Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this is day 23. For 23 days, we have had a partial shutdown of the Federal Government. It is now the longest shutdown in our history. That is not a proud record.

Government workers have now gone a pay period without getting their paychecks. Those who have been working have picked up their pay stubs, and their pay stubs show zero. Those who have been furloughed have not received a paycheck.

I think the American public would be outraged to think that we are asking our dedicated Federal workers--our frontline of public service-- to work and not get paid. That is not what this country stands for.

It has an effect on their work. It is difficult to show up every day and do your work and mission for the public and be worried about how you are going to have money to make your monthly mortgage payment or to pay for your children's needs or to meet your medical needs or your family's food needs. These are real decisions that government workers must make. Many are falling in default.

The largest number of Federal workers live paycheck to paycheck. In other words, they can't make it without their income coming in. That is a fact of life for American workers. Yet the government is in a partial shutdown.

I ask why? What is the disagreement we have here that keeps us from opening the government? Why is the President holding the American people hostage to his agenda?

I say that because the House of Representatives has passed over to us a bill that would pass the appropriations for six appropriations bills, opening up most of those Agencies, all except for one that comes under Homeland Security. Those would be opened up. They are not in any disagreement. The appropriations specifics were agreed to by the Senate in four of those six bills, and the last two were passed out of the Appropriations Committee 31 to 0 and 30 to 1. Under Republican leadership, in a bipartisan manner, we have already approved these six appropriations bills. So why don't we act?

I asked the distinguished majority leader for us to consider that bill, and he objected. Quite frankly, I don't understand why, because if we bring it up for a vote, we will pass it by overwhelming numbers, and the government will open for those Agencies that are under those appropriations.

Then, my colleague Senator Van Hollen asked unanimous consent that we bring up a continuing resolution for Homeland Security, which passed this body in late December by a unanimous vote, so we could have the government open and then we could negotiate the border security issue. We agree on border security for the country, but we disagree with wasting money for a wall that will not keep us safe.

In fact, those who had been involved in negotiating border security in the Senate have been arguing for spending more money for technology and personnel but not for a wall. That is what we should be doing.

Some people ask me: Well, can you negotiate a compromise?

It is hard to negotiate a compromise with the President while he is holding America hostage. It is hard to negotiate with the President when he undermines his own negotiators every time we get close to an agreement.

It makes no sense at all for the government to be shuttered while we debate these issues. The only ones we are hurting are our government workers, our constituents, and our economy.

Today, I met with government workers at BWI, or Baltimore/Washington International Airport. I met with people who represent the workers who are working for airline safety and for passenger safety on our flights. These are people who do safety inspections. These are people who work for TSA and who screen us as we get on the planes. These are air traffic controllers, who make sure that the air is safe. These are professionals who are showing up and working every day right now because that is their professional responsibility--to keep us safe.

They acknowledge that they are distracted. They are distracted because they don't know how they are going to pay their bills. They are distracted because they don't know when they are going to get a paycheck for working. They are distracted because they don't know whether they have to find other employment in order to pay their bills.

They don't have the full complement in because there are some who are out on furlough. Some safety inspectors aren't there. How do they carry out their mission unless we have the full team in place?

Of the 800,000 Federal workers, approximately half are furloughed without pay. That means the critical mission on behalf of the American public is not being done--whether it is food safety, whether it is approving a loan so that a person can buy a home, or whether it is a small business owner who needs help from the Small Business Administration and can't get that help, can't close on a loan, can't do what they need to do, and can't run their business. So it is not only 800,000 workers who are not working or working without pay. It is also those businesses that depend upon it.

When you look at the small businesses around Federal facilities, with so many of the workers not being there and others not having money to pay--they are not using those services--these businesses are losing customers and are laying off people.

It is not hypothetical. We know of specific companies that have shuttered as a result of the Federal Government shutdown. We know of nonprofits that had to lay off workers because their contracts with government Agencies expired.

Today, at BWI, or Baltimore/Washington International Airport, I heard directly from these individuals. Each one had a story to tell about how they are really fighting to make sure that airline safety issues are maintained and about the challenges they are facing, et cetera. They told pretty direct stories.

There was an AFGE worker there who told me of the situation where he had to try to explain to his young daughter why he could not pay the fee so she could continue in a dance class. He didn't have the money. It broke his heart. These are affecting real people.

Last Friday, along with Senator Van Hollen, we met with a group of Federal Government workers. We had a chance to talk to them. They are from different Agencies. One was in the Justice Department. He is an excepted employee. So he is there doing his work, trying to keep us safe, but he said the necessary investigative work that should have been done so that he could get his job done to keep us safe was not done because the person who would be doing the investigative work was on furlough as a result of the government shutdown. Why should the Justice Department be shut down? Why? They are not part of the border security debate, and yet they are.

We had another of our government workers show up and say that they could not settle on a home. They have a contract to settle on a new home. They are starting a family. The reason they can't settle is that they are required to bring in their two most recent pay stubs showing that their income is what they say it is. The problem is their most recent pay stubs--and they have them--show zero as income. They no longer qualify for their mortgage.

These are real-life people--800,000 of them. Yet this shutdown continues. It is dangerous. It is irresponsible. It is wrong.

We have the votes in this Chamber to change it tonight. I hope that Leader McConnell will bring up the two votes that passed the House of Representatives. We have already acted on those bills in the previous Congress. Let us open the government. It makes no sense whatsoever. The Congress is a coequal branch of government.

We know that what the President is doing is wrong. Each of us knows that in our hearts. We know he has shut down government for no legitimate reason. We can debate the issues with the government open and prevent the loss to individual families and to our economy. We are a coequal branch of government, and we should act. Let us vote on opening government.

Quite frankly, I hope we will have the votes that would show the President we would override any veto he may impose. That is our responsibility as a coequal, independent branch of government. Let us exercise our responsibilities, and let us take action tonight. This shutdown needs to end. It needs to end now.

I urge my colleagues to bring up this legislation. Let's pass it, and let's show that we can exercise our responsibility. We recognize the President is wrong. We have a responsibility to do what is right, and this is what we have done in the past.

I see my colleague from Maryland is on the floor. The two of us have been pretty active over the weekend, talking with Federal workers. I want to explain to the people of Maryland that we are going to do everything in our power to open up government. We are prepared to take all steps necessary to get government open. We know that people are hurting. We know that people are worried. This is irresponsible. It is costly, and it needs to end.

I hope President Trump will end this. If he doesn't, we, as a coequal branch of government, should take the necessary actions to open the government.

I urge the Republican leader to bring these bills to the floor. We are for border security. We are not for wasting money on a wall. We are for negotiating. Let Congress determine where money should be spent, not the President. Let us all work together for the safety of our Nation and for the protection of our workforce.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as Leader Schumer has pointed out, starting today, 800,000 Federal workers are going to be missing their paychecks. In this region, there are 140,000. Senator Van Hollen and I, representing Maryland, and Senators Warner and Kaine, representing Virginia, have made the point of what this is going to mean for families in our communities.

This shutdown is outrageous and dangerous--caused by President Trump. Workers are not going to be receiving their paychecks and are going to be at risk. Our whole country is at risk. Let me put this in perspective, if I might. It is like AT&T, General Motors, Apple, Lockheed Martin, Google, and ExxonMobil laying off their entire workforce at one time. That is the impact we have now with 800,000 workers not receiving their paychecks. Kevin Hassett, who is the Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, points out that this will cause a $1.2 billion-per-week hit on our economy.

America is being held hostage by President Trump--held hostage over his desire to have a wall built. It is not about border security. We have already appropriated funds for border security, and we are prepared to continue to protect our borders. This is about President Trump and his wall. We should open government and work together for the American people.

There are seven appropriations bills that have not yet been acted upon. With six of those appropriations bills, there is no controversy. They have nothing to do with the border wall. They have nothing to do with homeland security. These are six appropriations bills that this body has already acted on in one way or the other. They include Financial Services and General Government, Agriculture, Interior and Environment, and Transportation-HUD. Those four appropriations bills passed this body by a vote of 92 to 6. Then, there are State-Foreign Operations, which passed the Appropriations Committee unanimously, and Commerce-Justice-Science, which passed by a vote of 30 to 1.

These six appropriations bills have already been acted on under Republican leadership in a bipartisan manner in this body. That is exactly what H.R. 21, which is pending before this body, incorporates. It is not a Democratic effort; it is to reaffirm what this body has already done and allow these six appropriations bills to pass and for those workers and those Agencies to be fully operable without the hostage-taking by the President of the United States.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 5, H.R. 21, making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, if I could, very briefly.

I am extremely disappointed. I can assure you, the majority leader, this is not a show vote issue with 800,000 Federal workers being denied their paychecks. The last time I checked the Constitution, we are a coequal branch of government, and we should act as a coequal branch of government and pass legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by this body.

