Floor Statements

Mr. President, the 115th Congress convened just last week. I had hoped that with all the turmoil in the country that we would begin the year with a renewed sense of cooperation. But I am sorry to say, my friends in the Republican Party have chosen a different path.

The very first thing on the agenda is to press forward with a sham budget. If you ask why we have a sham budget, a fake budget, an unrealistic budget--we find out that its only purpose is to set up a process to repeal the Affordable Care Act with a simple majority vote. Why? Because they know the American people would never allow a repeal to pass otherwise.

So instead of working to finalize appropriations bills for this year--already more than 3 months in--or to invest in our Nation's critical infrastructure, or to truly bolster our Nation's cyber security, when we see countries such as Russia and other places attacking our cyber systems, or even to improve the Affordable Care Act so we can ensure that more people can receive affordable coverage, I am afraid the Republicans are recklessly rushing forward solely to fulfill an ill-considered campaign promise.

They are pushing American families over the cliff with the vague promise: Yeah, we will repeal it, but don't worry because eventually we will come up with a plan to replace it.

Jump first, plan later is anything but a responsible formula for someone's health, for sound decisions; and all the more so when the health insurance of tens of millions of Americans and American families all over the country--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike-- is at stake.

The majority leader and others have said the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is only the first step. They say that a full repeal is necessary to pave the way for a replacement. They say: Let's leave ObamaCare in the past. Well, when you strip away the rhetoric and get rid of it, the only alternative they offer the American people is don't get sick--because if you get sick, you are in trouble.

The American people have a right to know what a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act really means. A repeal of this law would not just take away the rights and care of millions of patients and their families; it would eliminate insurance coverage for millions more-- especially the aging, the elderly, men and women with preexisting conditions, and the most vulnerable children.

A repeal of the Affordable Care Act would turn back the clock to a bad time in this country where once again women would have to pay more for health insurance than men, where insurance companies could rescind a health insurance policy simply because someone gets sick, and coverage could forever be denied to someone born with a disease or ailment, and that includes children. So you could buy a health insurance policy so you were covered in case you got sick, but the insurance companies could then say: Oh, you are sick. Sorry, no more insurance.

Now, in my State of Vermont, the Affordable Care Act has reduced the number of Vermonters without insurance by 53 percent. Tens of thousands have gained coverage under the expansion of Medicaid. And because the Affordable Care Act closed the prescription drug ``donut hole,'' more than 10,000 Vermont seniors saved $12 million in prescription drugs in 2015 alone. And this is just in the second smallest State in the Union. Can you imagine what it is like in larger States?

I have heard stories from many Vermonters about how vital this law is to them and their families. I have heard from family doctors, like one in the southwest corner of our State in Bennington, who remembers when his patients couldn't afford treatment because of lifetime and annual limits on health care coverage, something that was very common. Or a woman from Westminster, VT, whose family hit hard times--she moved from job to job. She couldn't afford continuous health coverage until the Affordable Care Act offered her a quality plan she could keep. Now, we are talking about throwing her off.

Other young Vermonters are able to pursue careers in public service or the arts because they can stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26. Countless others have underscored that because of previous health issues, such as diabetes or cancer, health coverage would otherwise be unaffordable.

It would be a vicious cycle. They had a disease, but they couldn't afford to do anything about it, and they would go into greater debt. Now, even though they have a preexisting condition, they have guarantees and subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act so they can have health coverage, instead of health coverage being unaffordable.

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act have gone to new lengths to repeat and prolong this political battle. And that is all this is. They have had 6 years to propose a better alternative. Instead, congressional Republicans and the President-elect have decided to put the cart before the horse. They want to dismantle our health care system, and they don't want to figure out how to fix it. They just want to figure out how to get rid of it. And, by the way, they say somebody is going to come up with a bright idea for something better.

The American people rightly expect us to work together and make progress on the many challenges that we face today. Instead, we are engaging in dangerous political gamesmanship that will not affect Members of the Congress, but the millions of families we represent throughout this country because they will not have health insurance, and their children will not have health insurance. Just think what this is eventually going to cost Americans--a lot more than we pay now.

I will not support a return to less protection, less coverage, less fairness, and higher costs because that is what a repeal means. The Affordable Care Act extended health insurance to millions of families, not only in Vermont, but across the country. Those who represent the American people in Congress should stand ready to get to work for their constituents. Not to make their constituents sick, but to give them a program that works.

