url,title,date,year,month,party,chamber,state,member_name,bioguide_id,domain,scraper,source,date_source,text,has_text,collected_at,updated_at https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-congressional-record-statement-on-pandemic-preparedness,Leahy Congressional Record Statement On Pandemic Preparedness,2017-12-22,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.22.17 Leahy Congressional Record Statement On Pandemic Preparedness Mr. President, 2018 marks the 100 year anniversary of the influenza pandemic that killed an estimated 50 million people, including 670,000 Americans. I suspect most people assume that given the remarkable advances in modern medicine since 1918 nothing so disastrous could happen again, but in fact it could and next time it could be even worse. The spread of infectious diseases and drug resistance, and the accompanying threats to global security, are on the rise and the international community is woefully underprepared to fight back. The several large-scale infectious disease outbreaks of the last two decades, including SARS, H1N1, and Ebola have revealed the extent to which individual countries and the international community at large need to dramatically improve their preparedness to respond to such potentially catastrophic health crises. The stark reality is that the threat is increasing. An ever-growing, increasingly-mobile global population will provide the breeding ground for the emergence and contagion of existing and new infectious diseases. The potential threats from infectious disease outbreaks include not only catastrophic loss of life, but severe economic harm and social and political instability. The 2014-15 Ebola outbreak, for example, which began with the death of a two-year-old boy in a remote Guinean village, ultimately killed more than 11,000 people across six countries, left thousands of children orphaned, caused an estimated economic loss to those countries of nearly $3 billion, and resulted in many people losing confidence in their countrys public health system. It is important to note that Ebola, which is spread through direct contact and terrified millions of people including in this country, is hardly the most infectious known disease. Several other disease agents, such as measles and influenza, can be spread through the air and can develop into epidemics or pandemics much more rapidly. That is one of the reasons why many global health experts fear that an infectious disease outbreak far worse than Ebola will occur sometime in the next twenty years, and that the number of outbreaks will become more frequent. And yet, despite improvements in access to safe water and sanitation, vaccine development, and other public health advances to combat infectious diseases, an enormous amount of work remains. One of the most important lessons learned from the Ebola outbreak is that time is of the essence. The lack of a rapid, coordinated global response resulted in many preventable deaths. Disease surveillance systems were poor or nonexistent in the severely impacted countries, there was a lack of trained personnel to rapidly deploy, and no effective public communication system was in place to inform and update local communities. An additional problem was the inability to quickly mobilize resources. Countries and NGOs around the globe lacked a reserve of available funds. The Congress took a step toward addressing this issue in the fiscal year 2017 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which included a $70 million Emergency Reserve Fund to address infectious disease outbreaks around the globe. In the fiscal year 2018 Senate version of the State and Foreign Operations bill, Chairman Graham and I included $130 million for programs to prevent and respond to such emerging health threats. However, as I have said before and I will say again, far more needs to be done to build the public health infrastructure to prevent and respond to disease pandemics. As the international community works to be more prepared for infectious disease outbreaks, the U.S. should continue to play a leading role in preparedness planning. Unfortunately, President Trumps fiscal year 2018 budget would cut funding for these very programs, including for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which played an indispensable role in responding to the Ebola and Zika outbreaks, as it has to many other international health crises. It is time we invest and prepare for pandemics in a similar way as we invest and prepare for war, nuclear disasters, or other large-scale threats to global security. The potential consequences are no less serious. I urge the White House to face up to this reality and dramatically increase funding for these programs at CDC, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other federal agencies that play a role in global health security. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-congressional-record-statement-on-threats-to-worldwide-press-freedom,Leahy Congressional Record Statement On Threats To Worldwide Press Freedom,2017-12-22,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.22.17 Leahy Congressional Record Statement On Threats To Worldwide Press Freedom Mr. President, we are all too familiar with President Trumps fake news mantra, which he has repeatedly used to discredit unfavorable news reports and undermine the credibility of the media in our country. This mantra, and the accompanying threats to freedoms of speech and of the press, have now spread far beyond our borders. Autocrats and dictators around the world are enthusiastically using the concept of fake news, and the legitimacy granted to it by the President of the United States, to further undermine and restrict press freedom and fact-based reporting on corruption, human rights and other abuses in their own countries. For example, in response to an Amnesty International report on thousands of military prison deaths in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad remarked, You can forge anything these days, we are living in a fake news era. Similarly, in response to news reports on persecution of the Rohingya ethnic minority group in Myanmar, an officer in Myanmars Rakhine state security ministry stated, There is no such thing as Rohingya. It is fake news. The list goes on and includes comments from autocratic leaders in the Philippines, Venezuela, Russia, China, and Turkey, among others, who have used the fake news mantra to legitimize harassment, arrests, and prosecutions of journalists. Last week, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) released its annual census of imprisoned journalists worldwide, which has hit an historical high of 262. The total does not include the many more journalists who were imprisoned for a period of time during the year before being released prior to the December 1st census. A CPJ statement published with the report noted that: Far from isolating repressive countries for their authoritarian behavior, the United States, in particular, has cozied up to strongmen such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an and Chinese President Xi Jinping. At the same time, President Donald Trumps nationalistic rhetoric, fixation on Islamic extremism, and insistence on labeling critical media fake news serves to reinforce the framework of accusations and legal charges that allow such leaders to preside over the jailing of journalists. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has inspired people around the world for over two hundred years. It was reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and versions of it have been included in the Constitutions of many countries. Yet while the United States has long been a global leader for freedom of expression, the White House is now actively working to undermine press freedom. President Trumps reckless rhetoric has not only harmed our credibility and our reputation, it has emboldened foreign dictators who fear nothing more than for their misdeeds to be exposed by the media. The consequence is journalists threatened and imprisoned, journalists assassinated with impunity, publishers who are intimidated, and the ultimate casualty is the truth. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-the-situation-in-peru,Leahy Statement On The Situation In Peru,2017-12-22,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.22.17 Leahy Statement On The Situation In Peru Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the unfolding political crisis, which is also a crisis for justice, in Peru. Peru transitioned to democracy in 2000, after two decades of internal armed conflict and authoritarian rule. The country has made important strides in rebuilding its democratic institutions, consolidating the rule of law, and combatting impunity. But today, efforts by a majority in the Peruvian Congress to arbitrarily remove judges from the countrys highest court, the Constitutional Tribunal, and to oust the Attorney General for courageously doing his job, threaten to undermine those gains and reverse Perus democratic progress. As a former prosecutor and the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am especially concerned about the attempt by the majority in Perus Congress to impeach Attorney General Pablo Snchez in the midst of his offices investigation into allegations that the presidential campaign of Keiko Fujimori received illegal contributions in 2011. The effort to remove Attorney General Snchez strongly suggests a deliberate strategy to obstruct justice and to undermine the autonomy of the Attorney Generals Office. This would represent a grave setback for hard-fought gains to reestablish an independent judiciary and the rule of law in Peru. It would have serious ramifications for U.S.- Peruvian relations. Credible allegations of corruption must be thoroughly investigated, without prejudice to party or power, and with due process for the accused. I urge members of Perus Congress to support those who are acting on behalf of the Peruvian people in the pursuit of truth and justice. Key to this is respect for the autonomy of the Office of the Attorney General and of the Constitutional Tribunal, institutions that are guarantors of human rights and the rule of law. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/statement-of-senate-appropriations-committee-vice-chairman-patrick-leahy-d-vt-on-supporting-the-continuing-resolution,Statement of Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) On Supporting The Continuing Resolution,2017-12-22,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.22.17 Statement of Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) On Supporting The Continuing Resolution Governing by crisis must come to an end. Since March, I have been calling for a bipartisan budget deal, based on parity, that would pave a path toward responsibly funding the government and averting this 11th hour Republican shutdown crisis. I have not lost faith that such a deal can still be reached. So, tonight I voted aye on the Continuing Resolution to keep the government open into January. A government shutdown helps no one. This will allow us one more month to reach a bipartisan budget deal based on parity and address the needs of our military and the needs of our communities. But this is not the only thing we must accomplish in the coming months. Our list of unfinished business is long. We need to pass the DREAM Act, and we need to do it soon.DREAMers are American in every way except on paper, having been brought here as children through no fault of their own. By definition, DREAMers are law-abiding strivers, serving our communities as doctors and teachers and defending our homeland as brave men and women in uniform. This must be our one of our top priorities. We need to reform Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to protect the privacy of all Americans. We need a permanent reauthorization for the Childrens Health Insurance Program, and Community Health Centers. And we need to consider a comprehensive disaster relief package that takes into consideration the unique needs of the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We have a lot to do, but it is time we take the work of the American people seriously and move beyond governing by crisis. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-reax-to-the-presidents-threat-to-cut-support-to-the-un-and-to-countries-that-oppose-his-us-embassy/jerusalem-decision-,Leahy REAX To The Presidents Threat To Cut Support To The UN And To Countries That Oppose His U.S. Embassy/Jerusalem Decision,2017-12-21,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.21.17 Leahy REAX To The Presidents Threat To Cut Support To The UN And To Countries That Oppose His U.S. Embassy/Jerusalem Decision [Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of its State Department and Foreign Operations Subcommittee.] The Presidents decision to ignore his national security advisors about moving our embassy at this fragile moment was cause enough for concern. Now he is compounding that error by threatening the United Nations itself, as well as other countries, many of which are close allies, with a cutoff of the support we provide that serves our own national interests and security. This further weakens our national interests, while further weakening our influence in the world. As has been aptly noted, this is not America first; this is America alone. Campaign promises may make good political fodder. But the words and actions of this White House over the past 12 months have made a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict harder to achieve. That is harmful to our own security, harmful to Israels long-term security, and harmful to stability in that region and beyond. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-the-need-to-pass-the-dream-act,Leahy Statement On The Need To Pass The DREAM Act,2017-12-21,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.21.17 Leahy Statement On The Need To Pass The DREAM Act We are a nation of immigrants. That should be an obvious point, but it bears repeating at a time when our president sees political advantage in trafficking in xenophobic scapegoating. Unless you are Native American, you come from a line of people who come from somewhere else. Indeed that simple fact is an integral part of the American story. We are also a Nation that believes that anything is possible. Our ancestors and relatives journeyed here because, in America, where you come from does not determine what you can accomplish. In this great country, as long as you work hard and play by the rules, you can achieve your dreams. That itself is the American Dream. No single group of people embodies these ideals more than our Nations DREAMers. DREAMers grew up in this country; they were brought here as children. They seek only the opportunity to contribute to our Nation and to be legally recognized as the Americans that they are. DREAMers are our neighbors, our teachers, and our first responders. Nearly a thousand DREAMers serve in our armed forces, risking their lives to defend the only country they have ever known as home. We cannot in good faith claim to care about the American Dream if we neglect to protect the very people who are living it. Take, for example, Dr. Juan Conde, a DACA recipient and a resident of Vermont. Dr. Conde was born in Mexico and brought to the United States as a child by his mother. In 2007, his mother was tragically taken by cancer. Showing remarkable courage and determination for a young man, this tragedy inspired Dr. Conde to find a way to help cancer patients like his mother. Yet he was unable to become an oncologist due to his immigration status. So instead he decided to obtain a Ph.D. in cancer research from the University of Texas. But Dr. Conde wanted to treat cancer patients, not just study the disease. After receiving DACA status in 2012, he was empowered to pursue his medical degree. And he is currently a medical student at University of Vermonts Larner College of Medicine. Dr. Conde hopes to spend his life in the United States treating cancer patients and helping to find a cure for the disease. My hope is that we can make that happen, not just for Dr. Conde but for every other DREAMer. There are almost 800,000 DREAMers like Dr. Conde, all of whom have just as much potential to make our communities and our country truly great. To deny them these opportunities because they were brought here as children is as senseless as it is cruel. Yet that is the decision the president made. He could have worked with Congress to find a permanent solution for DREAMers while leaving DACA protections in place. Instead, he cast them aside. And his administration has made absurd, nonfactual, and offensive arguments in support of that decision ever since. When Attorney General Sessions announced that DACA was being terminated, he argued that the program was an example of the Obama administrations repeated failure to enforce our immigration laws. He argued that such failure caused crime, violence, and even terrorism. During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings I pressed both the Attorney General and his Department on this point to name just one DREAMer who was involved in terrorist activity. Of course they could not. But apparently fear mongering is more effective than acknowledging simple truths. By definition, DREAMers are law-abiding. They seek nothing more than to contribute to our country. If the president refuses to stand with DREAMers, then Congress must. We have done it before in the Senate. Four years ago, 68 Senators Democrats and Republicans voted for comprehensive immigration reform legislation that I managed on the Senate floor. That legislation included key protections for DREAMers, including an expedited pathway to citizenship. It is time for the Senate to act again now. And for the House to follow suit. The future of DREAMers and the fate of the American Dream itself lies in our hands. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/sens-paul-wyden-lee-and-leahy-release-joint-statement-on-fisa-reform-,"Sens. Paul, Wyden, Lee, and Leahy Release Joint Statement on FISA Reform",2017-12-21,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.21.17 Sens. Paul, Wyden, Lee, and Leahy Release Joint Statement on FISA Reform Today, U.S. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) released the following statement opposing any long-term extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) without the serious and public debate the American people deserve and should expect from their elected representatives: Congress should not vote on any long-term reauthorization of Section 702 until both the House and Senate have fully debated meaningful reforms in 2018. ### Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-in-support-of-democracy-in-honduras,Leahy Statement In Support of Democracy in Honduras,2017-12-20,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.20.17 Leahy Statement In Support of Democracy in Honduras Mr. President, on Monday the head of the Honduras Supreme Electoral Tribunal declared Juan Orlando Hernandez the next President of Honduras. Shortly thereafter, the Secretariat of the Organization of American States, one of the principal international observers, announced that it could not certify the election as free and fair and called for a new election. Yesterday, after his top advisors rebuked the OAS for infringing on Honduras sovereignty, President Hernandez, stating that the Honduran people have spoken, declared himself President-elect. On December 5, I spoke at length about the Honduran election, and I have made several statements since then. I will not repeat what I, and many others, have already said about the troubling process orchestrated by President Hernandez and his associates over the past several years to lay the groundwork for his reelection for an unprecedented second presidential term. Nor about the many irregularities that have caused masses of people to take to the streets in protest since the vote on November 26. As of today, at least 12 protesters, and perhaps as many as 20, have been killed and many more injured, mostly from military police firing live ammunition. I was disappointed that in his speech yesterday President Hernandez made no mention of those tragic deaths. As we await the Trump Administrations decision on whether to support the OASs call for a new election or accept President Hernandez claim to a second term, I want to make three points. First, if this flawed election had been held in a country not led by a president whose consolidation of power and reliance on the military and police have had the strong backing of the White House and the State Department, it is doubtful that it would be accepted as free and fair. Instead, the White House which has been willing to excuse the Hernandez governments corruption scandals and crackdown on the press and civil society would likely be calling for a recount or, if the integrity of the ballots could not be assured, a new election. Second, the OAS deserves the thanks of people throughout this hemisphere for the role it has played as an impartial observer and for standing up for a free and fair election in Honduras at a time when democratic processes, freedom of expression and association, and independent judiciaries are threatened not only in Honduras but in many parts of Latin America. Next year, presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled in many countries in Central and South America, and the OAS which has been a strong defender of democracy and human rights in Venezuela has a vital role to play in seeking to ensure that those elections meet international standards of fairness and transparency. It is therefore particularly important and reassuring that the OAS Secretariat has insisted on such standards in Honduras by calling for a new election, and it is just as important that the United States stands with the OAS at this time. Third, it is ultimately for the people of Honduras to decide what kind of a government they want, and whether to accept the result declared by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, which has little credibility outside of President Hernandez National Party. It is clear that the country is sharply divided politically, socially, and economically. Absent an electoral process that is widely accepted as free and fair, that divisiveness will imperil the progress that is urgently needed in combating poverty, violence, organized crime, corruption, and impunity that pose immense challenges for the future. But the international community, and particularly the people of this hemisphere, also has a stake in this election and in Honduras future. In the past decade alone, the United States has provided many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Honduras, much of which I supported. But that aid has not achieved the results that the Honduran people and we wanted, and the reason for that, I believe, is primarily because successive Honduran governments were not serious about addressing many of the key problems I have mentioned. Yet the aid kept flowing. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the current government is sufficiently serious about this, either. Honduras today desperately needs a freely and fairly elected leader who can unite the country. Unfortunately, this election lacked the conditions of fairness and transparency necessary to produce that result. If a new election is held under such conditions it is entirely possible that President Hernandez may win. Or he may not. But for him, or any candidate, to obtain the mandate required to unite the country and make a credible case that his government is a deserving partner of the United States, it will need to be by rejecting the serious flaws of this election and demonstrating to all the people of Honduras and this hemisphere what real democracy looks like. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that todays Bloomberg View editorial calling for a new democratic election in Honduras be printed in the Record. The U.S. Should Back New Elections in Honduras Latin America needs to start its big election year on the right foot. by The Editors December 20, 2017 7:00 AM There is only one way out of Honduras's deepening political crisis, and that is a new presidential election. It's a solution the U.S., with its long history in Latin America, should help bring about -- although it would help if it had an ambassador there. The certification this week of incumbent President Juan Orlando Hernandezs contested victory in last month's election has brought Hondurans into the streets, continuing a wave of violent demonstrations that have claimed at least 24 lives. It comes after a deeply flawed ballot-counting process that included long delays, after which Hernandez's early deficit mysteriously disappeared. (The final tally put him ahead by about 1.5 percent.) The vote was denounced by numerous observers -- including the Organization of American States, which has called for new elections. Yet the U.S., which has no ambassador in Tegucigalpa or an assistant secretary of State for the hemisphere, has been only mildly critical. When Hernandez's victory was certified, it urgedopposing political parties to ""raise any concerns they may have."" And just after the disputed election, the State Department renewed aid to Honduras -- a move widely interpreted as tacit support for Hernandez. Hernandez has won friends in Washington with his willingness to crack down on crime and illegal migration to the U.S., and his investor-friendly policies. At the same time, his administration has been responsible for ugly human rights abuses and been implicated in several high-profile corruption scandals. Moreover, he has extended his tenure only by packing Hondurass Supreme Court to lift the country's one-term limit for presidents. The head of the court responsible for certifying election results is one of Hernandez's close allies. Even before last month's flawed vote, Honduras was notable for the lack of popular confidence in its electoral mechanisms. And if it's stability that Washington seeks, these disputed results don't promise to achieve it. Protracted unrest will only make fighting drugs and illegal migration harder. The contrast between the OAS and the U.S. could also hurt U.S. influence and credibility. The U.S. has rightly supported the OAS in its efforts to hold Venezuela accountable for its electoral crimes. If it fails to do the same in Honduras, it risks setting a dangerous double standard. This would be especially damaging in a year when nearly two out of three Latin Americans are scheduled to go to the polls. As the administration's just-released National Security Strategy says, ""Stable, friendly, and prosperous states in the Western Hemisphere enhance our security and benefit our economy."" The best way to ensure that Honduras becomes one is to support free, transparent and fair elections. Editors: James Gibney, Michael Newman. # # # # # Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-floor-welch-rails-against-gop-tax-bill,"On House Floor, Welch Rails Against GOP Tax Bill",2017-12-19,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Today on the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) railed against the GOP tax bill as it was debated by Members of Congress. Welch voted against the bill which passed the House this afternoon by a vote of 227-203. Youre a Vermont familyif youre lucky, you might make a couple hundred bucks. But at what price? Once these benefits expire, 83 percent of the benefits of the individual tax break go to the top one percent of Americans. At what price? Two trillion dollars added to the deficit. And let me tell you this: Vermont families, working families, theyd like a tax cut, but not one that their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay. That is unconscionable. A full transcript of Rep. Welchs remarks can be found here. Click image to view video of Rep. Welchs full remarks. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/sen-patrick-leahy-on-his-no-vote-as-senate-tues-night-nears-final-passage-of-republican-tax-plan-,"Sen. Patrick Leahy, On His NO Vote, As Senate Tues. Night Nears Final Passage Of Republican TAX PLAN",2017-12-19,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.19.17 Sen. Patrick Leahy, On His NO Vote, As Senate Tues. Night Nears Final Passage Of Republican TAX PLAN Little more than a month ago, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was unveiled in the Senate. Just a few short weeks later, we are on the verge of passing a colossal bill, publicly available for just four days, that makes sweeping changes to every aspect of our economy. We are moving so fast that the American people would be forgiven for thinking we were addressing a national emergency. And yet, fires are still blazing in California, power in Puerto Rico is still not fully restored, and victims around the Gulf of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria are still struggling to pick up the pieces and rebuild. There are indeed national emergencies we should be addressing, but instead of doing so, Republicans in Congress are focused first on passing tax cuts for corporations and billionaires tax cuts that will add an estimated $1.5 trillion to the deficit. The process that led to the bill we are voting on today has been fundamentally flawed from the outset. From the beginning, this bill has been written behind closed doors by Senate Republicans. No hearings were ever held on this bill, denying the American people an opportunity to add their voices to the debate. When the Senate voted on its version of this bill in the dead of night, Senators only received the text a few hours before the vote and even then, the text was hastily put together, with scribbles written into the margins. We discovered that lobbyists knew more about what was in it than those of us who had the responsibility to vote on it. No wonder that it was loaded with last-minute special interest giveaways. There is serious doubt this bill will benefit the middle class, as Republicans claim. What we do know is that it will result in millions of fewer insured Americans and higher health care premiums for millions more. At the same time, corporations will receive a windfall in permanent tax cuts that will bust our budget for decades to come. Even more appallingly, it includes special provisions that will directly benefit the President and some Members of Congress. It doesnt end there. Republicans have yet to address the $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare, Social Security and other programs vital to the American people, which will be spurred by the passage of this bill. This bill cynically and surreptitiously sets the stage for those slashing cuts. This is a bill that cheats our future for the sake of a tax-cut windfall for the one percent. It does absolutely wonderful things for the wealthiest taxpayers, like the President, his cronies and his family. If he wants to dispute that, he should finally release his tax returns, and prove to the American people that the Christmas present the President talks about will not, in fact, benefit his bottom line. What we do know is this bill does not advance the common good. It offers little but crumbs on the table and coal in the stockings of hardworking Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations reap the rewards of this bill, with the false promise of trickle-down benefits to everyone else. The wealthiest are doing just fine and big corporations already are pulling in record profits, which theyre not investing but salting away. More than 400 millionaires have urgently told Congress that they dont need more tax cuts. Republicans will continue to claim that their bill represents serious tax reform, but the public isnt fooled. Poll after poll shows that the American people see this bill for what it is: a betrayal of the middle class and a betrayal of American values. They have seen enough of trickle-down economics to know that the benefits never flow to them. At the end of the day, it is clear that this bill was never really about the middle class; it was about the Republican donor class. I wish we had gone down a different path, one where both parties worked together to provide real relief to the working families we all represent. It belies the storied history of this institution to rush through such a sweeping bill, through an arcane process of reconciliation intended to secure the lowest possible number of votes to succeed, without the benefit of public opinion, or even public review. After one of the least productive sessions of Congress that I can recall, Republicans are so desperate for a win that they will mortgage away our future. This bill is not tax reform. This is a cartoonish caricature of what real tax reform should look like. It is dishonest to its core. It is cynical, and it can only breed more cynicism by the public. It is bad policy, it is indefensible policy, and it is wrong. It is said that every generation has a responsibility to leave our nation better, brighter, and stronger for the generations that follow. This tax bill accomplishes none of those goals. I strongly oppose I reject this conference report, and the crass, partisan path that brought us here. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-reaction-to-the-tses-declaration-of-juan-orlando-hernandez-as-the-winner-in-the-honduran-election,Leahy Reaction To The TSE's Declaration Of Juan Orlando Hernandez As The Winner In The Honduran Election,2017-12-18,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.18.17 Leahy Reaction To The TSE's Declaration Of Juan Orlando Hernandez As The Winner In The Honduran Election ""Unfortunately, the announcement by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal leaves too many questions unanswered. There were multiple opportunities for fraud in this election, and only a determination by impartial international observers that the vote tally was fair and transparent will provide the necessary credibility to the process. The Honduran people deserve no less. I urge the EU and the OAS to insist on whatever action - including a complete recount or a new election if necessary - to eliminate any reasonable suspicion of fraud that could have affected the result. I also urge the Honduran police to immediately cease the use of live ammunition against protesters. There is no justification for the tragic loss of life that has occurred."" Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-statement-fcc-net-neutrality-action-and-legislation-he-sponsoring,"Welch Statement on FCC Net Neutrality Action, and Legislation He is Sponsoring to Overturn It",2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) issued the following statement in response to a vote by the Federal Communications Commission this afternoon to repeal net neutrality rules. In addition, he will soon join colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to introduce legislation to reverse this decision. “Today’s decision to gut net neutrality is a disaster for consumers and an early Christmas present to big broadband companies who can now pick and choose who gets access to the internet and at what speed. I will soon introduce legislation to reverse this horrible decision so that the internet remains open and accessible to all Americans.” ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-authored-farm-bill-provision-nets-millions-for-northeast-kingdom,Leahy-Authored Farm Bill Provision Nets Millions For Northeast Kingdom,2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.14.17 Leahy-Authored Farm Bill Provision Nets Millions For Northeast Kingdom . . . Leahy-Led REAP Zone Designation Continues To Address NEK Needs, Now Topping $200 Million Since 2001 Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced Thursday that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) economic development investments in the Northeast Kingdom now total more than $9.1 million during 2017. NEK-area businesses, nonprofits and municipalities received 36 awards from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Rural Development (USDA-RD) to assist with a diverse range of business assistance, infrastructure upgrades and energy efficiency improvement projects.  More than $5.5 million of the awards during federal fiscal year 2017 were made possible through the Rural Area Economic Partnership (REAP) Zone, a special designation secured by Leahy in the last Farm Bill.  Leahy is a leading member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees USDA and handles the Senate’s work in writing Farm Bills, and he also now is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which annually appropriates funds for the USDA.  Leahy said:  “These USDA investments are empowering local organizations and businesses to make our Vermont communities stronger.  The diverse nature of Rural Development’s programs mean that federal help can be pre-tailored to address distinct needs for each community.  As Congress begins writing a new Farm Bill in 2018, I’ll be focused on making sure that USDA-RD continues to have resources like these to invest in Vermont.” USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, administers and manages housing, business and community infrastructure programs through a national network of state and local offices.  These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers to improve the quality of life in rural areas. Since 2001 Leahy has consistently and successfully fought to designate, and to renew, the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont -- Caledonia, Essex, and Orleans Counties -- as a REAP Zone, a USDA RD designation recognizing the unique rural nature of a region that prioritizes the region’s grant applications.  Successfully designated in the 2014 Farm Bill, the Northeast Kingdom REAP Zone is one of only four regions nationwide designated as REAP Zones by USDA-RD, an arm of USDA focused on helping rural communities thrive.  The designation gives applicants to some of USDA RD’s 40 grant and loan programs access to a reserved set of funds only available to REAP Zones.  Leahy worked with the Northeast Kingdom Collaborative, a group of economic and community development organizations from across Caledonia, Essex and Orleans Counties, to create Vermont’s REAP Zone. Since the creation of the NEK REAP Zone, USDA has invested more than $200 million in Caledonia, Essex and Orleans Counties. Grant Organization $35,300 Town of St. Johnsbury $14,087 Vermont Sun Ltd. $99,999 Northern Community Investment Corp. $60,000 Town of St. Johnsbury $48,626 Ceneter for an Agricultural Economy $72,821 Permanent Fund for VT Children $47,000 VT State Colleges $12,110 Kaufman, Bruce $9,475 South Royalton Food Cooperative $50,000 Center for an Agricultural Economy $12,400 Heartbeet Lifesharing Corp. $3,682 Gilman Housing Trust $14,800 Lyndon Institute $50,000 St. Johnsbury Athenaeum $5,320,000 Town of St. Johnsbury $430,000 Town of St. Johnsbury $71,000 NE Kingdom Travel and Tourism Assoc. $26,738 Northern Forest Center, Inc. $99,999 Northern Community Investment Corp. $75,000 Northern Community Investment Corp. $25,000 VT Council on the Arts $96,700 VT Housing and Conservation Board $189,400 Canaan Fire District #1 $55,200 Troy School District $31,900 Town of Charleston $37,500 Barton Village, Inc. $98,157 Vermont Farm-to-School $99,999 Forestville Foundation, Inc. $695,600 Town of Newport $19,997 Kingdom Brewing $760,000 Highland Lodge 2016, LLC $79,625 City of Newport $58,947 The Art House, Inc. $6,327 Asa H. Searles dba Ellie's Sugarhouse $52,626 Gilman Housing Trust     Loans Organization $233,000 Canaan Fire District #1 Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-sanders-join-markey-on-resolution-to-restore-fccs-net-neutrality-rules,"Leahy, Sanders Join Markey On Resolution To Restore FCCs Net Neutrality Rules",2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.14.17 Leahy, Sanders Join Markey On Resolution To Restore FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules . . . CRA resolution would reinstate robust net neutrality protections and the Open Internet Order Vermont’s two U.S. senators – Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) have joined Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and 13 other senators on Thursday in announcing their plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would undo Thursday’s action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and restore the 2015 net neutrality rules. The FCC Thursday afternoon approved an item that guts the 2015 Open Internet Order, which the D.C. Circuit Court upheld in 2016.  The Open Internet Order prohibited internet service providers from setting up internet fast and slow lanes and ensured they could not block or slow down internet traffic. “Donald Trump’s FCC made an historic mistake today by overturning its net neutrality rules, and we cannot let it stand,” said Senator Markey. “Without strong net neutrality rules, entrepreneurs, inventors, small businesses, activists and all those who rely on a free and open internet will be at the mercy of big broadband companies that can block websites, slow down traffic and charge websites fees in order to increase their profits. “We will fight the FCC’s decisions in the courts, and we will fight it in the halls of Congress,” continued Senator Markey. “With this CRA, Congress can correct the Commission’s misguided and partisan decision and keep the internet in the hands of the people, not big corporations. Our Republicans colleagues have a choice - be on the right side of history and stand with the American people who support net neutrality, or hold hands with the big cable and broadband companies who only want to supercharge their profits at the expense of consumers and our economy.” A copy of the CRA can be found HERE. Senator Markey’s resolution of disapproval would rescind FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s item and fully restore the Open Internet Order. CRA resolutions allow Congress to overturn regulatory actions at federal agencies with a simple majority vote in both chambers.  In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the senators will formally introduce the resolution once the rule is submitted to both houses of Congress and published in the federal register. Congressman Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) plans to introduce a CRA resolution in the House of Representatives.   In addition to Leahy and Sanders, other senators cosponsoring the CRA resolution include Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii.), Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-usda-economic-development-investments-in-vermont-this-year-now-top-222-million,Leahy: USDA Economic Development Investments In Vermont This Year Now Top $222 Million,2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.14.17 Leahy: USDA Economic Development Investments In Vermont This Year Now Top $222 Million Senator  Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced Thursday that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) economic development investments in the Vermont now total more than $222 million during fiscal year 2017.  Federal funds supported a broad range of activities in thirteen Vermont counties, including business development, housing construction and purchases, municipal investments in infrastructure and awards to academic institutions of higher education.   The funds were made available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Rural Development (USDA-RD) an arm of USDA focused on helping rural communities thrive. Leahy is a leading member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees USDA and handles the Senate’s work in writing Farm Bills, and he now also is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which annually appropriates funds for the USDA.  Leahy said:  “These USDA investments are empowering local organizations and businesses to make our Vermont communities stronger.  The diverse nature of Rural Development’s programs mean that federal help can be pre-tailored to address distinct needs for each community.  As Congress begins writing a new Farm Bill in 2018, I’ll be focused on making sure that USDA-RD continues to have resources like these to invest in Vermont.” USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, administers and manages housing, business and community infrastructure programs through a national network of state and local offices.  These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers to improve the quality of life in rural areas. For 2017 USDA RD awarded more than $9 million in business loans and grants, assisted more than 400 Vermonters in purchasing homes, and invested $128 million in community facilities and infrastructure.   Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-usda-economic-development-investments-in-washington-county-this-year-now-top-51-million,Leahy: USDA Economic Development Investments In Washington County This Year Now Top $5.1 Million,2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.14.17 Leahy: USDA Economic Development Investments In Washington County This Year Now Top $5.1 Million Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced Thursday that USDA economic development investments in Washington County now total more than $5.1 million during fiscal year 2017.  Area businesses, nonprofits and economic development organizations received 12 awards from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Rural Development (USDA-RD) to assist with a diverse range of projects that included business assistance, capital for startup businesses and energy efficiency improvements.  Leahy is a leading member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees USDA and handles the Senate’s work in writing Farm Bills, and he now also is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which annually appropriates funds for the USDA. Leahy said:  “These USDA investments are empowering local organizations and businesses to make our Vermont communities stronger.  The diverse nature of Rural Development’s programs mean that federal help can be pre-tailored to address distinct needs for each community.  As Congress begins writing a new Farm Bill in 2018, I’ll be focused on making sure that USDA-RD continues to have resources like these to invest in Vermont.” USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, administers and manages housing, business and community infrastructure programs through a national network of state and local offices.  These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers to improve the quality of life in rural areas.   Grants Organization $34,380 Green Mountain Harvest $144,091 Central VT Solid Waste Management District $29,500 Center for Wholesome Communities $30,000 Barre Historical Society $45,116 Vermont Council on Rural Development $11,906 Bear Roots Farm LLC Loans   $250,000 Community Capital of Vermont $2,400,000 Pitcher Inn Partners LLC $1,000,000 VT Community Loan Fund Loan/Grant   $605,000 Community Capital of Vermont $575,000 Central Vermont Economic Development Corporation Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-usda-economic-development-investments-in-windham-county-this-year-now-top-31-million,Leahy: USDA Economic Development Investments In Windham County This Year Now Top $3.1 Million,2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.14.17 Leahy: USDA Economic Development Investments In Windham County This Year Now Top $3.1 Million Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced Thursday that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) economic development investments in Windham County now total more than $3.1 million during fiscal year 2017.  Area businesses, nonprofits and municipalities received 16 awards from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Rural Development (USDA-RD) to assist with a diverse range of projects that included business assistance, infrastructure upgrades and energy efficiency improvements.  The USDA-RD investments leveraged an additional $7 million from other sources for a collective impact of $10.3 million. Leahy is a leading member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees USDA and handles the Senate’s work in writing Farm Bills, and he now also is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which annually appropriates funds for the USDA. Leahy said:  “These USDA investments are empowering local organizations and businesses to make our Vermont communities stronger.  The diverse nature of Rural Development’s programs mean that federal help can be pre-tailored to address distinct needs for each community.  As Congress begins writing a new Farm Bill in 2018, I’ll be focused on making sure that USDA-RD continues to have resources like these to invest in Vermont.” USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, administers and manages housing, business and community infrastructure programs through a national network of state and local offices.  These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers to improve the quality of life in rural areas.     Grant Organization $14,000 Post Oil Solutions $500,000 Brattleboro Development Credit Corporation $7,700 Holton Home $21,000 Sandglass Theater $503,000 Village of Saxtons River $375,750 Women's Community Center, Inc. $26,670 Friends of the Brattleboro Music Center, Inc. $11,700 Friends of the Brattleboro Music Center, Inc. $11,630 Friends of the Brattleboro Music Center, Inc. $27,300 Holton Home $50,000 Brattleboro School District $12,020 Retreat Farm, Ltd. $50,000 Women's Community Center, Inc. $1,500,000 Southeast Vermont Transit $65,638 Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. $3,487 Ampers and Brockway Mills Hydro LLC Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-vermont-is-a-crucial-step-closer-to-improved-air-and-rail-travel-with-canada,Leahy: Vermont Is A Crucial Step Closer To Improved Air And Rail Travel With Canada,2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.14.17 Leahy: Vermont Is A Crucial Step Closer To Improved Air And Rail Travel With Canada Senator Patrick Leahy hails action this week by the Canadian Parliament to pass new customs preclearance language into law that will make possible improved rail and air travel between Vermont – and other points in the United States -- and Canada. The Canadian Senate passed the legislation, known as C-23, last week, and the bill took its last step in the Canadian legislative process on Tuesday night, receiving Royal Assent.  The bill is companion legislation to Leahy’s Promoting Travel, Commerce, and National Security Act, which became law in 2016.  