Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to honor a great American, an American whose words lit a flame of hope in the hearts of those souls who had become weary with the weight of injustice, an American whose struggles, ideals--and, yes, his dreams--are etched in the foundation of our Nation.

On April 12, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was arrested in my hometown of Birmingham, AL. His crime? Leading a peaceful march to protest the indignity suffered by the Black community in the Jim Crow era. He had violated Birmingham public safety commissioner ``Bull'' Connor's ban on public demonstrations, which targeted the growing resistance of African Americans to the injustices they were suffering.

While in solitary confinement in Birmingham, Dr. King wrote what became known as the ``Letter from Birmingham Jail''--a stinging response to a group of White clergy in Alabama who had denounced his tactics and questioned the wisdom and timing of his arrival in Birmingham.

They insisted that he was an outside agitator coming to Alabama to instigate trouble. Dr. King responded famously: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

In his letter, he rejected the idea that African Americans should be more patient for change in the face of the daily indignities inflicted by segregation and in the face of violence and threats and intimidation. He wrote: ``There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over.''

While I did not experience this struggle as a young child--a young White child growing up in the nearby Birmingham suburb--I spent much of my adult life and career as a lawyer and former U.S. attorney examining the history and absorbing its lessons. I have often returned to Dr. King's letter to understand the forces at play at the height of the civil rights struggle. Each time I read his words, I am in awe of his courage and resolve in the face of such incredible personal risk.

While we have come so far and while we have made great progress in loosening the binds of racial injustice that have constrained and suffocated our Nation for so many years, we have not yet fully relieved the weight of our country's abominable history of slavery, segregation, and racial discrimination.

That is why I rise today. It is our civic duty and I believe our moral obligation to remember Dr. King's words and his deeds, to tell his story, to appreciate that 1963 was not all that long ago, and to reflect on how many things have changed and how many have not. Our obligation is to honor Dr. King's

legacy by joining him in envisioning the mountaintop and working to make real his famous dream that our Nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of the creed: ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal.'' That is why we rise today.

Dr. King saw an America that had the potential to live up to its lofty ideals, where every man, woman, and child had an equal opportunity to succeed and to live a life free from discrimination. He saw the good in our country when it would have been easier for him to see the bad. It is that positive spirit and clarity of vision that made his legacy so enduring.

Today, we will honor that legacy by reading the letter from the Birmingham jail in its entirety in the Senate Chamber.

I am honored to be joined today by Martin Luther King III, who is in the Gallery--the oldest son of Dr. King and Coretta Scott King--as well as my old friend Charles Steele, the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a reverend. Together, they are at the forefront of the modern civil rights movement and personally carry on the legacy that Dr. King bequeathed us.

I am also very grateful that several of my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle will stand with me to read portions of the letter today. I want to thank Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Ted Cruz of Texas, Kamala Harris of California, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska for participating in this historic reading today.

I urge the rest of our colleagues, anyone in the Gallery, and anyone watching at home on television to consider what we might still learn today from this powerful message about justice and freedom from oppression and the indifference of people who stand idly by when their fellow Americans are persecuted.

To begin the reading of the letter, I would like to yield to my colleague from Tennessee, my friend Senator Alexander.

Mr. President, Dr. King continues:

Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been

dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their

bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the

faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.

Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved

the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times.

They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain

of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the

challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does

not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the

future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in

Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood.

We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over

the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused

and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with

America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we

were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic

words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of

history, we were here. For more than two centuries our

forebears labored in this country without wages; they made

cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while

suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation--and yet

out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and

develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not

stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will

win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and

the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing

demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one

other point in your statement that has troubled me

profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police

force for keeping ``order'' and ``preventing violence.'' I

doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police

force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into

unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so

quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their

ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city

jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro

women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap

and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to

observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give

us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I

cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police

department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of

discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they

have conducted themselves rather ``nonviolently'' in public.

But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of

segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently

preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must

be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear

that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.

But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps

even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.

Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather

nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany,

Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to

maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot

has said: ``The last temptation is the greatest treason: To

do the right deed for the wrong reason.''

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and

demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their

willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the

midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize

its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the

noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and

hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that

characterizes the life

of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro

women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in

Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and

with her people decided not to ride the segregated buses, and

who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who

inquired about her weariness: ``My feets is tired, but my

soul is at rest.'' They will be the young high school and

college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a

host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting

in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for

conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these

disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they

were in reality standing up for what is best in the American

dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo Christian

heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great

wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding

fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the

Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it

is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you

that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing

from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is

alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters,

think long thoughts, and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the

truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to

forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the

truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to

settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to

forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also

hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to

meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights

leader but as a fellow clergymen and a Christian brother. Let

us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will

soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be

lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not

too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and

brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their

scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Madam President, today I pay tribute to a great leader and an exceptional officer of the U.S. Army, COL Thomas von Eschenbach, now serving as the director, Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate at the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, AL, as he prepares to retire from military service on May 31, 2019.

COL Thomas von Eschenbach has served our Army and our Nation for more than 28 years. He has been a true professional; a dedicated soldier, leader, and officer. Throughout his career he has commanded our great soldiers at many levels; he has deployed to combat numerous times in defense of the Nation; and he has been assigned critical positions in our military. Colonel von Eschenbach has provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous issues of enduring importance to the Army, Congress, and this Nation.

A native of Alabama, Colonel von Eschenbach was commissioned a second lieutenant of aviation upon graduating from Auburn University ROTC as a Distinguished Military Graduate. His first assignment after flight school was at Fort Bragg, NC, where he served as a platoon leader, company executive officer, and battalion staff officer. He next served in Germany as a troop commander and division staff officer.

Upon his return from Germany, Colonel von Eschenbach served as a small group leader and later company commander in the Aviation Branch Captains' Career Course and Warrant Officer Advanced Courses at Fort Rucker, AL. As a field-grade officer he returned to Fort Bragg and served as the battalion executive officer and operations officer for an attack battalion, and later brigade operation officer in the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade to include a deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

After an assignment in Army Human Resources Command, Colonel von Eschenbach commanded an Air Cavalry Squadron Task Force during a deployment to Operation Enduring Freedom in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. After this command, he served on the Army staff as the Deputy Director for Army Aviation.

For the past 4 years, Colonel von Eschenbach has served as the director of the Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate at the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence. In this role he was responsible to the development of future doctrine and concepts, force structure, and capability requirements for Army aviation to ensure our aviation forces and soldiers

have the right concepts and equipment to prevail in future conflicts.

On behalf of the State of Alabama, the 116th Congress, and the United States of America, I thank COL Thomas von Eschenbach, U.S. Army, and his entire family for their commitment, sacrifice, and contributions to this great Nation. I join my colleagues in wishing Colonel von Eschenbach future success as he transitions to other opportunities to serve the Army and our country.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something that, quite frankly, I find to be completely abhorrent, and that is the short- changing of our Nation's military widows when it comes to survivor benefits they paid for and earned. It is something that I was dismayed to learn is happening to some 65,000 surviving spouses of American military servicemembers--including more than 2,000 Alabamians--who were killed in action or died as a result of service-connected causes.

After suffering the loss of a loved one, military widows and their families can find themselves unexpectedly losing out on vital survivor benefits they had planned to receive in these tragic circumstances. That is because, under current law, surviving spouses are entitled to receive VA dependency and indemnity compensation benefits, or what is known as DIC.

Some families go a step further. Like many families in the private sector, many go a step further by voluntarily paying into the Defense Department's Survivor Benefits Plan, which acts like an additional life insurance policy. Again, they are entitled to the DIC benefits, but they pay for additional coverage should there be a tragic accident or tragic death, which acts like an additional life insurance policy. That policy is something these families voluntarily pay into, and like any other life insurance plan you or I might buy, they expect to get the benefits they have paid for.

For those who are entitled to receive these benefits from both programs, they are subject to what has been known as the widow's tax. Again, this is only for those folks who are getting benefits from both programs--the DIC and the survivor's benefit programs. That is because our law prohibits widows from receiving their full benefits from both programs. That is the widow's tax. Instead, their SBP annuity is prorated because their DIC payment is subtracted from it. They don't get the full benefit of both programs when one gets subtracted from the other.

Simply put, it is really a way for the Federal Government to save a few bucks by simply ripping off military widows whose family paid extra to receive these additional benefits. They voluntarily paid extra to receive these benefits.

This isn't just a problem facing Active-Duty families. It is far bigger, folks, because it impacts anyone who has a service-connected death.

To put that in context, in Alabama alone, there are over 60,000 Department of Defense retirees whose families could be impacted by the widow's tax if the veteran were to pass from a service-connected cause.

Now, I understand that we have to be careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. I am fully aware of that. But give me a break when it comes to military spouses and widows. This is a benefit that families paid for out of their own pockets. If they are not getting the money, then, it begs the question: Who is?

No surviving spouse should be faced with this kind of unexpected and completely unfair cut to the benefits they ought to be able to count on in these heartbreaking circumstances.

No surviving spouse should have to fight for what their families are owed--in the wake of family tragedy, no less. Again, this is what they are owed. This is the thing they have paid for in more ways than one.

No surviving spouse should have to mount a massive lobbying effort in the Capitol of the United States, of this great country, to get folks to understand that this is wrong and we need to

fix it. Every year, there is a campaign to fix this program. Yet, it doesn't get done.

Instead, these families should be focusing on helping their families begin to heal and find strength. They should be given the space and time to breathe.

It is an absolute shame that this is even a problem we need to address. That is why I have introduced bipartisan legislation with several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Senators Collins, Tester, Crapo, and 31 others--to repeal the law that prevents these families from receiving their just due.

The Military Widows Tax Elimination Act of 2019 reflects our belief that people who put their lives on the line for our country deserve to know their families will be taken care of if something, God forbid, ever happens to them.

Our bill has support from the Gold Star Wives of America, the VFW, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Military Family Association, the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, and so many others. In fact, some of the most dedicated activists from the Gold Star Wives are watching today from the Gallery right now, including Crystal Wenum, Harriet Boyden, and Donna Eldridge. I thank them all for their leadership and for their continued contributions to our country.

This legislation has been introduced in previous sessions of Congress, but it has yet to pass--in large part because of concerns about the cost. As I said, while I certainly understand that there is going to be a cost associated with this, we are talking about a benefits plan that these families paid for on their own accord. It is their money that went into this fund, not taxpayer money and not money that is appropriated every year. It is their money, and they deserve to get it back.