I will not support an effort to reverse the many reforms and achievements we have made through the Affordable Care Act and instead cobble back together a broken system that for too long burdened most American households with health coverage uncertainty and crippling costs.

I am not going to go and tell Vermonters: Too bad that you have cancer. Tough. We just fixed it so you can't have insurance. Too bad that you have diabetes. We just fixed it so you can't get insurance. Too bad that your child was born with a physical defect. Too bad. We just fixed it so you can't get insurance. Or to the person who just lost a job who doesn't have insurance: Too bad that you are without health insurance. Better pray you don't get sick because, if you do, you will lose a lot more than your job.

No, I can't look Vermonters in the eye and say that is what I support.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate Judiciary Committee convenes for the first time in the 115th Congress, and we mark an historic moment in the committee's 200-year history. Last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein was named the committee's ranking member, the first time in American history that a woman has served in this capacity. It is striking that 352 Members have served on the committee, and only six of those--all Democrats--have been women. Three of those six women are proudly serving on this important committee today: Senator Feinstein, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Hirono, whom we welcome back to the committee.

Senator Feinstein has long been a leading voice on this committee. I have enjoyed working with her on countless issues ranging from national security to immigration reform to Supreme Court nominations. Senator Feinstein has broken down barriers throughout her career, and her new role as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee is only the latest example. As the committee grapples with some of the most pressing issues facing our country, we will all be counting on Ranking Member Feinstein's leadership. We should all congratulate her on this historic moment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mara Greenberg, a detailee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Zachary Blau, a fellow on the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted Senate floor privileges for the duration of the 115th Congress.

Mr. President, last week the junior Senator from Texas spoke about Secretary of State Kerry's recent speech explaining the administration's decision to not veto U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 and supporting a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The Senator asserted that Secretary Kerry ``equated'' Israel and Hamas, that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are ``relentless enemies of Israel'' who ``consider the existence and creation of Israel to be a disaster.'' He said their actions toward Israel were intended to ``facilitate assaults on the nation of Israel.'' He also accused them of ``turning a blind eye'' to terrorism.

Anyone who reads Secretary Kerry's speech will recognize the fallacy of those baseless and inflammatory accusations. To the contrary, Secretary Kerry eloquently and compellingly and with a foreboding sense of urgency about the receding prospects for a two-state solution reaffirmed the administration's condemnation of terrorism and incitement, its unprecedented support for Israel's security, and his own longstanding commitment to Israel's survival as a democratic state, living in peace with its Arab neighbors.

I urge all Senators to read his speech and to arrive at their own conclusions. The situation the Secretary describes should be alarming to anyone who wants peace and security for Israel and a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, which are of vital importance to the national interests of the United States. While the Secretary's speech is too long to be printed in the Record in full, I ask unanimous consent that the first half of his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the complete text of the Secretary's speech, which, again, I urge all Senators to read in its entirety, can be found at the following Web site: https://www.state.gov/secretary/ remarks/2016/12/266119.htm.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will vote later today on the confirmation of Dr. Ashton Carter to fill a critically important Cabinet position, that of Secretary of Defense. I think we all know Dr. Carter is a dedicated and distinguished public servant. He has actually been confirmed twice, unanimously, to two senior positions at the Pentagon. He has been recognized as a four-time recipient of the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal, and he has been awarded the Defense Intelligence Medal. I have no doubt the vote today in support of Dr. Carter will be overwhelmingly favorable.

The Defense Department faces important, timely, and difficult decisions in the coming months and years. They have to learn how best to balance what we know are our fiscal constraints with not only existing but emerging international challenges. Dr. Carter served as the day-to-day financial officer of the Pentagon, so he is one of the few people who understand the complexities of the Pentagon's budget. I believe that Dr. Carter will build upon the fine work of Secretary Hagel to chart a path toward fiscal accountability while maintaining the kind of military capabilities we need to face current global threats.

Dr. Carter is receiving his confirmation vote just over a week after he testified before the Armed Services Committee and two days after his nomination was reported to the full Senate, and that swift action is commendable. But I want to contrast how his nomination was handled as compared to Loretta Lynch's for Attorney General.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, along with my colleagues I just had the opportunity to be at the unveiling of the statue of Senator Barry Goldwater in Statuary Hall.

I had the privilege of serving with Barry Goldwater. We traveled together many times. He came to Vermont at different times with me, and we became very close friends. It was interesting to watch Senator Goldwater form alliances across the aisle with different people. But I remember expressly one very personal thing.

