Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, the Senate will hold a vote to allow for the consideration of a temporary, stopgap measure to keep the government funded through December 3. The measure also provides $28 billion to help States ravaged by hurricanes and wildfires, like Hurricane Ida that recently tore through both the South and the Northeast. It provides critical assistance to Afghan refugees who fled the Taliban in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Finally, it will raise the debt ceiling to December 2022, including the $8 billion of debt that was incurred under President Trump. Now, this shouldn't even be a close call. A government shutdown, if we had one, would needlessly cost the taxpayers billions of dollars-- billions of dollars--throughout our country. It would throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work. A government default would be catastrophic. And that is all completely avoidable. Yet, in the wake of the deadliest pandemic our country has seen in over 100 years and in the wake of natural disasters that have left a trail of death and destruction, the Republican leader and his party have decided to play a dangerous game of political brinksmanship. They have chosen--and it was a free choice on their part--to withhold their votes and prevent this bill from even being debated, threatening to shut down the U.S. Government--the U.S. Government--and have it default on its debts for the first time in the history of our great country. I think that is the height of irresponsibility and callousness. It is also pretty hypocritical, because who pays the price for this political brinksmanship? Not the Republican leadership careening us towards disaster but the American people. A government shutdown has serious consequences for people just trying to make ends meet--support their families, live their lives. Important food and nutrition programs--SNAP and WIC--would dry up in a matter of days, leaving millions of Americans in the wealthiest Nation on Earth without the help they need to put food on the table. Also, I look at our Nation's schools that are struggling to reopen after a pandemic. Assistance to those schools would be delayed. Then we look at our public health response to the mental health and substance abuse crisis. That would be severely hampered. And we cannot forget that we have an epidemic of drug overdoses in this country happening alongside the COVID pandemic. The Small Business Administration that provides so much assistance to our Nation's small businesses--I believe, as I said many times on this floor, that small businesses are the backbone of the American economy-- would be forced to close the door. More than half of the CDC would be furloughed just weeks after COVID deaths passed the grim toll of the 1918 pandemic in our own country and right before the start of the annual flu season. These are just a few examples of the needless pain a government shutdown would cause. As painful as a government shutdown would be, the consequences of defaulting on our debt for the first time, the first time in American history--that is even worse. The government of the wealthiest country in the world would not have funds to operate, meet its obligations, and pay its debts. The last time we even toyed with such an irresponsible idea, the credit rating of the U.S. Government was downgraded for the first time in history, and, boy, that cost every American, directly or indirectly, money. It certainly hurt businesses all over our country. If we were to default on our debt, then the women and men of the military would be handed IOUs in exchange for their bravery defending our country; Social Security checks that people earned and rely on to survive would stop; and the economy would take such a hit from which it would be hard to recover. The stock market would no doubt take a dive and then put millions of Americans' lifetime savings at risk. All of this as we are still recovering economically from the last 18 months of a global pandemic. And for what? So Republicans can make campaign commercials claiming they are the party of fiscal responsibility and do that with a straight face? Come on. While President Trump was in office, U.S. debt increased by $8 trillion--$5\1/2\ trillion alone since we last raised the debt ceiling under President Trump. Incidentally, on that one, because it was so important to the country, there was bipartisan support for it. Republicans' irresponsible tax cut for the wealthiest Americans is partly to blame, but Democrats still supported the Trump administration when it needed to raise the debt limit to account for the resulting bills because, if we did otherwise, everybody in this country was going to be hurt. It would have been irresponsible. It would have been dangerous for the U.S. economy. The argument made by my colleagues that Republicans will not support raising the debt limit because they are not going to support the tax- and-spend policies of the Democrats--well, it is probably just as well that many people wear masks these days because it hides their smiles, because that argument does not hold water. The bills they falsely claim to be socialist bogeymen have not even passed Congress, let alone been signed into law, and they are going to be fully paid for. In 2017, my friend the Republican leader chose not to take that path when Republicans passed a massive tax cut--massive tax cut--for the wealthiest in this country, and that was not paid for. Raising the debt limit is about meeting obligations our country has already made, and many of those obligations were made under President Trump. So playing political games with so much on the line--that is as irresponsible as it is irrational. The bill before us today provides a path out of this made-in- Washington crisis--a path that could help all of our country. It can fund the government through December 3. It can raise the debt limit through December 2022. It could provide relief to communities all over our country that have been devastated by natural disasters and provide assistance for the brave Afghans who supported our mission through two decades of war. So we really have an off-ramp from this crisis. I wish my colleagues would take it. Vote to advance this bill. Stave off an unnecessary crisis. Put the American people first, ahead of the party. That is actually, I think, a pretty simple choice. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEAHY. I have listened to this debate. I have also listened to my two dear friends from Louisiana speak about the disaster recovery, and I support disaster recovery for that. But I would just point out that on the proposal of the Republican leader, there would be no funds in the Treasury to pay for disaster recovery or for writing a check to Israel for the Iron Dome because it doesn't raise the debt limit. And the substitute offered by my friend, introduced by my dear friend the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby, does not solve the problem in front of us. It doesn't address the looming debt crisis facing our Nation, so it ignores that that exists. Now, perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to wash their hands of this. They can. Much of that debt was incurred under a Republican President and under a Republican-controlled Senate and debt racked up by irresponsible tax cuts championed by the Republican Party for the wealthiest of Americans. And, yes, debt also occurred in a bipartisan fashion to deal with multiple crises that faced the Nation: Disaster assistance in the wake of hurricanes and wildfires keep getting worse every year because we don't combat climate change; COVID relief to keep this country from careening head first into economic disaster in the wake of a worldwide pandemic; historic levels of support and investment in our Nation's military and our men and women in uniform. And to try to put this all at the feet of President Biden's Build Back Better agenda, a yet-unpassed reconciliation bill that is not the law--it hasn't been passed--is ridiculous. We are talking about debt we already incurred, not spending in the future. And as my Republican colleagues know, we expect to fully pay for those investments. They may not like how we are going to offset the spending, but that is what the legislative process is for, to debate them. At least we are willing to pay for the bills we incur, which is more than could be said for the Republicans when they pushed a massive tax cut for the wealthy that was not paid for. So let's stop this political brinksmanship. Let's secure the full faith and credit of the United States. Let's pass and increase the debt limit. To do otherwise puts our country and our economy at risk. The substitute also scales back the assistance provided to Afghan refugees that was included in the House-passed bill. Now, I was pleased when we reached bipartisan and bicameral agreement of $6.3 billion in the House-passed bill for much needed assistance for the brave Afghans who supported our mission through two decades of war. It is our duty; it is our obligation to support them. But the substitute bill they are seeking to pass would shorten the length of time we provide assistance to thousands of Afghan women and men who fled to the United States to escape the wrath of the Taliban-- food, medical care, housing, basic things they need. The bill also eliminates their right to obtain a REAL ID-compliant U.S. driver's license, yet we want them to go out and seek jobs. How are they going to do that if they can't drive? There shouldn't even be a debate. I could give a dozen more reasons, but I know people are ready to vote, so I object.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. One of the fundamental underpinning of the patent system is transparency. In exchange for obtaining limited exclusive rights over their inventions, inventors disclose those inventions to the public, making transparent something that might otherwise remain secret. This transparency has tremendous benefits for our society by accelerating innovation, and the patent system as a whole helps to drive our economy. I have fought for many years to bring even more transparency into the patent system to further benefit the public, particularly by pushing for public disclosure of who actually owns a patent. I am proud today to continue my partnership with Senator Tillis on intellectual property issues by introducing the bipartisan Pride in Patent Ownership Act, which requires patent owners to disclose their true identity when a patent is issued and when it is sold. I have long supported efforts in the Senate to achieve this goal and am excited to spearhead this effort now. The American people--any of whom may be charged with infringing a given patent--have a right to know who owns a patent, which often changes hands after being issued to the initial inventor. Currently, to know who owns a patent, you have to engage in costly, time-consuming litigation to uncover that information. That simply shouldn't be the case. This bill helps to ensure a fair innovation system for small businesses, non-profits, and independent entrepreneurs who lack the resources to engage in costly litigation just to discover who possesses exclusive patent rights over a particular invention. Transparency in patent ownership will also help us better understand how we are doing in the global competition for innovation. Currently, a whopping 52% of U.S. patents are issued to foreign applicants. But there is no systematic way to track ownership of U.S patents, including when patents are sold to foreign entities. And Chinese companies like Huawei--which often serve as proxies for the Chinese Communist Party-- are wielding patent portfolios of unknown size and scope in the United States. Although we do not know what specific patents Huawei owns, in the last two years, it claims to have received an estimated $1.2 to $1.3 billion in patent licensing fees, and it is likely that most of those licensing fees come from Americans, based on U.S. patents. Furthermore, Huawei's patents cover fundamental technologies that will power our global future, such as the 50 mobile network. Its dominance over these cutting-edge technologies unquestionably advantages China and disadvantages America. It is imperative, both for our innovation economy and national security, to know who owns what patents and who is profiting. Senator Tillis and I feel strongly about transparency in patent ownership. We initially proposed this bill as an amendment to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act earlier this Congress, and it was cleared by the Chair and Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee for inclusion in that bill's manager's package that ultimately failed. We have since received feedback from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, whose input we have worked hard to incorporate. As Chairman of the Senate's Intellectual Property Subcommittee, I will continue to utilize all of our Subcommittee's tools along with Ranking Member Tillis to improve transparency around patent ownership. This bill is an essential next step in that process, and I urge the Senate to act swiftly to pass it.