Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate's attention to the Youth Summer Jobs and Public Service Act of 2019 that I am introducing today with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen. This legislation authorizes the Department of Labor to award Summer Employment for Youth grants to connect youth with jobs that serve their local communities and private businesses over the summer months.

Since the mid-1990s, my home city of Baltimore has organized the Youth Works program out of the Mayor's Office of Employment Development. The Youth Works program provides individuals between the ages of 14 to 21 with a summer job with employers ranging from private businesses, local community nonprofit organizations, to city and State government agencies throughout the City. At these summer jobs, participants are provided with meaningful work experiences, are able to learn to develop the attitudes and grit necessary to compete in the workforce, gain exposure to a variety of career fields, and have a safe, stable environment over the summer months during the day. For the 2019 Youth Works session that begins next week, Baltimore youth participating in the program will have a job for five days a week, five hours per day from July 1st through August 2nd and be paid a minimum of $10.10 per hour for their service.

This program has grown to be one of the largest youth summer employment programs in the Nation. After the unrest in my home city in April 2015, the Federal Department of Labor provided the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation and the Baltimore City's Mayor's Office of Employment with a $5 million grant to develop innovative job training strategies and work opportunities for youth and young adults across Baltimore. This Federal grant increased the number of individuals able to be served by the Youth Works program from an historic average of 5,000 participants to the more than 8,000 served today. Last year, Youth Works provided 8,600 Baltimoreans with jobs at more than 900 different worksites across my home city. I'm proud to say that some of those individuals who participated in the Youth Works program over the course of multiple summers while in high school have recently graduated and were hired by State agencies such as the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Baltimore youth and their families clearly see the value of this program, with more than 14,000 individuals applying for Youth Works slots this upcoming summer.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of funding between the partnership between the City, State, private business, and philanthropic ventures, more than 5,000 Baltimore City youth who sought summer employment will be denied the opportunity to gain experience in the workplace, foster confidence that they are capable of being successful in a new environment, and lose the security of a safe environment over the summer. We can and must do more to help individuals willing and eager to start their careers.

The Youth Summer Jobs and Public Service Act would seek to eliminate the waiting list for Baltimore students seeking to participate in Youth Works or other summer employment programs around the Nation. If enacted, my legislation would allow States to compete for Summer Employment for Youth grants to serve communities like Baltimore that have high concentrations of eligible, low-income youth. The grants would be utilized by local communities to carry out programs like the Youth Works program that provide summer employment opportunities that are directly linked to academic and occupations learning by providing meaningful work experiences. States competing for grants would be required to partner with private businesses to the extent feasible and to prioritize jobs and work opportunities that directly serve their communities, such as through summer employment with local community nonprofit organizations and city and State government agencies. This additional Federal funding can boost existing programs such as Youth Works and allow other communities across Maryland to establish their own programs and develop Maryland's next generation of workforce.

I am proud to lead this Senate effort with my colleague from Maryland and appreciate the work of Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana who initially led this effort in the U.S. House of Representatives and will shortly introduce companion legislation this Congress. I urge my Senate colleagues to join with me in this effort to connect youth with summer employment opportunities and start their journey towards fulfilling, successful careers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks.

There being no objections, so ordered.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to an exemplary young Marylander whose life was tragically cut short four years ago today. Senator Van Hollen and I have just introduced a resolution which pays tribute to Alex's life, calls for justice and accountability in his murder, and procedures to ensure other families do not suffer this same tragedy.

Luis Alejandro ``Alex'' Villamayor was born on July 3, 1998, to parents Puning Luk Villamayor and Luis Felipe Villamayor in Rockville, Maryland. Those who knew him remember him as a smart, loving, and compassionate young man with a good sense of humor. Alex was committed to his parents, siblings, and friends. He was a devoted member of his church and always sought to help those less fortunate.

Alex Villamayor moved with his family to Paraguay at the age of six. He attended high school there and graduated with honors from the Pan American International School and was accepted to attend Montgomery College in Maryland in the fall of 2015 to study business management. He ultimately planned to pursue a career to help and support the Paraguayan people, but was tragically murdered on June 27, 2015, in the city of Encarnacion.

Alex's death was wrongfully ruled a suicide by Paraguayan authorities, who had not properly investigated the death at that point and failed to collect blood and DNA samples from individuals present at the scene of the crime, conduct gunshot residue analysis, or collect cellular phone records and data from individuals present at the crime scene.

After Alex's family noted gross inconsistencies in accounts of his death, Alex's body was exhumed for additional forensic examination, which found that he had been raped and physically assaulted prior to his death. Finally, in September 2015, Alex's death was ruled a homicide. Rene Hofstetter and Mathias Wilbs were charged with crimes in relation to Alex Villamayor's murder and Paraguayan authorities opened a formal investigation of Alain Jacks Diaz de Bedoya, who was also present at the time of Alex's death. While the charges against, Mr. Diaz de Bedoya were eventually dropped, in April 2018 Rene Hofstetter was convicted of homicide and sentenced to 12 years in prison and Mathias Wilbs was sentenced to two years and 10 months on obstruction of justice.

In spite of these convictions, I remain concerned about the handling of this case. In spite of an offer to assist, the Government of Paraguay never allowed the FBI to provide technical assistance for the investigation. Our Ambassador at the time told media outlets that ``the investigation and the handling of this case has been worrisome.'' Of even greater concern, members of Alex's immediate family continue to face grave physical threats in Paraguay for their pursuit of justice.

Senators Van Hollen and I continue to offer our deepest condolences to the Villamayor family and, through this resolution, call on Paraguayan authorities to finally allow the FBI to assist in this case and provide the necessary protections to Alex's family. We similarly ask the Department of State to prioritize justice for Alex Villamayor in its diplomatic engagement with the Government of Paraguay and to review its procedures for providing services to the families of United States citizens slain or assaulted abroad.

On this sad anniversary, we remain committed to honoring the life of Alex Villamayor and working to ensure this tragic story does not repeat itself.

Mr. President, this administration is in crisis when it comes to border security. John Sanders, the acting head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, resigned yesterday as a result of the growing scandal and mistreatment of migrants, including children.

According to the Associated Press and NBC News reports, almost 300 migrant children have been removed from a Border Patrol facility in Texas after media reports of lawyers describing ``appalling'' and potentially dangerous conditions, DHS officials told NBC News. Lawyers who recently visited two Texas facilities holding migrant children described seeing young children and teenagers not being able to take showers for days or even weeks, inadequate food, flu outbreaks, and prolonged periods of detention. The facility in question has a capacity of about 100 people. Yet 300 migrant children were there.

The children who were removed were being held at a border station in Clint, TX. Some were wearing dirty clothes covered with mucous and even urine, said one advocacy organization. Teenage mothers wore clothing stained with breast milk. None of the children had access to soap or toothpaste, according to officials at the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. Some migrants were sleeping on concrete benches or even outside at Border Patrol stations. This happened in the United States of America, not some Third World nation.

One lawyer representing the immigrant children said:

Almost every child I spoke with had not showered or bathed

since they crossed the border--some of them more than three

weeks ago. There is a stench that emanates from some of the

children because they haven't had the opportunity to put on

clean clothes or to take a shower. . . . I have never seen

conditions as appalling as what we witnessed last week. The

children are hungry, dirty and sick and being detained for

long periods of time. . . . Children who are young themselves

are being told by guards they must take care of even younger

children. . . .

They don't know where their loved ones are who they crossed

the border with.