I was very close to my father, and my father passed away late one evening in Vermont. The next morning, the first

two telephone calls my mother received were condolences. One was from Barry Goldwater, and one was from Ted Kennedy. The two had both talked before they called. I mention that because that was the type of people they both were. It had nothing to do with ideology; it was who they were.

In 1980 I had the second closest election in America. Somebody suggested to me that it must be because of my philosophy. I thought probably, but I can't figure it out. So I called up the man who had the closest election in 1980, the year of the Reagan sweep.

I said, ``Senator Goldwater, what is the message we are being sent?''

Barry laughed and said, ``We have to change our luck.''

He suggested that he move into the office of the retiring Senator Abe Ribicoff of Connecticut, a Democratic Senator from New England. He said, ``I am going to move into his office and change my luck. You better be strong enough to move into mine.''

I suggested that I didn't have quite the seniority to do that. He said, ``I will arrange your move next week.'' He did.

When I was sworn in for my second term in January of 1981, I was in that office. I have stayed in Senator Barry Goldwater's office ever since. I have stayed there now for--well, I am in my 35th year in Senator Goldwater's office, and I consider it a matter of pride, and I consider it a matter of pride to have served with him.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was listening to what the Senator from Illinois was saying. I could not say it as well as he did, but I agree with every single word he said and I suspect that Vermonters, Republicans and Democrats alike, agree with what he said.

Mr. President, almost 2 weeks ago the Attorney General nominee, Loretta Lynch, came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and testified for nearly 8 hours. As one who has heard Attorneys General nominees testify for the past 40 years, I cannot think of anybody who did a better job. She was clear and concise. She is a prosecutor's prosecutor. She has also responded to more than 600 written questions. Many of them have absolutely nothing to do with whether she is qualified for the job or not. But people felt they had to send in these questions for whatever reason--and she responded to them all, whether they were relevant or not. And when she is confirmed, she will be the first African-American woman to serve as the Attorney General of the United States in our Nation's history. A majority of members of the committee, both Republican and Democratic, have said they intend to support her confirmation. I am confident she has the votes to be confirmed by the full Senate.

But as of today it has been 94 days since the President announced the nomination of Ms. Lynch. Her nomination has been pending longer than any modern Attorney General nominee. We should all be able to agree that confirming the top law enforcement position should be an urgent priority of the Senate. At a time when we face all kinds of threats from terrorists--both outside our borders and within our borders--we should all be united in confirming an Attorney General nominee like Loretta Lynch. She has the experience of successfully prosecuting numerous terrorists, people who others said we should be afraid to prosecute and that we should lock them up in Guantanamo in case they are not convicted. Ms. Lynch has obtained those convictions and those terrorist are locked away in Federal prisons right now.

This Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee has the opportunity to vote on her nomination. I have heard that even though she has already waited longer than any other modern Attorney General nominee to be confirmed, some Republicans are considering delaying the important vote for her for two more weeks. Under our committee rule, they have the right to do so. But I urge them not to do so.

Loretta Lynch's qualifications are beyond reproach. She has been confirmed by the Senate twice before to serve as the top federal prosecutor based in Brooklyn, NY, one of the most significant prosecutors' offices in this country. Incidentally, she was confirmed both times unanimously. Under her leadership, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York has brought terrorists to justice, obtained convictions against both Republicans and Democrats in public corruption cases, and fought tirelessly against violent crime and financial fraud. It would be hard to find any prosecutor in this country in any administration who has a better record than she does, and her record shows that as Attorney General, Ms. Lynch will effectively, fairly, and independently enforce the law.

Now, thinking back to 2007 when Michael Mukasey was nominated by President Bush to serve as Attorney General. Now, President Bush was in the end of his term as President. The Democrats had taken over the majority in the Senate that year. I served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Bush talked to me and said: we need, of course, an Attorney General. I agreed. And I knew that like Ms. Lynch, Mr. Mukasey had been confirmed before by the Senate, and I also knew that this was coming toward the end of the Bush Presidency. Now, ultimately I voted against Mr. Mukasey because of his responses relating to questions on torture. But even though I was going to vote against him, I proceeded with his nomination in a very prompt manner.