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, innovation is the lifeblood of the American economy. Thanks to our Founders, our Constitution anticipated the power of innovation and enshrined the basic idea that inventors should be given the incentive to do what they do best. The intellectual property clause has pushed the United States to be the longstanding global leader in innovation. Unfortunately, like too many other aspects of our society, the benefits of our innovation ecosystem have not been equally felt by Americans from all backgrounds. Today, I am proud to introduce the bipartisan Unleashing American Innovators Act, legislation that will make the patent system more accessible to Americans from all backgrounds and ensure that we do more to harness the untapped potential that exists in our country. The Unleashing American Innovators Act builds on a legacy of broadening access to the patent system that I am particularly proud of. Ten years ago last week, Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which was the most significant update to our patent laws in nearly sixty years. Under the Leahy-Smith Act, we created a network of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) satellite offices around the country, bringing the PTO closer to where Americans actually innovate. We lowered fees for small businesses and created a new micro-entity status to lower fees even further. We also created a Patent Pro Bono program to help make legal resources more accessible to prospective inventors. Now is the time to build on that success. The Unleashing American Innovators Act will further boost access to the patent system for underrepresented groups by explicitly directing existing PTO satellite offices to reach out to those who are underrepresented in in patent filings. A recent PTO study found that only twenty-two percent of U.S. patents list a woman as an inventor, even though women make up more than fifty percent of our population. Other studies have found that African Americans apply for patents at about half the rate of white Americans. We need to boost participation from inventors in rural areas like Vermont as well. Congress must do more to ensure that these and other underrepresented groups have the opportunity to participate in the system. This bill will go further than our efforts ten years ago by requiring the PTO to study whether additional satellite offices are needed to increase participation in the system by women, people of color, military veterans, individual inventors, and any other groups that are currently underrepresented. It will also create a network of smaller community outreach offices, which will do the hard work of meeting prospective innovators where they live. These offices will partner with local community organizations to create community-based programs to educate Americans about the patent system and the benefits of innovation and entrepreneurship. One such office will be located in northern New England so that it can help provide assistance to inventors in Vermont. The Unleashing American Innovators Act will also establish a patentability assessment pilot program to assist first-time prospective inventors in determining whether an idea they have is likely to meet the threshold for patentability. It will give the PTO study the efficacy of the Patent Pro Bono Program to ensure that it is meeting the needs of underrepresented groups. Finally, it will further reduce application fees for small businesses and micro entities to reduce the costs of obtaining a patent. By building on the structures we put in place in the Leahy-Smith Act ten years ago, we can ensure that the next generation of innovators in America reflect the full potential of our greatest natural resource-- the genius of the American people. I am proud to partner with Senator Tillis on this important piece of legislation. Expanding access to the patent system is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of maintaining American competitiveness and extending opportunity to all Americans, no matter their background, economic status, or location. I urge the Senate to act swiftly to pass this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, few people have advocated for their home States as tirelessly and as effectively as Paul Costello has advocated for Vermont. After 21 years at the helm of the Vermont Council for Rural Development, Paul is retiring from his post, but I know he will never retire from his steadfast support for Vermont. Paul has dedicated his entire career to fostering dialogue and embracing civic engagement to move our communities forward by bringing people together to inspire constructive change. His decades of service deserve special recognition. As I was as well, Paul was born and raised in Vermont. He grew up in Burlington and spent his undergraduate years at the University of Vermont. He later crossed the border to earn a Ph.D. in intellectual history from Montreal's McGill University. After completing his education, Paul lectured at his alma maters and at Saint Michael's College, and he served as an adviser at Sterling College in Craftsbury. He served for 5 years at Central Vermont Basic Adult Education, bringing literacy instruction to teens and adults in rural Vermont counties, before stepping into his longtime role as executive director at the Vermont Council on Rural Development--VCRD--in 2000. The VCRD is truly a Vermont institution. The council does important work to help strengthen our rural communities. Known for their community visits, VCRD travels to towns throughout the State, where leaders from different sectors in Vermont listen to community members identify and acknowledge the challenges and opportunities they have before them. Sticking to Paul's dedication to a locally driven process, the visiting VCRD team reflects on the community discussion and offers guidance and potential resources to help the community meet their needs and goals. The VCRD has facilitated community visits in over 75 Vermont towns, and success from these events is seen in the form of new projects, grants, job creation, implementation of green energy, and so much more. These visits also have the effect of bringing our rural communities together and adding to the sense of unity that is already so strong in our small towns. Through Paul's leadership, the VCRD has followed through with initiatives that have a lasting positive influence on our State as a whole. The council's Working Lands Enterprise Initiative has created hundreds of new jobs and generated more than $35 million for Vermont's economy. Under Paul's steady hand, the VCRD has also helped to improve and expand Vermont's digital economy, something which our State continues to expand to make ours a competitive economy, locally, regionally, and internationally. Paul has lived by his mantra of ``listening, learning and helping,'' and the benefits can be seen across rural Vermont. He is a Vermonter through and through, and I am proud to call him a dear friend. In honor of Paul's retirement and 21 years of exceptional service to Vermont, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``Moved the Needle,'' by Steve Pappas, published in the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, if I might----