With the law’s adoption, streamlined customs procedures will be implemented for air travel – and eventually passenger rail service – between Burlington and Canadian cities, and between other U.S. and Canadian destinations.  Following enactment of C-23, the Canadian government will work to adopt implementing regulations. Leahy said:  “Passage of C-23 is a major milestone that brings Vermont another crucial step closer to smoother travel to Canada.  I had a very positive call this week with the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, David MacNaughton, about the vital ways that expanded preclearance will help strengthen ties between Vermont and Canada.  With this legislation now in place, Canada and the United States – and especially Vermont -- are poised to reap the rewards of improved border security and better economic growth.  I look forward to continuing my work and partnership with the Canadian government to make expanded preclearance a reality.” The international agreement advances two of Leahy’s key national goals: enhancing U.S. national security, and increasing efficiency for travelers and commercial exchanges.  Leahy has long advocated improving cross-border travel and was the driving force behind this effort, writing the bill, forging the bipartisan and bicameral coalition, and guiding its passage through the Senate and into law. The United States currently operates preclearance facilities at 15 airports in 6 countries, including Canada.  These facilities allow individuals to pass through Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspections prior to traveling, expediting their arrival in the United States, and protecting national security by preventing those who should not be traveling to the United States from doing so before they arrive.  Under a new agreement, the United States will expand its preclearance operations in Canada.  The Leahy-authored legislation ensures that the United States has the legal authority to hold U.S. officials accountable if they engage in wrongdoing while stationed in Canada – a necessary prerequisite to full implementation of this agreement. These international, cross-border efforts remove all legislative hurdles to the creation of a preclearance facility at Montreal’s Central Station, for reestablishing passenger train service between Vermont and Montreal, and is a step forward to improve air service between Burlington International Airport and Toronto City Airport.  The United States currently stations CBP officers in select locations in Canada to inspect passengers and cargo bound for the United States before they leave Canada.  These preclearance operations relieve congestion at U.S. airports, improve commerce, save money, and provide national security benefits. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/reaction-of-senator-patrick-leahy-d-vt-to-the-fccs-vote-to-repeal-net-neutrality-protections,Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) To The FCCs Vote To Repeal Net Neutrality Protections,2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.14.17 Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) To The FCC’s Vote To Repeal Net Neutrality Protections [Following is the statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) about the FCC’s action Thursday to dismantle the FCC’s earlier net neutrality rules.  Leahy has long been a leading advocate of net neutrality and brought the Senate Judiciary Committee to Vermont to hear testimony from small Vermont businesses, libraries and ordinary Vermonters about the importance of keeping the internet unhindered by ‘toll lanes’ and other discriminatory practices.] “Today the FCC took a wrecking ball to the pillars of freedom and openness upon which the Internet was built.  Without the protection of net neutrality rules, powerful telecommunication companies can decide which content gets preferential treatment and which gets throttled or even blocked.  That will hurt consumers, small businesses and startups.  The FCC is stifling innovation and competition.  “This has been a rushed, cynical and slipshod process that has been fundamentally flawed.  Chairman Pai and the FCC’s Republican majority have shown a shocking disregard for the overwhelming input from the public, choosing instead to listen only to those with the deepest pockets.  They have made it clear that the voices of the American people do not matter to them and will be ignored in President Trump’s Washington.  As a staunch supporter of net neutrality rules, I will keep fighting until these protections are restored.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-floor-statement-on-repeal-of-net-neutrality-rules,Leahy Floor Statement On Repeal Of Net Neutrality Rules,2017-12-13,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.13.17 Leahy Floor Statement On Repeal Of Net Neutrality Rules This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is preparing to give a giant, early Christmas present to a few, deep-pocketed telecom companies, as it prepares to repeal critical net neutrality protections.  Net neutrality is the simple principle that the Internet should be kept free and open by preventing the corporations who control the connections to selectively throttle or block certain content.  Repealing net neutrality rules will benefit just a few powerful corporations—and it will do so at the expense of small businesses, consumers, and hardworking Americans, whose persistent and passionate voices on this issue have been completely ignored by the FCC’s Republican majority. Despite calling for public hearings when the current net neutrality protections were developed, Chairman Pai has failed to heed his own advice now that he is in charge of the FCC.  The only people he seems to have listened to are those with deep enough pockets to afford high-powered lobbyists.  If you are a concerned citizen or small business owner, your voice does not matter to this FCC.  As someone who held public hearings on this issue in 2014, I can tell you that there is widespread and overwhelming support for net neutrality just about everywhere except at the FCC itself. If Chairman Pai took the time to listen, as I did, he would hear from small business owners like Cabot Orton at the Vermont Country Store, who told me, “we’re not asking for special treatment, incentives or subsidies. All the small business community asks is simply to preserve and protect Internet commerce as it exists today, which has served all businesses remarkably well.”  Just today, we have received a letter from businesses in northern New England, including Vermont’s own Ben and Jerry’s, Cabot Creamery Cooperative, and King Arthur Flour, discussing the “crippling effect” a repeal of net neutrality rules would have on rural businesses.  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Chairman Pai would hear from libraries, which for some rural communities are the only way to access the Internet.  As Vermont’s State Librarian, Martha Reid, told me: “All Americans—including the most disenfranchised citizens, those who would have no way to access the Internet without the library—need to be able to use Internet resources on an equal footing.”  Chairman Pai would also hear from independent content creators whose voices are too often not heard on traditional media.  As actress, writer, and producer Ruth Livier told me: “[I]n the unprecedented world of an open, nondiscriminatory Internet, no longer did low-budgets and no connections mean there was no way in.  Never again could we be disregarded by anyone who essentially asks, ‘Who are you to have your story be told?’”  These are the voices that are being ignored, and these are the Americans who stand to lose the most from Chairman Pai’s misguided plan.  This is not about partisanship.  Republicans and Democrats alike benefit from the power of an open Internet, and equally stand to be harmed if the rules of the road ensuring its openness go away.  None of us should support a process that willfully dismisses the voices of our constituents.  I hope that all Senators will join me in calling on the FCC to abandon its reckless vote to repeal net neutrality. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/why-budget-parity-matters-the-need-for-investing-equally-in-our-military-and-our-communities,Why Budget Parity Matters: The Need For Investing Equally In Our Military And Our Communities,2017-12-13,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.13.17 Why Budget Parity Matters: The Need For Investing Equally In Our Military And Our Communities By Senator Patrick Leahy Democrats and Republicans agree that we must fully fund and support our military.  But our military readiness is being hampered by artificial and unrealistically low caps on defense spending, as a result of the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, and that law’s required spending cuts known as “sequestration.” In July, Defense Secretary Mattis testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that “for all the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of our military than sequestration.” This is a made-in-Washington problem, and we can fix it.  In July, I offered a plan that would have addressed the needs of our military by increasing defense spending by $54 billion in fiscal year 2018.  But the devastating consequences of these artificial spending caps reach far beyond the Pentagon.  Constraining spending on non-defense priorities like infrastructure, job training, education, public safety and meal programs have been equally devastating.  As an example, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our country’s infrastructure a D+ for 2016.  This was the collective grade for the roads, bridges, dams, drinking water and wastewater, public parks and schools on which we all depend.  We need real and effective investments to repair and improve our crumbling infrastructure across the country.     This is why we cannot just provide relief for our defense spending needs.  My plan would have raised the spending caps for both defense spending and non-defense spending by $54 billion, an equal increase commonly referred to as “parity.” Much of our national security is funded through non-defense programs, such as caring for our veterans, the Coast Guard, and the FBI. Parity is the principle that we can both strengthen our military and ensure that every child can access a healthy, complete breakfast and lunch at school.  It is the principle that our national security is intrinsically linked to the investments we make in our communities.  Secretary Mattis agrees with this principle, and once famously said that if we do not fully fund the State Department, we should be prepared to buy more ammunition for our military.   This is not an option between using tax dollars to stock pile ammunition or investing in programs that make the world safer by feeding starving children, that help other countries care for and protect millions of refugees fleeing violence or civil war, that combat HIV and other life-threatening diseases, and that promote democracy.  We can responsibly do both.  I’ll finish with one last quote from Secretary Mattis: “America’s got two fundamental powers: the power of intimidation and the power of inspiration.  We inspire the world with the investments that we make in ourselves.  We make sure a child goes to school without worrying where her next meal is coming from.  Because a hungry child cannot learn and go on to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a Marine, and accomplish her American dream. Parity is the idea that investments in our security and investments in our communities are not separate priorities.  Parity serves the idea of a stronger America that tends to our country’s true and pressing national priorities.  We must meet our responsibilities, now, to our constituents, to our communities, and to future generations.  The stakes we face are too high for gamesmanship.    # # # # # #   [Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.] Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/roll-call-trumps-jerusalem-decision-called-provocative-counterproductive,"Roll Call: Trump's Jerusalem Decision Called 'Provocative,' Counterproductive",2017-12-11,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"President Donald Trump says his decision to buck the advice of America’s closest Muslim allies and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is part of a broader strategy shift needed to produce a Middle East peace pact. But some lawmakers and experts argue the president has unnecessarily undercut himself. Trump on Wednesday formally announced he will abide by a 1995 U.S. law and move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognize that city as the country’s official capital. He noted that for the last 22 years, his predecessors have — despite some campaign-trail pledges to the contrary — exercised a waiver in that law to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv.   “Today, we finally acknowledge the obvious that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital,” the U.S. president said. “We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions,” he added in a not-that-veiled jab at Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That shot at the last three diplomats in chief was vintage Trump. So, too, were other parts of his Jerusalem address from the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room, which was noticeably decked out for Christmas. He said those three chief executives signed the law’s waivers every six months “based on facts as they understood them at the time.” “Nevertheless, the record is in. We are no closer to the lasting peace agreement” than the day Congress sent Clinton the Jerusalem Embassy Act, Trump said. He contended it would be “folly to assume that” his administration should follow “the exact same formula” as the previous three U.S. administrations in search of an Israeli-Palestinian peace pact and expect “a better result.” The Jerusalem decision also carried the hallmarks of the 45th president in its basis in Israel’s right — as a “sovereign country,” as Trump put it — to select its own capital city. The comment was reminiscent of ones he made during his recent swing through Asia, when he defended his “America first” governing philosophy and urged Asian countries to make decisions on trade based on a similar viewpoint and aggressive pursuit of their own interests over ones common to multiple countries. “Acknowledging this fact” is “essential” to the peace process, he said, adding that Jerusalem is the “capital the Jewish people established in ancient times.” In the president’s mind, his May trip to Israel and Palestinian Authority-controlled areas showed that “Jerusalem [is] the seat of modern Israeli government,” a city that is home to its government agencies and the official residences of its prime minister and president. “Many visiting U.S. presidents, secretaries of State and military leaders have met their counterparts in Jerusalem, as I did earlier this year,” he noted. The White House made its decision after a months-long review process, and without fear of sizable congressional backlash. A senior administration official who briefed reporters on the decision Tuesday evening noted that “10 successive Congresses” have reaffirmed the 1995 law in various ways, adding the Senate in June unanimously passed a resolution (90-0) that is reflected in Trump’s decision. That bipartisan resolution had 17 co-sponsors, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer. “Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected,” it states. “There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem for [three] millennia.” Indeed, the support for such a move was still bipartisan.  “Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel, something that the United States Congress has reaffirmed and a fact of history that cannot be denied. Our country must play a constructive role in supporting Israel as it seeks the peace and security its people deserve by continuing to promote a two-state solution through direct, bilateral negotiations that will end any question of Jerusalem’s status,” House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland said after Trump’s announcement.  The ornate room in the executive mansion featured several large Christmas trees, the familiar blue presidential podium and a table at which Trump signed his second Jerusalem Embassy Act waiver — which he will do every six months until a new embassy is erected in no fewer than three years. But the elephant in the geopolitical room still dominated the scene: Trump’s decision to buck the advice of America’s closest Muslim allies — including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — and make the move just as sources say his administration was making progress in its Middle East peace push. “He’s undercutting his own efforts at peacemaking. That’s the reality,” said Democratic Rep. Peter Welch, a member of the House Oversight National Security Subcommittee. “In the area of the efforts in the Middle East, I’m positive about the actions he’s taking. [His team] has been having success at gaining the trust of the Palestinians.” During an interview minutes before Trump’s formal announcement, Welch said Palestinian officials speak highly of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, the senior White House adviser who is leading the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort, and Jason Greenblatt, the administration’s top Middle East peace negotiator. “You need trust to get at the critical issues if you want to have any hope of a two-state solution. This action is highly provocative,” the Vermont Democrat said. “The reality is Israel controls Jerusalem, yes. But the city is also highly significant to Jews, Christians and Muslims. … This is very provocative move in the eyes to Muslims in the regions, and to some of our closest allies in that region.” For Welch and other skeptics, the head-scratching question is this, in his words: “Why take an action that even our Arab allies view as dangerous? It’s a finger in the eye to a lot of people in the region.” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who is the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that allocates the annual State Department budget from which the new embassy likely will be funded, called the decision a “terrible mistake.” “I think it, I’m sure, overjoyed major contributors” to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Leahy told reporters Wednesday morning. “But it was a bad mistake, and I think the fact of the reactions ... from the Jordanians on, shows how much it’s going to hamper efforts for real peace in the Middle East.” Asked by a Roll Call reporter if he worries the move will give a boost to Iran and groups like the Islamic State — whom foreign policy experts warn will be able to message, fundraise and recruit off Trump’s decision — Leahy let out a sardonic laugh before answering. “That’s what every leader over there says,” he replied. (Notably, however, that is not what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu contends.) Previous U.S. presidents have sided with the leaders of not only Jordan, but other close American allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey in opting against the embassy move and formal recognition. The leaders of those countries did just that in recent days, pleading with Trump in a series of telephone conversations to resist his instincts. But it was the president’s core beliefs in countering Washington’s long-held conventional thinking that won out. In his mind, being open about Jerusalem’s diplomatic status should help — not hold back — the peace process. He called his decision “the right thing to do” and “something that has to be done.” “There will, of course, be disagreement and dissent regarding this announcement — but we are confident that ultimately, as we work through these disagreements, we will arrive at a place of greater understanding and cooperation,” Trump said, his mouth becoming dry at points late in the speech for the second time in a few weeks in that very room. “I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended in any way to reflect a departure” from long-held U.S. policy positions on Jerusalem’s disputed borders or America’s pursuit of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish one, he said. Trump said his Jerusalem decision is merely a reflection of what he said is “obvious,” that Jerusalem already is the functional capital of Israel. The president also said the move should not and is not intended to affect his administration’s stated goals. “The United States would support a two-state solution, if agreed to by both sides,” he said, calling on “both sides to maintain the status quo” at the city’s holy sites. Always eager to cast himself as the dealmaker in chief, Trump declared that despite shunning the advice of Abbas and other Muslim leaders, he is intent on securing a “great deal” for both sides. But skeptics wonder just how far back he might have set Kushner and Greenblatt and question whether the decision is rooted in the former reality television star’s penchant to shake things up and generate headlines. “Being provocative, that’s not a plan, that’s a personality trait,” Welch said. “The trust-building that Greenblatt and Kushner were succeeding at, why undercut that? Why do this to be provocative and throw everyone into disarray?” “It’s like he wakes up every day and says, ‘Who can I upset today?’ I guess the answer today was the Palestinian Authority, Muslim people in the region and his Sunni allies,” he said. “It just leaves you mystified.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/st-albans-messenger-welch-its-dangerous-situation,St. Albans Messenger: Welch: 'It's a Dangerous Situation',2017-12-11,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"As the threat of another government shutdown loomed on Thursday, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., was busy dealing with an array of fast-changing events that will have varying degrees of impact in Vermont. “It’s wild,” Welch said in a conversation with the St. Albans Messenger. As he was waiting for the Republicans to offer a plan to fund the government, he refelected on Jerusalem, impeachment and the House firearms vote, all of which had taken place the day before. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced the U.S. would consider Jerusalem the capital of Israel, drawing rebukes from around the world. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, brought articles of impeachment to the House floor, and the House voted to override local gun laws and allow concealed carry of firearms in places that currently bar it. Then there was the government shutdown. “My guess is it will be averted,” Welch on Thursday. He was correct. The Republicans in both the House and Senate later that day passed a continuing resolution to keep the government operating until Dec. 22, with few Democratic votes. The resolution, he said, was entirely in Republican hands, and they didn’t want a distraction from their tax bill, he suggested. “Everything they’re doing is trying to get their tax bill through by Christmas,” Welch said. The debate over a continuing resolution and whether that resolution should keep the government running for two or three weeks was among three groups of Republican representatives and senators: the so-called Freedom Caucus, moderates and conservatives, Welch said — Democrats were excluded from the conversation. “My view, very strongly, is that we should keep the lights on,” he said. However, his position was that Democrats should oppose a continuing resolution unless it contains funding for fighting the opiate epidemic, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as well as an agreement that any cuts to non-military programs will be matched by cuts to the Pentagon budget. The resolution as passed did not include funding for CHIP, which provides health insurance on a sliding scale to children whose parents make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but who do not have access to health insurance through their employer. In Vermont, the program is known as Dr. Dynasaur. Congress allowed the program to expire in the fall, and across the country, states are starting to run out of money to pay for health care for children. REPUBLICANS ONLY Unlike his immediate predecessor, House Speaker Paul Ryan is not willing to build a coalition of Democrats and more moderate Republicans on issues such as the debt ceiling and the budget, explained Welch. “What Ryan has done so far is make a commitment to his conference that he won’t work with Democrats,” said Welch. “And his conference is divided. “It’s a dangerous situation, quite frankly,” Welch added. The Republicans negotiated both their health care repeal bills and the current tax proposals behind closed doors and without input from Democrats. The bills were, Welch said, “written in secret.” He expressed concern the budget may take a similar path. “In any budget, there’s negotiations,” said Welch, who once led the Vermont Senate. “We simply have to get back to some compromise.” As things stand, Welch said Ryan has “handcuffed himself and he’d given the keys to the handcuffs to the Freedom Caucus, the most extreme elements of his caucus.” IMPEACHMENT Welch voted to table Green’s impeachment resolution, along with 363 other members of the House. Just 58 Democrats voted in favor of proceeding with the articles, with four voting present. “I think President Trump has been divisive and destructive,” said Welch. “It’s dismaying to me how much chaos he’s created.” Welch cited specifically Trump’s efforts at deregulation, his decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords, and his efforts to end the Affordable Care Act health insurance programs without a replacement. “He’s been very divisive,” Welch repeated. It was that divisiveness which Green made the focus of his articles of impeachment. Previous impeachment articles have accused the president of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by profiting from his role as president, and alleged collusion with Russia. Green’s accused the President of dividing the country by promoting and expressing bigotry against a number of groups including blacks, Muslims, Puerto Ricans and people who are transgender. “We’ve got to hold the President accountable,” said Welch, but he argued that the investigation being led by special counsel Robert Mueller into the connections between Trump’s campaign and administration and Russia are the best means of doing that. “The Mueller investigation is aggressive and it’s making progress,” Welch said. “We’ve really got to support Mueller (and) continue to let him pursue all the facts,” he said. “There’s a lot of smoke there,” said Welch, noting that the President initially denied any contacts with Russia, but now evidence has shown considerable contact during both the campaign and the transition between members of Trump’s team and Russians. Some of those Russians have been members of the government while others reportedly had close ties to it. “In reality, the impeachment process is political,” said Welch. While the Constitution states a president and other federal officials may be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” that term has never been defined. Before an impeachment can take place, “you’ve got to establish a foundation that has credibility with the American people and that requires investigation,” Welch said.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/net-neutrality-showdown-leahy-and-other-senators-use-fcc-chairs-own-words-to-urge-him-to-delay-thursdays-vote-until-full-impact-can-be-considered,"NET NEUTRALITY SHOWDOWN Leahy & Other Senators Use FCC Chair's Own Words To Urge Him To Delay Thursday's Vote, Until Full Impact Can Be Considered",2017-12-08,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.08.17 NET NEUTRALITY SHOWDOWN Leahy & Other Senators Use FCC Chair's Own Words To Urge Him To Delay Thursday's Vote, Until Full Impact Can Be Considered As Next Week’s Threatened Repeal Of Net Neutrality Rules Looms, Leahy And Other Senators, In A Letter To FCC Chair Pai, Use Pai’s Own Words To Urge Delay Of The Net Neutrality Vote Until The Full Impact Of Repeal Can Be Faithfully Considered WASHINGTON (FRIDAY, Dec. 8, 2017) – Continuing the fight against next week’s threatened repeal of net neutrality rules, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and other senators, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), are urging Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai to delay the FCC’s December 14 vote on repealing net neutrality rules until the full impact of repeal can be faithfully considered, in accordance with Pai’s own earlier standards of rulemaking. Leahy for years has been a leader in pressing for net neutrality rules, and he brought the Senate Judiciary Committee to Vermont to hear directly from Vermont businesses, nonprofit organizations and citizens about the harm that would directly come from installing “toll booths” on the Internet. In a letter sent to Pai on Friday, Blumenthal and Leahy, joined by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), quoted Pai’s statements from his dissent of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the 2015 Open Internet Order, which established the rules – known as net neutrality – that protect the open internet. In his dissent, Pai reprimanded his FCC colleagues for their failure to “give the American people a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process,” and “ensure that [FCC’s] decisions are based on a robust record.” To meet these standards, Pai suggested commissioning a series of studies by ten economists that would fully evaluate the impact of net neutrality. “Accordingly,” wrote the senators, “we ask that you heed your own advice and delay your planned vote on this item until you have faithfully executed all of the steps outlined above and provided the American people ‘a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process.’” The full text of the senators’ letter is available for download here, and copied below. Dear Chairman Pai: We understand that you intend the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to vote on your draft order to dismantle our current net neutrality rules at the upcoming Open Commission Meeting on Thursday, December 14. We write calling on you to delay this vote. As you will remember, in your dissent of the 2015 Open Internet Order (Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28), you stated: “Going forward, we need to give the American people a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process. And we must ensure that our decisions are based on a robust record. “So what is the way forward? Here is one suggestion. Just as we commissioned a series of economic studies in past media-ownership proceedings, we should ask ten distinguished economists from across the country to study the impact of our proposed regulations and alternative approaches on the Internet ecosystem. To ensure that we obtain a wide range of perspectives, let each Commissioner pick two authors. To ensure accuracy, each study should be peer reviewed. And to ensure public oversight, we should host a series of hearings where Commissioners could question the authors of the studies and the authors of those studies could discuss their differences. Surely the future of the Internet is no less important than media ownership. “But we should not limit ourselves to economic studies. We should also engage computer scientists, technologists, and other technical experts to tell us how they see the Internet’s infrastructure and consumers’ online experience evolving. Their studies too should be subject to peer review and public hearings.” Accordingly, we ask that you heed your own advice and delay your planned vote on this item until you have faithfully executed all of the steps outlined above and provided the American people “a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process.” It is vital that all aspects of the draft order are subject to the same peer review and public hearings you have always advocated. This is necessary to ensure “our decisions are based on a robust record.” Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. # # # # # Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-displays-works-artist-candy-barr-vermont-office,Welch Displays Works by Artist Candy Barr in Vermont Office,2017-12-07,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) is currently presenting 10 paintings in his Burlington office by local artist Candy Barr. The exhibit is entitled “Vermont & Maine: Paintings on Location.” Barr graduated from Rhode Island School of Design with both a BFA in Painting and a MAT in Lithography, and also earned a MFA from Vermont College. Her work has been described as “moving"" and as being ""a true master of color.""  From Warren since 1976, with over 50 years of painting experience from models and working on locations in plein air, she brings a breadth of knowledge of art history, exquisite skill for color and a deep understanding of what makes paint come to life.   “I’m pleased to be able to recognize talented Vermont artists like Candy by featuring their work in my Vermont office,” said Rep. Welch. “I hope Vermonters will take the opportunity to visit my office and enjoy these works of art.” ""Making paintings brings me great pleasure while the unsettled world today contributes to my desire to seek comfort in nature,” said Barr. “I am most comfortable while intensely observing my environment and during the mindful processes of painting it."" The exhibit will be on display through the end of April 2018. The public is invited to Barr’s work.  Welch’s Vermont office is located at the Vermont Innovation Center at 128 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 235 in Burlington. Office hours are Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm. For more information on Barr’s work, please visit http://candybarrartist.com. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/appropriations-vice-chairman-leahys-statement-on-a-continuing-resolution-through-december-22,Appropriations Vice Chairman Leahy's Statement On A Continuing Resolution Through December 22,2017-12-07,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.07.17 Appropriations Vice Chairman Leahy's Statement On A Continuing Resolution Through December 22 The current spending caps set in place by law will not responsibly fund the government or alleviate the consequences of sequestration on our domestic priorities or our military readiness. Since March, I have constantly repeated that we must reach a bipartisan budget deal that is based on parity, free of poison pill riders and not waste taxpayer dollars on President Trump’s useless border wall.  But with the current continuing resolution expiring tomorrow, we are running out of time to reach an agreement. The continuing resolution before us today will allow us more time to reach a bipartisan agreement and keep the government’s lights on during negotiations.  The key to a successful negotiation is parity. Sequestration has had devastating consequences on our country that will impact a generation, but we must raise the caps on both sides of the ledger—defense and non-defense.  This is not an academic exercise.  The decisions we make here today have real impacts on people’s lives.  There is no question that sequestration has hurt our military readiness, but it has also hurt our Nation’s economy and led to a decline in critical government services on which millions of Americans depend.   Our veterans have been short-changed.  An average of 558,000 veterans fail to get a healthcare appointment within the 30-day standard.  The average wait time for the VA to process a benefit appeal is over three years.  Our infrastructure is crumbling.  America now gets a D+ rating from the American Society of Civil Engineers.  This means the roads, bridges, dams, drinking water, public parks and schools we all use and depend on have a near failing grade.   Education programs have suffered.  The purchasing power of the maximum Pell Grant now covers only 29 percent of the average price for college.  Our elderly citizens are getting short-changed.  More than 1 million Social Security benefits appeals are backlogged an average of 605 days.  An estimated 10,000 people die each year before their appeals are completed.  I could go on and on.  If we raise the caps for defense programs but do not also raise the caps to properly fund our non-defense priorities, we will still short-change our men and women in uniform.  If we do not invest in our Nation’s economy and educate our youth, the military will not have the expertise, qualified soldiers, or advanced research that it needs to be the best in the world.  If we do not invest in diplomacy, our world becomes less safe – and we are less safe.  And we would fail to provide the level of care for our veterans that they deserve. I am confident that we can reach an agreement that addresses our country’s needs and responsibly funds our government.  It is discouraging that the President has cast doubt on these negotiations and has even invited a “good government shutdown.”  Even more discouraging is a recent Washington Post story reporting that the President has told confidants that a government shutdown would be good for him politically.  This is irresponsible and no way to govern.  In all my years in the Senate, with Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, never have I heard such damaging rhetoric come from the President of the United States. The last Republican shutdown in 2013 dealt a devastating blow to the Nation’s economic growth, amounting to an estimated $1.5 billion lost for each of the 16 days of the shutdown.  Federal workers were furloughed, through no fault of their own, for a combined total of 6.6 million days, stalling important research and grinding our government to a halt.  To be clear, the Republicans are in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House.  If there is a Republican shutdown this fiscal year, it is because they want one.  I hope that the two-week continuing resolution that is before us is an indication that they will not go down that path.  Republicans should work with Democrats to produce a responsible, bipartisan budget deal that meets the needs of our Nation.  We have squandered enough time.  I stand ready – as I have been since March – to work with the Republican leadership to secure the funding agreements we need to complete our appropriations work for this fiscal year.  This two-week continuing resolution will give us that chance.  I urge an aye vote.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/peoples-academy-high-school,People's Academy High School,2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.06.17 People's Academy High School On December 6, 2017, Senator Leahy had the opportunity to chat with students from Peoples Academy High School in Morrisville.  Senator Leahy enjoyed answering questions from students who are studying genocide, human rights, international law and foreign policy as well as students studying Spanish.  Senator Leahy was very impressed with the students’ thoughtful questions and enjoyed hearing their insights on human rights abuses and genocide and how the United States can be a global leader.  He also appreciated the students’ dedication to helping Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands rebuild after the recent hurricanes. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/comment-of-senator-leahy-on-president-trumps-decision-on-the-us-embassy-in-israel,Comment Of Senator Leahy On President Trumps Decision On The U.S. Embassy In Israel,2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.06.17 Comment Of Senator Leahy On President Trump’s Decision On The U.S. Embassy In Israel “Campaign promises to score political points, without careful consideration of U.S. national interests, rarely make good policy, and I fear this is a particularly dangerous example of that.  It will make the already distant goal of peace in the Middle East that much harder to reach.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/comment-of-senator-patrick-leahy-on-senator-al-franken,Comment of Senator Patrick Leahy On Senator Al Franken,2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.06.17 Comment of Senator Patrick Leahy On Senator Al Franken I just learned of the latest, disturbing allegation against Senator Franken.  While the facts from case to case can differ, and while there are sound reasons for weighing evidence in such cases in a deliberate and carefully considered process, Senator Franken’s situation has become untenable.  I am concerned that even a prompt Ethics Committee investigation and recommendations will not come soon enough.  He has to step aside.  I hope as a nation that we are beginning to come to terms with the systemic problem of sexual harassment and assault, but we still have a long way to go. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-at-appropriations-subcommittee-hearing-addressing-the-opioid-crisis-in-america,"Leahy Statement At Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing ""Addressing The Opioid Crisis In America""",2017-12-05,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.05.17 Leahy Statement At Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing ""Addressing The Opioid Crisis In America"" Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Here’s a startling statistic: last year alone, drug overdoses claimed the lives of 64,000 people.  This is the latest figure in a shocking rise in overdose deaths, driven by the opioid epidemic that has hit every corner of our country, and plagues every community.  This is a public health crisis.  We need to start treating it like one.  We need to allocate every necessary resource to finally – and meaningfully – confront it.  Vermont has made tremendous strides by leveraging Medicaid dollars through a “hub and spoke” model to confront opioid addiction as a healthcare crisis, not an incarceration problem.  This is a system that provides patients with medication-assisted treatment and connects patients with a variety of resources from housing to peer support to counseling, not just once or twice, but through their recovery and beyond.  In Vermont, this model is proving effective.  But we must continue to invest in it.  It is alarming and disappointing that, from the start of his administration, President Trump has refused to make the necessary investments to tackle the opioid epidemic.  The President’s budget request seeks to eliminate programs, like the anti-heroin task force, that have proven to be effective.  In fact, in his budget, President Trump called for reducing funding for the opioid epidemic by $104 million.  And President Trump’s long awaited October declaration on the nationwide opioids crisis proved nothing more than symbolic talk.  There is no action or new funding behind the President’s empty words to address this crisis.  This is unacceptable. Even worse, in the middle of the night Saturday, Republicans here in the Senate voted to slash Medicaid by $1 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.  Medicaid is a critical lifeline to provide care for victims of opioid abuse and is the main funding source behind Vermont’s “hub and spoke” model.   We cannot pretend to be seriously addressing this crisis while simultaneously kicking the legs out from under the recovery effort.  Here in the Senate Appropriations Committee, however, we are trying to meet our commitment to address this public health crisis. The fiscal year 2018 Senate Appropriations bills would provide more than $1.6 billion in funding. Since March, I have been calling for a bipartisan deal that would raise the spending caps for both defense and non-defense spending and allow us to increase these investments, because we still need to be doing more.  It is now December.  We need that deal, and we need it now. It should not be understated: 64,000 people lost their lives to opioid addiction last year.  Tens of thousands of more people were impacted by those deaths – families, friends, communities.  I fear those numbers will only rise this year, next year, and beyond if we do not act now to fight this epidemic.  It affects us all.  It’s time we give it the serious attention and investment it demands. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-regarding-the-fccs-rollback-of-net-neutrality-protections,Leahy Statement Regarding the FCC's Rollback of Net Neutrality Protections,2017-12-05,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.05.17 Leahy Statement Regarding the FCC's Rollback of Net Neutrality Protections Next week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will consider a proposed rule that, if approved, will end “net neutrality” as we know it and will threaten the foundation of a free and open Internet.  Net neutrality is the simple proposition that Internet service providers should treat all Internet traffic the same; they should not be able to exploit their power to charge for preferred treatment, allowing big corporations to dominate the Internet. The Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, wants the FCC to undo its protections for net neutrality.  His proposed ruling is perversely styled as “Restoring Internet Freedom,” when in fact it would do the opposite.  It would allow Internet service providers to decide which websites will be privileged and which will be throttled or even blocked.  Make no mistake:  This will mean that the big firms that can afford the “fast lane” will be protected, while harming consumers, start-ups, and potentially even freedom of speech online. Alarmingly, Chairman Pai has decided to ignore millions of comments submitted by individuals across the country, citing concerns that they are not “unique.”  As a member of Congress accountable to my constituents, this is a particularly offensive posture.  “Unique” or not, comments and concerns submitted to my office by Vermonters are treated with the same weight and value as any other.  Until the FCC fully and meaningfully considers the more than 21.7 million comments it has received about this proposed rule, it should not proceed with this vote. A recent New York Times article by Farhad Manjoo, entitled, “The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality Hastens That Death,” lays out clearly why the FCC’s proposed repeal of net neutrality will bring the open Internet one giant leap closer to becoming a corporate playground.  If, as expected, Chairman Pai jams through his proposed rule change next week, it will be clear that he has done so to the benefit of a few deep-pocketed corporations and to the detriment of everyone else who relies on the Internet to support commerce, communication, and community.  