It took just 53 days from the announcement of Mr. Mukasey's nomination to his confirmation. It has been 94 days for Ms. Lynch. Her nomination is needlessly on track to take more than twice the amount of time it took a Democratic-led Senate to confirm President Bush's nominee. After Mr. Mukasey's hearing, Senate Democrats could have held his nomination over in committee, but we did not. In fact, I had to hold a special markup to report his nomination out of committee as soon as possible. And he was confirmed 2 days later. Republicans should extend the same courtesy to expedite Ms. Lynch's nomination, as we did to Mr. Mukasey's.

Last week the Secretary of Defense nominee testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee--last week--and his nomination will be reported to the floor today. His nomination is expected to be confirmed by the end of the week. Now, I agree the Defense Secretary is a critically important position to fill, and I will vote for him. But so is the Nation's top law enforcement officer. I urge Senate Republicans to allow a vote on Ms. Lynch's nomination before we adjourn for a week- long recess. Please, don't treat her differently than we treated Mr. Mukasey. We were able to give him an expedited procedure. She has already waited much longer than he did. Don't make her wait even longer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, in Vermont, small businesses are the foundation of our State's economy.

They spur economic growth and create jobs. One such place is Darn Tough Socks--which sounds like a very small place, but it is not. They decided we should have upscale brand quality socks with a lifetime guarantee, produced in America, and not--like so many other things-- have to be exported from other companies. They have done a huge amount of charity work in our State. But they are also one who shows that jobs can be created in America and can thrive in America.

As I said, in Vermont, small businesses are the foundation of our State's economy, and are incubators of innovation that spur economic growth, create jobs, and promote the quality that is known as the Vermont Brand. I am proud of the many Vermont success stories that often start out as a family business--sometimes located in an old farm house or tool shed--and mature into world-class operations that support and benefit the communities in which they operate. Our Nation's economy is growing, but in today's fast-changing business environments, the status quo is no longer enough. Darn Tough Vermont in Northfield, VT, is one such business that is not just surviving, but is thriving, in part because of its evolution in today's global marketplace, but most importantly, because of the dedicated workers that help the business grow. Darn Tough, a brand launched from its parent company, Cabot Hosiery Mills, exemplifies Vermonters' spirit of entrepreneurship, creativity, perseverance, and old fashioned hard work.

Darn Tough's President and CEO Ric Cabot grew up thinking about socks. After all, Ric's grandfather and father succeeded in partnering their Vermont private-label sock company with national outlet stores. For a while, Cabot Hosiery Mills enjoyed growing sales, but 10 years ago, the mill saw their sales take a considerable hit, as their customers shifted business overseas. Ric stepped in to help his family navigate the uncertainty that lay ahead. The solution to their problem was a long process that led to the establishment of Darn Tough, an upscale brand of quality socks with a lifetime guarantee. Like so many other businesses, the Cabots did not move jobs offshore; they maintained the Cabot promise of quality while ensuring future employment to over 150 Vermonters. It is because of their belief in their product, and a nimble business approach, that a 36-year-old company has kept its doors open and continues to create jobs for Vermonters. Their most recent announcement that they intend to expand their Northfield, VT, mill by 100,000 square feet will result in an additional 50 jobs to the Northfield area.

Darn Tough, its leadership and its employees, are part of the fabric of the community. Most recently, the company donated complimentary socks for participants in the 20th anniversary of the Penguin Plunge, a fundraiser for the Special Olympics Vermont athletes who will compete in this year's winter games, for participants who raise $520 or more. This is just another example of how Vermont businesses give back, even in the toughest of times.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Vermont Digger, dated February 8, 2015, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Millions of American families are struggling with an unrelenting addiction to controlled substances. This is nothing new and that is the unfortunate part about it. But after decades of taking the wrong path toward treating drug abuse, it appears that we are finally in the midst of a fundamental shift in the way we are going to focus and approach this issue.

For years we simply considered drug abuse as a crime, to be dealt with by police, prosecutors, and prisons. There is now, however, a near consensus that addiction must be viewed as a public health issue. This requires coordinated investments in prevention and treatment. Law enforcement agencies would rather not arrest the same offenders over and over without dealing with the underlying addiction. Treating that addiction--rather than just punishing the addict--is often the more effective, more humane, and less costly approach.

There is perhaps no greater advocate for this shift in thinking than Michael Botticelli. Throughout his career in public health he has worked to bridge gaps between law enforcement, health care, and education providers. As acting director for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, he has made clear that we cannot ``incarcerate addiction out of people.'' While law enforcement will always play a vital role in protecting citizens from drug-related crime, Mr. Botticelli recognizes that addiction is a disease--one that can be successfully prevented and treated using the same evidence-based approach we use for other public health challenges.

