Floor Statements

Madam President, a year ago this afternoon, I was sitting in my office in the Russell Office Building when a news report began to flash about a shooting at a high school in South Florida. I was the father at the time--in the case of one of my two older children--of a child who was still a high school student in South Florida. You would normally be interested, just in being a Senator from the State, but you would be most particularly interested as a parent. As it turns out, the incident and the shooting took place at a school that was about 50 miles--about 50 minutes--from my home, and we all know of the story and of the lives that were lost in this terrible tragedy.

On a personal level, it is clearly an issue that has affected me, first, because I am one of two Senators who represent the State. Every person who was impacted--every victim, everyone who was wounded--is a constituent of ours. Yet, as I have also pointed out, my two oldest children are the same ages as the victims. When you see the pictures and you hear the stories, you can't help but recognize the stories and the pictures, maybe just not individually. I didn't know any of the victims personally, but the stories are familiar. They are the stories of my children and their friends, who are of the same age and are at the same times in their lives.

It is impossible to fully comprehend unless you have gone through the loss of a child--by the grace of God, I have not--particularly under such tragic and traumatic circumstances. Throughout the last 12 months, as we have reached different milestones in my two daughters' lives, whether it was their proms or graduation days, or whether it was dropping off my oldest at college or attending a class ring ceremony for a junior, we have been almost reminded, for just a moment, of the parents who had expected to have been doing the same during this time of the year but have been unable.

I have learned a lot from those parents, many of whom I have gotten to know personally and have worked alongside, in the last year, on a number of issues. In the year that has passed, they have, as have the students, turned their grief into effective activism. The parents, in particular, are the ones with whom I have interacted the most here in Washington on a regular basis, and it is why I thought it appropriate to come to the floor today. I think they would say that the best way to honor the memories of the children they lost is to take actions that will work to make sure that no other parent will ever have to face this again.

Several of the parents have publicly described what happened a year ago today as the most avoidable mass murder in American history, but what was it that enabled this to happen? Why was it avoidable? What could have been done to address it?

In the brief moments that we have here--my colleague from Florida will have additional statements as well--I want to point to some of the things we now know that we didn't know a year ago today or in the days that followed.

From it, not only should that spark outrage, but it should also spark ideas about how to fix those things so never again will any parent have to face what they did and none of my colleagues will have to stand here and give a speech like the ones my colleague from Florida and I have to give today.

At the outset, let me say that the credit for much of what I am about to speak about belongs to the extraordinary journalists at the South Florida Sun Sentinel, who have done a remarkable job over the last 10 months of revealing to the public many facts that would have been unknown otherwise.

At a time when there is so much debate about journalism and its role in our society and in public service and in politics, they deserve tremendous credit for bringing this to light, and I think it is an example of why journalism remains an important institution in our country.

A lot of the attention in this debate has been paid to the issues that we are familiar with and have been debating long before this tragedy: a ban on certain weapons, universal background checks, taking on what is described as the gun lobby. These issues dominated the national media coverage, and support for these positions is not new. They predate this tragedy.

In our Republic, people most certainly have the right to advocate for this or against it. They have the right to lobby for it. They have the right to vote for candidates who support these positions and to vote against those who do not. They are valid issues to debate on public policy, but at the end of the day, neither go directly to the heart of this particular case and to the facts that led up to it.

At the heart of this is that the killer, the perpetrator of this terrible tragedy, was known to be dangerous for a long time by many people in positions of power and authority at the school district, the sheriff's office, and at the FBI, and no one did anything about it. This is now a documented fact.

Early in the days after this, we saw images of the sheriff and the superintendent lecturing people and talking about what a great job they had done, but the facts will show that it was their incompetence that allowed this to happen, and, then, even worse, they tried to cover it up.

There is an article entitled ``Schools culture of tolerance lets students like [the killer] slide,'' by Megan O'Matz and Scott Travis, reporters at the South Florida Sun Sentinel. I am going to read from it, and then I am going to introduce it into the Record. I am not going to read the whole article.

Here is how it opens:

Broward schools have grown so tolerant of misbehavior that

students like [the killer] are able to slide by for years

without strict punishment for conduct that could be criminal.

The culture of leniency allows children to engage in an

endless loop of violations and second chances, creating a

system where kids who commit the same offense for the 10th

time may be treated like it's the first. . . .

[The killer] was suspended at least 67 days over less than

a year and a half at Westglades Middle School, and his

problems continued at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. .

. .

The South Florida Sun Sentinel obtained the killer's discipline records, they reviewed discipline policies, and here is what they found:

Students can be considered first-time offenders even if

they commit the same offense year after year.

The district's claim of reforming bad behavior is

exaggerated.

Lenient discipline has an added PR benefit for the

district: lower suspensions, expulsions and arrests along

with rising graduation rates.

It goes on to say:

Many teachers and parents say Broward has created a culture

in which teachers are expressly told or subtly pressured not

to send students to the administration for punishment so a

school's image is not tarnished.

One teacher who taught for 37 years in the district before retiring said she

retired early due to her concerns about student discipline.

Here is a quote:

It was so many things. I had three students bring knives to

my classroom. One was out of the classroom for one day.

Another had so many things on his record, he was gone for

five days. None were expelled.

Part of this leniency is a program called the Promise program, which the superintendent of the district claims has a 90-percent success rate by keeping students from reoffending. That is a misleading statistic because, ``A student can commit a subsequent infraction without being considered a repeat offender as long as it's not the exact same violation, in the exact same year.

Each year they start with a clean slate.

In the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent that the rest of this article be entered into the Record.

The second article--I will be brief on this--is from the Sun Sentinel, by Scott Travis: ``Broward schools fought against 2013 plan for more security money.''

They turned down a proposal to levy $55 million in tax dollars for school safety, and one of the quotes is this:

One of the school board members slammed the proposal. They

said they'd rather ask voters for money to improve technology

and renovate old schools, which they did in November of 2014.

In hindsight, that was a terrible mistake.

There is another article from the Sun Sentinel: ``What's being done to stop another school shooting.'' Again, it is a very long article. I will just say this:

Once he decided to shoot up a school, there wasn't much to

stop [the killer].

