capitol. And then later as a Georgetown law student, I would sit in the Visitors' Gallery and just watch. I saw the Members of the Senate in both parties speaking to the conscience of our Nation--the conscience of our Nation--and trying to protect our Constitution. In 1975, I came onto the floor of the Senate as the junior-most Member of this body. I was in awe of the Senate then. I never expected to become the dean of the Senate. But a year ago, I sat on the floor of the Senate as Vice President Pence was announcing the certification of ballots. I saw him doing this in a straightforward and honest way, even though he knew that, at the end of the count, he would soon no longer be Vice President nor would Donald Trump be President. We were all in the Senate paying attention when suddenly officers came rushing onto the floor, and they took the Vice President off the dais and out the door. Chuck Grassley, the then-President pro tem, went to the dais and prepared to recess the Senate. As for most of us, I remember looking around here. We were wondering what was happening, until I saw 2 feet from me a man wearing a vest that said ``police'' on the Senate floor. He was carrying a submachine gun. I had never seen anything like this in the U.S. Senate. And you recall the police rushed us to the back door to the basement of the Capitol, and they shuttled us off to a secure location. I was still trying to sort through my mind what was happening. Officers were going through the halls. And one officer came along, took my arm, and said: ``We're going to watch out for you, Shamrock.'' So many memories flooded back because Shamrock was the police code name for me when I was a recipient of a deadly anthrax letter addressed to me that killed and maimed others. Ahead of me I could see the brave Parliamentarians, and others had grabbed the cases with the certification of ballots. They also grabbed an ivory gavel that is right in front of you now, the same gavel I used today to call the Senate into session. And when we were in the secure room and were starting to see the television, we saw a mob, Americans who turned into a mob and turned their back on our Nation's constitutional history. They were rejecting everything that made America great. They were ignoring our laws, our customs, and, most of all, they were ignoring our history. The destruction and rampage was something you would see in a movie. I never expected to see it in the Capitol, a building that has always been a symbol of our democracy. A suggestion was made when we were in the secure room that we use our authority under the law to vote and make the secure room the Senate Chamber. I said: No, we should not be hiding here. As soon as we are safe to go back to the Senate, whenever it is, we should go back there, all of us, and have the American people see us there. I said: It may take an hour, it may take 10 hours, but we should be there carrying out the Constitution and saying no criminals can destroy our history, our Constitution, our America. And I was relieved when virtually all of the Republicans and Democrats who were in that room stood and said loudly that they agreed with me and that we would wait until we went back. I was standing next to the Parliamentarian and the leather boxes carrying the certification of election. We both looked at them, and I am sure we were both thinking the same thing: We will protect our Constitution. We will protect the Senate. We will protect America. To the credit of the Members of the Senate and the House, we reconvened after the siege. We fulfilled our constitutional duties to certify the confirmed results of the election--results that every State and Federal court has upheld in the face of blatantly frivolous challenges. So my thoughts today are not only about how fragile our democracy is but about the heroes of the day: the Capitol Police officers, some of whom lost their lives or suffered grievous and enduring injuries; and those who joined in the Capitol's defense, especially from the Metropolitan Police Department. That day, 1 year ago, was such a sad and wrenching day. So disturbing was it to see such hatred--hatred and anger--to see the Confederate battle flag paraded in the Capitol, where it never was brought, even during the Civil War, and to see Nazi emblems and other symbols of hate and violence carried by some of those in the mob. It was so horrifying to see our brave police officers, many of them war veterans who defended America in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just disregarded and disrespected but brutally attacked, even by the wielding of poles bearing the American flag used as bludgeons and spears. In the aftermath, the National Guard from several of our States were called in to protect the Capitol. I visited with members of the Vermont National Guard. I know that many other Senators did that with their States' Guard troops. In the moment, that night, and the next day, Senators on both sides of the aisle called this out for the travesty that it was, but amnesia has set in since then in some quarters. There has been a concerted effort to downplay or grossly mischaracterize the terrible events of that day by some Members in both Chambers of Congress. It was not, as has been said, ``just another day in January''--what an insult to those who lost their lives and to those who suffered injuries from which they still struggle to recover. The question begs and answers itself: What are we in the Senate here for, if not to defend the Republic and our Constitution? There is a clear need for justice, and the courts are doing their essential work. There is a clear need to know the truth, and even some of the former President's closest supporters are heeding their duty to respond to the bipartisan congressional investigation into what happened that day. There will be