According to news reports, the children have now been taken to a detention camp also in El Paso, TX, where they will remain under the custody of Border Patrol until they can be placed with the Department of Health and Human Services.

This is outrageous and unacceptable in the United States of America or in any other country. We can and we must do better. What is occurring in Texas may very well be a violation of our laws.

Federal law generally requires unaccompanied or separated migrant children be transferred to HHS within 72 hours, but according to news reports, some children at the Clint facility had been in Border Patrol custody for weeks. That is in violation of Federal law. Now news reports are saying these conditions have been replicated in other border facilities, such as the Central Processing Center in McAllen,

Mr. President, the men and women who serve in our military are incredible patriots, and the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, is a vitally important bill the Senate passes every year to ensure our servicemembers are trained, equipped, and ready for the global threats our Nation faces. To this end, investing in our ready and all-volunteer force to ensure we maintain a military competitive advantage is crucial. I would like to highlight three amendments that I have introduced to enhance the fiscal year 2020 NDAA.

My first amendment addresses an increasing concern regarding deaths and injuries related to military training. Our men and women in uniform volunteer to serve in a profession that carries a great deal of inherent risk and can demand great sacrifice. Many have paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives upon the fields of battle. Unfortunately, many have also died while training for battle. To ensure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the best fighting force in the world, our military necessarily exercises them in demanding and realistic training. Effective military training builds readiness, tactical proficiency. and competence, and increases the confidence of our military force to win wars. I am concerned, however, that, under the guise of ``realistic training,'' the military is assuming unnecessary risk that has resulted in an alarming increase in servicemembers' training-related deaths.

In the past 9 weeks alone, six soldiers and marines have been killed in military vehicle rollover accidents during training; an additional 34 service members have been injured. One of those killed on May 9, 2019, was my constituent from Chestertown, MD, 24-year-old Marine 1LT, Hugh Conor McDowell, when his light armored vehicle rolled over during a military training event at Camp Pendleton, CA.

Since 2015, noncombat deaths have exceeded the number of military members killed in action every year. A 2018 House Armed Services Committee Report stated, ``In 2017, nearly four times as many members of the military died in training accidents as were killed in combat. In all, 21 Service members died in combat while 80 died as a result of non-combat training-related accidents.'' Training accidents are occurring across the spectrum of military platforms, military aviation incidents rose nearly 40 percent from 2013 to 2017. resulting in 133 military deaths; in 2017, 17 sailors were killed in two separate naval ship collisions. Three of those who died were also Maryland residents.

Something needs to change in the military's current culture of training safety, and the most recent losses of life reflect that the current culture is increasing risk, not reducing it. When military training yields nearly four times the casualties compared to combat, training is no longer realistic, it is unsafe. These training accidents are resulting in the unnecessary death and injury of our servicmembers and are severely degrading our military readiness. No justifiable reason exists for training that assumes unnecessary risk and disregards the safety of our men and women in uniform. This worrisome trendline since 2015 demands a serious examination of military training safety and implementation of associated corrective actions across the entire Department of Defense.

I have filed an amendment to the NDAA, which I hope the Senate will consider, that would require the Department of Defense to conduct a study that analyzes the recent training deaths of servicemembers; provides an assessment of the associated trends, including vehicle rollovers; and demands recommendations for actions to prevent or minimize such deaths and injuries in the future. This report would be due to Congress no later than 180 days after the enactment of the NDAA. We owe it to the individuals who volunteer to serve, and their families, to improve the military's culture of training safety and prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries from occurring in training environments.

Another important aspect of the NDAA is to ensure that our military is investing in modernization and innovation to preserve our strategic competitive advantage against our adversaries. I was pleased that Senators Inhofe and Reed have included two of my amendments in division E, the so-called managers' package of amendments to the substitute amendment to the underlying bill. My two amendments focus on preserving and bolstering modernization and innovation.

One of these amendments seeks to maintain the Nation's technological superiority in energetics research and development. Energetics plays a critical role in our national security in enhancing propulsion and ordnance systems' effectiveness in terms ofreach, accuracy, and lethality. Other nations, such as China and Russia, continue to make strides in energetic material development, and the U.S. cannot afford to fall behind. My amendment would require the Department of Defense to develop an energetics research and development plan to ensure a long- term, multidomain research, development, prototyping, and experimentations effort, which will have the additional benefit of maintaining a robust defense industrial base and trained workforce. It also requires the Secretary to work in conjunction with DOD Research Labs, labs such as the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, MD. Indian Head is one of the premier research and development facilities for energetics. The DOD would be required to brief the relevant congressional Defense committees on this plan within a year of the NDAA's enactment into law.

My other amendment seeks to preserve funding and staffing of Army medical research and development efforts. The Department of Defense and the Army's medical research and development efforts are critical to increase warfighter readiness through improving health protection and resilience, improving health delivery in deployed areas, and enhancing the recovery and rehabilitation of our wounded servicemembers.

The Army's medical research and development has played a key role for the Department of Defense, executing over 78 percent of DO D's medical research, development, testing, and evaluation funding. I am proud to say that the majority of this work runs through Ft. Detrick, MD, often in partnership with the medical research programs at John's Hopkins, the University of Maryland, and the Kennedy Krieger Institute. The Army's medical research efforts have addressed medical issues unique to the military, which private industry and academia have lacked interest in conducting. Some examples include blast injuries, brain trauma, and endemic diseases across the globe that our military has mobilized to address, such as the Ebola outbreak in

Liberia. We need to ensure that in addition to investing in next generation weapons to deter or destroy our adversaries, the Department of Defense is preserving research and development resourcing for next generation medical solutions that protect and save the lives of our servicemen and women.

Readiness, modernization, and innovation are key pillars of the; fiscal year 2020 NDAA; my three amendments strengthen those focus areas by ensuring our servicemembers are receiving realistic but safe training, are supported by weapons that are enhanced by energetic materials, and are protected and treated by world-class military medical solutions during their training and deployments. Our servicemembers deserve the best, and our national security requires that we maintain our competitive advantage. Let us ensure the fiscal year 2020 NDAA incorporates the training safety, technological innovation, and continued development of medical solutions required to do so.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I name All Time Toys of Eldersburg, MD, the U.S. Senate Small Business of the Week.

All Time's story and that of its owner Jason Barnes is one of perseverance. That is because All Time has recovered from two 1,000- year flood events in less than 18 months.

On July 31, 2016, less than 2 months after Jason purchased All Time, 75 percent of his inventory was destroyed by a historic, fatal flash flood that washed through Ellicott City, leaving millions of dollars' worth of damage in its wake.

Within hours, countless videos of the destructive torrent rushing down Main Street were being shared on social media and on the news. One of those videos was of Jason leading a human chain to rescue a woman trapped in her car. Jason's selfless act has been seen by millions of people around the globe, and it earned him an award from the Carnegie Hero Fund. When asked about his act of heroism, Jason said that he ``just wanted to help any way'' he could and that he could not ``just stand idly by.''

After the waters receded, Jason had to figure out how he would move forward. Thanks to his persistence, and with support from the Maryland Small Business Development Center,--SBDC--All Time reopened less than 6 months later on January 20, 2017; 2017 was a very successful year for Jason and All Time. The company's sales doubled, it drastically improved its business practices and systems, and Jason was scouting locations for a second store.