His threats were ignored, the campus was wide open, the

school doors were unlocked and students had nowhere to hide.

What has changed after 10 months since the shooting? This was back on December 29, 2018.

At least a quarter of campuses do not have single-entry

points to control intruders. Safe spaces to protect children

in classrooms haven't been identified.

The killer wasn't welcome at that high school, by the way.

He was known by former classmates and even administrators

as a potential school shooter. And still he walked right onto

campus.

It goes on to say:

[The killer] didn't keep his homicidal urges quiet. But the

schools incompetently handled the threat he represented to

his fellow classmates and teachers.

[The killer's] lust for violence had been documented

officially 69 times in his life. At least 30 people knew of

his troubling behavior before the shooting.

In fact, I have here with me the record of those 69 discipline points. It is extensive, and I ask unanimous consent that that record be entered into the Record.

Wrapping up on this point, there is another article from the Sun Sentinel entitled ``Hide, deny, spin, threaten: How the school district tried to mask failures that led to Parkland shooting.'' It talks about efforts that were made by the school district to keep from the public the sorts of things that we are now finding out.

Finally, ``Here's what the [school district] knew about the Parkland shooter'' is another article that talks about, time and again, how this killer told people he was going to do this--not just one person, but multiple people--and nothing was in place to do anything about it.

I wrap up with a couple of points. The first is that the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission empaneled by the State looked at these shootings and from it, I think, are pretty instructive of some of the things I hope we can work on together. It looked at a 20-year period and found that 48 individuals committed 46 of these attacks, and 35 were students, and 10 were former students. So 45 of the 48 were either students or former students.

It found that the most typical weapon used was a semiautomatic pistol. It found that 50 percent of these attacks were done with weapons that were taken from the home--not even purchased, but taken from the home. It found that in four of five incidents, at least one person had some knowledge that they were going to do this, and in more than half of the cases, at least two people knew they were going to do this.

It is on the basis of these discoveries, working with many of the parents whose children lost their lives a year

ago today, that last year we pursued on a bipartisan basis and passed the STOP School Violence Act, which provides, over a 10-year period, $100 million a year for strengthening school security, providing school training to identify threats before they take action, and creating school threat assessments and crisis intervention. That has passed.

It is why this year I have reintroduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Protection Act, which will dedicate the Department of Justice funds to incentivize States to give law enforcement the authority to prevent individuals that pose a threat to themselves or others the ability to purchase or possess firearms, so that if information like what was available to authorities in Parkland is available to people now, they can actually go to court--to prove their case with due process, and take the guns away from this person before they go out and commit this crime. More importantly, they can alert their parents to secure the guns at home so they don't use that gun to commit the crime.

I have also introduced a bipartisan bill, the Threat Assessment Prevention and Safety Act. It creates a task force of experts to provide recommendations for a national strategy to keep our communities safe from targeted violence through threat assessment and management, which experts say is the best way to identify potential killers before they act.

If something like this had been in place, it is highly likely that authorities, putting all this together--what we know today--would have said this individual is a serious threat and we need to do something about it before they take action.

And, finally, yesterday, Senator Grassley and I reintroduced the EAGLES Act, which would reauthorize and expand the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center to help communities proactively mitigate threats of violence in schools.

It is my hope that this terrible tragedy and what we have learned about it will guide us and will provide us a road map of concrete steps that we can take to empower communities, schools, and police departments and parents and families with the tools they need, not just to identify people who are potentially violent but to prevent it from happening and to get out ahead of it--maybe it is a risk assessment or maybe it is institutionalized mental health or wraparound services, but anything that can be done.

I raise all of this today because if you were to speak to the families, as I know my colleague from Florida and I often do, they will tell you that the most important thing we can do to honor the memory of their children whom they lost in this terrible tragedy is to make sure it doesn't happen to anybody else.

Now, there is one more thing we would like to do to honor the victims of this tragedy. My colleague Senator Scott and I have put forth a resolution that commemorates this day. It honors the survivors. It pledges continued support for their recovery. It recognizes the strength and resiliency of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and the community that surrounds it. It expresses gratitude to the emergency medical and healthcare professionals of the community for their efforts in responding and caring for the victims and survivors. Most of all, it commemorates the victims who were killed in the attack, and it offers the Senate's heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathies to the families, loved ones, and friends of the victims.

Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 71, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize Jennie Cyran, the Polk County Teacher of the Year from Horizons Elementary School in Davenport, FL.

In receiving this award, Jennie credited her colleagues and students for her success, believing she would not be in this position if it were not for them. She considers successful teachers to be those that devote their time to building trust and relationships with their students and their families.

Jennie considers the classroom to be a student's second home, free from judgement and a place where they can embrace their mistakes as learning opportunities. She tutors her students on weekends at school or at their homes and offers parents the resources to help their children succeed in school and later in life.

Jennie has been a teacher for 13 years and enjoys working with new teachers so that they are not overwhelmed with their new jobs. She also mentors female students through the Girls of Integrity program and volunteers as a Special Olympics coach and unified partner for several sports.

I would like to thank Jennie for all her hard work to provide students with a successful learning environment. I extend my best wishes to her and look forward to hearing of her continued success in the coming years.

Madam President, today I honor Holly Mickler, the Pasco County Teacher of the Year from Pasco Middle School in Dade City,

Mr. President, it is my privilege to honor a Florida small business that exemplifies innovation and how thinking outside of the box to solve problems can create technological breakthroughs. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize a small business that embodies the unique American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my distinct privilege to honor JL Marine Systems, Inc., as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

Located in Tampa, FL, JL Marine Systems is known in fishing communities throughout the country as the manufacturer of the Power- Pole shallow water anchor. John Oliverio, the creator of the Power- Pole, has been an angler for all his life and used this experience to create a more practical approach to shallow water fishing. As a flats fisherman, he was frustrated that bringing his boat to a stop with a push pole or an anchor required him to lose sight of fish. In 1998, John devised the concept for an anchor that he could lower from anywhere, allowing him to keep his eyes on fish. Today, the Power-Pole is a premier shallow water anchor, featuring sophisticated technology for more effective shallow water fishing.

