Floor Statements

Mr. President, in 2015, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, did something that can be all too rare Washington: It listened to the American people. After a record number of Americans spoke in favor of clear rules to protect a free and open Internet, the FCC voted to adopt strong net neutrality protections that accomplished this goal. These protections, which ensure that innovation and free speech can flourish online, are currently under threat as the FCC now moves to repeal them. On net neutrality and on many other key telecommunications policy issues, Chairman Pai has stood against consumers, startups, and small businesses. Today I choose to stand with them and with millions of Americans who support net neutrality by opposing his reappointment.

Vermonters have been clear that they want strong FCC rules in place to ensure that the Internet remains the ultimate platform for economic opportunity and free expression. These protections are particularly important for small businesses, which compete on the internet's global stage against the largest companies in the world. The Vermont Country Store is a great example of a small company that has taken advantage of the promise of an open Internet. Family-owned with a rich history dating back to 1897, the internet offered new opportunities to extend the company's reach. As fifth generation storekeeper Cabot Orton said when he testified in Vermont about the FCC's effort to craft net neutrality protections in 2014:

We don't want to imagine an America with two Internets: a

fast one for giant corporations and a slow one for everybody

else. We don't want to imagine being held for ransom by

telecom behemoths and cable monopolies just to reach our

customers with the same speed and convenience that global

conglomerates enjoy . . . A small business website that is no

longer protected from giant Internet toll-keepers would have

one choice: pay to play. Failing that, a company becomes the

proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to

hear it.

Chairman Pai has shown total disregard for the concerns of businesses like the Vermont Country Store. In proposing to repeal the existing net neutrality protections, he makes no mention of their importance to the small business community. Instead of recognizing the very real impact on small businesses of stripping away these protections, Chairman Pai claims that there are no possible harms these protections could be designed to prevent.

This is particularly clear when he discusses the current rule banning harmful paid prioritization agreements that would create the type of two-tiered internet small businesses fear. Chairman Pai claims that there was no need for this rule because some large internet service providers, ISPs, said they ``had no plans'' to engage in this kind of behavior. This is despite the fact that at least one major ISP said outright in its 2014 FCC filing that it wanted the ``flexibility'' to charge websites for priority access and that, even though it had no plans for these arrangements, they ``should be permissible and should be tested.''

I introduced legislation to ban pay-to-play deals online before the FCC adopted its rule because of the harm they would cause small businesses like the Vermont Country Store. I find Chairman Pai's failure to understand the importance of a level playing field for small businesses extremely disconcerting.

Not only is Chairman Pai ignoring the small business community by barreling ahead to repeal net neutrality protections, he is also ignoring the clear will of the American people. Over 22 million Americans have submitted comments in the proceeding he started to repeal these critical protections, shattering records at the FCC. Poll after poll has found overwhelming bipartisan support for net neutrality. In Washington, Chairman Pai calls net neutrality protections burdensome and unnecessary. In Vermont, we just call them common sense.

Vermonters also value their privacy rights and want basic protections in place to protect their personal data. In 2016, over Chairman Pai's objections, the FCC put in place important privacy protections to prevent ISPs from selling their sensitive information, including their web browsing history, without their consent. These rules also included basic data security and data breach notification requirements. We have seen how important it is to hold companies to basic data security and breach notification standards in the wake of the total disregard Equifax showed for protecting sensitive consumer information.

Unfortunately, Chairman Pai was a strong supporter of the resolution of disapproval passed by this Congress that permanently repealed the FCC's privacy and data security protections. At a time when the personal information of every single American is under constant threat, Chairman Pai thought it was simply too much to ask for ISPs to take reasonable steps to secure their subscribers data and notify them if a breach occurs.

Chairman Pai's approach to rural broadband, which is one of the most pressing issues for Vermonters, also raises cause for concern. Just recently, he has proposed to effectively lower the speed standard used to measure whether Americans have access to adequate broadband service. As someone who represents a rural State, ensuring that we accurately measure how many Americans lack this essential service is critical. Under the current standard set by the previous FCC, 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to true high-speed broadband service. In contrast, only 4 percent of urban Americans lack access.

I supported the FCC's decision to set a high minimum broadband speed to use as the baseline for comparing rural and urban areas. All Americans deserve the same quality of broadband service, whether they live in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont or the heart of Kansas City. Rural Americans should not be held to a lower standard simply so that Chairman Pai can rig the numbers to falsely claim that he has closed the digital divide once and for all.

Chairman Pai has shown far too often in his time at the FCC that he will side with Goliath over David and that he will ignore the overwhelming sentiment of the American people. With the fate of the open internet and many other critical telecommunications issues at stake, I must oppose Chairman Pai's nomination.

Mr. President, in the year 2017, when some people live in extravagant homes with half a dozen or a dozen bathrooms with marble floors and the latest fixtures, an estimated 2.5 billion people live in squalor with no access to modern sanitation. One billion people have no access to latrines and defecate in the open, like our ancestors did thousands of years ago.

The United States spends about $400 million a year on water supply and sanitation programs worldwide, pursuant to the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. One of our late colleague's many public policy contributions was his focus on pressing issues such as the growing scarcity of clean water sources--even in our own country--and the preventable suffering that comes from poor sanitation. His book, ``Tapped Out,'' is another contribution he made to greater understanding of these challenges. The law named for him requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the U.S. Agency for International Development and other U.S. Government agencies, to develop and implement a strategy to provide affordable and equitable access to safe water and sanitation in developing countries.

For the past several years, the Congress has directed that $14 million of those funds be used specifically to design and build safe, public latrines in Africa and Asia. Our purpose has been to help reduce the risk to woman and girls, particularly in rural areas in these countries, who are often assaulted at night or subjected to humiliation and harassment, due to the lack of safe and accessible latrines.

Unfortunately, USAID has not utilized these funds as effectively as we intended, and the fiscal year 2018 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which was reported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 7, specifies that not less than $15 million shall be made available ``to support initiatives by local communities in Africa and Asia to build and maintain safe, public latrines.''

What we intend is not rocket science. Today communities in Africa and Asia, often with the assistance of small local or U.S. nongovernmental organizations like the Advocacy Project, are building low-cost, easy to maintain, public latrines. Something as basic as a latrine can transform a community, particularly for women and girls. Not only does it reduce their vulnerability to assault, it reduces the obvious health problems caused by open defecation. It also increases girls' access to education, if there are latrines for girls at schools. The cost of such projects can be as little as a few hundred dollars, particularly when members of the community volunteer their labor. Just as important as the design and construction is a plan for community members to regularly maintain the latrines and to educate the local population-- men, women, and children--on their use.

