Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the House came together with the Senate to raise the debt limit, which I think was good because another closedown of our government would have been disastrous. So I am proud, as President pro tempore, to sign the joint resolution that raises the debt limit, and that will go now to the President. The Speaker signed it, I have signed it, and now the President will be able to sign the bill. I was very, very proud to do that.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to recognize Xusana Davis, who delivered the keynote address for Vermont's 24th Annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference earlier this year. Each year, Marcelle and I host this conference to bring together Vermonters to learn how to navigate, grow, and succeed in today's workplace. While public health concerns led to an online conference this year, the dedication of the women who participated shone through. I hope the participants were as inspired by Ms. Davis's words as I was. Xusana Davis is Vermont's first Executive Director of Racial Equity and was appointed in 2019 by Vermont Governor Phil Scott. In her position as the Director of Racial Equity, she works with Vermont agencies and communities to address systemic racial disparities, ensures the State's operations meet its equity goals and objectives, and guides policy on equity issues. She offered an insightful view of how we can all advance equity in our communities and offered her remarks with grace and eloquence. Ms. Davis's leadership comes at a time when we continue to see great need for equity in the workplace. The pandemic has worsened preexisting disparities that have effected women, especially those who identify with historically marginalized communities. As Ms. Davis emphasizes in her speech, we must all work to promote equity as we collectively participate in our Nation's economic recovery. I would like to share her inspiring words by submitting them for inclusion in the Congressional Record in the hopes that we may all take her message to heart. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 know many Senators will be speaking further on this floor about one of the most distinguished Senators, certainly, I have had the honor to serve with, and that is Bob Dole, the Senator from Kansas, a former majority leader. We will hear, as we should, of his bravery, courageous nature in World War II, how he overcame the horrific injuries received to go on to a life of service--continuous service for the State of Kansas. We have so many wonderful memories of him, how he and the Democratic leader would meet in person or by phone several times a day, the comments they made about each other. You could always take his word. He never surprised me. That is the way he was. He was the way a Senator should be. He always kept his word. But I also think of the personal things. He went to Europe, to Italy, to represent President Ronald Reagan on D-Day. President Reagan was going to be in Normandy, and he asked Senator Dole to go over and represent him in Italy, and there would be several Congressional Medal of Honor recipients on board the plane. I was honored that he wanted to make it a bipartisan trip, and he asked me and my wife Marcelle to join him on the trip to Italy. The reason I mention the trip is that these Congressional Medal of Honor recipients--all for enormous bravery. They, so typical of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, did not brag about what they did. They were just so honored to talk to Senator Dole about what he did. Senator Dole tried to be very modest about his exploits. He talked to them about those exploits of theirs that brought about the receipt of the Congressional Medal of Honor. He would brush it off, but they would ask: Senator Dole, what about this and what about that? And all the way through, he was great, a sense of humor, self-deprecating. Everybody on that plane realized this was a true hero of that war. I will speak more later on, but he was a good friend. I was honored to join Senator Pat Roberts to speak about Senator Dole when he received the Congressional Gold Medal. I told him what an honor it was that he asked me to speak. Certainly, when I think back on my years here in the Senate, that is one of the highest honors I received, to have this man whom I admired, I liked, was my friend, to ask me to speak for him. I also felt that there were so many others who were probably even far better prepared to speak for him. I felt the honor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished leader for his words and his statement about our friend Bob Dole. I also agree with him in that we have to stay here and get this work done. Madam President, as someone who has observed the evolution of relations between the United States and Cuba for nearly 50 years, particularly since I first traveled there in 1999, I find the situation between our two countries today bewildering, tragic, and exasperating. Bewildering, because senior Administration officials--who have publicly and privately acknowledged that the 60-year policy of unilateral U.S. sanctions, isolation, and threats has failed to achieve any of its objectives and instead has hurt the Cuban people--have nevertheless adopted that same failed policy as their own. Tragic, because the policy has emboldened Cuba's hard-liners who have cracked down even more on citizens who dare to peacefully protest about shortages of food, medicine, and electricity, and against government repression. And it has exacerbated the crisis that has engulfed the island due to the COVID pandemic and the government's dysfunctional economic policies. Exasperating, because anyone who understands Cuba could have predicted what has happened since the Trump Administration reversed the Obama Administration's policy of engagement and would have taken steps to mitigate it. Instead, the current policy is making the situation even worse. For the past ten months, I have urged the White House to not repeat past mistakes when it comes to our relations with Cuba's government and the Cuban people and to pursue a policy based on our longterm national interests. I deeply regret that has not yet happened. Instead, this administration's policy, so far, has been dictated by a tiny but vocal constituency in this country that has always opposed U.S. engagement with Cuba. It is a policy that history has shown is doomed to fail. Currently, the United States and Cuba have diplomatic relations, but to what end? There is no meaningful diplomacy being conducted, and our Embassy in Havana and Cuba's Embassy in Washington are barely functioning. Consular operations have ceased. The dialogues we had with the Cuban Government on issues of mutual interest, from law enforcement to human rights to public health--dialogues the Trump Administration cut off--have not resumed. How can this be in our national interest? While Cuba remains on the list of state sponsors of terrorism due to a last-minute, politically driven, vindictive, and factually indefensible decision of the Trump administration, we continue to have diplomatic relations. Is this not irreconcilable? And whatever became of the administration's review of that deeply flawed designation which was promised months ago? Cultural, scientific, and educational exchanges have largely ended. This is neither justified nor in our national interest. The COVID pandemic provided an obvious opportunity for cooperation between American and Cuban scientists, but that opportunity, like so many others over the