JL Marine Systems' Power-Pole technology is available in five different models, at more than 3,500 dealers, manufacturers, and retailers. These quality products have helped JL Marine Systems to build strong partnerships in the boating and fishing industries and has earned accolades at professional fishing tournaments, in magazines, and on television shows. The Power-Pole won Best New Boating Accessory at the International Convention of Allied Sportsfishing Trades in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and won awards for its electronics at the International Boatbuilders Exhibition and Conference in 2017.

JL Marine Systems' commitment to a higher standard is not only seen in their innovative products and customer service, but also in how the company gives back to its community. JL Marine Systems is a proud supporter of the Florida Aquarium, the Coastal Conservation Association, the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation, and numerous other organizations. The company also supports its community by hosting hurricane relief fundraisers and by sponsoring Tampa-area youth sports teams and high school and college fishing teams.

John Oliverio's work to develop and produce the Power-Pole shallow water anchor represents the innovation that Floridian entrepreneurs are known so well for. Through hard work and perseverance, John and his team at JL Marine Systems have revolutionized the shallow water anchor and have set an excellent example of ingenuity. I would like to congratulate John and the entire team at JL Marine Systems for being named the Senate Small Business of the Week. I wish them good luck and look forward to watching their continued growth and success.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 182 to amendment No. 112.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship's rules for the 116th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my privilege to highlight a Florida small business that displays the unique entrepreneurial spirit found across my home State of Florida. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize a small business that exemplifies ingenuity, hard work, and dedication to improving their community. Today, it is my distinct privilege to honor Haynes Security Services, Inc., of Miami, FL, as the Small Business of the Week.

Founded in 2011, Haynes Security Services has grown from a small firm focused on security consulting, to a full-service security company with 35 employees and more than $600,000 in annual revenues. It has done so in the heart of Liberty City, which has a long, proud, yet complicated, history. In recent years, Liberty City has been characterized as a community that suffers with poverty, schools that have struggled, majority single-parent households, and a declining workforce. However, history tells us that this a community that not that long ago was thriving with entrepreneurs, economic opportunity, and strong families. I think those virtues, those values, and those ambitions still remain in the heart in the soul of the people who live in Liberty City.

On February 1, 2019, I held a committee field hearing in Liberty City to have an in-depth discussion with community advocates about ways that small business policies and collaboration between Federal and city agencies can encourage economic growth and upward mobility in our more vulnerable communities. We discussed how, together, we can support an upward mobility that honors the men, women, and children who live in that community and to provide jobs in the community that support safe and affordable housing options. Small businesses are rooted in their communities, and when an owner of that business also grew up in that community, they are going to hire local citizens, and they are going to support local partnerships and organizations.

It is at the hearing that I learned of Edward ``Ed'' Haynes. Haynes Security Services is a shining example of what is possible in Liberty City and communities just like it. After spending 6 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Ed joined the Miami Shores Police Department, becoming the organization's first African-American police officer. In the early 1990s, Ed's background and expertise led him into the private security industry where he consulted before founding Haynes Security Services in 2011. Combined, Ed has more than 30 years of security experience under his belt.

As Ed's company has grown from just 1 employee to 30 officers, he ensured that it remains family-owned and operated and rooted in the Liberty City community. He relies on his wife Adriene, who is the chief financial officer, and his daughters, Chakara, who provides human resources support, and Candyce, who is in charge of the company's marketing. Ed noted the incredible responsibility in providing for 30 families, including those of his own daughters.

Today, Haynes Security Services provides a wide range of security services, including investigations, security consultations, executive protection, and electronic security solutions. Recently, the company took on larger contracts to provide security for the Miami-Dade Metrorail, large real estate development companies, as well as major events in Miami. In addition to these services, Haynes Security Services also provides private security licensing and certification training as required by the State of Florida.

In 2017, Ed and his team were named the Veteran-Owned Business of the Year by both the Small Business Administration South Florida District Office and the State of Florida. Throughout the company's history, Haynes Security Services has worked closely with the Florida Small Business Development Center, SBDC, at Florida International University. This partnership has given Ed and his team the strategic assistance and knowledge they need to pursue major contracts and secure access to capital. Ed credits the practical know-how and dedication of the SBDC consultants with much of the recent success that Haynes Security Services has experienced.

Ed's unique experience and success in the Miami community has given him a platform to give back to his neighborhood. Beginning with his time in the Marine Corps, Ed has remained committed to serving others. Today, he continues this service by mentoring young people and through motivational speaking, where he uses his story to encourage people to reach their full potential.

Companies like Haynes Security Services are a great example of the success that is possible with vision, hard work, and quality service. It is also a testament to the impact that locally owned and operated small businesses, who hire people from the community and are committed to the families who live there, can have on places like Liberty City. I would like to congratulate Ed, Adriene, Chakara, Candyce, and all of the employees at Haynes Security Services on being named Small Business of the Week. I wish you the best of luck as you grow your business and stay active in your community.

Mr. President, I come to speak about the pending amendment we are going to vote on in about 25 minutes. It is an amendment that says it is a mistake to proceed with the withdrawal from Syria in the pace and scale that is currently proposed or that the White House has announced they are going to undertake.

What I will say here today is what I said about it initially; that is, that I think it is a bad idea. I said it then, and I said it to the President in a subsequent meeting, and I think it is important to restate it here as we begin to vote, since I believe this issue is going to be covered in the press more as a political issue than as a foreign policy one.

It is unfortunate that a lot of these issues are wrapped up as political decisions. These are not votes on political decisions. These are votes on the conduct of American foreign policy, which oftentimes have no partisan lines but rather are ideological, in some cases, or just simply a different way to view an issue.

I share the White House's and the President's desire that as quickly as possible--the key words being ``as possible''--we end conflicts abroad. It is in the best interest of our Nation, our families, and the families of the service men and women who are stationed abroad and involved in conflict zones that this be the case. The problem is, if you do so in the wrong way, you end up dramatically increasing the likelihood of a future conflict that will involve even bigger wars, with an even higher investment of lives and resources to win.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East today--particularly in this region we are talking about with Syria and Iraq--is focused on two primary objectives, as clearly stated by the policymakers. The first is the regional threat of Iran, its growing influence and its spreading reach, and the other is counterterrorism. These are the two linchpins of why we are there in the first place.

