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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, we come to the floor oftentimes to discuss issues of portent to the Nation, but the distinguished Senator from Vermont and I wish to speak about one of the most significant people Vermont has ever known. I wish to yield to my distinguished colleague from Vermont and we will go back and forth.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Vermont is absolutely right. Vermont changed remarkably when Governor Phil Hoff was elected. Prior to that time, the governorship of Vermont was basically a part-time office--seen now and then when the legislature was there but not so much otherwise--and things went along almost on autopilot. Governor Hoff changed that and brought Vermont into the 20th century. I think because the two are somewhat intertwined. I was a volunteer for the Presidential campaign of then-Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960. I volunteered on his campaign, but I wasn't old enough to vote for him. But I remember the first election I was able to vote in was the Vermont Governor's race in 1962, and I cast my first vote for Philip Henderson Hoff. My family was thrilled when he won that election. He became the first Democratic Governor elected in Vermont in over a century. My parents and Marcelle's parents were so fond of Phil Hoff and his wife Joan. They thought the world of them. I was happy the other day in seeing both Phil and Joan at his birthday celebration. They talked about my parents and Marcelle's parents, but I told them I wouldn't be where I am today without Governor Hoff. I was a young lawyer in his office. There had been a real problem in the State's attorney's office in Chittenden County, VT, which is about one-quarter of our State's population. The State's attorney announced he was leaving and Governor Hoff called me to his home on Friday afternoon and said: I want you to be State's attorney on Monday morning. I gulped, and I said: Yes, sir. He said: Clean up the backlog of cases that have accumulated in the office. I said: Yes, sir. He said: Do that for 1 year and then come on back to our firm. And I said: Yes, sir. The one thing I didn't do is I didn't come back to the firm; I enjoyed being there so much, I stayed there. I stayed there, though, with admiration for Phil Hoff because he had changed the State of Vermont. He made it exciting to be in government in Vermont. He made it exciting to be part of the fabric of Vermont. I have always appreciated that. I have always appreciated my time with him but especially the mentoring he offered me. If it had not been for him, I can tell my colleagues, I would not be standing here today as the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. I yield back to my friend from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my colleague is absolutely correct. It was a cataclysmic change in the political landscape of Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. He and I share so much affection for Phil and Joan Hoff, and I can tell hundreds of stories. He made a difference by enthusiastically bringing people together in our State, with the realization that we needed to catch up with the rest of the country in so many ways--such as bringing high- tech industry into Vermont and working so hard to make sure everybody had a good education no matter what part of the State they lived in. Then there are the personal anecdotes. I was excited as a young State's attorney one day getting a call from the Governor's office that one of the old-line politicians in Burlington had died--a wonderful man of French Canadian descent. They were going to have a mass for him at the Cathedral, and the Governor wanted me to ride with him to the mass. I got into the car, and I said, Governor, you know I have only been State's attorney for a very short while and I can't tell you what an honor it is to be with you. He said, An honor? Honor has nothing to do with it. He said, I am an Episcopalian, you are a Catholic. They put me in the front row. I never know when I am supposed to stand or where I am supposed to sit, so you are going to make sure I do it right. I had been an altar boy for years, and I was in sheer panic when I walked in the church that I might have the Governor do something wrong, but we made it through. More importantly, Vermont had issues, and they became very serious, affecting the reputation of our State. Phil Hoff and great people together across the political spectrum would sit in his office and he would say, how do we make things better for Vermont--never for him, it was for Vermont. I think of the changes in our State, and I remember my parents and Marcelle's parents talking about the amount of changes--changes for the better--and every time they would go back to one name: Phil Hoff. I was so glad to hear Senator Sanders speak of Joan Brower Hoff and their wonderful daughters. She truly was Vermont's First Lady. She was almost as recognizable--in fact, in many places, more recognizable than her husband--highly respected. People--men and women--wanted to be able to model their careers and their nature after her. I am glad the two are still together. They are still healthy, they are still the best of Vermont, and I feel honored to be able to speak of them here. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I was. And I recall, when Phil Hoff came out against the war in Vietnam--and he was in the minority on that--no member of the Vermont congressional delegation had voted against the war in Vietnam. They voted for all the increases in it. He was in some ways a lonely voice, but he did come out against it. It angered Lyndon Johnson, who was then President. But then he supported Robert Kennedy, as did I. I remember the two of us meeting Senator Edward Kennedy--one of the Presiding Officer's predecessors--on the runway at the airport in Burlington, VT. He and Governor Hoff and myself and others were going to speak to a group on behalf of Robert Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy. I remember the look of sorrow on Governor Hoff's face as he stood as one of the honorary pallbearers at Robert Kennedy's funeral. But even after that, he continued to push to make Vermont a better State. I think--and I realize we have others waiting for the floor--but I just want to say again that Vermont is a wonderful State. It is a beautiful State. It is a progressive State. As Senator Sanders and I have both said, it would not be what it is today were it not for Phil Hoff. We have all tried to follow in those footsteps, but he lit the way. That sometimes is an overused expression, but in this case I think every historian would agree with us.

Mr. LEAHY. We wish a happy birthday to a true giant of our State. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month five conservative justices on the Supreme Court decided that a corporation's rights can trump a female employee's right to make her own health care decisions. This is just the latest of several rulings from a thin majority of justices that diminish the rights of hardworking Americans and have a direct effect on their economic security. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act, which the Senate is considering today. It is needed to overturn the Court's most recent expansion of corporate rights. For far too long, women were priced out of health care simply because of their gender. The very fact of being a woman, in effect, was brandished against women as a pre-existing condition. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, much of the discrimination women faced in the health insurance market was eliminated. It is unthinkable that as recently as last year, a woman's health care premiums could cost 45 to 140 percent more than a man's. No wonder over half of women identified cost as a barrier to health coverage and why so many women went without insurance. Women could be denied coverage for something as simple as having had a C-section, or for being a victim of domestic violence. It is a travesty that in a country as great as ours this inequity survived as long as it did. Unfortunately, in the Hobby Lobby decision, which this legislation would address, the Supreme Court set back these advances in equality in health coverage by sanctioning the very discrimination in health care access and services that the Affordable Care Act remedied. By ruling that the owners of corporations may impose their religious beliefs on their employees, women are no longer guaranteed the right to make their own health care decisions. Additionally, this ruling could have far reaching consequences beyond access to contraception. Unless Congress acts, we could see employers restricting the right to other health care services, including vaccines or blood transfusions. This ruling comes on the heels of another decision that also threatens women's access to health care. In McCullen v. Coakley, the Court ruled that a 35-foot buffer zone protecting women from harassment when entering women's health clinics was not justified and was therefore unconstitutional. This was yet another decision where the Roberts Court allowed other's rights--whether an employer or a stranger on the street who holds a different view point--to trump that of a woman seeking health care. In addition to the Supreme Court narrowing the rights of American women, we have seen many legislative efforts across the country to cut away at the progress we have made in women's health over the last few years. We have seen Federal bills and amendments introduced that would take decisions out of the hands of patients and doctors, and place them with businesses and insurance companies. States have followed suit by passing laws limiting women's access to health care services. I believe our focus should be on improving access to quality and affordable health care for all Americans, not arbitrarily restricting the important treatments needed by millions of women. The Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act would restore Congress' intent by preventing any company from denying their workers specific health coverage, including birth control, as required to be covered by Federal law. Without this legislation, for-profit corporations that otherwise offer preventative health benefits can choose to deny their employers contraception coverage based on their bosses' religious beliefs. The bill before the Senate would once again prohibit bosses from discriminating against their employees based on their gender and would ensure that women's health care decisions are put back in the hands of those women and their doctors, where they belong. At the core of the Affordable Care Act is the principle that all Americans, regardless of health history or gender, have the right to access health care services and make their own decisions about their health care. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee--and as a husband, a father, a grandfather, and as a Vermonter--this is a principle I take seriously. I will continue to fight against efforts to roll back protections for women, minorities, or any group that has faced discrimination. I hope that instead of focusing on ways to limit health care options for women, we can join together to promote the interests of women across America by supporting this bill. Nothing less than the economic security of our families is at stake.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, over the years I have frequently spoken on the Senate floor about refugees. I have asked my fellow Senators to support our humanitarian refugee efforts in farflung corners of the world. In doing so, I cite America's role as a human rights leader and our long history of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence. I also remind people of a time in the past, around World War II, when this country unwisely closed its borders to people who were fleeing the Holocaust in Germany. They came here, they were turned back, sent back, many of them to certain death in the death camps. That was a sorry part of our history. Usually our history reflects what we see in the Statue of Liberty: a beckoning torch to refuge. But now the refugee crisis has come back again and to our own border. It is a complicated problem. I hope we will stop trying to react to whatever was in the latest news cycle 12\1/2\ seconds ago so we can get to the next sound bite 12\1/2\ seconds from now and resist the urge to let politics shape our response. Critics are arguing that the increase in unaccompanied children arriving at the southwest border is driven by recent changes in our immigration policy. This is a sound bite. The facts, of course, are a lot different. They tell a different and more complicated story. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has found over 50 percent of the children ages 12 to 17 arriving from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have been forcibly displaced and have claims to international protection because of the violence they have encountered. If changes in immigration policy were the primary factor, we would expect to see an across-the-board increase in children arriving from Mexico and Central America. What Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have in common is widespread corruption and weak governments that have failed to implement effective social and economic programs or to protect their most vulnerable citizens from record levels of violence. This reality, more than any change in U.S. policy, is responsible for the massive increase in unaccompanied minors arriving on our southwest border. It is true that many of these children do not have claims to immigration relief and they are going to be returned. For them, the dangers of this trip are not worth it, and we must discourage them from making the arduous journey alone. But others are fleeing murder or being forced into gangs or girls in their early teens are being raped and impregnated. This is what they are escaping. There is no doubt that simply maintaining the status quo is not an option. We should take up and pass the administration's emergency supplemental request without delay. But instead of supporting the supplemental, Republicans are trying to use the crisis to promote fear and their enforcement-only agenda. It has not worked in the past. It will not work now. These children coming across the border are not trying to flee from enforcement. If they see somebody in uniform, they run to them, thinking that finally they are escaping the gangs and the murderers and the rapists, and now they suddenly feel safe because they see an American in uniform. As we know from the experience of other countries facing far greater refugee crises, increased detention and other messages of deterrence do not persuade desperate people from taking dangerous journeys. Some Members of Congress are proposing that the way to solve this problem is by amending the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to make it easier to deport these children by rushing them through a superficial hearing--and it would be superficial--without access to counsel or child welfare specialists, in a country strange to them and in a language different than theirs. That is unacceptable. We are talking about young children--6 and 7 and 8 years old--who have experienced horrific violence and now are in a country where they don't even speak the language. It is unconscionable to push them through our complicated legal system terrified and alone, without a lawyer, and with the ultimate idea that they will be summarily deported back to the very danger they fled. I will vote against anything that would allow such a travesty. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act is not a windfall for these children. It hasn't been from the time President George W. Bush signed it into law until today. It simply provides commonsense protections such as requiring the children who arrive alone to be interviewed by a child welfare specialist and have a meaningful opportunity to tell their story to a judge. That is how we identify victims of trafficking or sexual violence or persecution. If improving the efficiency of the process is the goal, the administration already has the discretion to do that. The funding for immigration judges and legal assistance in the supplemental will further help. We can address this humanitarian crisis without watering down our law. We don't have to turn our backs on our own basic values as Americans--the basic values that brought my grandparents to Italy from Vermont and my great-great grandparents from Ireland to Vermont. It is our humanitarian values. Let's not turn our backs on them. The problem, in fact, we are facing now could be alleviated in part if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would allow a vote on the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill, S. 744. We had hundreds of hours of hearings, of markups, of debate, sometimes going late into the evening, and then days of debate on the floor, and we passed it by a strong bipartisan majority. We passed this bill 1 year ago, and the Republican leadership in the House will not even allow it to come to a vote, even though it would probably pass in the same form as we did. They will not let it come to a vote because whether people vote for or against it, there are some people who will disagree with the vote, so it is easier to vote maybe. No matter what the humanitarian crisis we have, vote maybe. Don't vote yes, don't vote no; vote maybe by not voting, but then blame it on the President, blame it on everybody else. The Senate stepped up and we passed a bill the President said he would sign. The Senate-passed bill calls for nearly 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, 3,500 additional Customs and Border Protection officers, and 700 miles of fencing. We have heard people stand and say--as though they suddenly found this out--we need tougher laws to fight back against coyotes and cartels that want an opportunity to exploit these vulnerable children. I have heard some of the same people refuse to vote on a bill and say we need this protection. Read the bill. S. 744 does that too. It has tougher provisions to fight against human smuggling and enhanced penalties in situations that result in serious bodily injury, death, bribery or corruption. We have done it. We have done it in the Senate. Why isn't there a hue and cry? I understand it is very easy, if you are going to do a sound bite for the evening news or something, to stand up and say: Why haven't Obama and the Democrats acted? It takes a little bit more time to say: Why haven't you voted for a bill that does everything you say is needed? Why won't the Republican leadership even allow the House Members--Republicans and Democrats--to vote on a bill that does everything they say they need? I want to thank Senators Harkin and Feinstein and Durbin for their comments at the last week's Appropriations Committee hearing. It is clear to me that they, too, understand our Nation is at a crossroads with this crisis. The world is watching how we are going to respond. How is the greatest Nation on Earth going to respond? I know one person who spoke out: Pope Francis. He has urged us to protect these children. Well, I think the Pope is right. We have a choice. We can either make good on the promises we have already written into our law and Republicans and Democrats have voted for, or we can decide: Gosh, we didn't mean it. We voted for it, we gave great press conferences, but we did not mean it. Now, gee whiz, it is complicated--as though life is always easy--so let's just rewrite the law. If we do that, just send these children back. Send these children back to the murderers, the rapists, the gangs. Doesn't that turn our back on the very principles on which this Nation was founded-- the principles that brought my grandparents here from Italy, my great- grandparents here from Ireland? Where are those principles? We forgot them at the beginning of the Holocaust. We look at the people who died, the number of Jews who went to the ovens because we had forgotten our principles. Well, President George W. Bush was right in signing the bill. The Republicans and Democrats who voted for it were right. Let's not turn our backs. If we want to do something beyond the sound bites, something realistic, pass the supplemental for the people we need to do it for and allow the House of Representatives to vote up or down on the bill that Republicans and Democrats voted for here in the Senate a whole year ago. But do not let the supplemental request be a political football. It should be passed clean, without delay. Do not try to remove all the protections for victims of human trafficking. Pass the supplemental, and then have the courage to stand up and vote yes or no on S. 744. We did here in the Senate. Republicans and Democrats came together. A large majority of us passed it in the Senate. Why can't the House of Representatives do the same thing? I will tell you why. They are afraid whichever way they vote, it might be unpopular. Well, that is what you expect. I have cast more votes than all but a half dozen Senators in the history of this country. Can anybody go back through all those thousands upon thousands of votes and find some they could attack me on? Of course. I could give them a list myself. Can I find some that I probably on second thought wish I had cast differently? Of course I can. But I had the courage to vote yes or no. I was criticized when I became the first Vermonter--in fact, the only Vermonter--to ever vote against the war in Vietnam. The authorization was cut off by one vote. Today it would be hard to find anybody who supported that war. My point is not whether as a Senator from Vermont I vote right or wrong or any one of us as a Senator from our State votes right or wrong--but at least vote. That is what we said we would do when we were elected: vote. So I am talking about what is wrong with immigration law when you are afraid to even vote one way or the other. But let's not turn our back on the principles this country stands for. Let's not say to 7- or 8- or 9-year-old children--trying to escape a fate that my children or my grandchildren would never face--sorry, we are too great and big and busy a country to worry about you. Go back and face your fate, whatever it might be, because we don't care. That is not the America I serve. That is not the America I love. That is not the place where the Senate should be if we are going to be the conscience of the Nation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed commonsense legislation to help promote consumer choice and competition in the wireless phone marketplace. This legislation was a bipartisan effort to restore consumers' rights to unlock their cell phones so they can take their phones to the wireless network of their choice. Last year, over 110,000 consumers signed a petition calling for cell phone unlocking to be permitted. Their call was heard. I am pleased that the Senate has acted to pass this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that I authored with Senator Grassley to promote consumer choice. Once every 3 years, the Library of Congress undertakes a rulemaking under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, to establish exemptions to the DMCA's prohibition on circumventing technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. From 2006 to 2012, the Library granted an exemption for cell phone unlocking that allowed users to change wireless providers after complying with their contracts. In its 2012 rulemaking, the Library did not recognize an exemption for new cell phones purchased after January 26, 2013. This act reinstates the Librarian's prior determination, ensuring that consumers will be able to use their phones on the network of their choice after satisfying their contracts without running afoul of our copyright laws. The act takes two further steps to benefit consumers. First, it ensures that consumers who lack the technological savvy to unlock their phones themselves can authorize others to do the unlocking for them, in order for the owner or their family member to connect to a chosen wireless network. Second, in recognition of the growing importance to consumers of other wireless devices, such as tablets, the act directs the