A bill to designate the outstation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation.

Madam President, our country was founded upon the concept and in the midst of a great boycott. At the time, we were boycotting British goods and, most specifically, British tea. There is likely nothing more American than to protest, to dissent, and to boycott.

In fact, our Founding Fathers--many of them, including Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty--gathered in 1773, dressed as Indians, and dumped 90,000 pounds of British tea into the harbor. Some of our Founding Fathers were actually involved with trying to smuggle and import Dutch tea to get around the rules and to get around having to be so dependent on England.

But this was a boycott. The sad thing today is that we will be debating whether or not to place limitations on the First Amendment right to boycott, and we will do it because the vast majority of this body disagrees with the concept of what the people are boycotting over.

I would argue that it doesn't matter what the issue is. In fact, the First Amendment is to protect issues of speech and issues of boycott that you may disagree with.

I am not particularly enamored with--in fact, I don't favor--the boycott of Israel. I think Israel has been a good ally. Yet the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom to protest, and the freedom to boycott are fundamentally American. How can we give that up so easily? How can we just say: Oh, well, it is a good ally, and we don't want anybody boycotting them. We are just going to amend the First Amendment because we don't like this boycott.

Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what we were doing today.

I stand today at Henry Clay's desk. This desk has been passed down to the Senator from Kentucky ever since he left the Senate in 1850. In 1809, before he arrived here, there was a boycott of British goods. In fact, there was an official embargo that Jefferson had put on when we were upset with what the British were doing on the high seas with confiscating our ships, and we decided to have an organized embargo, a boycott.

In Kentucky, Henry Clay was still in the State legislature, and he proposed a rule saying that the legislators themselves should not wear British clothing. It was opposed by a guy named Humphrey Marshall, who was a cousin of the fourth Chief Justice John Marshall. They got into heated words, at which time Henry Clay, wearing his American homespun clothing, was confronted by Humphrey Marshall, who came in wearing what was described as garish English imports, and he called Henry Clay a demagogue for passing this legislation.

Well, Henry Clay gave it right back and called him a liar, at which point the words accelerated, and they were about to come to blows when a massive 6-foot-6-inch German-American legislator jumped in between them and stopped the fight from ensuing on the floor.

Henry cooled down. Henry Clay decided to apologize. He apologizes to the body and gives his apology, and Marshall jumps up and shouts back, ``It is the apology of a poltroon,'' which is an old-fashioned word for coward.

Things didn't get much better after that, and Henry Clay challenged him to a duel. It was illegal--and still is illegal--to have a duel in Kentucky. So they went across the river in Louisville and fought a duel, at which time Henry Clay was wounded in the thigh.

In those days, even though the laws were against dueling, you were often rewarded for dueling by getting a promotion. So the State legislature, within a week or two, elected Henry Clay to go to the U.S. Senate to represent them.

So not only are boycotts a big part of our history, but this particular boycott actually elevated Henry Clay to the U.S. Senate to become one of the most famous Senators in our history.

As for other famous boycotts, there was a boycott of the buses in Montgomery in 1955 and 1956. The boycott went on for 382 days. It was set off, as you will recall, by Rosa Parks' refusing to be seated in the back of the bus. But this boycott was about speech, and it was about law, and it was about justice.

Now, people would say: Well, I agreed with that boycott. That is OK. It is OK

to have good boycotts that I agree with, but it is not OK to have boycotts I disagree with.

I will make this argument. If today this body votes to encourage this idea that legislatively we should penalize people who boycott, I will argue today that--guess what--if you can penalize boycotts you disagree with, you may well find some day that people are penalizing boycotts that you agree with. If you have the power to disallow boycotts you don't like, you are now granting to the government the power to ban boycotts that you may well like.

The thing is this: Should the majority get to decide, well, that is a good boycott and that is a bad boycott, and you can say certain types of speech as long as I agree with you?

No, the freedom of speech--the First Amendment--is about allowing language you don't like. It is about allowing boycotts you may not like.

If you go through our history, our history is replete with boycotts, from the Boston Tea Party to the boycott around the War of 1812 of British goods, to the bus boycott in Montgomery--boycott after boycott. It is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment.