Mr. Botticelli's nomination was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote last year and again last week. I am pleased that he continued to receive strong, bipartisan support from the full Senate here today. As director of ONDCP, Mr. Botticelli will help to coordinate drug-control activities across the Federal Government. This includes critical efforts such as administering funding for Drug-Free Communities grants and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. It is no small task. Just last week, the President requested over $12 billion for demand reduction programs. This represents the largest commitment to treating and preventing drug addiction in our Nation's history, and it is badly needed.

Much of the country is now confronting a rising challenge: addiction to heroin and powerful painkillers. My home State of Vermont has not been spared, and it has attracted much attention for its struggles with opioid abuse. In fact, the film ``The Hungry Heart'' provides a powerful portrayal of the damage this addiction has inflicted on Vermont families. I was honored to host a screening of this moving film with Michael Botticelli last May.

However in many ways, Vermont is ahead of the Nation. We in Vermont long ago recognized the problem and began developing new approaches to address it. Dedicated Vermonters working in the traditional roles of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement came together around common goals and shared strategies. These community partnerships have produced innovative and successful programs such as the Rapid Intervention Community Court in Burlington, and Project VISION in Rutland. Last year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing in Vermont on this issue. As a lifelong Vermonter, what hit me is how everybody came together for this hearing--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, law enforcement, defense counsels, clergy, teachers, medical professionals, parents and often those who have been abusers. We all realize there is no single answer, but we can do it better than we have for decades.

First responders are saving the lives of addicts throughout the State by carrying naloxone. This will save their life instead of some who would die of an overdose. Evidence-based prevention and treatment services have been extended to all corners of Vermont, and barriers to recovery have been significantly reduced. That is the most important part.

These are all strategies that the ONDCP promotes. Mr. Botticelli understands that success requires an increased commitment to early intervention and education, treatment, and smart criminal justice policies. While the scope of the challenge is immense, Mr. Botticelli has us going in the right direction. Having listened to him, having talked to him, I am really hopeful he will help get us ahead of addiction, and help end the misery it inflicts on individuals, families, and our communities. I urge my fellow Senators to vote for his immediate confirmation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on January 13 of this year, our country lost one of its most courageous diplomats--Ambassador Robert E. White. Ambassador White was 88 years old.

I knew Bob White, who graduated from my alma mater, Saint Michael's College in Vermont, in 1952, just 9 years before I did. But I would have admired him greatly no matter what college he went to because he had the qualities every American diplomat should possess--outstanding intellect, unimpeachable integrity, great courage, and a devotion to the ideals and values of this country.

In the 1980s, during the civil war in El Salvador, the United States--in what most historians now know was a tragic mistake-- steadfastly supported the Salvadoran Army despite abundant evidence that some of its elite units were operating as death squads, arbitrarily arresting, torturing, and murdering civilians suspected of supporting the FMLN rebels.

Unlike some other U.S. officials who turned blind eyes to the heinous crimes that were being committed in the name of fighting communism, Ambassador White refused to remain silent. He publicly condemned the Salvadoran military and their rightwing backers who were implicated in atrocities such as the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, who just days ago was put on the path to sainthood by Pope Francis, and the massacre of four American churchwomen.

For speaking out on behalf of the victims of those crimes, Bob White paid dearly. He was ridiculed by some in Congress and he was summarily removed from his job by then-Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

A January 15 obituary in the Washington Post describes Bob's life and career. As I was reading it, I could not help but wonder how things might have turned out differently if the powers-that-be during the 1980s had listened to him. My wife Marcelle and I talked about that. We asked ourselves: How many lives might have been saved if the Reagan administration, instead of firing Bob in 1981, had recognized the truth of what he was saying and supported negotiations to end the war in El Salvador.

Instead, the war dragged on for another decade, costing the lives of tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians. The tide only started to turn in 1989 after the cold-blooded murder of the six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter, at the University of Central America. It was a

horrific crime that top-ranking army officers tried to cover up.

It was thanks to the late Congressman Joe Moakley and his then-staff aide, now Congressman Jim McGovern, Bob Woodward, and Salvadoran investigator Leonel Gomez, whom I also came to know and respect, that the plot was uncovered and the killers identified.