Librarian of Congress to determine whether such devices should also be eligible for unlocking. That determination will be part of the Librarian's next triennial rulemaking under the DMCA, which is set to begin later this year. This legislation addresses the specific question of permitting consumers to unlock their cell phones to use on their chosen network consistent with the terms of their contract. The legislation creates no new obligations for cell phone manufacturers or wireless carriers, such as how a carrier may choose to process unlocking requests or provide unlocking codes. While there are larger ongoing debates about the DMCA, as well as other aspects of phone unlocking, those issues are not addressed by the bill. The bill takes a narrow, targeted approach to protect consumer choice and promote competition in the wireless industry. I thank the Judiciary Committee ranking member, Senator Grassley, and our other bipartisan cosponsors for working with me on this bill. I also thank the Republican and Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary Committee, who are continuing to work with us on this effort. I look forward to prompt consideration of the bill by the House and to the President signing it into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on June 15, 2014, President Juan Manuel Santos was elected to a second term as Colombia's President. This is not only a tribute to President Santos, who had staked his presidency on a courageous and risky peace initiative with the FARC who have waged a 30-year guerrilla war against the government, but also to the Colombian people. There was every reason to believe that if President Santos' opponent, Oscar Ivan Zuluaga, had won the election the peace negotiations would have been abandoned. Mr. Zuluaga had the strong backing of former President Uribe, whose aggressive leadership style and emphasis on security contributed to significant battlefield advances against the FARC, but his administration was plagued by scandal and human rights abuses. He has been a vociferous critic of President Santos and the peace negotiations. Instead, the Colombian people wisely recognized that the path to a more prosperous, secure country is through a peace process that addresses the underlying causes of the armed conflict, not an open-ended civil war fueled by cocaine that has already claimed countless innocent lives, uprooted millions of people, and impeded foreign investment. I know from my own conversations with Members of Congress that President Santos has the support of people here of both parties. Since 2000, the Congress has supported billions of dollars in aid for social and economic development, counternarcotics, military, and humanitarian programs in Colombia. While there have been disagreements in some areas, particularly the slow pace of Colombia's justice system in holding accountable members of the security forces and paramilitaries who have been implicated in massacres of civilians and other human rights crimes, our support for Colombia has remained strong. Colombia's greatest resource is its remarkable people. It is no wonder that Colombia, despite its many challenges, has remained a vibrant democracy while the governments of neighboring Venezuela and Ecuador have been dominated by messianic leaders who have systematically dismantled the institutions of democracy and a free press. But another of Colombia's unique features is its biological and cultural diversity. The country is not only home to more species of flora and fauna than practically any other country in the world, it is also inhabited by a multitude of indigenous groups who speak many languages and live in various stages of isolation. Many of us have visited Cartagena and Bogota, but I suspect few people here are aware that Colombia boasts one of the hemisphere's most extensive systems of national parks. They range from Caribbean islands and coral reefs, to glacier-covered mountain peaks, semi-arid desert, and tropical rainforest with dramatic rock outcroppings and cascading waterfalls. The variety of Colombia's species of birds alone dwarfs that of most countries. I mention this to pay tribute to President Santos who has been a strong supporter of Colombia's national parks and indigenous reserves, and Julia Miranda who has ably led the National Park Service with tireless energy and unwavering commitment for a decade. I also want to commend President Santos for his decision last week to protect the Estrella Fluvial de Infrida under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. This is one of the most important reserves of fresh water in the world, covering an area larger than Florida's Everglades. It is home to 415 of Colombia's bird species and 470 fish species, so this designation will play a crucial role in protecting Colombia's biodiversity for future generations. Coupled with last year's doubling in size of the extraordinary Chiribiquete National Park, these steps to protect Colombia's natural environment will be even more important if a peace agreement is signed that ushers in a period of greater security. While Colombia's oil and coal reserves are finite and their extraction can cause lasting social and environmental harm, Colombia's national parks offer limitless eco- tourism potential that over the long term can bring far greater benefits to the country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is no shortage of questions facing Congress today, and when Members and their staffs need additional information or detailed research on these complex topics, we often turn to the dedicated analysts at the Congressional Research Service, CRS. Today marks the 100th anniversary of CRS, and in the last century it has grown to become one of the most valued resources on Capitol Hill. Informed decisions are better decisions for the American people and for the Nation. The Congressional Research Service provides research materials, historical snapshots, and confidential memoranda that help Members of Congress and their staffs prepare for debates on vital--and sometimes historic--issues. The office also provides often insightful briefings for Members of Congress and their staffs. Publicly, the office provides summaries of proposed legislation, available through the useful Thomas.gov website. In certain instances, the CRS provides useful research tools which Members are able to make available to the public. One such example was a report that the Congressional Research Service produced earlier this year at my request. Vermont is wrestling with how to effectively combat opiate abuse in our very rural State. Our State has taken a community-based approach to the issue, involving not only law enforcement and health providers, but also faith leaders, local officials, business owners, and nonprofit advocacy groups. In March, I was pleased to take the Senate Judiciary Committee to Vermont to hear firsthand how these approaches are having an impact in addressing addiction in the State. But equally important to Vermont is knowing how other States are dealing with heroin and opioid abuse. The Congressional Research Service prepared a useful document, ``Prevention and Treatment of Heroin and Other Opioid Abuse in the States,'' which helped illustrate how other States are dealing with addiction. Analysts for CRS include subject matter experts in such issue areas as American law; domestic social policy; foreign affairs; defense and trade; government and finance and resources; and science and industry. I have in the past supported efforts to make many of the reports produced by the CRS available to the public. It is an effort I continue to support. I believe students, researchers, and our constituents would benefit from access to this useful information. In the 100 years since Congress established the Legislative Reference Service, the small office has evolved into the Congressional Research Service of today, which encompasses a staff of 600 analysts, lawyers, information professionals, and management and infrastructure support staff. On the occasion of its 100th anniversary, I thank the dedicated staff of the Congressional