I ask unanimous consent that the article by Mr. Manjoo be printed in the Record. # # # # # The New York Times November 29, 2017 The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality Hastens That Death. By Farhad Manjoo The internet is dying. Sure, technically, the internet still works. Pull up Facebook on your phone and you will still see your second cousin’s baby pictures. But that isn’t really the internet. It’s not the open, anyone-can-build-it network of the 1990s and early 2000s, the product of technologies created over decades through government funding and academic research, the network that helped undo Microsoft’s stranglehold on the tech business and gave us upstarts like Amazon, Google, Facebook and Netflix. Nope, that freewheeling internet has been dying a slow death — and a vote next month by the Federal Communications Commission to undo net neutrality would be the final pillow in its face. Net neutrality is intended to prevent companies that provide internet service from offering preferential treatment to certain content over their lines. The rules prevent, for instance, AT&T from charging a fee to companies that want to stream high-definition videos to people. Because net neutrality shelters start-ups — which can’t easily pay for fast-line access — from internet giants that can pay, the rules are just about the last bulwark against the complete corporate takeover of much of online life. When the rules go, the internet will still work, but it will look like and feel like something else altogether — a network in which business development deals, rather than innovation, determine what you experience, a network that feels much more like cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and Netflix. If this sounds alarmist, consider that the state of digital competition is already pretty sorry. As I’ve argued regularly, much of the tech industry is at risk of getting swallowed by giants. Today’s internet is lousy with gatekeepers, tollbooths and monopolists. The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business. A handful of broadband companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, many of which are also aiming to become content companies, because why not — provide virtually all the internet connections to American homes and smartphones. Together these giants have carved the internet into a historically profitable system of fiefs. They have turned a network whose very promise was endless innovation into one stuck in mud, where every start-up is at the tender mercy of some of the largest corporations on the planet. Many companies feel this shift. In a letter to Ajit Pai, the F.C.C. chairman, who drafted the net neutrality repeal order, more than 200 start-ups argued this week that the order “would put small and medium-sized businesses at a disadvantage and prevent innovative new ones from even getting off the ground.” This, they said, was “the opposite of the open market, with a few powerful cable and phone companies picking winners and losers instead of consumers.” This was not the way the internet was supposed to go. At its deepest technical level, the internet was designed to avoid the central points of control that now command it. The technical scheme arose from an even deeper philosophy. The designers of the internet understood that communications networks gain new powers through their end nodes — that is, through the new devices and services that plug into the network, rather than the computers that manage traffic on the network. This is known as the “end-to-end” principle of network design, and it basically explains why the internet led to so many more innovations than the centralized networks that came before it, such as the old telephone network. The internet’s singular power, in its early gold-rush days, was its flexibility. People could imagine a dazzling array of new uses for the network, and as quick as that, they could build and deploy them — a site that sold you books, a site that cataloged the world’s information, an application that let you “borrow” other people’s music, a social network that could connect you to anyone. You didn’t need permission for any of this stuff; some of these innovations ruined traditional industries, some fundamentally altered society, and many were legally dubious. But the internet meant you could just put it up, and if it worked, the rest of the world would quickly adopt it. But if flexibility was the early internet’s promise, it was soon imperiled. In 2003, Tim Wu, a law professor now at Columbia Law School (he’s also a contributor to The New York Times), saw signs of impending corporate control over the growing internet. Broadband companies that were investing great sums to roll out faster and faster internet service to Americans were becoming wary of running an anything-goes network. Some of the new uses of the internet threatened their bottom line. People were using online services as an alternative to paying for cable TV or long-distance phone service. They were connecting devices like Wi-Fi routers, which allowed them to share their connections with multiple devices. At the time, there were persistent reports of broadband companies seeking to block or otherwise frustrate these new services; in a few years, some broadband providers would begin blocking new services outright. To Mr. Wu, the broadband monopolies looked like a threat to the end-to-end idea that had powered the internet. In a legal journal, he outlined an idea for regulation to preserve the internet’s equal-opportunity design — and hence was born “net neutrality.” Though it has been through a barrage of legal challenges and resurrections, some form of net neutrality has been the governing regime on the internet since 2005. The new F.C.C. order would undo the idea completely; companies would be allowed to block or demand payment for certain traffic as they liked, as long as they disclosed the arrangements. At the moment, broadband companies are promising not to act unfairly, and they argue that undoing the rules would give them further incentive to invest in their broadband capacity, ultimately improving the internet. Brian Hart, an F.C.C. spokesman, said broadband companies would still be covered by antitrust laws and other rules meant to prevent anticompetitive behavior. He noted that Mr. Pai’s proposals would simply return the network to an earlier, pre-network-neutrality regulatory era. “The internet flourished under this framework before, and it will again,” he said. Broadband companies are taking a similar line. When I pointed out to a Comcast spokeswoman that the company’s promises were only voluntary — that nothing will prevent Comcast from one day creating special tiers of internet service with bundled content, much like the way it now sells cable TV — she suggested I was jumping the gun. After all, people have been predicting the end of the internet for years. In 2003, Michael Copps, a Democratically appointed commissioner on the F.C.C. who was alarmed by the central choke points then taking command of the internet, argued that “we could be witnessing the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it.” It’s been a recurrent theme among worriers ever since. In 2014, the last time it looked like net neutrality would get gutted, Nilay Patel, editor of the Verge, declared the internet dead (he used another word for “dead”). And he did it again this year, anticipating Mr. Pai’s proposal. But look, you might say: Despite the hand-wringing, the internet has kept on trucking. Start-ups are still getting funded and going public. Crazy new things still sometimes get invented and defy all expectations; Bitcoin, which is as Wild West as they come, just hit $10,000 on some exchanges. Well, O.K. But a vibrant network doesn’t die all at once. It takes time and neglect; it grows weaker by the day, but imperceptibly, so that one day we are living in a digital world controlled by giants and we come to regard the whole thing as normal. It’s not normal. It wasn’t always this way. The internet doesn’t have to be a corporate playground. That’s just the path we’ve chosen. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-the-election-in-honduras,Leahy Statement On The Election In Honduras,2017-12-04,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"12.04.17 Leahy Statement On The Election In Honduras Those of us who care about Central America have watched the election for Honduras’ next president with increasing alarm.  It has been more than a week since November 26, when the people of Honduras cast their votes.  Since then, repeated delays and suspicious behavior – which suggests either incompetence or fraud – by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) that has been tallying the ballots, has incited large public demonstrations.  Late last week, the government of President Juan Orlando Hernandez suspended constitutional rights and imposed a ten-day, 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew.  Several protesters, including a 19-year-old girl, have reportedly been shot and killed by Honduran troops, and hundreds more have been arrested.  Salvador Nasralla, the main opposition candidate, called for a new election and reportedly urged the Honduran police and military to disobey orders of their commanders to fire on demonstrators. Even before the Honduran people went to the polls the prospects for a free, fair and peaceful election faced many challenges.  The most obvious point of contention is that President Hernandez is seeking a second term, since until recently the Honduran Constitution had been interpreted to limit presidents to a single four-year term.  Ironically, in 2009 former President Manuel Zelaya was forced from power by a coalition of military officers, business owners, and conservative politicians including Hernandez, after Zelaya sought to extend his own rule by proposing a popular referendum on the issue of presidential re-election.    Zelaya’s ouster was initially labeled a coup by the U.S. State Department, but it was not long before the United States accepted the result and resumed sending economic and military aid to the government of President Porfirio Lobo.  During the next three years the influx of illicit drugs and the incidence of violence, including assassinations of journalists and other civil society leaders, increased dramatically, and Honduras became among the most violent countries in the world. After Hernandez became president of the National Congress, he and his National Party replaced the Supreme Court with justices intended to support their political agenda.  And in 2013, Hernandez was declared President of Honduras after an election fraught with reports of vote buying and threats and assassinations of political opponents.  Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that he could run for a second term – paving the way for last week’s election.  Just eight years after former President Zelaya was pushed out for proposing that the Honduran people vote on the question of a second term, President Hernandez had consolidated his control by replacing the justices of the Supreme Court, appointing the TSE, maintaining a majority in the Congress, and using the State media to drown out his critics.  It was widely predicted that he would coast to victory.  But President Hernandez’ government, in addition to becoming increasingly autocratic, has been dogged by accusations of pervasive corruption.  For these reasons, and because of the opaque and bizarre conduct of the TSE during the vote tallying process, it is perhaps not surprising that the situation has deteriorated to the point of becoming a national crisis of confidence in the integrity of Honduras’ democracy.  Contrary to past practice, the TSE did not issue early results until the day after the polls closed.  At that time it announced that with 57 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Nasralla, a former TV sports journalist, was leading by 5 percentage points.  This indicated the possibility of an historic upset, and while based on past practice the final count was expected the next day, the process of tallying the votes dragged on behind closed doors with no further announcements. While Nasralla and his supporters celebrated and the third-placed candidate, Luis Zelaya of the Liberal party, conceded, President Hernandez and his allies in the press insisted that he would come out on top once the rural votes were counted. The TSE also said the rural vote count was delayed, and on Wednesday, after a long silence, the TSE indicated that Nasralla’s lead had started to shrink.  But the press reported that no technical reason was apparent to explain the delay as the results from all polling stations were reportedly transmitted electronically as soon as the polls closed.  As time dragged on, suspicions of fraud escalated among Nasralla’s supporters, and last Wednesday afternoon the TSE said its computer system had inexplicably ceased functioning for five hours.  Then on Wednesday night the TSE reported that President Hernandez was ahead by several thousand votes, which triggered protests by Nasralla’s supporters, some of them reportedly throwing rocks and lighting fires, who were met by troops firing tear gas and live bullets.  According to press reports, the opposition is questioning ballots from 5,300 polling places and has called for a recount of ballots from three rural departments.  But this morning, after only a partial recount, the TSE announced its final tally in favor of President Hernandez by just 1.49 percent, a gap of 52,333 votes.     The process has been so lacking in transparency, so fraught with irregularities and inexplicable delays, and coupled with reports of excessive force by the Honduran police and military against peaceful protesters, it is increasingly obvious that the TSE’s announcement only made a bad situation worse.  There is too much suspicion of fraud, and too much distrust.  On Saturday, I asked the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa three simple but important questions about the delays, the TSE’s tally of the votes, and the reports of shootings of protesters.  It is Monday night and I have yet to receive answers.  This lack of responsiveness by our government in such a time of crisis is troubling, and I hope it is not a new standard. Earlier this evening, the OAS issued a statement that “the tight margin of the results, and the irregularities, errors and systemic problems that have surrounded this election do not allow the Mission to hold certainty about the results.”  There are also reports that increasing numbers of Honduran police officers are refusing orders to use force against the protesters.  The importance of this election, which will determine who leads Honduras for the next four years, cannot be overstated.  This is especially so because of the way it came about in the first place.  There was already resentment toward President Hernandez for the double standard of participating in the coup against Zelaya, and then orchestrating his own path to re-election.  As one Honduran was quoted saying, they “are reliving the entire crisis from the coup of 2009, and the majority of people don’t really like that because it brings back some ugly memories.” President Hernandez and Mr. Nasralla offer significantly different approaches to tackling the country’s problems.  Given the debacle of the past week and the growing popular outcry, it is apparent that establishing the credibility of the electoral process and the integrity of Honduras’ democracy requires either recounting the contested ballots from each of the 5,300 polling places in the presence of representatives of the political parties, representatives of civil society, and international observers; or holding a new election.  In the meantime, it is the responsibility of the Honduran government – particularly the police and the military – to respect and defend the right of the Honduran people to freely and peacefully express their opinions. Honduras faces a defining moment in its modern history.  How the government resolves this crisis will determine the path of the country for the foreseeable future.  It will also determine the extent of validity and support the next government receives from the United States, because only a credible election, accepted widely by the Honduran people as free and fair, coupled with a demonstrable commitment to transparency, to freedom of expression and association, and to the rule of law, will justify that validity and support. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/itc-provides-relief-illegal-chinese-imports-northeast-kingdom-s-columbia,ITC Provides Relief From Illegal Chinese Imports to Northeast Kingdom’s Columbia Forest Products,2017-12-01,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC - Following four years of advocacy by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) today provided long overdue relief to a key employer in the Northeast Kingdom.  Columbia Forest Products, which maintains a manufacturing facility in Newport, Vermont, has been struggling to compete with illegal Chinese imports. In a unanimous ruling, the ITC voted 4-0 to impose significant tariffs on dumped and subsidized imports of Chinese hardwood plywood. “Today’s decision is great news for the employees of Columbia Forest Products,” said Rep. Welch. “The company and its employees have been reeling from subsidized and illegal competition from China.  This important decision will level the playing field for the company, preserve jobs, and ensure its continued contributions to the regional economy.” In 2012, the company, a hardwood veneer and plywood manufacturer, filed a petition with the ITC protesting the dumping of cheap and illegal Chinese hardwood and veneer products that undercut its business in Vermont and around the country. In 2013, Rep. Welch personally testified before the Commission on the company’s behalf.  In addition, Welch helped lead two Congressional letters of support for the industry to the Commission, one in 2013 and one this year. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-warren-introduce-legislation-boost-nih-and-fda-medical-research,"Welch, Warren Introduce Legislation to Boost NIH and FDA Medical Research",2017-12-01,2017,2017-12,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) has joined Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in introducing legislation that would boost funding for critical medical research. The bill would pay for the new research by requiring large pharmaceutical companies that break the law and settle their cases to reinvest a percentage of their profits into medical research conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA).   “Too often, drug companies game the system to maximize corporate profits at the expense of consumers and taxpayers,” said Welch. “This commonsense legislation will hold them accountable, while funding vital medical research that will keep America on the cutting edge of innovation, medicine, and scientific progress.” Critical federal investments in medical research have remained nearly flat for over a decade. Today 9 out of 11 research proposals are left unfunded, threatening the pace of medical breakthroughs and undercutting America’s status as the world’s leader in medical innovation. The last decade has also seen a troublesome spike in the number of major drug companies settling with the government for breaking the law and defrauding taxpayers. The Medical Innovation Act (H.R. 4487) would reverse both trends by making it easier for drug companies to develop the next generation of cures, while making it harder for them to profit from breaking the law and defrauding taxpayers.  Drug company payments, which would vary according to the severity of the settlement penalty, would only be required of companies that rely on federally-funded research to develop billion-dollar, “blockbuster” drugs and only when they subsequently break the law and enter into major settlement agreements with the federal government. In such cases, the settlements would go forward as they normally do, but the offending company would also be required to reinvest a relatively small portion of the profits it has generated as a result of taxpayer-supported research back into the NIH and FDA. These supplemental payments would equal between 0.75% and 1.5% of the offending company's profits for each of its blockbuster drugs that can be traced back to government research support, over a period of five years. The full text of the bill can be found here. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act,Leahy Statement On The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act,2017-11-30,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.30.17 Leahy Statement On The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act During Thanksgiving last week, families across the country came together to give thanks for the blessings of the past year.  One group in particular – corporate CEOs – had a special reason to be thankful: the Republican tax bill we are considering today.  Rather than engaging in a bipartisan process to develop and enact meaningful tax reform that will benefit working Americans and small businesses, Republicans in Congress have spent the last few weeks crafting tax cut legislation that will overwhelmingly favor large corporations and ultra-wealthy Americans.  Just in time for the holiday season, this bill delivers everything on the Republican donor class’s wish list while providing the vast majority of working Americans with little more than a lump of coal. This tax bill would have harmful and far-reaching effects, in countless ways, for our economy, for the budget, for our healthcare system, for our environment, and for the pocketbooks of middle income Americans from coast to coast.  Yet despite these enormous threats across the board, rarely, if ever, have I seen such a secretive and slapdash process, and such a shoddy result.  Republican leaders purposely chose a partisan process, not a bipartisan process. This bill has one clear goal – provide corporations with permanent tax cuts at any and all costs.  Unfortunately, the costs of providing these unnecessary cuts are high and fall disproportionately on lower and middle income Americans, who will only see temporary cuts that will expire in 2025.  The true purpose and slant of this bill are belied by the fact that huge tax cuts for corporations would be permanent, while the meager adjustments for hardworking Americans are only temporary.  Critical deductions relied upon by many Vermonters, including the State and Local Tax Deduction, are reduced or eliminated.  These changes are likely to result in higher taxes for many working families.  To add insult to injury, even after targeting the middle class to pay for permanent corporate tax cuts, the bill will still end up adding more than $1.4 trillion to our deficit and debt over the next 10 years. This is a bill that cheats our future for the sake of a tax-cut windfall for the one percent.  It does absolutely wonderful things for the wealthiest taxpayers, like the President, his cronies and his family.  But it does not advance the common good.  It offers crumbs to hardworking Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations reap the rewards of this bill, with the false promise of trickle-down benefits to everyone else.  The wealthiest are doing just fine and big corporations already are pulling in record profits, which they’re not investing but salting away.  They don’t need more tax cuts.  More than 400 millionaires have urgently told Congress that they don’t need more tax cuts. Even more appallingly, to pay for these tax giveaways for corporations, Republicans intend to strip health insurance from 13 million Americans, a move that threatens to seriously destabilize the health insurance market.  Americans with health insurance today will face higher premiums as a result of this bill becoming law.  As the Congressional Budget Office found in its recent analysis, by 2027 the bill takes away billions of dollars in federal healthcare support for Americans making less than $75,000.  This needlessly puts innocent lives at risk.  To the extent that working Vermonters see any benefit from the tax cuts included in this bill, those gains will be more than wiped away by these changes to our healthcare system. What’s more, this Republican proposal will also cause irreparable harm to our environment by opening up oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) – all to pay for tax breaks for corporations, including those in the oil and gas industry.  Exposing this breathtaking area of the country to the ravages of oil and gas drilling would be an environmental tragedy.  Even worse, the rationale for it may be built on a false premise.  There is evidence to suggest that opening this area for development would not even provide the economic benefits being claimed.  Turning ANWR into an oil field is yet another gift to corporate interests at the expense of the American people and at the cost of damage to their public lands. These are just some of the devastating consequences this bill will have if it is enacted.  And we know this isn’t even the bill on which we will ultimately cast a vote.  This bill has been written and rewritten so many times behind closed doors, and we have every reason to believe Republicans will conclude this arcane reconciliation process by offering a final amendment, unveiled at the last minute, without the benefit of thorough review and debate.  For an issue this complex that touches every aspect of our economy, moving at a breakneck, partisan pace is a dangerous and reckless approach.  How many Senators who support this legislation can look their constituents in the eye and honestly tell them they know every detail of this bill and how it will impact them and our country?  Can the Senators who support this bill in good faith promise it won’t raise their constituents’ taxes, today, tomorrow, next year, or in a decade?  Or that it won’t set in motion slashing cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid? Remember the promises the Republican majority made just months ago?  They promised their bill would boost the economy and help middle class Americans, and that it wouldn’t explode the debt and the deficits.  The President himself promised that the bill wouldn’t benefit him or other wealthy taxpayers.  Now we know the truth.  The independent Congressional Budget Office and countless economists have made clear that those promises have been utterly shredded.  Further damage is done by this direct hit on the health insurance that is relied upon by millions of Americans, and by the elimination of the deductibility of state and local taxes.  Blowing a hole in the budget will seed the ground for rising interest rates that will hit every family and drag down our economy, and Republican cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will follow. Even these huge corporate tax cuts are not structured in a way that would truly encourage investments here at home and boost workers’ wages.  There’s no bang, let alone a popgun pop, for shoveling out these more than one trillion bucks. We need to go back to the drawing board and start this process over again.  Let Republicans and Democrats work together on real tax reform that simplifies the tax code and provides real benefits to working Americans.  This bill is not tax reform.  This is a cartoonish caricature of what real tax reform should look like.  It is dishonest to its core.  It is cynical, and it can only breed more cynicism by the public.  It is not only bad policy, it is horrible policy.  And it is wrong.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senators-to-trump-administration_reject-calls-for-new-nuclear-weapons,Senators to Trump Administration: Reject Calls for New Nuclear Weapons,2017-11-30,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.30.17 Senators to Trump Administration: Reject Calls for New Nuclear Weapons Senators also want rising costs of modernization effort addressed in next Nuclear Posture Review Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) joined Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and 12 other Senators today to urge the Trump administration to reject calls for new nuclear weapons and to reevaluate the affordability of the current nuclear modernizations effort in the next Nuclear Posture Review.             “Many of us oppose the development of new nuclear weapons and believe that the sole purpose of our nuclear arsenal is to deter a nuclear attack,” the senators wrote. “In light of the CBO report, it is now also clear that developing new nuclear weapons is unaffordable, and would force tradeoffs between needed investments in our conventional capabilities.”             The full text of the letter follows:   November 30, 2017 Dear Secretaries Tillerson, Mattis and Perry:             As you finalize the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), we strongly urge you to consider the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) recent analysis of the increasing cost of the existing nuclear modernization plan. In light of the CBO’s findings, we urge you to incorporate the CBO’s analysis into the NPR process so that the review’s recommendations are affordable, strictly necessary to maintain deterrence, and do not force the nation to choose between an increasingly costly nuclear modernization program and maintaining conventional superiority.             The CBO makes clear that the administration’s current nuclear modernization plan is unaffordable and will reduce our ability to make necessary investments in our conventional capabilities. The CBO reported that the administration’s plan will cost up to $1.7 trillion, with inflation, over the next 30 years, with an annual cost of approximately $50 billion in the 2030s. The agency noted that these costs would “directly compete for funding with other defense priorities,” principally planned investments in our conventional systems, at a time when defense spending is likely to be constrained by long-term fiscal pressures.             The CBO also detailed options to significantly alter the existing modernization plan while still meeting our deterrence requirements. Specifically, the CBO outlined nine options that would either cancel or delay specific nuclear weapons systems, or reduce the number of deployed warheads in line with the Defense Department’s 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy. The CBO also considered the possibility of forgoing modernization of select triad components without risking a failure of deterrence. Clearly the existing modernization plan is not sacrosanct.             Many of us oppose the development of new nuclear weapons and believe that the sole purpose of our nuclear arsenal is to deter a nuclear attack. In light of the CBO report, it is now also clear that developing new nuclear weapons is unaffordable, and would force tradeoffs between needed investments in our conventional capabilities. We urge you to reject calls to develop new low-yield weapons or to increase nuclear delivery systems beyond those already planned, which are simply divorced from budgetary realities.             Many of us have opposed certain aspects of the nuclear modernization plan as unnecessary and destabilizing. The CBO’s report makes clear, at a minimum, that the existing plan is unaffordable and needs revision. We strongly urge you to incorporate the CBO’s findings into the review process so that the NPR can offer a realistic path to maintaining deterrence. Sincerely,  Dianne Feinstein         Edward J. Markey Patrick Leahy  Richard J. Durbin Tammy Baldwin Chris Van Hollen Al Franken      Elizabeth Warren Sheldon Whitehouse   Ron Wyden Jeff Merkley    Patty Murray Bernard Sanders         Brian Schatz Kamala D. Harris Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-announces-13-million-grant-to-help-the-vermont-state-police-combat-the-opioid-epidemic,Leahy Announces $1.3 Million Grant To Help The Vermont State Police Combat The Opioid Epidemic,2017-11-29,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.29.17 Leahy Announces $1.3 Million Grant To Help The Vermont State Police Combat The Opioid Epidemic . . . Vermont Grant Is One Of Only 8 Nationwide Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Wednesday announced a grant of more than $1.3 million for the Vermont State Police (VSP) to continue its aggressive work fighting the opioid epidemic in Vermont. This was the second-largest of only eight grants awarded nationwide through the highly competitive COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force (AHTF) grant program that Leahy created in the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill.  In his new role as the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Leahy fought hard to fund the program at $10 million in the fiscal year 2017 enacted CJS appropriations act, despite the Department of Justice proposing to eliminate the program.  The VSP will use the $1.3 million award to continue funding the five troopers and one analyst hired with the first grant of more than $1.4 million that it received in 2015 through the AHTF grant program.  Leahy also is a leading champion of this and other COPS programs on the Judiciary Committee, which oversees the program. Leahy said:  “I designed the Anti-Heroin Task Force grant program specifically with the Vermont State Police’s Drug Task Force in mind.  The vital and highly successful investigative work that the Task Force does in Vermont is a key component of our fight against the scourge of addiction that touches communities and families across our state.  The detectives and analysts dedicated to the anti-heroin task force, whose work is supported with these funds, work to get right at the heart of Vermont’s distribution networks, targeting those who profit from the misery of Vermonters and their families.” “We know that enforcement is only one element of the fight against opioid addiction, and I will continue to work to see that funding to support prevention, education, treatment and recovery also reaches those who are in need,” Leahy said.  “But we must do everything in our power to stem the flow of these deadly drugs, and I applaud the work of the Vermont Drug Task Force in helping to do that.” President Trump’s budget for fiscal year 2018 proposed eliminated funding for the AHTF grant program.  Despite the administration’s proposal, Leahy was able to ensure that the fiscal year 2018 Senate CJS appropriations bill includes $12 million in funding for the program, a $2 million increase over fiscal year 2017. Vermont State Police Col. Matthew Birmingham said:  “The funds from this award are an important part of our enforcement strategy focused on dismantling heroin trafficking networks in Vermont.  We will continue to work with our partners in treatment and prevention to stem the impact that heroin and opiates have on Vermonters.  We are grateful to Senator Leahy for his efforts to create and sustain this funding.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/vermont-business-magazine-gentleman-every-sense-word-mr-welch-goes,Vermont Business Magazine: A Gentleman in Every Sense of the Word: Mr. Welch Goes to Washington,2017-11-27,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"There are two great threats to American democracy today and neither one are named Trump, said Vermont’s lone-ranger congressman, Peter Francis Welch (D-VT). “One is (the US Supreme Court decision) Citizens United and the immense amount of money in politics that’s not accountable,” Welch said. “And the other is gerrymandering, where you get boutique districts designed for either the extreme right or the extreme left. Those two issues have gotten worse since I’ve been in Congress. Trump just upped the ante.” Vermonters elected Welch to the House of Representatives as their standard-bearing liberal/progressive, throwing him into the flaming fires of Washington politics in 2006, back when George W Bush was president. Liking what they saw, they have sent him back every two years since.  If Vermonters thought Welch would have an easier time after Bush, when Democratic President Barack Obama came into office, then two words should correct that thinking: those words are Mitch and McConnell. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is the man who vowed to stonewall every piece of Obama’s legislation that he could get his hands on. He remains Senate Majority Leader. And now there’s President Donald Trump. You have to wonder if Vermonters have a collective death wish for Welch. Welch, however, loves his job and refuses to talk about retiring. “Congress has been a tremendous opportunity for someone who believes we’ve all got to pitch in to do the best to maintain our democracy,” he said. “I just love serving in Congress. And my period in Congress has been extraordinary times for the country.”  In person Welch looks like a buttoned-down lawyer, but he has an unexpected history of involvement in social justice issues that some might call radical.  “It’s the culture I grew up in,” said Welch, who was born into a large Irish Catholic family in Springfield, Mass. “When I was a kid we took a trip down south to Florida. I think we were in Georgia when I saw the segregated water fountains and bathrooms. They were quite shocking and I wasn’t prepared for it. So when I got involved in community organizing in Chicago, I was working with an organization affiliated with Dr Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The first summer, we took buses and went down to Atlanta for the SCLC convention. We went to the Ebenezer Baptist Church, heard Ralph Abernathy, Hosea Williams and then Martin Luther King speak. That was quite a stunning experience for this person from Springfield, Mass.” In Vermont, Welch, 70, served as a public defender and as a principal in the small White River Junction law firm of Welch Graham & Manby. He served in the Vermont Senate on two occasions, both times being elected head of the chamber. According to his website, he was the first Democratic president pro tem in the history of the state. “I say this for a laugh, but there’s a lot of truth in it — I’d been gone so long people forgot why they were mad at me,” Welch said. “So they elected me Senate president a second time. In my job, no matter what you’re doing, people are always mad at you. Whatever you’re doing, you should be doing something else.” Welch went to Congress after a 2006 campaign that was called “the cleanest in American politics.” He and his Republican opponent (Martha Rainville) vowed not to run negative campaign ads; even under party pressure, they kept that vow.  For a lone congressman from a tiny state, Welch has been in the thick of things ever since he won that fight. He is a Chief Deputy Whip of the House Democratic Caucus and a member of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. He serves on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  In his Congressional career Welch has experienced more ups and downs than a roller coaster, but he has retained his principles, remained a firm liberal and, in the spirit of Jim Jeffords and George Aiken, been a strong supporter of civility, progress and across-party cooperation in politics. “Peter Welch is a model statesman,” said Christopher P Gibson, a Republican from upstate New York who served in Congress from 2011 to 2017 before retiring from public life. “He works very hard for all his people. He works well with his colleagues in Washington, DC. He’s somebody I have the utmost respect for.” Together, Gibson and Welch worked on Hurricane Irene relief, veterans’ assistance, the farm bills and legislation to help fight Lyme disease. “We worked together on very important legislation,” Gibson said. “After Hurricane Irene, we were co-chairs of the relief task force and were successful in delivering significant federal funds to help our areas in the region recover. When it comes to fostering small business growth, job creation and seeing wages rise, Vermonters have a tremendous advocate in Peter Welch.” Welch is married to Margaret Cheney, a commissioner of the Vermont Public Utility Commission. His first wife, Joan Smith, died of cancer in 2004. Welch has five stepchildren from his first marriage and three stepchildren from his second. In conversation, Welch is earnest, intense, thoughtful, accessible and friendly. He has a sense of humor so dry it borders on irony. He may be somewhat lacking in flash, brash or charisma; the best words to describe him are “thoroughly decent.” Or, as climate change activist and Middlebury Professor Bill McKibben said, “He is a gentleman in every sense of that word, and people respond to that.” Other notable Vermont constituents feel the same way. “I have been so grateful for the opportunity to know and work with Peter Welch,” said Green Mountain Power CEO Mary Powell. “Peter has been the source of great inspiration for me when it comes to making a difference and tackling challenges head on. Maybe even more important, though, is his ability to tackle challenges with what feels at times like endless love, curiosity and a true desire to bridge differences and create rational, practical and meaningful outcomes. Vermont is lucky to have him serving us in Washington.” Welch’s strong support of the environment has also earned him McKibben’s approval. “I know a lot of members of Congress, and Peter Welch is unique in a couple of ways,” McKibben said. “He is relentlessly progressive and doesn't pull his punches. But he manages to work across ideological boundaries in the moment in American history when that may be hardest. On environmental issues he's been absolutely stalwart from day one. He’s always willing to pitch in to help. And since he's very respected by his colleagues, that means he can accomplish a good deal.” Former Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives Shapleigh Smith, now an attorney with Dinse Knapp McAndrew, knew Welch even before he went into politics.  “He and I had a case together, probably in the late 1990s,” Smith said. “I found him to be someone who was just incredibly interested in what other people had to think. He’s just an easy person to talk to. When I came into public service, he was that way in the building — very open, very approachable, really willing to consider all points of view. And that’s still true.”  On the issue of health care, Welch has won the admiration of, among others, Thomas Huebner, the president of the Rutland Medical Center. “Peter has been involved in health policy issues since he was in the Vermont Legislature,” Huebner said. “He has been a strong advocate in health policy matters. He has really pushed for broad coverage for Vermonters in Vermont and in Congress. He was active in helping to establish Catamount Health and the Affordable Health Act. He’s been a friend to health care providers — to hospitals and doctors — helping to ensure we have the federal resources we need to take care of our community. He’s a 100 percent reliable friend to us. He’s been really active in helping our health care system in Vermont to be successful.” At this writing, the Trump Administration is trying to cut back on the 340B Drug Discount Program that requires drug manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs to eligible health care organizations and others at reduced prices.  “We count on that revenue to help pay our bills,” Huebner said. “There’s a new rule that’s trying to take that away from us, and Peter has been terrific in trying to sustain that for us. He’s been there every time we need him. It’s a proposed rule and it has not gone into effect and he’s trying to prevent that from ever happening.”  Welch doesn’t pull his punches. In a health-care related Tweet on October 13, he called Trump’s decision to cut off payments that defray out-of-pocket costs for low-income Americans “stunning, reckless and cruel.” He went on to say, “After failing to convince Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, he is now openly sabotaging it, which will raise the premiums of hardworking Americans by 20 percent. He is also undermining bipartisan discussions well underway in Congress to make much needed improvements to the law. I hope this irresponsible decision is overturned by the courts. In the meantime, Congress should move forward with making the Affordable Care Act work better for working families.” The issues may change but Welch remains constant — and constantly a Vermonter.  He keeps his promises. For example, he went to DC with a mandate to end the Iraq War. “We became a majority and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker,” Welch said. “That’s when we really started putting pressure on to get us home from Iraq. Not that things are calm over there now by any means, but we don’t have the same number of troops as we did. Vermonters paid a high price in Iraq. We had the highest death rate per capita in Iraq and Afghanistan for a period of time. It’s sort of a Vermont tradition — we had the highest death rate per capita during the Civil War as well.” Within three months of getting to DC, Welch was on the ground in Iraq with both Republican and Democratic colleagues. Then he went to the White House and met with George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.  “It was my chance to advocate for my position directly to the president on the behalf of Vermonters who felt very strongly about it,” Welch said. Things should have been easier for Welch during the Obama administration, when, for a brief time, Democrats held the White House and a majority in the House and Senate. But that’s when the Republicans shifted the playing field — in what some worry might be a permanent shift.  “In 2010 the Tea Party came to Congress, and from my perspective it was terrible,” Welch said. “We went from a Congress where we were engaged in public policy — and you can debate whether we could have done a better health care bill or a better Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — to a Congress where the sole objective was summed up by Mitch McConnell when he said, ‘My job is to make sure Barack Obama is a one-term president.’ I found that truly bizarre. When Jim Douglas, a Republican, was governor of Vermont, I remember a lot of my Democratic colleagues wanted us to give him a hard time. They thought that would somehow lead us to the governorship. And I reminded them that the same people who had voted for us voted for him.” Serious competition should be practiced during the campaign, Welch said. After that, elected officials should get down to the hard work of governance.  “That was not the Mitch McConnell’s orientation,” Welch said. “But it’s the orientation of Vermonters. McConnell was explicit that his job was to just say no and actively undercut anything Obama was proposing. That’s flat-out wrong. That’s not the job of an elected official. Then we went through the process of voting to repeal health care like 60 times, voting to repeal Dodd-Frank 60 times, or however many times it was. It was sort of a show Congress, in the sense that the Republican majority in the House couldn’t get their legislation passed. Either they couldn’t get it through the Senate or they couldn’t get it signed by Obama. So there was a lot of wheel-spinning and symbolic work and it’s emblematic of why people are getting so frustrated with the institution.” Welch’s technique is to build bridges, build alliances, build relationships and build anything else he hopes will help him serve his state.  “When we were in the majority, when we were doing the climate change bill and I was doing an energy efficiency bill, even though I didn’t ‘need’ Republican votes, I went and saw every Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee to ask if they had any suggestions about what to put in my energy efficiency bill,” Welch said. “They appreciated that I stopped by, they gave me ideas, and if they were good ideas I incorporated them in my bill. Even though, in the end, they didn’t vote for it. But it made it a better bill.” The Democrats were in the minority in Washington when Tropical Storm Irene tore up much of Vermont.  “We were in real trouble in the House with Irene,” Welch said. “We had a Republican majority, I was a delegation of one, and I wasn’t on one of the jurisdictional committees. I needed Republicans to help me, and a lot of those Republicans I’d been to, unsolicited, and asked them for their input, well they remembered that and said, ‘Let’s see if we can help Peter.’ One of those people was the House Majority Leader at the time, Eric Cantor (R-VA). He helped me the most.” The laws governing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had to be changed to give Vermont well beyond the maximum amount of financial help allowed by law at the time. “We needed that because our damages were so great,” Welch said. “We needed legislation. We had a Democratic majority in the Senate at the time; Senator Leahy was on the Appropriations Committee and he was in a solid position to help Vermont. I was in a precarious position. But by the end of the whole process, when it was very contentious and politicized, the Cantor staff was coming up to me on the floor of the House and asking me, “Mr Welch, do we have everything in the bill that Vermont needs?’ Some of my colleagues couldn’t believe it.” This being Congress, even doing the right thing was quid pro quo. “Now, Eric Cantor and I disagreed about tax and budget issues and the war and a lot of things,” Welch said. “But on the other hand, my job was to do things that Vermont needed done. Irene was a big deal and I’d established relationships that I think helped us get through it. I worked with Eric on another bill and the Democratic leadership was upset with me. He asked me to co-sponsor this bill to get more money into pediatric cancer research. At the time the Democrats — and I was among them — were very upset with the budget proposals of the Republicans. They were really shrinking the research budget for the National Institutes of Health. I thought that was terrible. So there was a reservation on the part of the Democratic leadership about doing a piecemeal approach. My view was why not? If we can get money for kids’ cancer, then let’s do it.” The cancer research money would come from taxpayer dollars previously earmarked to support the Democratic and Republican conventions. Both sides had already agreed it was no longer an appropriate use of public funds.  “So I broke with the Democrats,” Welch said. “We’d like to have more research for cancer, especially for kids, so what’s the problem? I was the lead Democratic sponsor and eventually we wore down the resistance and got that passed. We even had an Oval Office signing with President Obama.” Finding common ground may be difficult, but it can make things happen the right way for Vermont, and Vermont expects it, Welch said.  “We’re hanging on, but still trying to do things that Vermont needs to get done,” Welch said. “I found some common ground in energy efficiency with a lot of my Republican colleagues. Even if they deny climate change, they can see the benefits of efficiency — because you spend less.” Common sense is one of the biggest arrows in Welch’s quiver. Right now he’s arguing with the Democrats about offering support to out-of-work coal miners; his position puts him squarely in Republican territory. “The more we work to address climate change issues and move from a carbon economy to a clean energy economy, the more we have to reach out and try to help the folks in coal country who are being hammered by the transition,” Welch said. Two years ago, Welch visited a coal mine in West Virginia with Representative David McKinley (R-WV). “We went down 1,000 feet and four and a half miles in,” Welch said. “I was a little scared — it’s so dark and deep. Then they turned the lights off.” Welch enjoyed meeting the coal miners, who reminded him of Vermont dairy farmers. “They are wonderful people,” Welch said. “The only people I’ve ever met who work so hard are Vermont dairy farmers. They’re the salt of the earth and they’re proud of their work. And it’s dangerous work. They’ve suffered a lot, but they kept the lights on for us in Vermont. So yes, we have to move away from the carbon economy. But that doesn’t mean we have to move away from the folks who helped us.” With that in mind, last year Welch was the lead sponsor on a bill that successfully restored coal miners’ health care benefits.  “They also lost their pensions,” Welch said. “I had a press conference just the other day, three members from West Virginia, all Republicans, and me, trying to get their pensions back.” The election of Donald J Trump as president of the United States only amplified the anti-government feeling in Congress typified by McConnell.  “There’s an emerging opposition to the role of government,” Welch said. “There are a lot of Congressmen who basically don’t believe in government. And that’s unique. In the state Senate, I served with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans but everyone believed that government should function. They believed there are roles the government should play. We’ve got a lot of people down there now who challenge that. They’re willing to shut the government down. They’re willing to default on the debt.” Welch blames Citizens United and gerrymandered districts for the problem. “No majority leader in the history of the country has ever lost a primary, but Eric Cantor did (in 2014),” Welch said. “And it doesn’t make sense, because a majority leader is in a position to really help his or her district. The money in politics just turns people off. We’re flooded with ads that are toxic and people throw their hands up and get sick of all of us.”  