Access to water and sanitation are fundamental to social and economic development. The lack of safe drinking water and proper sanitation, coupled with poor hygiene, are leading causes of sickness and death worldwide. Nearly 1,000 children under age 5 die each day from diarrhea caused by contaminated water and from poor sanitation and hygiene. There are few ways to

safeguard a person's health and improve their dignity more basic than by providing them access to sanitation facilities for safely disposing of human waste.

There should be no confusion about what we intend for these $15 million. We want USAID missions in countries where women and girls in rural areas lack access to safe, public latrines to identify communities for pilot projects, where local leaders want to address this problem and where a small investment can make a significant difference. Working with those leaders and utilizing the technical expertise of local or U.S.-based NGOs, we can help set an example for other communities to replicate.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, it was 6 years ago that Tropical Storm Irene tore through my home State of Vermont, and I remember it like it was yesterday. I remember going around the State the next day in a helicopter with the head of our National Guard and reviewing the damage. We are still trying to recover.

In the days after the storm, I came to this Chamber, and I asked for the support that Vermont needed to recover and rebuild. I remember with gratitude that Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate, from across the country, stood with the people of Vermont. I remember how much the calls of support from Republican and Democratic colleagues meant to me.

Today, we have to do the same for the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. More than 3\1/2\ million Americans--remember, these are Americans--have seen their homes and communities destroyed by the double blow of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The destruction is catastrophic. The details are still coming in.

The vast majority of Puerto Rico is without power and remains in the dark. At least 44 percent--almost half of its people--are without potable water, and some estimates put it even higher. The vast majority of hospitals in Puerto Rico are without power. The food supply is dwindling. Cell phone sites are down, crippling communication on the island. People can't find out what has happened to their families. We are on the verge of a humanitarian crisis right here on U.S. soil.

President Trump, leaders of FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense have all got to act quickly. We have to put the full force of the United States behind these efforts, as we would in any State where this might happen.

Earlier this month, Congress approved $15 billion in emergency funding for disaster relief following Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I was happy to support that. These resources should be put to work in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as well. But it is not going to last for long. This money will run out within a couple of weeks. We have to sustain our commitments to rebuilding and recovering from all of these hurricanes for the long haul--not just in the continental United States but in all parts of the

United States, which include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

I would ask the administration to prepare an emergency aid request as soon as possible. The Appropriations Committee is ready to move on it, but the Congress--the House and Senate--should act very quickly. We have to stand by each other in times of disaster. When there is a storm, one of us braces for it, and the others have to help pick up the pieces. That is who we are. That is why we act. That is why we are Americans. We are the United States of America--all of us. Now we must make sure that we respond not just in Texas, as we should, not just in Florida, as we should, but in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are part of our country.

Healthcare

Mr. President, the Senate finds itself today in a familiar situation: Deeply partisan efforts to repeal and replace the landmark Affordable Care Act have hit a wall. By their own admission, the Senate majority has, with their backs against a wall and a looming deadline to advance legislation by a simple majority vote, put forward one last-gasp effort to roll back access to healthcare for millions of Americans--not because it is sound policy, but in an effort to meet a campaign promise, regardless of its harm to millions of Americans. It is as irresponsible as it is dangerous. These efforts put lives at risk. This zombie project should be abandoned, and we should get back to the constructive and promising bipartisan work toward strengthening troubled insurance markets.

Instead of working on a responsible budget, or disaster relief for Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, or on any of the many pressing issues facing our country, we began this week in a situation virtually identical to where we were in July. In fact, it reflects the state of the Senate for much of this year, where policymaking has been replaced by partisanship and politics.

When we considered a healthcare reconciliation bill in July, in spite of multiple drafts and a go-it-alone, hyperpartisan philosophy, the majority leader was still unable to garner enough support within his own Caucus to pass a sweeping healthcare bill. I joined with many Democrats to offer motions to get the Senate back to regular order and have the appropriate committees study the effects of these policies on Medicaid beneficiaries and those with disabilities, on women and children, on seniors, and the most vulnerable, but Republicans voted down those efforts and plowed ahead, seemingly unaware or willingly blind to the real-life impacts of what they were trying to do. During July's debate, the Senate also considered multiple amendments to rewrite the Affordable Care Act. Each of these amendments would have caused tens of millions of Americans to lose insurance and would have made it harder for those with preexisting conditions to obtain coverage. When those amendments failed, the Republican leadership attempted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act. That did not work either.

Instead of learning from that painful process, the Republican leadership emerged from the August recess with a new plan. Released just last week and revised several times since, the proposal of Senators Graham, Cassidy, Heller, and Johnson was intended to revive the healthcare reconciliation bill the Senate already defeated. Unfortunately, their bill contains all of the problems of previous versions and includes new, troubling provisions that would fundamentally change healthcare in this country for the worse.

This Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill--just the latest version of TrumpCare--would make dangerous changes to our healthcare system resulting in millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage, including Vermonters. In fact, based on previous estimates, a provision in this bill would cause 15 million Americans to lose insurance and premiums to increase by an average of 20 percent on day 1.

This hasty proposal would allow insurance companies to charge seniors, those with disabilities, those with preexisting conditions, and women more for coverage. These are all discriminatory policies that the Affordable Care Act changed.

Like previous versions of TrumpCare, this bill would end Medicaid as we know it by capping spending in the program and forcing States to cut eligibility, benefits, or both. What is worse, this new version of the bill would fully repeal the tax credits and subsidies created under the ACA and instead give States inadequately funded block grants with no requirement that the funding goes to those in need.

States like Vermont have done the right thing. Because of Vermont's Medicaid expansion, thousands of Vermonters now have access to lifesaving health insurance and care. That is never been more critical than now as we continue to grapple with the opioid crisis.

This latest Republican proposal would hurt States like Vermont, simply for doing the right thing and expanding coverage. In the latest version of the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal, there seems to be no consistency to how block grant funds are divvied between States, leaving some to conclude the formula is merely a ham-fisted attempt to appease some reluctant Republican Senators to support this measure. By 2027, all States lose under this proposal as the block grant funding created under this proposal runs out. You cannot consider legislation of this magnitude, with such far-reaching truly life-and-death consequences, with no debate and no meaningful consideration. This is not the way the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should conduct such expansive and impactful policies. This is not the Senate that I know and respect.

Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee held the only hearing in the Senate on TrumpCare. We heard how devastating this bill would be for millions of Americans who depend on subsidies to purchase health insurance. We heard how reduced funding would force States to choose what services to cover for children, pregnant women, and those with disabilities who depend on Medicaid. Benefits like maternity coverage or homecare will be at risk as States choose to relax the insurance requirements under the ACA. Remarkably, experts disagreed with the authors as to what this amendment would mean for those with preexisting conditions.

One thing the hearing made abundantly clear is that this sweeping policy needs further examination. The Congressional Budget Office says it needs at least a couple of weeks to fully examine this proposal. How many will lose insurance? How much will premiums increase? How many will lose access to health care? These are fundamental questions to which we do not and will not have answers before the majority's arbitrary timeline is up. The preliminary estimate released late Monday by the CBO says that ``millions'' of Americans would be uninsured as a result of the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal. What is more, I have not heard from a single health-related group that supports this measure.

So why does the majority insist on pushing forward? It seems they are so intent on voting on anything that they would have us consider an unexamined, hastily cobbled together bill solely to repeal the ACA--for the express purposes of fulfilling a crassly partisan campaign promise. This would be nothing more than legislative malpractice. Their desire to undo any of the success of the Obama administration, at any cost, would have them push forward a proposal that would devastate our health insurance markets, cause millions to lose insurance, and fundamentally change the Medicaid Program, and the best reason the Republicans can come up with for supporting this new attempt is ``because we said we would.''

In Vermont, the effects of TrumpCare would be disastrous. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Vermont has made exceptional progress to cut the rate of uninsured Vermonters by half. The number of uninsured Vermonters is now below 4 percent. Because of the Medicaid Program and the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as Dr. Dynasaur in Vermont, 99 percent of children have health insurance in our State. TrumpCare, in any version, places Vermont's progress at risk.

Vermont has also worked on new and innovative ways of delivering healthcare, which has brought down

costs and increased coordination of care. One of the most significant ways Vermont has done this is through existing flexibility in Medicaid. It is through the Medicaid Program that Vermont has offered comprehensive treatment and counseling services for those suffering with opioid addition. In Vermont, 68 percent of those receiving medication assisted treatment for opioid addiction are Medicaid recipients. If hundreds of billions of dollars are cut from the Medicaid Program, States will be forced to limit coverage, jeopardizing Vermont's ability to overcome this crisis. Provisions that cap Medicaid spending do not create ``flexibility'' in Medicaid. This policy would instead force States to ration care.

Let's talk about what that means to Vermonters. This week I heard from Deborah in Waterbury, VT, who wrote to me urging me to vote to protect Medicaid funding:

For a while Medicaid paid for medical care my son and I

needed. Later Medicaid funding, and the cancer care it paid

for, literally saved my life. It turns out many Americans

find out that they or someone they love needs medical care or

disability services that only Medicaid covers. Medicaid not

only helps individuals and families who need medical care or

disability services in the community; it also pays for

approximately 64 percent of the people in nursing homes--

financial help that is necessary because so many people spend

down their life savings in the first few years of care. I am

glad that over the years some of my tax dollars have paid for

needed services for others. I believe we must and can improve

the quality, affordability and effectiveness of health care

in this country; but we won't do it by denying so many

Americans basic health and disability services.

Consider this deeply personal story from Allyson in Brattleboro:

About a year ago, I got a migraine. it never went away.

Instead, it got worse and worse, and turned into what is

called a hemiplegic migraine. These migraines look and feel

like strokes, but are `just' migraines. I started having

seizures soon after that; they would later be diagnosed as

psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. I have also had rheumatoid

arthritis for five years.

The saving grace in all of this has been Medicaid, made

available to me through the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion. I

have not had to worry about affording the care I've needed

(probably close to $100,000, plus $80,000 in prescriptions),

which has taken one huge worry off my plate. I could go to

the seizure monitoring unit at DHMC for a week without

stopping to wonder how I was going to pay for it. I could

fill my--prescription ($4,000 a month) without worry, and

continue to walk around and look after my kids. I could try

several medications for migraine to try to get better. And I

could get good, solid therapy for mental health treatment.

Without these things, and the Medicaid that pays for them,

I would be far sicker than I am now. I would not be able to

care for my children, or work even a little bit. I would

likely die young. Instead, I am making it through, spending

time with my children, and healing.

Please continue fighting for my healthcare, for my life.

Vermonters came to Washington Monday in their efforts to attend the sole hearing on the hapless Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal. They waited in line for hours, and they were not granted access to the hearing, held in a smaller room despite the known public interest in this hearing.

Waiting in line for a hearing he was not allowed to attend, Drew from Readesboro said:

``[T]his is my second time down here. I'm here to finally

kill this bill as it will result in the deaths of millions of

Americans and significant loses to Vermont's funding.''

Todd from Bennington said:

The reason I oppose the bill is being I'm a walking pre-

existing condition. Diabetes, high blood pressure. It's

getting under control, but it wouldn't without healthcare.

Mari from Lincoln said:

I'm here because I have to. Like Marcelle [Leahy], I've

been a nurse for almost 30 years and if it weren't for the

Affordable Care Act many of the patients that I'm caring for

now in the inpatient cardiology unit at the University of

Vermont Medical Center would either not be alive or would be

in a much more devastating situation. Many of the young

adults that I care for in the cardiology unit have opiate

addiction and are there with serious infections because of

that. And if it weren't for the part of the Affordable Care

Act that allowed young adults up to 26 to still be covered by

their parents insurance, many of these young adults would not

be alive. So I've been fighting for health reform in Vermont

for decades now . . . This is THE most immoral bill I've seen

in my 58 years of life . . . I'm appalled and I'm angry, and

I'm very motivated. I wish we didn't have to be here but I'm

so proud to be here.

These are real stories, real lives. This matters.

These TrumpCare proposals are not healthcare bills. A true healthcare bill would not kick millions of Americans off health insurance. A true healthcare bill would not allow insurance companies to charge people more for less coverage. A true healthcare bill would not move us backwards to a time when healthcare was unaffordable.