I think we can all agree that ending the widow's tax is the right thing to do for our military families. Why don't we finally get it done in this, the 116th Congress? Let's show our troops and their families that we support them not just in word but in deed. Let's show these surviving spouses and their children that we stand with them long after their loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and long after we know that they, too, have made a sacrifice in the name of this country. Let's right this wrong and finally pass the Military Widows Tax Elimination Act.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. It is never ever too late to do it. Even though this has been tried before, it is never ever too late to do the right thing and support this bill.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, people across the country and around the world today have seen the images of the terrible devastation left by tornadoes that touched down in Lee County, AL.

Lee County is home to Auburn University, and so many of the wonderful constituents there have suffered mightily over the last 24 hours. As of right now, we know 23 people have lost their lives--23--and as we speak, rescue teams and first responders are still out searching for others who may have been hurt. We pray that we have seen the last of the loss of life, but that is to be determined.

Already, this is one of the deadliest storms in our State's history, and Louise and I want to offer our most sincere condolences to all of those who have been affected by this horrible event. The youngest victim we know of was only 6 years old. My heart goes out to all the folks who have lost loved ones, who suffered damage to their homes and their businesses, and I ask that everyone pray for their comfort and healing.

I also thank the courageous first responders who put their lives on the line time and again to help folks in need. Our rescue crews are working around the clock, and we are so grateful to them for the work they do every day but especially on days like today and yesterday after tragedies like these strike. These are our friends and neighbors who step up in the wake of disaster to help their community, sometimes-- sometimes--while struggling with the tragedy on a very personal level themselves.

Unfortunately, this is an all-too-familiar sight in Alabama. We have seen our fair share of natural disasters. On a single day in 2011, an estimated 60 tornadoes devastated so many towns and cities, including Cullman, Hackleburg, Pratt City, and Tuscaloosa, killing over 200 people. All of these have a way of being personal.

That day was especially personal for my wife, Louise, who is from Cullman. I was out of town that day attending a judicial conference and called her as she was watching on television how her town was being destroyed, debris flying everywhere, and she could barely speak. She can still barely speak about it today. As U.S. attorney, in April of 1998, I saw firsthand the devastating damage to the Oak Grove and Edgewater communities, where 32 people lost their lives. That destruction in Edgewater was especially personal to me because that is where my grandparents lived for so many years and where my parents lived when I was first born. I can remember walking that day across the slab that was left of the little church my parents attended when I was born, walking across with President Clinton. It is unbelievable to witness that kind of damage.

Jacksonville, AL, is still rebuilding after a tornado severely damaged their city last year, including the campus of Jacksonville State University. Last fall, Hurricane Michael ravaged our farmlands in the Wiregrass in South Alabama, destroying cotton crops that were ready for harvest and 30-year-old timber. Yesterday's tornadoes touched down at a time when North Alabama is already dealing with historic flooding in Cherokee County.

I mentioned, it just seems all too often these have a personal note. As I checked in with my staff last night, I realized that two of my staffers who are with me on the floor today, Garrett and Michael, also are from that area. They also are concerned. It is a horrible situation to be this far away, knowing what is going on in your hometown and not knowing whether your loved ones are in the path of that destruction.

Alabama, however, is a resilient place, and we have an incredibly capable disaster preparedness and response agency, one that works around the clock when needed, but given all we have faced over the past year, we will still need help. While there is much yet to be done in the immediate aftermath of this storm, we know a full recovery will take a great deal of time and resources.

So I am here tonight to ask my colleagues in the Senate to stand ready to help Lee County rebuild and heal. Disasters will strike all of our communities at some point or another, and that makes it all the more important that we work together when they do.

To the folks in Lee County, AL, who have lost everything and who have lost loved ones in this disaster, I am in this with you for the long haul. I promise you that. I know things will never be the same for many folks, but I do promise that I will do everything I can to help.

I have already been working with Senators Perdue, Isakson, and others to secure disaster funding for the 2018 storms that hit the Southeast last year. We are hoping that we can get an agreement on that bill very soon and get it onto the President's desk so those farmers can be ready for the next planting season that they are about to go into.

In the days ahead, I am going to be working closely with colleagues here in the Senate to secure Federal disaster funding that includes Lee County, AL, because, despite the fact that we are in the early stages, it is easy to see from the photographs and the videos of the devastation that they will need it.

We have been in touch with Governor Ivey and other local officials about how we in the Senate can best help. As the dust settles, we will be down there to try to make sure that our offices do what is necessary to help those fine people.

In the face of all of these terrible tragedies, the thing that gives me hope is the strength of my fellow Alabamians. They are an amazing-- amazing--citizenry. From one end of the State to the other, they are amazing people who see tragedy, but they build on that tragedy. Yet they never lose hope. Even though an event like this can be incredibly difficult, I have seen the resolve of the people of Alabama, and I know that we will be able to rise and rebuild.

Thank you.

Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Wyoming for his work today and for his work on this very, very important issue of chronic wasting disease and prevention. This is an issue of great importance not only to Alabama but to 26 other States-- from Wyoming to Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. This is an issue which, if we fail to act, will result in an environmental and economic crisis.

Chronic wasting disease, or CWD, is truly a terrible, contagious neurological illness that affects all deer, elk, and moose populations nationwide. It is a disease that is as bad as it sounds. It functions much like mad cow disease.

Senator Barrasso gave all of the scientific words. He has a little bit more training in that than I do. So I will just call it what it is--mad cow disease and neurological disorders.

It attacks an animal's nervous system and, over time, renders the animal weak and emaciated, with little control over its body. The disease has a fatality rate of 100 percent. Every single animal that contracts this disease dies. It is highly communicable, spreading not only through physical contact but also through contaminated environments where infected animals have been.

The jury is still out on whether chronic wasting disease may be transmitted to humans, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend against consuming animals contaminated with the disease. In 2017, a Canadian study documented transmission through consumption of contaminated meat to a nonhuman primate. Clearly, this is something to be very concerned and cautious about because of the clear and concrete evidence that it could be transmitted to humans.

The fact is, the disease is spreading, and it is spreading fast. Even if it does not pose an immediate health threat to humans or at least a documented health threat right now, it poses a serious significant financial threat to Alabama and many other States.

The total annual economic contribution of deer hunting to the U.S. economy is close to $40 billion. In fact, as a hunting company, if it were a publicly-traded company, it would fall in the top 100 on the Fortune 500 list.

The hunting industry in Alabama generates $2.6 billion every year for the State's economy, and according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, deer hunting alone generates nearly $2 billion or roughly 80 percent of that amount. Obviously, this makes deer hunting sound like a very big business, and it is. It is a big business in Alabama, and it is a big business across the country.

But make no mistake. It is more than just that. It is more than just an economy. It is more than money that comes into our community. Any hunter in Alabama will tell you that hunting is not only a time-honored tradition and a recreational pastime. It is in our State and in so many others a way of life.

Hunters in Alabama will also tell you about the devastating effect that CWD can have in the State of Alabama. They use the word ``disaster,'' and they are not exaggerating.

Chronic wasting disease is spreading throughout the country, and it is closing in on Alabama. Cases have already been confirmed in southern Tennessee and northeastern Mississippi. A study out of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville on the projected impacts of chronic wasting disease in Tennessee has predicted a nearly $100 million total loss to that State alone.

We are thankful currently that no deer in Alabama have yet tested positive for CWD, which is a testament to the hard work being done by groups like the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, but State agencies alone cannot address this problem. Their budgets are already strained by the activities that they currently undertake to monitor and manage the disease as well as the many other fine programs they manage in my State and elsewhere.

Adequate resources must be devoted to studying the transmission of this disease and developing strategies for its containment. If it doesn't happen, then CWD, or chronic wasting disease, in Alabama and in other States not yet affected becomes not a question of if but when.

That is why today, along with Senator Barrasso from Wyoming and Senator Bennet from Colorado, we are proud to introduce the Chronic Wasting Disease Transmission in Cervidae Study Act.

Once again, I want to commend Senator Barrasso, in particular, as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his leadership in this space. I know he cares deeply about Wyoming's wildlife population, but clearly he cares about the population and conservation efforts throughout the country.

Despite its widespread prevalence, very little is known about CWD and how it is transmitted. Our bipartisan

legislation tasks the USDA and the Department of the Interior to work with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a review of the existing science, how it is spread, and current best-management practices in order to get a better handle on what we already know about the disease and its transmission.

More specifically, this legislation will allow us to identify the most effective techniques for prevention, surveillance, and management of the disease. It will also enable us to get a better understanding of the total economic cost of CWD to our State economies, to wildlife agencies, to landowners, and to hunters.

A review conducted under this legislation will allow us to gather essential data that will enable us to conduct better research into the future and to better formulate our policy goals in order to mitigate and manage this devastating disease.

Like many Alabamians, I love spending time outdoors, taking in the breathtaking nature and wildlife of my State. Alabama is a gorgeous State with an incredibly diverse array of fauna and wildlife. It is an amazing place. I am also a pretty avid hunter, and, in fact, this weekend is the last weekend for deer season in my State, and I am hoping to get out there this Sunday, the very last day, for the last deer hunt of the season as this season comes to a close. This has really been a cherished pastime for me and my youngest child, my son Christopher, for many, many years.

Taking action to find a solution to stop the spread of CWD will help to ensure that countless other outdoors men and women--because women are a big part of the hunting population in the State of Alabama--can continue to enjoy this tradition.

We have to do everything we can to combat what is truly an existential threat to the deer hunting industry in my State and around the country. Our legislation is an essential step forward in protecting the health of our wildlife, protecting the health of our environment, and, ultimately, protecting the way of life for millions of hunting Americans.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Wyoming for his work today and for his work on this very, very important issue of chronic wasting disease and prevention. This is an issue of great importance not only to Alabama but to 26 other States-- from Wyoming to Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. This is an issue which, if we fail to act, will result in an environmental and economic crisis.

Chronic wasting disease, or CWD, is truly a terrible, contagious neurological illness that affects all deer, elk, and moose populations nationwide. It is a disease that is as bad as it sounds. It functions much like mad cow disease.

Senator Barrasso gave all of the scientific words. He has a little bit more training in that than I do. So I will just call it what it is--mad cow disease and neurological disorders.

