Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I object.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have been listening today and a few other days, I think, about Senator Gillibrand's efforts to bring up what I think is a major reform of the military justice system to the point where you won't recognize it as it is today. I hope you understand what we are being asked to do here. Senator Reed, who is the chairman of the committee, has been objecting.

Before I got here, I was a military lawyer and Active Duty in the Reserves for about 33 years. I was a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge.

What I would like to challenge this body to do is find me cases where the judge advocate has recommended prosecution in a sexual assault case in the last 8 years and the commander refused to go forward. I was in the military JAG Corps for 33 years. I can only remember one time where that was even an issue.

Previous efforts to reform the system work like the following: If the JAG recommends prosecution in a sexual assault case as defined in the last piece of legislation and they refuse to go forward, it is taken to the commander's commander. So what problem are we trying to solve here?

What we are doing in this bill is relieving the chain of command when it comes to military justice. If the commander no longer is concerned about sexual assaults in the barracks, we made a huge mistake. The heart and soul of the military justice system is to provide a fair trial to the accused, take care of victims, but give the commander the tools they need for good order and discipline.

So the idea of taking the commander out of the chain of command when it comes to terrible things like sexual assault I think is a bad idea because it is the commander's job to make sure that unit works well. Having a bunch of professional prosecutors make the decision without the commander being involved is basically relieving the commander of what is best for that unit overall.

Sexual assault is a problem in the military. It is a problem in the civilian world. It is a problem all over the place. But the military justice system is designed to bring about good order and discipline.

I can only say that the day that the commander is taken out of the responsibility for what happens in that unit is a bad day for good order and discipline and I think a bad day for that unit.

Again, the legal advice given to commanders in cases like we are talking about is almost universally followed. There have probably been more occasions where a commander will take an iffy case to court just to make the point--cases that would never probably get off first base in the civilian world.

But the people pushing this bill always talk about results and courts-martial. I think the worst thing the U.S. Senate could do is create an impression that a not-guilty verdict is unacceptable in the military. Sometimes a not-guilty verdict is the right answer to the situation presented to the court. I am beginning to doubt whether or not you can get a fair trial in the military if you are accused of one of these crimes.

When politicians attack results in the system, we are sending a pretty clear signal: If you are a court-martial panel member, we are going to be grading your homework here in the Senate, because there seems to be a bias that the only outcome must be a guilty verdict.

The truth of the matter is that a lot of women go to their graves having

been assaulted and never having reported the events to anybody. We need to make it easier for victims to come forward. On occasion, people are accused of things they didn't do, and I have been involved in many of these cases. On occasion, you will find that the accusation doesn't hold water--not sufficient to be anywhere near being beyond a reasonable doubt--and sometimes people say things that are just flat not true.

So what I worry about is that, in our effort to reform the system to solve a problem that really doesn't exist--commanders ignoring the JAGs and not prosecuting people because they like them or they have favoritism is not a problem. If you want to talk about reforming the military justice system, fine, but let's don't stand here in the U.S. Senate and say that commanders in the military routinely turn down legal advice to prosecute. They don't. That is just not true. In the military, in a general court-martial, you need three-fourths to convict.

If we are going to go down this track of talking about what an acceptable outcome should be, then I am going to start introducing legislation to change the requirement of the verdict to be unanimous. I was a prosecutor for 4\1/2\ years and a defense attorney for 2. I understand sort of the military courtroom environment.

The panel members--the members of the jury--are commissioned officers or you can request noncommissioned officers, and the accused has that right up to a certain percentage of the panel. These panels are constructed not like a civilian court; they are constructed to make sure that the jury usually comes from the officer corps, and people with the responsibility for that base are picked to serve on these juries to make sure that the base is being well run, that people receive justice who have been violated, and that those accused of a crime have a fair trial. The worst thing that can happen is when a commander seems to have favorites and the people he likes get away with almost anything and the people the commander doesn't like--well, they look for reasons to come down hard on them.

When I was a young JAG, I would go talk to commanders and first sergeants. The worst thing you can do to a unit is play favorites. Call them as you see them. You need to show up in the middle of the night in the barracks--the commander and first sergeant--when they least think you are going to come, and just let people know you are watching them. Most enlisted people are 18 to 22 years old, and it is their first time away from home.

We have made some strides that I think are good. We provide victims of sexual assault in the military with their own individual counsel. Most people don't get that in the civilian world. We are trying to train prosecutors on how to handle these cases, and I like that. Yet, if we are going to start creating a presumption here--contrary to being innocent--that there is only one right answer, then we need to start training a bunch of defense attorneys and have a specialty there. The worst thing that could happen in a military unit is for somebody to be assaulted and to be treated poorly, and nothing happens. Second to that is for somebody to be accused of something that is seen as being not legitimate. That is why you have trials. That is why you have defense attorneys. That is why you have judges. That is why you have prosecutors.

The thing that is unique about the military is that it is not a jury of your peers. The jury is made up of the officer corps on that base who has the responsibility, usually, to run the base. You can request, as an enlisted member, that part of the panel be enlisted, but they are going to be the more senior ranks on the base. They are not going to be E-3s and E-4s. They are going to be E-8s and E-9s. They are going to be the senior enlisted corps, who is responsible for good order and discipline and morale on the base. That is what is unique about the military justice system.

I found, as a defense attorney, that people look long and hard at the government's case. I will talk later on about some cases I had wherein people were accused of using drugs by urinalysis. The system was fatally flawed, and over time the military justice system got that right.

I just want Senator Reed to know that, on slowing this train down and getting the Members of this body to understand what we are talking about, I will support him more. I should be down here talking more. Like everybody else, we are busy. I promise to come down more to give my side of what we should be thinking about in terms of reform and why what is before us is not reform; it is a radical change to the military justice system based on, I think, a premise that doesn't exist.

The one thing I want you to know is there are a handful of cases a year in the Army, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy on which the commander refuses to go forward after the JAGs have recommended a court-martial in sexual assault cases. That is what we are all supposed to be worried about--that the system is biased against victims. What can we do to make it easier to report these situations? What can we do to convince people that the command is not going to turn on you if you are a victim? These are all legitimate things, but to fire the entire chain of command based on a premise that, I think, doesn't hold water would be bad and would, over time, undercut the military's ability to maintain good order and discipline and to be an effective fighting force.