a clear need to learn the lessons, to safeguard and strengthen our democracy, to protect those who serve and protect the Capitol and those who work here. The courts are dealing with these crimes, but it is detestable how so many were so callously used as cannon fodder. Their actions were wrong, but many believed they were acting as patriots. The former President told them so and egged them on, and they believed him. Meanwhile, he and so many of his cronies, unlike many of his followers who stormed the Capitol, have paid no price for their roles. They must be held accountable for planning and promoting this travesty and, in his case, doing nothing to stop the assault, even when appealed to, repeatedly, by his closest advisers. The New York Times has observed our Nation faces an existential threat from a movement that is openly contemptuous of democracy and has shown a willingness to use violence to achieve its end. No self- governing society can survive such a threat by denying it exists. To deny it is to be complicit in what happened. But, more than anything else, today is a day to remember, to feel sorrow that our great Nation ever suffered such violence and division, to mourn those who died and were injured and to mark the day as history will: the first time in 244 years that our exceptional country was almost prevented from carrying out a peaceful transfer of power, a sacred principle, a tradition in which we have taken pride for generations and which we have taken for granted throughout our entire lives and that we have held up as an example to people everywhere. Now, our job in Congress is different than the prosecutors' roles. Democracy needs a foundation, and that foundation is nothing less than the truth. It has been said that trust in the rule of law is built in drops and lost in buckets. Our job is fundamental: Defend and advance the truth. Protect the rule of law itself. And as dean of this body, that is what I will do until the day I walk off this floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, several months ago, I spoke of the hope we all felt that after decades of civil war, famine, and political turmoil, after millions were killed and millions more became refugees including thousands of ``lost boys'' and ``lost girls,'' South Sudan's independence and a peace agreement would be the beginning of a period of lasting stability and progress. Regrettably, what has unfolded since then is the antithesis of stability or progress. The past decade has been plagued by continued ethnic violence, widespread hunger, and ongoing disputes between rival politicians who have been motivated by their own personal ambitions rather than building a democratic country or improving the lives of the South Sudanese people. Two individuals, President Salva Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar, are primarily to blame for fueling tensions and mobilizing support along ethnic lines and for failing in their responsibility to invest in public infrastructure, basic services, and the institutions of a multi-party democracy. The country remains divided, violent, and impoverished. The Parliament is nothing more than a hand-picked rubberstamp. In S. Res. 380, which passed unanimously on December 9, 2021, we recounted the failure of leadership that continues to plague South Sudan. We said: Whereas despite years of fighting, widespread suffering of South Sudanese civilians, punitive actions by the international community, and 2 peace agreements, the leaders of South Sudan have failed to build sustainable peace, and critical provisions of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict [R-ARCSS] . . . remain unimplemented; Whereas the leaders of South Sudan have consistently failed to uphold their responsibilities to create the conditions for peace and prosperity, have prioritized self-preservation and corruption over the needs of the people they represent, have acted in bad faith in the implementation of cease fire and peace agreements, and have betrayed the cause of freedom, resulting in the loss of millions of lives; and Whereas South Sudan has not held an election since its independence and the current leaders of South Sudan were appointed or installed through transitional arrangements based on peace agreements. The people of South Sudan deserve better. Their children are hungry. They live in constant fear that the country will again erupt into civil war, and they will be forced to flee their homes yet again. It is a travesty that, despite billions of dollars in international aid, oil revenues, and black market loans, so little has been accomplished due to the whims and greed of two politicians. Where did all that money go, when the government does not pay teachers, or health workers, diplomats, or war veterans, or build schools, health clinics, housing, or roads, or otherwise address the basic needs of the people of South Sudan? Where did the money go when the government does nothing to protect its citizens and their livestock from drowning from the yearly flooding of the Nile River? Does anyone doubt that it ended up in secret bank accounts or to purchase properties far away from South Sudan? I have spoken before of the People's Coalition for Civil Action-- PCCA--a pro-democracy civil rights movement that seeks to mobilize the people of South Sudan in their pursuit of peaceful political change, which is their right. The PCCA and similar peaceful organizations represent a rejection of war, corruption, insecurity, and poverty. They are calling for new, honest, and capable leadership that is committed to improving the lives of their people, to providing stability and security, rather than self-enrichment. I note that S. Res. 380 calls on the Secretary of State to ``lead a comprehensive interagency process to develop a revitalized United States policy toward