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I voted for the Rubio amendment because, like others here and in Cuba, I believe the Cuban people have as much right to access to the internet as anyone else. No government should prevent that access, or access to other sources of information, whether in Cuba or any other country. It is a universal right. However, we have only the vaguest idea of what this amendment envisions, how it would be implemented without violating Cuba's territorial sovereignty, or how much it would cost. These are important questions that need answers. I also note that the ``purpose'' of the amendment refers to the ``illegitimate communist Cuba regime.'' We are all familiar with that kind of rhetoric, and no one who believes in democracy would argue that the Cuban Government is legitimate, since its leaders were not elected in a free and fair multi-party election. Cuba is a one-party state where political opposition is not tolerated. Presumably, that is because the Cuban authorities are afraid that if they allowed political opposition parties to operate and a free and fair election were held, they might be voted out of office. In that sense, it is similar to pariah states like Iran and Syria, as well as U.S. allies and partners like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, neither of which permits opposition parties to operate and both of which engage in repression on a scale far larger than in Cuba. I mention this because when it comes to principles of freedom of speech and association, we should at least try to be consistent. We have an economic embargo against Cuba, a tiny impoverished country that poses no credible threat to us, while we sell billions of dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 terrorists, and the perpetrators of the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and the disastrous war in Yemen. Saudi women are routinely discriminated against and imprisoned for acts that are protected by international law. The death penalty is carried out after sham trials. None of this is to excuse or justify the actions of the Cuban Government. But it is interesting that many of those who focus their wrath on Cuba and support a policy of sweeping sanctions that is contributing to the misery of the Cuban people, support a very different approach toward other repressive governments when it suits them.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following rollcall votes be 10-minute rollcalls.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, once again, the Senate has proven that infrastructure is--as it always has been-- a bipartisan issue. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act offers a once-in-a-generation vision for America's infrastructure that is long overdue. This bipartisan infrastructure package makes the largest Federal investment in public transit, passenger rail, and bridges in more than 50 years. Gone are the days when ``infrastructure'' has meant only bridges, highways, roads, and rail. While we need to invest in all of those areas, States like Vermont have infrastructure needs that also include climate resiliency, broadband, and renewable energy. That is exactly what this sweeping infrastructure package does. The need for action in Vermont is clear. It is no secret that Vermont's infrastructure is aging. For decades, infrastructure in Vermont has suffered from a systemic lack of investment. Vermont has more than 2,700 bridges, 570 miles of freight railroad, 14,000 miles of public road, and an overall C grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers--ASCE--for the condition of these facilities. There are 66 bridges and over 666 miles of highway in the State that are in poor condition and need of repair. When it comes to stormwater and wastewater infrastructure, Vermont's report card is even more dismal, receiving a D+ grade from ASCE, an unacceptable reality as our communities continue to see the impacts of climate change and extreme weather. With the passage of this indispensable infrastructure package, that will all change. The State of Vermont is expected to receive over $1.5 billion in formulaic funds to repair highways and bridges and also install a network of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the State. This desperately needed infrastructure package will help repair Vermont's roads and bridges, while also creating good-paying jobs. It provides significant investments and makes key programmatic changes to competitive discretionary infrastructure programs to make more these Federal revenue streams more accessible to small, rural States like Vermont. The bill tackles the challenge of bringing broadband to the 19 million Americans, including 60,000 Vermont homes, in rural areas and other parts of the country that still lack access to quality, high- speed internet service. Not only will the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act buildout broadband in unserved areas, it permanently establishes the Emergency Broadband Benefit program created through the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act renaming it the Affordable Connectivity Benefit program. This program will provide a $30 per month voucher for low-income families to use toward any internet service plan of their choosing. It builds on the EBB program by expanding eligibility to help more low-income households, while also making it more sustainable for taxpayers. Importantly, this package will also make significant down payments on climate resiliency initiatives to make Vermont more prepared to tackle the climate crisis, which has for too long been overlooked. Later this month will be the 10-year anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene. The devastation that occurred as the storm swept through our State showed that we must build back better to make our communities and critical infrastructure more resilient to extreme climate events like Tropical Storm Irene. And anyone who doubts the obvious link between our infrastructure needs and the climate crisis need only look at what happened to Texas's energy grid during the winter, or the devastating heat wave and drought taking place across the West this summer, where record temperatures have literally melted power lines and buckled roads. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience programs that are both pragmatic and forward-thinking. It includes record amounts of funding for weatherization assistance to reduce energy costs for low-income households, makes the largest investment in clean energy transmission and electric vehicle infrastructure in history, funds the electrification of thousands of school and transit buses across the country, and establishes new programs to overhaul our energy grid and rapidly accelerate development and deployment of battery storage technology. The bill amounts to the single largest investment in clean drinking water in American history, including dedicated funding to replace lead service lines and address the PFAS contamination in our communities, and provides an additional $40 million for water quality projects in the Lake Champlain Basin. Taken together, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will leave every community in Vermont better prepared to face the challenges of the 21st century and help restore American leadership in the fight against climate change. This significant legislative and stimulus package shows what can be done when we all work together in the Senate. This hasn't been easy, but it is important to Vermont and to our country, and thanks to these efforts, we will be able to repair roads and bridges, build electric charging stations, and build out broadband throughout the country. I hope that the Senate will pass this legislation today, and that the House of Representatives will soon consider this legislation, so President Biden can sign this historic infrastructure investment into law.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud what the majority leader just said. We are here. A lot of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have rearranged schedules to be here. Let's go forth and do the country's business. If people have amendments they want, bring them up. Vote them up or vote them down. But let's just get on and do our work. My Appropriations Committee staff worked very, very hard with both the Republican and Democratic side on the parts of this piece of legislation that required work from the Appropriations Committee. They have worked weekends, evenings--long, long days--drafting and redrafting and redrafting to make sure that people on both sides approved of what they wanted. Now, the American people expect us to vote. We are here. Let's vote. I am happy to see Republican amendments or Democratic amendments come up. But it is one thing to talk about them on the news shows or on social media or trying to talk to the press in the halls and make sound bites; it is another thing to actually vote. Let's vote. Let's let people know where we stand. That is how the people in our State know where we stand. Frankly, those who are afraid they may cast a vote that creates problems--but we are not here to cast only popular votes. I have cast more votes than all but one person in the history of this country. I have cast well over 16,000, almost 17,000 votes. I am sure I can go back over those votes and find some and say: Hmm, in retrospect, I might have voted the other way. But I voted. What we are doing in not bringing this up and getting this done, we are trying to vote ``maybe.'' I don't know anybody in my State, Republican or Democrat, who elected Senators to say: We want you to vote ``maybe.'' No. We want you to vote. It doesn't mean the people of my State will agree on every vote. I hope that they will agree on a lot of them. But I will represent my State. I will represent my conscience. But I will represent the Senate, and I will represent my oath of office. My oath of office is not to just sit here and do nothing but talk to the press and others; my oath of office is, I respect the Constitution, and I will vote. So let's hope they vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is alarming to know that voter suppression, which we have worked for decades to overcome, is not a ghost from our past. Suppression efforts are resurfacing--and surging-- in State legislatures across the country. Voter roll purging, out-of- the-way polling stations, and needless barriers to accessing the ballot box are underway and under consideration in jurisdictions across the country. It cannot stand. Under the guise of election integrity, even in the wake of the most secure election in our Nation's history, proponents of these suppressive movements make no effort to hide their targets: African Americans, Latino Americans, college students, low-income voters, the list goes on. Those who do not feel compelled to push against these voter suppression need a lesson in history. Thankfully, a July 27 column in the Washington Post by Norman Lear offers just that insight. Penned on the occasion of his 99th birthday, this decorated American war hero, one of our Nation's Greatest Generation, recalls the pain and betrayal felt by African-American war heroes who fought for democracy abroad, only to be excluded from it at home. He reminds us that it took decades of relentless activism to give millions of minority American voters and others a real voice by finally giving them a vote. And most importantly, he urges all Americans to fight now to protect the right to vote, the very right that gives democracy its name. This is a call to action. Voting suppression cannot stand. From the For the People Act to my own bipartisan John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for another icon of the voting movement, this Senate has a real opportunity to stand for democracy. I will work in good faith with any member of the Senate, regardless of party, to find a path to passing and enacting that important bill bearing John Lewis's name. Efforts to restore the Voting Rights Act have always been bipartisan. There is no reason it shouldn't be bipartisan again now. To echo Norman's words, the right to vote isn't about party or even politics. It is about our system of self-government and the notion that a government of, by, and for the people is worth protecting in a world where authoritarianism and tyranny are still forces we are reckoning with. I ask unanimous consent that Norman Lear's opinion piece, titled ``Norman Lear: As I begin my 100th year, I'm baffled that voting rights are still under attack,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after decades of civil war, famine, and political instability, after millions were killed and millions more became refugees, many hoped that independence and a peace agreement in South Sudan would usher in a period of stability and progress. Some South Sudanese refugees who had resettled in the United States returned to South Sudan to aid in rebuilding. Unfortunately, peace was fleeting and the past decade of independence has been marred by continued violent ethnic conflict, widespread hunger, and ongoing disputes between rival politicians that have cared more about their own ambitions than the South Sudanese people. Despite several power sharing