Where there are deficiencies, let's fix them. Where we can find common ground, let's act. One of the first things we should do is stabilize the insurance market by making cost-sharing payments permanent. Earlier this month, the Senate was doing just that. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held bipartisan hearings aimed at stabilizing our insurance market. This week, the Finance Committee reached an agreement on a 5-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is important progress that should not be cast aside.

We should also be working to shore up funding for our health centers, which will see a 70 percent cut at the end of the month if we fail to act. One of the issues I hear most about is the cost of prescription drugs, which is why I have introduced a bill along with Senator Grassley that would help reduce drug costs by helping generic alternatives come to market faster. The American people expect us to work on real solutions. We should not be pushing a plan that hasn't been vetted where the primary goal seems to be to get to 50 votes, rather than actually improving our health insurance system.

Was the Affordable Care Act absolutely perfect when it was passed? No, and we acknowledged the need for continual improvement as the ACA would be implemented, but unlike with other important social programs that have been created over the years--such as Social Security and Medicare--Republicans have not allowed us the opportunity to improve, strengthen and perfect it over time. Those programs were also not perfect, but instead of playing partisan games, Republicans and Democrats came together to get something done, time and time again. We did not vote to repeal the Social Security Act. No, we came together, and we discussed what needed to be done to better help the American people, not unravel their safety net.

We must end this dangerous exercise of considering sweeping policy solely for the purposes of fulfilling a nearly decade-long partisan campaign promise. We should move forward in a responsible way. We should act in the best interests of our constituents and not resort to cynical, bumper-sticker politicking. At its best, the Senate has been able to act as the conscience of the Nation. I hope now is such a time and that the Senate will rise to the occasion and abandon these harmful efforts.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the most pernicious threats to the right of employees and consumers to access our judicial system has been the rise of forced arbitration. This practice unfairly eliminates access to our courts for millions of Americans. When used by employers, forced arbitration serves to shield corporations from the

consequences of harmful behavior, such as discrimination or sexual harassment. Today, the Senate is considering a nominee for the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, who has advocated in favor of forced arbitration in the employment context. Mr. Emanuel's support for stripping American workers of their rights is an important reason why I am opposing his nomination.

The shadow justice system brought about by forced arbitration results in real harm to employees while serving only to protect powerful corporate employers. In a high-profile example from last year, former FOX News host Gretchen Carlson was barred from speaking publicly about her allegations of sexual harassment against the company's former chairman, Roger Ailes. Had she not spoken out and instead complied with the private arbitration clause in her contract, her case would have been hidden from public view, denying other victims of harassment the knowledge that they were not alone.

In another disturbing case reported earlier this year, hundreds of current and former employees of Sterling Jewelers, a company that earns $6 billion in annual revenue, have for years alleged that the company is engaged in pervasive gender discrimination and has fostered a culture that condones sexual harassment. According to reports, this shocking behavior dates as far back as the early 1990s. Despite decades of allegations from women at the company, these claims were hidden behind closed doors because of private arbitration. The full details are still unknown today.

These are just two examples that highlight the serious harm forced arbitration can cause employees. During the Obama administration, the NLRB found that the use of forced arbitration by employers to limit employees' rights to enter into class or collective actions violated the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Emanuel participated in key cases related to this decision. I am concerned that his history of advocacy on this issue could lead to his prejudging the outcomes of subsequent cases that come before the Board.

Unfortunately, Mr. Emanuel declined during his confirmation hearing to recuse himself from decisions related to forced arbitration should he become a member of the Board. His other answers on this issue did not sufficiently allay my concern that he would work to undermine the rights of employees to access our judicial system. As someone who has fought for years to protect Americans' access to the courts and has introduced legislation to limit the harms caused by forced arbitration, I must oppose his nomination.

Mr. President, recently, I heard from Mayor John Hollar and City Manager Bill Fraser of Montpelier, VT, about a wonderful gesture by Philippe Saurel, the mayor of Montpellier, France, who is also the president of Montpellier Mediterranee Metropolis.

The story is this: the city of Montpellier, France, ordered soccer jerseys to support its soccer club. They were printed with the name Montpelier--the way we spell it in Vermont--rather than Montpellier, as it is in France. As a result, Mr. Saurel, with M. Laurent Nicollin, the president of the Soccer Club of Montpellier, offered to send these jerseys to the Montpelier, VT, high school soccer teams.

As the only U.S. Senator ever born in Montpelier, VT, I was thrilled and wrote to the mayor of Montpellier, France, with gratitude. The more I thought about it, the more I wanted to make sure the U.S. Senate heard about this generous act. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Mayor Philippe Saurel to Mayor John Hollar. The tie between our two great nations and our two beautiful cities continues.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a provision that was included for the first time by myself and Senator Lindsey Graham in the fiscal year 2018 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which was reported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 7.

Specifically, the committee-reported bill includes $15 million to implement a U.S. interagency strategy, led by the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, to

support and protect civil society activists, including human rights and environmental defenders and independent journalists, in countries where such activists have been threatened or killed for peacefully exercising their rights of free expression, association, and assembly.

Nearly 1,000 violations were reported against human rights defenders in 2016, including killings, detentions, judicial prosecutions, physical attacks, and other threats and harassments. Civil society activists are targeted by both state and nonstate actors, including private companies and investors, seeking to obstruct the rights of voters, minorities, landowners, environmentalists, indigenous peoples, and refugees, among other vulnerable groups. These attacks are not limited to a particular region or a handful of countries--they are common in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East--nor are they limited to countries with authoritarian governments, such as Cambodia, Rwanda, Eritrea, Egypt, and Russia. Democratically elected governments are also culpable, such as Honduras, Philippines, Kenya, Ecuador, and Turkey. Ultimately, democracy cannot survive if the rights of civil society and the independent media are not protected.

Last year was the deadliest year on record for land and environmental defenders. There were more deaths reported in more countries than ever before. Competition for land and natural resources has intensified to an alltime high, with companies around the globe putting greater emphasis on profit margins than on environmental protection or land ownership rights. As these pressures increase, the risk to civil society activists will also increase.

Similarly, although the number of journalists killed on assignment dropped slightly in 2016, the number of journalists in prison reached its highest level yet. More than 250 journalists are imprisoned worldwide because of their work. This is an egregious violation of the universal right of free expression.

These statistics are almost certainly underestimates, given the suppressions of free speech and lack of transparent and effective judicial systems in many countries where civil society activists face the most severe threats to their work and lives.