Senator Reed is the chairman of the committee, and I will try to do more to help him. I respect Senator Gillibrand a lot, and she is very passionate about this. All I can say is that passion and justice have to be measured, and we have to be making decisions based on facts, not just on an outcome that we would like. When we start talking about a case wherein somebody was acquitted and as if that was the wrong result, that scares the hell out of me.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, a vote-arama is upon us. Stay hydrated. Try to keep good cheer. We are going to have lots of amendments today and kind of talk about where we differ on certain things, which will be good for the country.

What I hate the most is that we are doing a partisan COVID bill for the first time as a nation, and I don't know why because on March 5, 2020, 96 to 1, we appropriated $8 billion when we had just begun to understand what COVID was about; March 18, $355 billion, 90 to 8; March 25, $1.9 trillion.

So March 5 and 25, we spent well over $2 trillion, with the average vote 96 to 1, 90 to 8, and 96 to 0. In April we spent $355 billion by voice vote; September 30, 2020, $8 billion, 84 to 10; December 21, 2020, $1.04 trillion, 92 to 6.

So it is not like we can't work together on COVID. You had a Republican President, you had a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, and we were able to come together as a nation. But that is all over now because my Democratic colleagues have chosen to go another way because they can. They have all the power. They have the House, the Senate, and the White House.

They have chosen to do a $1.9 trillion package without any effort at all, in my view, to try to find common ground. Ninety percent of this money has got zero to do with COVID. It is a liberal wish list, and every time Senator Schumer says it is not, it makes me believe it is.

So another point for the American people: Of all the money I just described to you that we appropriated in a bipartisan fashion, we haven't spent it all yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion even though we haven't spent the earlier money.

Of the administrative actions, we have got still $200 billion left to spend. Of the legislative appropriations, we appropriated $4.1 trillion; we have got a trillion we haven't spent yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion more before we spend what we spent in the past.

The Federal Reserve set aside $5.9 trillion to help business. They have only spent $2.8 trillion, so there is a lot more capability there.

The economy is showing signs of life. The vaccine is out. Things are looking

better. It seems to me we would want to slow down and wisely spend the money not spent before we embark on a $1.9 trillion spending spree.

Most of it doesn't have much to do, if anything, with COVID. They are doing it because they can, and there will be a lot of amendments talking about better ways to spend this money.

The minimum wage has been dropped out, but here is what is in this bill: $20 million for the preservation and maintenance of Native American languages. That might be something we want to do, but we should go through the appropriations process, have hearings, not put it on a COVID bill.

And $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. It may be something we want to do, but not on a COVID bill. And $135 million for the National Endowment for Humanities. Again, the same concept. About $200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services. What has that got to do with COVID? Nothing.

PPP loans for labor unions, paid leave fund for Federal employees, an $86 billion bailout for union pensions. What has that got to do with COVID? Nothing. And $350 billion for blue States. We changed the formula under this bill--dramatically different than the one we passed 96 to 0.

So I could go on and on. Money for schools. Most of the money in this bill--$129 billion for K-12--only $6.4 billion is to be distributed this year. Most of the money is spent from 2022 to 2028. Hopefully we will get control of COVID by 2028. Again, this is an opportunity to spend money on things not related to COVID because they have the power to do so.

It is going to be a long day. We are going to be talking about reprioritizing money. We are going to try to strike provisions from this bill, money that comes from hard-working taxpayers, being spent in a way unrelated to COVID.

So stay tuned. Keep good cheer. Stay hydrated. But this is a debate worth having, and I regret very much that we could not find common ground here. To find it, you have to seek it. And this is the one area where we were doing a pretty damn good job, I thought, working together as Republicans and Democrats, spending a lot of money because there was a need out there.

Today we are going to spend a lot of money, most of it not related to COVID, and it is going to be along partisan lines. It is unfortunate, but it is the choice my Democratic colleagues made. And we are going to hold them to that choice.

With that, I yield the floor.

The Republicans yield back their time.

Mr. President, the budgetary effects of the pending amendment, 972, offered by Senator Sanders, are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary effects of the amendment. Accordingly, the amendment is extraneous. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 313(b)1(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President I would like to call up amendment No. 1369, as modified, and ask it be reported by number.

Additional Cosponsor

I ask that Senator Hagerty be added as cosponsor.

Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes, equally divided.

There was a time about a year ago when we were together, and we passed a COVID relief bill of $1.9 trillion, 96 to nothing. What happened? You all got it now.

So here is what I want you to know. That CARES formula, that bill we passed, had an allocation for State and local funding that has been changed by our Democratic friends, and the biggest winners are New York and California. So the formula they are using now, New York and California wins big. You need to check what you are doing because you are giving a lot of money to New York and California because they can do it.

This is a big State bailout. You need to check and explain to people back in your State why they need more money than you do. You are rewarding people who have closed down the economy, won't reopen, so I am asking to go back to the bipartisan formula, reject this partisan formula that rewards Democratic blue States at the expense of most everybody else in this building.

So if you don't know how your State is doing, we know how your State is doing, and you will hear about it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will try to be relatively brief here. I understand the bill is being printed now, and we will have a vote here fairly shortly.

I just want to set the stage for my view--my point of view. I think I speak for most people in our conference on what we are trying to do here.

Up until now, we have been able, as a body, to work together on COVID relief. And the question is, Why can't we do it again? I think I know the answer, but I want to remind people what we have done in a bipartisan fashion.

On March 5, 2020, when we had President Trump, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, we approved $8 billion, 96 to 1, and we were just beginning to understand the virus; March 18, a few weeks later, $355 billion, 90 to 8; March 25, $1.9 trillion, 96 to 0.

So from March 5 to March 25, we passed three bills, well over $2 trillion, 96 to 1, 90 to 8, and 96 to 0. So I would argue to the American people that it is not like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party can't work together when it comes to COVID relief.

But now that the Democrats have the House, the Senate, and the White House, there seems to be no desire to go down that road, and I will talk about that in a minute.

April 21, 2020, we did $355 billion more. That was by voice vote. Spending $355 by voice vote is pretty astonishing; $1.9 trillion, 96 to 0 is pretty astonishing. September 30, 2020, 84 to 10. December 21, just a few months ago, we spent another trillion, 92 to 6.

Why do I bring this up? I bring it up to show there is plenty of bipartisanship around COVID relief, and that bipartisanship has stopped. President Biden made a big deal about wanting to bring the country together and find common ground. In the one area that we actually had common ground, we have abandoned common ground to deal with a $1.9 trillion package just months after we authorized $1.04 trillion.