It attacks an animal's nervous system and, over time, renders the animal weak and emaciated, with little control over its body. The disease has a fatality rate of 100 percent. Every single animal that contracts this disease dies. It is highly communicable, spreading not only through physical contact but also through contaminated environments where infected animals have been.

The jury is still out on whether chronic wasting disease may be transmitted to humans, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend against consuming animals contaminated with the disease. In 2017, a Canadian study documented transmission through consumption of contaminated meat to a nonhuman primate. Clearly, this is something to be very concerned and cautious about because of the clear and concrete evidence that it could be transmitted to humans.

The fact is, the disease is spreading, and it is spreading fast. Even if it does not pose an immediate health threat to humans or at least a documented health threat right now, it poses a serious significant financial threat to Alabama and many other States.

The total annual economic contribution of deer hunting to the U.S. economy is close to $40 billion. In fact, as a hunting company, if it were a publicly-traded company, it would fall in the top 100 on the Fortune 500 list.

The hunting industry in Alabama generates $2.6 billion every year for the State's economy, and according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, deer hunting alone generates nearly $2 billion or roughly 80 percent of that amount. Obviously, this makes deer hunting sound like a very big business, and it is. It is a big business in Alabama, and it is a big business across the country.

But make no mistake. It is more than just that. It is more than just an economy. It is more than money that comes into our community. Any hunter in Alabama will tell you that hunting is not only a time-honored tradition and a recreational pastime. It is in our State and in so many others a way of life.

Hunters in Alabama will also tell you about the devastating effect that CWD can have in the State of Alabama. They use the word ``disaster,'' and they are not exaggerating.

Chronic wasting disease is spreading throughout the country, and it is closing in on Alabama. Cases have already been confirmed in southern Tennessee and northeastern Mississippi. A study out of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville on the projected impacts of chronic wasting disease in Tennessee has predicted a nearly $100 million total loss to that State alone.

We are thankful currently that no deer in Alabama have yet tested positive for CWD, which is a testament to the hard work being done by groups like the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, but State agencies alone cannot address this problem. Their budgets are already strained by the activities that they currently undertake to monitor and manage the disease as well as the many other fine programs they manage in my State and elsewhere.

Adequate resources must be devoted to studying the transmission of this disease and developing strategies for its containment. If it doesn't happen, then CWD, or chronic wasting disease, in Alabama and in other States not yet affected becomes not a question of if but when.

That is why today, along with Senator Barrasso from Wyoming and Senator Bennet from Colorado, we are proud to introduce the Chronic Wasting Disease Transmission in Cervidae Study Act.

Once again, I want to commend Senator Barrasso, in particular, as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his leadership in this space. I know he cares deeply about Wyoming's wildlife population, but clearly he cares about the population and conservation efforts throughout the country.

Despite its widespread prevalence, very little is known about CWD and how it is transmitted. Our bipartisan

legislation tasks the USDA and the Department of the Interior to work with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a review of the existing science, how it is spread, and current best-management practices in order to get a better handle on what we already know about the disease and its transmission.

More specifically, this legislation will allow us to identify the most effective techniques for prevention, surveillance, and management of the disease. It will also enable us to get a better understanding of the total economic cost of CWD to our State economies, to wildlife agencies, to landowners, and to hunters.

A review conducted under this legislation will allow us to gather essential data that will enable us to conduct better research into the future and to better formulate our policy goals in order to mitigate and manage this devastating disease.

Like many Alabamians, I love spending time outdoors, taking in the breathtaking nature and wildlife of my State. Alabama is a gorgeous State with an incredibly diverse array of fauna and wildlife. It is an amazing place. I am also a pretty avid hunter, and, in fact, this weekend is the last weekend for deer season in my State, and I am hoping to get out there this Sunday, the very last day, for the last deer hunt of the season as this season comes to a close. This has really been a cherished pastime for me and my youngest child, my son Christopher, for many, many years.

Taking action to find a solution to stop the spread of CWD will help to ensure that countless other outdoors men and women--because women are a big part of the hunting population in the State of Alabama--can continue to enjoy this tradition.

We have to do everything we can to combat what is truly an existential threat to the deer hunting industry in my State and around the country. Our legislation is an essential step forward in protecting the health of our wildlife, protecting the health of our environment, and, ultimately, protecting the way of life for millions of hunting Americans.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the issues of fairness, of equality, and of basic dignity.

In the greatest Nation on Earth and the leader of the free world, women are paid 80 cents for every dollar paid to men--80 cents for every dollar. That disparity is starker yet for women of color. Black women are paid 61 cents on the dollar. Latina women are paid just 53 cents on the dollar. Alabama, my home State, has the fourth biggest gender wage gap of any State in the country. That is just inexcusable.

Those cents add up to real money, about $10,000 on average for every woman working a full-time year-round job. That is a total of about $900 million lost each year for American women--every single year, a total of $900 million. That is real money, and that is increasing.

This gap persists regardless of education status and across different jobs, opportunities, and industries. It persists despite laudable efforts here in Congress over the past 50 years to start chipping away at this problem.

Most importantly, these lost wages impact women's ability to pay their rent or mortgages, to save for their children's college tuition, or to pay off existing debt. Think about this. This disparity can have lifelong consequences for the quality of life of women and their families.

Fortunately, there are steps we can take that have already had tremendous support.

I want to bring this home a little bit because we were looking at some statistics recently. If you factor in the fact that women are making so much less--a total of $900 million; think about this--this is not just a matter of discrimination. It is a matter of economics. According to a 2015 Center for American Progress report, 42 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners for their families in 2015, bringing in at least--at least--half of their family's incomes. Black and Latina mothers are more likely to be the breadwinners than White mothers. In fact, 70.7 percent of Black mothers and 40.5 percent of Latina mothers were the primary or sole breadwinners in 2015, compared with 37.4 percent of White mothers.

Not all of those women are going to be the subject of pay discrimination. We know that. But the fact is that there is likely to be a huge percentage. If there is $900 million, that is a pretty big percentage. By equalizing the pay for men and women--equal pay for equal work, which we all talk about but which in theory and in practice just doesn't happen--we can raise the standard of living for families across this country, and we can raise the standard of living for families in a State like Alabama, where it is desperately needed.

These disparities, as I said, can have lifelong consequences for the quality of life of women and their families. Fortunately, there are steps that have already been taken.

Just yesterday, I was proud to join my colleague Senator Murray and a host of others--in fact, I think it is almost all Democrats in the Senate, all Democrats in the House, and one Republican in the House--to reintroduce the Paycheck Fairness Act, a modest, commonsense solution to the problem of pay inequity which persists despite the existence of Federal and State equal pay laws.

Introduction of the Paycheck Fairness Act also just so happened to fall on the day after the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The group who introduced this bill yesterday was joined here in Washington by Ms. Ledbetter herself.

Lilly Ledbetter, from Alabama, is a great friend of mine and a native Alabamian. She was born in Jacksonville, AL, about an hour and a half hour from where I grew up, just outside of Birmingham, in Fairfield. She married her husband Charles after graduating from high school, and they had two children, Vicky and Phillip.

After almost 20 years working at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant in Gadsden, AL, just as she was nearing retirement, Ms. Ledbetter learned she was making thousands of dollars a year less than the men in her same position. She decided to take some action. She sued to try to get her backpay and to try to end that discrimination. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the Court found that her claims were time-barred because she hadn't filed a lawsuit 180 days from the day of her first paycheck, 20 years earlier, even though she was totally unaware of the discrimination that existed for that 20-year period.

Because of her fight--which, again, she took all the way to the Supreme

Court of the United States--Congress ultimately passed in 2009 the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restarts the 180-day clock every time a discriminatory paycheck is issued.

Now, for the 12th time, Congress has introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act, which ensures robust protection against sex-based pay discrimination. This vital legislation has been introduced in every single congressional session since 1997. It is absolutely inexcusable that versions of this very commonsense bill have had to be introduced 12 times and that it has yet to become law.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would require employers to prove that disparities in pay are job-related and necessary and not based on sex. It would make it illegal to retaliate against workers for discussing their wages.

It doesn't require employers to make wages public, unlike all of us who work for the government. It doesn't require that. It doesn't make them public, but it does make it illegal to retaliate against workers who simply discuss how much money they are making.

It would amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963 so that wronged workers can participate in class-action lawsuits challenging systemic--systemic-- pay discrimination. It would also prohibit employers from relying on salary history in determining future pay so that pay discrimination doesn't follow women from job to job. Finally, this legislation would help businesses to facilitate equal pay practices.

Earlier this month, a historic number of women were sworn in to the 116th Congress--a historic number. Women are increasingly the primary breadwinner or the cobreadwinner in their families. Statistics are showing that every year those numbers increase. They cannot afford to get shortchanged.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was an essential step forward in the fight for equal pay. I am proud, as we commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to once again be a cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which will continue the fight started by my friend Ms. Ledbetter more than 20 years ago and provide employees and employers--employees and employers--with new tools to battle pay gaps and pay discrimination.

Yesterday, Ms. Ledbetter came by to visit the office, as she always does. She comes by to see me. We were talking about this. My wife Louise was there, and we were having a discussion about how she was doing and how the bill 10 years ago affected her and so many others, and she made a really interesting statement.

She said: You know, I really don't want to be here, Senator.

Actually, she called me Doug. That is what she does, and she should.

She said: I don't want to be here. I shouldn't have to be here. I shouldn't have to come up to the Congress of the United States every year simply to advocate for equal pay for women who are doing the same job as the men. I would prefer to be home, back in Alabama, playing with the family and the grandkids. I don't need to be here.

It really struck me: Why are we doing this every year? What could be the possible reason?

Then, this morning, I was doing a media call with some folks back in Alabama, and I was asked about this. There was a recent editorial in one of our media and in our newspapers. As is it always with all of the comments online, which these days I just refuse to read because they get so crazy, there were so many that talked about the fact that this is just fake news--that women really aren't treated differently and that their pay is not below. I couldn't believe it. Every statistic shows that.

My response to that is, also, this: If that is the case, then no one should be afraid of this bill. If every business is treating their women employees as fair as their men, they shouldn't worry about this. They should encourage it, because we know there will be some out there that are not doing it.

So if this is fake news, all the better. Let's pass this bill. Let's make sure we have in law the opportunity for women to get those equal wages.

I have a daughter who is getting into the workforce after getting a Ph.D. She deserves the same pay as the Ph.D.s with similar experience wherever she ends up in colleges or universities.