Then on May 27, 2018, less than 2 years after the 2016 flood and less than 18 months after All Time reopened, Ellicott City was devastated again by another historic flash flood. This time, however, Jason was prepared with a readiness plan and the business continuity strategies he learned from the Maryland SBDC.

According to FEMA, 40 percent of small businesses that go through a major disaster never open their doors again, and given that Jason was a brand-new entrepreneur who had lost the vast majority of his stock, to say that All Time beat the odds would be an understatement.

Jason's story is why the Small Business Committee invited him to provide testimony during our hearing on the Small Business Administration's Office of Disaster Assistance. In his deeply moving testimony, Jason made clear that his recovery would not have been possible without support from SBA, the Maryland SBDC, and its two secret weapons: Maryland SBDC consultants Craig Panos and Garrett Clover, whose advice and knowledge Jason called miraculous during the hearing.

For too many small businesses, a major natural disaster marks the end of a dream, but for Jason and All Time, surviving two historic floods has opened up a new chapter defined by resilience and persistence. He recently reopened All Time in nearby Eldersburg, MD, and he is once again scouting locations for a second store.

I am proud of Jason's Free State perseverance, and I am honored to recognize him and his entire team at All Time Toys as the Senate Small Business of the Week. I look forward to watching their continued growth and success.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act of 2019. I am proud to be introducing this bill with my long-time friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Fallen Journalists Memorial (FJM) Foundation to establish a commemorative work--a memorial--in the District of Columbia or its environs honoring journalists, photographers, and broadcasters killed in the line of duty, defending freedom of the press. The bill directs the Federal government to make eligible Federal land available for the memorial.

The bill explicitly prohibits the use of Federal funds to design or construct the memorial, and stipulates that the memorial must be designed and built in compliance with existing federal standards for commemorative works. Furthermore, the FJM Foundation must provide the funding necessary for the National Park Service or General Services Administration to maintain the memorial. The bill conforms to the structure of other similar bills.

Across the National Capital Region, we have monuments and memorials to honor those who have helped make our Nation and our democracy stronger since its founding days. Currently missing from that honor roll, however, are journalists who have sacrificed everything to gather facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of the free, open, and transparent societies and governments that Americans--and all people--deserve.

Why do we need this memorial? Well, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists:

Worldwide, at least 1,337 journalists have been killed in the line of duty since 1992;

each year, hundreds of journalists are attacked, imprisoned, and tortured;

the majority of the journalists killed are murdered in direct relation to their work as journalists; and

in 9 out of 10 cases, the killers of journalists go free.

When we think of casualties, we tend to think of war correspondents on the front lines. in battle. Intrepid reporters and photographers and cameramen and women put themselves in harm's way, and many have been killed and wounded. But then we have cases like the Saudi Government's savage dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its Consulate in Turkey last October. That was a state-sanctioned killing. And here at home, barely 30 miles from here, we had the horrific shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis that left five people dead and two wounded. The attack at the Gazette offices occurred one year ago this Friday, on June 28th. So it is fitting that we are introducing the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act today to remember and honor the Gazette victims, Jamal Khashoggi, and all other journalists who have been killed in the line of duty, defending freedom of the press. The Fallen Journalists Memorial will be a visible symbol and reminder of what is at stake and the price people have paid.

We Americans have certain rights and responsibilities granted to us through the Constitution, which established the rule of law in this country. Freedom of the press is one of those most basic rights and it is central to our way of life. This precious freedom has often been under attack, figuratively speaking, since our Nation's founding.

Today, attacks on the American media have become more frequent and more literal, spurred on by dangerous rhetoric that is creating an ``open season'' on denigrating and harassing the media for doing its job--asking questions that need to be asked, investigating the stories that need to be uncovered, and bringing needed transparency to the halls of power.

One year ago this Friday, a 38-year-old man who had a long-standing spurious grudge against the Capital Gazette newspaper, made good on his sworn threats. He entered the newspaper offices, headed to the newsroom, and by the time he was done, he had shot and killed five employees of this community newspaper and wounded two others.

The Capital Gazette is the local paper of record in Annapolis. It is one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the U.S. It traces its roots back to the Maryland Gazette, which began publishing in 1727 and The Capital, which dates to 1884.

This loss of life is personal to so many in Annapolis and around our State. You need to understand that the Capital Gazette is as much a part of the fabric of Annapolis as the State government that it covers better than anyone in the business.

On that day one year ago, the Anne Arundel County Police Department, the Annapolis Police Department, and the Anne Arundel County Sheriff's Office all responded to the first 9-1-1 call within two minutes, rushing into the offices and into the newsroom to apprehend the gunman and prevent further bloodshed, according to Anne Arundel Police Chief Timothy Altomare.

State and Federal law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (A TF), and many others agencies quickly had personnel there to support local officials in their efforts to clear the building and meticulously investigate the scene.

I want to thank, again, all law enforcement officers and other first responders--from the individuals who rushed into the newsroom not knowing what danger they might encounter to those helping get others to safety; from those gathering evidence to ensure nothing was lost in the bustle or chaos of the moment to those diverting traffic so that people could be evacuated and investigators could do their jobs in safety.

The swift law enforcement response undoubtedly saved lives but not before the gunman managed to kill five people. Among them were Gerald Fischman, 61, who was an editor with more than 25 years of service with the Capital Gazette admired at the newspaper and throughout the community for his brilliant mind and writing.

Most often, it was his voice and his insightfulness that came through on the editorial pages of the Capital Gazette. Rick Hutzell, the Capital Gazette's editor, described Fischman as ``someone whose life was committed to protecting our community by telling hard truths.''

Rob Hiaasen, 59, was a columnist, editor, teacher, and storyteller and brought compassion and humor to his community-focused reporting. Rob was a coach and a mentor to many. According to former Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, he was ``so happy working with young journalists . . . He wanted to create a newsroom where everyone was growing.''

John McNamara, 56, was a skilled writer and avid sports fan and combined these passions in his 24-year career as a sports reporter at the Capital Gazette. Former Capital Gazette sports editor Gerry Jackson, said of McNamara, or ``Mac,'' as he went by, ``He could write. He could edit. He could design pages. He was just a jack of all trades and a fantastic person.''

Rebecca Smith, 34, was a newly-hired sales assistant known for her kindness, compassion, and love for her family. A friend of her fiance described ``Becca'' as ``the absolute most beautiful person'' with ``the biggest heart'' and called her death ``a great loss to this world.''

Wendi Winters, 65, was a talented writer who built her career as a public relations professional and journalist. She was well-known for her profound reporting on the lives and achievements of people within the community. She was a ``proud Navy Mom''--and daughter.

As we learned the details of the shooting from the survivors, it became clear that Wendi saved lives during the attack. She confronted the gunman and distracted him by throwing things at him--whatever she could find within reach. As the paper noted: ``Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting freedom of the press.''

My heartfelt condolences and prayers continue to go out to the victims and their families. The surviving staff members also deserve our prayers and praise for their resilience and dedication to their mission as journalists and respect for their fallen colleagues. During and after the attack, staff continued to report by tweet, sharing information to those outside, taking photos and documenting information as they would other crime scenes. Despite their grief, shock, anger and mourning, the surviving staff--with help from their sister publication the Baltimore Sun, Capital Gazette alumni, and other reporters who wanted to lend a hand to fellow journalists--put out a paper the following morning and they have done so every day since. This is grace under pressure.