years, was squandered due to politics, distrust, and spite. The U.S. Treasury Department continues to block remittances from Cuban Americans to their relatives on the island even though it is their money, not Treasury's. Shouldn't Cuban Americans have the right to decide for themselves whether to send their own money to their relatives rather than having that decision dictated by the White House? Remittances help Cubans be less dependent on the government, improve their standard of living, and provide the seed capital for Cuba's growing private sector, which, today, comprises one-third of the Cuban workforce. The number of remittances siphoned off by the Cuban Government is a small fraction of what some have falsely claimed, and is no more than what other governments charge. Let's base our policy on facts rather than on rumor and what plays well domestically. And Cuba, just 90 miles from Florida, is the only country besides North Korea where travel by Americans is severely restricted despite our common history and cultural traditions. It is as ridiculous as it is self-defeating. The White House has repeatedly said that ``democracy and human rights'' are at the core of its policy toward Cuba. Those are aspirations--laudable aspirations--but they are not a policy. We all want to see a Cuba where political freedom and fundamental rights, especially freedom of expression, are respected and where an independent judiciary protects the right of due process. Those rights are severely restricted in Cuba today, as they are in many countries, including some recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid. Where we disagree is on how best to support the Cuban people's struggle to obtain those rights. I have asked, but I have no idea what the administration's practical objectives are in Cuba or how it proposes to achieve them. After being told 6 months ago that the State Department was conducting a review of its policy, we have yet to see any change from the policy it inherited from the Trump administration a year ago. What happened to the review? What did it say? Several administration officials have justified the continuation of President Trump's punishing sanctions because of the public protests in Cuba on July 11. They say ``everything changed'' on July 11. Cuba is changing. Access to social media and cell phones has dramatically increased. Attitudes among the younger generation are changing. The Cuban Government is making historic, albeit hesitant, reforms to relax restrictions on private businesses. President Obama's opening to Cuba, which lasted only 2 years was instrumental in helping to bring about these changes. Rather than acknowledge the unprecedented progress during that short period, those who defend a policy of sanctions say Obama' s policy of openness failed because Cuba remains a repressive, one-party state. They completely ignore that the same was true for 50 years before Obama and for the 5 years since Obama. When it comes to helping to bring positive changes to the people of Cuba, President Obama wins hand down. But, today, the United States is, once again, on the sidelines, clinging to an outdated policy that history has shown will not succeed. In fact, it is having the opposite effect by denying opportunities to both Cubans and Americans. U.S. policy toward Cuba is replete with contradictions, hypocrisy, arrogance, and missed opportunities. Cuba is an impoverished country that poses no threat to the United States; yet we treat it as if it does largely because of our own actions. While we maintain an intricate web of unilateral sanctions that every nation in this hemisphere opposes, the Russians and Chinese are aggressively filling the vacuum as anyone who visits Cuba today can readily see. Engaging with a government whose policies are anathema to our own does not bestow legitimacy on that government's leaders or acceptance of its repressive policies. If that were the case, we should cease engaging not only with Cuba but with dozens of governments around the world, including several U.S. partners, Saudi Arabia and Egypt being obvious examples. We condemn the arbitrary arrests, sham trials, laws that criminalize civil society, and the mistreatment and imprisonment of political dissidents. These abuses are common to many countries, and we apply targeted sanctions, and we restrict aid. But, for purely domestic political reasons, we continue to impose a vast web of sweeping sanctions against Cuba even when the administration knows they have not worked. I have said it many times: Our policy toward Cuba needs to be guided--first and foremost--by what is in our national interest, not by what is in the interest of a tiny domestic constituency and not by making demands that we know the Cubans won't submit to. Engaging with Cuba affords U.S. diplomats and American citizens the opportunity to build relationships with Cuban counterparts and identify issues of common interest on which to make progress. We saw that during the Obama administration despite some who could not bring themselves to admit it. Over time, that is how we can then begin to address the more difficult issues that divide us, knowing that it is the Cuban people, not the United States, who will ultimately determine their country's future. This administration has had 10 months to demonstrate that continuing the failed Trump policy of trying to bludgeon the Cuban authorities into submission can produce positive results. There is not a shred of evidence that it can. It never has. Are we going to waste another year and another after that? I hope not, but that is what will happen if the White House does not change course and show the kind of thoughtful leadership on Cuba that we saw during the Obama administration and that was welcomed by a large majority of the American people. As Einstein said and so many have repeated, ``Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'' This administration can do better. It needs to do better. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my hope that soon the Senate might be able to vote on a bipartisan agreement to keep the government open and funded through February 18. I know both parties are working on that agreement right now. I wish those who are doing it good luck. I have certainly been working hard with the Appropriations Committee to help on that as have others. In fact, the only thing worse than running the government under a continuing resolution, a CR, is a government shutdown. A shutdown only hurts the American people. We know last time we had one, it wasted billions in taxpayer dollars. And with the agreement that I anticipate, I am glad that the bill will include critical funding to support Afghan refugees as we help them get resettled here in the United States. These brave women and men were our allies through 20 years of war. We have an obligation to support them as they begin their new lives. I am not giving this speech as some kind of a victory lap. We are 2 months into the fiscal year, and we appear no closer to getting an agreement on full-year appropriations bills. Now, if we vote on this, which I hope we will soon, we are buying time to complete these negotiations, and we have to complete these negotiations. It is not a matter of whether we should; we have to. But in order to complete these negotiations, we have to begin them. We have to have both sides represented at the table. My Republican colleagues, to this day, have not come to the table. I have been talking to many of them, and I am hoping they will because the American people deserve better than