It is important for all of us to be aware of the growing threats to civil society activists worldwide, as well as the relevant funding and language included in the committee-reported Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This should be the first step in developing an interagency strategy to focus attention and resources on this critical problem.

I ask unanimous consent that the language in the committee report describing this provision be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the funding to combat HIV/AIDS in the fiscal year 2018 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which was reported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 7.

In May, the Congress received the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request, which included a $1 billion cut to international HIV/AIDS programs. The White House proposed to focus the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief--the PEPFAR program--in 12 priority countries, while only maintaining current treatment levels in the other 24 countries in which PEPFAR works. This would mean no lifesaving drugs for new patients in any of those 24 countries and the end of initiatives PEPFAR has undertaken to accelerate progress in those countries.

Fortunately, the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Graham and of which I am ranking member, rejected the President's proposed cut and restored HIV/AIDS funding to the current level. The committee-reported bill includes a total of $6 billion for HIV/AIDS programs, including $4.32 billion for PEPFAR, $1.35 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and malaria, and $330 million for HIV/AIDS programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The committee report accompanying the bill also reaffirms the key role PEPFAR plays in HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment around the

globe. In 2016, PEPFAR supported more than 11 million people with lifesaving antiretroviral treatment and provided testing and counseling for more than 74 million people.

During the committee markup of the Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, I offered an amendment that would have increased PEPFAR by $500 million. Funding for PEPFAR has been stagnant for several years, and the additional funds in my amendment would have enabled millions more people infected with the AIDS virus to receive lifesaving treatment. Regrettably, my amendment failed on a party-line vote.

Nonetheless, the bill still succeeds in rejecting the administration's nonsensical and unacceptable reduction to HIV/AIDS funding. I want to be sure that all Senators are aware of this critical funding, which has received widespread, bipartisan support for many years.

Mr. President, in 2004 the United States voted to establish the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, to police the country following years of political turmoil.

While MINUSTAH was successful in bringing a semblance of order to the country, its mission was severely impacted by the 2010 earthquake which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and left hundreds of thousands more in need of assistance. Haiti has not fully recovered since then.

Unfortunately, that was not the only tragedy that befell Haiti in 2010. In October of that year, a cholera outbreak spread throughout the country, sickening hundreds of thousands and claiming the lives of more than 9,000. Even more tragically and unlike the earthquake, the outbreak could have been prevented, and the UN peacekeeping mission-- tasked with protecting the people--was at fault.

The cholera outbreak was caused by an act of extreme negligence, when some UN peacekeepers disposed of human waste in a manner that contaminated the local water system. Before it happened, cholera was not a problem in Haiti. Today it is. In 2016, after years of refusing to accept responsibility, the UN acknowledged its role in the cholera outbreak and established a trust fund to address the problem, but so far, very little has been contributed.

A provision I authored, which was adopted unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee and included in the fiscal year 2018 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, would provide the Trump administration with the authority to enable the United States to do its part to help.

With MINUSTAH winding down in Haiti, $40 million in unused contributions are available to donor countries, and the UN has agreed that those credits may be used to help address the cholera problem caused by its own peacekeepers.

The United States share of those credits is $11.7 million, and the provision I mentioned makes clear that the committee believes contributing to the trust fund would be an appropriate use of those funds. While this amount still falls far short of what is needed, if we believe in accountability for the UN, we should join other nations in providing our share of these funds to address this tragedy.

This is not a tragedy that only harmed a few families. Nearly 10,000 innocent people lost their lives through no fault of their own. They need help, and this is a small way for us to contribute.

When the United States responds to natural or manmade disasters, whether the tsunami in Indonesia, earthquakes in Nepal, drought in Africa, or war in Syria, we don't debate whose responsibility it should be to care for the victims. We respond because we are able to, and that is what global leaders do when tragedy strikes. We did not cause the cholera outbreak in Haiti any more than we have caused countless other calamities around the world, but we can help. Even $11.7 million will make a difference in Haiti, including by leveraging contributions from other governments.

I hope other Senators will follow the lead of the Appropriations Committee and lend their voices in support of this effort.

Mr. President, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its founding, I would like to share a few remarks about the Nyumbani Children's Home.

Marcelle and I have always enjoyed learning about and celebrating the continued growth and successes of Nyumbani. Those successes are because of the people who choose to dedicate their time, valuable skills, and scarce resources to a noble cause--that of saving and improving the lives of others.

We have been particularly touched and moved by the stories of the children of Nyumbani. Despite confronting tremendous personal medical and social challenges, these young people have been nurtured, nourished, educated, and cared for in a safe and loving environment.

These children have also benefited from advances in medical and therapeutic care that were unimaginable when this refuge was founded on September 8, 1992. To know that many of the children raised there have now grown into magnificent young people is a testament to the mission of this center.

When the Nyumbani Children's home was founded, there was certainly no assurance that these results would necessarily follow. The inspired efforts of our friend, Father Angelo D'Agostino, or Father D'Ag, have led to these successes. Father D'Ag was a man of faith who combined an incredible work ethic with vision and an insatiable, indomitable will. He was a man whose friendship I cherished.

Father D'Ag realized that the terror, stigma, and uncertainties associated with the transmission of the AIDS virus was responsible for a generation of orphans. Cruelly, AIDs also denied these children a home because Kenyan orphanages would turn them away out of fear and an inability to provide appropriate medical care, but Father D'Ag would not walk away.

It began when Father D'Ag took on the care of three children who had been abandoned and were destined to die alone. From that modest beginning, the Nyumbani Children's Home became a forerunner in providing care to those affected by the scourge of HIV.

In the decades since, Father D'Ag's vision has grown to encompass not only the original Children's Home, but also an advanced diagnostic laboratory, the unique Nyumbani Village, and an indispensable community outreach program that provides medical care to residents of distressed communities in Nairobi.

As a doctor and Jesuit priest, Father D'Ag innately understood the principle that every life has value and dignity. His character and his knowledge compelled him to act when others stood paralyzed by fear and doubt.

Sharing his compassion and conviction from the outset was Sister Mary Owens, Nyumbani's remarkable executive director since Father D'Ag's passing in 2006. Each of us is enormously thankful for the work of extraordinary people like Father D'Ag and Sister Mary. We are grateful for the many lives that have been saved and all that has been accomplished by Nyumbani over the past 25 years and look forward to success stories in the next 25 years.