Fittingly, the editorial page the day after the shooting was purposefully left blank, but for the few words: ``Today, we are speechless. This page is intentionally left blank to commemorate the victims of Thursday's shootings at our office.'' The staff promised that on Saturday, the page would ``return to its steady purpose of offering our readers informed opinion about the world around them, that they might be better citizens.''

I want to repeat one quote from the Capital Gazette editorial page that bears repeating: ``Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting freedom of the press.'' Wendi Winters and her colleagues died protecting freedom of the press.

Here in the United States, the Capital Gazette shooting was not an isolated incident; other journalists have been vulnerable to attack or reprisal for their work:

a freelance photojournalist was killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center;

in October 2001, a photo editor with the Sun newspaper in Boca Raton, Florida, died from inhaling anthrax, a substance that was mailed to a number of journalists across the United States;

in August 2007, a masked gunman shot and killed the editor-in-chief of

the Oakland Post, a prominent African-American newspaper; and

in August 2015, a reporter and cameraman for television station WDBJ7 were shot dead during a live broadcast in Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia.

At least 59 journalists have been murdered or killed in the United States while reporting, while covering a military conflict, or simply because of their status as a journalist.

While Annapolis and most of the Nation rallied in support of the survivors of the Capital Gazette shooting, the paper reported receiving new death threats and emails celebrating the attack. This is not right in America or anywhere else.

Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job--both figuratively and literally. The right of journalists to report the news is nothing less than the right of all of us to know, to understand what is happening around us and to us. Media freedom and media pluralism are essential for the expression of, or ensuring respect for, other fundamental freedoms and safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, and a system of checks and balances.

Every one of us in this body--Democrats and Republicans--has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We bear the solemn responsibility of defending freedom of the press. It is time for us to redouble our efforts both here at home and abroad. We must lead by example. The very foundation and legitimacy of our democratic republic are at stake. One way to start is by memorializing those brave men and women who have died or been killed, as the New York Times' Adolph S. Ochs put it in 1896, ``to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act of 2019. I am proud to be introducing this bill with my long-time friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Fallen Journalists Memorial (FJM) Foundation to establish a commemorative work--a memorial--in the District of Columbia or its environs honoring journalists, photographers, and broadcasters killed in the line of duty, defending freedom of the press. The bill directs the Federal government to make eligible Federal land available for the memorial.

The bill explicitly prohibits the use of Federal funds to design or construct the memorial, and stipulates that the memorial must be designed and built in compliance with existing federal standards for commemorative works. Furthermore, the FJM Foundation must provide the funding necessary for the National Park Service or General Services Administration to maintain the memorial. The bill conforms to the structure of other similar bills.

Across the National Capital Region, we have monuments and memorials to honor those who have helped make our Nation and our democracy stronger since its founding days. Currently missing from that honor roll, however, are journalists who have sacrificed everything to gather facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of the free, open, and transparent societies and governments that Americans--and all people--deserve.

Why do we need this memorial? Well, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists:

Worldwide, at least 1,337 journalists have been killed in the line of duty since 1992;

each year, hundreds of journalists are attacked, imprisoned, and tortured;

the majority of the journalists killed are murdered in direct relation to their work as journalists; and

in 9 out of 10 cases, the killers of journalists go free.

When we think of casualties, we tend to think of war correspondents on the front lines. in battle. Intrepid reporters and photographers and cameramen and women put themselves in harm's way, and many have been killed and wounded. But then we have cases like the Saudi Government's savage dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its Consulate in Turkey last October. That was a state-sanctioned killing. And here at home, barely 30 miles from here, we had the horrific shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis that left five people dead and two wounded. The attack at the Gazette offices occurred one year ago this Friday, on June 28th. So it is fitting that we are introducing the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act today to remember and honor the Gazette victims, Jamal Khashoggi, and all other journalists who have been killed in the line of duty, defending freedom of the press. The Fallen Journalists Memorial will be a visible symbol and reminder of what is at stake and the price people have paid.

We Americans have certain rights and responsibilities granted to us through the Constitution, which established the rule of law in this country. Freedom of the press is one of those most basic rights and it is central to our way of life. This precious freedom has often been under attack, figuratively speaking, since our Nation's founding.

Today, attacks on the American media have become more frequent and more literal, spurred on by dangerous rhetoric that is creating an ``open season'' on denigrating and harassing the media for doing its job--asking questions that need to be asked, investigating the stories that need to be uncovered, and bringing needed transparency to the halls of power.

One year ago this Friday, a 38-year-old man who had a long-standing spurious grudge against the Capital Gazette newspaper, made good on his sworn threats. He entered the newspaper offices, headed to the newsroom, and by the time he was done, he had shot and killed five employees of this community newspaper and wounded two others.

The Capital Gazette is the local paper of record in Annapolis. It is one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the U.S. It traces its roots back to the Maryland Gazette, which began publishing in 1727 and The Capital, which dates to 1884.

This loss of life is personal to so many in Annapolis and around our State. You need to understand that the Capital Gazette is as much a part of the fabric of Annapolis as the State government that it covers better than anyone in the business.

On that day one year ago, the Anne Arundel County Police Department, the Annapolis Police Department, and the Anne Arundel County Sheriff's Office all responded to the first 9-1-1 call within two minutes, rushing into the offices and into the newsroom to apprehend the gunman and prevent further bloodshed, according to Anne Arundel Police Chief Timothy Altomare.

State and Federal law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (A TF), and many others agencies quickly had personnel there to support local officials in their efforts to clear the building and meticulously investigate the scene.

I want to thank, again, all law enforcement officers and other first responders--from the individuals who rushed into the newsroom not knowing what danger they might encounter to those helping get others to safety; from those gathering evidence to ensure nothing was lost in the bustle or chaos of the moment to those diverting traffic so that people could be evacuated and investigators could do their jobs in safety.

The swift law enforcement response undoubtedly saved lives but not before the gunman managed to kill five people. Among them were Gerald Fischman, 61, who was an editor with more than 25 years of service with the Capital Gazette admired at the newspaper and throughout the community for his brilliant mind and writing.

Most often, it was his voice and his insightfulness that came through on the editorial pages of the Capital Gazette. Rick Hutzell, the Capital Gazette's editor, described Fischman as ``someone whose life was committed to protecting our community by telling hard truths.''

Rob Hiaasen, 59, was a columnist, editor, teacher, and storyteller and brought compassion and humor to his community-focused reporting. Rob was a coach and a mentor to many. According to former Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, he was ``so happy working with young journalists . . . He wanted to create a newsroom where everyone was growing.''

John McNamara, 56, was a skilled writer and avid sports fan and combined these passions in his 24-year career as a sports reporter at the Capital Gazette. Former Capital Gazette sports editor Gerry Jackson, said of McNamara, or ``Mac,'' as he went by, ``He could write. He could edit. He could design pages. He was just a jack of all trades and a fantastic person.''

Rebecca Smith, 34, was a newly-hired sales assistant known for her kindness, compassion, and love for her family. A friend of her fiance described ``Becca'' as ``the absolute most beautiful person'' with ``the biggest heart'' and called her death ``a great loss to this world.''

Wendi Winters, 65, was a talented writer who built her career as a public relations professional and journalist. She was well-known for her profound reporting on the lives and achievements of people within the community. She was a ``proud Navy Mom''--and daughter.

As we learned the details of the shooting from the survivors, it became clear that Wendi saved lives during the attack. She confronted the gunman and distracted him by throwing things at him--whatever she could find within reach. As the paper noted: ``Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting freedom of the press.''