Research Service--both past and present--for their public service and commitment to fulfilling the office's core value of providing objective and nonpartisan evaluations of policy matters to Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 18 years ago I wrote a law that has been repeated annually ever since and is now codified as section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act. It has become widely known as the ``Leahy Law'' and it has two primary purposes. The first is to prevent U.S. taxpayer funded training, equipment, or other assistance from going to units of foreign security forces that have committed heinous crimes. We saw many instances when U.S. aid ended up in the hands of foreign military or police forces that had engaged in rape, murder, torture, or other gross violations of human rights, and the U.S. was tainted by association with those crimes. The second is to encourage foreign governments to bring to justice the individual members of units responsible for such atrocities. In many countries that receive U.S. aid there is a long history of impunity for crimes committed by government security forces. Rather than protect their citizens, they abuse them, and then they beat up or kill witnesses and threaten prosecutors and judges. They act outside the law and literally get away with murder. They are the antithesis of professional, accountable military or police forces. A similar, although not identical, provision that is also known as the Leahy Law is contained in the annual Defense Appropriations Act. Both Leahy Laws serve important national interests and they have become increasingly institutionalized within the U.S. government. The State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor has developed a database for vetting foreign units and individuals that is continually updated, and they and the Defense Department increasingly coordinate to apply the laws consistently. The Department of State and foreign operations appropriations bill for 2015, reported to the Senate on June 19, includes $5 million to pay salaries and other costs of the vetting process, an increase of $2.25 million above fiscal year 2014. While the Leahy Laws have been modified over the years and their implementation is a continuing work in progress, I appreciate the support they have received from the highest levels of the State and Defense Departments, and the willingness of officials in those agencies to work with Congress and representatives of human rights organizations and foreign governments to address issues of interpretation and implementation as they arise. As with many laws, the Leahy Laws have their detractors. However, with rare exceptions questions about, or criticism of, the laws have been due to misinformation or misunderstandings that have been easy to clarify or resolve. While I know of no one who has expressed opposition to the Leahy Laws, some have raised concerns with their implementation, suggesting that they pose unacceptable obstacles to the ability of the U.S. military to engage with foreign counterparts. Not only do the facts indicate otherwise, the laws are working. In more than 90 percent of cases the foreign units or individuals vetted have been deemed eligible to receive U.S. assistance under the Leahy Laws. In the rare instances when a unit or individual was denied assistance, it was due to credible information that the individual or unit had committed a heinous crime and the foreign government had done nothing about it. At a July 10 hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, Stephen Rickard, a former Senate staff member, State Department official, director of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, director of Amnesty International's Washington Office, and now executive director of the Open Society Policy Center, provided testimony on the Leahy Laws. His testimony does an excellent job of describing the purposes and impact of the Leahy Laws, and addressing key questions that have been asked about their implementation. I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA. The United States has huge numbers of Government employees and contractors working overseas, but the legal framework governing them is unclear and outdated. To promote accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by U.S. government employees and contractors wherever they act. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act accomplishes this important and common sense goal by allowing United States contractors and employees working overseas who commit specific crimes to be tried and sentenced under U.S. law. Tragic events in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing a rift in our relations with the Iraqi government. Efforts to prosecute those responsible for these shootings have been fraught with difficulties. The Blackwater trial is only just now under way, seven years after this tragedy, and the defendants continue to argue in court that the U.S. government does not have jurisdiction to prosecute them. I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then, again, to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany them, and to contractors who work with the military. That law provides criminal jurisdiction over Defense Department employees and contractors, but it does not explicitly cover people working for other Federal agencies, like the Blackwater security contractors. Had jurisdiction in the tragic Blackwater incident been clear, it could have prevented some of the problems that have plagued the case. Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident. Private security contractors have been involved in violent incidents and serious misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. MEJA does not cover many of the thousands of U.S. contractors and employees who are working abroad. The legislation I introduce today fills this gap. Ensuring criminal accountability will also improve our national security and protect Americans overseas. Importantly, in those instances where the local justice system may be less than fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the United States, rather than leaving them subject to potentially hostile and unpredictable local courts. Our allies, including those countries most essential to our counterterrorism and national security efforts, work best with us when we hold our own accountable. In 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from the Justice Department and from experts in the area of contractor accountability about the many diplomatic and national security benefits of expanding criminal jurisdiction over American employees and contractors overseas. That hearing also explored how best to ensure that our Nation's intelligence activities would not be impaired by CEJA. The legislation I propose today has been carefully crafted to ensure that the intelligence community can continue its authorized activities unimpeded. This bill would also provide greater protection to American victims of crime, as it would lead to more accountability for crimes committed by U.S. Government contractors and employees against Americans working abroad. The Committee has previously heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton in Iraq in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and gang-raped by coworkers. When she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and freed only when the State Department intervened. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct. But criminal jurisdiction over these kinds of atrocious crimes abroad remains complicated and depends on the specific location of the crime, which makes prosecutions inconsistent and sometimes impossible. We must fix the law to help avoid arbitrary injustice and ensure that victims will not see their attackers escape accountability. This legislation also provides another important benefit: It will lay the groundwork to expand U.S. preclearance operations in Canada-- thereby enhancing national security and facilitating commerce and tourism with our largest trading partner. The United States currently stations U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Officers in select locations in Canada to inspect passengers and cargo bound for the United States before they leave Canada. These operations relieve congestion at U.S. airports, improve commerce, save money, and provide national security benefits. The United States and Canada are in ongoing conversations about an expansion of land, rail, marine and air preclearance operations that would greatly benefit the U.S. economy. But one barrier in these discussions is that the United States lacks legal authority to prosecute U.S. officials engaged in preclearance operations if they commit crimes while stationed in Canada. CEJA would ensure that the U.S. has legal authority to hold our own officials accountable if they engage in wrongdoing, and thereby help pave the way to finalizing the expanded Canada preclearance agreement. In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope Senators of both parties will work together to pass this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA. The United States has huge numbers of Government employees and contractors working overseas, but the legal framework governing them is unclear and outdated. To promote accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by U.S. government employees and contractors wherever they act. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act accomplishes this important and common sense goal by allowing United States contractors and employees working overseas who commit specific crimes to be tried and sentenced under U.S. law. Tragic events in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing a rift in our relations with the Iraqi government. Efforts to prosecute those responsible for these shootings have been fraught with difficulties. The Blackwater trial is only just now under way, seven years after this tragedy, and the defendants continue to argue in court that the U.S. government does not have jurisdiction to prosecute them. I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then, again, to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany them, and to contractors who work with the military. That law provides criminal jurisdiction over Defense Department employees and contractors, but it does not explicitly cover people working for other Federal agencies, like the Blackwater security contractors. Had jurisdiction in the tragic Blackwater incident been clear, it could have prevented some of the problems that have plagued the case. Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident. Private security contractors have been involved in violent incidents and serious misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. MEJA does not cover many of the thousands of U.S. contractors and employees who are working abroad. The legislation I introduce today fills this gap. Ensuring criminal accountability will also improve our national security and protect Americans overseas. Importantly, in those instances where the local justice system may be less than fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the United States, rather than leaving them subject to potentially hostile and unpredictable local courts. Our allies, including those countries most essential to our counterterrorism and national security efforts, work best with us when we hold our own accountable. In 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from the Justice Department and from experts in the area of contractor accountability about the many diplomatic and national security benefits of expanding criminal jurisdiction over American employees and contractors overseas. That hearing also explored how best to ensure that our Nation's intelligence activities would not be impaired by CEJA. The legislation I propose today has been carefully crafted to ensure that the intelligence community can continue its authorized activities unimpeded. This bill would also provide greater protection to American victims of crime, as it would lead to more accountability for crimes committed by U.S. Government contractors and employees against Americans working abroad. The Committee has previously heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton in Iraq in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and gang-raped by coworkers. When she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and freed only when the State Department intervened. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct. But criminal jurisdiction over these kinds of atrocious crimes abroad remains complicated and depends on the specific location of the crime, which makes prosecutions inconsistent and sometimes impossible. We must fix the law to help avoid arbitrary injustice and ensure that victims will not see their attackers escape accountability. This legislation also provides another important benefit: It will lay the groundwork to expand U.S. preclearance operations in Canada-- thereby enhancing national security and facilitating commerce and tourism with our largest trading partner. The United States currently stations U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Officers in select locations in Canada to inspect passengers and cargo bound for the United States before they leave Canada. These operations relieve congestion at U.S. airports, improve commerce, save money, and provide national security benefits. The United States and Canada are in ongoing conversations about an expansion of land, rail, marine and air preclearance operations that would greatly benefit the U.S. economy. But one barrier in these discussions is that the United States lacks legal authority to prosecute U.S. officials engaged in preclearance operations if they commit crimes while stationed in Canada. CEJA would ensure that the U.S. has legal authority to hold our own officials accountable if they engage in wrongdoing, and thereby help pave the way to finalizing the expanded Canada preclearance agreement. In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope Senators of both parties will work together to pass this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week I chaired a field hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Burlington, VT, on an issue of critical importance: preserving an open Internet. Our committee heard testimony about the need for concrete, fundamental protections to ensure that the Internet is not abused by those who control how we connect to the Internet. The timing of the hearing was not a coincidence. I convened it during a week when Americans were gathering to celebrate what our Founders put in motion more than 200 years ago. While no one then could have imagined how important the Internet would become, the sentiment and priorities expressed at the hearing would have made our Founders proud. We heard from hard-working business owners and consumers about the role of the Internet in enhancing free expression, and also as a free and open marketplace where competition drives innovation. I brought the Judiciary Committee to Burlington to show the Federal Communications Commission and Congress that the decisions we make on this issue will have deep and wide impact far outside of the Nation's capital, and in the economies of our local communities. Witnesses at this field hearing warned of how the FCC's proposed approach to new Net neutrality rules would actually harm small businesses, community institutions, and consumers--the people we have in every one of our States whom we represent. I will give an example. Cabot Orton, the proprietor of the Vermont Country Store, testified that they started off as just a local general store in Vermont and now have an e-commerce site that accounts for 40 percent of their overall revenue. One-third of their 450 employees support those Internet transactions. These are a lot of people hired in our little State of Vermont because they have open access to the Internet. Mr. Orton was clear about his concerns. He said: We're not asking for special treatment, incentives or subsidies. All the small business community asks is simply to preserve and protect Internet commerce as it exists