South Sudan that . . . identifies South Sudanese political and civilian stakeholders, beyond President Kiir and First Vice President Machar, with whom the United States may work for the promotion of peace, democracy, development, accountability, transparency, and anti-corruption efforts.'' Supporting the PCCA would be a good place to start. How has President Kiir responded to this praiseworthy demand for nothing more than that he and Vice President Machar keep their promise to lead the country out of poverty? Several of the PCCA's leaders have been arrested. Others live in exile, fearing that they too would be jailed if they return home. I think of Abraham Awolich, one of the lost boys. One of his brothers was killed fighting for the liberation of South Sudan, and Abraham nearly died himself for the same cause, but he was fortunate to be educated in a refugee camp in Kenya and resettled in my State of Vermont, where he graduated from the university. He is one of the dedicated leaders of the PCCA who have called for free and fair elections so the country can finally have new leadership and leave behind a generation of corruption, violence, and misery. Abraham left the comfort of living in America and chose to go back to South Sudan to help build a new democratic society, but he has had to flee his country, and his assets have been frozen for speaking out and standing up for democracy and civil rights. This is wrong. Others who are in jail for their peaceful advocacy are Kuel Aguer Kuel, Pastor Abraham Chol Maketh, Malik Angok, and Fadhia Ngor. Rajab Mohandis, Wani Michael, Joseph Akol Makeer, and Jame David Kolok are on the run for the same reason, their assets also frozen. Other advocacy organizations the government has targeted besides the PCCA include the Organization for Responsive Governance, the Okay Africa Foundation, and the Foundation for Democracy and Accountable Governance. These individuals and organizations deserve and need our support. I urge the South Sudanese authorities to release Kuel Aguer Kuel and all the political prisoners mentioned so they can begin this new year with their families. The government should also unfreeze the assets of the individuals and organizations affected and issue a public statement revoking any further threats against them and their organizations. The repressive actions of the South Sudanese Government should outrage each of us, especially considering the billions of dollars American taxpayers contributed to secure South Sudan's independence and put the country on a path to a prosperous future. President Kiir and Vice President Machar have a duty to provide the political and civic space for their people to exercise their rights of free expression, association, and assembly and to petition for free and fair elections and for honest and competent governance. Ever since independence 10 years ago, the people of South Sudan have struggled to survive under the suffocating oppression of the same two disgraced leaders. President Kiir and Vice President Machar have an opportunity to show real statesmanship, but time is running out. They should listen to the voices of their people expressed through the National Dialogue and step aside and give South Sudan a new beginning. The two could end the unrest in South Sudan with a public declaration of their intention not to contest the next election. Rather than delay elections as they have done repeatedly before, President Kiir and Vice President Machar should set a date for national and Parliamentary elections, in accordance with the R-ARCSS, and declare their unconditional commitment to relinquish power as soon as South Sudan's new leaders are sworn in. In acting on this advice, President Kiir and Vice President Machar would receive international support for an honorable exit from power. Ignoring this advice, however, would result in further condemnation and consequences from the United States and the rest of the international community. The text of S. Res. 380 bears repeating, because it identifies some, but by no means all, of the consequences that could result. It ``urges the Secretary of the Treasury-- (A) to prioritize investigations into illicit financial flows fueling violence in South Sudan; (B) to work with the Secretary of State to update, on a regular basis, the list of individuals and entities designated under the South Sudan sanctions program, including individuals at the highest levels of leadership in South Sudan and from within the National Security Service; and (C) to coordinate, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, with the United Kingdom and the European Union on South Sudan-related sanctions designations and enforcement.'' What has befallen the people of South Sudan in the 10 years since independence is a travesty. Their dreams of a better future have been crushed. Their rights have been trampled. Many have paid with their lives or their freedom. Their government has become a subject of ridicule by the same international donors that staked so much on the good faith of leaders who have failed them. Time has run out for President Kiir and Vice President Machar. The patience of the South Sudanese people has run out. The tolerance of the international community has run out. They have squandered and abused their authority for far too long. They would be well-advised to stand aside so that others, chosen in a free and fair election, can begin the process of uniting and rebuilding the country. To that end, the United States can work with regional allies, Canada, Norway, the UK, other European nations, and church leaders to achieve a democratic and peaceful solution in South Sudan.