that from their elected officials. They expect to see both Democrats and Republicans sitting down negotiating--no matter how we vote in the end, that we are working on coming to something that will be voted on. On October 18, nearly a month and a half ago, Senate Democrats released a comprehensive offer in an effort to jump-start these negotiations. We wanted to let all Senators--both parties but especially our Republican colleagues and the American people--know our values. Since then, it has been very, very quiet. We haven't heard any response. Let me tell you about our offer. I believe the offer was fair. I talked with Senators across the political spectrum. We provided a 5- percent increase for defense programs compared to last fiscal year and a 13-percent increase for all other programs. I took that 5 percent because it is exactly the amount passed by a 25-to-1 vote by the Senate Armed Services Committee. It certainly is significantly higher than the 1.7-percent increase for defense proposed by the Biden administration, and the amount is lower than the 16 percent the administration proposed for nondefense programs, even though I would like that 16 percent. But it is called compromise. We took from one; we gave to the other. It is compromise. It is how you get things done. Nobody gets every single thing they want, even if you are chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. As I mentioned earlier, the 5 percent wasn't something I picked out of thin air. It was the exact amount contained in the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, that is before the Senate this week and again reported from the Senate Armed Services Committee. I think it was 24 to 1, but it was overwhelming. The work on that bill has fallen due to Republican obstructionism over a series of amendments. To be clear though, none of the amendments Republicans are fighting for on the NDAA would increase total spending in the bill. That is because the 5-percent increase has bipartisan, bicameral support--Republicans and Democrats, both in the House and the Senate. That is the percentage they agreed to. Republicans unanimously endorsed the 5-percent increase when the NDAA was marked up in the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the 5-percent increase passed overwhelmingly in the House when they considered the NDAA over 2 months ago. I have been here for 47 years. This is as close to consensus as we can get--unanimous and near-unanimous votes. So I have to ask, why not take yes for an answer? If I was a cynical person, I would think this delay was deliberate. If I was a cynical person, I would think this delay was meant to drive us into a full-year continuing resolution. If I was a cynical person, I would think that because some in the Republican Party have even expressed this desire out loud. But for a party that claims to care about our Nation's defense, I suggest they do the math. A full-year CR would not only reduce defense spending instead of increasing it, it would reduce it by $37 billion compared to the levels set forth in the NDAA that they voted for unanimously. Actually, it would cut defense spending below last year's level. So stop the hyperbole. Stop the rhetoric. Deal with the reality. I have to ask those Republicans who are advocating for a full-year CR is their support for our Nation's security merely political theater? I hope not because what they are asking for is a tremendous cut in defense, not an increase. But also I look at the nondefense area. The impact a full-year CR would have on American families in all corners of this country is equally unthinkable. Housing, education, childcare, critical healthcare programs--every one of these are at risk under a full-year continuing resolution. I can't possibly imagine that any Senator of either party is going to go home and say: Oh, I support huge cuts in housing, education, childcare, critical healthcare programs. I cannot possibly believe that is an outcome the other side would endorse, but that is what they are asking for in a CR. Every week, it seems I receive letters from advocacy groups and industry associations--both those normally associated with Republican positions and those normally associated with Democratic positions--and they all say the same thing. They detail the problems that would come from the full-year CR and ask us to do our job and enact full-year bills. Among those, they include the National Defense Industrial Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, numerous veterans groups--all groups we say we support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four of these letters be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. These four letters and others expressing concern can be found online at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/download/ advocacy-and-industry-group-letters. Let me be clear. Refusing to come to the negotiating table undermines national security and inhibits our ability to invest in American families, impedes our capability to respond to the coronavirus and what we now see as emerging variants--which I am sure the Presiding Officer hears in his State, I hear in my State, and I guarantee you in the other 48 States, every Senator is hearing about that concern. But also there are 100 of us. We are elected to represent the whole country, 325 million Americans. We are elected to do our job. If we don't do it, it is irresponsible. That is the reason we are here today kicking the can down the road another 2 months. Let's stand and vote yes or no on these issues. We have a job to do. The bill we will soon vote on, which I expect will be coming over soon from the House, gives us roughly 2 months to do it, and that is plenty of time. But I would ask the Republican leadership to step up and engage, and I hope they will do it in the next few weeks. I am prepared any day--any day, any weekend, any evening, any morning, whenever--if we could do this. Otherwise, we are going to be back here February 18, and the American people, no matter what party they belong to, are going to say: What are you folks doing? Where is this legislation? So when the bill comes over, I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the bill, but I urge my Republican colleagues to work with me and with the House to ensure that we do not have to pass another one in February. I have talked with Members of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. They will tell me privately they are willing to work, they want to work, and they want to get it done. I appreciate that, but now is the time to step up and do it. I think we can. I hope we will.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I will note that, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, this bill was negotiated on a bipartisan-bicameral basis to keep the government open and operating until February 18. I urge every Member to vote ``aye.'' We have to pass it tonight, but I warn and remind every Senator: It is not a substitute for doing our work. We have to use the next 2 months to negotiate and enact full-year appropriations bills. I hope my Republican friends will come to the table to negotiate toplines. The Democrats have made a fair offer, a strong offer, and we need a response. So I thank Vice Chairman Shelby for his cooperation and hard work on this bill. I look forward to working with him, as I did earlier today, and will continue to until we get an agreement on a topline and all 12 appropriations bills by February 18. Let's get to work and show the country the Senate can do its work. I yield the floor. Vote on H.R. 6119