Nyumbani is a representation of what good can come when dedicated people cast aside fear and doubt, bring forward the true human spirit, and help those in need.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, today I am introducing a sense-of-senate resolution commending Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos for his extraordinary leadership in protecting Colombia's natural environment. Anyone who has lived in, traveled to, or read about Colombia knows it is a country of exceptional beauty and biological diversity. It is also home to many indigenous groups who have played an indispensable role as environmental stewards of their territories. During the years of his Presidency, President Santos's efforts have not only established Colombia as a global environmental leader, they will provide lasting benefits to future generations and to the international community.

On September 21, President Santos will be honored by the National Geographic Society for his efforts to protect Colombia's natural environment, and I believe the U.S. Senate should also recognize his achievements.

S. Res. 263

Whereas Colombia is one of the world's ``megadiverse''

countries, hosting close to 10 percent of the planet's

biodiversity and producing an estimated 15 percent of the

world's oxygen;

Whereas Colombia occupies--

(1) first place worldwide in the number of birds and

orchids;

(2) second place in species of plants, amphibians,

butterflies and fresh water fish;

(3) third place in species of palm trees and reptiles;

(4) fourth place in biodiversity of mammals; and

(5) fifth place in marine and continental ecosystems;

Whereas Colombia's extraordinary mix of ecological,

climatic, and biological components are dispersed among its

311 ecosystems and 59 protected areas;

Whereas Colombia's biodiversity is at risk, mainly because

of habitat loss, urbanization, illicit drug cultivation and

production, mining and other extractive industries,

deforestation, and overfishing;

Whereas on the day of his inauguration in 2010, and

continuously since that date, President Santos has made

environmental management and resource conservation top

priorities of the Colombian Government;

Whereas since his inauguration, 14,800,000 hectares of

territory have been incorporated into the National System of

Protected Areas, including Chiribiquete National Park,

Corales de Profundidad National Park, Acandi, Playon and

Playona Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Bahia Portete -Kaurrele

National Natural Park;

Whereas Colombia now has 28,400,000 hectares incorporated

into the National System of Protected Areas;

Whereas the Colombian Government approved the establishment

and expansion of indigenous reserves to protect indigenous

cultures and curtail deforestation of critical ecosystems;

Whereas the Colombian Government adopted measures to reduce

carbon emissions resulting from deforestation in the

Colombian Amazon;

Whereas the Colombian Government developed a national

strategy to combat climate change;

Whereas, through the Vision Amazonia initiative, the

Colombian Government has set an ambitious goal of achieving

zero net deforestation in the Colombian Amazon by 2020;

Whereas for the first time in 2016, the Colombian

Government completed a greenhouse gas emissions inventory

that includes data from both department and municipal levels;

and

Whereas Colombia played a primary role in the Rio+20

Conference agenda for a green economy and continues to be an

active member in the international environmental dialogue:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) President Juan Manuel Santos has restructured and

significantly strengthened the environmental sector and

management capacity of the Colombian Government and has led

the country to become a global environmental leader;

(2) President Santos has enhanced public awareness of the

importance of protecting indigenous cultures and of the

indispensable role of indigenous people in protecting the

environment;

(3) President Santos' efforts to protect Colombia's

biodiversity will provide lasting benefits to future

generations of Colombians and to the international community;

and

(4) President Santos should be recognized and commended for

these efforts and achievements.

Madam President, I want to thank Senator McCain and Senator Reed for their leadership in producing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. Both veterans, they have a particular understanding of the sacrifices that members of our Armed Services make every day.

Every year, this authorization bill is drafted to reflect our commitment to the men and women serving in uniform, to authorize resources needed to maintain our national security, and to demonstrate the values and principles on which our country was founded. While I believe this bill reflects many sound defense policies, I regrettably cannot support its passage.

Yet again, this Defense authorization bill continues to include the shameful and counterproductive measures that block us from ending the terrorist recruitment tool that is the Guantanamo Bay detention mission, but the core reason for my opposition to this bill is the reckless price tag its implementation carries. This bill authorizes $700 billion in Defense spending, far above the caps currently established by the Budget Control Act and far more than the increase requested by the President in his budget proposal. If we met this authorization with real dollars, sequestration would take effect for Defense spending. Secretary Mattis has testified about the perils of sequestration. His message was clear: We must raise the budget caps.

What is more, this authorization relies on the same tired gimmick we have seen for years and includes $60 billion in overseas contingency operations funding. For fiscal hawks who call for us to reign in Federal spending to reduce the deficit, we cannot continue to treat OCO funds as privileged dollars--outside the scope of our budget caps--as a means to pay for what should be base spending.

Further, we cannot unilaterally boost Defense spending without similarly addressing other budgets that contribute to our national security. Earlier this year, in a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis clearly asserted that ``history is pretty clear, nations that did not keep their fiscal house in order and their economies strong lost their military power.'' We cannot simply raise spending for the Department of Defense without investing in programs that advance our diplomatic missions overseas and strengthen our domestic security through economic development, infrastructure improvements, environmental protections, and that meet the core needs of all Americans. Inflating our Defense spending at the cost of all other programs makes us neither stronger nor more secure.

I do want to thank Senator McCain and Senator Reed for including, through managers' packages, more than 100 amendments from both Republicans and Democrats, including some that I filed. This kind of collaborative process is what has, in the past, yielded results in the Senate. I regret that the amendment process was not more extensive, but hyperpartisan amendments that seek to upset the discussions of how to responsibly fund our government are not the way to reach consensus for further votes.

Make no mistake: This authorization bill invests in our men and women in uniform and their families, and it supports competition to keep our Defense industry healthy, as it should. I hope the reasons for my objection to its passage at this point in the process will be resolved as we move to conference this bill with the House. I believe that, through an agreement to address the current budget caps, those objections can be resolved.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I strongly support the disaster relief package that is before us today. It is going to provide much needed assistance to the thousands of families and communities who were devastated by Hurricane Harvey. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I looked at it very carefully, and I know it provides a short-term increase to the debt limit to ensure the U.S. Government has access to the resources it needs. It funds the government with a continuing resolution through December 8, enabling Congress to work to complete the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills. It is a responsible approach to addressing the needs of our Nation.