My heartfelt condolences and prayers continue to go out to the victims and their families. The surviving staff members also deserve our prayers and praise for their resilience and dedication to their mission as journalists and respect for their fallen colleagues. During and after the attack, staff continued to report by tweet, sharing information to those outside, taking photos and documenting information as they would other crime scenes. Despite their grief, shock, anger and mourning, the surviving staff--with help from their sister publication the Baltimore Sun, Capital Gazette alumni, and other reporters who wanted to lend a hand to fellow journalists--put out a paper the following morning and they have done so every day since. This is grace under pressure.

Fittingly, the editorial page the day after the shooting was purposefully left blank, but for the few words: ``Today, we are speechless. This page is intentionally left blank to commemorate the victims of Thursday's shootings at our office.'' The staff promised that on Saturday, the page would ``return to its steady purpose of offering our readers informed opinion about the world around them, that they might be better citizens.''

I want to repeat one quote from the Capital Gazette editorial page that bears repeating: ``Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting freedom of the press.'' Wendi Winters and her colleagues died protecting freedom of the press.

Here in the United States, the Capital Gazette shooting was not an isolated incident; other journalists have been vulnerable to attack or reprisal for their work:

a freelance photojournalist was killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center;

in October 2001, a photo editor with the Sun newspaper in Boca Raton, Florida, died from inhaling anthrax, a substance that was mailed to a number of journalists across the United States;

in August 2007, a masked gunman shot and killed the editor-in-chief of

the Oakland Post, a prominent African-American newspaper; and

in August 2015, a reporter and cameraman for television station WDBJ7 were shot dead during a live broadcast in Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia.

At least 59 journalists have been murdered or killed in the United States while reporting, while covering a military conflict, or simply because of their status as a journalist.

While Annapolis and most of the Nation rallied in support of the survivors of the Capital Gazette shooting, the paper reported receiving new death threats and emails celebrating the attack. This is not right in America or anywhere else.

Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job--both figuratively and literally. The right of journalists to report the news is nothing less than the right of all of us to know, to understand what is happening around us and to us. Media freedom and media pluralism are essential for the expression of, or ensuring respect for, other fundamental freedoms and safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, and a system of checks and balances.

Every one of us in this body--Democrats and Republicans--has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We bear the solemn responsibility of defending freedom of the press. It is time for us to redouble our efforts both here at home and abroad. We must lead by example. The very foundation and legitimacy of our democratic republic are at stake. One way to start is by memorializing those brave men and women who have died or been killed, as the New York Times' Adolph S. Ochs put it in 1896, ``to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.''

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Trump administration, through the EPA Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, issued what was called the Clean Power Plan rule. That replaces the Obama-era Clean Power Plan rule that dealt with carbon emissions from our powerplants. I am very

concerned about this proposed rule, and I want to share some of my concerns with the Members of the Senate and the American people.

The Obama Clean Power Plan rule was aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 30 percent by the year 2030 compared to the 2005 level. It was a strong proposal, but it gave maximum discretion to the States on how they could meet those targets. Those States that relied more on coal-burning power generation were given different standards than those States that had already transitioned to cleaner energy sources. It was a fair rule, a tough rule, and a rule that would significantly reduce carbon emissions in this country.

Powerplants are the largest single source of carbon pollution, and we know how harmful carbon pollution is to our environment. Nearly 40 percent comes from power generation.

We need strong Federal regulation. We were moving in that direction under the previous administration. Now we demote the current emissions standards to a mere suggestion. That is wrong, and I hope that does not become the case.

There are many reasons that we should be concerned about this rule. We should be concerned about what we are doing about carbon pollution. Let me cite a few.

In the area of public health, we know that if we don't control carbon emission, we will have more premature deaths. The New York Times estimates that there would be 1,400 annual premature deaths as a result of not properly regulating the carbon emissions coming from powerplants.

We also know that because of the impact carbon has on public health, the failure to regulate it means more children will miss schooldays because of their respiratory challenges and more parents won't be able to work because they have to take care of their children. So the result is lost schooldays and lost workdays because of the failure to regulate, which affects our economy and our educating workforce.

We know that children who are vulnerable to respiratory ailments, such as asthma, are particularly at risk, and there will be more days that they will be confined to some form of air-conditioning rather than being able to go out in the neighborhood.

It is also a matter of our economy. We know that clean energy produces more jobs. That is where we are headed, and the faster we get there, the better it will be for our economy.

We also know, as a matter of energy security, the faster we move in this direction, the more secure we will be. America has taken steps to wean ourselves off of imported energy, but our allies around the world are still too dependent, as we know from the way Russia uses energy as a weapon. We need to transition to renewable energy sources so there can be energy security for America's allies.

Lastly, on the environment, carbon is the major pollutant for nitrogen pollution in our waters. I say that because many of you have heard me talk frequently on the floor about the Chesapeake Bay and the importance of the Chesapeake Bay. It is a national treasure. It is the largest estuary in our hemisphere. It is critically important to the way of life here in the Chesapeake Bay watersheds--six States and the District of Columbia. We recognize its economic value--$1 trillion to our economy.

Well, 85 million pounds of nitrogen pollution goes into the Chesapeake Bay from the air. One-third of the Chesapeake Bay's total nitrogen load comes as a result of our failure to regulate carbon going into the air. This causes algae blooms in the Chesapeake Bay. It causes dead zones. It makes it much more difficult for the stakeholders to meet their stated goals.

I am proud of the Chesapeake Bay Program. All the local governments have agreed on their responsibility. It is tailored toward the States and enforced through the help of the Federal Government. But because of this rule change, it is now going to be more difficult to meet the goals we have set for the Chesapeake Bay. It is not just affecting the powerplants; it is affecting our quality of life, public health, the environment, and the economy.

The States have acted. I am proud of what Maryland has done. We have shown that you can clean up your carbon emissions through power production and you can grow your economy. We have done that in the State of Maryland. We have joined with other States in the RGGI--with Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York--and we have shown a 40-percent reduction in emissions since 2009. That is what the States have done.

In the rule that is being proposed, they are saying they are leaving it up to the States. Maryland has done that, but we are downwind. The progress we are making is being negated by the pollution coming in from the Midwest. We need a national standard in order to be able to meet our targets.

I would urge my colleagues, let's get engaged. This rule is bad for our economy. It is bad for public health. It is bad for energy security. It is bad for the environment. We can do better. Let's work together so that we have proper regulation at the national level dealing with carbon emissions.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this past week we saw the largest protest in Hong Kong since 2014. Millions turned out in order to protest the erosion of civil rights, human rights, and good governance in Hong Kong, violating the commitment that was made during the July 1, 1997, transfer of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China.

We saw China backtracking in 2014 on its electoral changes, when the candidate for the Chief Executive had to be screened by the Chinese Government, contrary to the commitments that were made when Hong Kong's relationship with the United Kingdom ended.

The protests in 2014 were called the Umbrella Movement because a large amount of protesters, who were being attacked by the police with tear gas, were using umbrellas to protect themselves from the tear gas itself. The ``one country, two systems'' that was developed after the United Kingdom relinquished its control in 1997 was a commitment that Hong Kong would be a capitalistic system and the way of life that existed before the transfer to the Chinese would be upheld and unchanged. That was the commitment that was given, and that commitment has not been lived up to by China.

There is the Chinese interference we saw in 2014, and then this time we saw the government of Hong Kong try to implement an extradition law that provided real concern about people who disagreed with what is happening in China and who wanted to protest about their universal rights of being subjected to extradition to China.