You don't believe me? Listen to the Supreme Court. In NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware, Blacks were protesting a Whites-only store that wouldn't allow service or allow sales to Blacks. They boycotted the store, and guess what. The Supreme Court said, 8 to 0, that you can boycott, particularly if your boycott is based on speech or it is based on a political viewpoint.

Now, while I don't agree with people who want to boycott Israel, if you live in our country, or wherever you live, and you don't like their policies, do you not have a right to boycott? Are we somehow going to take away your right to boycott because we disagree with what you are boycotting over?

I have a short list here of a few different things that we have boycotted over, and they range, interestingly, on both sides of the coin. Most recently, people on the left who don't like President Trump have boycotted Ivanka Trump's fashion brand.

A year or two ago, Christians boycotted Disney over what they considered to be liberal movies or movies they didn't appreciate because of the families depicted.

In North Carolina, liberals boycotted the North Carolina transgender bathroom law.

People have boycotted Chick-fil-A because the CEO was opposed to same-sex marriage.

The Dixie Chicks criticized George W. Bush, and they were boycotted.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with any of these boycotts. Boycotts are speech. How could we possibly boycott someone's speech? But that is what is going on.

About 20 States have passed these laws, and what we are now considering before our body is putting our imprimatur--our stamp of approval--which we are going to put on these States that are penalizing boycotts.

So who are some of the people that we are going to penalize?

In Texas, there is a speech pathologist who has lost her job. She was working for the school system. She has been in this country 30 years. Her name is Bahia Amawai. She has been here 30 years. She is a U.S. citizen. She speaks three languages. She works with children with autism, disabilities, and speech impediments.

Her contract was not renewed because they told her she had to sign a pledge that she will not boycott Israel. She also had to sign a pledge that she would never do anything economically or refrain from any action--buying a product--with anyone who does business in Israel or does business in an area they call the Israeli-controlled territory.

There has been a dispute for 30 or 40 years over the West Bank, whether the Palestinians should have more autonomy, whether it should be a country, whether it should be a province of Israel, whether they should vote, whether they should not vote. This is a political debate.

This woman has an opinion that she doesn't want to sign this pledge. She no longer works.

We heard on the floor from one of my colleagues yesterday. He said: Well, it is the government's money. The government's money shouldn't be used to allow a boycott.

Well, if you are a teacher and you get a salary, is that still the government's money after you have done your job and you have your paycheck? Should a teacher be prevented from boycotting or expressing their speech through an economic action or, really, through an economic inaction by not buying something?

It is the whole idea of ``not.'' A boycott is not even doing anything. A boycott is refusing to buy someone's product.

How could we possibly be in favor of that? How could we have such clouded judgment that this body, which has such historic importance, is going to vote to place a ban on freedom of speech? How could that possibly happen in our country?

This woman has been denied her job. It is her main job. She worked for the school district. She had a contract. Her contract has been denied because she refuses to sign a pledge saying she will not buy a product from somebody that she disagrees with politically.

How did we get here? How can we possibly even be considering such absurd limitations on the First Amendment?

This one is even worse. In Arkansas, the newspaper, the Arkansas Times, routinely takes ads. That is how newspapers make money. One of the groups that advertises with them is the State university. The State university will no longer advertise with this newspaper unless they fine them first or give them some kind of penalty. They will not advertise with them unless the newspaper signs a statement saying that they will not be critical of policies in Israel.

How could we possibly say to a newspaper that you can't do business with the State if you criticize a policy in Israel? How could that possibly be the American way?

The vast majority of the people here, like sheep, will fall all over themselves today to vote to try to limit your right to boycott.

People say you don't have a right to a job, but what if you are with a State? What if you are a teacher and that is whom you have always worked for and you have worked for the government? Can we start placing rules because the government pays you on what your political viewpoint is?

Arkansas says: Well, the newspaper can do it, but they would have to pay a 20-percent penalty.

So if you have certain viewpoints or you refuse to bow down to the government and bow down to the opinion the government tells you is appropriate, we will let you work for the government, but you get penalized 20 percent.