The Iran threat is self-explanatory. They pose a threat to our allies in the region, particularly Israel but ultimately to the United States. The terror threat is one that reminds us how quickly we as a nation have a tendency to forget things.

Now, no one has forgotten September 11, 2001, but what we sometimes fail to remember is what made it possible in the first place. What made September 11, 2001, possible in the first place was that a terrorist organization--al-Qaida--led by Osama bin Laden, had established within Afghanistan a safe haven. Al-Qaida was not the Government of Afghanistan--that was the Taliban--but the Taliban allowed them to have a safe haven in Afghanistan, and from that safe haven, they were able to plot terrorist attacks against America and ultimately strike us here in the homeland. It was possible because they had a place that allowed them to do this.

It is, in fact, the key to any terrorist organization that would like to conduct external attacks and that would like to attack America. They have to have a place to operate from, and it cannot be a place where they are being followed, where they are being attacked, and where they are being wiped out by Americans or coalition forces. It has to be a safe haven.

My No. 1 concern about this decision that has been made is that it could lead to the reestablishment of safe havens inside of Syria from which ISIS and al-Qaida could reconstitute themselves, conduct external plotting, and ultimately attack the United States.

We already face this risk. In Northwest Syria today, there is very little sustained pressure on ISIS elements. In Idlib, there is virtually no pressure on al-Qaida. Now, imagine with even less coalition pressure being put upon them, how capable they can become and how quickly they can establish a place from which they can plot against us.

To understand why ISIS needs to plot against us and conduct spectacular attacks against Europe and the United States--this is a group that needs to prove it is still alive, and it is still strong. If they can't prove it, they

can't recruit people, and they can't raise money.

They are also in competition with other terrorist groups. In fact, ISIS is a spinoff of al-Qaida. These groups actually compete with one another for members and for resources. Both of them have a vested interest in attacking us abroad, not just in fulfillment of some ideological aims but as a means of survival because if these groups are able to conduct or inspire these kinds of attacks, it gives them credibility, they attract members and fighters, and it allows them to raise money for more attacks.

Some people will tell you: Well, let the others who are in the region take care of them--Turkey or Iran or the regime or the Russians. The problem is, none of these groups have shown any interest in fighting ISIS, not even a limited interest.

The Turks are largely interested in a buffer zone in the northern part of Syria--a buffer zone which the Kurds do not dominate because of their own internal politics. I am not claiming the Turks are fans of ISIS. I am saying ISIS is not their No. 1 priority.

Their No. 1 priority is defeating Kurdish forces and gaining control of a buffer zone in the northern part of Syria. That is what they are going to prioritize above anything and everywhere else. They are not a reliable partner, nor do they have the capability to be a reliable partner in sustaining pressure on ISIS.

Interestingly enough, if you look at what Turkey will need--even if they wanted to be a sustained partner against ISIS--it is logistical support from the United States of America. In essence, they can't even do what they are promising to do unless we are there with them to do it, but they don't want us to be there. That tells you they really just want us to leave so they can create this zone in the northern part of Syria.

The regime only cares about ISIS if they are in population areas or if ISIS is threatening critical infrastructure. If ISIS is taking ahold of an oil facility somewhere, they will care. If ISIS is in the middle of a big city, they will care. All of these other vast spaces, they don't have the resources, and frankly they don't care, as long as they don't pose a threat to the regime, they don't pose a threat to population centers they want to control, and they don't pose a threat to critical infrastructure like oil. If they are not there, they are not going to spend their limited resources.

All things being equal, they probably want to defeat them, but they don't have the wherewithal to sustain pressure on them. They have limited resources, and they are going to invest those resources in controlling population centers and in controlling critical infrastructure.

So here is the answer: If the United States and the anti-ISIS coalition are not in Syria and operating until ISIS is completely wiped out, there will be no sustained pressure on ISIS or on al-Qaida, and they will both grow back stronger, and they will have the capability to plot against the homeland and American interests around the world. That is something we cannot allow to happen. We cannot have that happen.

Some may say: Well, we can target them. We just don't have to have 1,500 or 1,800 special operators on the ground. We don't need to do that. We can do it through the air and so forth. ISIS is becoming an insurgency. An insurgency is much different than a group with a flag that controls buildings and territory. You can find those people, and you can strike them. An insurgency is people who blend into the population.

By day, they are a baker or an accountant or a merchant, but in the evenings and at night, they are an ISIS fighter planting bombs and killing people. Insurgencies are very difficult to fight and almost impossible, if not impossible, to fight with simply airpower, which is why the situation in Syria has been so positive. Two thousand American servicemen and special operators, alongside thousands of Syrian Democratic Forces and Kurds--who are primarily doing the ground fighting with our logistical support and air support--have eroded ISIS's control of territory in the country, but they have not eliminated it, and there is enough of it left that it could reconstitute itself. In fact, it is in the process of doing so already. They are clearly capable of killing American servicemen, as they did a few days ago, and since that time, there have been a series of other IED attacks inside of Syria, some of which could have killed Americans.

This is a group who has openly talked about their desire to possess chemical weapons, which they could use at any moment, potentially, against Syrian Democratic Forces and Kurds in that area--and, by the way, putting directly in danger our remaining service men and women alongside them. This remains a dangerous group capable of conducting attacks not just in Syria but potentially--especially if they have a safe haven abroad--here in the United States.

That is not to even mention a group who doesn't get talked about enough anymore--al-Qaida. Al-Qaida still exists, and there is a part of Syria in which they are completely uncontested. No one is going after them. They completely dominate the area, and they do whatever they want from there. And I promise you they are not there starting a car wash; they are there working to expand their brand and reach, to resurrect the al-Qaida brand around the world. What is the fastest way to do that? By conducting an attack against the United States and our interests. We should be worried about that alone.

The first reason why I am against this policy and why I support this amendment is that this policy directly undermines one of the two pillars of our strategy and our policy in this region, and that is counterterrorism. The second is the spread of Iranian influence. Let there be no doubt that this withdrawal as currently structured is a win--perceptually at a minimum but I believe in reality--for Iran.