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in June of this year, Egyptian prosecutors opened a criminal investigation concerning human rights defender Hossam Bahgat, in relation to a December 2020 tweet criticizing Egypt's flawed parliamentary elections. The acts he has been accused of would not be considered crimes in the United States, nor in any other country that respects freedom of expression. Hossam Bahgat is the executive director and founder of one of the most respected Egyptian human rights organizations, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, EIPR. His work has been recognized around the world, and in April 2021, Mr. Bahgat met with Secretary of State Blinken as part of a group of leading human rights activists. Other EIPR employees have also been targeted, along with many others as part of the government's crackdown on independent civil society organizations. In February of 2020, EIPR researcher Patrick George Zaki was forcibly disappeared and reportedly tortured. A year ago, three of EIPR's senior employees, Gasser Abdel-Razek, Karim Ennarah, and Mohamed Basheer, were also arbitrarily detained, effectively silencing them. Mr. Bahgat faces up to 3 years in prison and almost $20,000 in fines for reportedly doing nothing more than expressing views the Egyptian authorities consider to be ``insulting'' or ``false news''. This is not the first time Mr. Bahgat has been targeted for his courageous and important reporting. In 2015, he was detained for 3 days after reporting on officers convicted of planning a coup and was only released when the case received international attention from human rights groups and the United Nations. I have consistently spoken out about human rights in Egypt and in other countries, especially when governments crack down on human rights activists. The State Department publicly expressed concern in July of this year. Today, I am adding my voice to others who have raised concerns about Mr. Bahgat's wrongful detention. A verdict in his case may be imminent. I hope the Egyptian Government will abandon its persecution of Hossam Bahgat and his fellow human rights defenders. Like the Department of State, I have been urging the Egyptian authorities to make progress on human rights so our two countries can expand cooperation in other important areas. Further attempts to silence Mr. Bahgat and the other EIPR employees will needlessly impede those efforts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his comments. He and I have been friends for decades. I also acknowledge the distinguished Secretary of the Senate, who is here this morning. Mr. President, eight times the voters of Vermont--who are my neighbors, my friends, my family--have had the great faith to send me to the U.S. Senate to represent them. Yesterday, I told those neighbors and friends and my family that I would not run for reelection. I told the Vermonters who have humbled me since my first election to the Senate in 1974 that I will leave this seat at the conclusion of my term. It is a decision I do not come to lightly but one in which Marcelle and I find great peace. In the last nearly 47 years, the Senate has become a family to both Marcelle and me. Here we found friends, some of the best of friends, and relationships that will and have lasted a lifetime. But the Senate has always been where I have come to fight for Vermont, a State that has been my home since birth, the place where I met Marcelle, where we started our family, and to which in early 2023, we will return for good. It is time to go home. Here is the thing about the Senate. Here is where small States like Vermont have not just a seat at the table but a voice at the table. For decades, I have been privileged to fight for Vermont, from the small grown-in-Vermont ideas like the revitalization of our historic downtowns to farm to school programs, to organic farming--all of which started small and have become increasingly popular across the country-- and to Vermont's trailblazing approach to criminal justice reforms and victim advocacy, to taking Vermonters' outward view that our great Green Mountain State is open and welcome to anyone, including those fleeing desperate situations in far-off places. On all of these issues and so many more, it has been an honor to represent the great State--the greatest State--of Vermont in the U.S. Senate. I am going to have more to say about the challenges, the rewards, and, I am afraid, some disappointments over the last 46 years at a later time. Now I want to celebrate the accomplishments that, together with my constituents, we have achieved for Vermont over the last decades. I want to recognize the work still to do this year in Congress. I want to thank the unbelievably wonderful women and men on my staff and my staff throughout the years. They have steadfastly stood by me in our shared goals to deliver for Vermonters and for Vermont and for the country. I want to thank my family--my children, grandchildren, my parents, and Marcelle's parents who were here with me to start this journey in the first Senate election who I know watch over the entire Leahy family today. I think of how my immigrant grandparents and great-grandparents and Marcelle's immigrant parents, how they must feel if they are looking down. And, of course, Marcelle, my closest friend, my partner. The last couple of years have been challenging in ways we could never have imagined. But she was with me from the first moment of the first campaign, and we made our decision together and decided it is time to go back home. Now, we both look forward to the hard work the coming year will bring with the same conviction that brought us to Washington in the first place; that the brighter horizons of tomorrow hold the hope of the future and the privilege I feel to serve in this body and trying to guide our wonderful country toward the future. As I said, I will speak more about this later, but, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor. (Applause, Senators rising.) I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, we are now 4 weeks into the fiscal year. The Federal Government--the most powerful nation on Earth--is running on autopilot, and we only have 4 weeks until the government shuts down unless Congress takes action. And it is not a theoretical exercise. The actions we take, or don't take, in this Chamber with respect to the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills affect people's lives and also the direction of this Nation. These bills provide for our national defense, help educate our Nation's children, provide medical care for our veterans, ensure that we have clean air and water, invest in science, and provide a social safety net for our Nation's most vulnerable populations. Now, we can, and we should, do our job and finish these bills in the coming weeks, and we should be ready to go. I mean, 2 weeks ago, I made public nine Senate appropriations bills. When you combine this with the three bills the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up way back in August, all 12 bills have been released. The House has marked up all of their bills, and all but three of them have already passed the House. But in order to finish our work, we need to have an agreed-upon top line that has been worked out in a bipartisan and bicameral basis-- something that has been done so many times in the past. We can't finalize bills until we know how much we are able to spend. And I have been calling for these negotiations for months. But we need all the party to come to the table. It takes both Republicans and Democrats to strike a deal. Now, Democrats have already made a fair offer. My Republican colleagues made clear to us that they believed the President's proposal for a 1.7-percent increase for defense programs was inadequate. I thought it struck the right balance, as did many of my colleagues. But this institution is built on compromise. So in the Senate posted bill, I included a 5-percent increase for defense instead of the 1.7 percent the administration had proposed. The 5-percent increase is based on the funding level included in the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. Now, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted on that. Do you know what the vote was?