Imagine when this becomes another view, when this becomes some other issue you are interested in. Probably the most famous boycott in history other than the Montgomery bus boycott over segregation was the anti-apartheid boycott that ultimately led to a change of government and a change of policy. That wasn't done with automatic weapons. That wasn't done with tanks. That wasn't done with planes and bombs. That was done by good old-fashioned protest, peaceful protest, by agreeing not to buy something.

Can you imagine the State is putting into place laws that punish you for not buying something, for refusing to buy something from someone? It is galling. Will this be declared unconstitutional? Nobody knows for sure other than the men and women of the Supreme Court, but in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, eight to zero they said it was unconstitutional to ban or limit any boycott if that boycott is about speech or political views. Well, clearly that is what this is about--political views.

In two of the States that have passed these laws--Kansas and Arizona--there have already been protests and court cases.

In Kansas, there is a woman by the name of Esther Koontz. She is a Mennonite, and she is a math teacher. She has been a math teacher for about a decade. She has a contract with the school system to teach other teachers about teaching math and science. She said she couldn't in good conscience sign a pledge saying she would never boycott any group who originated out of Israel. What happened to her? She was fired or she couldn't continue in the job she had been in for I think a decade. Her case went to court. Guess

what. The court said it is unconstitutional. You cannot limit behavior. You cannot limit employment with the government based on one's political views. So on the first challenge, it was struck down as unconstitutional.

We go to Arizona. For political reasons, Mikkel Jordahl boycotts consumer goods made in Israel. This is America. You don't have to agree with what he is doing, but in America, you have the right to protest. You have the right to boycott. For 12 years, he has been doing legal services for the local county jail. They brought in his contract, and in his contract, they said: You have to pledge that you will no longer support any activities that agree with your political viewpoint that you don't like Israel's policy. He went to court. Guess what the court said. The law is unconstitutional.

These laws have gone to Federal court twice--once in Kansas and once in Arizona--and have been struck down. So what is this august body going to do? We are going to take it right up, and we are going to say: By golly, keep passing these unconstitutional laws in the States. We got your back.

It has already been struck down twice by two Federal district courts. The Supreme Court has said that the concept of limiting boycotts is unconstitutional. The First Amendment says that Congress can't pass a law limiting speech, and here, we are going to pass a law encouraging the limitation of speech.

One of the famous boycotts was obviously the Montgomery bus boycott. The anti-apartheid boycotts were famous as well, but even if you go further back in our history to about the time of the Boston Tea Party and beyond--another boycott--you find that people were boycotting the slave trade. There were people boycotting buying sugar out of the Caribbean because they didn't want to have any of that money going to supporting the slave trade.

I would argue that the right to boycott is about as fundamental a right as we have in America. It is a big part of the First Amendment. It is an important part of the First Amendment. It is a fundamental aspect of freedom to be able to dissent, to protest, even when everybody thinks you are wrong. That is what America is about--that you have the right to protest and that the government will not squelch your speech.

How did we get to this point where flippantly today we are going to encourage States to put limitations on the First Amendment? I don't know how we got here.

When we look at the First Amendment--and some will say: Well, you know, this is just the State government. We are just allowing States' rights.

Well, here is the thing about States' rights: Ever since the civil rights era, we have decided that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. The 14th Amendment, going all the way back to the time of the Civil War, incorporated the 1st Amendment. Many of the boycotts have actually been in favor of civil rights. Just because this one is a boycott about something else that you may or may not like or may or may not support doesn't mean we should place limitations on it.

If we begin to do this--it is a road that some may say is paved with good intentions--we will be headed toward a time where speech will be regulated by our government, where the idea of dissent and the idea of protest will be judged on whether people think or the majority of the body thinks that the protest is in order, whether the majority of the body thinks you should be allowed to protest. How un-American. I can't think of anything more un-American than trying to limit the ideas and actions of a boycott.

I remember when I was in college, the women of the Southern Baptist Convention said they didn't like pornographic magazines out in the open where kids could see them. They didn't even ask the legislature for a law. They actually did better than asking the legislature for a law; they simply marched out in front of all the convenience stores. They did it for about a month. Guess what. Convenience stores decided they didn't like people protesting and everybody talking about them, so they put the magazines behind the counter. That is the American way. Nobody forced them to do it; they did it under public protest and public pressure.