agreements, promises of unity and reconciliation, and a goal to seat a full Parliament in 2020, the rivalry between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar has stoked tensions between the Dinka and Nuer ethnic groups and neglected public infrastructure and basic services. On August 2, almost a year past the promised deadline, an incomplete Parliament was sworn into office, with 62 members absent due to disagreements over the power-sharing arrangement. The people of South Sudan cannot wait another decade for progress. They cannot wait for politicians to argue over control while their children go hungry, while they sink deeper into poverty, while they worry that the next outbreak of violent conflict might send them fleeing for their lives. Recently, the People's Coalition for Civil Action launched an effort to mobilize all South Sudanese people, whether living within the country or abroad, and demand political change. In a declaration, they said they ``have had enough of war, enough of corruption, enough of insecurity, enough of economic hardships, enough of public neglect and leadership failure.'' They admonished the administration of President Salva Kiir, which has completely failed to fulfill its most basic responsibilities to provide security and stability for its citizens. Just days later, the South Sudanese National Security Service--NSS-- arrested two of the leaders of the movement, Augustino Ting Mayai and a former State Governor, Kuel Aguer Kuel, for signing the declaration. The NSS shut down the Sudd Institute, a think tank involved in the creation of the People's Coalition for Civil Action, and issued arrest warrants for Rajab Mohandis and Abraham Awolich, two other signatories of the declaration, who have gone into hiding. This suppression of dissent is not new in South Sudan. Weak and paranoid new leaders often resort to projecting strength by arresting civil society leaders, journalists, and political rivals, and over the years, this has become President Kiir's trademark. This most recent transparent attempt to silence his own citizens for nothing more than demanding that he keep his promises and do his duty has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world. President Kiir may not know that Abraham Awolich was one of the now- famous Lost Boys, who as a child survived the civil war that killed most of his family, endured malnutrition, and escaped attacks by rebel groups seeking child soldiers, only to find himself alone in a refugee camp. He eventually was resettled in the United States, arriving in Vermont in 2001, graduating from the University of Vermont, becoming an American citizen, and going on to get his master's degree. He was my constituent for many years, and I am very proud of the work he did as a member of the South Sudanese diasporic community who returned to his native country to help rebuild. President Kiir may not have known that Abraham was my constituent or that I will always consider him my constituent. So I call upon him now to immediately release Kuel Aguer Kuel and Augustino Ting Mayai, to cancel the arrest warrants for Rajab Mohandis and Abraham Awolich, and end the repression of civil society leaders, journalists, and dissidents. I want to read into the Record a quote from Abraham Awolich's statement at the launch of their movement. What he said is instructive to every citizen of every democracy around the world. He said, ``In the last 10 years the people of South Sudan have been dormant, they have not been challenging the status quo in the Republic of South Sudan and we cannot expect to have a democratic country without active citizenship.'' President Kiir has an opportunity now, with a new Parliament seated and the seeds for an active and engaged citizenry sown, to show true leadership. He has no time to waste, or he will risk wasting his country's future and losing the support of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How long did that last 15-minute vote take?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following rollcall votes be 10 minutes in length.

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, I know a lot of negotiations have been going on in the bill that is soon to be before us, and I appreciate the Senators from both parties who have done that, but sometimes we forget that there are hundreds of other people who work on it. I know the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have been working extremely hard. I think of people--Chuck Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, and others in our committee--who have given up weekends, evenings. They were working and briefing me until last evening on the work they were doing because we can say what we want to do, but then you have got to write it down. The same thing happened with the bill that, fortunately, passed unanimously here to reimburse our National Guard, to pay the backpay and other necessities of the Capitol Police, to try to repair the damage and improve the situation after what happened--the terrible things that happened on January 6--to go for higher protections of COVID for everybody who works here in the Capitol: the staff, professionals, everybody. This is from those who clean the Capitol to those who guard the Capitol; they all need this kind of protection. And with the help of Jeanne Shaheen and others, we were able to put in additional money and changes in the law to help us bring translators back from Afghanistan, people who had worked and put their lives on the line for our military, and bring them to safety. As soon as, first, President Trump and then President Biden said we are leaving, their lives and the lives of their families were greatly endangered by the Taliban, and now they are back. But I mention that because sometimes I might say, only half in jest, that Senators are merely constitutional impediments to their staffs, but we are very fortunate to have some of the brightest women and men anywhere in the staffs of the Senators in both parties, and certainly in those who administer the Senate, including those who are presently sitting and preparing to help us on everything from points of order to making sure the right papers are done and that the votes are counted properly. I see all of these people working hard here today when I came into the Capitol, everybody from those who have to follow and make a copy of what I say on the floor, on through. I didn't hear anybody say: Boy, I wish I wasn't here. I am sure just about everybody had other plans for Saturday and Sunday instead of being here. I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who have come here who are helping us perform our duties. And I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will take note of