During this time I talked often with Bob and I learned even more about those who were involved. After talking with him I went to El Salvador. The Salvadoran officials wanted me to see how they were investigating what had happened. They knew I had prosecuted murder cases, and they arranged for me to meet with the country's chief investigator. As he described the so-called investigation it just confirmed Ambassador White's suspicions. I told the Salvadoran investigator, and I told the press who were there, that they were conducting an obvious cover-up. Anybody who saw what they were calling an investigation would realize what they were doing.

As I left El Salvador, it was so obvious that rather than shamelessly removing Ambassador White from his post how much better things might have been if the State Department had recognized him for the true patriot he was and treated him as an example of what other U.S. diplomats should emulate.

Bob didn't stop when he left the Foreign Service. He went on to head the Center for International Policy where he continued his advocacy for human rights, defending the ideals and championing the causes he believed in right up to his death.

I like to think that all of our Foreign Service Officers aspire to follow in the footsteps of Ambassador Robert White. I hope they will learn from his example. If they do, the United States will be better served and the world will be a better place.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post obituary, and an article about Ambassador White by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels in Commonweal magazine.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for what he has said. I would note that there are many in our State who agree wholeheartedly. We are not a wealthy State. We are a proud State. We are not a State that believes in such a huge disparity of income. So I thank the Senator for what he said, not only here but when he has made similar remarks around the country.

(The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 356 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, not long ago Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, the World Health Organization, WHO, and the United Nations, and the United States, Great Britain, France, and other countries were frantically trying to bring the Ebola crisis in West Africa under control.

Thousands of people died due to a disastrous failure by WHO's Africa regional representative, serious miscalculations by local officials and global health experts, and a myriad of other problems ranging from weak local health systems that were quickly overwhelmed to a lack of accurate information and cultural practices that helped spread the disease rather than contain it.

But in the past few weeks there has been some good news about progress in stopping Ebola. According to WHO, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea recorded their lowest weekly numbers of new cases in months. The United Nations special envoy on Ebola stated that the epidemic appears to be slowing down, and the Government of Liberia has set a target of zero new Ebola cases by the end of February.

It is heartening to see that the hard work by Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and the international community are bringing results. But we are not out of the woods yet and there are important lessons to be learned from the mistakes and lost opportunities in the early response to this disease outbreak.

Ebola pushed governments, international organizations, and the private sector and health care responders into unknown territory, forcing everyone to think and act in new ways. Unfortunately, with the exception of the nongovernmental organization Doctors Without Borders, we were all too slow to recognize this. The initial response missed key opportunities to prevent the crisis from becoming an epidemic, and as a result thousands of people died who might have avoided infection. The symptoms of the initial victims were not recognized as Ebola, signs that the epidemic was spreading rather than receding, as some believed, were misinterpreted, and governments and international organizations did not effectively communicate or coordinate with local communities impacted by the virus, nor were the necessary resources to combat the disease available in-country early enough.

As work was done to overcome these missteps and challenges, the epidemic spread further across borders, as did rumors, and fear increased, people in the affected areas became increasingly distrustful of those who were trying to help, and already scarce health care workers became harder to recruit.

The consequences of not containing the disease in the early stages have been catastrophic. As of January 28, WHO estimates that 8,795 people have died from the Ebola virus, and according to UNICEF's preliminary estimates, as of December 29 at least 3,700 children in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone have lost one or both parents to the disease. The children of those countries have not attended school since mid-2014. While Guinea reopened their schools in mid-January, attendance has remained low. Liberia is preparing to reopen schools in mid-February, and Sierra Leone hopes to reopen its schools by the end of March.

Unemployment and business closures have increased, cross-border trade has plummeted, and there are concerns that food shortages and malnutrition will increase because food stock that would normally be kept for next year is already being eaten.

According to the World Bank's December estimates, the growth in GDP in 2014 for Liberia and Sierra Leone fell by over 60 percent in each country and Guinea's GDP growth in 2014 is down by 89 percent.

Much of our investments in the rebuilding of Liberia and Sierra Leone since the civil wars there have been obliterated by Ebola. These countries are back at square one.

The world's initial response to the Ebola crisis illustrates how unprepared we are for future global health crises which may be far more devastating and fast spreading than Ebola, if that is possible to imagine.

How can we avoid repeating our mistakes? Are we going to provide our own government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Agency for International Development and international organizations such as WHO the resources they need? Can we count on them to take the steps to ensure that the right people are in the right places with the authority to make the necessary decisions in a timely manner?