Madam President, I might return the question and ask the distinguished majority leader whether his objections to reopening the government with action we have already taken previously is absolute. I can assure the majority leader that it is my commitment to our Federal workers and to our country that the first order of business here should be the reopening of government. There are other important issues we need to do that I strongly support. I, quite frankly, do not understand the majority leader's position as to why he would deny us a vote on reopening government that passed this body unanimously in the past.

Madam President, of course I would repeat my request of the distinguished majority leader whether his objections are absolute.

Let me just point this out. We passed the bill that I asked unanimous consent--basically that has been passed nearly unanimously by this body--92 to 6 for these appropriations to pass. The last time I checked the Constitution, that is enough even for a veto override. I don't think anything has changed. These bills have nothing to do--zero to do with the Homeland Security wall issue. Zero. So why doesn't our distinguish majority leader, as the leader of a coequal branch of government, allow us to speak on behalf of our responsibilities under article I of the Constitution? Let us take our action that we can take right now, today, at this very moment, and pass six appropriations bills where there is no controversy whatsoever in this body.

My first order of priority right now, since we can do this at this very moment, is to reopen the government. It is outrageous that the government is closed. People's lives are being affected every minute. I heard just yesterday of a layoff of another 180 jobs in my State because the Department of Agriculture is closed. We have an important economic development program in Baltimore, and HUD can't act on the papers right now. That is being delayed.

To me, that is something we can get done right now. As a Senator from Maryland, I am going to use every opportunity I can to reopen government in a responsible manner. I am disappointed that the majority leader is not using the opportunity we have right now to pass six appropriations bills that are not in controversy.

If the majority leader could answer for me, why are we holding up these six bills that have nothing to do with the central debate argument? We can put enough votes on the board to show the President of the United States that he doesn't have the support in the Senate, and we have the votes to override his veto. To me, that should be our first order of business.

Madam President, I will express my views on issues. I don't need the majority leader trying to express how I will vote on future issues. I will answer to the people of Maryland on how I will act on issues that are up before the Senate.

My top priority right now is to reopen the government, and I am very disappointed that the majority leader will not allow us to act as a coequal branch of government.

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

Mr. President, in a few moments I am going to yield the floor to Senator Kaine to make a unanimous consent request that has been cleared by both sides, and I am very pleased about that. This is in regard to S. 24, legislation that I have filed with several of my colleagues.

I particularly thank Senator Kaine, but I also want to thank my colleagues Senator Van Hollen and Senator Mark Warner for their work, as well as Senator Collins and others in this body who cosponsored that legislation. It is legislation very similar to what we passed in the last hours of the 115th Congress by unanimous consent. It does what I think all of us have said we want to make sure is done; that is, when we reopen government, those who have been working without pay and those who are on furlough without pay will get their backpay. I think that is at least some assurance to our government workforce that when we finally reopen government, they know they will be getting their paychecks. I think it is a very important point to give them at least that comfort.

I don't want to minimize the risk factors that we have for the 800,000 Federal workers who are not getting their paychecks. Just today, I found a letter from a constituent. I am going to read it very briefly.

``Dear Senator Cardin, As an Air Traffic Controller and Maryland constituent, I want you to know how the partial government shutdown is affecting me and my family. Today, I received my Earnings and Leave statement from the Department of Transportation, indicating I received $0 for my last 2 weeks of working at the FAA-Washington Enroute Air Traffic Control Center in Leesburg, VA. I have proudly gone to work for this job that I love, and always maintain the highest level of safety. My husband Brad is also a controller with me at Washington Center, and his Earnings and Leave Statement was for $1.34. We cannot sustain our financial obligations on a total of $1.34 for our last two weeks of work! We recently were able to build a new house to try to start a family, and we still have increased financial obligations because of that and all that entails. In addition, my family, my brother and father, has minimal income now, and we are supporting them. My father is 69 years old and currently has an enlarged hernia that requires an operation, he has no health insurance, and no income. He lives in NH, and is on even more medication now. The side effects are greatly affecting him. He needs my help, and I don't have the resources now to help him. He is suffering so much, and I love him greatly. My brother recently had to weather a separation from his wife, and has been unable to find affordable housing in MD on a single income for him and my niece and nephew--Ayden 10 years and Ava 7 years old. They have been living in our basement since August 2018, and we have been supporting them in every way we can until he can get back on his feet. I love them so much, and now I can't continue to help them. This hurts so much, we need our pay checks to support our family now!''

It ends by saying: ``Please help in any way you can to END THIS

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mae Stevens, a member of my legislative staff, for her service on my behalf to the people of Maryland and the Nation. Mae Stevens has served as my environmental policy adviser since 2015. In this role, she has advanced my priorities as the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. She has dedicated much of her time as a member of my staff to formulating and advancing sound policies at the intersection of drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, source water protection, equity, and affordability. I very much appreciate all that we achieved during her tenure in my office. Mae has spent more than 7 years on Capitol Hill and, 9 years prior to that, at various nonprofit environmental organizations.

Mae enrolled at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs to earn a master of public administration from Columbia's Earth Institute. After Mae received her MPA, she worked as a policy adviser in the clean energy program at Third Way. From there, she joined the office of Representative Russ Carnahan, who represented Missouri's Third Congressional District. Later, she worked for Representative Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, who represented the 17th Congressional District at the time.

Mae learned about hard work from her parents. Her father Raymond ``Art'' Stevens owned an ice cream parlor in Royal Oak, MI, and her mother Jaky Van Dox dressed mannequins in clothing stores in the metro Detroit area. They spent every extra penny they had on ice skating lessons for their daughter, teaching her the grit, dedication, and perseverance she uses every day in my office. I know they are extremely proud of the good work she has done in my office and will continue to do in private sector.

Mae believes that people in every community across America--urban, rural, and suburban--have a right to expect that the water coming from their tap is safe to drink and that Congress will do everything within its power to ensure that happens. Mae helped me to ensure that, for the third Water Resources Development Act--WRDA--in a row, Congress included updates to our Nation's drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure to meet our water infrastructure backlog demands, while addressing the needs of our communities and our environment.

Mae also fought for Maryland priorities in the Senate's 2018 WRDA, including helping me double the amount of Federal funding spent on drinking water infrastructure, nationally and at the State level, and reauthorize the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, WIFIA, a low-cost financing mechanism for large water infrastructure projects. Baltimore, MD, is one of 12 projects in nine States that will receive the first of the WIFIA grants in 2019. This will help the 1.8 million people served by the Baltimore Department of Public Works continue to have some of the cleanest, safest, and more reliable drinking water in the country.

Clean water is not a partisan issue, and Mae worked with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle and Capitol Hill to develop legislation that will benefit our aging water resources and infrastructure. The Senate passed the 2018 WRDA reauthorization by a vote of 99-1, a testament to the hard, bipartisan work of the majority and minority staff on EPW, personal staff like Mae, and the committee members. I was proud to be involved.

Mae conscientiously strives to reduce her personal carbon footprint. One way she does this is by commuting to and from work on her bike. She helped me to increase funding for the Transportation Alternatives Program, TAP, and ensure that cities and counties continue to have a voice in how Federal dollars are spent on these important programs in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation--FAST--Act.

As the British primatologist and anthropologist Jane Goodall has said, ``"You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you. What you do makes a difference and you have to decide what kind of a difference you want to make.'' I want to thank Mae Stevens for the difference she has decided to make--and will continue to make--and wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors. Of course, even though she is leaving the Hill, she will always be a member of Team Cardin.

Mr. President, I take this time to support what Senator Van Hollen has said. I am here with Senators Warner and Kaine. We have the honor of representing Maryland and Virginia in the Senate, where there are so many Federal workers.

I want to underscore one point Senator Van Hollen made about the two bills that are on our calendar that passed the House. These are not Democratic bills; these are bipartisan bills. These are bills that passed this body just a few weeks ago by unanimous votes to keep government open as we continue to negotiate on border security. They deal with appropriations bills that passed our Appropriations Committees--in one case unanimously, and in one case, all but one Senator voted for it. So these are bipartisan bills that have been sent over to us from the House that have already cleared this body once. Now we can pass them, keep government open for most of the agencies, and in the case of Homeland Security, a continuing resolution.

This shutdown caused by President Trump is a disaster. It is hurting people. In this morning's Sun paper, there was an article about an important economic development project in Baltimore City on the east side that cannot move forward because HUD can't process the paperwork so it can go forward. We are getting hurt every day.

Senator Van Hollen mentioned the 800,000 Federal workers. About half are being asked to show up and work every day without a paycheck. The others are being locked out and are being furloughed without pay. People are getting hurt.

The taxpayers of this country expect to be able to get government services from their agencies, and they can't get those services. They are being hurt.

Contractors are being hurt, small businesses are being hurt, and our economy is being hurt.