Let's begin in Southern Syria, the areas that border Israel and Jordan. Our withdrawal means Iran and their pro-Iranian forces that include Hezbollah militias will now have even more operating space from which to target Israel and will now be able to set up a more reliable ground route by which they can send weaponry into Lebanon to support Hezbollah so that one day they can attack Israel from the air with rockets, precision-guided munitions, and the like.

We see it already, for example, in Natanz, where the United States still maintains a presence very near a huge refugee camp. We can already see the pro-Iran, pro-regime forces beginning to encroach closer and closer upon the American position, to the point where we may have to leave simply because we no longer have a defensive posture we can sustain. But what the withdrawal has done is it has allowed Iran and the pro-regime forces to go to our allies, to go to the groups on the ground whom we have been working with to fight ISIS and say to them ``The Americans are unreliable. The Americans are leaving. You might as well partner up with us now. We are the only ones who can protect you'' or ``You can lay down your weapons and just go back to your families because Americans are leaving.'' I fear it is working. I fear that they may dictate the pace of our withdrawal, because that announcement alone has undermined our credibility in the eyes of the partners we have worked with in Southern Syria.

What I just outlined is also true in the north, where the Kurds are facing the risk of military attack from the Turks, and they are saying: America is leaving, and the only people left whom we can partner up with to protect us are Iran and the regime and/or the Russians.

In fact, we have left them no choice but to join up with Iran and the Russians and pro-regime forces because if the choice is between annihilation by a Turkish military attack and joining up with a regime to stop a Turkish intrusion, they are joining up with a regime in Iran, further increasing Iran's power in this country.

It is not just contained within Syria; this announcement has actually accelerated the process of putting pressure on us to also get out of Iraq. All of the pro-Iran political parties inside the Iraqi Parliament are pushing very hard, very aggressively to pass a law that kicks America out of Iraq, and they are moving quickly on this. We see their tentacles in Afghanistan, where they are beginning to create internal political pressure through their

parliamentary body to force America to pick a date: Tell us when you are leaving, a date certain.

People may say: What is wrong with this? Get out of Syria. Get out of Iraq. Get out of Afghanistan. Why are we fighting other people's wars?

We are not. These are not other people's wars; these are ours. These people who are going to operate in these safe havens and Iran--we are their target. They want to strike at us. And if we are not in Afghanistan and we are not in Iraq and we are not in Syria, then from where exactly are we going to conduct operations against terrorism? From where exactly are we going to be postured to defend ourselves if Iran decides to strike our other military facilities in the region? The answer is, we won't have anyplace to do that from. We won't. Not to mention what it says to the region.

Understand this: The Iranians and our enemies in the region have been telling everyone for a long time--and the Russians echo this--``The Americans are unreliable. They always abandon their friends. You can't count on them'' or ``America is a declining power.'' That is the other argument they use openly: ``America is a great power in decline, and every year that goes by, you will see that they can't back up their words, and that is why you can't count on them. America is weakened.'' I don't believe that is true. In fact, we know that is not true. But halfway around the world, they do, and when we take actions that prove it, it makes it true in the minds of a lot of people and a lot of countries, and it actually is dangerous because it could invite someone to take a reckless and irresponsible action on the basis of miscalculation. Someone may actually believe ``America is now weak; let's attack them,'' and then we will be in a war.

The best way to prevent a war is to make sure those who want to fight you know they have no chance of winning. If you give them any belief that they have a chance to win because you have withdrawn and, as a result, reinforced the narrative being used against you, I believe you will have increased the chance of war.

This is being used against us right now. Iran is openly parroting this. They are holding this up as an example of an Iranian win. They are saying: This proves our strategy has been working. The Americans are leaving Syria. They are going to have to leave Iraq. They are going to leave Afghanistan with their tail between their legs. We are winning, and they are losing.

It reinforces a narrative, by the way, that is also used against us by the Chinese and other parts of the world.

This is a very dangerous situation. That is why this is a bad idea. This is about a lot more than just pulling out and not wasting any more money in these other places. There is no one in the world who wishes that more than I do. I wish the money, I wish the lives, I wish all of this investment had not had to be spent. I openly wonder, how much more could we be doing if we didn't have this threat? But here is the problem: Whether or not we want it to exist, the Iranian threat and the threat of terrorism exist.

We cannot deal with the world the way we want it to be; we have to deal with the world the way it is. We didn't create the terror threat, but it is there. We can ignore ISIS, we can ignore al-Qaida, and we can ignore Iran, but they will not ignore us. We can decide not to go after them, but they will come after us.

I think it is a grave mistake because if we allow al-Qaida or ISIS or both to have a resurgence, they will attack the United States of America, they will attack our allies and our interests around the world, and they will try and they will plot to attack us here at home. The Iranian influence operation and their growth and influence in Iraq and Syria and now in Lebanon and increasingly in Yemen--and God forbid, in the future, in Bahrain--pose an existential threat to all of our allies in this region--none more so than the State of Israel. That is why I support this amendment. That is why I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment.

It is important that the legislative branch and the Senate, which has a constitutional role to play in the setting of American foreign policy--they come to us to confirm people, and they come to us to fund these things--that we play our rightful role in the setting of American foreign policy. It is important that the Senate be on the right side of this issue so that we can hope to influence future actions and policies before they are taken and we can help change them once they have been taken in places headed in the wrong direction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mr. President, it is my privilege to honor a Florida small business that exemplifies what it means to provide quality service and to give back to the community when it matters the most. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize a small business that exemplifies the value of hard work and the unique American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my pleasure to recognize Carroll Bradford, Inc., of Orlando, FL, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

Carroll Bradford, Inc., is a full-service construction and landscaping company that was founded in 2010 by Stephen Barnett and Jon Menke, who were both born and raised in central Florida. Stephen and Jon are related by marriage and were driven to follow in the footsteps of their grandfathers, who were both successful small business owners in the 1940s. The company's name combines the names of each cofounder's grandfather: Stephen's grandfather, Carroll Barco, and Jon's grandfather, G.L. Bradford.

Carroll Bradford started in the Baldwin Park community in Orlando and now has expanded to Jacksonville. Through hard work and dedication, Stephen and Jon built a reputation of providing quality construction and landscaping services, being honest with their customers, and giving back to the community.