today, which has served all businesses remarkably well. I have to agree with him. Another Vermont small business owner, Lisa Groeneveld, explained that her company Logic Supply spent money building a quality product, not purchasing preferential Internet access. She said that ``without an Open and Fair Internet based on the equal access, our business wouldn't even exist today.'' This successful company is an amazing example of how the Internet can help grow small businesses in Vermont. Both of these witnesses testified that the success they have achieved with their online businesses would have been difficult to accomplish if the Internet had been a pay-to-play world when they initially launched their sites. Think of all the companies, whether in Vermont, Massachusetts, or any other State, next year or the year after that want to launch online if suddenly the rules were different for them than for a company that has a lot of money. We heard other perspectives too. Vermont's State librarian, Martha Reid, testified about the need to ensure equal access for those who rely on public libraries for their Internet access, which includes many people in rural areas. Vermonters know of my love for the library I frequented growing up, the Kellogg Hubbard Library. I received my first library card there, in Montpelier, when I was 4. I went there to learn, not just to read. Ms. Reid testified that ``all Americans--including the most disenfranchised citizens, those who would have no way to access the Internet without the library--need to be able to use Internet resources on an equal footing.'' Ms. Reid's testimony was supported by former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who explained that ``an Internet controlled and managed for the benefit of the `haves' discriminates against our rights not just as consumers but, more importantly, as citizens.'' The testimony from these individuals offers a relevant selection of the real-world experiences that have to be heard by the FCC and Congress as this debate continues. That is why I took the hearing 500 miles from the Senate--so they could be heard. I don't want to see an Internet that is divided into the haves and have-nots. I agree with the Vermonters who testified: I don't want to see an Internet where those who can afford to pay muffle the voices of those who cannot. An online world that is split into fast lanes and slow lanes, where pay-to-play deals dictate who can reach consumers, runs counter to everything on which the Internet was founded. Last month I joined Congresswoman Doris Matsui to introduce the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act that requires the FCC to ban online pay-to-play deals. Open Internet principles are the bill of rights for the online world. We must get this right. If we fail to get it right, I guarantee that we will not get another chance and we will not have these companies growing and starting up throughout all our States. I see the distinguished Senator from Montana here. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Father O'Donovan is one of the dearest friends I have from my association with Georgetown past or present. Marcelle and I were privileged to help him celebrate his 80th birthday and join him for church the next day. His homily is truly reflective of the wonderful human he is and I wanted to share it with my fellow Senators. I ask unanimous consent that Father O'Donovan's April 27, 2014 homily be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is always good to have someone in the media with a sense of history. Walter Pincus demonstrates that time and again. His June 19 column in The Washington Post is a prime example and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my daughter Alicia works for the Motion Picture Association of America and sent me a report from the Wall Street Journal written by Robert Iger. My wife Marcelle and I, as well as Alicia, have been to Mr. Iger's home and spent time with him, his highly talented wife Willow Bay, and their children. We have all been impressed with the enthusiasm and direction he brings to the Walt Disney Company, and some of my most interesting times have been with him talking about it. Mr. President, I wanted to share with others his report, and I ask consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, of course, because as I told the press in Vermont last week, I had the privilege of serving with more than 10 leaders in both parties since I have been here, and it is impossible to find a finer leader than Howard Baker. I considered him to be a Senator's Senator and one of the finest people I have ever served with. So of course I will wait. I would ask to amend the unanimous consent request so that following the remarks of the Republican leader and the two Senators from Tennessee I then be recognized for my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I have been moved by the comments from the Senators regarding Senator Baker. The story the senior Senator from Tennessee told about the lightbulbs is--those of us who knew Senator Baker could well understand that. He was a man who brought Senators together--both parties. I will tell two very quick stories. One is referencing a leadership race won by one vote. He had called a good friend of his, who was at home on official business, and said: I know the press says I am going to lose this race, but I know you are voting for me. Can you come back and vote? That Senator did. The Senator was the then-senior Senator from Vermont, Robert Stafford, and he flew back to get to the caucus to vote for his friend Howard Baker--the first one by one vote; all the rest by acclamation. I know this because both Senator Stafford and Howard Baker told me that story. They were also two of the finest Senators with whom I have ever served. Both tried to work things out. My other story is we were going to be in session until midnight one night on a technically contested matter. Senator Ted Stevens and I and a few others went to see Howard Baker, who was the majority leader. We talked about the issue that was divisive. We said: We think we have a solution. We have all been talking. We can work it out but it is going to take some time for the drafting. Could you recess and not stay until midnight when all it is going to do is exacerbate tempers? Come back in the morning and we will have it all worked out, and we will get this done. Senator Baker knew that we were all Senators in both parties who kept our word. He said: ``Of course.'' So we recessed. Now, as the Senator from Tennessee knows, we have cloakrooms here in the back of this Chamber. We all--if we have late-night votes, most of us hang around the cloakroom between votes. At that time they had beautiful stained glass windows in the alcoves. We recessed and went home. An hour or so after we went home a bomb went off out here in the corridor. When we came in the next morning, this place looked like a war zone. Shards of glass from those windows in both cloakrooms were embedded in the walls. The door to where the distinguished Republican deputy leader has his office now was blown in, the stained window above of it was ruined. Paintings out here were shredded, and some of the marble busts of former vice presidents were damaged. You could smell the gunpowder of the explosive when we came to work. I mention this because his form of leadership was that if we could get together and work things out, he preferred we do that. He would encourage it--both Republicans and Democrats. Then because he could rely on those of us--again both Republicans and Democrats--who would keep our word, he agreed to that. We knew he would keep his word. I wonder how many lives of Senators were saved that night because of that. How many would have been terribly injured. Of course our staffs who work often long after we have gone--how many people could have been harmed if it had not been for the fact that the Senate was a different place, and I believe a better place. But I say this not so much to tell historical stories, but I say this out of my great respect for Howard Baker. Somebody calculated the other day that I have served with 18 percent of all of the Senators since the beginning of this country. If I put my tiny handful of the best, Howard Baker is in there, hands down--a wonderful, wonderful man. He was a Senator's Senator. He believed in the Senate. He believed what a privilege it was to serve here. He believed that the Senate could be the conscience of the Nation. I appreciate the tribute that was paid by my dear friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, who I knew as Governor and as Cabinet member. We have always had a good personal relationship. I listened to his tales of Howard Baker. His colleague from Tennessee painted quite a picture of him. I thank them for doing that. I thank them for adding to the history of the Senate by doing it. Order of Procedure