Here is the problem I think Republicans have. Of the $1.9 trillion being proposed now, about 90 percent of it has very little to do with COVID. It is a liberal wish list. The reason I know it is a liberal wish list is that Senator Schumer said 15 times yesterday--about 15 times--that it wasn't a liberal wish list. If Senator Schumer is saying it is not a liberal wish list, it is a liberal wish list. I will be able to prove that in more detail.

That is the history of bipartisanship. That bipartisanship has been destroyed. We had 10 Republicans, I think, go to the White House to offer around $700 billion that would extend checks, that would do vaccines, would do a lot of things that we think we need to still do, but that went nowhere.

Another point for the American people: We are going to a partisan approach to COVID for the first time. I went over the amount of money we have appropriated to the COVID problems the country has experienced, and here is what I want you to understand. We are going to spend $1.9 trillion in a partisan fashion. I think a lot of it is very much unrelated to COVID simply because they have the power to do it.

They now have the power of the Federal Government, complete power-- control of the Senate, control of the House, control of the White House. They have abandoned bipartisanship. We had the Presidency and the Senate; they had the House. We were able to work together. Now they have it all. They are running us over, literally, legislatively here.

I think we have made reasonable offers. Nobody is willing to compromise. They see this as a moment to do a lot of things they have been wanting to do for years that have nothing to do with COVID.

Another problem they have, in my view, is you are appropriating $1.9 trillion, most of it not related to COVID, and we haven't spent the money we have allocated in the past. So administrative actions--there is still $200 billion that we haven't spent. Legislative actions, $3.1 trillion we have spent. We have appropriated $4.1 trillion. There is still $1 trillion that hasn't been spent yet.

The Federal Reserve actions allowed $5.9 trillion to be allocated to help businesses that were failing. They spent $2.8 trillion.

The vaccine is getting out by the day. We are hopeful that we can change the course of the virus, get people back to work.

In this bill, they do a lot of things unrelated to COVID because they can. Why are we opposed to this? Because it is a lot of money that is being spent on things unrelated to COVID. We haven't spent the money we appropriated in past efforts yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion more. I think it is very unfortunate, and I hope the American people understand that this is spending money for the sake of spending money, not to combat COVID.

Let me give you some examples of what is in this bill. The minimum wage dropped out. Now is the worst possible time, I think, to go to $15-an-hour minimum wage. Just think about your own communities. How many restaurants and hotels have had to reduce or close down because of COVID restrictions? We are finally beginning to come out of it a bit. To add a $15-an-hour mandate, doubling the minimum wage, would be increasing the cost of doing business after the government at the State and local levels shut the businesses down.

So the business has been reduced in terms of revenue because of COVID restrictions, and now the Federal Government is going to mandate a doubling of the minimum wage that the business has to absorb and pass on to consumers. That is out. We can raise the minimum wage in a responsible fashion once we get COVID under control.

There was $100 million for a Silicon Valley underground rail project that didn't pass the smell test. The only reason that is out is we made a big deal about it. But they saw the COVID package as a chance to put $100 million into a Silicon Valley underground rail project, which shows you their mindset toward this bill.

This bill is not about fighting COVID. It is about a chance, in a partisan fashion, to do things they couldn't do otherwise. There was $1.5 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund regarding the Seaway International Bridge in New York. The Silicon Valley underground rail project may make sense. Senator Schumer's bridge project may make sense. We are going to do an infrastructure bill. It seems to me that we would take these infrastructure projects and put them in an infrastructure bill and try to have a COVID bill related to fighting

Mr. President.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I send a question to the desk on behalf myself, Senators Cruz, Marshall, and Cramer to counsel.

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

Mr. President, so as I understand it, some of the Senators will come in after I speak. I will talk 10 or 15 minutes, and then we will get on with the process of voting.

So, to the American people who may be watching, what is this all about? This is an effort by my Democratic colleagues, supported by President Biden, to pass $1.9 trillion in COVID relief through a budget process that requires only 50 votes. It goes around the idea of bipartisanship.

And I would say this: I think all of us would like unity. I think President Biden said all the right things in his inauguration. The question is, Are we going to do more than talk about unity?

I can understand having reconciliation used for ObamaCare or for taxes. You all did that. We did that. There are big philosophical differences. But this is the one area that there was bipartisanship up until recently. This is the

one area where the Congress has been able to work together across party lines, and that is providing relief to the American people who have been long-suffering under the COVID pandemic.

So I find it odd that if our goal is unity, we start with an issue that has been unified up until now. That is what is a bit perplexing because it is not like the Republican Party can't work with the Democratic Party to help the American people when it comes to COVID relief.

We had a Republican President, a Democratic-controlled House, and a Republican Senate for the last year. We have appropriated $4 trillion in COVID relief for the American people working together. So when there was divided government--a Republican President, a Democratic-controlled House, and a Republican-controlled Senate--we were able to achieve bipartisanship in large measure, dealing with a lot of money, because we saw the problem as something worthy of bipartisanship, necessary for bipartisanship, and COVID was affecting everybody, regardless of political persuasion.

Now we find ourselves early on in the Biden administration abandoning that model and going forward on a partisan effort to spend $1.9 trillion with one party alone without, really, input from the other party.

On March 5, 2020, we approved an $8 billion supplemental appropriation 96 to 1. In March, we were just beginning to understand the nature of the COVID problem. We shut the country down pretty much in March, and as things became more clear to us, we acted, I think, responsibly.

March 18, just a couple of weeks later, we approved, 98 to 8, a $355 billion package to help families that were affected by COVID. March 25, just about a week later, we spent $1.9 trillion in a COVID-relief package, which is a massive amount of money--one of the largest expenditures in the history of the country since World War II--96 to nothing.

So we are now talking about spending $1.9 trillion in February of 2021, and there seems to be no ability here to negotiate a package that could get another 90-plus votes because my Democratic colleagues have chosen the reconciliation route.

April 21, 2020, by voice vote, we spent $355 billion to add more money to the Paycheck Protection Act that Senator Collins and the Presiding Officer worked on to help businesses that had lost their customer base. September 30, we had $8 billion, 84 to 10. December 21, 2020, we did an omnibus bill of $1.4 trillion funding the government, and we had money for COVID in that package, about $900 billion. That passed 92 to 6. That was Christmas.

Here is what I want you to understand. We have, up to now, been able to work together to help the American people who have been suffering from COVID. We have appropriated, as I have just described, over $4 trillion, and as of this moment, $2.7 trillion has actually been allocated. So there is over $1.3 trillion that we haven't spent yet. Of the $900 billion we authorized to be spent, appropriated in December, only 20 percent of it has been spent.