This is not hypothetical; this is a real concern. Two million people went to the streets this month in Hong Kong to protest that erosion of rights in Hong Kong, basically at the insistence of the Chinese Government.

This is not theoretical. Lam Wing-kee is one example. I can give many examples. In 2015, he mysteriously disappeared. He was selling literature in Hong Kong that was banned by the Chinese Communist Party in China, not Hong Kong, supposedly. He disappeared from the streets and ended up in China, in solitary confinement in one of their prisons. He was ultimately allowed to leave with certain commitments. He decided to flee to Taiwan and stay safe there.

There are so many other examples of individuals who are in jeopardy. The extradition law that was being proposed really put the fear into those people who live in Hong Kong and visit Hong Kong that if they did anything that would upset the Chinese Government, they could be charged with a crime in China and extradited to China, never to be seen again.

Millions turned out in protest. As a result of the protests and, quite frankly, the international spotlight on what was happening in Hong Kong, the government decided to withdraw the extradition--the proposed law, but they didn't say they would withdraw it permanently and made no commitments about any future. And, of course, the current chief executive remains there, which is very much against the reforms that were supposed to take place.

The United States has spoken on this issue. The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 allows the United States to treat the territory as separate from the rest of China politically, economically, and otherwise under certain conditions. Those conditions are that Hong Kong remain sufficiently autonomous from China and that the rights of its citizens be protected. That is specific in our law.

I question, as I think many of us do, whether Hong Kong and China are complying with the conditions under which the United States passed the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that allows for preferential treatment in Hong Kong that is not enjoyed by China.

Last week, Senator Rubio and I, with the support of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. It reaffirms the act that we passed in 1992 to make it clear that Hong Kong's recognition by the United States and its trading relationship with the United States and its special relationship with the United States--much different from China--only exist if the conditions on autonomy are maintained.

Under this legislation, we require the administration to periodically certify to us that Hong Kong is, in fact, in compliance with the conditions of the 1992 law. If not, special exceptions would no longer be valid. We also put into this statute sanctions against those who are responsible for abridging the human rights of people in Hong Kong. This is similar to what we did in regard to the Magnitsky statutes.

I am very proud of the work this Chamber did, particularly the work I was able to do with our late colleague Senator McCain on passing the Magnitsky laws. We first applied it to Russia. We then applied it globally. Now we have seen other countries also apply these sanctions where if a person violates basic, internationally recognized human rights, that individual is denied the opportunity to visit America by not allowing any visa or the use of our banking system. We extend those types of sanctions in regard to those who are violating the rights of the people of Hong Kong.

Let me point out that our foreign policy--our strength is American values. It is the values we stand for as a nation--democracy, support for human rights, the basic freedom of people, religious freedom. Those are the values America brings to our engagement globally. It is important that we be on the right side of history in regard to Hong Kong and that the Congress and the American people stand in solidarity with the people of Hong Kong; that we stand with them and the commitment that was given in 1997 that Hong Kong would be different and autonomous from China and the rights of their people would be protected, as they were under British control.

It is important today that the Senate, the Congress, the American people, and our government stand by those commitments and stand with the people of Hong Kong. We saw millions show up this week to show their support for these principles. We must stand with those people.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Casey for his passion on this issue, and I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Murphy for bringing us here together.

The logic here is inescapable. I can't explain to my constituents, nor can Senator Casey explain to his, why the universal background check has not been on the floor of the Senate for a vote.

Let us do our will. This is an issue that we have talked about for years. The majority leader has refused to bring this up for a vote so that the will of the majority can prevail. That is what we are simply asking for.

It was in February of this year that the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to deal with universal background checks. It passed by a large majority, and we now understand the urgency of our considering legislation.

Inaction is not an option. We have to do what we can to deal with the crisis at hand. What is the crisis? One hundred people are killed every day in this country by gun violence; 310 are shot, by the way; 210 are injured; and 100 are killed every day of the week, 7 days a week.

Since the House has acted on this bill, about 11,000 Americans have been killed. This is urgent. Every day makes a difference. In my State of Maryland, over 180 people have been killed by gun violence since the House passed the bipartisan universal background check legislation in February of this year. It is the second leading cause of death among children and first among African-American children. Rarely does a month go by without our having another mass shooting take place here in the United States.

It was 1 year ago, on June 28, in Annapolis, MD, at the Capital Gazette, that we saw the shooting that took the lives of reporters. At that time, I took the floor with others saying: What more does it take for us to debate gun safety in this country? Why can't we take up legislation and have a debate? Isn't that what our job is here in the Senate?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 established a framework for legally prohibiting certain categories of people from possessing firearms. The list of prohibited persons has grown over the years, but it includes felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and those found by the court or other tribunal to be seriously mentally ill. I would hope that all of us agree that these individuals shouldn't have guns. How do you know that they are going to get a gun without a background check?

Since the Brady Law took effect, it has blocked more than 3 million prohibited gun sales and processed over 278 million purchase requests. The technology is there. We know how it works. We have the FBI run a background check. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is there to see whether you have been a convicted felon or are a fugitive, a domestic abuser, or other prohibited purchasers. We have the technology. We know that background checks work at the State level as well.

According to the Brady Campaign, States that have expanded the scope of their background checks have seen impressive results, including that 53 percent fewer law enforcement officers are shot and killed in the line of duty, 47 percent fewer women are shot by intimate partners, and cities in States with expanded background checks have seen a 48-percent reduction in gun trafficking.

Does it solve the problem? No. Does it take a bite out of gun violence? Yes. It is a significant improvement in dealing with gun violence. It is part of the solution. Yet when the Brady Law was enacted, it was before the internet. America has changed, and our Nation's gun laws need to change with it.

Today about one out of every five gun sales is either made online, made privately, or made at a gun show and they are not subject to the background check which is the law. It is our responsibility to make sure that the laws are kept up-to-date and are effective. These sales are largely unregulated and unchecked. That is simply wrong. These sales can avoid the background check.

Passing legislation to expand background checks to nearly every gun sale, including those conducted online, at gun shows, and through private transfers should be a top priority in Congress for commonsense gun safety legislation to save lives.

I am not going to repeat the numbers that Senator Murphy and Senator Casey mentioned about the popular support. It is over 90 percent--97 percent, the last poll showed--and by all categories, because it is common sense. In fact, I think the public has a hard time understanding why we haven't passed this long before now.

I agree that gun laws alone can't solve the problem, but it will make a difference. There is no single answer, but we should take steps that can help us deal with this crisis. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option when our children are being killed, sometimes by other children.

Surrendering to the false logic that the problem is too big to address falls well short of what the American people deserve and expect us to do. They sent us here to the Senate to make tough decisions. This isn't even a tough decision, but we have to make decisions.

From my hometown of Baltimore to many towns across America, there have been names in the headlines because of gun-related tragedies or mass shootings. People are calling on us to act. My message is simple: Let's bring the bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Let's follow the example of the House of Representatives. Let's not be the graveyard. Let's be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Let's take up the issue. Let's debate it. Let's vote on it, and let's do right for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take this time to underscore the points that Senator Menendez made in regard to the vote we will have tomorrow here on the floor of the Senate.

I really want Members to know that we are really talking about the fundamental protection of the checks and balances in our system. I don't think most Members know about the process we use for arms sales and review, but I can tell you that it has been to protect the interest of this country and the legislative branch of government. The requirement is for consultation and notice to Congress before arms sales are consummated.