In its first 8 years, Carroll Bradford has grown exponentially, leading the company to create an app to respond to the expanding base of customers. A testament to this growth is the company's partnership with the Orlando Magic

basketball team, for which Carroll Bradford proudly serves as the Magic's ``Official Builder.'' As a result of its exceptional work, Carroll Bradford has won numerous awards and accolades, including an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and recognition from the Orlando Business Journal as a ``Fast 50'' business in 2017.

Carroll Bradford not only constructs many of the buildings and homes that form the Orlando and Jacksonville communities, but it is also dedicated to serving the people who live there. Carroll Bradford supports its community in a variety of ways, including sponsoring the Coaches and Friends Toy Drive Challenge golf tournament each December, providing meals at Orlando's Ronald McDonald House, and hosting an annual Arnold Palmer Hospital trick-or-treat event. In March of this year, Carroll Bradford will sponsor the 2019 Arnie's March Against Children's Cancer for the Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children. Additionally, the family at Carroll Bradford established the CB Foundation, which provides financial assistance to families in need.

Carroll Bradford, Inc., is an outstanding example of what it means for a small business to be more than just a workplace for a community. The team at Carroll Bradford combines a desire to provide a useful service for Floridians, while remaining committed to enhancing the community through service. I would like to congratulate Stephen, Jon, and all of the employees at Carroll Bradford, Inc., on being named the Senate Small Business of the Week. I wish you the best of luck as you continue to grow your business and serve your community.

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

Mr. President, I come to talk about the bill before us, S. 1. We have had multiple attempts to get onto this bill. I am hopeful that today will be that day.

Venezuela

Mr. President, I wanted to briefly, for just a moment, divert to a different topic on Venezuela that was in the news about an hour and a half ago. The administration announced additional measures. It has been covered in the press, largely as sanctions on the regime of Nicolas Maduro, the illegitimate usurper and head of the criminal syndicate that controls the security agencies in that country.

While it most certainly is going to hurt him, I think it is important to point out that the more accurate way to describe it is that Venezuela sends about 500 billion barrels of crude oil a day to the United States to be refined. That belongs to the Venezuelan people. What has been happening is that U.S. refineries pay for it. It is about three-quarters of the cash generated by the state-run oil company.

Then, Maduro and his cronies steal that money--not to build roads or feed people. They steal it to bribe and keep people loyal to him. If you are a high-ranking general in Venezuela, with the fancy uniforms and the stars and bars, in those pictures that you see--why are they loyal to Maduro? They are ``loyal'' to him because he keeps providing them access to corruption. One way is by pilfering and completely taking all that cash out of the state-run oil company. That ends today.

What is going to be done now is that U.S. refineries are still allowed to buy crude, but the payments, instead of being made to Maduro so he can steal it, will be set aside in an account to be used by the legitimate government of that country. If you are one of these corrupt officials who has been ``loyal'' to Maduro up until today because of the money, that is about to end, as well, and perhaps you should reevaluate your loyalty, for lack of a better term.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to address the recent events in the nation of Venezuela, but before I do, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Presiding Officer, my colleague from the great State of Florida, who a few moments ago I believe gave his speech on the floor of the Senate--and gave part of it in Spanish, and did it very well--and spoke about the important issue of Puerto Rico. His leadership here on that is going to be critical. It is an issue I know he knows very well from his time as Governor of our State.

I know this is another cause he cares about. He took leadership on it as the Governor of the State of Florida. As recently as 2 nights ago, he was with me and some others, and together we met with the President of the United States to talk about what is happening in Venezuela.

The most important answer we have to have for the American people is, Why should it matter to us? Why should America even be involved in this, beyond expressing an opinion or sending a letter or even a vote on an international organism? Why should America lead, and why should America be so intricately involved in something going on in another country?

That is always a valid question. It is the most important question we have to consistently answer and not take for granted. I think we don't do that enough anymore in American foreign policy. It has allowed some to argue that perhaps the United States gets too engaged around the world.

We are a nation that should always stand for our principles, and we should defend them and stand with those around the world who share the principles of human liberty and dignity and freedom and respect for human rights. When the United States gets deeply involved in something in another country, it must also be in our national interests.

The only reason why being involved in the issues that are going on in Venezuela can be justified to the men and women of this Nation, for whom we work, is to prove to them and argue to them and convince them that what is happening there is not just about Venezuela, but it is in the national interests of the United States.

Before I can do that, I have to lay out the history of what brings us to

this point. I will not go into great detail because the time does not permit it. Venezuela has a Constitution. In fact, it has a Constitution that was put in place during the rule of Hugo Chavez--someone whom I was certainly not a fan of and who was not a fan of the United States.

Under that Constitution, there was a parliamentary body of the National Assembly, and there was a Presidency and a supreme court. What happened a few years ago is that when Chavez died and Nicolas Maduro-- the current dictator of the country--took over, he had to stand for election. Before he stood for election, there was an election to the National Assembly. The party that was Hugo Chavez's party and now Maduro's party was trounced. They lost badly. They didn't just lose the National Assembly. They lost Governors' seats across the country.

Maduro realized that his party, and he himself, could not survive in a truly democratic system. What he did is he canceled the National Assembly. First, he started ignoring them. He stopped following their orders. They would pass a bill, and he wouldn't implement it. He would completely ignore it, as if they didn't exist.

Then, he replaced a supreme court with handpicked people who would do what he wanted to do. The equivalent would be if the President of the United States decided that no matter what law we passed, even if we overrode a veto, he just wouldn't implement it and would refuse to do it.

Then, at some point, he actually tried to create an alternative to the National Assembly. He created, out of thin air, this thing called the Constituent Assembly, which is an idea he got from the Cubans and from Communist countries, and gave them extraordinary powers to do all sorts of things.

One of the things that Constituent Assembly did is they created an election late last spring. People would say Maduro stood for election, and he won--theoretically. At least that is their argument. You can have an election and it not be a real election.

For example, every one of the media outlets in the country is controlled by the government. All of them have to run, by law--they are mandated to provide what they call network coverage across the board any time he speaks to the nation.