So a lot of the money is yet to be spent, and now we are going to add $1.9 trillion on top of what we have done before all the money has been spent or most of it has been spent. We created a Federal Reserve program for midsize and larger businesses that had a $5.7 trillion cap on it, and we have done $2.6 trillion.

So I think people on our side really believe that we should learn more about how the money we have already appropriated is being spent and that a $15 minimum wage increase in a COVID package is a bad idea during a COVID economy, and that is what is in this package.

Most small businesses in South Carolina and throughout the country have been struggling to stay open due to lack of travel. And due to mandates at the State and local levels reducing the ability to have 100 percent occupancy in restaurants, tourism has really been hurt. The service sector has really been hurt. The food industry has really been hurt

Can you imagine the combined effect of having the government reduce your ability to earn money by restricting your business model and at the same time adding a mandate to your business of maybe increasing your wages by 50 percent, maybe 100 percent?

So this one-two punch will take out what is left of small businesses in the tourism sector and the restaurant business because what we have had to do--some people say we have done too much in restricting the ability of small businesses to earn a living, and that is having an effect on their ability to generate income. Now we are combining an increase in cost of increasing wages for every business in the country to $15 an hour over time. They can't absorb that.

A lot of us believe that is the wrong thing to do in a COVID economy. Maybe one day we can talk about a minimum wage increase when business can get back on its feet, but that is one of the reasons that you are going to find pretty much unified opposition on our side.

So I just want the American people to know, it is one thing to talk about unity, and it is another thing to seek it. And you picked the one issue that we have been able to find common ground. Why you did this, I don't know, but you have.

I appreciate President Biden sitting down with 10 Republicans who wanted to find an alternative. A lot of people believe that in this package the direct payments go to people who really are not going to spend the money because they haven't lost their jobs and are making over $150,000 or $200,000-plus as a couple and that we should target direct stimulus checks to people in the lower income areas who have suffered the most.

So there is a lot of concern about the nature of the $1.9 trillion package. Details do matter. But I will just say this: I can understand having a fight about healthcare and about taxes, but when it comes to COVID relief, we have been able, in the last year, to find bipartisanship for $4 trillion. And now we are abandoning that quest, and we are going to try to create a process--my Democratic colleagues are--to deal us all out on our side and pass a $1.9 trillion COVID package that I think in many ways misses the mark.

So to say that I am disappointed is an understatement. You have the right to do this. And during the campaign, we talked about what would happen if one party got in charge of everything. We predicted, on the Republican side, if you have a Democratic President, Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House, the liberal wish list is going to come roaring through the House and the Senate, trying to get on President Biden's desk.

To President Biden's credit, I think he ran a campaign that was more centrist, but now he has the chance, as President of the United States, to stand down this process and continue to talk with the Republicans. I think there are more than 10 who would like to find an alternative to a $1.9 trillion package that we think misses the mark and is being appropriated when we haven't spent most of the money we have already appropriated.

So this is the choice you make. This is the debate we are going to have. It is going to be a long day. It will go into the night. Let's try to keep good cheer about it. I understand that we all love the country, but these kinds of debates are important, and the choices you make as a party--we will have to accept responsibility for the choices that we all make.

And I would just urge my Democratic colleagues, this is one area where I have been relatively proud of the Congress. We have spent an enormous amount of money in a bipartisan fashion. Some of the most conservative Members of the Senate have been voting on pretty large amounts of money because, I think, generally speaking, it has been necessary. But now the vaccine is being distributed. Anything we can do to get it out faster to more people, great. Most of the money we have appropriated hasn't been spent. I would just ask that we slow down a bit.

Whatever we spend in the future needs to be more targeted. And the last thing you want to do in a COVID economy is increase the cost of doing business at a time when most businesses are barely hanging on in certain sectors of the economy.

So I look forward to working with Senator Sanders, trying to work through the amendments. This will be a long day, but, hopefully, it will be a fruitful day for the American people as you understand more about the differences that we have. And, eventually,

maybe we can find something in common.

If you asked me before the election: What are the two areas that bipartisanship would be easiest achieved, most likely to be achieved-- infrastructure, because we all have roads and bridges and ports, and COVID. So I was wrong about the COVID part, and time will tell if it matters at all.

With that, I will yield to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, Senator Sanders.

Do it by voice vote?

Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 687.

Mr. President, the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was put in place by the Trump administration after talks with Mexico about how to stem the flow of migrants from Central America who were seeking to come to the United States for economic reasons more times than not. Before the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was adopted, migrants from the Northern Triangle countries traveled to the United States, seeking to turn themselves in and claim asylum whether they had valid claims or not. They would then be released into the United States and often did not return for their court dates.

If we end the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy for asylum seekers, it will lead to a run on our border and complicate efforts to reform the immigration system. Over 50,000 asylum seekers have been waiting in Mexico rather than in the United States, where they often disappear while waiting in the 1 million-person asylum case backlog. This was an important change that the Trump administration put in place, and it is a serious mistake to reverse it.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of this amendment, Senate amendment No. 687, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know it is late, but this is important. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 56 times. If you think this makes us safe, cutting all assistance to all allies everywhere--people are fighting and dying on behalf of this country. The least we can do, if you are in the fight, make sure you can come home and not have to go back. The best way to continue endless wars is to ignore the fact that when we leave, bad things happen.

Vote on Amendment No. 441

Mr. President, I will be responding to my good friend Senator Sanders. Apparently, I will be the ranking member on Budget; he will be the chairman. And I look forward to finding some common ground where we can. Today is not that day, but hope springs eternal. There are things I think we can do on the Budget Committee that will be good for the country.

Here is the other side of the story. About a year ago--a little over a year ago--the pandemic coming out of China was detected, COVID, on the west coast of the United States. It has just done a number on us as a nation. Over 440,000 people have died from COVID-related infections. We finally got vaccines. They are in the pipeline. We need to get them out quicker, but I do believe that the vaccines are going to help us a lot.

To the American people who have been suffering, I think better days lie ahead, but we are not there yet.

But here is what is different. February 2, 2021, things changed. Up until now, we have been able, as a Congress and with the White House, to pass things together regarding COVID. We passed over $4 trillion of COVID relief in a bipartisan fashion up until today. Now, how was that done?

You had a Republican President--President Trump--working with a Democratic-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate beginning of January--I guess, March of last year. Here is what we were able to do together. Phase 1, we approved 96 to 1 the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020. It was $8 billion. That was early on last year when we really didn't know what we were dealing with.