Too often it seems that we have to relearn the same lessons each time for different situations and countries. There are already reports, including a January 19 article in the Washington Post that describes newly built Ebola response centers, paid for by the United States Government, that stand empty or have closed because the number of new Ebola cases has dropped sharply. It is far better to be prepared than unprepared, but we need to reassess the situation and be sure that we are adjusting our response appropriately.

The fiscal year 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $2.5 billion for the Department of State and USAID response to the Ebola crisis. As ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds those agencies, I hope they will ensure that we use these funds to avoid past mistakes, by improving flexibility to respond to the crisis as it changes, relying less on international nongovernmental organizations and foreign contractors, and increasing support for building local public health capacity and a sustainable and resilient private sector, increasing awareness and sensitivity to cultural norms of those impacted by the crisis, and improving communication and coordination among local communities, local and national governments, and the international community. These are not new ideas but they emerge time and again.

Finally, we need to be far better prepared for protecting American citizens from contagious diseases that can spread like wildfire from a single health care worker or other infected individual who returns from an affected country. Fortunately, only one death from Ebola occurred in the U.S., but it could have been far worse.

Now is the time to reassess how we should respond domestically and internationally to regional epidemics and prepare accordingly. We cannot afford to waste time and resources making the same mistakes and relearning old lessons.

Mr. President, for hundreds of millions of people around the globe, including in countries whose governments are allies of the United States, democracy and human rights are aspirations that seem beyond reach. According to a recent report by Freedom House, the state of freedom in the world declined in almost every region over the past year. But while we

should be deeply concerned by this discouraging trend, we should also recognize where progress is being made.

On January 8, the people of Sri Lanka stunned a repressive government that had been rapidly centralizing power and dismantling democratic institutions. President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who sensed his increasing unpopularity, called a snap election 2 years early hoping to take advantage of his fragmented opposition. However, to his surprise and the surprise of many observers, a broad coalition of Sri Lankans voted to oust his administration and to chart a new course. Rather than balk at forfeiting the chance for an unprecedented third term, President Rajapaksa, under pressure from the international community, stepped down within hours of the election results being published.

This was welcome news. After suffering decades of on-and-off conflict that is estimated to have cost as many as 100,000 lives, only to have the violence replaced by increasing repression and political and ethnic polarization, the peaceful transfer of power has helped breathe life into the hopes of Sri Lankans for reconciliation and a better future. For that hope to become reality, newly elected President Maithripala Sirisena will need to gain the trust of all Sri Lankans, regardless of their ethnicity or political views. In too many countries democracy has been treated as an election rather than a way of governing, but for it to succeed all citizens must have the ability to participate meaningfully. As President Sirisena stated in his inaugural address, what Sri Lanka needs ``is not a King, but a real human being''.

Of course, democracy alone will not heal Sri Lankan society. No one knows this better than those who lost family, friends, and loved ones in the war with the LTTE, or Tamil Tigers. In the final months of that war, many thousands of civilians died, mostly as a result of shelling by the Sri Lankan military of civilians who had been uprooted by the fighting. The United Nations, the United States, other governments and human rights organizations have long called for thorough, independent investigations and punishment of those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

While President Sirisena has pledged to launch a domestic inquiry into alleged war crimes, I agree with those who insist that nothing less than an international investigation, as called for by the U.N. Human Rights Council, will likely suffice to overcome the suspicion and distrust concerning this issue. It would be far better if the government seeks the assistance of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in developing a credible plan for investigating violations of human rights by both sides in the conflict, and holding those responsible accountable.

I am encouraged that President Sirisena has pledged to return the country to a parliamentary democracy with independent police and judicial institutions, and inclusive governance. He has also committed to taking steps to address the cases of those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, PTA, many of whom are political prisoners like Jeyakumari Balendran. The reviews should be carried out expeditiously. While the release of 572 prisoners at the time of Pope Francis's visit on January 14 was a positive step, it is the cases of political prisoners detained under the PTA that will demonstrate the Sirisena government's commitment to reconciliation. The sooner innocent victims of the Rajapaksa government's repression are freed, the faster Sri Lanka will be able to recover.

Over the years I have spoken in this Chamber in support of independent investigations of war crimes and justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. I have met the relatives of victims of the war. President Sirisena's election offers the chance for all Sri Lankans to finally recover from that tragic period by rebuilding their country in a spirit of tolerance, respect, and common purpose.