It makes no sense whatsoever. The first order of business should be to take up these two bills. Let's put aside what is currently pending. Let's bring up these two bills. We can return to that calendar immediately thereafter. We can do that, but let's make sure we get these bills passed so we can open government now. The Senate should not be complicitous in the shutdown that President Trump has caused. Let's act in good faith. Let's open up government. Let's negotiate border security. If we can't get that done quickly, we could at least have a continuing resolution and continue our debate on border security, but don't hold the American people hostage. That is exactly what the President of the United States is trying to do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Warner.

Madam President, when I conclude my comments, I am going to ask consent that I can allow Senator Van Hollen to speak, and then I will speak after him for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.

There is no such thing as a good shutdown. I certainly was encouraged

to hear the progress we made about half an hour ago, when the majority leader and the Democratic leader talked about discussions that are taking place. We hope that later this evening we will have an agreement that can pass the Senate and the House and be signed by the President.

I want to make this clear. Any government shutdown is unacceptable. It costs the taxpayers money. It inconveniences the public, and it is certainly not fair to our Federal workforce. This particular shutdown would affect 800,000 of our employees, our Federal workforce. About half would be asked to work but would not get a paycheck, and about half would be furloughed without compensation.

I am very proud and Senator Van Hollen is very proud of the Federal workforce that live in the State of Maryland, but my colleagues should recognize that 85 percent of the Federal employees live and work outside of the Washington, DC, area. This affects each one of our States and people who are working in each one of our States.

I also wish to point out that over 30 percent of the Federal workforce are veterans who have already served our country in uniform and are now serving their country as public servants in the Federal workforce.

Let me tell you what they are in for and the reason why we are going to be asking a unanimous consent request. Without legislation being enacted, the individuals who are going to be required to work will have to work without getting paid, and then when government restarts, they can get a paycheck for the work they have done. Those who are on furlough would never receive any funds, even though it was not their fault or responsibility that they couldn't work. Those who have leave time would lose that leave time as a result of the government shutdown.

The legislation for which we are going to ask consent in a few minutes would make it clear to these Federal workers that as soon as we can after a shutdown--again, I hope there is not a shutdown, but if we have a shutdown, as soon as the shutdown ends--the next available time, our Federal workforce would receive their compensation. So they know that at least they are going to get their salary when the government reopens and that anxiety can be removed, because right now they don't know if they are going to be able to get their compensation when the government shutdown ends. They recognize that we will do the fair way with their leave time so they don't lose their leave time.

When we have opened government in the past, when we have had shutdowns, as part of the reopening process, we have included this type of legislation. We don't know how long the shutdown would be, if we have a shutdown, which I hope we don't have, but it would be in all of our interests to tell our Federal workforce that we hope there is no shutdown, but if there is, they will be paid at the first available time when the government reopens. That is the purpose of this legislation. I am pleased we have been able to clear it on both sides. I wish to first yield through the Chair to my colleague from Maryland.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 290, S. 2274.

Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I yield the floor to Mr. Van Hollen.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I was honored to attend the ceremonies in the Capitol Rotunda and at Washington National Cathedral for former President George H.W. Bush. I first met President Bush when he was Vice President and I was the speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. He visited Annapolis, and I presented him with a Maryland tie. He immediately took off his tie, which he gave to me, and put on the Maryland tie, which he wore with pride. He had a keen eye for detail, for the little things. I had a book on a shelf in my office which was still in the shrink-wrap packaging. He sent me a note--one of his thousands of famous personal notes--gently ribbing me, writing, ``It's good to see you are keeping up on your reading.''

I thing George H.W. Bush may have been the most qualified person ever elected President, starting all the way back to his high school years at Phillips Academy Andover, where he was president of the senior class, secretary of the student council, a member of the editorial board of the school newspaper, and captain of the varsity baseball and soccer teams. He was one of the youngest aviators in the Navy at the beginning of World War II and was barely 20 when his Grumman TBM Avenger was hit by flak during an attack on Japanese installations on Chichijima. He calmly delivered his payload, scoring several hits, before flying as far away from the island as he could in a plane with its engines on fire. He bailed out and ended up in an inflatable raft for four hours before being rescued by the submarine USS Finback. He flew 58 combat missions, for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation awarded to the USS San Jacinto.

After his military service, he went to Yale University, graduating with a bachelor of arts degree in economics in 2\1/2\ years. He was president of his fraternity, captain of the Yale varsity baseball team, and elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He could have stayed back east in Connecticut, where his father Prescott would be elected to the U.S. Senate in a special election in 1952, but George Bush moved to Texas with his wife Barbara and their young son George W. Bush, where he cofounded Zapata Petroleum Corporation. He was a successful businessman when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1964, losing to the Democratic incumbent, Ralph Yarborough. Two years later, however, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and he won reelection in 1968. The Seventh District was conservative, but George Bush voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Act, and he supported birth control and a women's right to choose.

In 1970, then-President Richard Nixon prevailed on George Bush to run for the U.S. Senate again. He did, but he lost again, this time to Lloyd Bentsen. President Nixon nominated him to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Senate confirmed the nomination unanimously. He served with distinction for 2 years. In 1973, he

became chairman of the Republican National Committee and survived Watergate with his reputation and integrity intact. President Gerald Ford appointed Bush to be chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China. During the time he held this position, he was instrumental in improving U.S.-China relations.

From January of 1976 to January of 1977, George Bush was Director of Central Intelligence and incoming President Jimmy Carter considered keeping Bush in the post. He left the Central Intelligence Agency and became a part-time professor at Rice University's Jones School of Business and a director at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1980, George Bush ran for the Republican nomination for President, ultimately yielding to Ronald Reagan, who then chose Bush as his running mate. George Bush served as Vice President for 8 years and then, in 1988, became the first incumbent Vice President to be elected President in 152 years.

George Bush brought all of these qualifications and experiences to the Oval Office. Now, he only served one term; he was defeated in his bid for reelection in 1992. But many commentators have noted that he may be the most successful one-term President in U.S. history. Indeed, his accomplishments in 4 years compare favorably with the accomplishments of many two-term Presidents. I think the key here is that he knew how to reach across the aisle and forge bipartisan compromises. I would like to highlight four.

The first is the Acid Rain Program that was included in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Acid Rain Program established a cap-and- trade regime to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions. Cap- and-trade was originally a Republican idea to harness market forces for environmental protection. Environmental groups and Democrats were wary, initially, of the authorizations to emit SO2 and NOX, known as allowances. They worried that a ``property right'' in polluting was being established, but the program exceeded everyone's expectation and is one of the most successful environmental programs in history. When George W. Bush was President, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, determined that the program has had a benefit-to-cost ratio of 40-1. Our technical knowledge of the best ways to structure cap-and-trade programs has grown exponentially since 1990; sadly, the political will has atrophied. Even though Republicans were the first to promote cap-and-trade, they have essentially abandoned the idea now, but President Bush saw the potential, and the enormous progress we have made in combatting acid rain is part of his environmental legacy that will endure.

The second accomplishment is the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, which our retiring colleague, Senator Hatch, championed with then- Senator Tom Harken from Iowa. President Bush signed ADA into law in 1990, and it became known as the Emancipation Proclamation for people with disabilities. ADA literally changed the landscape of America by requiring buildings and transportation to be wheelchair accessible, and it required workplace accommodations for people with disabilities. Nearly 30 years after President Bush signed ADA into law, the improvements the ADA has made enjoy an 83 percent approval rating from the American public. Making life, education, and work more accessible to people with disabilities isn't just good for them; it is good for all of us as we benefit from the fuller contributions they are now able to make to society.

The third accomplishment, I am sure, was difficult for President Bush, and it cost him Republican support in his bid to win reelection in 1992: the 1990 budget deal he negotiated with Congress. At the 1988 Republican National Convention, he famously said, ``Read my lips: no new taxes.'' While he was a Texan by choice, he never lost the pragmatism characteristic of New Englanders. As a recession began to fuel a rise in budget deficits, he realized that he needed to work with a Congress controlled by Democrats and come up with a budget deal, stating ``it is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform.'' He understood that such a comprehensive framework is the only way to reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans still cling to the discredited notion of ``supply-side'' economics, which President Bush famously called ``voodoo economics,'' and our budget situation has become more and more precarious. I doubt President Trump is capable of displaying President Bush's pragmatism, deal-making ability, and willingness to sacrifice personal popularity for the greater good.