The idea that we want to pass a law today that says to the States: Oh, we like the First Amendment, but if we don't like what they are saying and we don't like what they are protesting, it is OK to punish these people. It is OK to say to the woman in Texas who feels very strongly about this issue in Israel that she can't be employed anymore by the school district because of her political views.

I can't imagine that this is isn't going to be struck down by the Supreme Court. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, the Supreme Court was unanimous--eight to zero.

How did we get here?

I would say that I hope my colleagues will listen to the debate and that there will be a spirited debate on the First Amendment, but don't hold your breath. You can see there is no one here other than me. They won't listen. The hope is that the American people will listen and say: How did we vote to send people to Washington who are so careless with the Constitution that they are willing to vote to ban boycotting, that they are willing to vote for something that has already been struck down by two Federal district courts, something that has already been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are going to go ahead and vote anyway because they don't like this particular boycott?

The First Amendment isn't about popular speech; the First Amendment is about protecting unpopular speech.

My hope is that across America, people are listening and that they will call their representatives today, call their Senators and say: How could you? How dare you take the First Amendment, crumple it up, and say ``Oh, today we are going to limit the First Amendment to only boycotts we approve of. We are going to limit it to speech we approve of.'' What a disgrace. What a terrible day in our history, that we are going to take the First Amendment, crumple it up, stomp on it, and simply say: Oh, we are afraid of that speech, so we are going to ban it.

I think it has the opposite effect. I think it only encourages the protest.

What I would say to my colleagues is, think long and hard today before you vote to place limitations on the First Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on S. 49.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 49) to designate the outstation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember the life of Major Brent Russell Taylor, who was killed in Afghanistan on November 3, 2018.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Bishop of Utah, for bringing this bill before us so that we all may be able to pay tribute to a selfless public servant.

Brent was born on July 6, 1979, in Ogden, Utah, the second of eight children of Stephen and Tamara Jones Taylor. Five of his brothers joined him in his military service in the Army National Guard.

At an early age, Brent showed his passion for business and politics. During his senior year at Chandler High School, he earned his Eagle Scout award and was elected student body president. He graduated in 1997.

Brent was a man of faith. He was a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and he spent 2 years serving as a missionary for the church in the Brazil Maceio Mission from 1998 to the year 2000. This time of full-time service largely impacted the course of the rest of his life.

After his mission, Brent attended Brigham Young University, where he met Jennie Kristin Ashworth on a blind date less than a month after she returned from her own full-time service as a church missionary in the Chile Santiago North Mission.

They enjoyed a sweet courtship and were engaged on a Saturday in June of 2003. Brent enlisted as a soldier in the Utah National Guard the following Tuesday, with Jennie proudly by his side. They married on September 18, 2003.

In 2006, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant from Brigham Young University. He went on to work for the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Ground Intelligence Center, and the Department of Homeland Security. Over the course of 15 years, he served in the Utah Army National Guard, deploying four times in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2009, he was elected to further serve his community by sitting on the North Ogden City Council, and in 2013, he was elected mayor of North Ogden, Utah.

In 2018, Major Taylor, a Purple Heart recipient, left on his fourth deployment, acting as an adviser to the Afghan Border Police. He was the first known sitting mayor in Utah history to deploy for wartime service.

Tragically, on November 3, 39-year-old Major Taylor was killed in an insider attack by an Afghan trainee he was trying to help.

In addition to his wife, Jennie, Major Taylor is survived by seven children: Megan, Lincoln, Alex, Jacob, Ellie, Jonathan, and Caroline. He is also survived by his parents and several siblings.

In letters to his wife, Jennie, and his children, his comrade, Afghan Air Force Major Abdul Rahman, said of Major Taylor: ``He died on our soil, but he died for the success of freedom and democracy in both of our countries.

``Your father was a loving, caring, and compassionate man whose life just wasn't meaningful; it was inspirational.''

In his last message to his community on October 28, 2018, Major Taylor wrote: ``It was beautiful to see over 4 million Afghan men and women brave threats and deadly attacks to vote in Afghanistan's first parliamentary elections in 8 years. . . . Many American, NATO allies, and Afghan troops have died to make moments like this possible.