I have two granddaughters, Ever and Ollie, whom I want to grow up in a world where they don't have to worry about this, where they don't have to come to Congress in 30 years or 40 years--just like Ms. Lily Ledbetter has to do each year--to advocate for women and their rights, to make sure their families are taken care of in the same manner as their male counterparts' families.

It is the least we can do for the women in our country who work so hard, who represent the backbone of the American way with their families, who raise their children, who work hard and do all of those things we need to be proud of. It is the least we can do to simply say: The Congress of the United States acknowledges you, we appreciate you, and we want to make sure you are treated fairly.

I would urge all of my colleagues--particularly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--to get behind this legislation, and let's get this passed this year so that we don't have to worry about it again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is a bittersweet day. I am assuming we are going to vote along with this deal--as I am--to reopen this government, to end the 35-day-old hostage crisis, and that truly is the best way to describe it.

It is a bittersweet day. It is sweet because our dedicated and committed Federal workers and contractors will be going back to work. It is bitter because, as I think everyone in this body who has spoken today has said, it should never have happened. I believe we have an obligation to those folks to do a better job, to make it even sweeter.

Last week, Congress passed the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, which would require that all impacted Federal employees receive compensation for wages lost during the government shutdown--35 days' worth of government wages paid back.

While that is an important step, the shutdown has forced many of our Federal workers to incur additional costs associated with loans, late bill payments, and other effects of their missing paychecks--paychecks they depended on for their daily living.

That is why today, along with Senators Baldwin, Cardin, Hirono, Van Hollen, Kaine, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Warner, and Wyden, I have introduced the Back Pay Fairness Act. If the Federal Government can charge you interest for being late on your taxes, then we should be paying interest to those employees from whom we have borrowed hard-earned dollars over the last 35 days. That is only fair.

I am requesting in this bill that all interest be paid to the Federal workers whose paychecks were withheld. The more than 5,500 Federal workers in Alabama did not ask for this shutdown and should not be punished for it. It is only fair that the government pay them back with interest for putting them out of work indefinitely or forcing them to work without pay.

Federal law often recognizes the importance of timely payments when it benefits the Federal Government. When it is the government's money, we demand that people pay on time. For example, if you don't pay your taxes on time, you can count on a notice letter from the Internal Revenue Service--at least when they are open--demanding that you pay interest, interest for the lateness of your payments. It doesn't matter when it is. If you go past a certain date, they tack on a penalty on top of that--not just interest.

Well, when the Federal Government owes its Federal workers money, it is only reasonable, responsible, and fair that interest accrues as well. The interest rate in this legislation would be equivalent to the rate that Federal Agencies must pay vendors when they are late. The rate, known as the Treasury prompt payment rate, is currently 3.625 percent.

Again, it is only fair. As David Cox, the American Federation of Government Employees' National President said:

Federal workers are experiencing serious financial hardship

from the shutdown. When it ends, employees will not only have

to pay more than a month's worth of overdue bills, they will

also have to pay late fees and penalties, overdraft fees and

interest charges.

The AFGE supports the Back Pay Fairness Act with interest. Again, it is only the right thing to do.

This shutdown, which has lasted for 35 days, could have been avoided. The deal we got today is going to reopen the government through February 15, and it will go to a conference. We are going to do what the Presiding Officer said to do the other day: Do what we do. I heard his remarks a few minutes ago, and I absolutely agree with them.

This government functions best when this body does what the Founders of the Constitution said we should do: Go to regular order; go to conference.

As Senator Bennet said on the floor yesterday, our Founders contemplated the fact that we are going to have disagreements. That is why we have 100 people here. That is why there are 435. That is why there are nine members of the Supreme Court. We are going to have disagreements, but we don't have to shut down the government over those disagreements, especially when they are political disagreements and not truly substantive disagreements.

This shutdown has had many costs, some that we will never be able to quantify. Some of the losses from the President's misguided shutdown we just can't put a cost on, and it is unfortunate that a while back, back in December, the President of the United States said that he wanted to shut down this government; he would own this shutdown.

It is unfortunate that we had 35 days for which he really didn't take that responsibility, and he still didn't do it today. But the fact is, he could have avoided it.

We have more than a million contractors. Senator Warner and others were talking about the contractors that have millions of dollars--tens of millions of dollars--of contracts with the Federal Government, many of those in my State of Alabama.

I was in Huntsville, AL, today for the groundbreaking of a Blue Origin plant that is going to build the engines for some of the new, manned spacecraft that the United States will send into orbit. At a time when we were shutting down the U.S. Government, China was putting a spacecraft on the dark side of the Moon. We should be so embarrassed about that. NASA is such an important part of Alabama and our history in this country for what we can accomplish and for what we can do that is good--the leaders in the country--and while we were shut down and those poor NASA employees laid off and the contractors dealing with NASA, China--China--was jumping ahead.

Well, I was so proud today when we started and we broke ground, because we are going to reclaim that right. We are going to get this government open, and we are going to reclaim America's role in space and technology and the human imagination that will take us beyond our borders here, beyond where we are.

I visited a number of folks in Huntsville this past weekend and heard firsthand their stories of families, and it was heartbreaking. Members of our Coast Guard missed paychecks. For the first time in our Nation's history,

members of our Armed Forces were not paid due to a government shutdown. The Coast Guard has boats next to the Navy in places all around the world. The Coast Guard defends this country just like the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Merchant Marines; yet they didn't get paid. They also do other work. They do wonderful work in disaster relief. They do wonderful work around the country in rescue operations.

Members of the Coast Guard missed their paychecks, and I talked to members of the Coast Guard to hear their stories about how their men and women were suffering. We should be ashamed of that.

It is not just the Coast Guard. Yesterday I took five dozen doughnuts to the TSA workers at the airport in Birmingham. You would have thought it was Christmas, they were so happy. In airports yesterday and today, those TSA agents say: Thank you for doing what you can do. We are here. We are working. That is why they deserve not only their paychecks, but they deserve it with interest.

The S&P estimated the economic cost of this shutdown was $7.1 billion. We have been arguing over 5.7, and it has already cost this country 7.1. Bloomberg said businesses with contractors tied to the Federal Government would lose a cumulative $200 million a day. The chamber of commerce says small government contractors have lost more than $2.3 billion in revenue so far. The administration has admitted economic growth this quarter will likely be zero because of the shutdown.

Payments to farmers hurt by the President's tariffs were delayed because the Department of Agriculture was closed. Now think about that. Farmers in Alabama and elsewhere got a double whammy. They got hurt because of the tariffs and the fact that China started retaliating and dried up their markets, and soybean farmers couldn't send their crops anywhere. So the President, in something I supported, even though it was a bandaid, decided they would give these farmers $12 billion in relief. Farmers don't like bailouts. These are hard-working, conservative folks who don't like bailouts. They don't want handouts; they wanted their markets back. Then, with this shutdown, half of that money couldn't be disbursed. At a time when those farmers were trying to get their loans in order and were trying to get ready for spring planting, they couldn't get any money from the Department of Agriculture. That is shameful. That is shameful.

The tariff exclusion request for businesses has not been processed, all the while our Commerce Secretary was saying he just couldn't understand why people had to go to food banks. He should be ashamed. We should all be ashamed that a representative of the U.S. Government would say such a thing, when it was the administration that caused the shutdown.

When the economy slows and there is less money to spend in our communities, hiring slows or stops and wages can decline, leaving our communities even more vulnerable. That is something that hasn't been talked about enough here; that is, in the last 35 days, the security of the United States, not just on the southern border but the entire United States has been at risk because of this government shutdown-- cyber security threats from Russia, China, North Korea, you name it. While we may have a crisis on the border--and there are many who might dispute that it is a crisis on our southern border as opposed to chaos. Everyone understands there is chaos. Everyone understands our border is not as secure as it should be. There are things we can do to secure that border, and they should be done to secure that border.

Everybody--there is no one in this body who says they are for open borders. Last year, when the President nominated an individual who used to work with Customs and Border Patrol to be head of ICE, I asked him, in his entire career, has he ever heard of anyone who was in the public sector who was for open borders. He said: No, sir. It was an important question because we hear so much, and we see so many allegations coming from the other side that we are all for open borders. That is not true. We want to make sure we have secure borders.

Let me tell you something, folks. I also want to have a heart. I want to make sure the United States is the moral leader of the world. There are people coming across, and they are fleeing violence, destruction, and their families are being put in danger in their home countries. We at least can try to figure out a way to help them; that we don't gas children on the border; that we don't separate families and put little children in jail; and that we don't charge people $11 for a tube of toothpaste in what amounts to a private prison; that we at least can recognize that we have an element of humanity about us; that when people flee and seek refuge in the United States of America, they do so for a reason. It is because we don't have to make this America great again. We are great. That is why they are coming here, to get away. We have to make sure we understand and recognize that.

What I want to see is that good-faith effort. What I have said from the very beginning is, that good faith the President talked about today, I want to make sure--I wanted to open this government in December. We are doing today essentially what this body did on December 19--35 days ago, 37 days ago.

We voted unanimously to keep this government open and let people talk about the border security; let folks talk about whether we have a threat of a national security emergency. That is what we do, as Senator Alexander said on the floor earlier. I agree with him, and I agree with Senator Murkowski and Senator Warner and all those who spoke before me whom I heard.

Senator Alexander said that two things went wrong in December; one, we should never have a shutdown as an option. Our Federal workers should never be held hostage. Yes, people have said this is a hostage crisis because that is what it was. Those poor workers have been held hostage, and now we have a threat again. If we don't do something in 3 weeks, they will do it again. The sad thing is, unlike a hostage crisis that you might see on television on the news or on television in TV shows, it is the same hostages every time. Every time this government shuts down, it is the same hostages who are taken, and we cannot let that happen.

Senator Alexander said the other thing that we didn't do is we didn't do what we were supposed to do. We didn't have that regular order. We saw all of the political fights play out on TV between this side or the other side, and we didn't get back to what this body does best, why I came to this body, why I am so proud to be a part of this body, why I am so proud to be here with Senator Patrick Leahy, who was in the U.S. Senate when I was just a staffer for Senator Heflin. We need to be doing those things for the American people and for the people in my State. That is what we need to be doing.

As I listened to the President today, I appreciated the fact that he is signing this bill that I think will pass both Houses. I feel confident it will. As I listened to him today, I am thinking to myself: Mr. President, you talk about good faith, and you want people to have good-faith dialogue. They will in this body, but good faith is a two- way street--a two-way street. It is not just one side or the other, but it is a two-way street. I worry sometimes that the President of the United States doesn't always do that.