The opposition party doesn't have that same opportunity. He manipulated vote tallies. They were able to go in and make sure votes were counted in a certain way. They control votes through the food program. Forty-two percent of the people in Venezuela depend on a food program run by the government. To have that food program, you have to have an identification card. When you go vote, that same identification card doesn't just register whether you voted or not, they know whom you voted for. They know whom you voted for.

If you didn't show up to vote and you didn't vote for whom they wanted you to vote, meaning Maduro, you got cut off from your food program. If you had to choose between voting for someone you didn't like or not feeding your family, you were going to vote for someone you did not like.

Despite all that, the turnouts were abysmally low. The images that came out--there were two people in line, in some cases. Sometimes they caught the same five people making the line over and over again. It wasn't a real election.

By the way, he legally disqualified every credible opponent he could have possibly had. Because it was a fake election, the opposition boycotted it. So he didn't even have real opposition.

He won this fake election. Then came January, and he tried to be sworn in. He was, through a ceremony, but it was not legitimate. It would be the same as if the President of the United States announced that he was calling new elections, not in 2020; we are going to have them in April of this year. If he wins, he will get to serve 6 years instead of 4.

Everybody here would say that is not the Constitution. It is not a constitutional election. That is what they did. It is not a reelection. Under the Constitution of Venezuela, because that was not legitimate, you have a vacancy in the Office of the Presidency.

Under the Constitution of Venezuela, similar to ours, when there is a vacancy in the Presidency--and by virtue of that the Vice Presidency because he was elected alongside--the President of the country becomes the equivalent of our Speaker of the House, the same line of succession we have here. He becomes the President of the National Assembly.

The President of the National Assembly assumes that charge as interim President and within 45 days has to call valid constitutional elections. That is what happened yesterday. The valid President of the National Assembly called, assumed the responsibility of interim President, and now within the next 45 days he will have to schedule and call for elections.

The United States responded to that by stating the obvious. This is not constitutional. It is not legitimate. We don't recognize this fake President. We recognize your Constitution and the President whom the Constitution says is in place, this interim President.

This is not a guy who is trying to be President himself for 6 years. This is not a fight between two political parties, not some civil war like we see in other parts of the world between two competing bands. This is basically the person who has been elected, the President of the National Assembly assuming an interim position who is now a caretaker to guide the country back toward a constitutional democracy. The United States recognizes it.

It is stunning to see some of the reporting on this here and around the world; that he basically proclaimed himself the President. No, he just assumed his constitutional responsibility. The United States did something unusual in recognizing him. No. 1, it is not unusual. It is the Constitution of Venezuela; and No. 2, it was not just the United States.

We were immediately joined by 11 countries in the region. That number is now up to 16 in the Western Hemisphere--Colombia, Chili, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Honduras, Guatemala--all of them, lined up, and more, and reflected the same position the United States has taken on this issue. So did France. Apparently, so did the United Kingdom today and Albania and Kosovo and a growing number of countries. Even the European Union says Maduro is illegitimate. They have not gone as far as to recognize the interim President as the interim President, but they have said he is illegitimate, and at the National Assembly he is legitimate.

It is not unusual. It happens to be the global norm. Who disagrees with us other than Maduro? Cuba, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Egypt, apparently. What do they have in common? Think about it. These are not democracies. They have their own interests here at heart.

Some might ask: How does this guy hold on to power if he is so terrible? No. 1, he controls access to food. I can tell you, if you control access to food and medicine and you threaten people with hunger, you will have a lot of control. The other thing he has done is, he uses migration as a relief valve. It is a very Cuban regime-type tactic.

It is estimated that over 2.3 million people--basically 1 out of 12 Venezuelans--have left the country since 2015. Think about that. One- twelfth of the population has abandoned the country, leaving behind, in many cases, children on their own, leaving behind catastrophe.

The ability to drive out opponents and people for whom life has become too miserable is a relief valve. The other is just sheer oppression. They put people in jail. They kill people. People die in custody. They shoot them in the streets. That is pretty effective, too, sometimes.

The second thing that keeps them in power is the assistance of the Cuban regime. Every time I mention that, people think: You are just obsessed with Cuba. You are from Miami, Cuban American.

The Cubans, when it comes to intelligence and repression, punch way above their weight. They are experts at repression. That is what they basically assist them with.

Do you know the Cubans basically run the security apparatus of Venezuela? The personal security of Maduro are Cubans, which tells you a lot about how much trust he has in his countrymen. The Cubans provide them with basically all of their intelligence collection and the capacity to collect intelligence. They have trained their National Guard on crowd control.

By the way, none of this is free. These are not free services. This is a country that is poor and low on resources. The Cubans are probably pulling in $1 billion a year for these services they provide.

The other thing people keep mentioning that keeps him in power is the loyalty of military officers. I know you will see the picture of all these guys in a country, by the way, where people are starving, and every single one of these military guys is overweight. Somehow, in a starving country, these people are gaining weight. They have these fancy uniforms on.

Let me tell you, these folks are not truly loyal to Maduro. I saw that picture today. I can tell you for a fact that more than half of the people in that picture at some point in time have expressed serious doubts about Maduro. They are really limited to what they can do right now. Why? First of all, because all of them--every one of them--is compromised. Their loyalty is not ideological, and it is not personal. It is bought. It is paid for. Every single one of them has access to lucrative corruption opportunities. Some of them have been given the opportunity to raid Venezuela's national oil company. They have made millions--hundreds of millions of dollars--by running that company into the ground. Some of them have been given the distribution of consumer goods--watches and phones and consumer articles. They give them these things and say: You guys go out and sell them in the black market in the street and take your cut.

Others have been allowed to skim off that food program I mentioned that feeds 42 percent of the people. The military officers get first dibs at some percentage of it, and they get to sell food directly for a profit. Some are participating in currency manipulation. It sounds a lot like an organized crime ring, like one of these old-style Mafia families, where one guy ran the loan-sharking racket and the other guy had the gambling and the other guy had the prostitution and the other guy did the bank heists.

That is what this is. These people are loyal because Maduro allows them corruption opportunities. They are also loyal, by the way, because the Cubans are spying on them. The Cuban intelligence agencies quickly pick up on any of these military officers who are being disloyal or expressing doubts, and those guys are arrested.