Democrats are partially to blame for this situation, Welch said. “A lot of America has not been doing well economically — and rural America especially,” Welch said. “There really is a divide. People who voted for Trump used to vote for Democrats. They saw the banks getting bailed out but they didn’t get help on their mortgages. They saw the one percent doing great but their kids either can’t go to school or, when they get out, they’ve got debts equal to the mortgages we had when we were starting out. They feel government policies are not helping them get ahead. It’s partly from trade deals but also from technology that’s taken over jobs.” For example, when Welch was down in the mines he saw gigantic grinding machines chewing up the walls and dumping coal directly onto conveyor belts that traveled six miles just to reach the surface. “Twelve people were working with this incredible machine, taking out tons and tons of coal,” he said.”Thirty years ago, there would have been 300 people down there doing that work. It’s the technology and the transition in the economy. There are winners and losers and I don’t think our political policies have caught up with the challenges we face.” There’s a word for a world without government, and that word is anarchy. It would make for a frightening end game, if that’s where the country is going. “I’m not exaggerating,” Welch said. “A lot of folks think we’ll all be better on our own. Now, some of these folks, if your house was on fire, they would be there to help. As a neighbor they’d be fantastic. But they get skeptical or outright hostile about government. You saw that when those folks wanted to repeal Obamacare and had no replacement. Another moment came a few years ago when it came time to raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget, and they were willing to shut government down — and they did! Or they were willing to default on the debt, which they came within an inch of doing. Those are nuclear tactics. Default on the debt and you’ll do enormous damage to the country and our credit rating. It would cost us billions of dollars. This is something really new.” Brinksmanship, tense negotiations, seeing who’s going to blink first — these are not unfamiliar tactics to Welch.  “I worked with Ralph Wright and he wasn’t afraid to be really aggressive,” Welch said. “But most of us have some limits, because we know if we go beyond them we risk doing more harm than the good we claim is justifying our position. Those boundaries are eroding, if not vanishing, under President Trump. The norms, the guardrails, the things that establish reasonable boundaries whether you’re a liberal or conservative? Those guardrails are collapsing.” Early Life Welch was born into a large Irish Catholic family in Springfield, Mass. He has an older brother and sister who are twins and three younger siblings.  “We’re all still close,” he said. “Everyone’s doing well.” His father was a dentist and his mother a homemaker. Both are now deceased. His father wasn’t interested in politics per se, Welch said, but he was very interested in what was going on in Springfield.  “The congressman in Springfield back then was Eddie Boland, and he used to be over at the house every now and then,” Welch said. “The first campaign I worked on was his. I was passing out bumper stickers and literature — a very high level job.”  Back then, Springfield was called the City of Homes; but urban renewal in the 1960s tore down a large swath of those homes in the name of progress and the Interstate highway system.  But before then, in the 1950s and early 1960s, Welch said Springfield “was a great place to grow up. There were lots of manufacturing jobs. There was a big insurance company. It was very ethnic. Our neighborhood was very much mixed. We had a lot of Catholics who identified where they lived by their parish, and lots of Protestants and Jews. They all lived on our street. It was an eclectic place.” The term “helicopter parent” was unknown while Welch was growing up. He would hop on his bicycle after school and go hang out with his friends — he says he’s still close to many of them. He was an athletic kind of guy. He played hockey at Holy Trinity Church and basketball at Holy Name. In baseball season, he was at the park.  Work was always an integral part of the picture, not because he had to work but because he wanted spending money. When he started out as a caddy at the Longmeadow Country Club, where caddies could play for free on Mondays, he was 12 years old. “I worked all the time,” Welch said. “All the summers. I worked in a quarry in East Longmeadow, in a machine tool company and as a camp counselor. One of the jobs was at a freight yard loading trailer trucks. All my brothers and sisters worked. We didn’t have cars. We could walk to school, including high school. But I needed money to be with my friends and go out and do teenage things. The big job to get was construction because they paid the best. But they were the hardest jobs to get. Mostly you had a have a father who was in construction and could hook you up at a job site.” After high school, Welch went to the nearby College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, where his father had gone and where some of his brothers also studied. He began a degree in history and kept right on working. “I used to work at the Holiday Inn,” Welch said. “One year I had 13 W-2s. I’d get a job whenever I needed some money. When it snowed you could go down to the railroad yards and shovel the switches. I’m most proud that whenever I needed money I could go to the fright yards in Worcester and Springfield. Just show up. They almost always needed someone to load the boxes onto the trucks.” Civil Rights Welch came of age in the mid-Sixties, when the civil rights and anti-war movements were heating up. “I left college at the end of my sophomore year and spent my junior year doing community organizing on the West Side of Chicago,” Welch said. “That was a risky decision. It was the height of the Vietnam War. If you weren’t in school you could get drafted. I went out there just for the summer but got so involved that a few of us decided to stay out there for the year. That was long before there were internships, and my parents were upset. My father went to talk to Father Brooks at Holy Cross to urge him to tell me to go back to school. And he said, ‘Well, we think what your son is doing is very good.’” Thanks to Father Brooks, Welch was able to enroll at Chicago’s Loyola University, continuing his studies and staying out of the arms of the draft.  “Father Brooks arranged for us to take some courses, and I’m just so grateful to the Jesuits,” Welch said. “Sometimes professors would come to our apartment on the West Side. It gave us an extraordinary degree of flexibility.” Welch returned to Holy Cross for his senior year. Then he returned to Chicago as a member of the first class of Robert F Kennedy Fellows — about 30 young people from around the country chosen because they were doing community organizing.  The Fellows program was established by Kennedy’s family to honor his legacy and “to advocate for a more just and peaceful world” after the senator and presidential candidate was assassinated.  “The grassroots community organization I started working on, called the Contract Buyers League, had become this big organization in Chicago,” Welch said. “So I went back.” African-American families were being ripped off when they tried to buy homes. The League fought for their rights. “Instead of being able to buy with a conventional mortgage, they couldn’t get a mortgage from the banks because the banks had red-lined the neighborhood,” Welch said. “They couldn’t get Federal Housing Administration support. The real estate speculators would buy a piece of property and double the price and sell it by contract — not even a mortgage — to the black families moving in. And they charged higher interest rates. Under a contract, if you missed a payment after four or five years you would lose your house. It was brutal, very brutal.” The League organized rent strikes which quickly became confrontational.  “The sheriff was coming to evict people,” Welch said. “We would find out where the sheriff was going and put rings of people around the house to protect it. That went on for quite a while.” Welch was also swept up in the police riots outside the Democratic National Convention in 1968. “I was at the Hilton during the demonstrations,” he said. “I was participating in a lot of the meetings with the students who were organizing a presence. For a lot of us, it wasn’t that we showed up to demonstrate. We wanted to go in and then all hell broke loose with the Chicago cops outside the Hilton. Mayor Daley’s police did not use the light touch. It was quite astonishing to see this enormous use of force. The National Guard got called out as well. When you have that breakdown in dialogue, it was apparent to me even then that nothing good can come out of it.” When the mayor and the police became involved in the housing issue, everything changed. “Daley sent us a message by having the police ring an entire block,” Welch said. “They evicted a family — it was their first successful eviction — and when the police left we moved the family back in. Then we went down and had negotiations. I was in a conference room doing a lot of the press work and contract work, and the mayor was coming into our room and then going to the Contract Buyers in the other room. And we would try to mediate a resolution to the dispute. Ultimately we made some significant progress.” The banks agreed to write mortgages. The FHA agreed to insure the mortgages. The contract sellers began to renegotiate the deals so African-American families could get a legitimate mortgage at a reasonable price. Welch put in another year and decided to go to law school. “I saw that the law has really made a difference,” Welch said. “Bad laws were discriminating against good people and were causing enormous pain. And I saw how politics made a difference. Mayor Dailey had an enormous amount of power that eventually he used in a way that was constructive. He used it to bring about a better resolution for the folks I was advocating for.” At the time, Welch thought his community action activities had been successful.  “But it’s still tough in that neighborhood,” Welch said. “The ways in which injustice finds a way to emerge is just ongoing. The fight never stops.” Coming to Vermont Welch chose to take his law degree at the University of California at Berkeley. Then he chose Vermont to put down roots.  “My uncle was town manager in Barre, and my father liked to come up to fish and ski,” Welch said. “I used to come up with him and always liked it up here. I’m not much of a fisherman, but I liked being with my uncle and my father. And I liked skiing. When I got out of law school I had to make a decision. I had opportunities to work on K Street or Wall Street and I ended up on Bridge Street in White River Junction. And coming from Berkeley to White River Junction? That was culture shock.” Welch’s intention in coming to Vermont was to work in a small law firm and find ways to be active in his new community. “Where that was going to lead wasn’t quite clear to me,” he said. “But I ended up, instead of being in a big firm where you’re working on a big case and you’re a small part of it, working with a small law firm for nine months. I did my clerkship and became a public defender. So I was trying cases.” Politics was still in his heart, however. Welch won a state Senate seat in 1980. “It was something you could do in a small community,” he said. “That opportunity to be really involved. I like the responsibility of it. And it was the year of the Reagan Revolution. I rode in on Reagan’s coattails.” By his second term in the Senate Welch was minority leader; soon after that he was president pro tem. There followed a long series of adventures, issues, successes and controversies in Vermont politics — all thoroughly covered in the media and too many to be covered here. Welch gave up his Senate seat to run in a four-way primary for Congress in 1988, where he lost by 54 votes. “Not that I remember,” he joked. (Paul Poirier won the nomination and finished third to Independent Bernie Sanders and Republican Peter Smith; Sanders came back to beat Smith in the rematch in 1990). Two years later Welch ran for governor and lost to Dick Snelling, who died soon afterward. Lieutenant Governor Howard Dean then became governor. “Then I was back practicing law, and I was out of politics pretty much for the 90s,” Welch said. “And it wasn’t clear to me that I’d be back. Then Howard Dean appointed me to return to the Senate in 2001 when one of our senators took a full time job. I came back to fill up the second part of her term. And then the next year I was elected Senate president again.” Winning And Losing The jobs of Senate president, governor and congressman are very different. Was Welch running for higher office just because the seats were open and they looked like the next steps up in his career? He thinks it’s more than that. “When you get in a campaign you put enormous energy into it,” Welch said. “When you lose, the biggest disappointment is that you lose the opportunity to do the work you’ve been talking about. You really get invested in wanting to do the work. Winning office is less about the satisfaction of that night when you’re declared the winner, and more about the two years ahead when you have the opportunity to do the work you love to do.” Welch felt his campaigns had given him a handle on Vermonters’ challenges and aspirations. When Senator Jeffords retired and then-Congressman Bernie Sanders ran for his seat in the Senate in 2006, Welch ran for Congress again, against a formidable Republican opponent, Martha Rainville, former Adjutant General of the Vermont National Guard and the first woman in the country to serve in such a position. Early in the campaign, Welch and Rainville met and signed what is called a Clean Campaign Pledge, promising not to run a negative campaign.  “Even now, Vermonters thank me and her for that,” Welch said. “It was the only contested race in the country where the two candidates promised — and kept the promise — that they wouldn’t run a negative ad. Why? We thought negative ads were toxic. It would be bad for Vermonters and bad for the dialog. We could debate the issues and people could decide who they wanted to represent them. It was old-fashioned. We couldn’t do it now. It was before Citizens United.” Before Citizens United, candidates had control over their political campaign ads. Today they may control their own ads, but any person or group can put out an ad supporting any position they want — without the approval of the candidates, even the ones they’re supporting.  The campaign that Welch and Rainville ran garnered national attention as the cleanest race in the country. Both candidates, however, were under pressure to conform and put out attack ads.  “Both of us had to be very assertive with the national campaign committees,” Welch said. “The head of the Democratic National Committee was that sweet and gentle guy who’s now mayor of Chicago, Rahm Immanuel. And he wanted me to run negative ads. I said, ‘No way. No how.’ Martha and I were so locked into this and it was so public that both the Republicans and Democrats had to respect it. They knew that whoever went first with a negative ad, Vermonters would punish them. So they restrained themselves. “Now if the Koch brothers or whoever wanted to spend a lot of money, they could come in and run whatever ads they want to run. We could not enforce something like that now. It’s a toxic effect of Citizen’s United. Vermonters wouldn’t be able to figure out who was paying for the ad, so they’d associate a very negative ad with the campaigner.” Welch won the race and began his career in Congress. Since then, has he met the extremely wealthy, ultra conservative and anti-government Koch brothers? “I haven’t had the pleasure,” he said dryly. “I’m not invited to their retreats.” Congressman Welch When Welch arrived in Congress he had to maneuver in a world ruled by the kind of formal etiquette you hardly ever see outside of a European royal court. Of course he made mistakes. “When I first got here, I screwed up and it was a real lesson,” Welch said. “I was in my first year here. It was the height of the Democratic effort to get us out of Iraq. I was pretty upset with Bush and his ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ I was on the floor of the House and got overzealous.” It may surprise some people, but one of the arcane rules about speaking on the House floor is that you’re not allowed to make personal comments.  “I said something about President Bush that probably crossed the line,” Welch said. “And as soon as I did that I had a sinking feeling. It was not the way I wanted to introduce myself to my colleagues. The person running the floor was then-Representative Ray LaHood (R-IL). He was subsequently the secretary of transportation. Unlike what some of my colleagues would do, which is take advantage of my mistakes, he very gently said, ‘The member from Vermont might reconsider certain words.’ He gave me the opportunity to amend my remarks.” There was a lesson to be learned here. “How powerful that gracious gesture was to me, and how important it was when I had the opportunity to do it for others,” Welch said. “We’re losing that generosity of spirit; we’re losing the willingness to give colleagues the benefit of the doubt. There was a tone in this institution that I thought Ray LaHood embodied. Vermont-like decency. He gave me a break.” Welch joined the Energy and Commerce Committee and started his life in Congress in 2007. The economy tanked in 2008. Wall Street banks started failing. When Obama became president, there was serious work to be done. Welch was the leader on the energy efficiency component of the Waxman-Markey Bill, designed to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming and pollution and help the US transition to a clean-energy economy. It got through the House but died in the Senate. Welch also supported Dodd-Frank. “The Dodd-Frank Bill was really essential,” Welch said. “We did the recovery act, the health care bill, a climate change bill. It was an extraordinarily active period of time, the first two years of the Obama presidency. The threat to our economy was real. It was terrifying when the financial sector collapsed.” It was especially gut-wrenching for him and many of his colleagues to bail out Wall Street without giving a similar bailout to Main Street.  “For those of us who had to make the tough call to rescue the financial system, it was not that we wanted to do a favor for anybody,” Welch said. “But we wanted to avoid the harm for everybody where there were collateral consequences to the bad conduct of the Wall Street actors.” Welch remembered a beautiful October day when he was driving down the Interstate and got pulled over by the state police. “The state trooper was so courteous,” Welch said. “He asks me for my license and then he recognizes me. ‘Peter,’ he says, ‘what are you guys doing down there? My wife and I lost $5,000 of our retirement the last couple of days.’ It was terrible what was happening to people. I think we had to bail out the banks, but there was a real residue from it that resulted with some elevation of the Tea Party. And we’re still feeling that.” Welch’s career in Congress can almost be described as whiplashed. “I go from the excitement of getting elected and the return of Democratic power,” Welch said. “We were focusing on ending the war and trying to bring our troops home, to Obama’s getting elected and a very affirmative agenda, but dealing with the worst economic crisis that the country’s had since the Depression, and then the Tea Party came in and a lot of my class got defeated.”  Constituent Service Welch is famous for his constituent service. A good example came in 2014 and it concerned the cheeses of Jasper Hill Farms in Greensboro.  Jasper Hill has won many international quality awards; its cheeses are impressive as well as delicious. So it was somehow fortuitous that Jasper Hill co-owner Mateo Kehler happened to be in Washington for an American Society of Microbiology conference when the Food and Drug Administration — with epic bad timing — announced it was banning the use of wooden shelving for ripening cheeses. Jasper Hill is also famous for its enormous and profitable cheese-ripening cave. All the cheeses are ripened on wood shelving — 20 linear miles of it, according to Kehler. He called the FDA ruling an “existential threat” to his business. He was in town so he called Welch. “The FDA ruling was going to be devastating to that cave,” Welch said. “There are millions of dollars of cheese boards there. The whole aging process was going to be destroyed. It was an overreaction by the FDA.” According to Welch, when the FDA found sanitation problems in one cheese-aging plant in New York, it blamed the boards and banned them everywhere. “Obviously, the problem was the lack of sanitation in that particular operation,” Welch said. “They could have been using granite shelves.” Wooden shelving has been in place for hundreds of years in Europe. Many cheeses depend on the aging and flavor the wood brings to the ripening cheeses.  “So many cheeses rely on wood to give them their distinct flavors,” said an article on the subject in the Huffington Post (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/culture-magazine/fda-bans-wood-aging-boar...(link is external)) ""Taleggio, Beaufort, and Parmigiano-Reggiano all use wood as an integral part of their processes, using the porous material to draw out moisture.” “This is supported by sound science at this point,” Kehler said. “If we replaced the wood with stainless steel — which is a surface not as good as wood for ripening natural rinded cheese because it creates anaerobic conditions on the surface of the cheese — essentially we would have to spend many millions of dollars. There were cheese microbiologists in Washington when that announcement was made. We were able to bring microbiologists who had careers spent in studying the use of wood in traditional cheese making to sit down with Congressman Welch and his staff and lay out the science. Congressman Welch really stopped that effort to ban wood in its tracks.” And how did Welch save the cheese-aging industry? By enlisting, of all people, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI).  “Paul Ryan was the chair of the budget committee,” Welch said. “We contacted Ryan's office and I see him on the floor. ‘Paul,’ I said, ‘you and I have a cheese problem.’ That got his attention because he’s from Wisconsin. We called the FDA and said, ‘We have a cheese problem but you better be sure you don’t have a budget problem.’ We were successful in getting that ban derailed, and also in creating a dialogue. We started having the FDA come up and interact with our cheese producers — to educate the regulators. They could see that the cheese makers were totally committed to health and the quality and safety of their products.” Kehler emphasized that the industry was not adverse to regulation. “We believe we need good regulation,” Kehler said. “We’re not anti-regulation. But having good regulation that’s based on sound science is something Congressman Welch’s office and his staff believe in. Welch’s ability to commit to understanding these complex issues is a real benefit to Vermonters. There are big political risks he’s willing to take because he has a team that has a handle on the science. That’s something that separates him from many of his colleagues in the House.” Welch’s prompt action on this — and several other issues important to Kehler and his business — have made him something of a hero. “I think he’s willing to consider all points of view in a way that most politicians aren’t willing to do anymore,” Kehler said. “It’s a challenging time to be a political figure who’s trying to reach across the aisle. Partisans really expect you to stay in your corner and they’ll punish you if you’re willing to accede anything. I don’t think Peter will have political consequences because of that. Vermont, while a blue state, also has an expectation that its people in state government and on the national level are going to try and get things done. I consider Peter one of my role models in how I want to approach my job in the public sphere.” Welch clearly takes joy in trying to help people, Kehler said. “He really wants to listen to everybody, not just the people who voted for him, and he has fun in the job,” Kehler said. “I really count myself and our business as fortunate to be located in a state where we can call our representatives in Congress and actually connect with them. Congressman Welch, along with Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders, have been real champions.” Kehler had special praise for Welch’s staff. “One thing that really impressed me about Welch is the quality and caliber of his staff,” he said. “They have taken the time and allowed themselves to be educated not just by us but by the scientific community to support science-based issues and the regulatory issues we’ve faced.” The Future With the advent of the Trump Administration. Welch says his job has dramatically changed. “Now the job is about defending core values like our civil liberties, like respect for all our religions, like respect for women, like respect for our institutions, like fiscal responsibility — which is getting thrown out the window, ironically, by President Trump,” Welch said. “These tax cuts he wants to pass? He says they will be ‘paid for by themselves.’ That’s a fantasy. All of these things that have been so important in building our country and are much larger than any individual. These are all under assault in this new administration. I now see much of my job as trying to restore functionality to Congress.” It’s a big job. What are his plans? “I believe the way we do business in Vermont is what we have to bring to Washington,” Welch said. “It’s about engaged debate and fierce debate, but its civil debate and mutual respect. Now the big challenge is trying to restore civil engagement in a Congress which is basically turning its back on it. So what feels good to me, even in this tough spot, is representing a state where those values are very important. You could have a lot of people from Vermont doing my job, but whether they are Republican or Democrat, we’d be united in saying that we have to be talking to each other. We need mutual respect and we need to be on the level. And that approach ultimately has to prevail in order for us to make progress.” Give Welch’s talent for bipartisanship, it’s no surprise that he’s already found a way. The Congressional Problem Solvers is a group of House and Senate members who meet regularly to build trust across the aisle. It goes without saying that Welch is a member. “There are starting to be a lot of us,” Welch said. “We’re 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats. The thing that unites us is the view that at the end of the day, we have to take a step forward. Yelling at each other isn’t the way to make that happen. In the past on health care, for example, it’s always been ‘Repeal! Just throw the whole thing out.’ And there is no replacement. But we got together and made a specific proposal to deal with a concrete problem in the Affordable Care Act. It’s in the individual market. Only a small percentage of people are in the individual health insurance market, but when you hear about premiums going up, that’s where it is.” Some of the Democratic leadership doesn’t want attention put on changes to the ACA, since it might lead to one of those slippery slopes Congress is so afraid of — scuttling the whole thing.  “Well, there was a problem with the ACA,” Welch said. “And my Republican colleagues were under pressure not to engage with us, because if they were to help fix it, it would be acknowledging that there were some good things about it. Allowing for pre-existing conditions. Making insurance available up to age 26. No lifetime caps.”  At this writing, in both the House and the Senate, Problem Solvers are working on this specific change — it’s a small change — to make the ACA better. “That’s an example of where getting specific helps, as opposed to any abstract proposal,” Welch said. “It’s the first time since the passing of the ACA that we’ve had a bipartisan proposal to fix a component in the ACA. And we’ve seen it get some legs in the Senate. There are members on both sides who want to make Congress work. A lot of my Republican colleagues are just dismayed at what’s going on.” Will Welch run for another term? Will he go back into the furnace for another fiery round? “I won’t answer that question,” Welch said, laughing. “Journalists couldn’t beat the answer out of me with a plastic hose. I really love my job, and I say that fully aware that it’s a very difficult time here. The Trump era, in my view, is quite dangerous. There’s a lack of respect for the institutions. For preparation. For the understanding that a person of power needs a sense of restraint. It’s shocking to me that that person could be elected. I see my job as defending our Constitutional rights and getting us back to being a responsible institution. I spend a lot of time in Vermont seeing how folks are really committed to things like climate change and health care reform. My job is to bring that Vermont approach to Washington. So I still like the job, even though it is markedly different.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-statement-fcc-chairmans-proposal-repeal-net-neutrality-rules,Welch Statement on FCC Chairman's Proposal to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules,2017-11-22,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) issued the following statement in response to the Federal Communications Commission chairman’s proposal to repeal net neutrality rules. “A free and open internet is essential to the free flow of ideas, creativity, participatory democracy, and commerce. This proposal is a wholesale abandonment of the FCC's core responsibility to protect the interests of consumers and an early Christmas present to big telecom companies, who will be able to pick and choose who gets access to the internet and at what speed. I hope the courts overturn this misguided anti-consumer policy.” ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/-reaction-of-senator-patrick-leahy-d-vt-to-apples-response-to-the-letter-from-senator-cruz-and-senator-leahy-,Reaction of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) To Apples Response To The Letter From Senator Cruz And Senator Leahy,2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.21.17 Reaction of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) To Apple’s Response To The Letter From Senator Cruz And Senator Leahy “American tech companies have become leading champions of free expression.  But that commitment should not end at our borders.  Global leaders in innovation, like Apple, have both an opportunity and a moral obligation to promote free expression and other basic human rights in countries that routinely deny these rights.  Apple is clearly a force for good in China, but I also believe it and other tech companies must continue to push back on Chinese suppression of free expression.” LINK to Apple’s letter:   https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/apple-letter-on-china-to-leahy-and-cruz Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/appropriations-committee-vice-chairman-leahy-calls-on-congress-for-bipartisan-budget-deal,Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Leahy Calls On Congress For Bipartisan Budget Deal,2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.21.17 Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Leahy Calls On Congress For Bipartisan Budget Deal Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy Tuesday renewed his call for a bipartisan budget deal that would allow for real investments in the American people. Leahy said: “With just 17 days until the current continuing resolution expires and the threat of sequestration looming in January, our toughest path remains ahead.  We must come together to reach a bipartisan budget deal that allows for an increase in both defense AND non-defense spending to alleviate the devastating consequences of sequestration on our domestic priorities and military readiness.  I look forward to working with Chairman Cochran and leadership on both sides of the aisle in accomplishing that goal.” Under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), discretionary programs are recklessly slashed by $2 trillion under post-sequestration budget cuts.  The resulting cuts have already taken their toll on everything from the readiness of U.S. armed forces, to millions of families not receiving heating assistance, and drastic cuts to federal investment in job training and employment programs.  The consequences of these cuts will be felt for a generation or more.    Unless a budget deal is reached, the BCA would demand another $5 billion in cuts from fiscal year 2017 funding levels -- $2 billion from defense and $3 billion from non-defense discretionary funding. The Chairman’s mark for defense appropriations released Tuesday exceeds the spending caps by $70 billion and if enacted will trigger across the board spending cuts of more than 13 percent for defense programs on January 15 unless a bipartisan budget agreement is reached.   In July, Leahy offered a proposal that would increase defense spending in fiscal year 2018 by $54 billion above post-sequester spending caps, mandated by the Budget Control Act, and provide an equal increase in non-defense programs – a budget and policy approach known as “parity.”  Committee Democrats offered a series of funding amendments to each appropriations bill to spotlight the investments in the American people that could and should be made under this proposal.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/appropriations-vice-chair-leahys-summary-of/reax-to-chairmans-mark-for-the-fy2018-homeland-security-appropriations-bill,Appropriations Vice Chair Leahys SUMMARY of/REAX To Chairmans Mark For The FY2018 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill,2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.21.17 Appropriations Vice Chair Leahy’s SUMMARY of/REAX To Chairman’s Mark For The FY2018 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill The Senate Appropriations Committee Tuesday made public the Chairman’s Mark of the fiscal year 2018 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The bill provides a total discretionary appropriation of $51.565 billion.  The net discretionary total is $44.050 billion after the following amounts are excluded:  $559 million in emergency appropriations for disaster relief; cap adjustment funding of $6.793 billion for disaster relief; and $163 million for Overseas Contingency Operations.    U.S. Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Ranking Member of the Department of Homeland Security Subcommittee, said: “The annual Homeland Security Appropriations bill is critically important for our national security, cybersecurity, airport security, and our emergency responders.  Unfortunately, this bill funds a costly and ineffective border wall that is wasting taxpayers’ money and blocking a bipartisan debate on this important legislation.  We can’t spend billions of dollars on a wall at the expense of our firefighters, airports, ports, transit hubs, and local communities. We can secure our borders more effectively with better technology and more manpower without saddling our kids and grandkids with the debt a border wall will require. As the appropriations process moves forward, I hope we can reignite a spirit of compromise and working together.” U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said: “President Trump ran on a clear campaign promise – he was going to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, and Mexico would pay for it.  He could not have been clearer.  I have also been clear about how I feel about this misguided campaign promise.  Building a wall along our southern border is a waste of taxpayer dollars and an insult to our neighbor to the South. To pay for Trump’s wall, vital programs have been slashed out of this bill, which will make our country less safe.  This is bumper sticker budgeting at its worst, and it is why it is important that we reach a bipartisan budget deal as soon as possible.  A budget deal that allows us to invest in the American people – not waste their tax dollars on a misguided wall.” Key Points & Highlights While the bill rejects the Administration’s request to hire 850 deportation officers and denies the request to increase the number of detention beds, full funding is provided for the President’s unnecessary border wall.  The Administration has yet to provide a comprehensive plan on how the Department plans to secure the southwest border, including the total number of miles required for the wall, its full cost, an extensive analysis of alternatives, a cost-benefit analysis, and how eminent domain concerns will be addressed. In order to fund the border wall and other assets not requested in the budget, the bill cuts funding for border security technologies, aviation security, and Federal assistance to secure our local communities.  Three critical laboratories are eliminated, weakening our defenses against biological, radiological, and chemical attacks.  Making matters even worse, there is a Department-wide reduction that will make it more difficult for front line components to operate effectively.   Customs and Border Protection. The bill provides $13.543 billion for CBP.  In order to fully fund the border wall, significant reductions are made to other smart, proven, and immediately deployable border security technologies.  This includes significant reductions to non-intrusive inspection systems, targeting enhancements, and unattended ground sensors.  There are major cuts to investments in air and marine assets including no funding for a requested upgrade to a Blackhawk helicopter, funding only one multi-role enforcement aircraft (a key land and maritime border security asset) and other aircraft sensors and spare parts.  Additionally, no funds are included to hire more CBP officers at our ports of entry.  When combined with the reductions in the bill and the primary focus on border security between the ports, travelers will likely experience longer wait times to cross our land borders and longer lines to enter through our airports while importers will experience longer wait lines to deliver manufactured goods and fresh vegetables.  Language is included, however, focusing on security and travel requirements on our northern border and directing enhanced staffing. Importantly, $15 million is directed to procure equipment to interdict shipments of opioids being smuggled into this country.  This epidemic is touching every American life and all means must be marshalled to stop this threat from outside our borders. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The bill includes $6.665 billion for ICE. The bill rejects the requests to hire 850 deportation officers and to fund 51,379 detention beds.  Funds are included to maintain the average daily bed population assumed in fiscal year 2017.  The Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program is funded at the requested level of $178 million with language regarding the use of ATD on children and immigrant families and release of those who do not pose a public security risk.  The bill includes funds to hire 150 criminal investigators and support staff for child exploitation; smuggling and trafficking of humans, weapons, and drugs; and other transnational crime cases. Transportation Security Administration.  TSA is funded at $7.142 billion.  With fee revenue offsetting this amount, the net appropriation is $4.672 billion. Funding for Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) is reduced by $83 million at a time when passenger volume continues to increase.  This will result in a reduction of over 1,000 TSOs and longer security wait times for air travelers.  The bill cuts TSA’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams from 31 to 8.  These security teams provide a visible security presence and deterrence at all modes of transportation.  Eighteen cities would lose VIPR teams if this bill is enacted and the number of operations would be cut by approximately 74 percent.  Importantly, the bill rejects the request to eliminate the TSA Law Enforcement Reimbursement program and provides $45 million for its continuation, the same level as in fiscal year 2017.  Over 300 airports nationwide participate in the program to assist TSA in ensuring the safety and security of persons and property at TSA-passenger security checkpoints.  The bill includes $77 million to continue staffing airport exit lanes, rejecting the Administration’s proposal to eliminate the program and shift the burden to airports.   Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard is funded at $9.338 billion, excluding mandatory and overseas contingency funding.  Of note, funding is included for the first Offshore Patrol Cutter and four Fast Response Cutters, as requested.  These ships are replacing aging cutters that are long passed their expected service life and will enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to conduct search and rescue operations, enforce border security, interdict drugs, and respond to disasters.  The bill also includes $7.3 billion to sustain front-line operations, including funds to operate new assets, military and civilian pay, and parity with DoD Services for military benefits. Secret Service.  The bill funds the Secret Service at $1.956 billion.  This includes: $47 million for protective countermeasures for emerging threats against the President and Vice President; $8.4 million in support to investigators of missing and exploited children; and $19.8 million for support to computer forensics training for state and local law enforcement, legal, and judicial professionals. National Protection and Programs Directorate.  NPPD is funded at $1.803 billion.    Major investments include: $731 million in cybersecurity for federal network protection; $257 million for nationwide cyber incident response teams and cybersecurity technical assistance to state, local and tribal governments;  $341 million to continue working with industry sectors to safeguard critical infrastructure (from dams to banks) against catastrophic failures due to terrorism or natural disasters; and $164.8 million for nationwide emergency communication network protection and call prioritization during disasters.  The bill also includes $1.476 billion, in fee funding, for the Federal Protective Service to safeguard federal employees and property. Office of Health Affairs.  OHA is funded at $113 million.  Major investments include $79 million for early detection of a chemical or biological attack.  The bill eliminates   the National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC) as proposed in the budget.   NBIC played a major role in information sharing and decision-making during the recent ebola, zika, and other emerging threats incidents.  This termination will reduce the Nation’s and the Department’s awareness and early warning of biological threats.  Federal Emergency Management Agency.  FEMA is funded at $4.518 billion, including $559 million designated as emergency and excluding disaster cap adjustment funding of $6.793 billion.  Funding will support a portion of FEMA’s past preparedness and response efforts to support disasters and provide grants to state, local, tribal and territorial governments to maintain core capabilities for extraordinary events.  Funding is reduced for port, transit, and pre-disaster mitigation grants.        Funding highlights include: -          $2.849 billion for grants and training to state, local, tribal and territorial governments for terrorism prevention; disaster mitigation; firefighting equipment and hiring; and maintaining emergency management core capabilities.  Some of the deep cuts proposed in the budget are rejected, however funds to protect ports are cut by 50 percent, security funds for transit systems are cut by 40 percent, and pre-disaster mitigation grants are cut by 25 percent. -          The bill provides only $27.5 million for Urban Search and Rescue teams, a reduction of $10.8 million or 28 percent.   The capabilities of USAR teams, many of which responded to recent hurricanes and wildfires, would be greatly diminished by this bill.  -          $80.9 million for capital projects related to emergency communications infrastructure and maintenance of Mt. Weather Emergency Operations Center.  -          $7.352 billion to fully fund disaster relief efforts known prior to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, Nate and communities affected by wildfires, which are being funded through separate legislation.  This amount includes $6.793 billion in cap adjustment funding and $559 million in emergency funds.  United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.  USCIS is funded at $132 million in direct appropriations. USCIS is an almost entirely fee-funded agency and the budget assumes collection of $4.31 billion in fees to process applications for green cards, naturalization, asylum and refugee claims among many other categories.  The bill permits the use of $10 million for citizenship assistance grants to lawfully present aliens. The appropriated funds are used for operation and expansion of the E-Verify employment verification system. Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers.  FLETC is funded at $241 million.  Funding will allow interagency law enforcement training for 91 United States government federal law enforcement agencies on four main campuses.  Science and Technology. S&T is funded at $720 million.  The bill eliminates funding for three laboratory facilities -- the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, the Chemical Security Analysis Center, and the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory.  This decision will result in a national security gap in countering biological, radiological, and chemical threats.  In addition, the bill provides $37 million for University Programs, $7.1 million more than the request. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.  DNDO is funded at $310 million.  Included in this amount is a $1.2 million increase in support to state and local detection programs.  The Securing the Cities program is funded at $21.135 million – the same as fiscal year 2017 and the request.  The bill includes a reduction of $31.6 million for acquisitions of large scale detection systems and human portable rad/nuclear detection systems. Office of Inspector General.  OIG is funded at $127 million, $48 million or 38 percent less than fiscal year 2017.  The bill includes a $48 million transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund.   However, because DRF funds can only be used for disaster audits, all other DHS investigative work will be reduced, including border security and immigration activities. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/durbin-leahy-statement-on-fy18-defense-appropriations-chairmans-mark,"Durbin, Leahy Statement on FY18 Defense Appropriations Chairman's Mark",2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.21.17 Durbin, Leahy Statement on FY18 Defense Appropriations Chairman's Mark U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, released the following statement on the release of the Fiscal Year 2018 Defense Appropriations Act. The bill exceeds President Trump’s request by $15.3 billion, and exceeds the sequestration caps by $70 billion. This is a step forward, though we remain deeply concerned about the process. So before anyone cheers the major new investments in our national defense, we should pause and recognize that the lack of a budget deal means that all of these new investments will be automatically cut by 13% beginning on January 15th. The right way forward is to conclude a budget deal and then pass an omnibus as soon as possible that contains equal investments in both the military and America’s many critical domestic needs. That must include the bipartisan Dream Act to which the President has already committed. And while the lack of a budget deal to address these issues is extremely concerning, we would like to recognize Chairman Cochran’s work in the Defense Subcommittee to look out for America’s service members and the security of our country. We remain hopeful that a budget agreement can be reached soon to keep all of America strong. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-slams-border-wall-funding-as-bumper-sticker-budgeting,Leahy Slams Border Wall Funding As Bumper Sticker Budgeting,2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.21.17 Leahy Slams Border Wall Funding As “Bumper Sticker Budgeting” Slamming the proposal as “bumper sticker budgeting,” Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Tuesday focused on a provision in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill that would provide $1.6 billion from American taxpayers for President Trump’s border wall with Mexico.  Leahy said:  “This is bumper sticker budgeting to save face for one of President Trump’s failed campaign promises.  Instead of wasting billions of taxpayer dollars to fund this costly and ineffective proxy for real action on immigration reform, we should be directing our resources toward finding cures for cancer, building schools for our children, feeding the hungry, rebuilding our infrastructure and real security.  We should be investing in what brings us together, not building walls that drive us apart.” Placed in strategic locations identified by the Department of Homeland Security as being in need of additional security to prevent illegal border crossings or other illicit activities, the United States already has 654 miles of pedestrian fencing or vehicle barriers along its southern border.  The additional 74 miles of President Trump’s border wall proposed in the appropriations bill is estimated to impact 900 landowners and cost as much as $22 million per mile.  With legal disputes still ongoing from border wall construction a decade ago in Texas, the legal costs of new construction are expected to be astronomical and drawn out over years. With illegal border crossings on the decline and apprehensions along the southern border reaching historic lows, Leahy argued that American tax dollars should be spent elsewhere and invested in the American people.  If the bill had gone through markup in the full Senate Appropriations Committee, Leahy would have offered an amendment that would have blocked funding for the wall unless it was paid for by Mexico, as President Trump promised. Leahy said:  “President Trump ran on a clear campaign promise – he was going to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, and Mexico would pay for it.  He could not have been clearer.  I have also been clear about how I feel about this misguided campaign promise.  Building a wall along our southern border is a waste of taxpayer dollars and an insult to our neighbor to the South.  From every perspective, this costly wall is an unwelcome turkey.”      Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/sen-leahy-sen-cardin-and-others-send-letter-to-mnuchin-on-sec-oil-gas-mining-transparency-rule,"Sen. Leahy, Sen. Cardin And Others Send Letter To Mnuchin On SEC Oil, Gas, Mining Transparency Rule",2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.21.17 Sen. Leahy, Sen. Cardin And Others Send Letter To Mnuchin On SEC Oil, Gas, Mining Transparency Rule . . . Senators criticize Treasury move to invalidate law, point to other country, company compliance as proof that transparency works U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led 14 of his colleagues Tuesday, including Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), in a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, urging him to withdraw the Department’s recent recommendation that a key extractive industry transparency provision be completely repealed by Congress. Earlier this year, Congressional Republicans halted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s implementation of the rule but left the underlying rulemaking instructions in place. Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank, also known as the bipartisan Cardin-Lugar Anti-Corruption provision, promotes transparency and accountability by requiring domestic and foreign oil, gas, and mineral companies traded on U.S. stock exchanges to publish the payments they make to foreign governments.  Leahy also played a central role in its enactment. Joining Senator Cardin on the letter are U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). “The Treasury Department’s recommendation to repeal the statute would forfeit U.S. leadership on this critical issue, at a time when it is vital the U.S. reaffirm its commitment to combating corruption,” the Senators said. “Repeal would also undermine our energy security and our national security….undermine global transparency and anti-corruption efforts, and undercut our allies who followed U.S. leadership by enacting and implementing their own disclosure measures.” “Section 1504 supports the Treasury Department’s mission to help ensure a more stable operating environment for U.S. and U.S.-listed companies, to strengthen national security, and to protect the capital of American investors,” the Senators added. “We urge you to withdraw this recommendation.  The full text of the Senators’ letter follows: Dear Secretary Mnuchin: We strongly disagree with the Treasury Department’s recent recommendation that Congress repeal Section 1504 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, also known as the bipartisan Cardin-Lugar Anti-Corruption Provision, and urge you to withdraw the recommendation. Section 1504 supports the Treasury Department’s mission to help ensure a more stable operating environment for U.S. and U.S.-listed companies, to strengthen national security, and to protect the capital of American investors. The Treasury Department's position that the information in Section 1504 payment disclosures may not be “material” is contrary to the stated views of investors and to the clear intent of Congress.  Section 1504 is the product of many years of bipartisan deliberation by Congress and at least five years of thorough consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which included significant consideration of investor interests. We urge the Treasury Department to examine the SEC’s extensive comment record, containing statements from investors with nearly $10 trillion in assets under management. Those comments, from a broad cross-section of investors, make clear they support the law because it will help them better assess and mitigate material investment risks. Today, as oil, gas, and mining projects enter increasingly dangerous and conflict-prone frontiers, investors need full disclosure to guide their decision-making and to protect themselves from social, political, sanctions, expropriation, reputational, regulatory, and other risks. We also disagree with the Department’s assertion that Section 1504 would “impose significant costs upon public companies that are widely held by all investors.” Section 1504 is a reporting requirement, not an onerous regulation that significantly burdens oil, gas, and mining companies that are operating within the bounds of law. Today, there is broad agreement among those companies about the importance of project-level payment transparency. Indeed, major successful U.S.-listed oil companies like BP, Shell, Total, and the world’s largest mining companies, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, have been reporting their project-level payments to governments under equivalent EU requirements for years. Even state-owned firms such as Rosneft, Gazprom, and CNOOC have reported their project-level payments. A repeal of the law would seriously undermine global transparency and anti-corruption efforts, and undercut our allies who followed U.S. leadership by enacting and implementing their own disclosure measures.  A common global standard simplifies compliance for multinational companies. Repeal of this rule would eliminate the equivalence that currently exists with the EU, Canada, and Norway, and would actually raise compliance costs for cross-listed companies that would have to prepare multiple reports. In fact, since reporting began, companies have called for a level playing field through a consistent global payment transparency standard. The Treasury Department’s recommendation to repeal the statute would forfeit U.S. leadership on this critical issue, at a time when it is vital the U.S. reaffirm its commitment to combating corruption. Repeal would also undermine our energy security and our national security. Ceding U.S. leadership on this important issue would encourage corrupt governments and their allies around the world, and weaken the efforts of our allies committed to this anti-corruption fight. We urge you to withdraw this recommendation. Sincerely, Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/statement-of-senator-patrick-leahy-d-vt-on-federal-judges-nationwide-injunction-blocking-trump-executive-order-on-sanctuary-jurisdictions,Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) On Federal Judges Nationwide Injunction Blocking Trump Executive Order On Sanctuary Jurisdictions,2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.21.17 Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) On Federal Judge’s Nationwide Injunction Blocking Trump Executive Order On “Sanctuary Jurisdictions” [Last week the U.S. Department of Justice notified 29 jurisdictions, including the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington, of its plans to withhold federal funding based on claims that their policing policies violated federal law with respect to immigration enforcement. Both Vermont jurisdictions have steadfastly denied the DOJ claims, which threatened more than $500,000 in Byrne JAG funding to Vermont law enforcement agencies.  Following is Senator Patrick Leahy’s reaction to the court’s nationwide injunction:] On Monday night a federal judge saw the Trump Administration’s attempt to deny critical funding to so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” for what it is: unconstitutional.  Police chiefs, sheriffs and local leaders should decide what state and local policies are necessary to keep their communities safe -- not a President and an Attorney General who are attempting to extort immigration reform by cutting off vital public safety resources to those communities.  This decision makes clear that it is an affront to our government’s fundamental separation of powers for the Trump Administration to retaliate against states and localities that refuse to bow to its xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda.  The Trump Administration’s efforts to villainize and scapegoat immigrants and harass states and communities are not just disgraceful, they are illegal.  This decision casts doubt on the authority of the Attorney General to withhold funding from the 29 jurisdictions that were notified last week.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/appropriations-vice-chair-leahys-summary-of-chairmans-mark-of-fy2018-financial-services-and-genl-govt-appropriations-bill,Appropriations Vice Chair Leahys Summary Of Chairmans Mark Of FY2018 Financial Services & Genl. Govt. Appropriations Bill,2017-11-20,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.20.17 Appropriations Vice Chair Leahy’s Summary Of Chairman’s Mark Of FY2018 Financial Services & Gen’l. Govt. Appropriations Bill Today the Senate Appropriations Committee made public the Chairman’s Mark of the fiscal year 2018 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations bill.  The bill provides a total of $21.035 billion, including $159 million in disaster funds.  This funding level is $480 million less than the fiscal year 2017 enacted level and nearly $2 billion less than the fiscal year 2018 President’s request.  U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, said: “I thank Chair Capito for addressing a number of my priorities in this bill, in particular, the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund and the Small Business Administration.  I commend her for addressing many agencies’ pressing needs by providing resources above the level the President requested, including for the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Truman Scholarship Foundation. However, I am disappointed that the Senate bill includes two new riders that I don’t believe belong in this bill.  First, the bill includes a provision that effectively negates the campaign finance spending limits imposed on coordinated spending by federal candidates and party committees.  Second, the bill puts in jeopardy continued funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If the subcommittee had marked-up, I would have offered amendments to provide much-needed funding to states to protect their election systems from outside intrusions and to protect the personal data collected by the new Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.  I am also disappointed that funding for some key regulatory agencies falls far below the necessary levels, jeopardizing the ability of these agencies to vigorously protect markets, investors, and consumers from unscrupulous practices.  In addition, I’m concerned that no funding is provided for construction of federal buildings.  I look forward to working with the Chair and our House counterparts as the appropriations process advances.” U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee said: “I thank Chair Capito and Ranking Member Coons for their hard work on this bill and addressing the needs of many agencies.  However, like Senator Coons, I am particularly concerned about the inclusion of policy riders that have no place in the appropriations process.  If the majority wants to rewrite campaign finance law or undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they should introduce standalone bills that the Senate can debate.  These measures should not be buried in must-pass spending bills.  “I am also concerned with some of the drastic cuts this bill contains, including cuts to the IRS, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the GSA. I am particularly concerned that the bill does not include funding for election security grants. “Ultimately, this bill falls short of so many urgent needs. We cannot responsibly fund the government if we do not reach a new bipartisan budget deal that lifts the reckless budget caps.  The consequences of sequestration have been devastating, and we must reach a bipartisan solution.” Key Points & Highlights The bill provides funding for the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and more than two dozen independent federal agencies.  Internal Revenue Service (IRS) The bill includes $11.112 billion for the IRS, which is $124 million below the fiscal year 2017 level.  Resources for the IRS have been cut by $1 billion since fiscal year 2010, so by further cutting the IRS’ resources, the bill will deprive taxpayers of needed assistance to help comply with their tax obligations. Treasury Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund The bill provides $248 million for the CDFI Fund to promote economic and community development, equal to the fiscal year 2017 enacted level.  The bill eliminates funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which helps support healthy food options in underserved communities. District of Columbia (DC) The bill recommends $704 million in special federal payments for over a dozen distinct purposes relating to the District of Columbia.  This is $52 million, or four percent, less than fiscal year 2017 and the same as the President’s request.   In addition to the special federal payments, the bill approves the District’s annual local operating budget. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) The bill freezes CFTC funding at the fiscal year 2017 level of $250 million, which is the same as the President’s request.  Without additional resources, the CFTC’s ability to fully oversee the futures, options and swaps markets will be adversely impacted. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) The bill funds CPSC at $123 million, $3 million less than the fiscal year 2017 enacted level.  The CPSC is the independent regulatory agency responsible for protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products.  At this reduced level, the agency will need to reduce employees by 22 FTEs, leave some ports unstaffed for surveillance of imports, reduce internet surveillance of retail products, delay enhancements to import surveillance technology, limit public campaigns from the outreach office, and postpone work on a long-standing rulemaking.  General Services Administration (GSA) The bill drastically reduces funding for the Federal Buildings Fund to a level of $7.810 billion, which is more than $1 billion, or 12 percent, less than the fiscal year 2017 enacted level and more than $2 billion, or 22 percent, less than the budget request.  No funding is provided for construction ($790 million was requested), which will further delay ongoing projects like the FBI and DHS headquarters consolidations, thereby, making the projects more expensive.  Only $94 million is provided for repair of federal buildings ($1.444 billion was requested), which will further lengthen the backlog of needed repairs to federal buildings. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) The bill funds OPM (non-IG) at $261 million, $1.8 million more than the fiscal year 2017 enacted level and $19 million or 7 percent, less than the budget request.  This level funds  OPM’s IT Modernization at substantially less than requested levels delaying progress on a critically important initiative in the wake of OPM data breaches. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) The bill includes $1.847 billion for the SEC, the same as the President’s request and $242 million above the FY 2017 level.  Funds appropriated for the SEC are fully offset with transaction fee receipts.  Small Business Administration (SBA) The bill includes $887 million for the SBA, equal to the FY 2017 level. Within this level, the bill funds SCORE at $11.5 million, an increase of $1 million above the FY 2017 level, and Small Business Development Centers at $130 million, $5 million above the FY 2017 level.  The bill also increases the cap on SBA’s 7a loan program to $29 billion, $1.5 billion above the current level. Poison Pill Riders Campaign Finance Coordinated Spending Limits: This provision would relax campaign finance restrictions to allow significantly more spending by a candidate. Under current law, each year candidates can receive $5,400 per donor, while party committees can receive significantly more ($339,000 per donor), and there are limits on coordination between candidates and parties. The rider would allow parties to consult with candidates on advertising without that spending counting towards the candidate’s limits, effectively allowing candidates to spend significantly more money. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Funding: Two provisions would shift the CFPB from mandatory to discretionary funding and repeal a prohibition in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that specifically blocks the Appropriations Committees from reviewing the CFPB’s budget request. Dodd-Frank created the CFPB with an automatic funding stream, like other financial regulators, in order to protect it from being underfunded and undermined through the annual budget process.   Coons Amendment At each of the previous markups, Democrats offered alternative amendments that taken together would ultimately increase defense spending in fiscal year 2018 by $54 billion above post-sequester spending caps, mandated by the Budget Control Act, and provide an equal increase in non-defense programs – a budget and policy approach known as “parity.”  Had the Full Committee convened to mark up the draft bill, Senator Coons would have offered an amendment to increase investments in FSGG programs by $1.912 billion above the Senate bill level. Highlights of the Coons Amendment: $400 million for grants to States for upgrades to their election systems in a way that meets the needs of that State. $30 million more for the CDFI Fund and $30 million for the SBA to strengthen our economy by increasing investment in underserved areas and helping small businesses grow. $22 million more for the Treasury Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to protect the nation’s financial systems from all forms of financial crime. $25 million more for the CFTC to strengthen cybersecurity. $10 million more for the CPSC and $10 million more for the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers $600 million more for the IRS to improve taxpayer’s services.  Resources for the IRS have been cut more than $1 billion since 2010. $20 million more for the OPM to improve the protection of federal employee data in the wake of previous data breaches. $30 million more for DC, including funds to reimburse DC for costs associated with the recent Presidential Inauguration for which DC has not been fully reimbursed. $735 million for the GSA Federal Buildings Fund to restore the $200 million rescission of funds targeted toward a new FBI Headquarters Building, $450 million toward completion of the DHS headquarters consolidation, and $85 million to address needed major repairs to federal buildings.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/appropriations-vice-chair-leahys-summary-of-chairmans-mark-of-the-fy2018-interior-environment-appropriations-bill,"Appropriations Vice Chair Leahys Summary Of Chairmans Mark Of The FY2018 Interior, Environment Appropriations Bill",2017-11-20,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.20.17 Appropriations Vice Chair Leahy’s Summary Of Chairman’s Mark Of The FY2018 Interior, Environment Appropriations Bill The Senate Appropriations Committee Monday made public the Chairman’s Mark for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriations Bill.  The Senate bill recommends $32.536 billion in discretionary funding for agencies funded by the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill, which includes $32.030 billion in discretionary funds and $507 million in emergency funds to pay for wildland firefighting needs.   Excluding emergency funding, the amount provided is $250 million below the fiscal year 2017 level and $4.831 billion above the President’s budget request.  The bill makes troubling cuts to clean air and water programs and includes a number of policy riders that would weaken the nation’s core laws protecting public health and the environment. U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, said: “I deeply regret that we weren’t able to come together and produce a bipartisan bill, because this bill includes many priorities for New Mexico and the nation that I want to support.  I especially appreciate that Senator Murkowski worked with me and other members on both sides of the aisle to reject the president’s disastrous proposal to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities and maintain level funding for each of the endowments.  But I can’t look past the deep and damaging cuts to the EPA budget in this bill that put public health at risk.  And I can't ignore that it takes aim at the laws that protect our environment and our communities.  It’s very disappointing that this bill continues to be the target for unacceptable poison pill policy riders that undercut bedrock environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.  Had we marked up, I would have offered an amendment to restore the EPA's budget and significantly expand other critical Tribal, natural resources and environmental protection programs.  It wouldn’t have restored every cut or patched every hole, but it would have responded to the worst funding gaps in the EPA budget, strengthened infrastructure and created jobs.” U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said: “I want to thank Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall for their work on this bill.  While I am deeply disappointed that the overall bill has bowed to the anti-science know-nothingism of President Trump by slashing environmental programs and denying the reality of climate change, I am glad we were able to secure funding for programs that are vitally important for Lake Champlain and conservation efforts my home state of Vermont. But this bill falls far short of the funding we need and contains poison pill riders that have no place in the appropriations process.  We cannot responsibly fund the government if we do not reach a new bipartisan budget deal that lifts the reckless budget caps, and we must accept the reality of climate change.  The consequences of sequestration have been devastating, and we must reach a bipartisan solution. Key Points & Highlights Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Operations.  The bill includes unacceptable cuts to EPA’s operating budget, including 10 percent reductions to programs supporting clean water, clean air, enforcement against polluters, and scientific research.  The bill even eliminates the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the critical EPA program relied on worldwide for assessments of toxic chemicals.  The bill imposes the IRIS workload onto the recently-reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program, which was not designed to accommodate the breadth of the IRIS program’s responsibilities.  The bill also allows EPA to allocate an additional $68 million in program cuts with no restrictions – enabling even further cuts to critical programs without the input of the Appropriations Committee.  Funding is also included to enable the administration to cut a full quarter of EPA’s current staff of scientists and public health experts.  Finally, the bill endorses the President’s request to eliminate nearly all of the agency’s climate change programs. Water Infrastructure State Revolving Funds.  Within the budget for EPA, the bill provides $2.258 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water revolving funds, which are provided directly to the states for water and wastewater infrastructure projects.  This is the same level of funding provided in fiscal year 2017 and will help supply Americans with clean drinking water and replace aging sewer systems. The bill focuses new investments on drinking water, which is critical for states and cities working to replace lead service lines and upgrade other aging infrastructure.  This funding also supports construction jobs.  The bill would result in nearly 1,000 water infrastructure projects, more than 50,000 jobs, and $4.3 billion in matching investments from states.  However, the bill offsets these much needed investments with unacceptable cuts to key EPA programs supporting clean water, clean air, climate, and environmental enforcement. Wildland Fire Management.  The bill provides $3.625 billion to the Forest Service and Interior Department for wildland firefighting, a decrease of $97 million below the fiscal year 2017 level.  Within that amount, the bill provides for the forecasted costs estimated by the agencies for fire suppression, which is $507 million more than the President requested.  In addition, hazardous fuels reduction is funded at $392.5 million for the Forest Service and $184 million for Interior, a total increase of $6.5 million above the fiscal 2017 level. National Park Service.  The bill provides $2.942 billion for the National Park Service, an increase of $10 million above the fiscal year 2017 level and an increase of $389 million above the budget request.  The bill includes $221.7 million for national park construction needs, an increase of $12 million above fiscal year 2017.  Funding for park operations is reduced by nearly 1 percent compared to fiscal year 2017, though the bill does provide sufficient funding for operations of newly authorized parks and also continues $13 million for grants to protect and preserve important civil rights sites.  A total of $20 million is provided for the Centennial Challenge program to match non-Federal investments and fund infrastructure and visitor services needs at parks around the nation. Native American Trust Responsibilities.  The bill includes $5.040 billion for tribal health programs of the Indian Health Service (IHS), which is flat compared to the fiscal year 2017 level and $302 million above the President’s request.  The bill restores proposed cuts in the President’s request to tribal health programs, including substance abuse and mental health services, and provides $50 million in additional funds not included in the budget request to staff newly constructed facilities.  However, the recommendation also forces the Service to absorb current service costs—meaning that most tribal health programs will effectively get cut by inflation.  The bill also includes $2.87 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, $7.5 million above the fiscal year 2017 level and $379 million above the President’s request.  The bill provides fixed costs and small increases to public safety and justice programs, road maintenance, school construction, natural resource programs and some tribal education programs.  Fish and Wildlife Service.  The bill makes an unacceptable cut to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s programs supporting the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, reducing funding for listing of species by $3.4 million (16 percent).  The bill maintains funding for operations of the National Wildlife Refuge System at the fiscal year 2017 level of $483.9 million, rejecting the President’s budget proposal to cut funding for refuges by $13.8 million.  Despite cuts proposed in the President’s budget request, the bill does provide $1 million more than fiscal year 2017’s  level in funding for anti-wildlife trafficking programs to better protect elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, and other iconic species.  Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).  The bill provides a total of $400 million for land acquisition, conservation easements, and state assistance grants, which is equal to the fiscal year 2017 level and well above the $64 million proposed in the President’s request.  LWCF is critical for improving recreational access to our federal lands, protecting iconic landscapes, delivering grants to states and local governments to create and protect urban parks and open spaces, and providing farmers and ranchers with easements to allow them to continue to steward their private lands in the face of development pressures. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).  The bill funds payments to counties through the PILT program at a total of $465 million, equal to fiscal year 2017. Cultural and Arts Programs.  The bill provides a total of $878.4 million for the Smithsonian Institution, which is $15 million above the fiscal year 2017 level.  The National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, which provide grants to cultural institutions in every state, are each provided $149.9 million, equal to the fiscal year 2017 level.  The President’s request proposed terminating the endowments.  The National Gallery of Art receives $156.5 million, an increase of $1 million above last year’s level. Poison Pill Riders The bill includes a number of troubling policy riders that undermine core environmental protection laws and are unrelated to the Committee’s jurisdiction, including: Clean Water.  Provides a free pass to rescind and replace federal protections for streams and wetlands by blocking any new rule to define Waters of the United States from being challenged on its merits and exempting EPA from longstanding procedural requirements, weakening public involvement in the regulatory process. Forestry Reforms.  Couples budgetary reforms for wildland firefighting with major new authorizations that modify environmental requirements for forestry projects, set aside logging restrictions on old-growth trees in the Tongass National Forest, and provide a blanket exemption for Alaska from the Roadless Rule, which prohibits commercial logging and road construction in certain areas, overriding various court decisions. Endangered Species Protections.  The bill includes several provisions that erode the Endangered Species Act and override court rulings upholding the protections afforded to species under the law, including: Reconsultation Requirements.  Includes new language that would overturn a court decision that requires federal land managers to reconsult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on land management plans when a new species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or other new pertinent information on a listed species becomes available.  This will result in logging and resource development decisions being made without up-to-date science and species status, which could further imperil threatened or endangered species. Gray Wolves.  Includes new language that overrides court rulings requiring that specific populations of gray wolves must maintain protections under the Endangered Species Act, circumventing the scientific and legal process established to protect imperiled species. Lesser Prairie Chicken.  Includes new language that prevents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from fulfilling its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.  The provision blocks the agency from conducting any activities related to determining if the lesser prairie chicken may be a threatened species, setting a dangerous precedent by circumventing the scientific and legal process established to protect imperiled species. Sage Grouse.  Continues language that prevents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from fulfilling its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.  The provision overrides a court requirement that the agency make a determination on whether sage-grouse should be listed as a threatened or endangered species and sets a dangerous precedent by circumventing the scientific and legal process established to protect imperiled species. Forest Biomass.  Includes language making permanent changes to federal policy on carbon emissions from forest biomass, that shortcuts the scientific process by automatically deeming certain activities as having a neutral impact on climate change.   Lead Ammunition.  Continues language that exempts lead ammunition and fishing tackle from environmental controls under the Toxic Substances Control Act and other environmental laws. Yazoo Pumps Reconsideration.  New language directing immediate construction of a controversial flood control project, despite the George W. Bush Administration’s rejection of the project based on findings that it would significantly degrade municipal water supplies, fisheries, productive bottomland hardwood forests, and wildlife and habitat on tens of thousands of acres of public and private lands.  The language would also block any legal challenges and waive all other administrative requirements, such as compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Udall Amendment Senator Udall planned to offer a funding amendment to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill that would have increased funding for safe drinking water and clean water infrastructure, to protect natural and cultural resources, fulfill the nation’s trust responsibility, and protect science and human health.  The amendment, totaling $3.1 billion, would have been a component of the effort by Committee Democrats to invest in the American people.  The Democrats’ proposals would ultimately increase defense spending in fiscal year 2018 by $54 billion above post-sequester spending caps, mandated by the Budget Control Act, and provide an equal increase in non-defense programs – a budget and policy approach known as “parity.”  The text and breakdown of the Udall Amendment is available HERE.  $1 billion in new funds for water infrastructure, including $500 million for grants to states through EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund, $380 million for grants to states through EPA Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and $120 million to fully fund new water lead protection grants authorized through the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. $400 million to double investments in Land and Water Conservation Fund, for a total of $800 million. $255 million in new funds for Park Service operations and construction. $125 million for Forest Service fuels reduction and capital improvements. $80 million each in new operating funds for the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, including funds to support all existing national monuments. $18 million in new funding to fully fund county payments through the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. $404 million in new funds for tribal health priorities through the Indian Health Service to cover current service requirements and expand clinical programs. $171 million in new funds for construction of tribal health facilities. $200 million for new funds for core program needs at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education, including education, public safety and law enforcement, natural resources programs and broadband capacity development. $50 million for construction of tribal schools. $25 million to fund additional tribal land and water claims settlements. $200 million to restore proposed cuts within the bill to EPA’s core research and regulatory programs, including fully restoring funding eliminated in the base bill for the IRIS program and protecting the TSCA program from being overwhelmed by new responsibilities outside the scope of its current authorities. $79 million to fully fund need museum repairs at the Smithsonian Institution. $25 million in grants to states to fund historic preservation needs, including brick and mortar projects through the Save America’s Treasures program. $17.5 million each in new funds for grants to state arts and humanities councils through the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/federal-grants-totaling-nearly-600000-to-help-5-vt-communities-hire-new-officers-cops-grants,"Federal Grants Totaling Nearly $600,000 To Help 5 VT Communities Hire New Officers (COPS Grants)",2017-11-20,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.20.17 Federal Grants Totaling Nearly $600,000 To Help 5 VT Communities Hire New Officers (COPS Grants) Senator Patrick Leahy Monday announced that five rural Vermont law enforcement agencies will receive a total of nearly $600,000 to help hire new officers through the Department of Justice COPS Hiring Program. The program covers a large portion of the costs that communities face when adding officers to their ranks, thereby supporting the goals of community policing. “These funds are critical to small law enforcement agencies that would otherwise find it too costly to bring a new officer on board,” said Leahy, a longtime champion of the program who continues to support its funding through his role as Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “With the increase in opioid abuse and its inherent problems, our law enforcement agencies and officers are stretched to their limits. This is the type of federal spending that just makes common sense.” The funding provides up to 75 percent of the entry-level salaries and benefits of full-time officers over a three-year period, with a required 25 percent local match. Each of the five Vermont grants will allow the respective departments to hire one new officer. The FY 2017 grants include: Essex County Sheriff’s Department - $113,169 Franklin County Sheriff’s Department - $93,583 Hardwick Police Department - $125,000 Orange County Sheriff’s Department - $125,000 Village of Winhall Police Department - $125,000 In the case of Franklin County, the new funding will help hire a School Resource Officer in Fairfax for grades K-12, according to Franklin County Sheriff Robert Norris. Leahy said he was pleased that this year’s grant awards would be helping some of the state’s most rural populations, noting, “Our small law enforcement agencies are being asked to do more every day to meet the needs of their communities.  We know the challenges of illegal drug use hit our small towns just as they do our larger cities, and our law enforcement partners need  resources to fight this epidemic.”             Since the program was signed into law in 1994, COPS Hiring grants have supported hiring more than 130,000 law enforcement officers throughout the country.  Last year the Burlington Police Department received a $625,000 COPS Hiring grant to help the city hire five additional officers over a three-year period.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-notches-key-victories-for-lake-champlain-and-vermont-in-appropriations-bill,Leahy Notches Key Victories For Lake Champlain And Vermont In Appropriations Bill,2017-11-20,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.20.17 Leahy Notches Key Victories For Lake Champlain And Vermont In Appropriations Bill Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy Monday announced several key victories for programs that support Lake Champlain, conservation initiatives, and historic downtowns across Vermont.  The programs were funded through the Appropriations Committee bill on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, for Fiscal Year 2018, which was released on Monday afternoon.  The bill will now be negotiated to reconcile differences between the Senate and House bills prior to being considered by the full Senate.  Leahy said:  “While I am deeply disappointed that the overall bill has bowed to the anti-science know-nothingism of President Trump by slashing environmental programs and denying the reality of climate change, I am glad we were able to secure funding for programs that are vitally important for Lake Champlain and conservation efforts across our state.  As Vice Chairman, I will continue to fight against the Trump agenda and work to restore the cuts that are in this bill as we continue through the appropriations process.” The Senate bill contains: $4 million increase, for a total $8.4 million, for the Lake Champlain Program; $8 million increase, for a total $444 million, for the EPA Geographic Programs; $3 million increase for a new federal Historic Revitalization Grants program; $100,000 increase, for a total $489,000, to administer and implement the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Program; $35 million increase, for a total $106.5 million, for U.S. Forest Service Capital Improvements; and $1.8 million for Forest Service Acquisition of Rolston Rest. President Trump’s budget would have eliminated all of the EPA’s Geographic Programs, abandoning a significant portion of federal support for ongoing regional clean-up projects in areas like Lake Champlain, the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico that partner with local programs to find solutions.  In large complex ecosystems like Lake Champlain, stopping investments into cleanup efforts would have reverberating consequences that would result in losing the progress we have made.  As one of the Geographic Programs, the Lake Champlain Program grants millions of dollars to local communities and organizations for pollution prevention and education work.  Blue green algae monitoring by the Lake Champlain Committee, storm water structures at the Shelburne Community School and Smilie School in Bolton, support for the Franklin County Farmers Watershed alliance, planning work to solve combined sewer overflows in Vergennes, and green storm water infrastructure in Rutland County’s Moon Brook are a few examples of more than 90 projects supported in 2016.    The $3 million for a new federal program to support historic preservation is based on the Village Revitalization Initiative (VRI), championed by Leahy through a partnership with the Preservation Trust of Vermont. Since its establishment, the VRI has rehabilitated 27 historic community buildings in the hearts of 25 Vermont town centers and has leveraged nearly $27 million toward total project costs.  This effort garnered the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) Chairman’s Award for Achievement in Historic Preservation, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation Richard H. Driehaus Award in 2011 and 2014. The U.S. Forest Service manages national forest land like the Green Mountain National Forest.  The increase to the capital improvement accounts would allow for trail repair and construction of new facilities to increase public access.  The current Supervisor’s office and visitor center for the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forest has occupied leased space in downtown Rutland for the past 25 years.  A portion of the increase in the capital improvement fund to a total of $106.5 million will likely be used to construct a permanent facility on Route 4 in Mendon, Vermont, which has been a priority of the service since the 1990s.   The bill includes $69.5 million for the U.S. Forest Service for land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), including $1.8 million for the acquisition of Rolston Rest, which is a critical link in Vermont’s statewide trail networks and connects major tracts of the Green Mountain National Forest. This National Forest acquisition in Chittenden will reopen the property to public access and protect the wild character and scenic views of the Long Trail and the Catamount Trail, as well as protect rare species and water quality, while preventing habitat  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/appropriations-vice-chairman-leahys-reax-to-trump-adms-3rd-emergency-supplemental-request,Appropriations Vice Chairman Leahy's REAX To Trump Adm.'s 3rd Emergency Supplemental Request,2017-11-17,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.17.17 Appropriations Vice Chairman Leahy's REAX To Trump Adm.'s 3rd Emergency Supplemental Request [Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Friday issued the following statement on the Trump Administration’s emergency supplemental request, totaling $44 billion, to address recent natural disasters.  Earlier this month, Leahy and Senator Schumer led a letter outlining what Senate Democrats believe should be contained in the supplemental request.] The Trump Administration’s request does not come close to meeting the needs of victims of recent natural disasters in Texas, Florida, California, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Earlier this month, Senator Schumer and I led Senate Democrats in calling on President Trump to put forward a comprehensive package to provide relief from the recent onslaught of natural disasters.  This is not that package.  This is wholly inadequate and downright insulting, especially for the people of Puerto Rico who, eight to ten weeks after Hurricanes Irma and Maria, are struggling to get the lights back on and are looking to Congress for help.     As Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee I have received requests for more than $180 billion in federal assistance from communities impacted by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.  This request doesn’t come even close to meeting those needs.  This was a chance for the Trump Administration to show that they care about ALL Americans and that the federal government stands behind disaster-struck communities.  They failed.  It does not provide sufficient funds to rebuild homes, roads, bridges, schools, or Puerto Rico’s electrical grid.  What’s more, the Administration wants to pay for this package by making cuts to other important programs that states, including Texas, Florida and others affected by the hurricanes, rely on.  This is not how we have treated disasters in the past, and Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands deserve no less than our full commitment to help them rebuild.  I am particularly concerned that the Administration’s proposal fails to meet the unique needs of the people of Puerto Rico.  The new $12 billion dollar mitigation fund proposed by this Administration will never flow to Puerto Rico because it favors states that can provide matching funds.       If we do not now stand behind the people of Puerto Rico, how can we expect them to have faith in us in the future?  Much like in the delayed response to Katrina and the people of New Orleans, we are seeing the people of Puerto Rico lose faith that we will help them rebuild.  Thousands are abandoning their homes and communities for the mainland.  This will have cascading consequences for generations to come, exacerbating what was already a fragile economy on the island and risking the wreckage of its vibrant culture.  We need to send a signal that we are with them, and we need to send it now.    For 73 days, the people of Puerto Rico, United States citizens, have endured the largest power outage in U.S. history, with nearly 50 percent of the island still in the dark.  For 73 days these Americans have been trying to rebuild their homes, their schools and their communities on the promise that we will stand with them.  The President’s plan is unacceptable.  Mr. President, this is not a “10 out of 10” response.   Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senate-unanimously-passes-grassley-leahy-bill-to-protect-whistleblowers-in-criminal-antitrust-cases,Senate Unanimously Passes Grassley-Leahy Bill to Protect Whistleblowers in Criminal Antitrust Cases,2017-11-17,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.17.17 Senate Unanimously Passes Grassley-Leahy Bill to Protect Whistleblowers in Criminal Antitrust Cases The U.S. Senate Wednesday night unanimously passed the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act to extend whistleblower protection for employees who provide information to the Department of Justice related to criminal antitrust violations.  Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), coauthors of the legislation, hailed the Senate’s quick action on their bipartisan measure.  Approval of the bill comes just one month after the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported it to the full Senate.  Grassley, current Judiciary Committee Chairman, and Leahy, a former chair of the panel, have worked on this legislation since a Government Accountability Office report recommended these changes in 2011.   The measure has passed the Senate the past two Congresses but was not taken up by the House. “Whistleblowers who shed light on violations of our antitrust laws not only help to fight crime; they also help protect consumers from less choice and higher prices in the marketplace. Our bill encourages private sector employees to disclose such criminal behavior by protecting them from retaliation at work.  Whistleblowers are critical to exposing fraud, waste and abuse in government, and it’s high time we empower whistleblowers in the private sector to do the same for consumers,” Grassley said. “I applaud the Senate for again acting to advance meaningful bipartisan legislation that will improve the detection and enforcement of antitrust laws.  I will now work with Senator Grassley to advance this commonsense legislation in the House and finally get it to the President for signature.  No one should be retaliated against for blowing the whistle on criminal activity.  If enacted, this legislation will make it harder for bad actors to get away with illegal anticompetitive behavior.  Most importantly, it will promote a free and open marketplace and will protect consumers,” Leahy said. The bill allows employees who believe they are victims of retaliation to file complaints with the Secretary of Labor, and it provides for those employees to be reinstated to their former status if the Secretary finds in their favor.  Leahy and Grassley authored similar whistleblower statutes as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002.  A copy of the measure approved by the Senate on can be found HERE. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senator-lee-and-senator-leahy-introduce-the-usa-liberty-act-in-the-senate,Senator Lee And Senator Leahy Introduce The USA Liberty Act In The Senate,2017-11-17,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.17.17 Senator Lee And Senator Leahy Introduce The USA Liberty Act In The Senate . . . Key Privacy Improvements For FISA Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator Patrick Leahy have jointly introduced the Uniting and Strengthening American Liberty Act (USA Liberty Act) of 2017 in the United States Senate.  Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act will expire on December 31, 2017.  This legislation would reauthorize Section 702 while making key privacy improvements.  Section 702 allows the government to collect sweeping amounts of Internet and other communications, including content and metadata, by targeting communications of foreigners abroad. But in doing so, the government also acquires a vast amount of Americans’ communications and is able to search through such collection without a warrant or even a court order.  The Lee-Leahy legislation would apply stricter limits on the government’s ability to search Section 702 collection for communications of Americans and persons inside the United States, to ensure this surveillance is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The bill is modeled after legislation of the same name introduced in the House of Representatives by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).  