His fourth accomplishment fell within his ``wheelhouse": foreign policy and personal diplomacy. He prudently, successfully navigated the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. He showed remarkable but characteristic restraint when the Berlin Wall came down, and many historians credit that restraint with preventing a backlash from hardliners in Eastern Europe. Likewise, the relationship he carefully cultivated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, including negotiating the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START, helped end the Cold War not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, President Bush carefully assembled a coalition that consisted of our traditional allies but also the Soviet Union and, even more crucially, other Arab nations to drive him out. He went to Congress and received authorization for the use of military force when it became clear that international diplomacy would not succeed in dislodging Hussein. ``Operation Desert Storm'' was well-planned and well-executed and succeeded in liberating Kuwait in less than 2 months. While many people have argued that President Bush should have extended the war to remove Hussein from power, he made it clear from the start that was never his objective. He presciently argued that pursuing Hussein into Iraq would destabilize the region and lead to a lengthy military conflict. President Bush optimistically spoke of a ``New World Order'' characterized by an era of historic cooperation between nations. He helped to bring such order into existence. It seemed durable at the time. Now, we realize that it needs more careful attention and nurturing than we, perhaps, previously thought necessary.

All of these accomplishments and more cemented George H.W. Bush's legacy. They alone would be impressive, but what became clear in the outpouring of respect and affection that followed his death is the acknowledgment of what a genuinely decent person he was. He was a humble and self-deprecating man. He respected our important institutions, and he respected people, including his opponents. He was deeply religious. He embraced the principle of noblesse oblige: to whom much is given, much more shall be required in return. As a result, he lived his life as a servant. He was committed to his country and to his beloved wife Barbara and his family, and to his friends. It seems he had an inexhaustible desire and capacity for making new friends from all walks of life, including former political adversaries such as the man who defeated him in the 1992 election, Bill Clinton. When President Bush spoke of his desire to see a ``kinder, gentler America,''--one illumined by a thousand points of light, he was sincere.

Since President Bush has died, many commentators have said that he represented a bygone era. I certainly hope not. If we are to continue succeeding as a nation, his fundamental decency, pragmatism, kindness, bravery, self-sacrifice, persistence, and optimism shine a bright light on the path we should strive to follow. If we wish to honor President Bush, we should reflect on his character and temperament and other sterling qualities and seek to emulate them. He was a great man. Perhaps even more important, he was a good man.

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the recent court decision concerning the Affordable Care Act.

I see that Senator Flake is on the floor. I was listening to my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, talk about the four colleagues on the Republican side who will be leaving. I have already had a chance in the Foreign Relations Committee to talk about Senator Flake, but I want him to know, and I want the American people to know, that there is no finer Senator than Senator Flake. He has shown great integrity on foreign policy issues, on decency issues, and on his principles.

I will never forget our visit to the southern part of Africa, where Senator Flake was a missionary when he was a little bit younger, and his passion for the people and their needs has never stopped. That is just one example. I can name many more examples of how Senator Flake has inspired all of us. The courage that he has shown has been an inspiration. I wish him the best as he moves on to the next chapter in his life.

I rise today to discuss America's access to healthcare and the patient protections that are currently being threatened by President Trump and his administration; specifically, his decision to not uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law of the land.

Last week, Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and that the law is not severable from and cannot stand without the individual mandate penalty, which Republicans eliminated in their December 2017 tax bill. While this ruling is being appealed, President Trump has the opportunity to stand up for the American people.

Over and over again, we have heard President Trump promise to lower prescription drug prices for seniors, end the opioid epidemic, and improve the availability and affordability of health insurance. Yet, for any of his proposed policies to succeed, President Trump needs the Affordable Care Act, even though he will not admit it.

Without the Affordable Care Act, which closed the doughnut hole for seniors, many older Americans would likely spend around $2,000 more in out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs each year. Rather than helping our seniors lower costs, with the loss of the protection under the Affordable Care Act--the benefits--they will end up paying more.

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act created the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which is the basic infrastructure for the Trump administration to test the recently released drug-pricing proposals. Without the ACA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation would not exist, and President Trump would need congressional approval to implement such a sweeping national test on drug prices.

We all should be committed to reducing the cost of prescription drugs in this country. The President ran on that when he was Candidate Trump.

We know that as Americans we pay so much more than people from other industrialized nations for the same drugs, many of which are manufactured right here in America. The ACA--the Affordable Care Act-- helped us move in the right direction. We need to build on that. Let us work together to preserve the progress we have made under the Affordable Care Act and to pass additional legislation allowing us to use the collective bargaining power of our consumers so that we can pay lower prices than our friends from Canada because we have a bigger market. We should be paying lower--not twice as much.

President Trump says that he wants to end the opioid epidemic. By getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, he will cause millions of Americans to lose their current health insurance. This is because any rollback in Medicaid coverage, the biggest payer for behavioral healthcare, would result in roughly 1.2 million people with addiction and mental health issues losing access to affordable treatment.

If you don't have insurance protection for behavioral health or addiction, you are going to be much less likely to be able to get access to that needed treatment in order to deal with your addiction.

We know we need a comprehensive approach to deal with the opioid crisis. Yes, we want to stop the dangerous drug fentanyl from coming into this country. Yes, we want to stop the distribution of illegal drugs. But we also

have to deal with the reality of people who have addictions, and they need to be able to get help. Part of that is having access to care and having coverage. The elimination of the Affordable Care Act will move us in the wrong direction.

We need to continue to build on legislation we have worked on together--bipartisan--that provides additional resources to our State and local governments to deal with the opioid crisis. Part of that is the expansion of coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Scrapping the healthcare law will not only leave Medicaid expansion enrollees high and dry; it will also hurt very vulnerable populations that were unable to buy affordable, comprehensive coverage before the Affordable Care Act, including more than 130 million women, children, and other people with preexisting conditions.

Let's remember that prior to the Affordable Care Act, many Americans--millions of Americans--were denied full coverage because of preexisting condition restrictions. The Maryland Health Benefit Exchange estimates that in Maryland, there are approximately 2.5 million non-elderly Marylanders with preexisting conditions, 320,000 of whom are children. They are at risk with this court decision in Texas.

Undoing current law would also eliminate strong patient protection. Insurers would once again be able to impose annual and lifetime limits, discriminate against women, and charge higher out-of-pocket costs. Young adults would no longer be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they turn 26.

We are talking about tens of millions of Americans who are at risk by this court decision. It is absurd to move back and tell these people they are going to lose the protection they now have under our healthcare system.

It is simple. President Trump must take this opportunity to stand up for the American people and defend the law. That is what the President of the United States should be doing. That is why I joined Senator Manchin and many of my Democratic colleagues in a letter urging President Trump to direct the Department of Justice to defend the law of the land. Yes, we should defend the law. It is our responsibility to make sure we protect the people of this Nation.

Let's build on the progress we have made together. We know we need to improve our healthcare system. We know the cost of prescription drugs is too high. We can do something about that. We know the individual marketplace needs improvement. We want to make sure there is affordable, quality insurance for everyone in this country.

Yes, we need to build on the progress we have made to make improvement, but what I urge all of us to do--let's maintain the protections we have today. Let's not go back to the time when being a woman was a preexisting condition and you couldn't get full coverage. Let's not go back to the days when, if you had a heart ailment and you tried to buy an insurance policy, you were not going to get coverage for what you need. You were going to get those exclusions. That is where we were before we passed the Affordable Care Act.

Let's build on the Affordable Care Act. Let's work together as Democrats and Republicans. Let's defend the progress we have made. I hope the President will join us, but let's take that responsibility and build on that and work together, Democrats and Republicans, to build a stronger system for all.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the FIRST STEP Act, which I have cosponsored. This bipartisan legislation, introduced by Senators Grassley and Durbin, includes positive prison reforms that the House passed by a 360 to 59 vote. The Senate has now combined the House legislation with sentencing reform provisions that passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis.

Senators on both sides of the aisle agree that our criminal justice system is broken and badly needs repair.

In my own State of Maryland, we passed major criminal justice reform legislation on a bipartisan basis in 2016, which is known as the Justice Reinvestment Act. The Justice Reinvestment Act seeks to reduce Maryland's prison population and use the savings to provide for more effective treatment to offenders before, during, and after incarceration. This is intended to reduce the likelihood of reoffending, as well as to benefit victims and families and reduce costs to taxpayers.

This fall, I visited the headquarters of the Baltimore Ravens in Owings Mills, MD, in Baltimore County. I am a Baltimore resident and live in Baltimore County and, of course, am a proud Ravens fan, but on that day, I had come to discuss criminal justice reform. I wanted to hear directly from the Ravens players about their insights into the criminal justice system, and they shared their stories involving their friends and family with me.

So I am pleased that several Ravens players and team executives wrote a letter on November 26 to Senator McConnell asking him to bring this critical legislation to the floor. The letter reads: ``The undersigned players and executives of the Baltimore Ravens write to voice our support for the First Step Act, a bill which has the potential to bring transformative and much needed change to our criminal justice system. Criminal justice is an issue that deeply affects our community in Baltimore, as well as the nation as a whole. Not only will this legislation strengthen our nation's criminal justice system, but it enjoys the backing of an incredibly diverse group of supporters.''

Indeed, this legislation is endorsed by both law enforcement and civil rights groups. Law enforcement groups endorsing this legislation include the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Civil rights groups endorsing this legislation include the ACLU. President Trump has endorsed this legislation, which has a growing number of bipartisan Senate cosponsors.