We saw last year, when we had a bill for $25 billion that he decided he didn't like, after he initially said it was one of the areas he wanted to do. We saw it in December, when this body came to the floor and passed unanimously a measure to keep the government open, that I know would not have come to this floor by Senator McConnell had the President not indicated he would sign it and changed in 24 hours. So good faith, Mr. President, is a two-way street.

I am willing to do that. I have always said that. I heard a lot of people on both sides of this aisle who are ready, willing, and able to try to do the things we need to do to secure our borders, but we have to have good faith coming out of the administration as well.

We have to make sure the administration takes care of those families who are trying to get away; that we will look to maybe try to provide some help to those countries so they can stem the tide of that violence and try to do some things to move these asylum seekers along and not just build

walls to stop them. Let's be humanitarians as well as security agents. We can do that. That is not inconsistent with the American way. That is not inconsistent at all.

I appreciate the time on the floor today. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this compromise to open this government back up. Importantly, I urge my colleagues and in the House--let's not give these Federal workers just their backpay, as we passed before, let's do what is right. If we mean what we say about how we appreciate our Federal workers, if we mean what we say when we call and say how patriotic they are, let's do to them what the government would do otherwise. Let's give them the interest on these 35 days of backpay. Then we will truly fulfill our obligations as best we can.

Importantly, let's not let this happen again. For God's sake, do our duty. Let's not let this happen again in 3 weeks and go through this process once more. Let's get to work. Let's knuckle down. Let's secure the borders, but let's also let this crisis within our borders that has been created over the last 35 days end forever. Let that crisis go away and never come back.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say how much I appreciate my colleagues on the floor--particularly, Senator Bennet's comments--and the passion that everyone has shown for the people in this country and why we are here for the people that we represent, whether they voted for us or not. That is not the issue. We are here to represent all the people, and I really appreciate those incredible words from my colleagues and, particularly, the passion shown by Senator Bennet.

I am rising today to give my voice to the thousands of Alabamians who are also suffering as a result of this government shutdown. It is not just the folks who are employed but those who are affected by this shutdown by whatever means necessary.

There are people who are not employed by the government who are also affected. In the midst of all the political posturing that we have seen, the costly government shutdown has hurt over 5,100 Alabama workers, their families, and the people who rely on them to do their job. Thousands more are contractors who will not get backpay. Unlike the Federal workers, who traditionally get backpay, these contractors who are not working now because there is no work to be had with the Federal Government will not get backpay from their employers.

Our Coast Guard employees, who aren't paid through the Department of Defense budget that passed last year, don't know whether their paycheck will come or not. By the way, it is the Coast Guard who is interdicting so much of the illegal drugs that are attempting to come into this country. It is not the southern border. It is the Coast Guard, which we are putting at risk, that is doing the best job of interdicting the illegal drugs that are attempting to come into this country.

These folks pay the price of this shutdown while this political drama that we have seen in Washington, DC, drags on and on--on cable TV, on Twitter, and on other social media platforms. These folks are hard- working Alabamians who keep our airports safe. They protect our communities. They monitor our prisons.

We have three Federal prisons in Alabama. Three of the workers in the Aliceville prison were on CNN today talking about the effects on them and their community in Aliceville, AL. These are people who support our national defense, like folks in Redstone Arsenal and at all of the military bases in our State. They support the aerospace programs in our State. These are the folks who are getting hurt. Many of these people are veterans who have gone on to serve their country a second time by working in Federal service.

Most of these folks support strong border security. I venture to guess that all of them support strong border security. Some will support the wall, as the President has described it, but they don't agree with--they don't support--shutting down the Government of the United States of America in a way to just get that wall or that border security done. They do not support that at the expense of their communities and their families.

Over the past 18 days or so since this shutdown, I have heard from any number of my constituents. They call the office here in Washington, and they call the offices in Huntsville, in Mobile, in Birmingham, and in Montgomery. They talk about how they are hurting already because of the shutdown.

One constituent who wrote to me is a small business owner in North Alabama, near Huntsville, whose 30-plus employees have provided very important, continuous support for NASA programs for the past 7 years. As their work gets delayed or stopped altogether, these folks don't know whether they are going to have jobs. If their work stops, those employees are going to need jobs, and they are going to start looking for other jobs. In the economy that we have now, in which unemployment is low, people are looking for workers, and they are going to find those jobs. So his business may get shut down.

There is a military spouse who also works for the Federal Government whose husband is deployed to Afghanistan right now. She also wrote to me and urged an end to this shutdown. She said that while she supports the wall, she doesn't believe that Federal employees should be used as bargaining chips just to get it done. She said that a lapse in funding would be devastating for her job and that her family needs the paychecks to cover these bills. This is a family that is already living under stress with its having a husband and father in Afghanistan. This family doesn't need the extra stress.

On behalf of her family of four in Smiths Station, AL, another mother wrote to me about her family's lapse in healthcare coverage since the shutdown because the employees at a Federal health insurance agency, GEHA, have been furloughed. Her family's change in coverage was never fully processed by the end of the year. So it lapsed and was canceled as of December 31. The family members are now facing important medical decisions--appointments, prescriptions, refills in the next few weeks-- but don't know if they are going to have the insurance to cover it.

The administration announced today that the deadline for farmers to receive their subsidies, because of the administration's trade policies, will be extended, which all sounds really great. It sounds all good and well. We are going to extend it. We are going to put a bandaid on this for our farmers. These farmers have been hit hard by the trade war that this administration has started, which I have talked about on the floor of the Senate on any number of occasions and around my State.

To ease that pain, a few months ago the administration decided to allocate $12 billion as almost a bailout. Now, these farmers really don't want these handouts. They want their markets. Yet, to ease their pain, to its credit, the administration came up with $12 billion to ease that pain. Less than half of that amount--roughly, about $5.2 billion in payments--was made before the Department of Agriculture's local offices were closed. While extending that deadline sounds very good and is, simply, putting a bandaid over the wound, the fact is that until we get this government open, farmers who did not get their payments in before this shutdown are going to have a problem.

Another problem with the shutdown is that they can't depend on the Federal Government any more than they can depend on the weather. These farmers are at risk every season, every year, of things that are out of their control. What they don't need is a government that they cannot depend on, and that is what we have right now. They are out of luck at a time at which they need it the most, as they are starting to plan for their spring planting and summer planting--their loans, their crops, buying the seed--as Senator Bennet talked about a few moments ago.

There is one constituent who wrote me a really heartbreaking letter about the impact of losing her SNAP benefits after January 31 if the shutdown continues. She is living on a razor's edge financially and depends on Social Security disability benefits and SNAP dollars to survive. It is not a lot of money on a monthly basis. It is such a small amount of money that folks in this body and folks in the House and, certainly, the folks in the administration wouldn't think twice about it. It is probably less than they spend at Starbucks every morning, but, for her, it is an incredibly important part of her life, and we have to make sure that we do everything not to let her down.

I did see, just before I came over here, that the administration has said that we are going to extend it. We are going to make sure that SNAP benefits are paid in February. Again, that is great and sounds wonderful, but it is a bandaid. Sooner or later, if we don't end up doing something about this shutdown, that bandaid is going to be ripped off, and these folks are going to be left in the cold once again.

We need to remember--and I think this gets lost sometimes in the talk about this shutdown--that this is not just about the paychecks and the direct benefits that people in this country receive from the Federal Government. It also affects all of those people in our communities who serve those who work for the government--those who take in their grocery money and take in their utility money and take in their gas money. It is going to affect those people. It is going to affect car dealers, and it is going to affect local businesses. It is just like the folks at the prison in Aliceville said today, which is that sooner or later, if they don't have money to spend around Aliceville, it is going to affect that community. This touches so many people in this country that we need not lose sight of that.

The letters and calls and voice mails are pouring in every day as this shutdown continues. More and more Americans face the increasing consequences of the impasse that we see here in Washington, DC. There is, simply put, no excuse for it. We can and must do better. We can and must find the common ground that so many of us talk about. Every day, over and over, we talk about finding common ground, but we have to practice what we preach in terms of finding that common ground.

This past year, I talked to a number of my constituents back home who had gone through a number of issues. I talked to a lot of people who asked me to support the wall. They stopped me over the holidays, and I would always stop and talk to them. They were always very respectful, unlike with some things that happen in our political discourse today. These people were always very respectful, and we had nice conversations. When I asked them what they were talking about, they said that I needed to vote for a wall.

They said: We just need border security, Senator. We need border security.

This gave me the opportunity to say: I completely agree.

Unfortunately, the so-called ``wall'' that we keep hearing about, primarily on Twitter, has really become just a metaphor to support a secure border. To oppose it is to oppose a secure border. That makes no sense. What is getting lost in this debate is that every Member of this body wants secure borders. Every Member of this body and every Member of the House wants border security measures that will keep our communities safe. We might have disagreements about the best way to make sure our borders are secure, and we might have disagreements on what border security will look like, but it doesn't mean that we want open borders as I keep hearing from the administration. That is a preposterous statement.

In fact, in the last Congress, we had one of the President's nominees before us for the head of ICE. He used to work on the border. He was there. He controlled it. He was the head of border security.

I asked him in the hearing: Have you ever heard one politician--have you ever heard anybody in Washington, DC--say that he is for open borders?

He said: No, sir, not at all.

We have to get away from that political posturing so that we can find the common ground that is necessary to move this forward. The fact of the matter is that we have found common ground. We have found that common ground right here in this body.

Last February, in the midst of bipartisan talks on more comprehensive immigration reform, a number of senior administration officials came to the Senate and briefed Members on the situation at the border. They outlined how an infusion of money in the context of a larger piece of legislation could improve security and conditions for asylum seekers and on the border. In the wake of that presentation--if I recall correctly, they proposed a $25 billion price tag for border security-- Republicans and Democrats alike, which was a majority of the U.S. Senate, voted to include that $25 billion in border security funding over the next decade. That was a bipartisan effort.

Over the course of the last spring and early summer, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee--led by my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and by Senator Leahy, the ranking member--passed a bipartisan Homeland Security funding bill by a vote of 25 to 5. It did that in June of this year. It included $1.6 billion in border security funding, which was on top of the $1.3 billion, I think, that was funded last year. What has started this whole process today is the administration's demand of a blank check of $5.6 billion for a wall as the price to reopen the government. That is, simply, not how our government should work.