--25 to 1, in favor of that 5-percent increase. Every single Senate Republican on the Committee supported this level of funding. The House bill contains the same 5-percent increase, and it passed the House Chamber, 316 to 113. In order to increase the defense number and stay within the top line established in the FY 2022 budget resolution, I reduced the amount for nondefense programs from President Biden's proposed 16-percent increase, which I would have preferred--but I reduced it to a 13- percent increase. That is how negotiations work. Each side has to give something. Now, having offered the Republican-endorsed spending level for defense, have they taken yes for an answer? No. Have they taken time for a counteroffer? No. Instead, they seem intent on driving us toward a full-year continuing resolution. If I had been here a long time and was a cynical person, which I am not, I would be worried that delay was a political calculation to tie the hands of the Biden administration and thwart his agenda--governing under a long-term continuing resolution is difficult, and they know it. But this Vermonter tries not to be cynical. But I would remind, from a practical point of view, the stakes are too high to play politics with the practical budget. This is not something we should play politics with because the consequences for the American people are too great. The impacts of a full-year CR are too onerous for the country to bear. That is unquestionably true for those who claim to care about defense programs and national security. And you would think that fact all by itself would bring all parties to the negotiating table. A full-year CR would not only reduce the defense spending by $37 billion compared to the Senate bill I posted, it would actually cut defense spending below last year's levels. Since a CR freezes programs at last year's level, certain programs would be overfunded and others would be underfunded. The Department of Defense would be unable to shift enough money around within their transfer authority to correct the imbalances, resulting in billions of unspent dollars and even more unmet priorities. And you can only imagine the waste and confusion that would occur. With money tied up in outdated priorities, the United States will struggle to meet the challenges and threats of today. While the U.S. is no longer in Afghanistan, a CR would revive the Overseas Contingency Operations, OCO, to the tune of $69 billion at DOD. And that is the account, of course, meant to fund wartime activities. It would also provide--just think of this for a moment--$3.3 billion to train and arm the now-defunct Afghan security forces. In other words, a continuing resolution would have $3.3 billion to train and arm a no longer existing Afghan security force. Now, while we are paying for a war we are not actually fighting, DOD may be forced to reduce the end-strength of our military just so they can pay our troops and civilian personnel the 2.7-percent pay raise they so rightly deserve, that is set to go into effect on January 1, 2022. In other words, the Pentagon may have to lay off soldiers to find the money for a pay raise under a continuing resolution, while money is tied up on a war we are not even fighting. That makes no sense. That makes no sense. Just think of this: We lay off soldiers so we can pay for a pay raise, because we have our money tied up in a war that we are not fighting. I mean, Kafka couldn't think of something this crazy. Now, most Members in this Chamber would agree that China is one of our biggest threats. Reflecting that reality, the President proposed over $66 billion in military investments to counter the growing influence of China. None of the new capabilities included in the defense appropriations bill would be funded under a continuing resolution. So we can say, boy, we are going to gear up with China; however, the Senate can't get around to vote on it. Now, many Senators have come to the floor in recent weeks to ask that we provide an additional $1 billion for Iron Dome. I wonder if they are aware that if we have a CR, Iron Dome doesn't get a billion dollars; it gets $73 million. Given these facts--and these are only a few of many examples--I am mystified why there doesn't seem to be any urgency on the other side to solve these problems. Republican Members have been quick to criticize Democratic leadership for not bringing the NDAA to the Senate floor for consideration more quickly, but that is an authorizing bill. And when it comes to actually funding the Defense--not just authorizing, but actually putting the money there--they won't even come to the table. Yet, on the very same day, I was told that the Republican leadership wants to have a full-year continuing resolution that would cut defense funding. They are out here saying, Why aren't you passing an increase in the Defense spending--but, oh, by the way, we want a bill that would cut the Defense funding? So I would ask them, which is it? Is one aim for the TV soundbites? But if rhetoric doesn't match the reality, start being honest with the American people. If we fail to get a deal on full-year appropriations bills, our veterans also lose out. Due to increased demands for community care, under a continuing resolution, the VA will not have sufficient funds to cover medical care for veterans. These are men and women who served our country. Think of all the praise we have had, all the greetings as the great men and women come back from wars, many suffering all kinds of injuries. ``We will never forget our veterans.'' Oh, yes, we will because we won't stand up and pass the money they need. Veterans deserve better than this. Our domestic priorities will also suffer under a continuing resolution. The fiscal year 2022 Senate bills include historic increases to care for and educate our Nation's children, combat climate change, build and renovate affordable housing, improve our infrastructure, and continue to combat the pandemic, which is still with us. None of these increases--none of them--will occur under a full-year CR. We will be forced to operate at last year's levels in a country that now has been transformed by a global pandemic. How irresponsible is that? For example, in our bill, we provide critical funding increases for mental health and substance abuse. These funds are desperately needed in every State in this country as rates of anxiety and depression have soared during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drug overdose deaths are expected to reach their highest levels to date. But in a continuing resolution, we say: Tough. You are on your own. We don't have the money. Under a continuing resolution, funding at the National Institutes of Health will stagnate, leaving us behind in critical advancements in medical research at a time I think we need it more than anytime in