The legislation includes key sentencing reform provisions added by the Senate to the House-passed measure. First, it expands the so-called safety valve, which allows judges to sentence below the mandatory minimum for qualified low-level nonviolent drug offenders who cooperate with the government. Second, it makes retroactive the application of the Fair Sentencing Act, in which Congress addressed the crack-powder sentencing disparity and allows individuals affected by this disparity to petition for sentence reductions. Third, it reforms the two-strikes and three-strikes laws, by reducing the second strike mandatory minimum of 20 years to 15 years and reducing the third strike mandatory minimum of life in prison to 25 years. Fourth, the legislation eliminates the so-called stacking provision in the U.S. Code, which helps ensure that sentencing enhancements for repeat offenses apply only to true repeat offenders. The legislation clarifies that sentencing enhancements cannot unfairly be ``stacked,'' for example, by applying to conduct within the same indictment.

I am pleased that the revised legislation reauthorizes the Second Chance Act. This critical Federal program helps individuals returning to the community from prison or jail and has a proven track record of reducing recidivism and saving money for the taxpayers.

This legislation marks the first time that the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union, has ever supported a criminal justice reform bill. At law enforcement's request, the bill prohibits time credits for individuals convicted of a fentanyl trafficking offense, as well as bars time credits for individuals convicted of repeatedly possessing or using a firearm in relation to a violent or drug- trafficking crime.

On the prison reform side, this legislation includes several positive reforms from the House-passed FIRST STEP Act. The bill makes a good time credit fix and revises the good-time credit law to accurately reflect congressional intent by allowing prisoners to earn 54 days of credit per year, rather than 47 days. The bill prohibits shackling pregnant prisoners and requires healthcare products be provided to incarcerated women. The bill requires prisoners be placed within 500 driving miles of their home and provides additional phone, video conferencing, and visitation privileges. The bill expands evidence- based opioid and heroin abuse treatment for inmates. The bill expands compassionate release under the Second Chance Act and expedites compassionate release applications.

The revised Senate bill also includes several prison reforms beyond what were included in the House-passed bill. The bill establishes an Independent Review Committee of outside experts to assist in the development of the risk and needs assessment system. The National Institute of Justice would select a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with expertise in risk and needs assessments to host the IRC.

This added guardrail will help to ensure the risk and needs assessment system is evidence-based and minimize racial disparities.

It allows the use of earned credits for supervised release in the community, such as halfway houses or home confinement. The bill also would permit individuals in home confinement to participate in family- related activities that facilitate the prisoner's successful reentry.

It effectively ends Federal juvenile solitary confinement, and limits the discretion of the Bureau of Prisons to deny release to individuals who meet all eligibility criteria. The bill expands evidence-based opioid and heroin abuse treatment for inmates.

Let me be clear that this legislation is entitled the FIRST STEP Act, and it is indeed only the first step in reforming our broken criminal justice system.

In my own State of Maryland, we know the importance of criminal justice reform after the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore Police Department custody in 2015. Baltimore is a good example of the necessary Federal and State partnership we need in order to reform the criminal justice system. When I am talking about the criminal justice system, I am not only talking about the so-called back end of the system, which involves sentencing, corrections, and release from prison; I am talking about the ``front end'' of the system, which involves relations between the community and police and often the first interaction between our citizens and law enforcement.

In Baltimore, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated a Federal ``pattern or practice'' inquiry at the request of the city of Baltimore and the Federal congressional delegation. This investigation led to a comprehensive report finding a pattern and practice of unconstitutional arrests and policing in Baltimore that disproportionately affected minority residents, particularly the African-American residents of Baltimore.

Baltimore City and the Justice Department ultimately agreed to a consent decree and are now under supervision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. This will entail a multiyear process of overhauling the police department to finally give the citizens of Baltimore the police department they deserve, using the ``guardian'' and not the ``warrior'' model, as recommended by President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

Congress should take up and pass my End Racial and Religious Profiling Act, S. 411, as racial and discriminatory profiling is wrong, counterproductive, and a wasteful use of resources. This amendment would prohibit racial, religious, and other discriminatory profiling by any Federal, State, or local law enforcement, setting a national standard. It would create a cause of action for such profiling, condition the receipt of Federal law enforcement grants on the elimination of profiling, and create grants for best practices and training of law enforcement officers.

Congress should also take up and pass my Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, S. 3195, to address the issue of police accountability and build trust between police departments and the communities they serve. This legislation provides incentives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that incidents of misconduct will be reduced through appropriate management, training and oversight protocols.

Finally, this legislation authorizes funds for the implementation of consent decrees and judgements entered into between the Department of Justice and local police departments, such as the Baltimore Police Department.

I have filed two additional amendments to this legislation. The first is the text of S. 1588, the Democracy Restoration Act, DRA. This legislation would strengthen American communities by restoring voting rights to individuals after they have returned to their communities after being released from incarceration. Studies indicate that former prisoners who have voting rights restored are less likely to reoffend and that disenfranchisement hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into their community.

I am pleased that last month the citizens of Florida, by a nearly two-thirds margin of 65 to 35 percent, voted to amend their State constitution to automatically restore the right to vote for most individuals with prior felony convictions. Under the previous law, people with prior felonies never regained their right to vote in Florida unless a State board used its discretion to individually restore your voting rights.

The United States is one of the few Western democracies that allows the permanent denial of voting rights for individuals with felony convictions. It is simply wrong that State disenfranchisement laws deny citizens participation in our democracy. Casting a vote is one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy and gives you a say in the future of your community. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that right is protected and should be leading an effort to remove barriers and make it easier for more people to register to vote, cast their vote, and make sure their votes are counted.

In the United States, an estimated 6.1 million adult citizens are currently disenfranchised as a result of a criminal conviction. While 16 states and the District of Columbia already restore voting rights upon release from prison, 34 States continue to restrict the voting rights of people who are no longer incarcerated. In 10 States, a conviction can result in lifetime disenfranchisement. Several States deny the right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. Since March 2016, Maryland automatically restores voting rights after individuals are released from prison. The new law immediately restored voting rights to approximately 40,000 Marylanders.

My second amendment includes the text of S. 1728, the Private Prison Information Act, or PPIA. This amendment would apply the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, to private prison. This would ensure that non- Federal prisons are held to the same standard of information sharing and recordkeeping as Federal detention facilities, and would increase transparency and accountability. Private prisons account for 20 percent of our Federal prison and detention population but hide behind loopholes in the law when it comes to how they perform their job on behalf of the American people. Security breaches, overcrowding, and misuse of funds were among the many reasons the Justice Department under President Obama and Attorney General Lynch rightly began to phase out the use of private prison contracts. These companies receive Federal funds and provide the same service as governmental agencies. They perform the ``inherently governmental function'' of incarcerating individuals convicted of a crime by the Federal Government. They must be held accountable to the same standards.

I would note that the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union sent a joint letter of support for the FIRST STEP Act. I want to quote from a statement recently released from the Leadership Conference on this legislation.

The Leadership Conference wrote: ``Bringing fairness and dignity to our justice system is one of the most important civil and human rights issues of our time. This bipartisan bill offers some modest improvements to the current federal system--such as revising mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses and fixing the `good time' credit calculation. For this reason, we urge the Senate to vote yes on cloture and no on all amendments [to the FIRST STEP Act].''

``We must acknowledge, however, that the bill falls short in providing the meaningful change that is required to truly reform the system. Several sentencing provisions don't apply to individuals currently incarcerated, and the bill excludes too many people from earning time credits, allows private prison companies to profit, fails to include parole for juveniles, and expands the use of electronic monitoring. We will continue working to ensure the current bill does not further limit the number of people impacted.''

The Leadership Conference statement concludes: ``The FIRST STEP Act is not the end. We must address these concerns and create a system that is just and equitable, significantly reduces the number of people unnecessarily entering the system, eliminates racial disparities, and creates opportunities for second chances. Congress has much more work to do to achieve the transformational change that will end mass incarceration in America.''

Let us take this first step to reform our broken criminal justice system by passing this legislation during this session, and let us pledge to work together to make further improvements in the new Congress.

FIRST STEP Act

Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to thank U.S. Army CPT Demetrius Keishun Morris, an extraordinary man who has contributed to my office through the Army Congressional Fellowship Program. Captain Morris, known as

``D.K.'', has been exceptional to work with over the last year. My staff and I have benefited enormously from D.K.'s knowledge and expertise on U.S. national security and Armed Services policy.

D.K. draws upon nearly two decades of service, which includes deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Qatar. D.K. enlisted in the Army in 2000 and was commissioned as an officer in 2010. As an officer, D.K. distinguished himself by serving at the battalion, brigade, and division levels while operating in combined, joint, and partnered environments. Before D.K. joined my office, he served as the commander of the Headquarters and Headquarters Battery of the 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command at Fort Bliss, TX. At each post and here in the Senate, D.K. has served with distinction.