Now, candidly and in all fairness, in recent days, we have gone from an argument that was just, simply, about dollars and cents on both sides of the aisle--5.6 versus 1.6 or 1.3--to where we have now seen the administration begin to slowly roll out how it would actually spend that money. There was no plan in the beginning. It was just ``send us $5.6 billion.'' We are learning about that plan via Twitter and on the TV talk shows, not the way this body is used to getting information from the administration--through a budget process or through some proposal about which you can ask questions and can vet.

If the administration is serious about border security--and it should be serious about border security, just like the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives of the United States should be serious about border security--we should reopen the rest of the government. Officials should also come back to the Hill, like they did in February, and brief Members of both parties in Congress about what is needed and of exactly the new border security money and how it will be spent.

This week, the House has been voting on a series--or will be voting on a series--of funding bills that the Senate has already passed, many by a vote of 92 to 6. Think about that. As I travel around the State, I tell people all the time what I saw last year--my first year--which is that there is so much more bipartisanship in this body that you don't see just by watching C-SPAN and listening to dueling press conferences. There is a lot of it that goes on, and we passed those bills by 92 to 6.

These bills will ensure that the Federal employees and contractors can go back to work and can get paid, that food assistance and housing vouchers can go forward, that vital research can be done, that our parks and museums can reopen, that our airports are safe, and that our prisons are monitored. Instead of handing political appointees a 10- percent raise, it will ensure that we will pay the Coast Guard, whose members continue to serve throughout this shutdown without knowing if their next paychecks are going to come.

I am literally sad to say--and I really hope people will take this into account, especially the folks who have been here for a long time-- that in my first year here, my first year in the Senate, this is the third government shutdown that we have seen. We should be embarrassed about that, and the administration should be embarrassed about that. At every opportunity, I have voted to keep the government open. I can't say that I would do it every time, because it will depend on the circumstances, but, thus far, I have done all I can to keep this government open.

The American people are frustrated and disheartened by the dysfunction and empty rhetoric that they hear out of this town, but we have to remember that the Senate of the United States has done its job and done so in a deliberative and bipartisan way. No one on either side of the political aisle should lose sight of that.

We came together and found common ground, and we should insist that the President of the United States not only acknowledge that but honor that, get this government up and running, and let's sit down to continue to discuss the plans for the border security that we all know is necessary and we would like.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me also thank my colleagues from Tennessee and Delaware.

I will tell you I wasn't here when that letter circulated; however, if you want to do an addendum, you have my permission to add my name to that letter because it is that important. I appreciate so much your comments.

I have been here almost 1 year now. What I have seen is, it is often so easy, in our polarized political climate we have, that when issues we have faced like today come up, people go to their corners and it is the proverbial line in the sand and everybody wants to talk at each other and not to each other.

So I appreciate very much Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer, who worked with my colleagues Senator Flake and Senator Corker in trying to make sure a motion to proceed is simply a motion to proceed to talk, to have those dialogues, so we can go about the business of government as we leave for the holidays at some point.

I believe what has happened here late this afternoon is an important step, and it is especially an important step going into the next Congress to tell folks who are coming in and those of us who are coming back that we want to make sure we were put here to get something done, not just retreat to our corners.

I thank everyone who was involved late this afternoon trying to make sure this agreement was reached. I am anxious for our leaders to proceed so we can go about the business of running this United States and that we can go into these holidays with the assurance we will come back to do things for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to talk on two issues.

First, I would like to talk about the criminal justice reform act that Senator Durbin just spoke of. Rather than repeating all that has been said and all of the positive things--and Senator Durbin did an outstanding job outlining all of the issues and how important this bill is for the criminal justice system and for the American public--I would like to take a moment just to commend my colleagues--particularly Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley, Senator Lee, Senator Booker, colleagues in the House of Representatives, and those at the White House who worked so tirelessly over the years to achieve this result. This is a remarkable achievement for the people of this country.

I have worked, as most people in this body know, for a number of years as both a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer. In that capacity, I have seen firsthand the problems in a system of justice that seems to have gotten out of whack and that has incarcerated so many people--more than just about any civilized country in the world--and yields very little results.

So what I see is an effort of Republicans and Democrats coming together. When I ran for this office last year, I talked consistently about a country and the State of Alabama that had more in common than we have to divide us. I talked more about reaching across the aisle and having dialogues, instead of monologues. This bill is the perfect example of that, and I hope the people of America see what this bill does and see how this body and the House of Representatives and the administration came together to pass this historic legislation.

This is a historic moment, Madam President. This is one for the ages, there is no question. Sometimes it is so disappointing to go back home to Alabama and hear people say: ``All I want you to do is work together.''

All they see are dueling press conferences among the leaders and dueling talk shows on Sunday mornings and on CNN and MSNBC and FOX News, and they think that all we do is stand here and fight each other. That is not the case. We have done some great things in the Senate since I have been here on January 3. Our appropriations process has been rolling on a bipartisan level. We passed the opioid crisis bill. We also have the farm bill done. Now, with criminal justice--it is the crowning achievement on what has been, over the years, one of the most contentious issues in America. Every year, I used to say that the system of justice in America that was damaged the most in election was our criminal justice system because it seemed that everybody wanted to demagogue it today. That is no longer the case in what has been done in this body, the House, and with the support of the White House.

I want to commend all of those who have been involved in this over the years before I got here, both in and out of government. I worked for a number of years with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU-- particularly the law enforcement leaders--to reduce crime and incarceration. We put in countless hours, and this is the culmination of a number of years of work. They should be commended for all they did.

(Mr. MORAN assumed the Chair.)

Remembering Giles Perkins

Mr. President, I want to talk about a matter that is a lot more personal. The last couple of weeks have been somewhat difficult for me on a very personal level. Not only have I been saddened that several of my colleagues whom I admire so much will be leaving this body, but 2 weeks ago, I lost a dear friend and trusted adviser, Giles Perkins of Birmingham, AL.

I so appreciate the fact that the day after his death, when I just could not hold up and hold it together to do so myself, Senator Schumer noted his passing in floor remarks. Giles' family appreciates those remarks as well, but because he meant so much to his adopted State of Alabama and the Birmingham community and the fact that he is the one who guided the effort to elect me to this office, it is only fitting that I honor his memory on the floor of the Senate.

Giles was a former director of the Alabama Democratic Party and someone who worked for the last two Alabama Democratic Governors. Originally from Texas, he came to Alabama after marrying the love of his life, Hillery Head, in the early 1990s. Together, they have three children: Barton, Hugh, and Beverly. For all that he did in life and all that he accomplished, which was quite a lot, Giles was first and foremost a husband and father, a family man whose greatest love and source of pride were his wife and children.

When he arrived in Alabama, he immediately began to get involved in the community and in politics. He got involved in the Folsom campaign for Governor, telling people that he simply wanted to make a difference. Over the next 25 years, he did just that. What a difference he made.

While Giles was actively involved in numerous civic groups and projects, his greatest accomplishment was turning a few blighted blocks of real estate in the heart of the city of Birmingham into a stunning outdoor recreational area known as Railroad Park, which has not only provided a space for family enjoyment but spurred economic development and became a catalyst for revitalization in downtown Birmingham.

Giles was an outstanding lawyer and community organizer, but he had politics in his blood, and he learned the ins and outs of the shark infested waters of Alabama politics like no other.

It was Giles whom I first approached about running for a statewide office because I knew he shared my frustration with the state of politics and government in the State of Alabama. It was Giles and Doug Turner who sat me down to explain about running for the U.S. Senate-- where my heart has always been, having worked here just out of law school--why it was important to run for that office; why, given my background as a U.S. attorney and as a lawyer known for civil rights work, the special election would be so important. It was also Giles who brought in Joe Trippi, everyone else on my campaign team, and helped me staff my Senate office.

But rather than calling him a political mentor, which just doesn't seem to capture all that he was, I often referred to him as ``Yoda,'' a political Jedi master, because of his vision and intuition for politics and how politics should translate into public service. He was certainly a master in teaching those around him how they could be wise in the ways of the force of politics. His strategy for my campaign and my Senate office and tenure was molded out of a vision of how Alabama and the South can move beyond the issues that have divided us and how we can lead the Nation in coming together and healing the partisan divide.

Many think that my election was his greatest political achievement, but knowing him as I did, he would more likely say that it was not the election per se but the reaction that the election gave to so many people in Alabama and around the country who simply said that it gave them hope. That hope for a better Alabama, for a better South, and for a better America was his No. 1 priority.

He was brilliant, philosophical, tenacious, stubborn, funny, and so straightforward that you thought he was sometimes just a little bit mean--a trait you often have to have in order to have a successful campaign.

The absolutely remarkable thing about Giles, though, was that he managed my campaign on a daily basis--all of the calls, emails, and all of the meetings knowing he was living on borrowed time. At the time we began the campaign, he was a 2 year survivor of

pancreatic cancer, an aggressive form of cancer that takes no prisoners. Through it all, he suffered through a number of treatments, often texting or emailing orders or streams of consciousness while being hooked up to chemotherapy.

When asked why he was doing all of this under the strain and pain of his cancer and his treatments, he matter of factly said: ``Because I want to show my children what is important and how to live.'' I am confident that his children got that, as did I and everyone else associated with our campaign.

Giles lost his battle on December 2, having survived for 3\1/2\ years after being told he only had 1 month to live. In the world of pancreatic cancer, a 3\1/2\-year survivor is remarkable in itself, but Giles Perkins was a remarkable human who made such a positive impact on all who knew him.

As a friend recently wrote me, ``It is because of unsung heroes such as Giles that democracy is sustained in America'' and that we are ``grateful for his commitment and life's work to maintaining integrity in government.''

I know this: When the history of Alabama and the politics of my State and the region are written, it will be Giles Perkins who will be credited for beginning a political change that will be felt for a long, long time.

On a personal level, he will never leave my heart and soul.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I made at Giles' memorial last Friday be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Albert B. Head, a native of Troy, AL. Al has done a great deal for the southeast and the country. His work has been particularly impactful in my home State of Alabama, and I would like to touch on just a few of his accomplishments today.

Al earned his undergraduate degree from Troy State University, majoring in art history and aesthetics, was a star quarterback on Troy State's 1968 NAIA national championship football team, and received his master of liberal arts with a concentration on southern literature from Auburn University at Montgomery.