As a Vermonter, as a human being, it was heart-wrenching to watch the devastation march through Texas as Hurricane Harvey made landfall, only to see it turn toward Louisiana. Now, Hurricane Irma has struck Puerto Rico and continues on its path toward Florida and the east coast. Hurricanes Jose and Katia are swirling in the Atlantic. They are threatening our coast. This is a horrific time.

My fellow Vermonters and I are all too familiar with these images. It was only 6 years ago that Tropical Storm Irene tore through our small, special Green Mountain State and left a wound we are still trying to heal today.

A disaster of this magnitude demands the full support of the U.S. Government, and that includes all of us here. I am glad this disaster relief package is before us today. My Appropriations Committee staff has worked so hard on it. If we don't act and act fast, FEMA exhausts its funds by the end of this week.

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate stood by my side in 2011 and in the following years to help Vermont rebuild after Irene, and I will stand in support of Texans and Louisianans now. And I will stand in support of Floridians, if and when they need it. This is only a fraction of what we will need to help recover and rebuild after these storms. It is going to require years of Federal support, and we cannot let our commitment fade.

We live in a world where 100-year storms seem to occur every year, so we have to invest in technology, conservation, and infrastructure that will mitigate further damage and make our communities more resilient in these crises.

Our ability to respond doesn't just depend on emergency assistance. Each year, in the annual appropriations bills, we fund programs that help us prevent and respond to severe weather events and invest in the necessary infrastructure. The National Weather Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Sea Grant program, the Flood Map Modernization Program, Watershed Flood Prevention Operations, Regional Coastal Resilience Grants, Community Development Block Grants, and State and Local First Responder Grants--just to name a few--are all critical to these efforts. We cannot and should not accept the deep cuts that have been proposed by President Trump to these critical investment programs.

Now, I thank Chairman Cochran for his leadership and cooperation to advance these bills. It is through these bills we can fund important priorities. I have been asking since March to begin bipartisan budget negotiations to establish responsible topline funding levels for both defense and non-defense programs based on parity. The current budget caps do not allow us to produce 12 responsible bills. Absent a budget deal, deep cuts are mandated for both defense and non-defense programs. We have to move forward with urgency.

So my heart goes out to all of those affected by Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma. My vote goes out to help them, and I will continue to fight for them.

This Senate amendment is really the first step and I support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call.

Mr. President, we had promises from the White House that the President would treat DACA recipients with great heart. I don't believe it

is great heart when he abandons protections for our Nation's Dreamers. It is an unfortunate pattern, and I hope it changes, facing historic low approval ratings, the President desperately rallies his dwindling supporters by exploiting fear and resentment. Such conduct is shameful and unbecoming of the presidency, an office intended to represent our proudest ideals--not play to basest instincts. I have been here with every President since President Ford, both Republicans and Democrats. We agreed on some things and disagreed on some things, but the Presidents have always seemed to want to present and represent America's proudest ideals.

We live in an unprecedented time when our President prefers to divide us, rather than unite us. Instead of honoring the sacrifice made by transgender individuals serving in our Armed Forces, President Trump decided to ban them from serving at all. When white supremacists violently rallied around hate in Charlottesville, resulting in the murder of Heather Heyer, the President equated those who promote bigotry with those who oppose it. There is no equation. The bigotry shown there and the hate shown there is wrong.

This week the President targets another vulnerable population-- Dreamers. Dreamers are American by almost any definition. They came to the United States as children through no fault--and by no choice--of their own. Those of us who have had children or grandchildren know they don't make those kinds of choices. They play by our country's rules. They grow up. They have no criminal records, and seek only the chance to contribute to their communities and make them better. America is their home. Often, it is the only country they have ever known, just as my maternal grandparents came from Italy and found a home in Vermont or my great grandparents--paternal grandparents came from Ireland and found a home in Vermont. They wanted that to be their home. That was the American dream. When you threaten the Dreamers, you threaten the American dream itself.

The President's attempt to justify this decision as deference to Congress or respect for our courts is disingenuous, at best. It strains reason that a President who signed 90 Executive actions in his first 100 days suddenly cares about deference to the Legislative Branch. It borders on laughable that a President who doggedly defends a Muslim ban found likely to be unconstitutional by multiple courts, is now cautious about the litigation risk of defending DACA in court.

Dreamers are our friends and neighbors. They are students in our schools and universities in all our States. They serve our country in the military. They are among the first responders who come to save your life when there is a fire. Consider, for example, Jesus Contreras, a Dreamer and a paramedic, who saved American lives during Hurricane Harvey. If we had thrown him out, he wouldn't have been there saving those lives. The President's decision to end DACA is nothing but a cynical ploy to rally the anti-immigrant voices within his base while attempting to escape responsibility for deporting some of the most inspiring Americans in our country.

On Tuesday, I received a letter from Dr. Juan Conde, a DACA recipient and resident of Vermont. Dr. Conde was brought to the United States by his mother as a child. In 2007, his mother lost her life battling cancer. This tragedy inspired him to find a way to help cancer patients like her. Unable to pursue his dream of being an oncologist due to his immigration status, he initially decided to pursue a Ph.D. in cancer research. But Dr. Conde wanted to treat cancer patients, not just study the disease. After receiving DACA status, he was able to pursue his dream of directly helping patients, applying to and being accepted into the University of Vermont's Larner College of Medicine, where he is currently pursuing his medical degree. He hopes to spend his career here in the United States treating cancer patients and researching the disease that has taken the lives of millions of Americans, including members of my own family.

Dr. Conde is the face of DACA. Dreamers have enormous potential and determination to contribute to the only country they have known since childhood. To deny them these opportunities because they were brought here as children by their parents would be cruel and inhumane, motivated more by the toxic xenophobia of this administration than by any coherent policy goals. Stories like Dr. Conde's reveal why President Trump's decision to rescind DACA is as senseless as it is callous.

Now the fate of DACA is in the hands of Congress. We can bring up a vote on this if the Republican leadership will allow that in the House and the Senate. Some Republicans have spoken out against the President's decision. It is easy to speak out. Act on it. Vote on it. We Democrats stand ready to protect our Nation of Dreamers. We stand ready to defend the American dream. I hope we are not standing alone. I would invite our Republican friends--stand up with us. Stand up with those Dreamers. I guarantee you, you have some living in your State. I guarantee you, just as my grandparents and my great-grandparents did, they can make America a better country.

Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on September 13, 2017, the Vermont Community Foundation will pay tribute to Sister Janice Ryan for the many contributions she has made to our State of Vermont and its residents. The foundation will present Sister Janice with its Lifetime Achievement Award for Community Service--just 1 day before she celebrates her 81st birthday, having been born September 14, 1936, on the family dairy farm in Fairfield, VT.

In the case of Sister Janice, ``community service'' extends well beyond the borders of our small State. Through her lens, the community is global.

Perhaps it was the work ethic and the duties of stewardship that she learned growing up on the farm or the responsibility that comes with being raised the eldest of six children, but since joining the Sisters of Mercy as a teenager, Sister Janice rose to whatever challenge she was presented and brought her trademark energy, compassion, and influence to every task.

Before most of us even heard the phrase ``mainstreaming,'' Sister Janice worked tirelessly to ensure that children with special needs received the education they deserved, first at the State level, and later in her work as a staff member in the U.S. Senate. Later, serving as project director of the Catholic Campaign to Ban Landmines, she was a great ally with me in the work we did in the 1990s and since then to rid the world of landmines. Her passion and commitment to that issue inspired me and many others.

Sister Janice's titles have been many and varied: professor and college president, deputy corrections commissioner, criminal justice reformer, human rights advocate, and, of course, Catholic nun. What is common to all of her work is her heartfelt belief that we cannot and we must not lose sight of the poor and vulnerable among us.

Representing the Sisters of Mercy, Sister Janice has always done this work in a quiet but most effective manner. Her no-nonsense personality cuts straight to the core of the issue and to the pressing need. She is masterful at bringing opposing sides together and finding the common language needed to move us forward. In these times we live in, we need many more people like Sister Janice in the world.

Upon receiving an honorary degree from the University of Vermont in 2008, Sister Janice spoke about the role that faith has played in her life. She told an interviewer that she was first drawn to the Sisters of Mercy because of its emphasis on education and its work with immigrants.

``I truly believe we have purpose and that it is related to some greater force,'' she said at the time. ``It is almost impossible to imagine my life without a belief in a higher power, to put it in secular terms. There is so much in the universe that calls out for it.''

Marcelle and I have seen Sister Janice answer that calling many times over. For that, our State, our Nation, and our world are better. We are so very grateful.

Mr. President, Brandon del Pozo proudly serves as the chief of police in Burlington, VT--Vermont's largest city. He arrived in Vermont 2 years ago, after serving for nearly two decades with the New York Police Department, where he rose through the ranks and learned hard lessons on the streets of such a large urban center. One needs only to sit with Chief del Pozo for a short while to understand his commitment to community service and to community.

So it comes as no surprise that Chief del Pozo grew alarmed when he heard President Trump recently tell a law enforcement gathering that police should not be ``too nice'' to those who are placed under arrest, seeming to suggest that police should go against the very policies that exist to protect against police misconduct. We cannot tolerate this kind of public comment and certainly not from the President of the United States. There is nothing the least bit humorous in any of this. In fact, President Trump's comments have undermined the efforts of police departments across our Nation to build trust within their communities at a time when that trust is most needed.

As a doctoral candidate holding three master's degrees, Chief del Pozo is well studied in the rules of engagement. He is also a talented writer. In an essay he submitted to CNN, Chief del Pozo responded directly to the President's comments, writing: ``Policing requires dealing with the emotions cops are bound to feel when they witness the worst things one person can do to another. It is criminals who act on these emotions and attack other people. Restraint is what separates policing from vigilantism.''

It is a viewpoint that is real, told through the eyes of an experienced street cop who works in reality, not reality TV. I ask unanimous consent that Chief del Pozo's full CNN essay be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a privilege for each of us to represent our constituents, and it is a great honor to be able to recognize the contributions many of them make to our communities at home. On this occasion, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Mary Alice McKenzie, a fixture in the Burlington, VT, community. Ms. McKenzie has served as the executive director of the Boys & Girls Club of Burlington since 2007, and during her tenure at the club, she has had a lasting impact on the lives of thousands of Vermont children. The community is grateful for her service.

Ms. McKenzie comes from a business and legal background--a nontraditional path to her current position that provided her with a unique set of skills. Mary Alice began her work at the Boys & Girls Club after serving as the chief executive officer of McKenzie Meats from 1985 to 2000. She then spent several years in the Vermont State college system as general counsel and served with the law firm Paul Frank & Collins before taking over at the Boys & Girls Club of Burlington in 2007.

At the Boys & Girls Club, Mary Alice has focused her efforts on education. When she realized how few club kids were going on to higher education, she enacted the Early Promise program, which targets children at a young age who may need additional academic services and then provides college scholarships to older youth. As of today, the scholarship fund has investments totaling $2.3 million from which to draw. In a short time, the club hopes to be able to help 60 Burlington children achieve their academic goals in high school and beyond.

The Boys & Girls Club plays an important role in the lives of more than 1,000 Burlington children. Aside from the academic services, the club also works to ensure a safe and stable community for its young members. When Ms. McKenzie began hearing reports of suspected drug use occurring in a park across the street from the club, she assembled a task force of local law enforcement officials, social workers, and policymakers to work towards a solution that would ensure the safety of club kids. The Boys & Girls Club expanded activities in the park and eventually took over use of an old storage building which is now an academic center.

Ms. McKenzie has also focused her efforts on children who have experienced trauma. Under her leadership, the club has started a program to help children deal with the issues that stem from trauma at a young age. Their goal is to create stability for children whose home lives may be turbulent due to issues such as homelessness and addiction. These are profoundly difficult situations for youth to handle, and the efforts of the staff at the Boys & Girls Club are surely appreciated.

These efforts have not gone unnoticed. Not only is Ms. McKenzie beloved by members of the club who tell stories of her kindness and generosity, but in 2014, Ms. McKenzie was granted Champlain College's Distinguished Citizen Award for her years of service to the community. This award was well deserved; there are few people who dedicate themselves to service in the way that Mary Alice McKenzie has.

During her tenure at the Boys & Girls Club of Burlington, Mary Alice McKenzie has repeatedly identified significant issues within the community and worked to find creative and lasting solutions. As she concludes her years of service with the club, it is clear that her efforts have paid off. The Boys & Girls Club has more teens moving on to college than ever before, and the club continues to expand, providing an invaluable space for Burlington's youth to spend their free time. I am very grateful for Mary Alice's tireless dedication, and I look forward to seeing what the future of her career brings. Marcelle and I think of her as a dear friend.