D.K. has always been one to go above and beyond because it is just part of his nature. He graduated from George Washington University in 2008 with a bachelor of science in health sciences while earning a place on the dean's list. His education also includes a master of arts in intelligence studies with honors from American Military University and a master of professional studies degree in legislative affairs from George Washington University. D.K. is also a graduate of the Military Intelligence Captain's Career Course at Fort Huachuca, AZ, where he achieved placement in the top 20 percent of his class.

CPT Demetrius Keishun Morris is the epitome of a dedicated public servant. He has put himself in harm's way to defend our rights and freedom and to help secure freedom for people in other countries. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our servicemen and women, especially those who make a career in the military. It is always important to acknowledge their family members who share in the sacrifice, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank D.K.'s wife Lakisha and their three wonderful children, Cornelius, Samara, and Roman, for their support and for allowing us to utilize the expertise and experience of their husband and father this last year. My staff and I will miss D.K.; at the same, however, we are also excited to see what's in store next for this exceptional individual, who will always be part of Team Cardin.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I take this time to support the passage of S.J. Res. 54. I commend my colleagues who have brought this resolution forward. The impact of this resolution would be to end the U.S. military engagement in Yemen, and I believe that military engagement should end for several reasons.

First, let me comment on what others have already pointed out, and that is that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is one of the worst, if not the worst, in the world. That is saying a lot because there are a lot of areas around the world where we are seeing humanitarian challenges.

In Yemen today, 10,000 people have been killed due to the war, and 22 million-plus--75 percent of the population in Yemen--are at grave risk today. It is estimated that there are 400,000 children under the age of 5 who are at the risk of starvation due to hunger and malnutrition, and 85,000 children have died, according to Save the Children, from starvation.

The U.S. military engagement has really not assisted in ending this humanitarian crisis. There are 1 million people with cholera and 8.4 million people on the verge of famine. For a long time, we have been, focused on the Port of Hodeidah, saying that it had to be opened in order to be able to deliver humanitarian assistance. I think many of us thought that because of our military involvement in Yemen, at a minimum, we could get the port open. We find we are not able to have safe routes for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, so through our military we have not been able to impact the horrible tragedies that are taking place because of this humanitarian disaster.

Secondly, I think most experts will tell us there is no military solution to the war that is taking place in Yemen that dates back to 2014. The warring sides are not going to end as a result of the military. It is going to take diplomacy, and our military involvement has not assisted in a diplomatic answer. We have not made the progress I think many of us would have expected. So, yes, I do believe America needs to be engaged in Yemen, just not from our military. Let's do an all-out press on diplomacy and bring the parties to the peace table and end this horrible conflict.

Yes, make no mistake about it, the Houthis are not nice people. I understand that, but we are not going to win this by our military. So let's concentrate on diplomacy. I think many have pointed out that, yes, we have been in this region since the attack on our country on September 11. Nothing in this resolution would affect our ability to fight against al-Qaida and its associated forces.

The resolution specifically exempts--specifically exempts--from the withdrawal of American military our campaign against al-Qaida and associated forces.

There is also no question that since the Saudis have engaged in this conflict, there have been many violations of human rights. Yes, we are facilitating and helping. I am not saying we are committing, but we are certainly part of the Saudi effort. We are supposedly helping them with targeting. That means giving them intelligence information to minimize civilian casualties. I am certain the American military is helping in that regard, but the bottom line is, we are told that 61 percent of casualties are due to coalition strikes. There is tremendous civilian loss as a result of this campaign, and the United States is one of the honest brokers in trying to minimize that. We have not been successful through the use of our military.

The use of our military has never been authorized by Congress. Now, this is a debate we have had many times. I know the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been part of that debate and has wanted us to come to grips with a congressional authorization for military use in Yemen. I applaud the chairman. I am very proud to be on that committee. I think if it were left up to our committee, we may have been able to agree on a resolution, but it was clear we couldn't get it through the Senate, couldn't get it through the Congress. That was clear. I am not saying we are culpable for not passing authorization, but we have not passed authorization, and there is no authorization for the use of military force in Yemen, despite the fact that article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States gives the Congress the sole power to declare war.

We are responsible for the military, and if you can't get that authorization, there should at least be a presumption that we shouldn't be using our military. If you can't get the support of Congress--if the President, Commander in Chief, can't get the support of Congress for the use of force, there should not be a sustained use. We know about emergency situations. We expect it of the Commander in Chief. This is not an emergency situation. This is a situation where there should be an authorization for the use of force if we are to remain. I don't believe we should remain.

We have had our disagreements with the President on the use of force. Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973. The President didn't like it. We passed it anyway. We believe the President should not only notify but respect the will of Congress's power under article I to declare war and authorize our military presence.

Section 5(c) gives the power to Congress to pass a joint resolution to remove our troops where there has been no authorization. So what is being done today--the resolution that is before us--is the vehicle that we determined to be the appropriate way to remove our troops from unauthorized war. Therefore, it is an appropriate action by the Congress--probably the only action we can take in order to end the war in Yemen with U.S. participation.

I want to make a comment about the relationship between the United States and the Saudis. I heard many of my colleagues talk about it. I think it is a very important relationship. I think the Saudis are a strategic partner of the United States. I had many opportunities to visit with the Saudis. I know about a lot of the things they are doing, but make no mistake about it, that relationship is important to the United States, but it is very important to the Saudis. It is more than just our military support for a war in Yemen. It has a lot to do with security issues generally. It has to do with intelligence sharing. It has to do with economics.

Our relationship should always be wrapped in our values. Our foreign policy should always be based upon our values as Americans, and our values in regard to what is happening in this war in Yemen tell us we should not be participating in it.

I haven't even mentioned the tragic death of Jamal Khashoggi. When taking a look at what happened there and the involvement of the royal family and the Crown Prince, that clearly cannot go unchallenged. Human rights violations and the military campaign, all of that cries out for the United States not to be engaged in the military aspects of what is happening in Yemen, and the passage of S.J. Res. 54 will, in fact, make that a reality, and I urge our colleagues to support that resolution.

TIME Magazine's Person of the Year

Mr. President, it is a related subject.

I am going to talk about TIME magazine for their selection of their Person of the Year, the ``Guardians and the War on Truth.'' I say it is related because Jamal Khashoggi is one of the figures that is on the cover of TIME magazine as one of the guardians.

In making their selection, TIME magazine wrote: ``For taking great risks in pursuit of greater truths, for the imperfect but essential quest for

facts that are central to civil discourse, for speaking up and for speaking out, the Guardians'' are the Person of the Year.

TIME magazine wrote:

As we looked at the choices, it became clear that the

manipulation and abuse of truth is really the common thread

in so many of this year's major stories . . . this ought to

be a time when democracy leaps forward, an informed citizenry

being essential to self-government. Instead, it's in retreat.

And the story of this assault on truth is, somewhat

paradoxically, one of the hardest to tell.

TIME magazine wrote in this week's issue:

In Annapolis, Md., staff of the Capital, a newspaper

published by Capital Gazette Communications, which traces its

history of telling readers about the events in Maryland to

before the American Revolution, press on without the five

colleagues gunned down in their newsroom on June 28. Still

intact, indeed strengthened after the mass shooting, are the

bonds of trust and community that for national news outlets

have been eroded on strikingly partisan lines, never more

than this year.

``I can tell you this,'' declared Chase Cook, a reporter

for the Capital Gazette [on that fateful day]. ``We are

putting out a damn paper tomorrow.'' Cook's promise . . .

came just a few hours after five of his colleagues were

killed. The man charged with their murders had been obsessed

with the paper since it wrote about his harassment of a high

school classmate--part of its routine coverage of local legal

proceedings. He made the office a crime scene. To put the

damn paper out, staffers set up laptops in the bed of a

pickup in a parking garage across the street.

When the next edition arrived--on schedule--the opinion

page was blank but for the names of the dead. Gerald

Fischman. Rob Hiaasen. John McNamara. Rebecca Smith. Wendi

Winters. Beneath their names was . . . written with a goose

quill: ``Tomorrow this page will return to its steady purpose

of offering our readers informed opinions about the world

around them, that they might be better citizens.''

I must tell you I am very proud of what the Capital Gazette has done. They continued through very difficult times with the quality reporting and opinion pages they have been known for, for a long time--a real treasured institution in our State's capital.

One of the four TIME magazine covers includes the journalists of the Capital Gazette, the Annapolis, MD, newspaper where five employees were murdered by a gunman last June.