Yes, we have a Republican President, and we have Members of Congress who object to sales and want to get further information, and those holds can be lifted after additional information is provided. But I want to remind the Members of this body that it was in the last Congress, with a Republican President, that the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee put holds on sales in this region for good reason--because of the inconsistent policies we had among Gulf States that needed to be clarified before we divided the support for America even more in that region. Senator Corker was right in what he did, and our country is stronger today because of what he did.

If we allow President Trump to go forward with these arms sales under emergency circumstances, we forever could lose the ability of the legislative branch to weigh in on arms sales.

Senator Menendez is absolutely right. Today it is a Republican President. This should not make any difference in our respect for the powers of the legislative branch of government and the checks and balances that are necessary.

Senator Menendez is right about this. It has been the legislative branch of government that has said protection of human rights is an important ingredient.

Over and over, we find that in the State Department or in the White House they are very transactional, and but for the legislative branch of government, those issues would never be addressed.

Now we are going to let the President of the United States use emergency powers--which I think almost everybody in this body would say really does not exist--to circumvent the proper review and power of the legislative branch of government.

And yes, in these arms sales, human rights are a major issue. Senator Menendez points out correctly that American arms have been used to facilitate the aerial attacks against Yemen led by the Saudis and the coalition--and these guided missiles would be a part of that--and they are the leading cause of civilian death in Yemen. Over 1,000 have been killed as a result of the Saudi-led coalition attacks. We have been given assurances over and over--which has not happened--that they will be better at it.

We also know that there is not a military solution to the Yemen crisis. America's military involvement only makes the circumstances worse. It is one of the worst humanitarian disasters that we have seen in recent times. We need to disengage on the military side. By allowing the President to use these emergency powers, we make the circumstances worse.

Lastly, I remember the outrage of every Member of this House on Jamal Khashoggi's tragic death. Everyone was saying that we have to hold accountable those responsible for those actions. But listen to what Senator Menendez said. Today, Agnes Callamard, the Special Rapporteur for extrajudicial executions, released the findings of her investigation into the October 18 killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a person who lived in the United States and was brutally murdered. The Special Rapporteur noted that there was evidence that the responsibility of Khashoggi's murder extends beyond the 11 individuals currently on trial for the murder in Saudi Arabia, points in the direction of the Royal Family, and points out that further investigation is warranted of high- level Saudi officials, including the Crown Prince. And we are going to go ahead and allow the President to conduct arms sales?

We have strategic relations with other countries. That is fine, but it has to be embedded in our principles--the strength of America, our values. If we allow business to be as usual--that you can take a person who was under protection of our country as a resident and allow that person, a journalist, to be murdered, and we know who is responsible and we don't take action--what message are we sending to the global community? Where is America's leadership?

Senator Menendez is giving us an opportunity to say: Yes, we believe in the legislative branch of government as a check and balance on whoever is in the White House, whether it be a Democrat or a Republican, or a Democratic- or Republican-controlled Senate. We believe in the checks and balances in our system. It serves a purpose, and we are not going to let the President use emergency powers when that does not exist.

On these particular sales, there are human rights issues that demand that we do not approve these sales. That is what is at stake in this vote.

I take this time to plea to my colleagues: Recognize that what we are voting on is not whether we support the President of the United States. It is whether we support our responsibilities as Members of the Senate and we take the necessary action to protect the powers of checks and balances and to make the right decisions about American values and human rights.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I speak today about my votes on the motions

to discharge Senate Joint Resolutions 20 and 26, which sought to block the sales of certain weapons to Bahrain and Qatar respectively.

As many of you know, I have long been a champion of a U.S. foreign policy driven by our values and respect for human rights. This applies to our foreign military support and arms sales. We must ensure that our military might and weapons only go to support partners and allies who uphold our values. We have both a moral and a national security obligation to ensure that U.S. weapons, equipment, and training are never used to harm civilians, abuse human rights, or end up in the hands of enemies who seek to do us harm.

With that in mind, I was pleased to lead the Enhancing Human Rights in Arms Sales Act of 2019 with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. This bipartisan legislation would put into place strict vetting criteria and end use monitoring for certain weapons sales to prevent U.S.-provided weapons from going to governments who commit human rights abuses and war crimes. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important and necessary legislation.

Until my bill is enacted into law and its critical safeguards are in place, it is incumbent upon Congress to evaluate each arms sale with important considerations for civilian security and human rights.

I have carefully examined both of the sales before us today, and applied the same criteria outlined in the Enhancing Human Rights in Arms Sales Act.

Through this lens, I was compelled to vote in favor of discharging S.J. Res. 20, so the Senate could debate the pending sale of various bombs and precision-guided munitions to Bahrain. Domestically, Bahrain's Ministry of Interior police forces were responsible for the repression of the 2011 uprising, and well over 100 Bahrainis have been killed in the course of repressing the Shia-led unrest. In the Yemen conflict, the Bahrain Air Force is participating in Saudi-led coalition airstrikes that have led to civilian casualties. This pending sale would in fact provide munitions for Bahrain's F-16 aircraft, which would almost certainly be used in Yemen. We know this because Air Vice Marshall Hamad bin Abdullah al Khalifah, head of the Royal Bahraini Air Force--RBAF--stated in February 2019 that Royal Bahraini Air Force F- 16s had conducted over 3,500 sorties, or combat aircraft flights, since the beginning of the campaign in March 2015. With 3,500 sorties in Yemen, we have to assume that Bahrain is responsible for some of the civilian deaths caused by the coalition airstrikes in Yemen. I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to U.S. support for the war in Yemen, and we cannot risk our weapons leading to further repression in Bahrain itself. I cannot support the sale of U.S. weapons to Bahrain at this time.

The case of the pending sales to Qatar is quite different. There is no doubt that Qatar has significant human rights challenges, particularly with respect to its labor practices. That said, I have not seen any evidence of the Qatari Government using arms against its people. Moreover, Qatar's involvement in the Yemeni war was limited to primarily defending the Saudi border from the Houthis, not conducting airstrikes in Yemen. The Qataris left the Saudi-led coalition entirely 2 years ago. Qatar has proven itself an important and responsible partner for the United States. The Qatar Air Force flew strikes, alongside the U.S. and other partners, against the Islamic State in Syria in 2014 and 2015. It also flew strikes against Qadhafi in Libya in 2011, but again, this was in concert with international partners including the United States. In light of these factors, I voted against discharging S.J. Res. 26.

While both discharge motions failed, this issue will not go away because one thing that we all can agree on is that no U.S. arms should ever be linked to the deaths of innocent civilians. No U.S. arms should ever be used to intimidate and destroy the defenseless. No U.S. arms should ever end up in the hands a child soldier or a terrorist. We may disagree on policy, but our values will always bridge the partisan divide. That is why Congress and the administration must take a more holistic look at this issue. My bipartisan bill, the Enhancing Human Rights in Arms Sales Act of 2019, offers a comprehensive approach, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden for his extraordinary leadership on the Senate Finance Committee as our ranking Democratic member, who recognizes the importance of healthcare. To Senator Casey, who has been our companion in regard to Medicaid, in regard to children, and in regard to the basic importance of healthcare as a matter of right, to Senator Stabenow, who has really led our efforts on behavioral health, incredible efforts that have been made to provide community services, particularly to those who are most vulnerable, we recognize the importance of moving forward and advancing healthcare for all Americans. That is why we are taking this time to express our real concern about President Trump's proposal, his budget proposals, which would cut Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, the effort to repeal the Medicaid expansion that we saw under the Affordable Care Act, the thought of turning Medicaid at the Federal level into a block grant, capping our participation and putting the burdens on our States.