In 1972, Al joined the Fine Arts Council of Florida and subsequently received a National Endowment for the Arts fellowship to attend Harvard's Arts Administration Institute in 1974. He served as executive director at the Stephen Foster Folklife Center and the Louisiana Division of the Arts before becoming executive director of the Alabama State Council on the Arts, a position he has held with distinction since 1985.

For more than 40 years as a director of three different cultural agencies and as a national arts leader, Al has advocated for the importance of the arts and the necessity of providing State support for the arts. He is the only State arts director to start folk arts programs in three States--Florida, Louisiana, and Alabama--and he has strived to show how important the folk and traditional arts are to defining and giving life to a community.

Al served two terms on the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies board and in 1998 received the Gary Young Award from that organization for his leadership and achievements in promoting the arts nationally. Al has also served as a member of the South Arts board for 38 years, presiding as its chair from 1983-85.

Al established the Alabama Center for Traditional Culture as a division of the Alabama Council on the Arts dedicated to research and presentation of the State's cultural traditions. In 1999, he received the Alumnus of the Year Award from Troy University National Alumni Association and in 2008 received the Distinguished Leadership Award created by Troy University to recognize an alumnus who has rendered outstanding service to the university and the public.

In 2012, he received the National Heritage Fellowship Bess Lomax Hawes Award from the National Endowment for the Arts recognizing his significant contributions to the preservation and awareness of cultural heritage.

Al has developed a reputation as one of the foremost arts agency directors in the Nation, has led the Alabama State Council on the Arts through a period of tremendous growth and accomplishment and has served as a mentor and champion for arts organizations and artists across the State of

Alabama. He will be celebrated in Montgomery on December 6, 2018, and I want to add my voice to the many others thanking him for his work.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague and friend, Senator Klobuchar, for those sober words. As former prosecutors, we share a lot of the same bonds and knowledge, and we come to this in different ways sometimes than our colleagues. She expressed so many sentiments that I am going to try--and not as eloquently as she--to express today. So I say thank you for those comments.

I come to the floor today both as a new Member of this body and as a longtime admirer and student of the Senate to offer my perspective on the situation in which this distinguished body finds itself today.

I am deeply disappointed and concerned by the process, the posturing, and the partisanship that have degraded what should be one of the most serious, deliberate, and thoughtful decisions we in the Senate are entrusted to make.

Over the course of my almost 40-year career as a trial lawyer, I have represented just about every kind of client you can imagine, from the indigent to the CEO, major corporations and small business owners, individuals charged with serious crimes and those charged with petty offenses. I have also had the incredible honor of serving in the Department of Justice and representing the United States of America. Every one of my clients and every one of those who were on the other side of the litigation in which I was engaged expected and deserved fair, impartial treatment in our courts, and rightly so. But from the moment Justice Kennedy

announced his retirement, the conversation about his replacement seems to have rarely been about fairness and impartiality; instead, it has been about power and politics.

This Supreme Court nomination almost immediately turned into a divisive political campaign, with millions of dollars being spent to sway Senators on both sides of the aisle, including me. In his partisan-fueled tirade last week, Judge Kavanaugh lashed out at the so- called liberal groups who spent so much money attacking his nomination, but he never acknowledged and others in this body have never acknowledged that conservative groups have spent a like amount of money, if not more, promoting Judge Kavanaugh.

I want to make my position clear today. I think that this kind of political campaign for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States--a political campaign run by either political party--should be condemned as completely contrary to the independence of the judicial branch of our government.

Throughout this nomination process, I have repeatedly expressed my concerns about the way it has been conducted. It was flawed from the beginning, and it will be incomplete at the end because of a needless rush to a confirmation. From the beginning, I have done my best, the best that I know how, in my experience, to exercise my constitutional duty--my duty of advice and consent--in a fair and impartial manner, putting aside the political considerations that were being thrown at me from every angle.

You know, I have often said in the last few months that it seems that for those who supported Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, if I voted to oppose, I would be seen as nothing but a puppet for my party. On the other hand, for those people who opposed Judge Kavanaugh, if I were to vote for Judge Kavanaugh, I would be seen as bending to a political way to try to get reelected in a conservative State. Neither of those is true.

My staff and I have dedicated an incredible amount of time almost every single day since July 10 to reading Judge Kavanaugh's opinions, his speeches, and his articles; reviewing documents at the time he worked at the White House--at least those documents we were able to get ahold of; watching his Senate hearing testimony and his television appearances; meeting with my constituents and advocates; and reading statements and emails both in support of and in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh. This was all done in a very serious effort to give thoughtful and fair consideration to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination without regard to party or politics.

The one thing I did not get a chance to do was to meet with Judge Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh and the White House called my office a couple of times early on in the process to try to get a meeting with me, and I told them at that time or my staff told them that my process was to listen and to read, to understand and do my deep dive into his record and to know all that I can know about him. As a lawyer, I wanted to watch that hearing. I wanted to see what would occur at the hearing and how he would present himself, the questions that he answered and the questions he avoided, so that when I did meet with him following that hearing, it would be meaningful. It would not be a meet-and-greet, like so many of us have in this body, but a meaningful meeting.

As soon as Chairman Grassley called for the hearing shortly after Labor Day, as soon as that was called in August, my staff started calling the White House to get a meeting. We were told that they would still want a meeting, but we continued to get rebuffed. We never got that meeting. We continued to call after the hearing, and we continued to call at least until the time that Dr. Ford's allegations were made public, and at that point, we knew a meeting was probably not likely to happen.

So for all of those detractors who say that I didn't try to get a meeting and that I didn't have the time, I did my best to follow the process of deliberation that I felt appropriate in my due process to make that meeting meaningful, and it never happened, through no fault of mine or my staff.

After all that, we find ourselves in this moment of historical significance, where we as a body have an opportunity to send a loud and clear message to women and men throughout this country.

As I previously have said, I believe Dr. Ford made an incredibly brave decision to come forward publicly and to testify to the full Senate Judiciary Committee. It was hard to do, knowing how she would be vilified. As a former prosecutor, I know how hard it is for victims to talk about these experiences, particularly in cases of sexual assault.

I have been moved by the many reports of thousands of women who have felt compelled by recent events to reveal similar stories that they have buried for many years, some for decades. In the last few weeks, women have shared with me intensely painful and personal descriptions of assaults, some of whom I have known for a period of time but never knew what they were carrying within them.

Many of these happened so many years ago--high school, college, as young professionals. Often, they hadn't told anyone, not even their closest friends and loved ones. Their experiences, while different in detail, have so many similarities. Their feelings of fear and shame and guilt were overwhelming at the time of their encounters. Those emotions exert a powerful hold on these women's lives. Even if they go on to find professional success and fulfilling relationships, it is still buried within them, and they don't speak up because they do not want to be known as victims or they don't want others to have to bear their pain, knowing that nothing can undo what happened to them.

In last week's public hearing, I found Dr. Ford to be a compelling and credible witness. Yes, there were gaps in her testimony. There always are. There are always gaps and lapses of certain memories in situations like these. Those who have worked with victims of assault know that the most traumatic details are seared into their memories, while extraneous facts may fade over time. Reactions of the women, when they see their perpetrators, are different, depending on the circumstances, but they never forget the pain. They never forget the pain of what happened to them, but rather than relive it or face condemnation or retribution, they simply keep it to themselves and go on day after day after day.

If you watched our President this past week at his political rallies, you can understand exactly why these women are afraid to speak out. I am actually appalled at the President's attacks on Dr. Blasey Ford just days after he called her a credible witness--just days after so many in this body called her a credible and compelling witness. His message was simply this: Keep quiet. Nothing happened here. Don't ruin this man's life. Let's continue to stoke the political fires surrounding his nomination.

We have heard time and again that victims must be heard--time and again. So often have we heard that in the last 2 weeks, that victims must be heard, but the message from the President of the United States and those who have surrounded him is, yes, let them be heard. Just don't listen. Just don't listen to them.

Unfortunately, that message isn't new. The President used his platform to try to intimidate survivors into staying quiet and hiding their pain from the world, but I think he is going to find that while he is focused on stirring up his political base with misogynistic comments, women around this country are rising up, and they are gaining their strength. They are finding their foothold. They are finding their voices in an effort to expose what for far too long has been swept under the carpet.

Regardless of the vote tomorrow, we cannot and will not ignore where we are in this moment of history. This is a movement that will not be quieted, nor should it be quieted.

For Judge Kavanaugh's part, I was very disappointed in his testimony last week. If the incident did not happen, then I understand full well his frustration and his anger. I get it. Any man would be. It is understandable. Both he and Dr. Ford have endured the ugliness of our society. But, in my view, he simply went too far by leveling unnecessary and inappropriate partisan attacks and accusations, demonstrating a temperament that is unbecoming a sitting judge, much less a Supreme

Court nominee. His testimony ran completely counter to the image he attempted to portray in his earlier hearing, in all of his interviews on television, and in the photo opportunities with the various Senators.

In addition--and this was incredibly important to me because I had watched it for some time--in simply refusing to acknowledge the need for further investigation, for a further review of his record, as Senator Klobuchar discussed a few moments ago, by failing to acknowledge the need for further review and investigation into these allegations, he demonstrated anything but the independence necessary for our judiciary. Instead, he has bowed to the White House and to the majority of the Judiciary Committee to plow through this nomination process without a full review of his record and without a full, fair, and complete investigation into the very serious and credible allegations made by Dr. Blasey Ford.

I am certainly not alone in my views. It is not just people in the Democratic Party or Senators on my side of the aisle. At last count, I saw that there are some 3,000 law professors, about 40 of which are at Yale Law School, from which Judge Kavanaugh graduated. Those law professors have called for his nomination to be either withdrawn or rejected. Religious organizations, including the editors of the Jesuit Review, have done the same. I am told that just this morning, the American Bar Association--the gold standard of review for judicial nominations--has notified the Judiciary Committee that they are reopening their evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh's character and fitness based on what they witnessed in the testimony last week. That is a significant development that just occurred this morning shortly before our vote to proceed.

Even before the recent serious allegations of sexual assault, I called for a pause so that we could get the documents that are needed, including those that Chairman Grassley himself had requested. The National Archives reported that due to the volume, even producing those documents on a rolling basis would not take place until sometime this month, in October. Well, it is October now, and although we don't have those documents, we have had two hearings and now are scheduled to vote on confirmation tomorrow. Many of those documents that could have been produced for review were withheld after being screened by a lawyer representing a number of people under investigation or at least witnesses in the investigation by Special Counsel Mueller, which raises serious questions as to what documents we got, which ones were being held, and why they were being held.