my life. The fiscal year 2022 Senate bills include critical investments to combat climate change. That would disappear under a CR. A CR says we will have complacency, not bold action. The next few days and weeks are critical. I hope the American people realize what is at stake. I ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in negotiating a path forward. It is not an exaggeration to say that the choice we face with these appropriations bills goes to the very heart of why we are here. We can either come together the way we used to, the way democracy is supposed to, and make our government work for the American people or we can become the branch of government where, instead of governing, the minority party defines its role as preventing the Congress from doing its job so it can then falsely blame the majority party. There have been around 2,000 Senators who have had the privilege of serving this country since it began. I served with over 400 of them-- more than 20 percent of all the Senators in the Nation's history. I remember Republicans and Democrats could work together, not for their party's interest but for the country's interest. There are only 100 of us. We should be the conscience of the Nation. We should be working together to protect the Nation. But I fear that we have political gamesmanship, and it is not just about these bills but the relevance of Congress itself today and for the future, whichever party is in the minority. If that becomes the norm, it is going to be impossible to turn the clock back. We need a top-line deal. Republicans need to come to the table and make a comprehensive offer. Those of us on this side of the aisle are ready to work on behalf of the American people. I ask our Republican colleagues to join us in working for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee for his comments. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that yesterday, the Senate confirmed Adrienne Wojciechowski to be the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations at the U.S. Department of Agriculture--USDA--a role for which is eminently qualified. For more than a decade, Adrienne has been an indispensable staff member in the Senate, dedicated to supporting farmers, growing our rural economies, and tackling climate change and land stewardship challenges. Adrienne has earned deep respect from on both sides of the aisle. Adrienne first joined my staff in 2007 and quickly became a key member of my legislative team on topics ranging from agriculture to water quality to climate change. Adrienne was immediately involved in 2008 farm bill negotiations and played an integral staff role in negotiating substantial portions of the 2014 and 2018 farm bills. Over the years, I could always count on Adrienne's persistence, attention to detail, and sound judgement. Adrienne brought these same gifts to her work with USDA partners in Vermont, carefully building trusting relationships that enabled my legislative work to be informed by on-the-ground, State-level delivery of USDA programs. Most recently, Adrienne has served as a professional staff member on the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, managing Senators' diverse spending priorities in the annual appropriations cycle and negotiating bipartisan final bills. I have served on the Senate Agriculture Committee since I first came to the Senate. There is an old saying that Vermont without farms would still be a nice place, but it wouldn't be Vermont. While she is not a native Vermonter herself, it has been a pleasure to see Adrienne form such deep relationships with Vermont's agrarian traditions, our farmers, and our landscape. Whether it was navigating USDA bureaucracy or rebuilding a barn after a fire, farmers and the agriculture community in Vermont knew that a call to my office would get Adrienne on the case. Although Senate staff work behind the scenes and their contributions can go unheralded, the impact of Adrienne's dedication, her contributions to conservation policy, farm viability, and farmland protection programs can truly be seen on the landscape of Vermont and across the country. On behalf of all Vermonters, I thank Adrienne Wojciechowski for her service to the U.S. Senate and wish her the best of luck as she joins the Biden administration.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate today has the opportunity to live up to its best traditions. We can put our democracy over any political party. Later today, we will take the first step that could put us on the path to having an open debate about the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I have championed and sponsored this bill to restore the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. I have done this for years. Today, Senators of both parties have the chance to show they are willing to do the job we were elected to do--to debate and vote on legislation. And no legislation could be more foundational to our democracy than that which protects the right to vote. We 100 Senators all have the right to vote. Let us exercise that right and not avoid voting on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. This is such a fundamental part of our democracy. Let's set the example here, where all 100 Senators know we have the right to vote. Let's make sure we vote and not avoid voting. I hope that we as a Senate will honor the rich bipartisan history around the Voting Rights Act in the name of our hero John Lewis, in the name of our democracy, and in the name of a foundational value that is the bedrock of our country. Just yesterday, we announced a bipartisan compromise in the hopes of building support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I am grateful to Senators Murkowski and Durbin and Manchin for their dedication to reaching this compromise. That bill, which we would seek to advance after proceeding to S. 4, will fully restore the Voting Rights Act, which is needed after two devastating decisions by the Supreme Court. I have been clear that should the Senate eventually proceed to this bill, then I would welcome amendments to further strengthen and solidify this restoration of the Voting Rights Act, which, after all, has been bipartisan since the first enactment, usually passing the Senate unanimously, being signed into law by Presidents Reagan and Bush and others. But we should at least have that debate. Certainly, Senators should not avoid debating, and certainly Senators should not hide behind some procedural role so they don't have to vote one way or the other on the basic rights of Americans to vote. So that is why we are here--to debate, vote on bills. There is simply no reason for any Senator to look at their constituents and say that this topic, that of protecting the right to vote, is just too political or too controversial--not the Voting Rights Act; not a voting rights bill that has a 56-year history of bipartisanship. No Senator should act as though they are afraid to vote one way or the other on this. Is that the message we want to convey to American voters eager to know what the Senate is doing to protect and strengthen our democracy? Ours is the longest surviving democracy in history. The American people are watching and the world is watching what we do. Americans expect us to vote yes or no, not hide behind procedure. Restoring and updating the Voting Rights Act on a bipartisan basis is how we have always done it. The core provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been reauthorized five times. Every time, there has been overwhelming bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats alike. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush all signed Voting Rights Act reauthorizations into law. They touted the profound importance of this landmark law for our democracy. In fact, I remember--I was here-- the most recent Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 2006 and the vote: 98 to 0. We still have Senators serving today, both Republicans and Democrats, who voted to support that legislation. The compromise bill I crafted with Senator Murkowski follows the very same blueprint of these other bipartisan efforts to restore the Voting Rights Act. I am aware of the toxic partisanship of American politics today, but I hope that is not going to obscure what has for decades united us as Americans and across party lines, and that is the belief that every one of us should have that protecting our right to vote--the very right that gives our democracy its name--is bigger than party or politics. It is the belief that a system of self-government--a government of, by, and for the people--is one that is worth preserving for generations to come. It is the belief that government exists to serve the will of the people, not the other way around. So I hope that today we are going to rise above partisanship. Let's do what is right for our democracy. Let's not be afraid to vote. I hope we show Americans the Senate is still capable of being the conscience of the Nation and a unifying force during a divided time. I still believe we can be the Senate that acts together to maintain Americans'--our constituents'--constitutional right to vote. When Senators come to the floor to cast their votes today, I hope they keep in mind the rich bipartisan history of the Voting Rights Act. I hope they decide to live up to that history. I hope they are also mindful of how history will remember us. Decades from now, when history tells the story of today's current threats to democracy, let it also tell the story of Senators who rose above the fray to protect the right that gives democracy its very name. Let all Senators vote so that all Americans can vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate today is going to vote on the confirmation of Vermont's own Justice Beth Robinson, a vote to confirm her to serve as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. As an advocate, Beth Robinson has been rightfully hailed as a tireless champion for equal rights and equal justice, but more importantly, her record as a Vermont Supreme Court justice clearly demonstrates her fairness, her impartiality, and loyalty to the rule of law above all else. We Vermonters overwhelmingly support her nomination, including elected officials--both Republicans and Democrats--the entire Vermont Supreme Court, and the Vermont Bar Association; they overwhelmingly support her. Justice Robinson will fill Vermont's seat on the Second Circuit, and I believe she is the best, strongest candidate for this position. She deserves bipartisan support in this Senate, as she got last week on a vote. Beth Robinson was appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court by Governor Peter Shumlin in November 2011. To give you some idea of the bipartisan support she has had over the years, the Vermont Senate, Republicans and Democrats, have to vote on her nomination, and they voted unanimously to have her on the Vermont Supreme Court. All current Vermont Supreme Court justices, appointed by both Democratic and Republican Governors, have signed a letter supporting her nomination to the Second Circuit. For the past decade, she has served on the court honorably. She has also participated in nearly 1,800 decisions. Now, I am a member of the Vermont bar, and I pay attention to what happens, and I see her tenure as being a display of a commitment to the rule of law. Her unwavering, decade-long dedication as a jurist and her loyalty to the law above all else has made Beth Robinson an outstanding Vermont Supreme Court justice. No Vermonter doubts she will carry that approach to justice with her in the Second Circuit. Let me talk a little bit about before she was on the bench. Prior to the time on the bench, Justice Robinson dedicated her legal career to pursuing liberty and justice for all. She spent the beginning of her legal career defending workers' rights and advancing discrimination cases. It was during this time that she worked pro bono as cocounsel to the plaintiffs in the case Baker v. State that challenged Vermont's then-protection on same-sex marriage. She successfully litigated this landmark decision in which the Vermont Supreme Court upheld equal protections for same-sex couples and actually led Vermont to become the first State in the Union to enact civil unions in the country. As a litigator, her work served as a blueprint for LGBTQ advocacy across the country. She successfully represented an employee at the University of Vermont, who sought recognition of his Canadian marriage to a same-sex partner for health insurance purposes; another, a couple seeking recognition of their out-of-State marriage in the context of second-parent adoption; and a same-sex partner seeking Social Security survivor benefits for her child after her civil union partner died. In every case, she fought to secure legal protections and equality under the law. In fact, Beth changed the trajectory of LGBTQ rights in this country. Her tireless work has led our Nation toward justice. Unfortunately, in what is becoming more and more of a toxic atmosphere, Justice Robinson's path to confirmation has faced baseless attacks. At her confirmation hearing, Justice Robinson's commitment to religious liberty was called into question. Now, these attacks are simply not grounded in reality. Any honest reading of her record proves that Justice Robinson is committed to protecting religious liberty. Some members argued that Robinson's work representing a Catholic woman who believed she had been discriminated against due to her own religious beliefs was, astonishingly, evidence of Robinson's hostility toward religious liberty. At Justice Robinson's hearing, other members of the Judiciary Committee quoted her out of context in what I saw as an attempt to support a false narrative. One member of the committee read part of a sentence from a marriage law symposium that Justice Robinson participated in and suggested that it was proof of her hostility toward religious liberty. I said ``read part of'' it, but the attack line falls apart the moment you bother to read the full sentence. In the full quote, Justice Robinson states: I've always said that if somebody tried to force the Catholic Church to do a gay wedding, I would represent the Church pro bono. You can't construe that as hostility to religious freedom. Justice Robinson has a long record of supporting the fundamental right to religious liberty, both as a judge and as an advocate. The Vermonters I have heard from--regardless of party or ideology, regardless of their religion--are delighted that President Biden nominated Beth Robinson to fill the Vermont seat on the Second Circuit. Our leading Republicans, our leading Democrats agree with that. If confirmed, she knows she will become the first openly gay woman to serve on a Federal circuit court of appeals. I would urge all Senators to evaluate Justice Robinson's record. And I hope that Senators of both parties will see, as I have, that she possesses exactly the right qualities, skills, and experience to excel as a judge on the Second Circuit. Before I was in the Senate, I had the privilege to argue cases before the Second Circuit. I saw it as a court where you never thought of whether they were Republicans or Democrats; you thought about their abilities, and I always felt comfortable arguing there. Justice Robinson, when she becomes Judge Robinson, will give that same view to anybody who is a litigant before that court. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the situation in Tigray continues to deteriorate. Recent bombings by the Ethiopian Government of Tigray's densely populated capital city, Mekele, has reportedly killed civilians, including children. Millions of people have been displaced, and many in Tigray are facing famine. Combatants on both sides of the conflict have committed atrocities. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported recently that only 14 percent of trucks with relief aid were getting through to the people of Tigray, due to roadblocks and lack of fuel. Lifesaving medications have been blocked from getting into Tigray, which cripples the ability of the UN and their NGO partners to respond to urgent health needs. If the government does not permit deliveries of humanitarian aid, more and more people will needlessly starve to death. The United States has imposed sanctions against the government in Addis Ababa. The Congress has also acted. The Fiscal Year 2022 Department of State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill was introduced in the Senate on October 26, and it would prohibit U.S. military aid to Ethiopia. It would also require the Department of the Treasury to oppose international bank loans to the Ethiopian Government, except to meet basic human needs, until the government ceases offensive military operation, takes credible and sustained steps toward a genuine political dialogue to end the conflict, implements measures to protect human rights, allows unimpeded humanitarian access, and cooperates with independent investigations of violations of human rights. Ethiopia is a country facing every imaginable problem, increasingly exacerbated by climate change. There is no military solution to the ethnic rivalries that have divided the country for generations. Any sustainable solution will only be achieved through negotiation and compromise. The international community, including the United States, can help support such a dialogue, but it is the Ethiopian Government's responsibility to create the conditions for that to occur. Rather than squander the country's scarce resources on a fruitless, brutal campaign to dominate Tigray by force, Prime Minister Abiy would be well advised to listen to the international community and support a diplomatic solution. The alternative is famine, displacement, and unending misery for the people of Tigray, and for this Nobel Peace Prize winner to be held accountable for crimes against humanity. (At the request of Mr. Thune, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it has now been more than 4 months since Daniel Ortega's police arrested and subsequently disappeared political opposition leaders Felix Maradiaga and Juan Sebastian Chamorro in Nicaragua. On June 8, police stopped Maradiaga's vehicle, forcibly removed him, and took him away. Later that day, over 40 police officers forced their way into Chamorro's home and arrested him as well. For nearly 3 months, they were held in undisclosed locations, without access to their lawyers, doctors, or families and without being charged with any crime. They were reportedly kept in solitary confinement, subjected to frequent interrogations, deprived of sleep, and they have each lost 20 to 25 pounds. In August, they were indicted for operating an international conspiracy to funnel foreign resources ``to provide logistical support and create favorable conditions to harm the supreme interests of the nation.'' These charges, which are blatantly political, were brought before an unnamed judge in a secret hearing in which their lawyers were not permitted to be present. This is what is called ``justice'' in Nicaragua today. Nothing more than a sham process intended to silence Daniel Ortega's political opposition, and it is yet another example of the flagrant repression and abuses of human rights that have become a trademark of his government. This summer alone, more than 30 other opposition leaders were subjected to similar abuses, and the government is reportedly currently unlawfully detaining more than 150 political prisoners, including former Ambassador to the United States Arturo Cruz who is known to many of us. He was kept in solitary confinement for approximately 80 days, has reportedly lost 40 pounds, and is even denied access to reading material so he has almost no way of learning about current events outside the prison walls. There is only one explanation for such blatant injustices and cruelty inflicted on individuals who have done nothing that would remotely amount to a crime under international law or in most countries of the world, and that is that Daniel Ortega is afraid. He knows that if he allows a free and fair election, he and his wife Rosario Murillo, the Vice President, would almost certainly lose. The sad reality is that it did not have to be this way. Ortega could have chosen a different path, and won the support of the Nicaraguan people by trusting them and treating them with respect, and allowing those with different views to speak freely. Instead, he chose repression and has held onto power through force and by blaming everyone but himself for Nicaragua's chronic under-development. On November 7, with the opposition silenced and hidden away, he and his wife will likely be victorious in another sham election, a farce that will fool nobody. I join those in condemning the repressive tactics of the Ortega government and in calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Felix Maradiaga, Juan Sebastian Chamorro, Arturo Cruz, and the many other political prisoners falsely accused or imprisoned without charge. I urge the Nicaraguan Government to end the repression of dissidents, the shootings of peaceful protestors, and the crackdown on press freedom and voting rights. It is no secret that the United States and Nicaragua have had a difficult history. The United States was the primary benefactor of the dictatorial Somoza family, which ruled the country for more than four decades, enriching themselves and their cronies, and brutalizing their opponents. Daniel Ortega had the opportunity to be different, but to many Nicaraguans and international observers, he and his wife are even worse. The Biden administration has already responded to this summer's arrests by imposing sanctions on four members of the Ortega government and has denied access to visas for 169 Nicaraguans in response to the political crackdown. The U.S. actions encouraged the EU and Canada to also impose targeted sanctions on Nicaraguans complicit in politically motivated crimes. I commend the Biden administration, the EU, and the Canadian Governments for standing up for the rule of law and the rights of the people of Nicaragua. I urge the White House to investigate the assets and holdings of the Nicaraguan armed forces in the U.S. and to consider appropriate actions to hold its leadership accountable for their role in the gross violations of human rights in that country. I encourage President Biden to use every diplomatic tool and every form of targeted sanctions to obtain the release of Daniel Ortega's prisoners and to create the conditions for a genuinely free, fair, and transparent election in Nicaragua.

Mr. LEAHY

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