``As the USA gets ready to vote in our own election next week, I hope everyone back home exercises their precious right to vote,'' he wrote, ``and that whether the Republicans or the Democrats win, that we all remember that we have far more as Americans that unites us than divides us.''

As lawmakers, the least we can do to honor Major Taylor is to come together to pass S. 49 into law. His legacy of fighting to protect democracy and freedom and working to unite his community and all Americans must never be forgotten.

We can all learn from Major Taylor's example to serve, as he would say, ``whenever and however I can.''

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I owe a debt of gratitude to Major Brent Russell Taylor and the entire Taylor family for their service and sacrifice to our Nation.

I fully support this bill naming the Department of Veterans Affairs Vet Center in North Ogden, Utah, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah, that our hearts go out to the families.

When I read the names of the seven children, it was a very difficult moment for me, and we certainly are paying tribute today to his family, his children, and his community of North Ogden, where he served as mayor. It is our tribute to him.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters--a letter from Frank Maughan, Commander of the Disabled American Veterans, Department of Utah; a letter from G. Hayes Stromness, Commander of the American Legion, Department of Utah; and a letter from Nick Flake, Commander of the VFW, Department of Utah--all in support of S. 49.

November 9, 2018.

Chairman Phil Roe, M.D.,

House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Tim Walz,

House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz: Please accept

this letter as demonstrating the total support of the Utah

Department of the Disabled American Veterans, in recognition

of the ongoing initiative to change the name of the Veterans'

Center in Ogden, Utah to the Major Brent Taylor Veterans'

Center, in memory of Army National Guard major and North

Ogden mayor, Brent Taylor.

Major Taylor's model of selflessness in the areas of

military service and civic responsibility should be a shining

example for all Americans to follow.

Major Taylor began his military service in 2003, and later

received a commission as a second lieutenant from Brigham

Young University in 2006. He served in the Utah Army National

Guard for 15 years, during which he deployed four times in

support of US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. His life of

service, however, was not limited to the armed forces, and in

2013 he was elected mayor of North Ogden, Utah. His devotion

to duty as a citizen soldier, in the tradition of George

Washington, Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower. In 2018,

Major Taylor left on his fourth deployment, acting as an

advisor to the Afghan Border Police. Tragically, on Saturday,

November 3rd, Major Taylor was killed in an apparent insider

attack. He leaves behind his wife and seven children.

Today, the state of Utah, and the nation, grieve for Major

Taylor. We would like to honor his amazing legacy. To that

end we offer our full support, and encourage the committee to

support legislation renaming the Ogden facility as the Major

Brent Taylor Veterans' Center.

Sincerely,

Frank Maughan,

Commander, Disabled American Veterans,

Department of Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I echo the comments of my colleague from Tennessee. We are a grateful Nation. I am privileged to take part in this tribute to Major Brent Russell Taylor, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to, as these other gentlemen have before me, honor a man who gave everything he had to his God, his family, and his country. These three great loyalties guided the life of Major Brent Taylor and the lives of his devoted wife and children.

As has been indicated, I come from generations of military service. Some of my family had the great honor of serving with Major Taylor. We know from personal experience the great leader and the great man that he was.

Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, Brent Taylor, hand in hand with his new fiancee, Jennie, walked into a recruiting office to enlist in the Army. Since then, this man and his family--and it is so important that we remember his family and the many other families of military members who sacrifice and serve as well--have lived a life of patriotic exemplary service.

He deployed twice to Iraq--in 2006 and again in 2007--and served in Afghanistan in 2012.

For his outstanding dedication to duty during combat operations in Iraq, Major Taylor was awarded the Bronze Star. This citation credited the ability of Major Taylor to think calmly and decisively to keep his subordinates safe while traversing more than 600,000

miles throughout Iraq, areas riddled with improvised explosive devices and ripe for ambush.

This award recognized Major Taylor's tendency to do more than just carry out the assigned task. He was a man who went above and beyond to make a positive difference in the world, believing his actions to be a small sacrifice compared to what so many in our Nation's history have given up to keep this the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Such exemplary service is equally evident in his life outside of the military. After serving as a city councilman, his community and neighbors so entrusted him to lead that they elected him to be the mayor of North Ogden City.