Despite the lack of documents, the Judiciary Committee forged ahead and conducted its hearings. Before a vote was taken, Dr. Blasey Ford courageously came forward with her very serious allegations regarding a sexual assault that occurred when she and Judge Kavanaugh were in high school. Again, not for the first time, I and others called for a pause to allow for further investigation, to update the background check that every nominee goes through. That call was rebuffed for some period of time.

Finally, faced with mounting public pressure, the Judiciary Committee agreed to a second hearing. Both the committee and the White House subsequently rejected any additional background investigation to be conducted by the FBI. As it turned out, my colleague Senator Flake felt compelled to call for such an investigation on the morning of the vote, which delayed the confirmation process for another week.

While I am certainly grateful and glad that the chairman and the majority leader and the President agreed to delay the vote in order to allow for an FBI investigation, I believe the investigation was far too limited to have any real use, especially since no further hearings would ever be held.

In my career of almost 40 years as a lawyer, I have examined many FBI reports, and I have examined many background checks. In my review of what was submitted as a result of Senator Flake's request, the FBI was simply not allowed to do what it does best, which is to follow the evidence and the leads. In this case, we put the proverbial cart before the horse. The investigation should have taken place before the hearing so that the Senators on the Judiciary Committee could have had the benefit of all the information they needed when questioning witnesses and evaluating credibility, which is where this is coming down.

I believe that in cases like this, the witnesses should be compelled by subpoena--not just Dr. Ford, not just Judge Kavanaugh, but other witnesses who are named should have been compelled by subpoena, if necessary, to give testimony, whether in the public hearing or by deposition--procedures that have been invoked by this body on many occasions.

This leads me to another more procedural point. Many of those who want to press forward with this nomination have been invoking the presumption of innocence, and I understand that. The presumption of innocence, however, is afforded to those in this country in our criminal justice system. It is afforded to those who are accused of criminal activity, and it requires the government to prove, to rebut that presumption. In other words, that presumption stands between someone accused of a crime and their going to prison and having their liberty taken away from them.

They have now said that the presumption of innocence should be applied to judicial nominations. But the presumption applies in a court before we can deprive someone of their liberty, incarcerate them. It is not necessarily applicable when we are simply looking to provide someone with a lifetime appointment to the judiciary. The presumption of innocence for a nominee would, in effect, turn into a presumption of confirmability that I do not believe is called for in the Constitution.

I certainly would agree, however, that given the most recent circumstances, we, as a body, need to establish some type of standard, some guidelines for our nominees so that this doesn't happen again.

I would say that if we were to have anything close to the high standard of a presumption of innocence, there has to be a full and complete investigation before any hearing in order to determine whether the presumption can be overcome. It is the only way to do it.

Remember, in this instance, there are no appeals; there is no review. We get no do-overs once we make this vote. We have to take the time and put forth the necessary effort to get it right--putting forth the time, even if it means the Supreme Court operates with eight members for a period of time. That is OK. I went to the arguments just the other day, and they got along just fine, listening to the arguments that were heard that day.

The American people are understandably disgusted by the way this has been handled. They are disgusted with people on both sides of the aisle, and they were disgusted even before these allegations came to light. They have reason to doubt the integrity of our independent judiciary now more than ever, with a Supreme Court that will be so divided and appears to be so partisan. There will forever be a cloud over this nomination and this nomination process, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's vote.

Many also have reason to doubt the integrity of this body for the way this has been handled. When facing difficult decisions, I often reflect on what I learned from one of my most influential mentors, the late Senator Howell Heflin, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Judge Heflin often talked about the Supreme Court as the ``People's Court.'' Every day, he said, the Supreme Court of the United States deals with real people, their basic human rights and liberties. It has a direct impact on the daily lives of every American, and the people who serve on the Court should be held to the highest of standards before being allowed the privilege of making those weighty decisions.

I don't believe this process has led us to the person best suited to hold this position. This isn't about politics; no, it far transcends that. I have always said that I am inclined to vote for Presidential nominees, but they do not have to have that ``presumption of confirmability.'' We have serious doubts about this nominee that may never be resolved. It certainly was not resolved by the limited investigation that the Senators had to go view in bulk--one copy with 10 Senators sitting, passing it around. We have serious doubts

about this nominee. People across this country have serious doubts about this nominee. To quote the late Senator Robert Byrd:

No individual has a particular right to a Supreme Court

seat. If we are going to give the benefit of the doubt, let

us give it to the Court. Let us give it to the country.

It was my hope that this body would wind up being on the right side of history with this vote and not a political side chosen in the moment. My preference would have been for the President to send us a new, consensus nominee, much as President Reagan did many years ago when he nominated Justice Kennedy. Send us another nominee and give the Senate a second chance to act as a uniter, not a divider. It now appears, however, that we will need to find another way that we, as a body--which has been described in the past as the most deliberative body in the world; many would question that description today--must find another way to show the American people that we can uphold the lofty ideals we have ascribed to.

Tomorrow, this nomination process will have run its course, but our work for our constituents and all of those sitting in the Galleries tonight and all of those watching across this country who will see and follow this vote tomorrow--our work for our constituents will go on. Our work for this country will go on. Regardless of this vote tomorrow, it will go on, and we, as a body, have to get to a place where we look forward, not backward.

I am confident; I know in my heart that we can restore the Senate to the place it was when I worked here as a young lawyer, a place where compromise meant progress, not a lost battle. Think about that-- compromise meaning progress and not a lost battle or war. We must set aside the divisiveness, shoulder our responsibilities, and work together. We must do so for the good of this body, for the sake of the country that we all love.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that, quite frankly, I do not think gets enough attention on the floor of the Senate or on the floor of the House of Representatives, and that is the state of historically Black colleges and universities, or, as they are commonly known, HBCUs.

Alabama is home to 14 of these institutions, the most of any State in the country. With all due respect to my colleagues, we don't just have the most HBCUs. I believe we have the best.

Tuskegee University is the only HBCU with a college of veterinary medicine. The school produces over 75 percent of African-American veterinarians in the world. It has also just hired its first female university president, Dr. Lily McNair.

Alabama A&M University is the only 1890 land grant university offering four Ph.D. programs. It is also the leading producer of African Americans with Ph.Ds in physics.

Oakwood University is the Nation's fifth highest producer of undergraduate African-American applicants to our country's medical schools.

Alabama State University, whose president, my friend Dr. Quinton Ross, has joined us in the Gallery today, is home to the National Center for the Study of Civil Rights and African-American Culture. ASU is currently doing preservation work on some never-before-seen documents, such as court pleadings, bond documents, and other official papers that are connected to the Montgomery bus boycott.

Lawson State Community College was also named a Champion of Change in 2011 by then-President Barack Obama.

There are over 100 accredited HBCUs today across the country, both public and private. They are in 19 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They enroll approximately 300,000 students--80 percent of whom are African American and 70 percent of whom are from low-income families.

While HBCUs only make up 3 percent of the country's colleges and universities today, they produce nearly 20 percent of all African- American graduates. Among HBCU graduates, there are countless trailblazing Americans who have, quite literally, changed the course of our Nation's history: Dr. Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, Marian Wright Edelman, Langston Hughes, Katherine Johnson, amongst so many others.

According to the National Science Foundation, between 2002 and 2011, the top eight institutions at which African-American Ph.Ds in science and engineering earned their bachelor's degrees were all HBCUs. HBCUs annually generate $14.8 billion in economic impact and add more than 134,000 jobs for local and regional economies, and 2014 Alabama HBCU graduates can expect total earnings of $130 billion over their lifetimes.

I could go on and on with these remarkable statistics for these remarkable colleges and universities. For all of these incredible achievements, though--for every achievement I have

just named--HBCUs in Alabama and across the country are working against the strong headwinds of serious financial struggles.

The Government Accountability Office recently investigated the capital finance needs of HBCUs at the request of my colleagues Senator Patty Murray and Senator Casey, also of Congressman Bobby Scott and Congressman G.K. Butterfield. The report estimates that 46 percent of all HBCU buildings are in need of replacement or repair. This is due to deferred maintenance, the evolution of higher education and technology, and the fact that many of these buildings are State or federally registered historic places. For example, Tuskegee University is designated as a National Historic Site by Congress. That is a remarkable figure--46 percent--of all buildings in need of repair or replacement. It is one that, I hope, all of my colleagues will agree is wholly unacceptable.

This is not a surprise, though, for those who understand the challenges these institutions have long faced. HBCUs lack a plethora of revenue sources. Public HBCUs rely heavily on State and Federal grants, appropriations, and bonds. Private HBCUs have to rely on private or alumni giving and tuition and fees. On top of that, the GAO found that an HBCU's average endowment is half the size of a similarly sized non- HBCU. That is half the size not of all non-HBCUs but half the size of similarly situated non-HBCUs.

None of the 90 institutions of higher education in this country with endowments greater than $1 billion is an HBCU. This results in an endless cycle for these schools that have contributed so greatly to our country and the talented students they serve. With their limited revenue resources and the discrimination they face in the bond market, it is difficult to maintain campus buildings that attract higher enrollment. Lower enrollment just leads to even less tuition and fewer fees that are collected by each institution. Thus, the cycle continues.

I didn't just come to talk about the problems our HBCUs face without offering some type of solution. I introduce today the Strengthening Minority-Serving Institutions Act, which will permanently extend and increase Federal funds to all minority-serving institutions. These Federal funds are currently set to expire after fiscal year 2019.

My bill goes beyond just supporting HBCUs and is inclusive of other minority-serving schools, like those that primarily admit Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, Native Americans, and Hispanic Americans, among others. With this legislation, we will increase mandatory funding from $255 million to $300 million for each of these institutions. They will be able to put that money to good use for infrastructure improvements, technology upgrades, and other critical needs that have gone unfulfilled.

While I had hoped we could make this a bipartisan effort, I haven't yet heard back from any of my Republican colleagues. My Republican colleagues represent a fair share of these institutions, and I hope we will still gain some support from across the aisle and move this bill through the Senate.

This bill will not solve all of the challenges HBCUs face--all of the challenges they are working so hard to overcome. Yet I submit it is a step in the right direction. More importantly, it is the right thing to do for these schools that are part of the very foundation of our higher education system in Alabama and across the country.