I spoke about this shooting on the Senate floor last June, and the Senate unanimously adopted S. Res. 575, which I authored and which was cosponsored by all Members of the Senate. This Senate resolution commemorates the lives, careers, and service of five victims of the Capital Gazette shooting in Annapolis, MD; honors the survivors of the attack and the families of the victims and pledges to continue support for their recovery; thanks law enforcement officers and other emergency first responders for their heroic actions; and reaffirms the commitment of the Senate to defending the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Wendi Winters was among the five Capital Gazette employees killed in the June 28 shooting. According to eyewitness accounts from survivors, Wendi armed herself with the closest weapons at hand--her trash and recycling bins--and charged the shooter, shouting for him to stop. It is believed Wendi's actions distracted the shooter enough to enable several of her coworkers to escape.

We think of violence against reporters as something that happens in other countries, in war zones and the like, but not here, not in the United States of America. All around the world, reporters work to gather facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of free, open, and transparent societies and governments that all people deserve. Too often, reporters are harassed, jailed, and even killed simply because of the nature of their work, which often exposes cronyism and corruption.

Jason Rezaian, a reporter with the Washington Post who was falsely imprisoned in Iran for doing his job as a journalist, had this to say earlier this year. He talks about the attack I referenced earlier in Annapolis.

Mostly I have covered attacks on the media taking place on

the other side of the world, usually in countries where the

flow of information is restricted or conditions are such that

a sense of desperation or political or tribal affiliation can

compel individuals to take heinous action. . . . Writing

about a deadly attack that happened less than 30 miles away,

in an idyllic town that I recently visited with relatives

from overseas, is a new experience for me. And I have to say

that I don't relish the task.

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 the First Amendment of the Constitution: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' 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 has created an ``open season'' on harassing the media for doing its job--asking the questions that need to be asked, investigating the stories that need to be uncovered, and bringing needed transparency to the halls of power, whether they are in Annapolis, Washington, DC, or elsewhere.

Then-candidate and now-President Trump's rhetoric--calling the media ``a stain on America'' and ``the enemy of the American people''-- certainly has caused damage. At the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the President said to the audience that they are ``not to believe'' what they see and hear. The President of the United States told a crowd of veterans:

Stick with us. Don't believe the crap you see from these

people, the fake news. . . . What you're seeing and what

you're reading is not what's happening.

That is the President of the United States saying those comments-- again, demeaning the press and the importance of the free press.

Why is the President doing this? Earlier this year, CBS ``60 Minutes'' correspondent Leslie Stahl, an icon in the news business, shared comments from President Trump from an interview she did with him soon after the 2016 election win. Stahl recalled that she said to Donald Trump about his attacks on the media:

Why are you doing this? You're doing it over and over. It's

boring and it's time to end that.

The candidate's response was straightforward and shocking. He said:

You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and

demean you all so that when you write negative stories about

me no one will believe you.

Let that sink in for a moment. A man who was about to assume the position of President of the United States explicitly acknowledged he was purposefully working to diminish the integrity of the free press.

After the Capitol Gazette shooting, Donald Trump said: ``Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job.'' But how do we interpret his sincerity when, more frequently, he is calling the media ``fake news'' or ``totally unhinged'' and telling the people of America that reporters are truly bad people?

Donald Trump's constant dismissal needs to end. He needs to accept that one of the press's most important roles is to speak truth to power--truth to power, including to the President of the United States.

Here at home, we are left to wonder whether Donald Trump is more inclined to agree with Russian President Vladimir Putin's view of the press--where journalists are routinely jailed and physically attacked-- than with Thomas Jefferson, who famously said: ``Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.''

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. 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. As leaders of this great Nation, we have a responsibility to defend the rights of our

citizens, including the freedom of press.

Yesterday, TIME magazine featured three covers in addition to the Capital Gazette. One is Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post contributor who was killed at the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul in October. I would note that this is the first time that a TIME Person of the Year is a deceased person.

The United States of America must stand up for justice and human rights at home and abroad. I agree that Saudi Arabia is a strong ally in a variety of important areas, but that should only strengthen their understanding of America's commitment to the rule of law, and we as a Nation cannot sanction extrajudicial killings. America's national security is harmed, not helped, when dictators and strongmen believe they can get away with such heinous actions as the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Congress must act to demand accountability for those responsible for Jamal Khashoggi's murder and to send the right signal to the world that America will continue to be a beacon of justice and defender of human rights.

Another cover features Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, two Reuters journalists who were arrested 1 year ago in Myanmar while working on stories about the killings of the Rohingya Muslims. These journalists remain behind bars, but their wives were photographed for the cover. From this floor, I stood in solidarity with these Reuters reporters who were detained in Burma for shining a light on the horrific abuses that occur in the Rakhine State.

I have stood in solidarity with Ethiopian journalists and bloggers who are routinely arrested for criticizing the Ethiopian Government and exposing human rights abuses in that country. I have talked frequently about China, a country that engages in routine censorship and online blocking, harassment, reprisals, and detention of journalists, visa delays, and denials for journalists.

Another TIME cover shows Maria Ressa, the chief executive of the Philippine news website, Rappler, who was indicted on tax evasion charges by President Duterte's administration as part of a crackdown on free speech and dissent.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, more than 600 journalists and media workers have been killed in the last 10 years while doing their job.

Of the member States of the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe, Russia remains the deadliest country for journalists.

Turkey is the largest jailer of journalists in the world, and scores of media outlets have been closed since the attempted coup there. The heavyhanded measures used against media freedom in Turkey, both before and during the recent elections, illustrates the lengths to which the government went to control the information available to voters. It also serves as a reminder of the essential role of a pluralistic media for free and fair elections.

I have also worked on many other countries that have infringed upon the freedom of press in my role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission. I could give you examples of what we have done in Malta, what we have done in Slovakia, what we have done in Belarus--and the list goes on and on.

I therefore ask the Trump administration and my colleagues in the Senate to redouble their efforts to protect the freedom of the press, both at home and abroad. We must lead by example as the very foundational legitimacy of a democratic republic is at stake.

America's leadership is essential to protect the freedom of the press--an essential institution for a democratic state. We must lead by first setting an example by our commitment to the freedom of press here at home. We must demand that freedom of the press be a priority in our global affairs, recognizing it is important to our national security.

TIME magazine got it right by naming the ``Guardians and the War on Truth'' as persons of the year.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on November 23 of this year, we had release of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is required to be released under the Global Change Research Act that was passed by Congress in 1990.

This climate assessment is put together by 300 experts, guided by a 60-member Federal advisory committee, including 13 Federal Agencies. They rely heavily on the panel from the National Academy of Sciences. My point is, this is the best scientific information we have as to the risks of climate change. The Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume 2, was issued on November 23, 2018.

Its conclusions should be sobering to all of us; that humans are responsible for the current climate crisis and that we must take responsibility to minimize future destruction.

Four years earlier, the first volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment was issued, and its prediction was that we would see increased instances of flooding, wildfires, and higher temperatures. Unfortunately, that has come to pass, as we have experienced this year and in the last several years an unusually large number of flooding episodes, wildfires that we have just experienced, and higher temperatures.

The findings make two critical assertions in regard to how it will affect our lifestyle. First, it said climate change is a growing risk to the danger of human health. By human health danger, you can look at the direct impact of climate change--those whose lives have been forever changed as a result of storms or as a result of flooding or as a result of wildfires or as a result of sea level rising. We know many people have lost their lives, and their lives have been compromised as a result of the reality of the new current weather conditions.

It also affects the safe supply of water--clean drinking water is very much impacted by what is happening with climate change--and sea level rises and the spread of diseases, from people who are suffering from asthma to the spread of West Nile disease, and

many other examples of how climate change is accelerating those types of conditions which have a major impact on human health.

The report then indicated that, yes, it directly affects the health of the people of our country and the globe, but it also has a direct economic impact. The damage affects, in a negative way, the rate of our economic growth.

I will give you many examples why. Take a look at infrastructure damage. We recognize that the bridges and the highways in this country--our infrastructure--were not designed and constructed with the realities of the weather conditions we are now experiencing. As a result of much heavier damage that we have to deal with, adaptations and changes, that affects the resources we have to devote to the new realities of our infrastructure.

Coastal communities have been put at direct risk. First of all, I have seen coastal communities shrink because of the loss of shoreline. We know the risk factor for coastal communities affects their economic growth. They have to deal with the cost of adaptation. That devotes revenues that could be used for other purposes.

In addition, we have seen the economic challenges to agriculture and the sustainability of agriculture. In many parts of the world, the realities of climate change have taken away their traditional livelihoods and sustainability of agricultural products.

We are also seeing a direct impact the climate is having on tourism, which, for many communities, is a large part of their economic activity.

The report estimates that the gross domestic product of this country could be adversely affected by as much as 10 percent. That is a major hit on our economic progress.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report in October 2018. That report indicated that by 2030, the economic damage as a result of climate change could reach $54 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t.'' This is an economic crisis we must address. We cannot ignore it. We must deal with it.