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, while the distinguished leader is still on the floor, I thank him for his comments. It is very late at night, and I will speak further about this next week. I must admit, when I came here as the junior-most Member of the Senate, I did not expect to be in this position, but I have had the privilege now of serving with slightly over 20 percent of all of the Senators who have served in the history of this country, and some were very, very good Senators--and all were Senators. All were Senators, and some were very good. (Laughter.) I will speak about this later in the week. I appreciate the comments, and it has been a privilege serving with all of those hundreds and hundreds of Senators I have served with. Thank you. (Applause.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are about to go to the vote. Frankly, with what my distinguished colleague just said, I don't know why these aren't all voice votes. But I understand Senator Menendez is on his way here and wishes to speak. Otherwise, I would move that it be a voice vote. But out of respect for him and his committee, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the Senator who wishes to speak, I would note that I appreciate those who worked very hard, including my friends on the floor, on the National Defense Act. Yesterday, that passed with a pretty overwhelming majority, and I voted for it. But as I have noted, that does not provide money; that provides an authorization. Right now, if we go on continuing resolutions, the Department of Defense will see a multibillion-dollar cut in what is available for them, as will nondefense matters. So I would urge Senators to work with our leaders and get the appropriations bills done. They could all be done in an omnibus by the end of January, the 1st of February. I would urge Senators to do that. Otherwise, there is going to be a dramatic cut in defense and nondefense matters. I yield to the senior Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, while I was necessarily absent for the confirmation votes of Ramin Toloui and Rashad Hussain, I want the Congressional Record to reflect my support for their confirmations. Had I been present, I would have voted in the affirmative. Ramin Toloui is nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs. He is the professor of the Practice for International Finance at Stanford University, and the Tad and Diane Taube Policy Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. His teaching and research focus on international economic policy, financial crises, and the economic impact of artificial intelligence. He began his career as a civil servant at the Department of the Treasury. His nomination was favorably reported by the Foreign Relations Committee, and he is superbly qualified to hold this position. Rashad Hussain is nominated to be Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom. He is a senior counsel at the Department of Justice's National Security Division. He previously served as President Obama's Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation--OIC--as U.S. Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, and as Deputy Associate White House Counsel. In his role as OIC Envoy, Professor Hussain helped develop U.S policy and deepen and expand partnerships with Muslim-majority countries, civil society organizations, and the OIC, the world's second largest multilateral organization after the UN. As Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, Professor Hussain led an interagency body that worked with international partners to amplify credible narratives in countering terrorist propaganda. Having been reported favorably by the Foreign Relations Committee, I have no doubt of his qualifications for this position.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, those who know me, and even those who don't, are well aware of the pride I have in my Italian heritage. My maternal grandparents emigrated from the Friuli region of Italy, coming to South Ryegate, VT, to work in the granite quarries. Since the 1880s, many Italians have followed this same immigration pattern, settling across Vermont, where the beautiful hills and lakes remind them of their ancestral home. Today, Vermont boasts a strong community of Italian Americans, many of whom, including me, are members of the Vermont Italian Cultural Association, VICA. Led by President Lisa DeNatale, the association preserves and promotes Italian culture in Vermont, hosting language and travel groups, presentations, movies, cooking classes, luncheons, and bocce socials. Last year, Marcelle and I were delighted to join VICA and Trattoria Delia for a virtual wine- tasting. Joining with dear friends online helped us, like so many Vermonters, get through the earliest and harder months of the pandemic. It is nearly impossible to travel across our State without seeing the influence of the Italian-American community. In Northfield, the streets outside of La Panciata smell of Carrara, Italy, where founder Glenn Loati learned the ancient art of baking Latin leavened breads. In Burlington, Trattoria Delia serves traditional Neapolitan pizzas baked in an imported Acunto oven. And of course in Barre, where so many Italians immigrated, the Societa di Mutuo Soccorso provides community support, and the Vermont Salumi and Alimentari Roscini Market keeps us fed with some of the best cured meats in the State. Some Italian philosophies have also made their way to Vermont. The Slow Food movement, founded by Carlo Petrini in Turin, Italy, found a welcoming home in our State less than 10 years after its conception. The practices of growing and producing good, clean, and fair food certainly weren't new to Vermonters, but Slow Food Vermont has become an important part of our local food economy. I am proud to be a member of VICA and so grateful for the rich culture that Italian Americans have fostered in Vermont. The Green Mountain appreciation for artisanal products created with craftsmanship and