Then, we did $355 billion, 90 to 8. Then, the next was $1.9 trillion. Listen to this: We spent $1.9 trillion, 96 to nothing. So it is not like we don't see a need to spend money. Ninety-six to nothing, this body agreed to spend $1.9 trillion last year.

After that, we did the paycheck protection enhancement of $355 billion by voice vote. It is not like people on this side don't see a need.

We had a continuing resolution where we added another $8 billion, 84 to 10.

In the omnibus, we did another $1.04 trillion, 92 to 6.

So when you add all this up, we have appropriated $4 trillion to deal with the problems associated with COVID--money for people who have been struggling, money for hospitals and doctors, money for vaccine development and distribution, direct payments, the PPP program to keep small businesses from going under that can't operate at full capacity. It has been a great program. It was bipartisan until now.

Here is what I want the American people to know: We have done a lot together, and of the $4 trillion we have appropriated, to date, we have spent $2.7 trillion.

Of the Federal Reserve actions we took allowing the Federal Reserve to help business, we had a $5.7 trillion market cap, for lack of a better term, and we have allocated $2.6 trillion.

The bottom line is, of the $900 billion that we passed recently--a little over $900 billion--we have only spent 20 percent of the money. And here we are being asked for another $1.9 trillion.

What is different between the first $1.9 trillion and this request? When it was first offered, the $1.9 trillion, it was the largest single appropriation, I think, maybe in the history of the country since World War II. And the fact that 96 Senators would come together and pass it 96 to nothing tells you about the way we saw the problem. And we have been adding and adding and adding.

Now we are to a point where the Biden administration is proposing $1.9 trillion of additional spending. We haven't spent the money we have allocated--nowhere near the money we have allocated. And you have a bipartisan group of Republicans--10--who went to the White House yesterday and said: What about a little over $600 billion? See if that is enough

I am afraid the answer is going to be no.

So what has happened here? Democratic colleagues have won the White House. And Biden is President; he won. It is a 50-50 Senate. The Vice President makes it a Democratic-controlled body, to the extent that the Vice President breaks ties. And you have a smaller majority in the House than we have had in the last 20 years. But the consequence of what I have just described is that my Democratic colleagues are now in charge of everything.

When it was divided government--when you had a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House--we were able to come together with overwhelming votes to help the American people. Now we find ourselves at a crossroads. Our Democratic colleagues are using a process called budget reconciliation that begins today that would allow them to pass the $1.9 trillion basically on a party-line vote--a simple majority, not reaching the 60-vote milestone.

The 60-vote problem was never a problem up until now because Republicans and Democrats were able to work together up until now. What changed? They have got it all. Everything we told you would happen in the election is coming true. You have one party in control of Washington, and they are seizing the moment.

What a $15-an-hour minimum wage has to do with fighting COVID, I don't know. But I do know this, now is the worst possible time to increase the cost on small businesses in South Carolina in the restaurant-hospitality industry. You are about to hit them with two government mandates that are going to put them out of business. They are all struggling.

A lot of States have reduced capability in terms of indoor dining.

Many times, my State has been the problem. I love it. That is where I want to die but no time soon.

Tim and I have a good relationship. I love Tim Scott. In 1876, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida sent two slates of electors--they had two Governors, by the way--and we didn't know what to do. Why did South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana do it? To hold the country hostage to end Reconstruction. It worked.

The Commission was 8 to 7. It did work. Nobody accepted it. The way it ended is when Hayes did a deal with these three States: You give me the electors. I will kick the Union Army out. The rest is history. It led to Jim Crow. If you are looking for historical guidance, this is not the one to pick.

If you are looking for a way to convince people there was no fraud, having a commission chosen by Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and John Roberts is not going to get you to where you want to go. It ain't gonna work. So it is not going to do any good. It is going to delay, and it gives credibility to a dark chapter of our history. That is why I am not with you, but I will fight to my death for you. You are able to object. You are not doing anything wrong. Other people have objected. I just think it is a uniquely bad idea to delay this election.

Trump and I have had a hell of a journey. I hate it being this way. Oh, my God, I hate it. From my point of view, he has been a consequential President. But today, the first thing you will see, all I can say is, count me out. Enough is enough. I tried to be helpful. But when the Wisconsin supreme court ruled 4 to 3 that they didn't violate the Constitution of Wisconsin, I agreed with the three, but I accept the four. If Al Gore can accept 5 to 4 he is not President, I can accept Wisconsin 4 to 3.

Pennsylvania went to the Second Circuit. So much for all the judges being in Trump's pocket. They said: No, you are wrong. I accept the Pennsylvania Second Circuit that Trump's lawsuit wasn't right.

Georgia, they said the secretary of state took the law in his own hands, and he changed the election laws unlawfully. A Federal judge said no. I accept the Federal judge, even though I don't agree with it.

Fraud. They say there is 66,000 people in Georgia under 18 voting. How many people believe that? I asked: Give me 10. I haven't had one. They said 8,000 felons in prison in Arizona voted. Give me 10. I haven't gotten one.

Does that say there are problems in every election? I don't buy this. Enough is enough. We got to end it.

Vice President Pence, what they are asking you to do, you won't do because you can't.

Talk about interesting times. I associate myself with Rand Paul. How many times will you hear that? The mob has done something nobody else could do to get me and Rand to agree. Rand is right. If you are a conservative, this is the most offensive concept in the world that a single person could disenfranchise 155 million people.

[T]he President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the

Senate and the House of Representatives, open all

certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person

having the greatest number of votes for President shall be

President.

Where in there does it say that Mike can say, ``I don't like the results; I want to send them back to the States; I believe there was fraud''?

To the conservatives who believe in the Constitution, now is your chance to stand up and be counted.

Originalism, count me in. It means what it says.

So Mike--Mr. Vice President, just hang in there. They said: We can count on Mike. All of us can count on the Vice President. You are going to do the right thing. You are going to do the constitutional thing. You have a son who flies F-35s. You have got a son-in-law flying F-18s. They are out there flying so we can get it right here.

There are people dying, to my good friend from Illinois, to make sure we have a chance to argue among ourselves, and when it is over, it is over. It is over.

The final thing. Joe Biden. I have traveled the world with Joe. I hoped he lost. I prayed he would lose. He won. He is the legitimate President of the United States. I cannot convince people, certain groups, by my words, but I will tell you by my actions that maybe I, above all others in this body, need to say this. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are lawfully elected and will become the President and the Vice President of the United States on January the 20th.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, I am going to move to table this amendment. Being the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, this is taking one disaster and creating 100 in its place. This $4.6 billion will destroy all the humanitarian assistance we have passed to deal with an unprecedented wave of refugees. The global health programs are all impacted severely, including PEPFAR and the child survival and maternal health programs. This money comes out of those accounts. Can you imagine how it is going to be to deal with Ebola after cutting the Global Health Program?