In this role, Major Taylor's initiatives included improvements to public works and infrastructure, attracting businesses to the area, and developing a local community center.

The citizens of the community loved his snowplow updates--in Utah, we get a lot of snow--and his ability to see potential and possibility in everything around him.

Serving as mayor was one of the greatest honors of Major Taylor's life and the highlight of his civilian professional career. He believed that service is really what leadership is about.

On January 8, 2018, Major Taylor announced that he would temporarily step down as mayor to continue his service as a member of the Army National Guard on what would be his fourth and final deployment.

He didn't deploy just once, not twice, not three times, but four times he answered the call to serve. And once again, remembering his family, they answered the call to allow their husband and their father to serve.

This man recognized that there was an immediate need for his experience and skills and gracefully rose to accept the call to serve in our Nation's longest war in Afghanistan.

In his final months of deployment, Major Taylor was killed by an apparent inside attack on November 3, 2018, while training Afghan security forces.

A loving husband and devoted father, Major Taylor is survived by his wife, Jennie, and, as you see here, his seven beautiful children: Megan, Lincoln, Alex, Jacob, Ellie, Jonathan, and Caroline.

One thing I am certain Major Taylor would say: His family was far and away the most important thing in his life. Nothing made him more proud or meant more to him than his wife and his children.

The impression that Major Taylor left was profound. He called on each of us to find some way to brighten someone else's day, to lift another's burden, to make our city, our State, our country, our Nation a better place.

This man and his family paid the ultimate sacrifice to fulfill this call, so it is only well and fitting that, as a tribute to this amazing life, Congress name a facility in honor of his shining example of service and sacrifice.

As has been mentioned, the Department of Veterans Affairs Outstation in North Ogden City will provide a range of services to help guide veterans and their families as they transition from the military to civilian life.

Major Taylor recognized that military service involves the entire family. As such, I am proud to support the designation of this facility, located in a city he loved and where he served and called home, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation.

The naming of the building will never repay the debt the Nation owes to Major Taylor and his family, but it can stand as a humble reminder of the faithful man who lived and died in the service of his God, his family, and his country.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I want to agree with my distinguished colleague and friend from Michigan as to almost everything he said, with the exception of article

Madam President, I rise to complete, I hope, the lengthy work we have done on S. 1--the first bill we introduced this year.

It is from the Foreign Relations Committee, and it is a bipartisan piece of legislation which many people have had input into. It is a conglomerate of several pieces of legislation that we have worked on for a considerable period of time, and all of those I know are supported in a bipartisan way.

I would like to walk through the five parts of this very briefly. The first one, of course, is the United States-Israel Security Authorization Assistance Act of 2019. That is one we spent a considerable period of time on.

Without a doubt, Israel is one of the best friends we have in the world. Certainly, in the neighborhood they live in, which is a very dangerous neighborhood, they need our help. We work with them very closely in many respects--in many national security respects, with people who aren't out in the public realm and who will probably never be out in the public realm, but they are important for the security of Israel.

The second is the Jordan Defense Authorization Act. I think all of us are aware, again, that Jordan is a great friend to have in the Middle East. Like Israel, it lives in a very dangerous neighborhood. Jordan has stood by us through thick and thin and through many challenges we have had. Jordan also has, in its great humanitarian view, taken in a number of refugees there.

As we work with Jordan, it is a cooperative effort to help them as they sustain these populations of displaced people who hopefully will be able to return at some point in time.

Thirdly, the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 is also included in this piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that I think my friend from Michigan described quite aptly. It is named after an individual who is very brave and who brought out a lot of evidence of acts that people knew and suspected were happening. He brought them out into the public.

This is a bill that will use America's power to sanction, and it will refresh some of the sanctions we have already put in place. It is just an excellent way to attempt to persuade Bashar al-Assad that he is going in a very wrong direction, hurting his people as he is.

The Combating BDS Act of 2019 is an act that has some controversy to it. Again, the goals have already been discussed on the floor for many days and at considerable length. Without going into all of the details, it is designed to see that the BDS activity is tamped down and that it is not appropriate to use against our friend Israel.

Lastly, the most recent addition, of course, was the McConnell amendment that has been added. This amendment has been badly mischaracterized by the national media for a number of days now.