The good news is, mitigation and adaptation policies work. They work. We can mitigate the causes of climate change by our activities here on Earth. We can adapt to some of the realities of the new weather conditions, but we are not doing it at a scale necessary today to avoid substantial damage to human health and our economy. We have to step up our game dramatically.

It disproportionately impacts the poor. The poor don't have the resources in order to adapt or move or to deal as other people have. They are trapped in more vulnerable communities, and they suffer more as a result of it.

We could talk about every one of our States that are impacted by this. In my State of Maryland, I have taken the floor to explain that Ellicott City--a wonderful community in Howard County, MD, that has what I call Main Street, which reminds you of Main Street America--has had two 1,000-year floods in 20 months. These floods are unprecedented because normally the flooding conditions are as a result of the rising of the river next to Ellicott City, but these were floods caused by the increased amount of rainfall in a short period of time that could not be handled in its runoff, causing extreme damage. They have had two 1,000-year floods in 20 months.

We have flooding in Annapolis, which should be a concern to not only the people of Maryland but to our Nation because of the importance that Annapolis plays to our national security because of the Naval Academy. The same could be said in Virginia, where there is a significant challenge to our future military facilities as a result of their coastal locations. In Baltimore City, we have had 25 heat-related deaths in 2018. That is three times more than we saw in 2017.

There is no question that this affects Maryland, that it affects every State in this Nation. This is an American issue and a global issue.

There is a path forward. There is a path forward that is not terribly difficult for us to embrace because it will not only help us deal with climate change and the environment, but it will mean a better economic future for us, and it is using energy sources that are plentiful, meaning that there is a security advantage by doing the right thing for our environment and our economy.

Green energy, conservation efficiencies, all are activities that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions. It can mitigate the damage. It will create more jobs.

With green energy, there are more jobs than there are in the fossil fuel industry. It is less dependent. Fossil fuel is good for our national security, since there is an abundance of the green energy sources here in America and with our allies around the world.

In my own State, we have taken actions to reduce carbon emissions. We have been effective in doing that, and it has been a plus for our economy.

What we need is U.S. leadership. We saw that in 2015. I was proud to be part of a 10-Member Senate delegation that went to Paris as we entered into a global agreement to deal with our responsibilities to change the trajectory for climate change.

The U.S. role in Paris was critical to get all the nations of the world together with realistic strategies to reduce our carbon emissions. I say that knowing full well that COP24 is meeting, as we are meeting here, in Poland. This is a convention whose attention is going to be to finalize the Paris Agreement Work Program--a rule book of guidelines, procedures, and rules needed to turn the Paris Agreement into a working system. Every country made commitments in Paris. We now need to make sure that those commitments are carried out.

Shortly before the convening of COP24 in Poland, the G20 met in our hemisphere, as I think everyone is familiar with--these are the economic powers of the world, all the major economies of the world--and they reaffirmed their commitment to Paris. The world economic powers did that.

Now, what is happening in Poland and what happened in G20--every country participated, except one. The G20 was actually G19 and their commitment to implement the powers agreement--the United States, through the Trump administration, did not join. Of course, in Poland right now, the United States is not an active participant, since President Trump announced that we would withdraw from the convention on climate change known as COP. That is not leadership. The world will always be better off with America in leadership, and we are missing that leadership.

So my plea is that we need to step up. This should not be a partisan issue. Climate change should not be a partisan issue. It is a human rights issue; it is a human issue; it is a health issue; it is an economic issue. We need to restore the U.S. leadership on this matter. We can do that through our Tax Code. We can do that through renewable energy legislation, by increasing the CAFE standards, by dealing with clean air standards. If U.S. leadership is not going to come from the White House, let the U.S. Senate exercise that leadership and show the international community that we understand our responsibility and the risk factors to our health and to the economy.

The National Climate Assessment and the activities of G20 and COP24 should motivate us to action on behalf of the health and welfare of the American community and our global neighbors. I urge our colleagues to get engaged in leadership on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to urge the majority leader to bring to the floor S. 3649, the First Step Act, which I have cosponsored. This bipartisan legislation, introduced by Senators Grassley and Durbin, includes positive prison reforms that the House passed by a 360-59 vote, combined with Senate-added provisions on sentencing reform that have passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis.

Senators on both sides of the aisle agree that our criminal justice system is broken and badly needs repair.

In my own State of Maryland, we know the importance of criminal justice reform after the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore Police Department custody in 2015. Baltimore is a good example of the necessary Federal and State partnership we need in order to reform the criminal justice system. When I am talking about the criminal justice system, I am not only talking about the so-called back end of the system, which involves sentencing, corrections, and release from prison. I am talking about the ``front end'' of the system, which involves relations between the community and police and often the first interaction between our citizens and law enforcement.

In Baltimore, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated a Federal ``pattern or practice'' inquiry at the request of the city of Baltimore and the Federal congressional delegation. This investigation led to a comprehensive report finding a pattern and practice of unconstitutional arrests and policing in Baltimore that disproportionately affected minority residents, particularly the African-American residents of Baltimore.

Baltimore City and the Justice Department ultimately agreed to a consent decree and are now under supervision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. This will entail a multiyear process of overhauling the police department to finally give the citizens of Baltimore the police department they deserve, using the ``guardian'' and not the ``warrior'' model, as recommended by President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

This fall I visited the headquarters of the Baltimore Ravens in Owings Mills, MD, in Baltimore County. I am a Baltimore resident and live in Baltimore County and, of course, am a proud Ravens fan. On that day, I had come to discuss criminal justice reform. I wanted to hear directly from the Ravens players about their insights into the criminal justice system, and they shared their stories involving their friends and family with me.

I am pleased that several Ravens players and team executives wrote a letter earlier this week to Senator McConnell asking him to bring this critical legislation to the floor. The letter reads: ``The undersigned players and executives of the Baltimore Ravens write to voice our support for the First Step Act, a bill which has the potential to bring transformative and much needed change to our criminal justice system. Criminal justice is an issue that deeply affects our community in Baltimore, as well as the nation as a whole. Not only will this legislation strengthen our nation's criminal justice system, but it enjoys the backing of an incredibly diverse group of supporters.''

Indeed, this legislation is endorsed by both law enforcement and civil rights groups. Law enforcement groups endorsing this legislation include the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Civil rights groups endorsing this legislation include the ACLU and Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. President Trump has endorsed this legislation, which has a growing number of bipartisan Senate cosponsors.

The legislation includes key sentencing reform provisions added by the Senate to the House-passed measure. First, it expands the so-called safety valve, which allows judges to sentence below the mandatory minimum for qualified low-level nonviolent drug offenders who cooperate with the government. Second, it makes retroactive the application of the Fair Sentencing Act, in which Congress addressed the crack-powder sentencing disparity, and allows individuals affected by this disparity to petition for sentence reductions. Third, it reforms the two-strikes and three-strikes laws, by reducing the second strike mandatory minimum of 20 years to 15 years and reducing the third strike mandatory minimum of life in prison to 25 years. Finally, the legislation eliminates the so-called stacking provision in the U.S. Code, which helps ensure that sentencing enhancements for repeat offenses apply only to true repeat offenders. The legislation clarifies that sentencing enhancements cannot unfairly be ``stacked,'' for example, by applying to conduct within the same indictment.

This legislation marks the first time that the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union, has ever supported a criminal justice reform bill. At law enforcement's request, the bill prohibits time credits for individuals convicted of a fentanyl trafficking offense, as well as bars time credits for individuals convicted of repeatedly possessing or using a firearm in relation to a violent or drug trafficking crime.

On the prison reform side. this legislation includes several positive reforms from the House-passed FIRST STEP Act. The bill makes a good time credit fix and revises the good-time credit law to accurately reflect congressional intent by allowing prisoners to earn 54 days of credit per year, rather than 47 days. The bill prohibits shackling pregnant prisoners and requires healthcare products be provided to incarcerated women. The bill requires prisoners be placed within 500 driving miles of their home and provides additional phone, video conferencing, and visitation privileges. The bill expands evidence- based opioid and heroin abuse treatment for inmates. The bill expands compassionate release under the Second Chance Act and expedites compassionate release applications.

The revised Senate bill also includes several prison reforms beyond what were included in the House-passed bill. The bill establishes an Independent Review Committee of outside experts to assist in the development of the risk and needs assessment system. The National Institute of Justice would select a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with expertise in risk and needs assessments to host the IRC. This added guardrail will help to ensure the risk and needs assessment system is evidence-based and minimize racial disparities.

It allows the use of earned credits for supervised release in the community, such as halfway houses or home confinement. The bill also would permit individuals in home confinement to participate in family- related activities that facilitate the prisoner's successful reentry.

It effectively ends Federal juvenile solitary confinement, and limits the discretion of the Bureau of Prisons to deny release to individuals who meet all eligibility criteria.

Let us take this first step to reform our broken criminal justice system by passing this legislation during this session.