It is a direct attack on vulnerable Americans, jeopardizing their access to healthcare. There are 70 million Americans that depend on Medicaid. There are 1.2 million Americans who are veterans and who are women, children, and seniors.

In Maryland, almost half of our Medicaid population are children. For seniors, one out of every five Medicare-eligible beneficiaries also needs Medicaid. They are dual eligible. And 60 percent of the adult Medicaid enrollees are workers, and 70 percent are from communities of color.

Medicaid expansion has made a big difference in access to healthcare. It has reduced health inequalities. The uninsured rate in the State of Maryland has dropped from 10.2 percent to 6.6 percent. That is important not just for the individuals who now have health coverage. It stops the cost shifting and the distortions in our healthcare system with people who do not have health insurance.

If we were to eliminate Medicaid expansion, 289,000 Marylanders would lose their coverage--the essential health coverage that it provides for our children in the early periodic screening and diagnostic treatment so that we can help children live healthier lives through correction of healthcare problems and prevention of more serious healthcare issues.

As Senator Wyden pointed out, in long-term care, three out of five of our

residents in nursing-type, long-term care facilities are Medicaid payments. It would be devastating with that type of cut on their long- term care needs.

We made major advancements in Medicaid on covering behavioral health and addiction. One out of every three individuals who are part of Medicaid expansion have a behavioral health issue. The opioid crisis is well known to all of us. We know that part of the solution is getting people help and treatment through Medicaid expansion and the Medicaid Program providing that safety net to millions of Americans.

The expansion of dental services is something I have been engaged in ever since the tragedy in 2007 in my State, when a youngster died from lack of access to dental care, Deamonte Driver. Medicaid is a lifeline for dental services.

So in the United States of America, the wealthiest Nation in the world, healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. We made progress in the Affordable Care Act. Let us build on that success but not move in the wrong direction. Rather than cutting Medicaid, we should be looking at ways to work together to improve coverage and affordability. Rather than eliminating the Medicaid expansion, we should be looking at additional ways to cover those who have no health coverage or inadequate health coverage. Rather than limiting the Federal program as part of Medicaid for our States, we should be looking at ways to strengthen the Federal-State partnership so that we work together so that every American has access to affordable, quality care.

I urge my colleagues that that should be our goal. Let's work together. Again, I thank Senator Casey for bringing us here today under this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, later today, I will be leaving with many other Senators on an official trip to Normandy, France, to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the D-day invasion, also known as Operation Overlord. I consider it a high honor to be part of a congressional delegation commemorating one of the most important days in the history of human civilization. It is especially important to make this trip at a time when relations with our traditional trans-Atlantic allies are under undue and unnecessary stress.

On June 6, 1944, the largest single amphibious assault in history crossed the English Channel and stormed the beaches of Normandy, code- named ``Utah,'' ``Omaha,'' ``Gold,'' ``Juno,'' and ``Sword,'' names that will be forever associated with acts of uncommon valor and self- sacrifice in defense of human freedom and dignity. The Allied armada involved over 156,000 U.S., British, and Canadian troops traveling aboard almost 7,000 naval ships and landing vessels.

Even before the amphibious assault, in the darkened skies of that early morning, 13,100 American paratroopers of the 82nd and 10lst Airborne Divisions made parachute drops near Carentan from over 2,000 Allied aircraft, followed by 3,937 troops flown in by day on 867 gliders as the opening maneuver of Operation Neptune, the assault operation for Overlord.

Three of the six Allied divisions involved in D-day were American, including the 29th Infantry Division. The 29th Infantry Division was activated on February 3, 1941, and based at Fort Meade, MD. It consisted of soldiers from Maryland and Virginia. In September 1942, the 29th deployed to England, where it made final preparations for the D-day invasion.

Operation Overlord called for Allied troops to storm ashore five landing areas along the 50-mile stretch of Normandy's shore. U.S. forces were responsible for taking Utah and Omaha. Securing Omaha was critical to the Allies' success and would be the site of the heaviest German resistance. The 29th and the 1st Infantry Division were responsible for taking Omaha. Nearly 10,000 men of the 29th formed the first assault wave on Omaha. At approximately 6:30 in the morning on June 6th, Allied forces encountered stormy seas, a low tide, reinforced obstacles, and a force of 50,000 German troops awaiting them on Normandy's 50-mile shoreline.

George ``Billy'' Forbes, Jr., of Bryantown, MD, was a radio operator in the 29th Infantry Division. Mr. Forbes described his feelings before the D-day invasion as ``very anxious and very scared.'' He said that even though he did not know what to expect, he had a job to do, and he was going to do it to the best of his ability.

Lester Lease of Cumberland, MD, was only 16 years old when he lied about his age to join the Army. He was a sergeant in the 29th when he landed at Omaha Beach. Mr. Lease stressed the difficulty of the amphibious assault. The ``Higgins boats'' could not get close enough to shore for the soldiers to get off on the land, so they had to swim through deep water before they could wade or crawl ashore. Many of

them perished in the onslaught of withering German machine gun and artillery fire before they even made it to shore. Those who did make it to the beaches encountered thick shell smoke that obstructed their visibility, and they heard the cries for help from their fellow soldiers lying wounded nearby as German machine gun fire relentlessly rained down on them.

Charles ``Harry'' Heinlein, a 22-year-old Army private from Baltimore, MD, described the scene as total confusion, recalling, ``It seemed like hours to get off the beach. At this point, the only orders being yelled to those still able to fight was, `Get off the beach! Get off the beach!' ''

William Bladen of College Park, MD, was a 19-year-old paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. In the dark, early hours of that morning, Private First Class Bladen parachuted into Normandy with two 20-pound satchels of TNT attached to him and unable to see where he would land. Mr. Bladen said, ``War is hell--in fact, it's worse than hell.'' But he had a mission and he did it.

Joe Heinlein of Parkville, MD, provided context to the American casualties suffered. He pointed out that before D-day, Bravo Company, 175th Regiment, of the 29th Infantry Division, had about 200 men; by June 19 about a dozen men remained. Mr. Bladen added, ``I hope people remember that a lot of men gave their lives for others.''

Freedom is not free. The Normandy American Cemetery serves as the final resting place for 9,380 American military dead, most of whom lost their lives in the D-day landings. On the Walls of the Missing are inscribed another 1,557 names of soldiers whose remains were never recovered or identified. We must never forget those who, in Abraham Lincoln's immortal words, ``have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.'' The Americans who died on the beaches and in the fields of Normandy made the ultimate sacrifice, but they did not die in vain. They helped to defeat fascism, totalitarianism, and the Nazi regime. They helped to liberate Europe and the concentration camps. In GEN Dwight Eisenhower's D-day address, he declared to Allied troops, ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty- loving people everywhere march with you . . . The free men of the world are marching together to victory.

We remember and we honor the intrepid heroes of the 29th Infantry Division and all the other members of the ``Greatest generation'' who marched together into battle and demonstrated remarkable acts of valor and sacrifice 75 years ago tomorrow.

As the poet Archibald MacLeish wrote, ``There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American Dream.'' But it is a dream that we Americans share with all people who cherish freedom and human dignity now, just as we did on June 6th, 1944.