traditional methods will always remind me of my Italian ancestors. I look forward to being back in Vermont, breaking bread and sharing wine, with this incredible community. ``We the Italians'' recently interviewed VICA President Lisa DeNatale. Her comments so resonated with me. I recognize many of the businesses, friends and communities she references. Even when far from Vermont and at work in Washington, these kinds of interviews take me home. I ask unanimous consent that the recent interview with Lisa DeNatale be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in Vermont, the general store is the epicenter of a community. It is where people not only buy their groceries and newspapers, but also tools and hardware, mittens and hats, axes and chainsaws, gas for their cars, and too many other things to name. But just as important, general stores are where Vermonters meet their neighbors, and when the weather is good, pass the time and talk about their families, things going on in town, or the state of the world. Marcelle and I have been to just about every general store in Vermont, and each one has its own history and character. One of them, Dan & Whit's, stands out. Located in Norwich about halfway up the eastern side of the State bordering on the Connecticut River, the store that became Dan & Whit's has been operating since 1891. It was originally called Merrill's Store, and the old Merrill's sign is still affixed to the front. The same neon clock, mounted high on the front of the store's facade, has told the time to the town since the 1950s. Made by the Electric Neon Clock Co. in Cleveland, it was recently restored and made energy efficient. In 1955, Dan Fraser and Whit Hicks, who had both worked at the store for over 20 years, bought it from Mr. Merrill. Since then, Dan & Whit's has been open for business 365 days a year, including a half day on Christmas and a half day on Thanksgiving. Dan and Whit ran the store as partners, and Dan's wife Eliza, known to all as ``Bunnie'', did the bookkeeping in the raised office near the stationery and greeting cards until Whit retired and sold out in 1972. Dan, who from what I am told hardly took a day off during all those years, retired in 1993, and turned the management of the store over to his sons George and Jack, and their sister Jane pitched in off and on. George's wife Susan took over Bunnie's job in the office, which hadn't changed in decades, except the typewriter was replaced by a computer. Ownership of the store is currently shared between George and his two sons Dan and Matt. Dan, after a 14-year career as a special education teacher, has taken over the day-to-day management. Most townspeople have an account, so they can simply sign the register and pay the bill at the end of the month. At no charge for local calls, anyone can use the push-button phone with its long cord by the ice machine, and before cell phones, it was a vital link from the magical abundance of the store to the outside world: ``Do we need anything at Dan & Whit's?'' There is a reason why the sign in the store window says, ``If we don't have it, you don't need it,'' because when you walk in and keep walking, the store never seems to end. Dan & Whit's has got absolutely everything, at least everything a person could reasonably want or need. There is fresh fruit and vegetables, a selection of wines, kitchen utensils, bins of nails and boxes of screws, fishing tackle, ladders and rakes, paint, bags of horse feed, maple syrup and candy, toys, ice cream scooped on the premises in summertime, home-brewed beer, bright orange hunting caps, snow boots, plumbing and electrical supplies, shovels and wheelbarrows, wood stoves, birdseed, the local and national newspapers, a deli, gasoline pumps and an electric vehicle charging station, and lots more. The place is kept warm in the winter by a wood- fired furnace in the basement, requiring cords and cords of wood-- delivered, split, and stacked behind the Frasers' homes, and there are solar panels on the roof. Dan & Whit's has long been a favored stop for hikers on the Appalachian Trail, which passes through the center of Norwich. Over the years, Dan & Whit's has hired local high school students to run the cash registers, and there was a time not that long ago when the employees who stocked the shelves and helped you find what you were looking for were long-timers like Larry Smith, who worked there for over 50 years. Recently, like so many other businesses in our State and around the country, it has been hard to find help. In fact, Dan & Whit's was facing the real possibility of closing, which would have been devastating for the people of Norwich, as well as countless others who come there to shop, as well as former residents of Norwich who stop at the store just to be sure that it is the same as it always was. As many have remarked, Dan & Whit's is the heart of Norwich, and losing it would have changed everything. I can't imagine Norwich without Dan & Whit's, and I suspect just about everyone who knows the store feels the same way. Real estate listings for property sales in the town include the distance from Dan & Whit's. Hundreds of notices are along the wall by the entrance: dog lost, secondhand items for sale, yoga lessons, a free concert, snow plowing. It all happens at the general store. Fortunately, but not surprisingly, when word got out that the store might close, the people of Norwich came to the rescue, and Dan & Whit's has not lost a day of business. I want to add my thanks to Dan and the volunteers who saved the heart of Norwich. They have reminded us of what is best about Vermont and, in doing so, have set an example for people everywhere. I ask unanimous consent that a piece written on December 7 by Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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