Programs to counter the influence of Russia and China will be zeroed out. Counter-human trafficking programs will be dramatically reduced. Counterterrorism programs are all affected by this amendment.

You are taking one problem at the border, and if you enact the Paul amendment, you will create 100 in its place.

So I move to table the Paul amendment No. 902.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will be voting in support of the resolutions of disapproval, and let me tell you why. A strategic relationship with the United States should be coveted, and the difference between a relationship and a strategic relationship is very important.

We deal with people all the time that engage in practices that we don't like, abhor, and are against. Sometimes you have to sit down and talk with Putin about Syria. Sometimes you have to sit down and talk with the Chinese, even though they imprison the Uighurs. And there are even more egregious examples of the people you have to deal with, because that is part of the world as it is. But when you have a strategic relationship--and we have had one with Saudi Arabia for years--it is different.

What brings me here today? I want the people in Saudi Arabia--I have many friends there. I value my relationships there.

I appreciate all that Saudi Arabia has done in the past to work with the United States, militarily and otherwise, but I want to be clear to my friends in Saudi Arabia--and really throughout the world--a strategic relationship has certain requirements attached to it. You don't have to run your country like the United States would have you do. You don't have to mirror the United States in terms of your values, but you do have to respect the relationship.

There are certain minimum requirements that I think come with a strategic relationship: No. 1, you cannot kill somebody in the most brutal fashion in a consulate of another country--which violates every norm known to the international community--because they wrote a bad article about you.

You cannot imprison people and torture them in the fashion that has been going on in Saudi Arabia.

You cannot hold the Prime Minister of another country captive for a period of time to bend them to your will.

You cannot rendition people that just simply oppose your views. Terrorism cannot be defined as simple dissent.

The reason I am voting with Senator Paul and others today is to send a signal to Saudi Arabia that if you act the way you are acting, there is no space for a strategic relationship. There is no amount of oil you can produce that will get me and others to give you a pass on chopping somebody up in a consulate. Did MBS do it? Yes--not because the U.N. said so but because our intelligence and my common sense lead me to believe there is no other viable alternative. You can figure this one out pretty quickly.

What happens next? It cannot be business as usual. Saudi Arabia has been a partner. They will have to be a partner in the future. Shooting rockets into Saudi Arabia from Yemen--Iran supporting the Houthi rebels--bothers me. Defensive armaments, I support, but the war in Yemen is out of control.

I am trying to deliver the strongest message I know how to deliver: Don't take this relationship for granted--and obviously you have.

It is disrespectful to the President of the United States to put him in this position. It is disrespectful to all the allies in Congress for you to put us in this position. Clearly, you don't care that much about this relationship. You care more about the critics and maintaining power at any and all cost.

Here is the deal: My relationship with Saudi Arabia is forever changed, and it will not go back to the way it used to be until Saudi Arabia changes its behavior. The leadership of Saudi Arabia has charted a course that is unsustainable. I reject. There is no amount of oil that can be produced to change my view that our values are more important than oil. We can get oil from other people, but your values come from within.

There is no amount of threat coming from Iran that is going to require me to give a pass to this brutal, barbaric behavior. More is expected of a strategic partner. Saudi Arabia doesn't protect the United States from Iran. To believe otherwise is recasting conditions on the ground.

Saudi Arabia has been a partner. I hope they can be in the future, but Saudi Arabia, through their leadership, made a tremendously bad decision, and it is just not Mr. Khashoggi. Until you change in Saudi Arabia, until you embrace the concept that the strategic relationship with the United States is important, therefore, I must respect it--I am not telling you how to run your country. I am not saying you have to be a Jeffersonian democracy. I respect the right of self-determination by all people, but I will not bless or turn a blind eye to brutality that, in my view, disqualifies a person or a country from being a strategic partner.

If this doesn't do it, what would? If we give this a pass, what is next?

We are going to stand up to the thugs in Iran. We are going to push back against China's cheating. We are going after al-Qaida, ISIS, and all the other bad actors on the planet. We are going to work with people we don't like, but when it comes to a strategic partnership, we need to put the world on notice: It comes with a minimum price, and that price is you cannot have a strategic relationship with the United States and behave in a fashion that shows no respect for human dignity, no respect for international norms.

You have lost me, and that is too bad. I have been on this floor a lot standing up for our friends in Saudi Arabia--which has not always been easy to do--but the days of treating Saudi Arabia the way I used to treat them are over.

My hope is we can find a way to restart this relationship, but it is going to require change. That is why I am voting to support these resolutions.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to compliment Senator Shaheen for doing her homework on Syria--traveling, understanding the strategic implications of losing in Syria for the United States and our allies.

In New Hampshire and South Carolina, there is not a lot of talk about Syria. It is not that people don't care; it is just that we have our plate full here at home with all of our needs in our own backyard. The thing I can tell people throughout the country: You ignore these problems at our own peril.

The wave of refugees that came out of Syria when the civil war first began is going to replicate itself--or I guess we can all sit on the sidelines and watch 3 million people be killed. I hope we don't do that.

Idlib is a province in northwestern Syria. The opposition is basically in a corner near the border with Turkey. Assad, with the help of Iran and mostly Russia, is trying to break their will and literally destroy them.

Within this group of people--about 3\1/2\ million--there are some really hardcore al-Qaida types--Al-Nusra, all kinds of names associated with the groups--but they are radical Sunni Islamists, and they would bring ISIS back roaring. We don't want them to win the day, and we sure as heck don't want Iran to control Syria.

I think it would be a huge mistake for the United States to let Assad prevail in this war, and let me tell you why: It never ends with him. Every radical Sunni Islamist group in the world will use Assad's presence in Syria as a recruiting tool. He is a proxy of Iran. Without Iran, there would be no Assad. So you create a great recruiting opportunity for radical Islam if you let Assad prevail.

On multiple occasions, our country has said Assad must go. Why? Because he is a war criminal. He has lost all legitimacy. Russia will have basically trumped the United States--no pun intended--in the backyard of the Middle East, Syria.

President Trump, to his credit, changed his decision to withdraw all forces in northeastern Syria and have a holding force with more international involvement to prevent ISIS from coming back in the Manbij area, making sure that Iran doesn't come down and take over, with Assad, that part of Syria and that Turkey doesn't come into northeastern Syria to deal with the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurdish elements of the YPG.