that, try to bring these things to a conclusion--of course, have whatever votes we need--but keep in mind that there are hundreds, thousands of people working in the Capitol whose schedules are ofttimes disrupted because of our schedules. They do it. They help us. They support us. We could not do our job without them. And I hope we will take note of that and help them in reaching a conclusion or at least give some finality to what we are doing. I am willing to stay here whatever hours are necessary, but I am hoping that we will know what those hours are so that the hundreds, even thousands of other people who work here in the Capitol can go about planning for themselves, their families, their friends, whatever need be. So I would note that both the distinguished Presiding Officer is here, and I am here in the Senate. I am not holding up anything because no other Senator is seeking recognition, but I hope this may be coming to a conclusion. With that, I will 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. President, this has been a week. I spoke earlier about the loss of my good friend Senator Mike Enzi, as many other Senators have, out of respect, from both sides of the aisle. Yesterday, another good friend, Senator Carl Levin, left us. And, again, there will be respect shown, I am sure, by both Republicans and Democrats because he was of the school that worked with both. I had the privilege of being here throughout his decades of service, and he epitomized what the Senate should be. He was a person of complete integrity; a person who knew the issues, whatever they were, that he was going to be discussing and working on. He knew them as well as anybody else. But everybody knew, Republican or Democrat, that they could take his word for anything. And I couldn't help but think last night, if more Senators had listened to him at the time of the major Iraq war, supposedly because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which of course he did not; when we had been told by many in the administration they had evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when they did not; and because he actually took the time to read the intelligence--he was one of three Senators, another one being the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a conservative Democrat from Florida--they would come to us and tell us specifically what parts of the intelligence we should read, as did a third Senator. Those who actually took the time to read it, as, of course, Senator Levin did, voted against the war. They knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. They knew that this would ultimately put America at risk. And, unfortunately, by having to transfer forces from Afghanistan that were closing in on the Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden and his followers, the people who had organized 9/11 and the strike against us, he was able to escape and stayed loose for years, until captured during the Obama administration. But Carl Levin I remember saying: Please, do your due diligence. He and Vice Chairman Bob Graham and a third Senator kept saying: Read the intelligence. Those who did voted no. But I could give hundreds of other times when we would gather around Carl Levin, Republicans and Democrats alike, and say: What do you think of this issue? What did you study? And we would get it, chapter and verse. It was always accurate. He was what I considered a Senator's Senator. He was the type of Senator I hoped to be able to serve with when I first came to the U.S. Senate. I remember sitting in the Gallery up there as a young law student at Georgetown Law School. Between classes or exams, I would come here just to watch the U.S. Senate, and I would see so many giants in both parties speaking, and I thought how wonderful it would be to serve in such a body. When Carl Levin was here, that was the example--his brother in the House of Representatives; he in the Senate. And I remember Carl, with his sense of humor, speaking of his mother, whom I also got to meet, when she was asked by the press: What do you think about one son in the U.S. House of Representatives and the other in the U.S. Senate? Does that make you proud? And she said: Well, if it is what makes them happy, I think that is good. And Carl would just say that with his own self-deprecating sense of humor. I hope Senators will look at his life and realize, whichever party you belonged to, this is a person you could follow. When he did lead the Armed Services Committee, he listened to everybody in this body, from the right to the left, and studiously considered their concerns. I would not interrupt the Senate here, but I mentioned him because this is what a Senator should be, as I said earlier with Senator Mike Enzi. Losing two people I admired, two close friends, two people who worked to make the Senate better--let us all pause and try and do the same. I appreciate Senators coming together yesterday in the legislation that Senator Shelby and I put forward to help our Afghan translators who worked with us, to bring them to safety, and to help our Capitol Police and those who work around the Capitol to be able to recover from January 6. And it gave me hope that they came together by a 98-to-0 vote and passed that legislation. Let's take a break, and let's think of Carl Levin. Let's try and do more of that. I think of my days as a young student looking down on this body, and I look at it now as the dean of the Senate. I have seen the good and the bad. I prefer the good. I yield the floor. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further remarks of mine, that I be able to add them to the Record, including so many of the people who needed and should have been thanked for what they have done, that they be added in the Record along with my earlier statement.