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois be recognized once I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Everyone knows the old adage that a picture is worth 1,000 words. I have been an avid photographer since I was a child. I have a strong sense of that. So I thought I would provide a few examples today, because sometimes words are not enough. I have often spoken about the horrific toll on civilians from landmines. These tiny explosives, about the size of a hockey puck or a can of soup, can kill a child or blow the legs and arms off an adult. They are triggered by the victim. In other words, unlike a gun that a soldier aims and fires or a bomb that is dropped and explodes on a target, landmines sit there and wait for their victims. It could be hours or days or weeks, even years. But however long it is after they are scattered and hidden beneath a layer of sand or dirt, they explode when an unsuspecting person, whether a combatant or an innocent civilian, steps on it or triggers it with a plow or a wheelbarrow or a bicycle. That person's life is changed forever. In many countries where there are few doctors, landmine victims bleed to death. Those who survive with a leg or both legs gone are the lucky ones. This girl is an example of who I am talking about. We do not know her nationality, but the picture tells a lot. She is learning to walk on artificial legs. Her life has been made immeasurably harder because of a landmine that probably cost less than $2. I have a granddaughter not much older than her. Each of these photographs tell a similar story. None of these people were combatants. Each are facing lives of pain, and sometimes in their communities stigmatization because of weapons that are designed to be indiscriminate. The Leahy War Victims Fund has helped some of them, as this photograph taken in Vietnam shows. My wife Marcelle and I have seen the difference the Fund has made, but I wish there were no need for it because there would be no landmines. Over the years, as people around the world became aware of the landmine problem, they took action. The Senate was the first legislative body in the world to ban exports of antipersonnel landmines. I am proud of writing that amendment. Other countries soon followed our example. And there were others, especially Canada's former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Thanks to them an international treaty outlawing the weapons has been joined by 161 countries. I regret that the United States, of all the NATO countries, is the only one that has not joined, even though the U.S. military has not used antipersonnel mines for 22 years, despite two long wars. On June 27, though, the Obama administration finally took a step--it is an incremental step, but it is a significant one--to put the United States on a path to join the treaty. Although the United States has not produced or purchased antipersonnel mines since the 1990s, the White House announced that as a matter of official policy that it will no longer produce or otherwise acquire antipersonnel mines, nor will the Pentagon replenish its stockpile of mines as they become obsolete. Our closest allies and many others around the world welcomed this step, even though it falls far short of what supporters of the treaty have called for. But one senior Member of the House of Representatives immediately accused President Obama of ignoring U.S. military commanders, some of whom have defended the use of landmines, just as the military defended poison gas a century ago when nations acted to ban it. This Member of the House said: The President ``owes our military an explanation for ignoring their advice'', and he went on to say that this decision represents an ``expensive solution in search of a nonexistent problem.'' A Member of our body, the Senate, called the announcement a ``brazen attempt by the President to circumvent the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to provide advice and consent to international treaties that bind the United States.'' These are strong words. They make great sound bites for the press. But the truth lies elsewhere. Over the years, the White House has consulted closely with the Pentagon, including about this decision. The policy just announced simply makes official what has been an informal fact for at least 17 years through three Presidential administrations. It also ignores the fact that the United States has neither joined the treaty nor has the President sent it to the Senate for ratification, so the President has obviously not circumvented the Senate's advice and consent role. And it ignores that every one of our NATO allies and most of our coalition partners have renounced antipersonnel mines, as have dozens of countries that could never dream of having a powerful, modern army as we do--countries that look to the United States, the most powerful Nation on Earth, but they got rid of their landmines. The naysayers' argument is simple. It goes like this: The United States is no longer causing the misery captured in these photographs, so why should we join the treaty? Does that mean they also oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, such as the crippled people in this photograph? Do they oppose the Chemical Weapons Treaty, and every other treaty dealing with international relations that the United States has joined since the time of George Washington? Does the fact that we are not causing a problem, that we do not use landmines or chemical weapons, absolve us from having a responsibility to be part of an international treaty to stop it? Of course not. The world looks to the United States for leadership. In 1992, if the Senate had accepted the argument now being made this body would never have voted 100 to 0 to ban the export of antipersonnel landmines. I suppose those in the House who criticize President Obama today would say the entire Senate was wrong 22 years ago. Those 100 Democrats and Republicans who voted back then to ban U.S. exports of antipersonnel mines understood that while the United States may not have been causing the problem, we needed to be part of the solution. The same holds true today. In 1996 President Clinton called on the Pentagon to develop alternatives to antipersonnel mines, whether they were technological or doctrinal alternatives. He was Commander in Chief, but the Pentagon largely ignored him. But now 18 years later it needs to be done. Not at some unspecified time in the future but by a reasonable deadline-- because it can be done. Now, I am not so naive to think that a treaty will prevent every last person on Earth from using landmines. But if people use them, they pay a price for using them. Bashar Assad used poison gas, but look at the political price he paid. Are those who oppose the landmine treaty so dismissive of the benefits of outlawing and stigmatizing a weapon like IEDs, which pose a danger to our own troops? Rather than opposing a treaty that will make it a war crime to use landmines against our troops, why not support the mine-breaching technology they need to protect themselves? I always come back to the photographs. I have met many people like these. They may not be Americans, but what happened to them happens to thousands of others like them each year. The United States can help stop it. It is a moral issue. I yield the floor.