Last Congress, Senators Lee and Leahy partnered with the same House Judiciary leaders to pass the historic USA FREEDOM Act, which ended NSA bulk metadata collection and contained significant reforms to other surveillance authorities. Both the House bill, which earlier this month was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee in a strong bipartisan vote, and this Senate companion bill contain long-overdue reforms to this powerful surveillance authority.  They codify an end to “about” collection, enhance accountability, and increase protections for queries of Section 702 metadata, among other important reforms.  The Senate legislation also contains a provision based on an amendment that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced in the Senate Intelligence Committee that closes the so-called “backdoor” loophole by extending warrant protections to Americans and persons inside the United States for queries of Section 702 contents in both national security and ordinary criminal investigations.  Senator Lee said:  “Americans have never been more concerned about the security and privacy of their online communications than they are today.  This bill implements some much needed reforms to our surveillance laws that will better protect law-abiding Americans' privacy in a manner consistent with the 4th Amendment."" Senator Leahy said:  “I am proud to again join with Senator Lee to ensure that appropriate and commonsense limits are applied to the government’s vast surveillance powers.  This legislation maintains a critical balance between protecting national security and ensuring the privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans, and also provides additional oversight and transparency.  It is my hope that this bipartisan legislation will result in real and meaningful reform to this powerful surveillance tool.” Leading civil liberties and national security advocates have praised the legislation: Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, said:  “This bill fixes the most serious problem with Section 702 surveillance today: the government’s ability to read Americans’ e-mails and listen to their telephone calls without a warrant,” and called the legislation “a very promising development in the reform debate.” The legislation is also supported by the civil liberties and civil rights community, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Constitution Project, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and the Project on Government Oversight. The full text of the legislation can be found here.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-statement-doj-decision-withhold-federal-law-enforcement-grants,Welch Statement on DOJ Decision to Withhold Federal Law Enforcement Grants,2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) issued the following statement in response to a decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to initiate punitive measures against the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington related to immigration. “This decision is a slap in the face to Burlington, the State of Vermont and law enforcement agencies across our state. It is a blatant attempt by the Attorney General to strong-arm state and local governments in this country to fall in line with the Trump Administration’s offensive anti-immigrant policies. The courts should block this heavy-handed and punitive decision.” ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-the-national-defense-authorization-act-conference-report,Leahy Statement On The National Defense Authorization Act Conference Report,2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.16.17 Leahy Statement On The National Defense Authorization Act Conference Report The Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, while laudable in its goals, does not comport with reality.  At roughly $700 billion, the proposed base funding in this bill is $85 billion above budget caps that are set in law for fiscal year 2018 in the Budget Control Act (BCA), and $31 billion above the administration’s budget request.  If the authorized funding level were to be appropriated, without changing the caps, it would trigger a 12 percent across-the-board sequester of defense programs to bring spending levels back to the fiscal year 2018 levels contained in the Budget Control Act.   A sequester of this size would hit us in readiness.  It would hamper our day-to-day operations and maintenance.  It would hurt our troops.  Our military leaders do not support such a sequester. If we really want to support our military, and the men and women in uniform, we must immediately reach a bipartisan budget deal to lift the artificial and unrealistically low budget caps that were set in law in 2011.  It is hard to get every member of this Chamber to agree on anything, but on this we can agree: sequester has had a negative impact on our country that will impact a generation.  We need to have an honest conversation about what the needs of our country are—both in military and domestic spending, and draft our spending bills accordingly.  I do appreciate the work that Senator McCain and Senator Reed have put into this massive legislation.  While my concerns with the funding levels authorized in this bill prevent me from supporting it, I do believe it reflects a strong commitment to the programs and policies that support our service members and their families.  That must always be our goal. I am pleased that the conferenced bill maintains support for medical research that matter so much to our service members, and to all Americans who benefit from the lifesaving results made possible through these programs. I am also grateful for the inclusion of language I authored that would pave the way for piloting a preventative mental health program for our National Guard and Reserve. Like physical health, we know that with particular training and mental preparation, a person can be more resilient mentally when faced with challenges, and building that readiness is necessary to maintain the all-volunteer force. Progress is already being made with shifting to a preventative model in the special forces community, I hope to soon see similar progress in developing models for the members of our Guard and Reserve. This final bill also includes several amendments I proposed to make sure U.S. efforts, especially in Afghanistan, are consistent with U.S. values.  These include a provision aimed at improving the way the Departments of Defense and State provide human rights training to partner forces, and a requirement to establish a plan on how to improve our ability to help foreign governments protect civilians.  The final bill also authorizes establishment of a position in the Department of Defense to oversee its implementation of, and coordination with the Department of State on, the Leahy Law for human rights vetting for Afghan security forces. In three weeks and one day, the current resolution funding our government will expire. Yet, instead of sitting down with Democrats to work together – just as we did earlier this year to enact the fiscal year 17 omnibus spending bill – to find a path forward to raise the budget caps and fund our government for the rest of the fiscal year, Republicans are focused on a tax cut bill that will add $1.5 trillion to the debt.  Instead of acting responsibly, and in the greatest traditions of the Senate, the majority is marching towards another partisan fight on the floor on a deeply flawed tax bill that will impact every corner of our economy. Let’s get to work for the American people.  For months I have been calling for a bipartisan budget deal to lift the caps on both sides for both defense and non-defense programs based on parity.  It is time to complete those negotiations. We owe it to the men and women who serve.  We owe it to the American people.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/reaction-of-appropriations-vice-chair-patrick-leahy-d-vt-to-the-house-passed-tax-bill,Reaction Of Appropriations Vice Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) To The House-Passed Tax Bill,2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.16.17 Reaction Of Appropriations Vice Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) To The House-Passed Tax Bill . . . “A hodge-podge collection of broken promises to middle class Americans” The House has passed a hodge-podge collection of broken promises to middle class Americans.  Republican leaders and President Trump promised  to close loopholes for large corporations and the wealthiest Americans to pay for lowering their tax rates.  Instead, their tax rates would be cut, and the loopholes remain, meaning even lower effective tax rates for the wealthy, while exploding the federal debt.  Vermonters would pay more by losing deductions for state and local taxes, by losing deductions for school loan interest payments and by losing deductions for medical expenses.  This bill, produced by a handful of Republicans, behind closed doors, delivers huge tax breaks for corporations, padding corporations’ already bulging coffers, and it gives short shrift to ordinary Americans.  There certainly are ways to do tax reform in the right way, through a bipartisan process, to truly benefit middle income families and to spur new investment, but this plan has missed that boat.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-slams-trump-ryan-tax-proposal-during-house-debate,Welch Slams Trump-Ryan Tax Proposal During House Debate,2017-11-15,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC – This afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) spoke against the Trump-Ryan tax proposal being debated by the House of Representatives. A final vote on the bill is expected tomorrow by early afternoon. “If you asked 435 members of Congress if they want to raise taxes on students, the answer from 435 members would be ‘no.’ This bill was written by and for the donor class. Let’s defeat this bill and stand up for the middle class.” A full transcript of Rep. Welch’s remarks can be found here. Click image to view video of Rep. Welch’s full remarks. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/appropriations-vice-chairman-leahy-statement-at-hearing-on-va-efforts-to-prevent-and-combat-opioid-over-medication,Appropriations Vice Chairman Leahy Statement At Hearing On VA Efforts To Prevent And Combat Opioid Over Medication,2017-11-15,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.15.17 Appropriations Vice Chairman Leahy Statement At Hearing On VA Efforts To Prevent And Combat Opioid Over Medication The opioid epidemic has reached every state – every community – in the country.  It is impacting sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and coworkers.  And it is impacting our veterans and servicemembers. We have for over 16 years of war asked members of the active and reserve components to serve an unprecedented numbers of deployments, leaving too many veterans broken and in pain.  When we needed these brave men and women to return to battle, it was too easy to prescribe opioids for pain management. That practice has continued when they returned home, where the military and the VA lean far too heavily on opioids to manage pain.  It is now an all too familiar story.  Over-prescribing opioid medications for chronic pain opens the door to addiction, overdose and suicide risk, which devastate families and communities. According to a 2011 VA study, veterans are twice as likely to die from overdoses than the U.S. civilian population.  Yet we continue to prescribe opioids to veterans and our active duty military at an alarming rate.  Among veterans, the number of prescriptions written for opioid painkillers increased 77 percent between 2004 and 2012.  Beginning in 2014, the VA took common sense steps to increase patient education, provide alternative therapeutic approaches, and allow VA providers to participate in state prescription drug monitoring programs.  The result has been more than 260,000 fewer patients receiving opioids this year, down from the 2012 peak of nearly 700,000 veterans.  But that still leaves more than 400,000 veterans receiving opioids from VA facilities – this is unacceptable. By continuing the over-prescription and use of these dangerous and highly addictive drugs, we are creating a unique set of problems and challenges for our Nation’s veterans and our military.  For example, half of all returning veterans suffer chronic pain, and more than 63 percent of those veterans have a mental health diagnosis.  This means that veterans with post-traumatic stress or depression are more likely to suffer from chronic pain, increasing the risks associated with disability, psychological stress and suicide. And far too often this has tragic consequences.  Mr. Simcakoski, I want to apologize that the system failed your son.   He deserved better. Our veterans deserve better. Some progress is being made since the Congress passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act last year. But we need to do better for our veterans by investing in treatments to manage their chronic pain other than opioids and helping those who are addicted to opioids.  I have heard from several Vermont veterans who are having difficulty accessing alternative treatments like acupuncture, chiropractic care or yoga, despite the efforts they and their doctor have made to settle on a non-opioid treatment right for them.  It should not be easier to get a bottle of pills than it is to access the therapy you want close to home.  That is not right.  We also need to do more to ensure both the VA and private practices are communicating with each other about the unique needs of our veterans, so that when a veteran makes use of a program like CHOICE their history of pain management decisions is taken into account.  I am glad that we are beginning to move the conversation on opioid addiction away from incarceration.  This is an approach I first highlighted during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2008, when the Committee went to Vermont to see how my home state is leading the Nation in addressing this disease as a national health care crisis.  On the Senate Appropriations Committee, we are working together to provide roughly $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2018 to address the opioid crisis, an increase of more than $137 million above the President’s budget request, $17 million above the House mark, and $41 million above fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.  This subcommittee alone provides $386 million to treat and prevent opioid dependency amongst veterans. But we clearly have much more to do.  And we cannot continue to fail our veterans and our military.  This hearing is just the next step – it is far from the last one.  Since March, I have been calling for a bipartisan budget deal that would result in more money for this subcommittee to address the needs of our nation’s veterans, including opioid addiction.  I hope we can reach a deal within the week.       Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-slams-attorney-general-sessions-for-threatening-public-safety-funding-to-burlington-and-the-state-of-vermont-over-the-trump-administrations-misguided-anti-immigrant-policies,"Leahy Slams Attorney General Sessions For Threatening Public Safety Funding To Burlington And The State Of Vermont, Over The Trump Administrations Misguided Anti-Immigrant Policies",2017-11-15,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.15.17 Leahy Slams Attorney General Sessions For Threatening Public Safety Funding To Burlington And The State Of Vermont, Over The Trump Administration’s Misguided Anti-Immigrant Policies [(WEDNESDAY, Nov. 15, 2017) – This afternoon (Wednesday), Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department notified the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington that the Department believes they have laws, policies or practices that violate 8 U.S.C. 1373, a federal statute that promotes information-sharing related to immigration enforcement.  In all, the Department cited 29 jurisdictions, sometimes derided as “sanctuary cities,” that are being threatened with the withholding of funds.  Specifically, the Department is questioning whether the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington comply with requirements of the fiscal years 2016 and 2017 Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (Byrne JAG).  In all, the Department threatened 29 jurisdictions, sometimes derided as “sanctuary cities,” with the withholding of Byrne JAG funds.  The State of Vermont and the City of Burlington have until December 8, 2017, to submit a response to the Department that addresses whether they have laws, policies or practices that violate this statute.  Byrne JAG is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local governments, including law enforcement agencies.  This program uses a congressionally mandated formula, as laid out by Congress.  In fiscal year 2016, the State of Vermont received $507,892 and the City of Burlington received $39,945.  For fiscal year 2017, Vermont’s allocation is $476,496, and Burlington’s is $38,845, but the Justice Department is holding up all Byrne JAG grants for the entire nation. Following is a comment on this by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).  Leahy is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a leading member of the Senate Judiciary Committee:] “These moves against the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington by Attorney General Sessions are shameful.  I strongly believe that police chiefs and local leaders should decide what state and local policies are necessary and best to keep their communities safe — not an Attorney General who is attempting to extort immigration reform by cutting off vital public safety dollars to local communities and their residents. “The Attorney General’s decision puts public safety at risk by delaying nearly $700 million in Byrne JAG, SCAAP, COPS Hiring, and Anti-Methamphetamine and Anti-Heroin Task Forces funding for law enforcement agencies across the country.  This only serves to punish local law enforcement agencies and victims of domestic and sexual violence and other violent crimes.  Frankly, this funding should have been out the door months ago from the Justice Department, and these delays will jeopardize local efforts to fight crime, including criminal gang activity, and to combat heroin trafficking.  Just today a federal judge enjoined the Justice Department from pursuing these very policies.  These actions make one thing clear:  In their disgraceful and unending efforts to villainize and scapegoat immigrants, President Trump and Attorney General Sessions are willing to make our communities less safe and to abandon victims of crime.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-introduces-the-consumer-privacy-protection-act,Leahy Introduces The Consumer Privacy Protection Act,2017-11-14,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.14.17 Leahy Introduces The Consumer Privacy Protection Act Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), joined by six other senators, Tuesday introduced comprehensive consumer privacy legislation to protect Americans’ sensitive personal information against cyberattacks and to ensure timely notification and protection when data is breached. Leahy’s Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017 would require companies to take preventive steps to defend against cyberattacks and data breaches, and to quickly provide consumers with notice and appropriate protection when a data breach occurs.  The bill addresses the kinds of security breaches that have affected multiple companies – most notably the recent, massive Equifax breach that exposed the personal information of almost half the American population. This sensitive consumer information is increasingly targeted by both criminal hackers and hostile foreign powers. Leahy said:  “Companies that profit from our personal information should be obligated to take steps to keep it safe, and to provide notice and protection to consumers when those protections have failed.  This is a comprehensive program to help ensure that when Americans entrust corporations with their most sensitive personal information, these firms take the right steps to keep it secure and to do the right thing if breaches do occur.  In today’s world, data security is no longer just about protecting our identities and our bank accounts; it is about protecting our privacy and even our national security.” The bill is cosponsored by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.); Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) who have long shared Leahy’s commitment to consumer privacy protection.  The Consumer Privacy Protection Act requires that corporations meet certain baseline privacy and data security standards to keep information they store about consumers safe, and it requires that these firms provide notice and protection to consumers in the event of a breach.  This legislation protects broad categories of data, including: (1) social security numbers and other government-issued identification numbers; (2) financial account information, including credit card numbers and bank accounts; (3) online usernames and passwords, including email names and passwords; (4) unique biometric data, including fingerprints and faceprints; (5) information about a person’s physical and mental health; (6) information about geolocation; and (7) access to private digital photographs and videos. This Consumer Privacy Protection Act has the support of leading consumer privacy advocates, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Consumer Federation of America, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge. Consumer Federation of America’s Susan Grant, director of Consumer Protection Privacy, said:  “This bill takes the right approach to address our data breach crisis by requiring strong security measures to be implemented from the start, not just notice after a breach has occurred.” Michelle De Mooy, director of Privacy and Data at the Center for Democracy & Technology, said:  “As Americans are well aware, data breaches have become ubiquitous but they are not inevitable; enacting common sense legislation to hold companies accountable for their data practices is long overdue.  We are pleased to support Senator Leahy’s bill, which protects both Americans’ personal information and their ability to trust the digital ecosystem.” The full text of the bill can be found here.  Leahy’s statement on the bill in the Congressional Record can be found here. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-the-introduction-of-the-consumer-privacy-protection-act-of-2017,Leahy Statement On the Introduction of the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017,2017-11-14,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.14.17 Leahy Statement On the Introduction of the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017 Today, I am introducing the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017.  This legislation, if enacted, will help ensure that when Americans entrust corporations with their most sensitive personal information, these corporations take the right steps to keep this information secure, and do the right thing in the event of a data breach.  In today’s modern world, data security is no longer just about protecting our identities and our bank accounts; it is about protecting our privacy and even our national security.  The need for this legislation has long been clear, and never more so than in the wake of the recent, massive Equifax data breach.  After media investigations and multiple Congressional hearings, we learned that the Equifax breach exposed the sensitive personal information of almost half the American population.  We also learned that Equifax failed to take basic steps to secure its databases, and waited an unjustifiably long period before notifying consumers and regulators.  Clearly, it is past time for all corporations that hold our personal information to maintain some common-sense, baseline cybersecurity standards. Corporations make significant profits from our personal information, and they should be obligated to keep it safe.  Yet too often, data breaches continue to plague American businesses and compromise the privacy of millions of consumers.  At the same time, the amount of information we share with corporations who are the target of these breaches is growing.  Corporations collect and store our social security numbers, our bank account information, and our email addresses.  They collect information about our private health and medical conditions.  They know what routes we take to work and where we drop our kids off at school.  They can replicate our fingerprints or even faceprints.  We trust them with private photographs that we store in the cloud.  This information is increasingly targeted by both criminal hackers and nation-states, including hostile foreign powers. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act I am introducing today is based on legislation I first introduced in 2015, and builds and expands on data security legislation that I have introduced in Congress since 2005.  It seeks to protect the vast amount of information that we now share with corporations each and every day.  Americans want to know that the corporations who are profiting from their information are actually doing something to prevent the next data breach.  Americans want to know when someone has had unauthorized access to their bank accounts and to their private family photographs, but they do not just want to be notified of yet another data breach.  Consumers should not have to settle for mere notice of data breaches.  American consumers deserve protection.  This legislation would accomplish that.   The Consumer Privacy Protection Act requires that corporations meet certain baseline privacy and data security standards to keep information they store about their customers safe, and requires that corporations provide notice and protection to consumers in the event of a breach.  This legislation protects broad categories of data, including, (1) social security numbers and other government-issued identification numbers; (2) financial account information, including credit card numbers and bank accounts; (3) online usernames and passwords, including email names and passwords; (4) unique biometric data, including fingerprints; (5) information about a person’s physical and mental health; (6) information about geolocation; and (7) access to private digital photographs and videos. It is true that not every breach can be prevented.  Cyber criminals and nation-state actors are determined and constantly looking for new ways to pierce the most sophisticated security systems.  But just as we expect a bank to put a lock on the front door and an alarm on the vault to protect its customers’ money, we expect corporations to take reasonable measures to protect the personal information they collect from us.  Unfortunately, many of the corporations that profit from the very information that we entrust them to protect, have woefully inadequate measures to secure this information.  For others, security is simply not a priority.  American consumers deserve better and our national security demands it. This legislation creates civil penalties for corporations that fail to meet the required privacy and data security standards established in the bill or fail to provide notice and protection to consumers when a breach occurs.  The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and State attorneys general each have a role in enforcement.  This legislation also requires corporations to inform Federal law enforcement of all large data breaches, as well as breaches that could impact the federal government.  Such notification is necessary to help law enforcement bring these cyber criminals to justice and identify patterns that help protect against future attacks. Many Americans understandably assume Federal law already protects this sensitive information—common sense tells us that it should.  Unfortunately, the reality is that it does not.  States provide a patchwork of protection, and while some laws are strong, others are not.  For example, my home state of Vermont has a strong data breach notification law that that has been in effect since 2007.  But there are many other States that have not passed data security laws designed to prevent data breaches.  This legislation sets a floor: a baseline standard that that protects Americans across the country, while also freeing individual States to provide even stronger protections to their residents.  In crafting Federal law, we must be careful not to override strong State laws, but we also need to ensure that all Americans, regardless of where they live, have their privacy protected.  To this end, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act preempts State law relating to data security and data breach notification only to the extent that the protections under those laws are weaker than those provided for in this bill.  We must ensure that consumers do not lose privacy protections they currently enjoy.  Since this bill is modeled after those States with the strongest consumer protections, I believe it will improve protections for consumers in nearly every State.  I am joined today by Senators Markey, Blumenthal, Wyden, Franken, and Baldwin in introducing this legislation.  These Senators have long shared my commitment to protecting consumer privacy.  This legislation also has the support of leading consumer privacy advocates, including: the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Consumer Federation of America, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge.  Millions of Americans who have had their personal information compromised or stolen as a result of a data breach consider this issue to be of critical importance and a priority for the Senate.  Protecting privacy rights should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology.  I hope all Senators will support this common-sense measure to better protect Americans’ privacy.   Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-the-attorney-generals-russia-related-testimony-before-the-senate-,Leahy Statement On the Attorney Generals Russia-related testimony before the Senate,2017-11-13,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.13.17 Leahy Statement On the Attorney General’s Russia-related testimony before the Senate Over the past 10 months, the Attorney General has testified before the Senate on three occasions about his knowledge of and contacts with Russian operatives.  He also answered written questions and provided additional supplemental testimony.  But he still has not gotten his story straight.  On numerous occasions, new disclosures of his communications involving Russia have raised serious doubts about his testimony.  And not one of these disclosures has come from the Attorney General; all have come from the press or unsealed court records.  That is a problem. This started in January.  At his nomination hearing both Senator Franken and I asked him about contacts with Russian officials.  I asked him in writing whether he had been in contact with anyone connected to the Russian government about the 2016 election.  It was not a tricky or surprising question.  Other Trump officials’ undisclosed contacts with Russians, like those of Michael Flynn or Jared Kushner, were major headlines at the time.  Under oath, then-Senator Sessions answered with a single word, “no.”  We soon learned that the answer was “yes”—just the opposite. In March, the Washington Post reported that Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Kislyak on two occasions during the height of the 2016 campaign.  Days later, the Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.  In June, the press reported on a third undisclosed contact.  In July, despite the Attorney General’s previous assertions that he never discussed the campaign with Russian officials, U.S. intelligence intercepts reportedly revealed that he had done just that—discussing the campaign and its positions on Russia-related issues with the Russian ambassador.  When I asked the Attorney General about this report in the Judiciary Committee last month, his testimony shifted yet again; he acknowledged that it was “possible” he had those conversations.  That flatly contradicts his testimony to me in January.                                                        And the disclosures show no sign of stopping.  Two weeks ago, unsealed court records revealed additional Russian connections that were discussed during a Trump campaign meeting in March 2016.  Then-Senator Sessions reportedly admonished those in attendance to not discuss the issue again out of fear it would leak to the press.  And just last week another foreign policy campaign aide testified that he informed Sessions of his planned trip to Russia in July 2016.  Once again, the descriptions of these communications are impossible to reconcile with the Attorney General’s testimony, in which he claimed under oath that he was not aware of any contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. The notion that the Attorney General is just forgetful is simply not believable.  Potential Russian involvement in our elections was a major story at the time.  In July 2016, then-candidate Trump encouraged Russia to commit espionage against his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, by stealing her emails.  That same week then-Senator Sessions told CNN that “people come up to [him] all the time” to talk about Russia hacking Hillary Clinton’s emails. Exactly who were all these people talking to him about Russia hacking Hillary Clinton’s emails?  And should he have disclosed any of these conversations to the Judiciary Committee?  We do not yet know.  Senator Durbin recently asked him this in a written question, and we look forward to his response. I want another point to be clear:  I have never accused the Attorney General of colluding with Russia, and I am not doing so now.  But it is clear that the Kremlin tested the waters with then-Senator Sessions, as it did with so many other Trump campaign officials.  It is equally clear that the Attorney General concealed his own contacts with Russian officials, and he has failed to correct the record even when given multiple opportunities to do so.  I agree with Senators Graham, Franken, and others that he needs to come back once again to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  It is time we hear the whole story.                                                                                                An important part of that story is what the Attorney General did on May 9th, the day President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.  To justify the dismissal, the president cited a Justice Department memorandum signed off by Attorney General Sessions.  The memo attempted to justify firing Director Comey because he treated Hillary Clinton unfairly during the email investigation.  We later learned there was an earlier, unsent letter that pointed to President Trump’s true motivation for firing Director Comey: the Russia investigation.  The day before the dismissal the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General were reportedly called into the White House to discuss the earlier letter.  The next day, May 9th, they delivered their own hastily drafted memo that provided the alternative justification for firing Director Comey. Here’s the problem: The May 9th memo was a façade.  It was a pretext.  The White House needed to point to anything other than Russia to justify dismissing Director Comey, and the Attorney General obliged.  But the president could not keep the secret.  The very next morning, he boasted to Russian officials visiting the Oval Office that firing Director Comey took great pressure off of him from the Russia investigation.  Two days later, on national television, the president made clear what we all knew:  He fired the lead Russia investigator due to concerns over how he was handling the Russia investigation.  Here is another problem:  Firing an investigator in order to stymie a legitimate investigation is a crime—it is called obstruction of justice.  Whether there is sufficient evidence to merit a charge of obstruction against the president will likely be revealed by Special Counsel Mueller.  If so, the Attorney General may have to admit the May 9th memo that he approved was nothing but a smokescreen—an attempt to mask an uncomfortable truth and excuse the inexcusable.  Prosecutors do not look kindly upon those who aid others in covering up crimes. For many years I sat with Senator Sessions on the Judiciary Committee.  We disagreed on many policy issues, but I never questioned his commitment to the rule of law. I do question this president’s commitment to the rule of law.  This month alone President Trump repeatedly directed the Justice Department to target his political opponents and chase his conspiracy theories.  This is a president who needs to be told “no.”  May 9th was one of those moments.  I am greatly disappointed that Attorney General Sessions was not up to the task.  This is a solemn obligation that goes to the heart of what it means to be Attorney General—ensuring that no person, not even a president, is above the law.  He is not a Secretary of Justice, serving the president blindly and covering his flaws.  He is the Attorney General of the United States, serving the American people.  I fear Attorney General Sessions has lost sight of this distinction. We are in the midst of perhaps the most serious national security investigation of our time. A foreign adversary attacked our democracy and our elections.  We know that Russia will be back.  If we are serious about preventing the next attack, we must know what happened during the last.  The American people deserve answers.  No more obfuscation.  No more falsehoods.  This starts with the Attorney General returning to the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain, in person, under oath, why he has not provided truthful, complete answers to some of the most pressing questions facing our nation today.         Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-no-tax-breaks-for-corporate-misconduct,Leahy: No Tax Breaks For Corporate Misconduct,2017-11-09,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.09.17 Leahy: No Tax Breaks For Corporate Misconduct U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy Thursday reintroduced legislation to close a tax loophole that allows corporations to write off the punishment they receive for egregious wrongdoing as an “ordinary” business expense. Punitive damages are imposed rarely, and only on bad actors whose reckless misconduct resulted in extreme consequences – and usually great harm to peoples’ lives.  Such damages are intended to impose a punishment on the wrongdoer so that more responsible decisions will be made in the future.  But enabling corporations to deduct these damages lessens the deterrent effect of that punishment.  Leahy first introduced legislation to close this loophole in 2011.  The bill is cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). Leahy said:  “By giving corporations a deduction specifically for their wrongdoing, our tax code winks and nods at future wrongdoers who know that they can simply write off the damages they owe for the damage they cause.  This is wrong.  Protecting Americans from corporate misconduct is not a political or partisan issue.  It is our job.” Corporate bad actors have been hit with punitive damages and penalties for causing tragic disasters such as the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill which devastated Alaska’s southern coast; the 2010 explosion at Big Branch mine in West Virginia that claimed the lives of 29 miners; and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that claimed 11 lives and led to the worst oil spill in U.S. history. But thanks to the existing loophole, these corporations were lawfully able to deduct these punitive damages and penalties as a mere cost of doing business. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that closing the punitive damages loophole could increase federal revenues by $415 million over 10 years. Blumenthal said: “A tax write-off for corporate malfeasance defies all reason. The companies that take advantage of this despicable loophole are responsible for devastating environmental disasters, white collar wrongdoing, and even the loss of human life. They should be punished fully for these acts - not given a reprieve by our tax code.” Reed said: “Fraud and gross negligence are not legitimate business activities, and penalties for these misdeeds should not be tax-deductible business expenses.  Taxpayers should not foot the bill for punitive damages that are designed to hold bad actors accountable for causing serious harm.  Congress needs to close tax loopholes that subsidize corporate wrongdoing.” “Our top priority in reforming our tax code should be ensuring that hard-working Granite Staters and families across this country have what they need to get ahead and stay ahead, not rewarding big corporations for wrongdoing and misconduct,” Senator Hassan said. “The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers Act is a common-sense measure to hold big corporations responsible for misconduct accountable, while putting middle class Granite Staters and Americans first.” Republican leaders in Congress has been pushing tax cut proposals that disproportionately advantage wealthy corporations over middleclass Americans.  The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers Act would hold corporations accountable for their reckless misconduct while simultaneously reducing the deficit.  When the Senate considers tax reform, Leahy intends to propose his legislation as an amendment to the Republican bill. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senate-confirms-senator-leahys-and-governor-scotts-recommendation-for-vermonts-next-us-attorney-christina-nolan,"Senate Confirms Senator Leahys And Governor Scotts Recommendation For Vermonts Next U.S. Attorney, Christina Nolan",2017-11-09,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.09.17 Senate Confirms Senator Leahy’s And Governor Scott’s Recommendation For Vermont’s Next U.S. Attorney, Christina Nolan The U.S. Senate Thursday night unanimously confirmed Christina Nolan to be Vermont’s next U.S. Attorney, following the recommendation of U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and Vermont Governor Phil Scott (R).  Ms. Nolan was nominated less than two months ago by President Trump, and she is one of only two U.S. Attorney nominees to be confirmed in states with Democratic Senators and is also one of only two women to be confirmed as U.S. Attorneys in this Congress.  Leahy is a leading member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which handled the nomination.     Ms. Nolan will be the 38th U.S. Attorney and the first woman to be Senate-confirmed in Vermont’s history.  She will lead an office of some 45 employees, including 20 attorneys who represent the United States in criminal and civil litigation in Vermont.  Ms. Nolan has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Vermont since 2010, and in recent years has focused on criminal cases involving trafficking in heroin and other opioids. In a joint statement, Leahy and Scott said: “Christina Nolan is a native Vermonter and a well-respected Assistant U.S. Attorney with a passion for the State of Vermont and for the mission of a prosecutor — to seek justice and improve our communities.  She also understands the public safety challenges facing our state, especially how opioid addiction has affected so many Vermont families and how this needs to be an important focus of the office.  We were proud to join together to recommend Christina to the President for this position, the top federal law enforcement official in our state.  We know she will make Vermont proud. “We also extend our appreciation to Eugenia A.P. Cowles, who has served Vermonters well as the Acting U.S. Attorney since February.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/addison-county-independent-local-farmers-congressman-welch-share-farm,"Addison County Independent: Local Farmers, Congressman Welch Share Farm Priorities",2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"“It’s a mess in Washington,” Congressman Peter Welch told a group of Champlain Valley specialty crop farmers who gathered in Middlebury last week to share their wish lists for the 2018 farm bill. But, despite the dysfunction in much of the nation’s capital,  the Vermont Democrat said there is still hope because there tends to be bipartisan support to “get a decent farm bill.” Key to building that support, he said, is first gathering specific concerns and recommendations from constituents. “A lot of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, will be having similar meetings with folks like you in their communities,” Welch said. “The purpose of this meeting today is to get input from you as to what I should be doing on the farm bill.” The around 15 participants gathered, fittingly, in the processing area at Happy Valley Orchard on Monday morning. One topic Welch wished to discuss was support for local foods, which, he said, is an important topic for Congressional representatives from around the country. He described a “significant movement in Congress to try to broaden out the farm bill to support local agriculture.” And he noted the growing awareness nationwide of the multiple positive impacts local sustainable agriculture brings to local communities. Chief among these benefits is healthier food, Welch said, but there are other benefits. “There’s a growing sense of awareness that (local, sustainable agriculture) is good for the environment,” he said. “It keeps land open. People just love the ‘collateral consequences’ of your work and husbandry. And there’s a growing appreciation for the economic impact that the work you do has because that money stays locally.” Area farmers in attendance included three apple growers — host Stan Pratt and Shoreham orchardists Bill Suhr and Scott Douglas — and vegetable growers Becky Maden of Orwell’s Singing Cedars Farmstead and Spencer Blackwell of Middlebury’s Elmer Farm. Grower/vintners from South Hero’s Snow Farm Vineyard and Shelburne Vineyard found Ken Albert also took part. Other participants came from the Agency of Agriculture, University of Vermont Extension and Vermont Tree Fruit Growers Association. Topics they raised included: •  How to make crop insurance programs more effectively meet the needs of different kinds of growers. •  The importance of Farm Service Agency loans to farmers. •  Increased and more reliable funding for university extension services, which conduct agricultural research and provide technical support to farmers. Terry Bradshaw, UVM Extension’s apple expert, described Extension funding as “crumbling” for some time. •  Funding to support the statewide network of specialized weather stations that are critical to apple growers being able to get real-time disease and insect information. •  Support for farmers implementing new food safety regulations. Also discussed were how to balance consumer demand for cheap food, which often means food produced by large-scale agribusiness, with the benefits of sustainable, locally grown food, produced on a smaller scale. Shelburne Vineyard’s Albert brought to Welch’s attention the absurdity of a regulation that allows him to ship 375-milliliter but not 200ml bottles of ice wine out of state. Farm labor — though not an area of federal legislation covered by farm bills — came up repeatedly. Participants discussed the difficulties of finding and keeping local labor, the likely difficulty for farmers that would be brought about by an increase in the minimum wage, and the challenges inherent in using the federal H2A visa program, which brings the Jamaican apple pickers who harvest most of Vermont’s apples. The labor needs and challenges varied considerably depending on the crop being grown. Congress typically passes a farm bill every five years. The current farm bill expires Sept. 30, 2018. It covers 12 areas, including commodity crops (such as dairy products and the “big five” of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton); so-called “specialty crops,” which in Vermont covers things like vegetables, berries, tree fruits like apples, maple syrup, hops, and any crops not considered “commodities”; crop insurance; natural resources conservation; research on food and farming; energy; rural development; international agricultural trade; and nutrition. Welch held a similar meeting with county dairy farmers last spring. Representatives from Sen. Leahy’s and Sen. Sanders’ offices are conducting similar listening sessions around the state. As in previous negotiations, a major challenge working toward the 2018 farm bill will be allocating a fairer share of resources for local, sustainable agriculture. “Big farm commodity crops have dominated the farm bill. It’s like: ‘What’s good for Cargill is good for America.’ Well, I think most people here would dispute that,” Welch said. “There’s a tug-of-war over how resources should be divided between large commodity crops and more diversified farms aimed at supporting local agriculture.” Welch emphasized repeatedly that this tug of war “doesn’t split along party lines because you go to any part of the country and there’s enormous interest in local organic agriculture.” To emphasize this point Welch told a humorous story involving food safety regulations, cheese ripening and a moment of close collaboration with Wisconsin Congressman and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. His experience in negotiating past farm bills has shown that success comes from listening to constituents and then building coalitions in Washington. “What’s happened for me in the past with the farm bill is that if I can start creating a coalition of people who are advocating for a set number of things it will help us. We can have enormous influence on what the ultimate shape of the farm bill is. That’s what we’re talking about.” Welch urged constituents to keep in touch as work continues on the 2018 farm bill.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/breaking-leahy-reax-to-new-treasury-dept-regs-restricting-travel-and-transactions-by-american-citizens-in-cuba-,BREAKING: Leahy REAX To New Treasury Dept. Regs. Restricting Travel & Transactions By American Citizens In Cuba,2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.08.17 BREAKING: Leahy REAX To New #Treasury Dept. Regs. Restricting Travel & Transactions By American Citizens In #Cuba “These new regulations are reminiscent of the Cold War and what one would expect of a paranoid totalitarian government, not a democracy like ours. “The hypocrisy of the White House ideologues is glaring.  