A small American contingent force has brought some stability to northeastern Syria. Our Kurdish allies who stepped up to the plate feel like they are in a better spot--we have to realize that Turkey has a legitimate concern about the YPG elements--but to keep everybody apart and make sure ISIS doesn't come back.

Nobody is talking about Idlib. President Trump, to his credit, did tweet on June 2--just a few weeks ago--``Hearing word that Russia, Syria and, to a lesser extent, Iran, are bombing the hell out of Idlib Province in Syria, and indiscriminately killing many innocent civilians. The World is watching this butchery. What is the purpose, what will it get you? STOP!'' Good tweet.

The only way it is going to stop is for Russia and Iran to pay a price for helping Assad. It is Russian jets with Syrian jets that are indiscriminately bombing civilians in Idlib.

If Idlib falls and these people flush out of Syria, you are going to have another wave of refugees coming to Turkey, which is saturated, and eventually Turkey is going to open up the floodgates back into Europe, and we are going to repeat this all over again.

To my European friends and allies, you have been reluctant--except the French and the British--to help us in northeastern Syria with a holding force. How many times do you have to see the same movie to understand we need to do something different?

What do you tell the European population? That we don't have the will to put a few thousand troops in Syria to make sure that we are not flooded in Europe with people fleeing for their lives? It just never ceases to amaze me how quickly we forget the lessons of the past.

As to Idlib, they have broken the agreement we had. Turkey, to its credit, has been trying to find a political solution in that part of Syria.

Senator Shaheen and I both know that the only way you end this war is through a political negotiation in Geneva. By having some American forces with our partners in northeastern Syria, we have leverage over the outcome. If we could stand Assad down in Idlib, we would have more leverage to allow the Syrian people to heal their own country.

As these attacks escalate--and they will--the President and his team, in conjunction with the civilized world, needs to come up with an Idlib plan.

What I want to do with Senator Shaheen is come up with some sanctions or some policies directed at the impending disaster called Idlib. I want us to put on the record our objection to what Russia, Iran, and Assad are doing and try to craft some consequences and actually work with the administration to stop what will be inevitable if we don't send the right signal, which will be the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, a new wave of refugees, and putting radical Sunni Islam on steroids, because they will come to the fight if you don't.

So here is your choice, to the free world: If you don't get involved in Syria and try to end this madness, radical Sunni Islam will gladly take your place, and that is not a good outcome. There is no winning in that situation. If Assad wins, we lose. If the radical Sunni Islamist al-Nusra types win, we lose.

The good news is, the best way to win is to help the Syrian people. The Syrian people don't want to be dictated anymore by Assad, which is how this all started. They are tired of living under his control. They are not radical people by nature. They are not turning to ISIS as the answer to Assad. Give them a choice. It is in our interest to be involved to some extent.

We are not the world's policemen, but we are the glue that holds the world together, and Syria can be put back together only through peace negotiations where the parties have some leverage over their adversaries. It is not just a humanitarian crisis in the making. This is going to change the balance and the power in Syria and the Mideast in a very bad way. You are going to have a never-ending conflict between Iranian proxies and radical Sunni Islamic groups in Syria unless you defang both. Doing nothing sounds good on paper, until you realize what happens when you ignore a problem.

I will end with this. On September 10, 2001, America did not have one soldier in Afghanistan, not one dime of aid to Afghanistan. We didn't even have an ambassador to Afghanistan. We just watched as the Taliban took over. They put women in soccer stadiums and killed them for sport because they wore the burka too short, and they blew up statues of Buddha. We were under the illusion, well, that is their problem, not ours. Well, it eventually became our problem because the people doing this stuff to women and religious artifacts of other cultures are compelled by God to deal with us.

If you think leaving them alone ends this conflict, you don't understand what the conflict is about. They are driven by a religious ideology that has no place for anybody in this room, our friends in Israel, or moderate Muslims. So you can deal with them now or you can deal with them later.

Assad is in a different category but is just as evil and uses the same kind of butchery. I am here to tell you--to Europe: You had better up your game when it comes to Idlib because you are going to pay a heavy price.

To the Trump administration, I really appreciate what you have done in northeastern Syria. I appreciate the tweet of the President on June 2. But we have to do more than tweet. We, in

the Senate, need to offer some assistance to the administration and our allies, and, working with Senator Shaheen, we will try to find a way to move forward. I appreciate her interests.

There is not a whole lot of upside in talking about things like this in modern American politics. But you are always going to be viewed well by history when you address a problem, when you stand up against evil, and when you try to do something about it. It may not be popular for the moment, but time will prove you right.

I thank Senator Shaheen.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for over 50 years, our Nation has preserved an annual tradition of honoring the brave men and women of law enforcement who make the ultimate sacrifice. This act of remembrance dates back to President John F. Kennedy's designation of a ``Peace Officers Memorial Day'' in 1962, which has evolved over the years to become National Police Week. Police Week now includes a weeklong celebration of our law enforcement officers and recognition for their sacrifices.

Tens of thousands from the law enforcement community have descended upon Washington this week, as they gather near the National Law Enforcement Memorial to remember their colleagues and their families. The memorial was dedicated in 1991 to honor our local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. The long gray walls are curved in a way that makes them appear to go on forever. Over 21,000 names are permanently inscribed into the marble walls as a reminder of the cost of maintaining a free, safe, and civil society.

On Wednesday, the 38th Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service was held right outside on the West Front of the Capitol. During this solemn ceremony, the names of 228 brave men and women were read in honor of their priceless contribution to their fellow citizens.

Among those being remembered this week are six from my home State of South Carolina. Sergeant Terrence Carraway of the Florence Police Department, Detective Micheal Doty of

the York County Sheriff's Office, Corporal Dale Hallman of the Saluda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy James Kirk, Jr., of the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Farrah Turner of the Florence County Sheriff's Office, and Deputy Jerry Hurd, Jr., of the Richland County Sheriff's Office will all be memorialized on those stone walls. Their names will be a perpetual reminder to future generations of the high cost of keeping South Carolinians safe. We honor them, their families, and all of the other brave men and women who died while protecting our communities.

While every officer deserves to have their story heard, I would like to call attention to Sergeant Carraway and Deputy Turner. On October 3, 2018, Florence County law enforcement executed a warrant on an individual accused of sexual assault on a child. As they arrived on scene, the officers were ambushed by the suspect's father. When the officers got out of their vehicles, the father started shooting at them. The standoff and the shooting continued for 2 long hours. Despite the danger, the officers did not retreat, but continued to fight. After all was said and done, a total of seven law enforcement personnel had been shot. Sadly, both Sergeant Carraway and Deputy Turner were mortally wounded.