I keep reading where the national media writes that the U.S. Senate rebuked--they used the word ``rebuked''--President Trump. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, when President Trump was running for office, he said his bottom line was to attempt to get us out of some of these entanglements that we have had.

One, of course, is Afghanistan, which has been on our mind for 17 years. The other was Syria. He rolled out the idea that we shouldn't be considering that. This system worked exactly the way the Founding Fathers intended for it to work. When it comes to foreign relations, when it comes to these kind of matters, it is a joint operation between the first and the second branches of government--between the legislative and the executive branches of government.

After the President put this on the table as the leader of the Nation, people began to talk. It was greatly debated both in this body--in the U.S. Senate--in the House of Representatives, and within the administration itself. What has happened with this piece of legislation is, first of all, it commends the President for all of the things he has been able to do in Syria and getting ISIS contained to a very small area that remains. It also lays out the challenges we face and commits to joining the President as we go forward and as we continue the work that is ahead of us in the Middle East.

This is a great piece of legislation. I commend it to my fellow Senators.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, on November 3, 2018, this country lost a true American hero: MAJ Brent Taylor of Ogden, UT, who gave the ultimate sacrifice while deployed in Afghanistan.

As North Ogden's mayor, Major Taylor died as he lived: going above and beyond the call of duty to his country, to his State, and his family.

Major Taylor, who is pictured here with his family, began his military service in 2003, following the attacks of September 11. He joined the Army National Guard just 3 days after becoming engaged to his wife Jennie.

During his time in the National Guard, Major Taylor distinguished himself in multiple specialties, including intelligence and military police. In 2006, he received a commission as a second lieutenant from the Brigham Young University ROTC, while graduating as a member of the National Society of Collegiate Scholars. Major Taylor was continuously ready to take up the call to arms and deployed four times on missions to Iraq and to Afghanistan. He held a variety of roles in those deployments, including platoon leader, combat adviser, and chief of staff to the Special Operations Advisory Group.

Throughout his distinguished tours of service, he also received several awards for courage and for leadership, including a Bronze Star in honor of his ability to calmly and safely lead those he was assigned to lead through multiple miles of treacherous territory and a Purple Heart for the wounds he received during an explosives attack on his vehicle.

His love of his country and his State was also very evident, perhaps most evident beyond the circumstance in which he wore the uniform. Major Taylor gave his time and his energy to his community, serving tirelessly as a member of the North Ogden City Council, from 2010 to 2013, and then as the mayor of North Ogden, after being elected to that post in 2013. He was known for being a hands-on leader and someone who was attentive to and constantly beloved by every member of his community.

After being reelected as the mayor of North Ogden in 2017, Major Taylor took a leave of absence from the mayor's office and headed back to the battlefield, deploying once again to Afghanistan. When he announced his leave of absence to the people of North Ogden, he told them he felt called to serve his country and that ``service is what leadership is all about.''

Major Taylor faithfully served his church and his family too. He had a deep love of God and of his church. He was a devoted husband to Jennie and a loving father to their seven children, pictured here: Megan, Lincoln, Alex, Jacob, Ellie, Jonathan, and Caroline.

Following his tragic passing, in an attack on November 3 of this last year, Major Abdul Rahmani, an Afghani pilot with whom Major Taylor worked, sent a letter to Major Taylor's wife Jennie, describing the great impact Major Taylor had on his life. He said: ``Your husband taught me to love my wife [Hamida] as an equal and treat my children as treasured gifts, to be a better father, to be a better husband, and to be a better man.''

Further, he said: Major Taylor ``died on our soil, but he died for the success of freedom and democracy in both our countries.''

In every aspect of his life, Major Taylor was a shining example of patriotism, of sacrifice, and of service. It is only right that we honor his extraordinary life. To that end, it would only be a fitting tribute to rename the Ogden Veterans Center in Utah as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation.

Today Jennie Taylor is joining Congressman Rob Bishop as his honored guest for the State of the Union Address tonight, to honor Major Taylor's life and to honor his great legacy--the legacy he leaves behind to his family, to his community, and to all who knew him and served with him. I urge my colleagues to pass legislation commemorating that.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 49 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.