It is stunning.  On a day when President Trump and members of his Cabinet are feted in Beijing by the world’s most repressive, nuclear-armed communist government, in a country to which Americans can travel freely, his Treasury Department releases onerous and petty restrictions on what private American citizens can do in Cuba -- an impoverished neighbor that poses not the slightest threat to the United States.    “Nobody supports the Cuban military, a decrepit institution that is no match for a single U.S. battalion.  But far from promoting human rights in Cuba, these new regulations will hurt fledgling entrepreneurs and the rest of the Cuban people by discouraging Americans from traveling there.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-and-lee-reax-to-house-judiciary-approval-of-key-reforms-to-section-702-surveillance-authorities,Leahy And Lee REAX To House Judiciary Approval Of Key Reforms To Section 702 Surveillance Authorities,2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.08.17 Leahy And Lee REAX To House Judiciary Approval Of Key Reforms To Section 702 Surveillance Authorities [On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee reported the USA Liberty Act, sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and by Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas).  The legislation, which reauthorizes and reforms Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act, was approved by a vote of 27-8 and will now be reported to the House Floor.  Last Congress, Senators Lee and Leahy partnered with the same House Judiciary leaders to pass the historic USA FREEDOM Act, which ended NSA bulk metadata collection and contained significant reforms to other surveillance authorities.  Senator Lee and Senator Leahy together released the following statement:] We applaud the House Judiciary Committee and its Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers for advancing legislation that would reauthorize Section 702 surveillance authorities with some important improvements.  The bill codifies an end to “about” collection, closes a loophole that allows this national security tool to be used for standard domestic criminal investigations without a warrant, and contains many other provisions to protect the privacy and civil liberty interests of Americans.  This bill is part of a promising, bipartisan effort to provide some long-overdue reforms to this surveillance authority. Just as we did last Congress, we are working with both House Judiciary Committee leaders as well as with leading voices in the Senate, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein, to introduce our own strong reform bill in the Senate in the near term. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahys-bulletproof-vest-program-awards-grants-to-34-vermont-communities-to-help-equip-law-enforcement-officers-with-280-more-lifesaving-vests,Leahys Bulletproof Vest Program Awards Grants To 34 Vermont Communities To Help Equip Law Enforcement Officers With 280 More Lifesaving Vests,2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.08.17 Leahy’s Bulletproof Vest Program Awards Grants To 34 Vermont Communities To Help Equip Law Enforcement Officers With 280 More Lifesaving Vests Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Wednesday announced that 34 Vermont law enforcement agencies will receive federal funding to help purchase a total of 280 lifesaving protective vests. The FY 2017 funding, administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, is made possible under the Leahy-authored Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Program.  With these most recent awards, Vermont agencies to date have received more than $1 million to help purchase nearly 4,800 vests. Leahy said:  “In Vermont and across the nation, those who protect our communities increasingly are being called upon to respond to dangerous situations.  As recent tragedies have shown us, yet again, we must do all we can to ensure the safety of those who risk their own lives to protect innocent people.”  He noted the need for protective vests is heightened by the rise in drug trafficking in Vermont and around the nation. A leading member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy led the work to create the vest program in the aftermath of a 1997 shootout on the Vermont-New Hampshire border in which the gunman killed four people, including two state troopers.  Three law enforcement officers were wounded.  The gunman, who was also killed, was armed with a semi-automatic rifle and wore a bulletproof vest. Nationwide, the Leahy-authored BVP program has awarded more than 13,000 jurisdictions a total of $430 million in federal funds to support the purchase of more than 1.2 million vests (1,294,837 as of July 2017).  Leahy leads in securing annual funding for the program as Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.   Leahy noted that the program is vital for small communities that struggle under tight budgets to keep their officers safe.  Through Leahy’s efforts, communities that cannot meet the 50 percent federal match requirements may also be eligible for waivers.  Leahy led the five-year reauthorization of the BVP program in 2016. “This is the type of commonsense program that Congress must continue to support for decades to come,” Leahy said.  “We have solid evidence that these vests save lives.” Vermont Jurisdictions Receiving Bulletproof Vest Grants State Jurisdiction Name BVP Funding Amount Estimated Number of Vests VT BARRE CITY $4,684.80 14 VT BARRE TOWN $478.78 2 VT BRATTLEBORO TOWN $4,053.08 14 VT BURLINGTON CITY $9,490.19 34 VT CALEDONIA COUNTY $6,064.04 21 VT COLCHESTER TOWN $1,916.73 6 VT FRANKLIN COUNTY $1,277.82 4 VT GRAND ISLE COUNTY $1,794.94 5 VT HARDWICK TOWN $1,178.79 4 VT HARTFORD TOWN $2,330.02 5 VT KILLINGTON TOWN $664.47 2 VT LAMOILLE COUNTY $3,587.87 15 VT LUDLOW TOWN $520.71 1 VT MIDDLEBURY TOWN $1,753.01 5 VT MILTON TOWN $1,880.79 5 VT MONTPELIER CITY $1,018.27 3 VT MORRISTOWN TOWN $958.37 3 VT NEWPORT CITY $5,031.41 14 VT NORTHFIELD TOWN $3,549.01 9 VT NORWICH TOWN $1,916.73 4 VT ORANGE COUNTY $4,642.07 15 VT ORLEANS COUNTY $1,183.58 4 VT RANDOLPH TOWN $1,397.62 3 VT RICHMOND TOWN $591.79 2 VT RUTLAND CITY $3,833.45 12 VT SHELBURNE TOWN $1,594.08 4 VT SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY $2,292.09 7 VT SPRINGFIELD TOWN $1,375.65 5 VT ST ALBANS CITY $1,916.73 6 VT SWANTON VILLAGE $1,131.42 5 VT WILLISTON TOWN $1,195.96 5 VT WINDHAM COUNTY $9,364.01 35 VT WINDSOR TOWN $664.12 2 VT WINHALL TOWN $1,585.30 5 VT Totals for VT(34 Jurisdictions): $86,917.70 280 Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-leads-senators-urging-senate-finance-committee-to-reject-tax-changes-to-401ks,Leahy Leads Senators Urging Senate Finance Committee To Reject Tax Changes To 401(k)s,2017-11-07,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.07.17 Leahy Leads Senators Urging Senate Finance Committee To Reject Tax Changes To 401(k)’s Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Tuesday led a group of Senate Democrats in calling on the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee to reject changes to the tax system that would harm existing tax incentives for Americans to save for retirement.  The letter comes as Senate Republicans are poised to release their own version of tax reform legislation later this week. Senate Republicans may be considering making changes to the incentives Americans enjoy for retirement, specifically by adopting so-called “Rothification,” which would eliminate or limit the amount of pre-tax money that can be contributed to these 401(k) accounts.  In the letter, Leahy and his allies highlight research showing that workers at all income levels participating in employer-sponsored retirement plans contribute on average at least $2,700 annually to their accounts.  This amount exceeds the $2,400 limit that Republicans reportedly have considered setting as a new pre-tax limit for retirement account contributions. The Leahy-led letter says:  “Congress needs to do more to improve retirement incentives for the American people, not less.  Dramatically altering incentives for retirement simply to raise short-term revenue to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is a cynical ploy that will harm hardworking Americans in every state.” The full text of the letter is available here. Joining Leahy on the letter are Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).   Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/leahy-sanders-welch-announce-early-release-169-million-heating,"Leahy, Sanders, Welch Announce Early Release of $16.9 Million in Heating Assistance for Vermonters",2017-11-03,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"FRIDAY, Nov. 3, 2017 -- Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who advocated for the early release of federal home heating aid funds as Vermont’s winter approaches, today announced that the Department of Health and Human Services has released $16.9 million in heating assistance for Vermont. Leahy, Sanders and Welch have long championed funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps struggling Vermonters heat their homes.   In a joint statement, Leahy, Sanders and Welch said: “With temperatures dropping in Vermont, the immediate release of this money is welcome news. Energy assistance is a critical lifeline for countless Vermonters, and we must redouble our efforts to protect this vital safety net program, which is under attack by the Trump Administration.”  President Trump has proposed completely eliminating LIHEAP, which would have more than 20,000 Vermonters in the cold without heating assistance. Leahy, Sanders and Welch have consistently been in the forefront in defending and maintaining funding for the LIHEAP lifeline, and Leahy, as Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, worked to maintain funding for LIHEAP during the panel’s consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill enacted in February, and to restore the Trump LIHEAP cuts in the appropriations bill approved by the panel on Sept. 7. Last heating season, the LIHEAP benefit paid eligible Vermonters an average of $831, covering 50 percent of their fuel costs. This season, it's expected to pay $879, an estimated 53 percent of costs for eligible households. Vermonters seeking home heating assistance should call 1-800-479-6151 or visit the website of the Department of Children and Families here.   Contacts:   David Carle (Leahy): 202-224-3693 Dan McLean (Sanders): 802-862-6695 Kate Hamilton  (Welch): 202-440-3340   ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-ag-sessions-must-return-to-judiciary-committee-for-under-oath-testimony-to-address-new-revelations,Leahy: AG Sessions Must Return To Judiciary Committee For Under-Oath Testimony To Address New Revelations,2017-11-02,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.02.17 Leahy: AG Sessions Must Return To Judiciary Committee For Under-Oath Testimony To Address New Revelations [On Monday, unsealed court records revealed that George Papadopoulos – former foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign – pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about interactions with Russian agents during the 2016 campaign.  Court documents show that there was a March 31, 2016, “national security meeting” in Washington, D.C., involving candidate Trump and other advisors, where Papadopoulos explained that he had connections to the Russian government and he offered to “help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and [Russian] President Putin.” Then-Senator Sessions, serving as chairman of the campaign’s national security team, also attended this meeting, sitting just a few seats away from Papadopoulos.  Sessions reportedly “shut down” Papadopoulos and asserted that the topic should not be discussed again.  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a leading member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has confronted the Attorney General in two hearings this year about his communications with individuals with connections to the Russian government in the context of concerns that members of the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin in its efforts to elect Donald Trump.  Leahy’s statement follows:]     “Attorney General Sessions needs to come back before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The description of the March 2016 meeting contained in unsealed court documents is impossible to reconcile with the Attorney General’s appearance before the Judiciary Committee just two weeks ago.  In that hearing, he again testified under oath that he was not aware of any communications between individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign and Russian officials.  The Attorney General was already given an opportunity to correct his earlier misleading answers to me and Senator Franken in January through written, supplemental testimony.  Yet he only continued to mislead.  He now needs to come back before the Committee, in person, under oath, to explain why he cannot seem to provide truthful, complete answers to these important and relevant questions.”  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-reax-on-the-closed-door-gop-tax-plan-and-the-frantic-rush-to-pass-it-without-hearings-,Leahy REAX On The Closed-Door GOP Tax Plan And The Frantic Rush To Pass It Without Hearings,2017-11-02,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.02.17 Leahy REAX On The Closed-Door GOP Tax Plan And The Frantic Rush To Pass It Without Hearings “Republicans are repeating the same mistakes they made with health care.  It’s the same old playbook: jam through a bill, cobbled together in a back room, that sticks it to hard-working Americans.  “Republicans are desperately seeking a ‘win’ in Congress, but this one would only come at great cost to the American people. “What House Republican leaders released is a hugely complex bill, with hundreds of pages of fine print, written behind closed doors.  House leaders, at President Trump’s tweeted insistence, plan to ram it through in one week -- next week -- with no hearings and little chance for meaningful review, analysis or debate.  For generations to come, the selective tax cuts contemplated by Republicans in Congress and by the President would touch every corner of our complex economy and would hurt millions of families, while helping giant corporations.  “Vermonters with medical expenses, student loans or state tax payments are not the only ones with crucial stakes in this debate.  These are serious pocketbook policy decisions that should not be rushed at hyper speed through a hyper-partisan process. “I want a bipartisan tax reform bill that puts the emphasis on helping working Vermonters and small businesses, not the already flush bank deposits of large corporations.  But based on what I’ve seen so far, that is not the direction the House is going.  We need to slow down and look carefully, prudently and seriously at this hastily produced bill before putting it on a partisan fast track to the President’s desk.  ”   Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-reax-on-withdrawal-of-the-clovis-nom-to-usdas-top-science-post-leahy-is-a-leading-member-of-the-agriculture-,Leahy REAX On Withdrawal Of The Clovis Nom. To USDAs Top Science Post; Leahy Is A Leading Member Of the Agriculture,2017-11-02,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.02.17 Leahy REAX On Withdrawal Of The Clovis Nom. To USDA’s Top Science Post; Leahy Is A Leading Member Of the Agriculture “Sam Clovis was almost a comically bad nominee, even for this administration.  He is inarguably unqualified, and he is wrong on almost every major issue relevant to the chief scientist post to which he was nominated.  His nomination is all too typical of the anti-science agenda and the know-nothingism pushed by President Trump and his administration.  But President Trump already knew that when he nominated Mr. Clovis, and that is not why his nomination was abruptly pulled today.  Not because of his association with birtherism or as a climate change denier, or his other repugnant assertions. “His nomination was withdrawn because we learned on Monday that last year Mr. Clovis, while serving as the co-chairman for the national Trump campaign, gave the green light to George Papadopolous’ attempts to collude with Russian operatives and obtain stolen emails from the Clinton campaign.  Mr. Clovis’ nomination was only withdrawn because that would certainly have been a topic during his upcoming testimony, under oath, before the Senate Agriculture Committee.  I know because I was going ask him all about it to get more facts on the record and before the American people.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-announces-74-million-in-federal-funding-to-support-victim-service-programs-in-vermont,Leahy Announces $7.4 Million in Federal Funding To Support Victim Service Programs in Vermont,2017-11-01,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.01.17 Leahy Announces $7.4 Million in Federal Funding To Support Victim Service Programs in Vermont Grants Will Also Strengthen Domestic and Sexual Violence Response in Rural Communities U.S.  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has announced that Vermont organizations will receive 10 grants totaling more than $7.4 million from the U.S. Department of Justice to support crime victims and to strengthen services for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. As a former prosecutor and as the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Leahy has long led efforts to protect funding for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), the two federal programs that provide direct support to victims.  Leahy also led the Senate in strengthening and reauthorizing VAWA in 2013 as the chief author and sponsor of that legislation, and in 2015 he helped raise the cap on the Crime Victims Fund so that states would be eligible for more funding. “It is vitally important to continue to support those who are supporting victims.  We have a highly effective network of organizations that serve thousands of Vermont residents every year, and we must ensure they have the tools they need to do their work,” Leahy said. “We know that half of all homicides in Vermont are related to domestic violence.  This disturbing reality tears at the fabric of all our communities, from our urban centers to our most rural towns.  That is why one of my highest priorities in renewing VAWA was to strengthen support for victims, especially in rural communities with access to few resources.” Karen Tronsgard-Scott, executive director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said:  “Survivors of domestic and sexual violence need the support of our communities.  These grants create innovative approaches to providing these vitally important supports and will help survivors reconstruct their lives free from violence.  We are grateful for Senator Leahy’s deep understanding of domestic and sexual violence and how it impacts survivors and communities in Vermont, and his stalwart support for these programs.” Chris Fenno, executive director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, said:  “The criminal justice system can be overwhelming for a person who has experienced a robbery, an assault, rape or murder.  These grants provide crucial victim services to over 25,000 individuals each year across the state of Vermont, and help make the experience less daunting on many levels. We appreciate Senator Leahy’s lifelong dedication to improving the justice system’s response for people whose lives have been impacted by crime.” This additional funding comes on the heels of the Senate Appropriations Committee passing a Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill this summer that included $483.5 million for the Violence Against Women Act, a $2 million increase over FY17 levels.  That bill included a $1 million increase for a Leahy-authored rural grants program that delivers funds specifically to rural states like Vermont.  The appropriations bill also included an additional $1 million in Leahy-authored transitional housing grants, a program that awarded Burlington $349,454 in this round of grants. FY 2017 U.S. Department of Justice Grants to Vermont:   Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) - Eight grants totaling $3.35 million: • Council on Aging for Southeastern Vermont, Inc., Springfield: $395,029 This funding will enhance the training of police, prosecutors, and the judiciary to investigate and prosecute cases of abuse, mistreatment, violence, and assault of elderly victims. • Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services (VCCVS), Waterbury: $372,649 The Sexual Assault Services Program grant provides states with formula funding to support rape crisis centers and other core services to victims of sexual assault throughout the state. • Steps to End Domestic Violence, Burlington: $349,454 This transitional housing grant assists homeless victims of sexual assault, domestic and dating violence, and stalking by providing short-term housing options and emergency shelter, as well as case management, child care, and other support services to move clients towards securing permanent housing. • Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, City of St. Albans and Voices Against Violence: $379,240 This funding will enhance the community justice response to domestic violence by strengthening partnerships between criminal justice agencies, victim service providers and community organizations in Franklin and Grand Isle counties. • Have Justice – Will Travel (HJWT), Vershire: $359,281 With this award, HJWT and its project partners will provide direct legal services and assistance in accessing social services for victims in Bennington and Rutland counties. • WISE, Windsor County: $490,382 This funding will increase capacity to more effectively serve residents of Windsor County, with an emphasis on the rural towns of Windsor, West Windsor, Weathersfield and Reading, focusing on victim services and coordinated response. • Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, Waterbury: $750,000 This funding will allow VCCVS to expand the Vermont Rural Grant project in areas of Washington and Lamoille counties, enhancing access to specialized services for victims. • Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Montpelier: $239,126 This funding supports the state coalition’s efforts to coordinate victim services statewide and advance the goals of VAWA. Victims of Crime Act (VOCA):  Two grants totaling $4.1 million: • Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services: $3.97 million This funding represents Vermont’s allocation under the state victim assistance formula and is funded through the federal Crime Victims Fund, supported through federal fines and penalties rather than with taxpayer dollars. These funds enhance direct services to crime victims in Vermont and support victim advocates in every state’s attorney’s office throughout Vermont. • Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services: $119,000 Additional funding for direct compensation payments to eligible crime victims.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senate-last-night-passes-resolution-by-leahy-and-cruz-calling-for-irans-release-of-unjustly-imprisoned-americans,Senate Last Night Passes Resolution By Leahy And Cruz Calling For Irans Release Of Unjustly Imprisoned Americans,2017-11-01,2017,2017-11,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"11.01.17 Senate Last Night Passes Resolution By Leahy And Cruz Calling For Iran’s Release Of Unjustly Imprisoned Americans U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy issued the following statement on the Senate’s passage Tuesday night of their bipartisan resolution calling on the Government of Iran to release all unjustly detained American citizens and legal permanent residents, including Siamak Namazi, Baquer Namazi, Xiyue Wang and Nizar Zakka, and to return Robert Levinson. “For years the Iranian regime has brutally detained and imprisoned Americans and dual-nationals as a matter of policy, in an effort to leverage the freedom of our citizens for political concessions,” Sen. Cruz said. “We have a moral imperative to speak for the silenced and shackled, to hold those responsible in Iran to account for detaining and mistreating our people, and to fight for the release and return of those held hostage by the Islamic Republic of Iran. I am glad that today the Senate has voted in support of this vital measure. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure the United States safely brings our people back to American soil. “There are few more egregious violations of human rights and human dignity than to wrongfully imprison innocent people under harsh conditions for purposes of extortion, which the Government of Iran engages in as a matter of state policy and practice,” Sen. Leahy said. “Baquer Namazi, 80 years old and in failing health, is one of several Iranian-Americans being cruelly abused in this manner.  It is imperative that the Administration uses its diplomatic tools to obtain their freedom.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/10-senators-led-by-leahy-ask-president-to-abstain-in-tomorrows-un-general-assembly-vote-on-the-failed-55-year-us-embargo-of-cuba,10 Senators Led By Leahy Ask President To Abstain In Tomorrows UN General Assembly Vote On The Failed 55-Year U.S. Embargo Of Cuba,2017-10-31,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.31.17 10 Senators Led By Leahy Ask President To Abstain In Tomorrow’s UN General Assembly Vote On The Failed 55-Year U.S. Embargo Of Cuba With the UN General Assembly tomorrow (Wednesday) scheduled to take up a periodic resolution calling for an end to the 55-year-old U.S. embargo on Cuba, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has headed a letter, signed also by nine other senators, urging that the United States abstain on the vote, as the United States did last year.  The letter is available at this LINK:  https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/cuban-embargo-letter Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/comment-of-senator-patrick-leahy-of-the-senate-agriculture-committee-about-the-nomination-of-sam-clovis-to-be-the-usdas-chief-scientist,Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy Of The Senate Agriculture Committee About The Nomination Of Sam Clovis To Be The USDAs Chief Scientist,2017-10-31,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.31.17 Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy Of The Senate Agriculture Committee About The Nomination Of Sam Clovis To Be The USDA’s Chief Scientist “If his anti-science record were not enough cause for concern, the latest reporting suggesting that Mr. Clovis may have facilitated Russian collusion in our elections raises these concerns to an alarming level.  Even for this administration, that should be disqualifying.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/reaction-of-senator-patrick-leahy-to-the-report-of-the-independent-team-of-experts-investigating-the-assassination-of-berta-caceres-in-honduras,Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy To The Report Of The Independent Team Of Experts Investigating The Assassination Of Berta Caceres In Honduras,2017-10-31,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.31.17 Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy To The Report Of The Independent Team Of Experts Investigating The Assassination Of Berta Caceres In Honduras “This damning report corroborates what many have suspected -- that the investigation of Berta Caceres’ murder has been plagued by incompetence, attempts to stonewall and deflect blame to protect those who conceived of and paid for this plot, and a glaring lack of political will.  The Public Ministry needs to fully disclose, without further delay, all testimony and electronic and ballistics evidence to the Caceres family’s legal representatives and defendants’ lawyers, as required by law.  The Ministry also needs to ensure that every piece of evidence is properly safeguarded, and to follow the evidence wherever it leads to arrest those responsible. “It is shameful that despite intense domestic and international pressure, this horrific case has languished, while those responsible have sought to derail it.  And there are hundreds of other Honduran social activists and journalists who have been similarly threatened and killed, whose cases have not even prompted investigations. “Any hope that the Honduran Government may have of continued U.S. assistance under the Alliance for Prosperity Plan will hinge, in part, on the outcome of the Caceres case, acceptance of the legitimate role of civil society and the independent press, and top-to-bottom reform of the judicial system.” # # # # # [Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of its Subcommittee on The State Department and Foreign Operations, has consistently called for justice in the case of indigenous Honduran environmental activist Berta Caceres, who was assassinated in March 2016.] Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-statement-response-charges-filed-against-three-former-trump,Welch Statement in Response to Charges Filed Against Three Former Trump Campaign Officials,2017-10-30,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) issued the following statement in response to the charges filed against three former Trump campaign officials, including campaign chairman and chief strategist Paul Manafort, in the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. “Today’s indictments mark the beginning of the American people finally getting a definitive answer to the central question of what then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates knew about Russian efforts to influence the outcome of our 2016 election, and to what extent, if any, they colluded in this sinister effort.  After reading news accounts of the charges against Mr. Manafort, I am mystified at how Donald Trump could have hired an individual with such a shady background as his top campaign official. It is clear that Mr. Mueller is methodically and systematically following the facts, as he should. I remain confident he will get to the bottom of this mess and hold accountable anyone who broke the law.”     ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/as-mueller-investigation-proceeds-leahy-calls-to-protect-integrity-and-independence-of-special-counsel,"As Mueller Investigation Proceeds, Leahy Calls to Protect Integrity And Independence Of Special Counsel",2017-10-30,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.30.17 As Mueller Investigation Proceeds, Leahy Calls to Protect Integrity And Independence Of Special Counsel “Today we learned that one of then-candidate Trump’s foreign policy advisors lied to the FBI about his attempts to coordinate meetings between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.  We separately learned that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was deeply connected to and profited from Russian interests in Ukraine, and he allegedly laundered millions of dollars through foreign accounts and lied about it to the U.S. government.  He then went on to serve as the chairman of President Trump’s campaign, for free, where he discussed with an associate how to use that position to settle outstanding debts related to his pro-Russian work in Ukraine. “The Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in our election and related matters is ongoing.  Special Counsel Mueller must be permitted to follow the facts, wherever they lead.   Any direct or indirect attempts to interfere with or undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation are dangerous, and could possibly constitute obstruction of justice.  Our democracy was attacked.  All of us now – Republicans and Democrats alike – must protect the integrity and independence of the Special Counsel’s investigation.” Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/a-reality-check-on-the-presidents-opioid-announcement,A REALITY CHECK ON THE PRESIDENTS OPIOID ANNOUNCEMENT,2017-10-26,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.26.17 A REALITY CHECK ON THE PRESIDENT’S OPIOID ANNOUNCEMENT White House’s Tough Talk On The Opioid Crisis Crumbles As New ‘Plan’ Offers No New Resources, While Congressional Republicans Act To Slash Medicaid By $1 Trillion President Trump’s long awaited declaration on the nationwide opioids crisis is nothing more than symbolic talk.  There is no action or new funding behind the President’s empty words to address this crisis.  This is unacceptable. It is far past time for the administration to acknowledge that the opioid crisis is a national emergency that affects every community across the country.  This scourge does not discriminate between rich and poor, or Republicans and Democrats, or urban areas and rural ones. The plan provides no new funding, but attempts to take credit for what Congress provided in the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31).  Making the response to the crisis even worse, the President’s FY 2018 budget proposes to cut funding for the opioid epidemic by $97 million compared the FY 2017 enacted levels. Americans suffering from opioid addiction do not want or need empty talk and symbolic action.  They need resources for medication-assisted treatment, which is expensive, yet House and Senate Republicans just passed a budget with the President’s support that slashes Medicaid by $1 trillion, which would force States to severely reduce coverage and restrict eligibility.  The President touts that this plan allows the Department of Labor to issue dislocated worker grants to help workers who have been displaced from the workforce because of the opioid crisis.  Yet the President’s budget request would slash funding for dislocated workers grants for states and national emergencies by more than 40 percent in FY 2018, a cut of over $500 million, despite his empty promises to help American workers and fight the opioid crisis. The Senate Appropriations Committee is working to provide the necessary funding to target this crisis by providing roughly $1.4 billion in its FY 2018 spending bills, an increase of more than $137 million above the President’s budget request, $42 million above the House, and $41 million above FY 2017 enacted levels.  These resources include: $174 million for the Justice Department to fight heroin and illegal distribution and use of opioids, which includes $12 million for Anti-Heroin Task Force grants to states.  The Trump budget eliminates this program. $316 million for Health and Human Services to address the opioid crisis, including $15 million at SAMHSA for a new opioid prevention program.  The Trump budget provides nothing for this. $500 million for the State Response To The Opioid Abuse Crisis grants provided by the 21st Century Cures Act to help prevent and treat opioid abuse in hundreds of underserved areas around the nation. $386 million for Veterans Affairs for treatment and prevention of opioid dependency among veterans. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-releases-further-under-oath-queries-to-ag-sessions-as-part-of-the-judiciary-committees-doj-oversight-hearing-process,Leahy Releases Further Under-Oath Queries To AG Sessions As Part Of The Judiciary Committees DOJ Oversight Hearing Process,2017-10-26,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.26.17 Leahy Releases Further Under-Oath Queries To AG Sessions As Part Of The Judiciary Committee’s DOJ Oversight Hearing Process Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Thursday released his written questions for the record to Attorney General Jeff Sessions following the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Justice Department oversight hearing with him last week.  Leahy’s written questions – to which Attorney General Sessions will provide responses under oath – focus on a variety of issues, including Sessions’ misleading testimony in response to a prior question from Leahy about the scope of his contacts with Russian officials as a senior Trump campaign surrogate.    Leahy’s questions also probe why President Trump is personally interviewing U.S. attorney nominees – an extraordinarily unusual move – and only for districts in which he has properties or his close associates are under federal investigation.  Leahy also presses the Attorney General to recuse himself from any cases in which he clearly has conflicts of interest. Leahy also questions the Attorney General about the Justice Department’s sharp reversals on voting rights cases; on his guidance to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals in the name of religious liberty; on plans that may eviscerate due process and judicial independence in immigration courts; and on threats to press freedom.  Leahy’s written questions to Attorney General Sessions can be found online HERE: https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/leahy-qfrs-to-ag-sessions-102617. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/statement-of-appropriations-vice-chairman-leahy-on-the-presidents-announcement-on-the-opioid-epidemic,Statement Of Appropriations Vice Chairman Leahy On the Presidents Announcement On The Opioid Epidemic,2017-10-26,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.26.17 Statement Of Appropriations Vice Chairman Leahy On the President’s Announcement On The Opioid Epidemic It is far past time for the administration to acknowledge that the opioid crisis is a national emergency that affects every community across the country. This is a scourge that does not discriminate between rich and poor, or Republicans and Democrats, or urban areas and rural ones.  But the President’s talk is just that – talk.  There is no action or new funding behind the President’s empty words to address this crisis. This is not acceptable.   The Republicans voted TODAY in the House of Representatives, and last week in the Senate, to slash Medicaid by $1 trillion, only to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.  Medicaid is a critical lifeline to providing critical care to victims of opioid abuse.  And the cuts do not stop there.  The President’s budget request seeks to eliminate programs, like the anti-heroin task force, that have proven to be effective, including in my home state of Vermont.  In fact, the President’s fiscal year 2018 budget would reduce funding for the opioid epidemic by $97 million.  The Senate Appropriations Committee has not followed suit in making these reckless cuts.  We instead are working to provide the necessary funding to address this crisis.  Between programs within the Justice Department, Health and Human Services Department, and Veterans Affairs, fiscal year 2018 Senate Appropriations bills would provide roughly $1.4 billion in funding, an increase of more than $137 million above the President’s budget request.  Including: $15 million at SAMHSA for a new opioid prevention program (nothing in President Trump’s budget request). $500 million for the State Response To The Opioid Abuse Crisis grants. $12 million for Anti-Heroin Task Force grants to states (eliminated in the President’s budget request). $386 million to treat and prevent opioid dependency among veterans. Senate Appropriations Committee Democrats have gone further to combat this epidemic like the public health crisis that it is.  In September we put forward a proposal that would provide more than $1 billion in additional funding to further prevent and treat addiction to heroin and other opioids.  It was voted down by our Republican colleagues.    We are past the time for just talk.  The administration MUST take real action to start acting like a true partner in addressing this national health crisis.  And to genuinely address this crisis we will need more resources.  Since March, I have been calling on Republicans to negotiate a budget deal.  This budget deal needs to provide equal relief from sequestration for non-defense programs. If we do this, we can provide resources and substantial increases in funding to address the opioid crisis.  My state of Vermont has pushed forward, working together with communities, law enforcement agencies and health care providers to treat this as the health crisis that it is.  Marcelle and I have sat with families in Vermont who have lost their children and Vermonters who are in recovery.  These are people who want and need our help, not a jail cell.  We cannot and will not arrest our way out of this problem.  We must do better. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Next Article Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-sanders-introduce-legislation-requiring-drug-companies-negotiate,"Welch, Sanders Introduce Legislation Requiring Drug Companies to Negotiate Lower Drug Prices for Seniors",2017-10-25,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHNGTON –  Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) today introduced legislation to require the federal government to leverage its bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower Medicare drug prices for seniors. Current law prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower Medicare drug prices. As a result, Medicare pays, on average, 73 percent more than Medicaid and 80 percent more than the Veterans Administration (VA) for brand-name drugs. If Medicare paid the same price for drugs as Medicaid and the VA, the federal government could save between $15.2 billion and $16 billion a year. Separately today, Rep. Welch and Rep. Cummings sent a letter to President Trump expressing their “profound disappointment” that he has failed to follow through on his commitment to work with them to write and pass Medicare drug price negotiation legislation. During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump expressed strong support for Medicare price negotiation.  In an Oval Office meeting on March 8, Welch and Cummings solicited input and support from the President for their bill.  The letter sent by the pair today follows two previous unanswered letters on April 20, 2017 and June 21, 2017.    “Why is it that today Americans are walking into pharmacies and finding that the price of their medicine has doubled or tripled for no particular reason? The answer is that the drug companies can get away with it,” Sanders said. “At a time when we spend many billions of dollars on medicine, it is time for Medicare to be able to sit down with the drug companies and negotiate prices.” “It simply makes no sense that Medicare is prohibited by law from using its immense purchasing power to get a better deal from drug companies for seniors. Paying retail prices for wholesale purchases is absurd. It's long past time we put an end this sweetheart deal for big Pharma,” Welch said. This bill is cosponsored in the House by Reps. Pocan, Higgins, Ellison, Schakowsky, Kaptur, Norton, Jayapal, Cohen, Gabbard, Grijalva, Nadler, Raskin, and DeLauro and in the Senate by Senators Leahy, Reed, Gillibrand, Harris, and Franken. This bill is endorsed by the Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Teachers, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, CREDO, Doctors for America, the Economic Policy Institute Policy Center, Families USA, Knowledge Ecology International, Medicare Rights Center, MoveOn, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Patients for Affordable Drugs, Prescription Justice, Public Citizen, Social Security Works, and The Senior Citizens League. Video of the press conference can be downloaded here. For a copy of the legislation, click here. For a factsheet, click here.   ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/in-late-night-vote-vp-casts-tie-breaking-vote-to-kill-consumer-protection,"In Late Night Vote, VP Casts Tie-Breaking Vote To Kill Consumer Protection Rule That Would Have Restored Ordinary Americans' Legal Rights When Harmed By Large Financial Firms",2017-10-25,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.25.17 In Late Night Vote, VP Casts Tie-Breaking Vote To Kill Consumer Protection Rule That Would Have Restored Ordinary Americans' Legal Rights When Harmed By Large Financial Firms Another Wall Street Win Over Regular Americans –   In Late Night Vote, VP Pence Casts Tie-Breaking Vote To Kill CFPB Consumer Protection Rule That Would Have Restored Americans’ Legal Rights For Remedies When They Are Harmed By Large Financial Firms   . . . Leahy Has Spotlighted Use Of Forced Arbitration By Such Firms As Wells Fargo And Equifax   [The Senate Tuesday night narrowly passed a measure to kill a new consumer protection rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would have restored consumers’ rights to band together in class action lawsuits for remedies – and transparency – when they are harmed by financial services firms, such as Wells Fargo and Equifax.  When applying for commonly used products such as credit cards and other financial services, consumers today are typically forced to sign small-print forced mandatory arbitration clauses, which preclude such lawsuits and compel consumers instead to enter into mandatory arbitration, behind closed doors.  Leahy has been a leader in pushing back against this effort by President Trump and congressional Republicans to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to kill the new consumer protection rule.  Leahy also is the chief sponsor of the Restoring Statutory Rights Act, which would ensure that when Congress or the states have created rights and remedies for injured victims, they are able to enforce those rights and remedies in court.  Leahy’s bill, which is pending before the Judiciary Committee, also makes clear that when states take action to address forced arbitration – as Vermont and other states have tried to do – federal law should not interfere.  The effort to kill the CFPB rule was strongly supported by powerful Wall Street interests.  The Senate vote Tuesday night was 51 to 50, with Vice President Pence casting the tie-breaking vote.  The House already has passed the same CRA measure, which now goes to the President’s desk for signing.  Leahy voted against killing the consumer protection rule and entered a statement about the vote (below) into the Congressional Record.]   Leahy Statement On The Congressional Resolution Of Disapproval Relating To The CFPB's Arbitration Rule Something truly outrageous is happening today on the floor of the Senate.  The resolution we will consider today signals to the American people, in no uncertain terms, that they do not deserve the right to seek justice when big banks or other financial service providers rip them off, leave their personal information exposed to hackers, or engage in discrimination.  The resolution of disapproval before us today will strip Americans of their rights in court and will ensure that corporate wrongdoing can remain shrouded in secrecy — all to protect powerful companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax.    Access to our court system is a fundamental principle in American society.  It ensures that all those who wrong others, no matter how powerful, are equal in the eyes of the law and can be held accountable.  That may no longer be the case.  Access to our courts is under assault by companies that slip forced arbitration clauses into the fine print of agreements for basic services like checking accounts and credit cards.  For some of these companies, like Equifax, consumers are not even their customers.  They sell consumers’ financial information to other companies.  They have little incentive to protect consumers or even treat them fairly.  That is how Equifax can actually make significant profits after it carelessly allowed the personal information of half of the adult population in the United States to be compromised.  This is wrong. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rightly put some commonsense limitations on the abuse of forced arbitration clauses.  The rule provides that financial services companies cannot force consumers to sign away their right to join a class action lawsuit.  The rule also requires more transparency when arbitration is used to ensure that wrongdoing cannot be hidden by powerful companies to keep consumers in the dark.  Protecting consumers in this way should not be controversial. With the blunt instrument of a resolution of disapproval, the Majority is seeking to strike the CFPB’s rule and prevent it from ever implementing a similar rule in the future.  This action, through a simple majority vote, would slam the courthouse door shut on every American who is ever ripped off by a company like Wells Fargo or has their sensitive personal information carelessly left unprotected by a company like Equifax.  If we go down the path of striking this rule, consumers will only be left with the same empty, meaningless apologies we always hear from these companies when they are finally caught red-handed. I hope the American people are following this vote today.  If they want to know whether their senator stands with them, or stands with corporate abusers, they will certainly find out.  Whose side will the Senate be on when the roll call is taken on this key vote?  The American people, and their rights as citizens and as consumers?  Or the powerful corporate interests who are pushing to repeal this protective rule?  We shall soon see.  This should not be a partisan issue.  We all represent the American people.  It is time we act like it.  The Vermonters I represent are watching.  They now what is at stake by repealing this rule. I urge every Senator who shared my outrage at Wells Fargo and Equifax to take a stand and reject this shameful resolution. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/udall-leahy-feinstein-blumenthal-trump-administration-must-answer-why-nominees-are-serving-without-senate-confirmation-,"Udall, Leahy, Feinstein, Blumenthal: Trump Administration Must Answer Why Nominees Are Serving Without Senate Confirmation",2017-10-25,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.25.17 Udall, Leahy, Feinstein, Blumenthal: Trump Administration Must Answer Why Nominees Are Serving Without Senate Confirmation Michael Dourson, chemical industry hired gun, may be already influencing EPA toxics office work, without being vetted by full Senate Dourson and other Trump nominees may be violating the law and circumventing the Constitution Today, U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) sent a letter to Office of Presidential Personnel (OPP) Director John DeStefano in response to reports that the Trump administration is allowing individuals nominated by the president to perform the duties of their appointed positions prior to receiving Senate confirmation. If true, the senators said, such actions are unlawful and circumvent the Senate’s constitutional role to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations. The four senior Democratic senators are seeking information from OPP about the number, names, and positions of nominated individuals serving in the administration prior to Senate confirmation, the extent of their temporary duties, and the administration’s actions to ensure that they are complying with all relevant ethics rules.   