I was fortunate enough to attend Sergeant Carraway's memorial service in Florence. It was a beautiful tribute to a life of service. This man was a decorated police officer, Air Force Reservist, coach, mentor, loving husband, father, and friend. Like many of those we are remembering this week, the Terrance Carraway's of the world are the foundation of America's goodness.

This is but one small example of how our law enforcement officers put themselves in harm's way for the betterment of the community on a daily basis. These officers answered a call to take a suspect off the street, and it cost them their lives. It is our duty to honor and remember their contribution and their sacrifice.

Earlier this week I introduced a resolution to commemorate National Police Week. Included are the names of 159 brave men and women who answered the call of duty, but were sadly taken from us in 2018. This resolution has unanimous, bipartisan support and honors those who have given their lives in fulfilling this noble calling. I want to thank my 99 Senate colleagues who signed on as cosponsors of this measure.

In trying to grasp the essence of National Police Week, I think President George H. W. Bush summed it up best. During the groundbreaking ceremony for the National Law Enforcement Memorial in 1989, President Bush said, ``The story to be carved on these walls is the story of America, of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy and decency and to protect a national treasure that we call the American dream.'' I am proud to echo his words today and, along with my colleagues, ensure the story of our heroes is told. I encourage all Americans to take a moment this week to reflect on how law enforcement positively affects their own community. These officers show up every day on behalf of their fellow citizens to serve and protect the American dream that President Bush spoke of nearly 30 years ago. Join me in remembering the fallen, and let us ensure their sacrifice is never forgotten.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on behalf of Senator Hollings' passing, along with my colleague Senator Scott from South Carolina.

Thank you.

Mr. President, Senator Scott and I have come to the floor today to recognize a legend in South Carolina and this body, Senator Fritz Hollings, who passed away on April 6 in Isle of Palms, SC. He was 97. He loved Isle of Palms. That was his place to be.

He was born in Charleston, SC, in 1922. He graduated from the Citadel in 1942. He attended the University of South Carolina School of Law. He served as an artillery officer in World War II, earned a Bronze Star, and finished with the rank of captain.

He was in the State house of representatives from 1949 to 1954. He became our Governor in 1958 at age 36. He shepherded South Carolina through the turbulent times of the civil rights movement. He urged the legislature to follow the law after Brown v. Board of Education.

He established the best technical college system in the country. We say that with great pride. It was Fritz Hollings who was the father of the South Carolina technical college system, which has resulted in thousands of jobs being created and educational opportunity for millions in our State.

When he was a Senator, they called him the Senator from central casting. He looked the part, he acted the part, and he sounded the part. He was the junior Senator for 36 years, I think, in South Carolina, with Senator Thurmond being the senior Senator. When Senator Thurmond retired, I was honored to be able to take his place, and Fritz was my senior Senator for 2 years.

I just want to thank him and recognize what he did for me to become established in the Senate. He was kind. He was gracious. We did not agree on policy, but he could not have been a better friend.

I spent half of my time trying to interpret what he was saying on the floor. I caught about every third word. He has this Charleston accent that even I couldn't understand at times.

Nobody enjoyed their job more than Senator Hollings. Nobody was ever better at it. When it came to South Carolina, Senator Hollings was able to move mountains. He was the chairman of the Commerce Committee and the Budget Committee.

He was one of the great environmentalists of our time. The ACE Basin in South Carolina is a beautiful place along the coast where three major rivers come together. It was Senator Hollings who established that, now and forever to be preserved. He helped establish NOAA, which has done so much for our oceans.

He was part of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act. He was always trying to keep our fiscal house in order.

He was a champion of the military. Being a World War II veteran himself, he always looked out for those in uniform. Senator Thurmond and Hollings were giants of their time, and they

really made a difference for our State and for the country as a whole.

When it comes to his distinguished career in the Senate, Fritz Hollings was at the top of anybody's list. He served for 38 years.

He was a tireless advocate for the hungry--for hunger. He was trying to combat hunger and poverty before it was cool. He traveled all over this world to try to spread the good news about America.

After Senate life, he established the Hollings Center for International Dialogue to create exchanges in dialogue between the United States and mostly Muslim populations. He was ahead of his time there. For us to win this war on terror, we have to side with people in the faith who reject radical Islam, which the overwhelming majority of people reject, and Fritz understood that.

He was a great husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. He was my friend.

He had the eighth longest tour of duty in the U.S. Senate in the history of the body. Yesterday, with Senator Scott's help, we passed a resolution unanimously--every Senator signed on--honoring the service of Senator Hollings.

There are so many friends of his in this body. The staff and former Senators all will tell you that Fritz was a force of nature. He had strong opinions. He would share them with you whether you asked him or not. He knew what he was talking about. He was prepared. He was a fighter for his causes. He was willing to die for his country. Now he has passed, and the legacy for the people of South Carolina will be enduring.

Our beaches and our oceans and our mountains and our rivers are better off for his service. Our educational system stands out on the technical school side because of his vision. He shepherded us through very turbulent times during the civil rights movement, where other States were literally on fire. South Carolina had problems, but they paled in comparison to most because of Senator Hollings' leadership.

He was a lawyer. He loved the law. He was my friend. Senator Scott is from Charleston, and both of us have a tough act to follow when it comes to being Senators in South Carolina. Senator Hollings' way was to fight for your causes, work across the aisle, know what you are talking about before you speak, and try to do it with good humor. What more can you say? From the time he was a young man in Charleston until he passed away on April 6, he was always fighting for his causes. He loved his State. He delivered for the people of South Carolina.

When it comes to the Senate, he was a legend. His presence was felt up here. His legacy is enduring. He fought the good fight. He was a faithful servant, and now he will enjoy an eternal rest. To his family, I know you are grieving, but you have much to be proud of. To the people of South Carolina, it is not about being a Republican or a Democrat in terms of service; it is about how much you love your State. No Republican and no Democrat ever loved South Carolina more than Fritz Hollings, and no Senator has ever made more of a difference than Senator Hollings.

So Senator Scott and I will do our best to keep up this good man's legacy. We will have different policy choices, and we will go down a different political path, but we will be ever mindful of the way we do our job. The way we do our job matters as much as what you do. Let it be said that when it came to doing his job, Fritz Hollings did it professionally, effectively, and with love and passion.

I now yield to Senator Scott of South Carolina.