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows from all his involvement and the negotiations that have been going on, we do have an emergency security supplemental issue before us. So I am speaking now to urge that the Senate take up and pass H.R. 3237, which is the Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021, which the House sent over, and we add a Leahy-Shelby substitute amendment. Let me describe a little bit for my colleagues what the Leahy-Shelby substitute amendment is. It is the result of bipartisan compromise between myself and Vice Chairman Shelby. We have been working on this for weeks and weekends. Our staff has been working late into the night. And I want to thank Senator Shelby both for his hard work and his friendship. This $2.1 billion package is designed to address the aftermath of the violent insurrection that took place on January 6, is designed to heal the remaining scars of the COVID pandemic on the Capitol Complex, and provide the resources we need to ensure the safety of our Afghan partners as we conclude our mission in that country. Let me tell you why there is urgency in this. If we don't act, then the Capitol Police will deplete salaries funding in literally a matter of weeks. The National Guard all over the country will be forced to cancel needed training to carry on their mission at home and abroad. We all remember when we went out speaking to members of the National Guard from most of our States who were here to help with the security of the Capitol in January. So if we did nothing, that would be sort of a security crisis entirely of our own making in what it would do to the Capitol Police and what it would do to our National Guard. But by acting, we prevent that crisis. We provide the Capitol Police with $70.7 million in resources for overtime pay, retention bonuses, mental health services, and new equipment and training. Let me tell you why this is necessary. Since January 6, 73 officers have left the Capitol Police, and that is not sustainable. We have to make a strong statement of support for those officers who defended this building, and all it stands for, on that terrible day. This week, the Nation is hearing the testimony of the officers who fought the violent insurrectionist mob on that day, and their trauma is real. Anybody watching their testimony knows it cannot be brushed aside. We also provide $521 million to fully fund the cost of the National Guard deployment to Capitol Hill. From around the country, including my own State of Vermont, the women and men of the National Guard responded without hesitation to our call for help. We shouldn't hesitate to reimburse those costs. I remember during daylight hours and also late at night going around thanking members of the National Guard, not just from my State but from all the other States, for what they were doing. But I think it takes a little bit more than just a thank-you. We basically told them we will pay for this. Well, now we will. But that is not all we need to do. We need to secure the Capitol Complex. On January 6, the shattered windows and doors were broadcast to the world, laying bare that our seat of democracy is not some impenetrable fortress. We can't just replace the windows, fix the doors, and say: OK. Everything is fixed. We need to secure the entire complex, including the office buildings where thousands of public servants work and countless constituents visit. So our bill provides $300 million to harden accessible windows and doors to the Capitol Building and the Senate and House Office Buildings and to install new security cameras around the complex. Our bill also fulfills our responsibility to support the dedicated public servants who worked overtime, way overtime, to clean up the mess left by a violent mob and diligently worked to ensure our safety during the darkest hours of the pandemic. We must support those who supported us. That is not just a political or economic responsibility; that is a moral responsibility. That means paying for the costs we have incurred protecting staff, the Members, the entire Capitol community from COVID, including cleaning costs and personal protective equipment, none of which has been paid for. Until now, we covered the costs by robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is unsustainable. Our bill addresses this by providing $42.1 million to reimburse the costs of cleaning, personal protective equipment, telework equipment, and the salaries of employees and contractors who would have been laid off in the height of the pandemic. Finally, in the Leahy-Shelby legislation, we stand with the brave Afghans who supported our mission through two decades of war. By now, we have all seen the gruesome reports of men and women being summarily executed in the street, sometimes in front of their families. Why? Because they had supported us. And that slaughter is only going to escalate. We have to provide resources for additional special immigrant visas, SIVs, for translators and other Afghans who worked with Americans over the past two decades, as well as for additional humanitarian relief to Afghan refugees. Our bill does just that. It provides $1.125 billion to fulfill our commitment to those brave Afghans. Let me tell you what the funds will do. They will support emergency transportation, housing, and other essential services to our Afghan partners coming to the United States under special immigrant visas, and humanitarian aid for the inevitable flood of Afghans fleeing to neighboring countries. The United Nations has estimated that could swell to 500,000 refugees in just the next few months. We have also increased the number of Afghan special immigrant visas by 8,000. We have made improvements to strengthen the program, expand the reach of its protections. The reason we have this in the Leahy-Shelby bill is that there is bipartisan understanding that this is an urgent need, and we have, as the United States of America, a moral responsibility to address it immediately. Now, some have said we should just do the bare minimum. Some will say: Let's take care of the most pressing needs now and work on this maybe later on--maybe. But I have served in the U.S. Senate long enough to know that a promise to do something later is no promise at all. I cannot accept a piecemeal approach to the urgent security needs facing our Nation. They are facing us today, not sometime when we may think about it a few months or years from now. Vice Chairman Shelby has a proven track record of reaching bipartisan compromise. I would note that this agreement does not include everything I want. I am sure it includes some items that he would have preferred to not be included. But it is a strong bipartisan bill. We have come together to give the best piece of legislation possible for the U.S. Senate. A pandemic happened. A violent insurrection happened. And the President announced the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The needs are urgent. We must address them now. So I am urging all Senators to not only support the bill but actually to pass the bill today because it still has to go back to the House of Representatives this week. There is no time. There is no time left. It is a good piece of legislation. It is a necessary piece of legislation, and some would say, at least on the Afghan part, inevitable. Both President Trump and President Biden said they wanted to withdraw our troops this year. Well, they are withdrawing. Now we have to fulfill our responsibility. Mr. President, I know that Senator Shelby will be on the floor to speak in a few moments, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that Senator Shelby be recognized when we come out of the quorum call.