The senators noted the particularly concerning example of reports that Michael Dourson, who has been nominated to serve as assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, may be already performing the duties of that position without having been vetted by the full Senate. According to news reports, the EPA has so far declined to publicly clarify Dourson’s role at the agency.    ""Concerns have been raised regarding Dourson’s close ties to the chemical industry, including his partnership in a consulting firm that advised companies facing health a safety challenges from EPA. Although Dourson pledged in his ethics agreement to minimize certain ethical conflicts of interest upon confirmation, it remains unclear whether these steps were taken prior to his assuming his current role,” the senators wrote. ""As Dourson’s nomination raises serious questions regarding his ability to serve as an effective regulator of the chemical companies he used to represent, his nomination requires a full and fair vetting by the Senate. Accordingly, Dourson’s performance of the substantive duties of the appointed position before confirmation could have a detrimental effect on EPA’s ability to protect public health and safety. To date, EPA has refused to explain Dourson’s exact current role or how he is interacting with the office he has been nominated to lead.”   The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 prohibits an individual from performing the duties of an appointed position on an “acting” basis without Senate confirmation if that same individual has also been nominated to fill the vacant position permanently. To ensure compliance, the law also provides that “any function or duty of a vacant office” performed by a person not properly serving under the statute “shall have no force or effect.”   In addition to Dourson, ""there have also been reports that multiple nominees—including individuals at the Department of Energy, the Department of State, and the Office of Management and Budget—may also be performing the duties of their appointed positions prior to Senate confirmation. Such actions would not only subject the work of these agencies to legal challenges and uncertainty but also would be an affront to the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent with respect to presidential appointments,” the senators continued.    The senators seek answers from OPP’s DeStefano to a series of oversight questions by November 8, 2017. The senators are asking for the names, position descriptions, and authorities of all individuals nominated to a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position who are currently serving within the executive branch even though they have not been confirmed. In addition, the senators request that DeStefano outline the steps he has taken to ensure that all of these individuals are abiding by their ethics agreements.   The full text of the letter is below and here.     Dear Mr. DeStefano:   We write today regarding reports that the Trump administration is allowing individuals nominated by the President to perform the duties of their appointed positions prior to Senate confirmation. We are concerned that such actions, if true, are unlawful and circumvent the Senate’s constitutional role to provide advice and consent with respect to presidential appointments.    As you may be aware, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 authorizes the President to direct certain individuals to temporarily carry out the duties of a vacant presidentially-appointed position in an acting capacity without Senate confirmation. However, Congress also took steps to preserve the Senate’s advice and consent power by prohibiting an individual from performing the duties of an appointed position if the President has nominated that individual to fill the vacant position permanently. To ensure compliance, the law also provides that “any function or duty of a vacant office” performed by a person not properly serving under the statute “shall have no force or effect.”    We are particularly troubled by reports that Michael Dourson, who the President nominated to serve as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, may be performing the duties of that position as an advisor to Administrator Scott Pruitt prior to Senate confirmation. Concerns have been raised regarding Dr. Dourson’s close ties to the chemical industry, including his partnership in a consulting firm that advised companies facing health a safety challenges from EPA. Although Dr. Dourson pledged in his ethics agreement to minimize certain ethical conflicts of interest upon confirmation, it remains unclear whether these steps were taken prior to his assuming his current role.    As Dr. Dourson’s nomination raises serious questions regarding his ability to serve as an effective regulator of the chemical companies he used to represent, his nomination requires a full and fair vetting by the Senate. Accordingly, Dr. Dourson’s performance of the substantive duties of the appointed position before confirmation could have a detrimental effect on EPA’s ability to protect public health and safety.  To date, EPA has refused to explain Dr. Dourson’s exact current role or how he is interacting with the office he has been nominated to lead.   In addition to Dr. Dourson, there have also been reports that multiple nominees—including individuals at the Department of Energy, the Department of State, and the Office of Management and Budget—may also be performing the duties of their appointed positions prior to Senate confirmation. Such actions would not only subject the work of these agencies to legal challenges and uncertainty but also would be an affront to the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent with respect to presidential appointments.   As the Director of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, you are responsible for overseeing the selection process for presidential appointments and ensuring, in conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management and relevant agencies, that nominees who are currently serving within the executive branch follow all laws and regulations before their confirmation by the Senate. For these reasons, we request that you provide:   1. The names and position descriptions for all individuals nominated to a presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed position who are currently serving, in any capacity, within the executive branch prior to confirmation by the Senate.   2. A description of any authorities delegated to and duties performed by all individuals nominated to a presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed position who are currently serving, in any capacity, within the executive branch prior to confirmation by the Senate.   3. The steps you have taken to ensure that all individuals nominated to a presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed position, who are currently serving in any capacity within the executive branch, but have not been confirmed by the Senate, are abiding by their ethics agreements and Executive Order 13700 (also known as the Trump Ethics Pledge). Please specify if any such individual has received a waiver with respect to any ethics law or regulation or the Trump Ethics Pledge.     Please provide your responses to these questions in writing by November 8, 2017. Please also contact Jonathan Black to arrange for a time for a briefing regarding these topic. Thank you for your attention to this matter.       Sincerely,    ### Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-the-congressional-resolution-of-disapproval-relating-to-the-cfpbs-arbitration-rule,Leahy Statement On The Congressional Resolution Of Disapproval Relating To The CFPB's Arbitration Rule,2017-10-24,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.24.17 Leahy Statement On The Congressional Resolution Of Disapproval Relating To The CFPB's Arbitration Rule Something truly outrageous is happening today on the floor of the Senate.  The resolution we will consider today signals to the American people, in no uncertain terms, that they do not deserve the right to seek justice when big banks or other financial service providers rip them off, leave their personal information exposed to hackers, or engage in discrimination.  The resolution of disapproval before us today will strip Americans of their rights in court and will ensure that corporate wrongdoing can remain shrouded in secrecy — all to protect powerful companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax.    Access to our court system is a fundamental principle in American society.  It ensures that all those who wrong others, no matter how powerful, are equal in the eyes of the law and can be held accountable.  That may no longer be the case.  Access to our courts is under assault by companies that slip forced arbitration clauses into the fine print of agreements for basic services like checking accounts and credit cards.  For some of these companies, like Equifax, consumers are not even their customers.  They sell consumers’ financial information to other companies.  They have little incentive to protect consumers or even treat them fairly.  That is how Equifax can actually make significant profits after it carelessly allowed the personal information of half of the adult population in the United States to be compromised.  This is wrong. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rightly put some commonsense limitations on the abuse of forced arbitration clauses.  The rule provides that financial services companies cannot force consumers to sign away their right to join a class action lawsuit.  The rule also requires more transparency when arbitration is used to ensure that wrongdoing cannot be hidden by powerful companies to keep consumers in the dark.  Protecting consumers in this way should not be controversial. With the blunt instrument of a resolution of disapproval, the Majority is seeking to strike the CFPB’s rule and prevent it from ever implementing a similar rule in the future.  This action, through a simple majority vote, would slam the courthouse door shut on every American who is ever ripped off by a company like Wells Fargo or has their sensitive personal information carelessly left unprotected by a company like Equifax.  If we go down the path of striking this rule, consumers will only be left with the same empty, meaningless apologies we always hear from these companies when they are finally caught red-handed. I hope the American people are following this vote today.  If they want to know whether their senator stands with them, or stands with corporate abusers, they will certainly find out.  Whose side will the Senate be on when the roll call is taken on this key vote?  The American people, and their rights as citizens and as consumers?  Or the powerful corporate interests who are pushing to repeal this protective rule?  We shall soon see.  This should not be a partisan issue.  We all represent the American people.  It is time we act like it.  The Vermonters I represent are watching.  They now what is at stake by repealing this rule. I urge every Senator who shared my outrage at Wells Fargo and Equifax to take a stand and reject this shameful resolution. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/bennington-banner-welch-keep-fighting-partisan-tide,Bennington Banner: Welch: Keep Fighting the Partisan Tide,2017-10-23,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"On a visit to Bennington, Rep. Peter Welch echoed recent remarks from Gov. Phil Scott, calling for bipartisan remedies for a polarized nation. The Democratic U.S. representative and Vermont's Republican governor, who visited the county last week, both decried the partisan wrangling in Washington. Each contrasted that scene with the move civil political atmosphere they see in the Green Mountain State. ""We are kind of stalled in Congress right now,"" Welch said. ""It is really, really unacceptable to the American people."" Welch spoke in Bennington on Friday during an afternoon meeting of the Rotary Club. Welch and two staffers had two stops prior to that. They first visited Vishay-Tansitor Electronics. Then, they spent an hour meeting with staff, residents and officials at the Vermont Veterans' Home. Col. Al Faxon, chief operating officer, led the tour. Having served in the House for 11 years, Welch, speaking to the Rotary Club, said he's struck by the extreme partisanship that has overwhelmed efforts toward compromise on legislation. ""There have been good times and bad times,"" he said. ""The good times have been when there is a consensus among the people who are there to get something done."" A member of the Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress, which includes Democrats and Republicans, Welch said he is pushing against rigid philosophical approaches on myriad issues most Americans want to see addressed. A good example of reasonableness, Welch said, is a plan for reforming the individual insurance market portion of the Affordable Care Act while stabilizing the program for the next two years.  It was put forth recently by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington.  The proposal would begin to address subsidy issues that most Democrats acknowledge with the act, Welch said, but wouldn't simply repeal what is commonly known as Obamacare, as Republicans repeatedly have tried to do. Among the several state governors who've expressed support for the compromise plan is Scott, Welch noted.  Republican governors, also including Charlie Baker in Massachusetts, are saying, ""let's do the Alexander-Murray fix,"" Welch said. ""That is an example of trying to come together in a concrete way."" At some point, he added, compromising to deal with a relatively small issue could spur the kind of bipartisanship that often prevailed in Congress in the past. ""In my view, we have to break the fever,"" he said. Welch said he knows from talking to Republicans that many now see both good and bad in the ACA, as do most Democrats, but in the House at least, compromises rarely make it to the floor for a vote.  He said Republican Speaker Paul Ryan remains under intense pressure from the hard right members of his party, yet he has failed to work with Democrats to pass versions of bills that a majority of the House could support.  The principal reason, Welch said, is that House Republicans have agreed not to bring a major bill to the floor unless it can be passed with Republican votes alone, giving more extreme members greater influence over bills and thwarting compromise. ""This has been a big impediment to progress,"" he said. Referring to his time as president of the Vermont Senate, he recalled appointing then-Sen. Scott to an important committee chairmanship, even though the future governor was a Republican. When he has mentioned that to people in Washington, he said, ""they really think I have to have a mental status exam."" The key is in finding the right person for a post regardless of party, he said. ""And it's about being a nice guy; it's because that is the way to get something done."" His belief, Welch said, ""is that we will have to bring the Vermont way of doing business to the U.S. Congress before we start making progress ... And I see more and more of my Republican colleagues who share this view."" Asked what could help foster bipartisan approaches, Welch said two changes would ""give a boost to democracy,"" and help bring the nation back from the brink of a polarization abyss. One key, he said, would be to address the Citizens United decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which removed restrictions on political campaign spending. When he was first elected to the House, Welch said he and Republican opponent Martha Rainville could agree, as they did, not to run negative campaign ads. ""Today, we could never enforce that kind of agreement,"" he said, as outside groups or wealthy donors from outside the state could funnel cash into ads with the goal of creating a Congressional majority for one party or another. The other key, he said, is to end gerrymandering of legislative districts by whichever party is in power in states when the lines are redrawn, thereby creating ""safe seats"" for that party. The trend toward states handing over redistricting authority to a nonpartisan commission, as opposed to the legislature, is beginning to address that problem, he said. Asked by a woman who said that she's ""never felt as despondent or full of despair"" as she has with the political scene today, Welch acknowledged that the ""guardrails of democracy"" seem to have disappeared, and that the expectation that political discourse would ""operate within certain lanes of travel"" no longer holds. ""It is tough with this president,"" he said of Donald Trump, ""because things change so much as to what the daily focus is, and that's a challenge."" However, those challenges also constitute ""why we have to decide to engage,"" Welch said. ""We don't get to decide what the times are like,"" he added. ""We get to decide whether we are going to engage in what those times require."" There is never any way to know whether an effort will succeed, he said, but Welch said he takes heart seeing the work of local organizations and business leaders around Vermont, and of municipal and state officials who are providing leadership locally. ""So thank you for what you do,"" he told club members, ""and I am going to do everything I can do to try to restore some Vermont way of doing business to the United States Congress.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/approps-vice-chairman-leahy-statement-on-emergency-supplemental-appropriations-for-recent-disasters,Approps Vice Chairman Leahy Statement On Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For Recent Disasters,2017-10-23,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.23.17 Approps Vice Chairman Leahy Statement On Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For Recent Disasters No one in this chamber is immune from disaster.  Six years ago, Marcelle and I watched with great alarm as communities around Vermont felt the devastating impact of Tropical Storm Irene.  That storm washed away entire communities in our state, tearing down homes, local landmarks and bridges alike.  Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, from across the country, stood by Vermont’s side then to help us rebuild.  Because that is who we are as Americans.  We lift each other up in times of disaster.  Today, in California and across the West, families are returning to the charred ruins of their homes.  In Florida and Texas communities are trying to put their lives back together after Hurricane Harvey and Irma. And in Puerto Rico, hundreds of thousands are still without potable water, electricity, cell service, or adequate medical supplies following Hurricane Maria.  Millions of Americans need us to work together to help lift them up.  That is why it is so disappointing that President Trump seems more concerned with claiming credit for a job well done than the actual situation on the ground, particularly in Puerto Rico.  President Trump has given himself a “10 out of 10” for the Administration’s response to the devastating hurricane, but let’s look at some numbers that really matter.   It has been 48 days since Hurricane Irma made landfall in Puerto Rico, and 34 days since Hurricane Maria tore through the island. These storms wreaked havoc on those who live there, destroying houses, and killing at least 49 people.  Yet 48 days later nearly 80 percent of the island is still without power, and over 30 percent of the population is without clean drinking water.  Roads are impassable.  Bridges are down.  Hospitals operate on generators.  The Administration was slow to respond to the disaster, and to claim that they get a “10 out of 10” for their response is to ignore the facts.  This is not a reality TV show where the participant with the highest score advances to the next round.  These are people’s lives.  These are people’s homes.  This is the hard part of governing.  This is where we roll up our sleeves and dig in for the long haul.  Today we will vote to advance a disaster package containing $36.5 billion in additional emergency relief.  The bill includes $18.7 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund, $16.0 billion for National Flood Insurance Program debt forgiveness, $1.2 billion for nutrition assistance, and $576.5 million to address wildfires in the Western United States.   As Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.  If we do not act, the Disaster Relief Fund and the Flood Insurance Program will run out of resources in a matter of days.  This money will allow FEMA, the Department of Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies to continue their work in all of the devastated communities, and families to begin rebuilding their homes.   But this is still just the next step on the path to recovery.  Last week I met with the Governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rosselló.  He detailed the unique challenges facing Puerto Rico.  The electric grid was almost completely destroyed.  Its infrastructure was demolished.  Houses were flattened.  At the same time, Puerto Rico faces a fiscal situation that will make it nearly impossible for it to provide the federal match required for most disaster assistance programs, and it faces a Medicaid funding crisis that may leave nearly one million people without health care in just a matter of months.  Our response cannot be business as usual.  Going forward we need to tailor disaster assistance to meet Puerto Rico’s unique challenges.  We may need to consider legislation to address its unique needs.  And, most importantly, we need to think long term.  To simply replace and repair what was destroyed would be short-sighted.  We must help Puerto Rico recover and rebuild to be more resilient and better prepared.  We should invest in the 3.4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and their infrastructure so the next disaster is not a humanitarian crisis.  This opportunity is not unique to Puerto Rico.  We must acknowledge that historic storms are now annual occurrences, and we must respond accordingly.  Across the country, from the wildfires in California to the flood damage in Florida, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we can invest in technology, conservation and infrastructure that will mitigate further damage and make our communities more resilient.  This will require a commitment from the United States Government that is not measured in days, or weeks or months, but in years.  A commitment that does not waiver, and a commitment that does not depend on whether you live in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Today, I urge all Senators to support this emergency supplemental that will provide much needed assistance to disasters across the country.  But this is still just the next step on the path to recovery.  The Trump Administration has committed to putting forward a third, more comprehensive disaster package in the coming weeks.  As Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I intend to hold the Administration to that commitment. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senate-appropriations-committee-vice-chairman-patrick-leahy-d-vt-meets-with-governor-of-puerto-rico-ahead-of-senate-consideration-of-emergency-funding,Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Meets With Governor Of Puerto Rico Ahead Of Senate Consideration Of Emergency Funding,2017-10-20,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.20.17 Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Meets With Governor Of Puerto Rico Ahead Of Senate Consideration Of Emergency Funding Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) late Thursday met with the Governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rosselló, ahead of Senate consideration of emergency supplemental appropriations to respond to recent natural disasters.  Leahy said:  “As a Vermonter, a Senator and the Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I assured Governor Rosselló that we stand with the people of Puerto Rico.  The path to recovery from Hurricane Maria is not measured in days.  It is measured in years, and it will require the unwavering support of the United States Government to recover and to rebuild our communities to be more resilient.  However, I continue to be concerned with the slow pace of the administration’s response, and I urge the administration to rapidly overcome any remaining obstacles.  As U.S. citizens, we stand by each other in times of disaster.  It is who we are.” The U.S. House of Representatives last week passed an emergency supplemental appropriations request that included $18.7 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund, $16.0 billion for National Flood Insurance Program debt forgiveness, $1.2 billion for nutrition assistance and $576.5 million to address wildfires in the western United States.  The Senate expects to pass the emergency funding next week.  Congress in early September approved a $15.25 billion emergency supplemental package to address destruction caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The Trump Administration has committed to putting forward a third comprehensive disaster package for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in the coming weeks.  Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senators-cruz-and-leahy-pen-letter-urging-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-stop-enabling-the-great-firewall,Senators Cruz and Leahy Pen Letter Urging Apple CEO Tim Cook to Stop Enabling the Great Firewall,2017-10-19,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.19.17 Senators Cruz and Leahy Pen Letter Urging Apple CEO Tim Cook to Stop Enabling the Great Firewall ‘As long as the Great Firewall operates and is enabled by American technology companies, Internet freedom in China will remain at risk’ U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Patrick Leahy on Thursday released a letter addressed to Apple CEO Tim Cook regarding reports that Apple has removed Virtual Private Network (VPN) applications (apps) from the version of Apple’s App Store available to users in the People’s Republic of China. “The threat that the Great Firewall poses to the freedom of the people of China is similar to the threat that the Berlin Wall imposed on the people of East Berlin for twenty-eight years,” the senators wrote.  “As long as the Great Firewall operates and is enabled by American technology companies, Internet freedom in China will remain at risk.” See the full text of letter here. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/judiciary-democrats-call-on-doj-to-produce-documents-that-may-show-coordination-with-trump-voter-fraud-commission,Judiciary Democrats Call on DOJ to Produce Documents That May Show Coordination with Trump Voter Fraud Commission,2017-10-17,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.17.17 Judiciary Democrats Call on DOJ to Produce Documents That May Show Coordination with Trump Voter Fraud Commission ‘If these communications concern ongoing or contemplated cases or investigations in the Civil Rights Division, they could violate the Administration’s policy limiting contacts between the White House and the Department’ Recently revealed court records suggest the Department of Justice coordinated with President Donald Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which has sought sensitive voter roll data on the majority of the voting public and conducted highly partisan hearings based on discredited allegations of voter fraud.  Today, all Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter, led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), pushing the Justice Department to produce documents described in the court records that show such coordination is taking place.  The Senators’ letter follows a similar request to the Justice Department in late September that has gone unanswered. At the beginning of the month, in a court case between the Commission and the civil rights group Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Commission produced an index of hundreds of Commission-related documents being withheld by the Department.  Entries on the list “appear to show that the Department was coordinating with the Commission about data collection and other voting issues,” the Senators write. “If these communications concern ongoing or contemplated cases or investigations in the Civil Rights Division, they could violate the Administration’s policy limiting contacts between the White House and the Department,” the Senators continue.  “Full disclosure of these documents is necessary for Congress to provide appropriate oversight on this issue.” In March, former Justice Department Civil Rights Division staffer J. Christopher Adams, the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, and Kansas Secretary of State and Commission Vice Chair Kris Kobach called for ridding the Civil Rights Division of “ideological rot.”  They proposed doing so by stripping career attorneys of hiring and firing authority and vesting that authority with Trump political appointees.  In June, the Commission and the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division sent letters on the same day to state election officials seeking voter roll information. Full text of the Senators’ letter is below.  A PDF copy is available here.       October 17, 2017 Dear Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Associate Attorney General Brand, and Acting Assistant Attorney General Gore: We write to follow up on our previous inquiries regarding the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) involvement with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (“the Commission”). On July 11, we wrote to request information regarding DOJ’s June 28 letter to forty-four states requesting information about state-level procedures for maintaining voter registration lists.  We wrote again on September 26, regarding documents that showed DOJ leadership’s apparent role in selecting the members of the Commission.  We have not yet received responses to these letters. Since then, additional documents have come to light evidencing the Department’s involvement with the Commission’s workings.  This is concerning, particularly in light of another recent court production showing Commission Vice Chair Kris Kobach’s plans to dismantle the National Voter Registration Act.[1]  As we have written before, it would be a low moment for the Department to have been a facilitator of Mr. Kobach’s efforts to suppress voter access by perpetuating the myth of widespread voter fraud.  In litigation against the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Commission recently produced a Vaughn index to justify withholding from FOIA production hundreds of Commission-related documents.[2]  While we have reasons to question the Commission’s bases for those non-disclosures even in the context of private party litigation, FOIA exemptions are not a basis for the executive branch to shield documents from Congressional oversight.  From the Vaughn index, it is clear that the Department is in possession of, and indeed has already collected, documents responsive to our earlier requests. These include at least the following entries on the Commission’s Vaughn index: May 15, 2017:  “email exchange re: Chicago board of election” (DOJ official to Commissioner Christy McCormick) (#541) June 15, 2017:  “email about setting up a time to speak”  (Andrew Kossack, the Commission’s designated federal officer, to DOJ official) (#687) July 5-6, 2017:  “email exchange discussing voting issue with attachment” (DOJ Official to McCormick) (#544) Aug. 1-2, 2017:  “email chain and planner setting a time for a call” (Kossack to Department of Homeland Security Official and Staff, DOJ) (#738 & 741) Aug. 22, 2017:  “email re: collecting data from non-state entities” (Kossack to DOJ) (#748) Sept. 5, 2017:  “email forwarding link to news article” (DOJ official to McCormick) (#564) Sept. 6, 11, 2017:  “emails exchange discussing Chicago voting issue” (Third party to McCormick, DOJ official) (#565) Sept. 15, 2017: “email exchange re: sending materials for litigation index” (Kossack to DOJ, King) (#343) Undated:  Litigation documents and emails with DOJ (#778) While some of these entries might be related to the Department’s representation of the Commission in litigation, other entries appear to show that the Department was coordinating with the Commission about data collection and other voting issues.  If these communications concern ongoing or contemplated cases or investigations in the Civil Rights Division, they could violate the Administration’s policy limiting contacts between the White House and the Department.[3]  Full disclosure of these documents is necessary for Congress to provide appropriate oversight on this issue.  The Vaughn index shows the Department has records of these communications in its possession and should be able to produce them to us without further delay.  Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Department immediately produce records of any and all communications between Department of Justice or Civil Rights Division leadership[4] and the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the White House Counsel’s Office, the Commission, or any of the Commission’s members or representatives, regarding the Commission or its work, either before or after its formation. We also repeat our request that the Department respond immediately to the outstanding requests in our above-referenced July 11, 2017 and September 26, 2017 letters. [2] https://www.scribd.com/document/360511302/Vaughn-Index# [3] Memo from Donald F. McGahn II, Counsel to the President, to All White House Staff, Communications Restrictions with Personnel at the Department of Justice, January 27, 2017. [4] Including Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, former Acting Associate Attorney General/current Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, former Acting Assistant Attorney General Tom Wheeler, Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore, or any other political appointee in the Department. Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-statement-president-trumps-decision-end-cost-sharing-reduction,Welch Statement on President Trump's Decision to End Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments,2017-10-13,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s decision to end the cost-sharing reduction payments required under the Affordable Care Act. “President Trump’s decision to cut off payments that defray out of pocket costs for low income Americans is stunning, reckless, and cruel. After failing to convince Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, he is now openly sabotaging it, which will raise the premiums of hardworking Americans by 20 percent. He is also undermining bipartisan discussions well underway in Congress to make much needed improvements to the law. I hope this irresponsible decision is overturned by the courts. In the meantime, Congress should move forward with making the Affordable Care Act work better for working families.” ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-president-trumps-decision-to-not-certify-the-iran-deal-,Leahy Statement On President Trumps Decision To Not Certify The Iran Deal,2017-10-13,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.13.17 Leahy Statement On President Trump’s Decision To Not Certify The Iran Deal “President Trump’s decision not to certify the Iran deal recklessly endangers our national security interests, isolates our country, and is contrary to determinations made by his own Administration that Iran has been compliant with the agreement -- all for the sake of fulfilling a campaign slogan.  It will signal to the world – including to North Korea – that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word.  “The Iran deal is not perfect.  No multilateral agreement is. That is why there are many other sanctions that the vast majority of Members of Congress, myself included, have supported to address Iran’s other destabilizing actions.  But halting Iran’s nuclear program is a significant victory for world stability, and renegotiating the agreement is not feasible.  Our European allies have already released a joint statement noting the importance of keeping the agreement intact.  As long as Iran complies, so should we.  “Rather than trying to score political points by talking tough, the President should be working with our partners to ensure the nuclear deal continues to be implemented faithfully, and engaging Congress on a bipartisan strategy to continue combating Iran’s other malign activities. “It is now the responsibility of Congress to find a responsible path forward to protect U.S. national interests, including by refraining from enacting any legislation that would jeopardize the Iran deal. Our credibility and national security depends on it.” # # # # # Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-statement-on-president-trumps-recent-actions-on-health-care,Leahy Statement On President Trumps Recent Actions On Health Care,2017-10-13,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.13.17 Leahy Statement On President Trump’s Recent Actions On Health Care “The President does not want to provide “great” health care.  The President wants to tear down the Affordable Care Act, stripping affordable, comprehensive health care coverage from millions of American people, and thousands of Vermonters.  His latest attempt to do so is as blatant and obvious as throwing a brick through a plate glass window.  His Executive Order and announcement late last night will both drive premiums higher, making it difficult for middle class families to afford health insurance.  The President’s irresponsible actions will cut $12 million in Cost Sharing Reduction payments to Vermont next year alone, affecting thousands of Vermont families. The President has spurned the bipartisan efforts in Congress to improve the Affordable Care Act, and is instead punishing millions of families who cannot otherwise afford health insurance.  Like the House repeal bill he criticized earlier this year, the President’s actions are just mean. “This is no longer the campaign, and health care policy is more than a partisan applause line.  It is long past time for the President to realize that real lives are at stake.” # # # # Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-sanders-welch-reaction-to-mamadou-bah,"Leahy, Sanders, Welch Reaction To Mamadou Bah",2017-10-12,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.12.17 Leahy, Sanders, Welch Reaction To Mamadou Bah Senator Leahy, Senator Sanders, and Congressman Welch wrote a letter to ICE on September 5th requesting that they take no further action to deport Mamadou Bah, pending the results of his motions in Immigration Court and his application to USCIS for a green card based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen.  ICE denied the request on September 13th. “We are appalled that the Trump Administration is pursuing an unbridled effort to deport contributing members of our community with no room for compassion or moderation. We wrote a letter to ICE in September requesting that they take no further action to deport Mamadou Bah, pending the results of his motions in Immigration Court and his application to USCIS for a green card based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen.  ICE denied this request. Prior administrations focused our limited immigration enforcement resources on removing criminals and those who pose a public safety risk.  This administration foolishly considers almost all undocumented immigrants a priority for removal, which results in cases where people are ripped from their US citizen spouses and children, leaving broken families in their wake. We are heartbroken for Mamadou, his wife and their children.” David Carle (Leahy): 202-224-3693 Dan McLean (Sanders): 802-862-6695 Kate Hamilton  (Welch): 202-440-3340 ### Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/welch-urges-house-action-opioid-crisis-shares-vermont-experience,Welch Urges House Action on Opioid Crisis; Shares Vermont Experience with Epidemic,2017-10-11,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) testified today before a key House subcommittee to urge House action on the opioid epidemic ravaging communities in Vermont and across the country. He shared Vermont’s experience with the epidemic, including a story about a mother whose son became addicted to heroin. He also outlined a four-part legislative agenda for the subcommittee to consider, including fully funding the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, funding research into alternative treatments for pain, authorizing partial fill policies for opioid prescriptions, and better educating physicians on the safe prescribing of opioid drugs. “This so affects us all, I mean it’s heartbreaking. It doesn’t matter if it is a red district or a blue district. It doesn’t matter what your view is on the size and scope of government,” Welch testified. “Our job in Congress is to come up with policies that will help people help themselves.”  A full transcript of Welch’s remarks before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health can be found here. Click image to view video of Rep. Welch’s full remarks. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/comment-of-senator-patrick-leahy-d-vt-on-senator-mcconnells-remarks-concerning-the-blue-slip-tradition,Comment of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) On Senator McConnells Remarks Concerning The Blue Slip Tradition,2017-10-11,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Patrick Leahy,L000174,www.leahy.senate.gov,,,legacy,"10.11.17 Comment of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) On Senator McConnell’s Remarks Concerning The “Blue Slip” Tradition [The Constitution requires presidents to seek both the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate in appointing judges to lifetime posts on the federal courts.  Blue slips distributed and collected by the Judiciary Committee are an enforcement mechanism for the “advice” prong of the Senate’s constitutional role.  When a senator returns a favorable blue slip it demonstrates that the senator elected to represent that state with the judicial vacancy was consulted, and that the nominee is likely to be confirmed.] “It was not that long ago that Senator McConnell led a letter to President Obama, which was also delivered to me, stating that the Republican Conference expected the blue slip policy to be observed, ‘even-handedly and regardless of party affiliation.’  I did just that as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  While I was chairman no judicial nominee — district court or circuit court — received a hearing without the committee first receiving both home state senators’ favorable blue slips.  I maintained this policy during both Republican and Democratic administrations, even in the face of significant pressure from within my party to abandon it, including from Senate leadership.  This protected not just the rights of both Republicans and Democrats, but it protected the Senate’s unique institutional role in our democracy by making meaningful the Constitution’s ‘Advise and Consent’ requirement. “Now that a Republican is in the White House, Senator McConnell is trying to turn the Judiciary Committee into a rubber stamp for President Trump.  But it is not up to Senator McConnell; it is up to the committee’s chairman. Chairman Grassley has told me he will respect the blue slip tradition, just as I did.  I trust him to keep his word.” # # # # #   Press Contact David Carle: 202-224-3693 Previous Article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/market-watch-rep-peter-welch-allergans-bold-brazen-bizarre-patent-deal,"Market Watch: Rep. Peter Welch on Allergan's 'Bold, Brazen, Bizarre' Patent Deal with an American Indian Tribe",2017-10-10,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) is not mincing words when it comes to Allergan Inc.’s deal with an American Indian tribe geared toward protecting one of the company’s top products. “I was astonished at the creativity in craft manipulation to extend the patent,” Welch told MarketWatch on Thursday, adding, “they would only do that if they felt a kind of arrogant confidence that they can continue to get away with murder.” Allergan’s AGN, +1.09%  agreement with the New York state-based St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, under which Allergan sold the patents on dry eye medication Restasis to the tribe in order to dismiss challenges made through the U.S. Patent and Trade Office’s inter partes review process, was announced in September. Since then, the deal has been widely criticized and invited lawmaker scrutiny. A bipartisan House Oversight committee letter was sent this week—Welch was one of the four signatories—requesting more information about the deal. And Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who has said the move “should be illegal,” said on Thursday that she has drafted a bill in response. Drug prices are a key issue for Welch, who met with President Donald Trump and colleague Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) in March to discuss drug prices and, again with Cummings, sent a letter about prices to manufacturers of multiple sclerosis drugs this summer. Even before Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria and the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history in Las Vegas on Sunday, drug prices seemed to have fallen off the White House’s agenda. But Welch is still hopeful, he said on Thursday, describing prescription drug costs as one of the larger problems facing the U.S., given the spiraling cost of health care. Welch described Allergan’s patent deal as alternately “bold,” “brazen” and “bizarre.” “Congress has a policy by law that extends market protection for a period of time for a new drug, and I’m supportive of that. It allows drug company to recoup their investment costs and make a profit,” he said. “But when companies that have been given this legal protection try to extend it for pretty flimsy reasons, it really comes at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.” “If legislation is necessary to stop this, I would support legislation,” Welch said. Welch is looking at McCaskill’s legislation closely and his office expects he will introduce it in the House next week, according to a spokeswoman. Allergan said in a Friday statement that the company disagrees with Welch, adding that the deal does not fully shield Restasis from patent litigation. Lawmakers should instead focus on the inter partes review (IPR) process, the company said, referring to another channel by which patents can be challenged and one that many drugmakers have criticized. Allergan has “repeatedly” said it is concerned about the IPR process, the company said, since the process undermines the “delicate balance” of the Hatch-Waxman generic law, is implemented through the “not-impartial” Patent and Trademark Office and “creates an unnecessary and unfair burden on innovators of branded medicines by opening up patents to parallel and often inconsistently adjudicated challenges before both federal courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” But Welch said the request was “just changing the topic,” adding, “that has nothing to do with scheming to extend the life of the patent.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://welch.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/leahy-sanders-welch-vermont-firefighters-receive-16-million-federal,"Leahy, Sanders, Welch: Vermont Firefighters Receive $1.6 Million in Federal Grants",2017-10-06,2017,2017-10,Democrat,House,VT,Peter Welch,W000800,welch.house.gov,,,legacy,"BURLINGTON, Vt., Oct. 6 – Vermont’s congressional delegation announced Friday that firefighters throughout Vermont have received $1,635,648 through 15 federal grants. The awards are part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, which helps fire departments purchase critically needed equipment to better protect the public and first responders.  This year’s Assistance to Firefighters grants will help buy a range of equipment, including turnout gear, breathing apparatus, a brush truck and radios. “Our firefighters play an invaluable role in communities throughout Vermont. We are pleased to be able to help provide the resources they need. These federal grants will play a crucial role in purchasing essential equipment to help our first responders protect Vermonters,” said Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). The grants announced Friday are in addition to a $329,378 FEMA grant the Vermont Public Safety Department’s Division of Fire Safety received last month to help the Division implement “Fire Safe 802,” a statewide, rural home fire safety education project. The federal grants were awarded to: -Bradford Fire Department; $113,694; -Champion Fire Company of South Londonderry; $84,096; -Ferrisburgh Volunteer Fire Department; $76,762; -Franklin Fire Department; $50,186; -Grand Isle Volunteer Fire Department; $80,000; -Middlebury Fire Department; $219,223; -New Brook Fire Department; $93,334; -Pawlet Volunteer Fire Department; $72,381; -Springfield Fire Department; $250,069; -Stamford Volunteer Fire Department; $14,191; -Underhill-Jericho Fire Department; $19,048; -Vermont Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Safety, Vermont Fire Academy; $426,925; -West Dummerston Volunteer Fire Department; $40,000; -West Dummerston Volunteer Fire Department; $76,096; -Wilmington Fire Department; $19,643 The next Assistance to Firefighters Grant application period is expected to open this fall.  For updates, please visit https://www.fema.gov/welcome-assistance-firefighters-grant-program Contacts: David Carle (Leahy): 202-224-3693 Dan McLean (Sanders): 802-862-6695 Kate Hamilton  (Welch): 202-440-3340 ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z