There has been a massive purge of Venezuelan military officers over the last 2 years. I am talking about dozens of high-ranking military officials, either removed from their positions or arrested and are in jail. It wasn't for corruption, believe me. It was because the Cubans caught them and reported them and were wrapped up. Everybody else was watching that and saying: It ain't going to happen to me.

That is not really loyalty. That is fear. You can see it in their eyes today. By the way, they resent the Cubans, these military officers. Imagine, for a moment, this is your country, and here comes the smaller country and their guys run everything and tell you what to do and spy on you and pit you against each other. They better be careful about expressing that resentment because the Cubans are listening, and they will report you.

Despite all of this, all is not good in the Venezuela regime. It has gotten harder and harder every day. What has happened with the sanctions that have been imposed on these individuals, they have cut off their ability to steal money and enjoy corruption, and it has cut off the ability to enjoy the money they have stolen. They can't travel. They can't buy certain things. They have to hide their money. Some have had assets seized here and abroad. That has created resentment, and that has created anger within the inner circle. All these people in the inner circle are now upset because they are not making as much money off corruption as they used to make. They start saying to themselves, maybe we have to get rid of Maduro and get a new godfather Mafia head here. Maduro finds out about it, and he eliminates them. So the circle gets smaller, which actually works to his benefit because with shrinking resources, the less mouths you have to feed with corruption, the better.

There is a real good example of it. There is a guy named Diosdado Cabello, who ostensibly is now the president of this fake constituent assembly. He happens to be a drug lord deeply involved in narcotrafficking. I guess that is his part of the corruption deal. That is his take. That is the business line he has been given. But he wants to be President. He wants to be President, not Maduro.

This guy Cabello--when Chavez was removed in a coup that lasted just a couple of days, Cabello was sworn in as President of Venezuela because there was a vacancy, using the exact same provision of the Constitution that they now claim is illegitimate. But here is Cabello, who is a drug dealer, a drug lord, a thug, but he wants to be President. He will never be elected President of Venezuela in a normal election, in a legitimate election, so what is his path to being elected and to becoming President?

First is this constituent assembly he has been put in charge of. This new thing they created outside the Constitution is so powerful that it has the power to remove Maduro today. They could remove Maduro. And this guy hears the whispers. These guys are not blind to what is happening. They can see that the country is in disarray, the economy is collapsing, and there isn't enough money for them to steal anymore, and there are people saying to him: Hey, why don't you move on this guy because this guy is never going to fix this place.

He is thinking about it, and he has thought about it, but he knows the only way he will ever be President is if he can preserve the outlines of this regime and just get rid of the godfather and declare himself the new godfather, the head of this new criminal syndicate, or he can wait until 2024 and run a rigged election--again, set up under the confines of this regime. Even if he doesn't like Maduro, it is to his benefit that he stay there until he is ready to make his move on him or until 2024, when he can run under this rigged system.

Another thing that is wrong with Venezuela is they are deeply in debt. They have serious problems. These are the things we think about. They owe China about $18 billion, which they don't have the money to pay. They owe Russia about $3 or $4 billion. Do you know how they are paying that right now? They are paying it with oil. They are sending oil to China and to Russia for pennies on the dollar. That is what they are making because they don't have cash, so they are bartering instead, paying the debts off in oil.

I know you have seen the public pronouncements. The Chinese just want to get paid. They are owed $18 billion, and they want to get paid, and they want to make sure that Maduro or whoever is in power is going to pay them the $18 billion. But the Russians want to get paid too. Neither one of them believes Maduro is a great leader or is happy with him; they just don't know what is going to come after him. They are afraid that whoever comes after him will state that the debt is not legitimate because it wasn't approved by the National Assembly. So they would rather have this guy in place unless it is going to be someone else just like him. But they are not happy.

The corruption in the national oil company is so horrifying that even the Chinese and Russians don't like it. That is how bad it is. That has to be a pretty high standard. Then there is the mismanagement. They have destroyed this company. Its production has collapsed. It is not run by oil people; it is run by generals who don't know anything about the business. They have run it into the ground, and they missed payments. Remember, they are supposed to be delivering oil for payment. They have missed deliveries to the Chinese and Russians. They are not happy about it, but what are they going to do? At least they are getting paid something.

Russia has another interest, by the way, which leads me now to why we should care about this.

First and foremost, I can make a very compelling argument, I believe, that what is happening in Venezuela is a national interest threat to the United States and even potentially a national security threat.

Let me start with this: Maduro has repeatedly and openly invited the Russians to establish both a naval and an air base in Venezuela. Basically he said: Here is the land. We will build it for you. We want to have your airplanes and naval ships stationed here.

Most of us serving here, with a few exceptions, have never served in Congress when--and many people around do not remember a time--when a foreign military, an adversary, was stationed in our own hemisphere, but that is what Maduro is inviting him to do. Why does Maduro want it? Because he thinks that acts as insurance against ever having an invasion or whatever he thinks is going to happen.

Why does Russia want it? They want it because it is leverage against us. They don't like how close we are to them in Europe with our allies in NATO, so this gives them an opportunity to have the equivalence of it in our own hemisphere.

So if you think Putin having his military stationed here is a good thing, then I suppose what is happening in Venezuela wouldn't bother you. But the enormous majority of Americans don't want Putin's military anywhere in our hemisphere, and that is precisely what will happen if Maduro remains in power. That alone is a national security threat to the United States.

There is more. In their own national territory, the Maduro regime hosts a group called the ELN, which is a terrorist narco organization. In fact, last week the ELN detonated a bomb at the police academy in Colombia and killed 20 people. Do you know where they are headquartered? Inside Venezuelan territory, and it is from there that they plot these attacks.

Do you know what else Venezuela does with the ELN from within Venezuelan territory? They help them ship cocaine to the United States of America.

I can state that both of those matters are national security interests to the United States. The first is that drugs are a threat to this country, and anyone who is helping a drug trafficking organization ship it into our country is a threat to us. So if you don't mind or don't care about cocaine being shipped to the United States in growing quantities, then I guess Maduro and Venezuela is not something that will bother you. But if you do not want to see people around who are helping drug organizations ship cocaine into the United States under the protection of a government, meaning they are giving them controlled airspace, and they are protecting the shipments into the United States and Europe--if that troubles you, then Maduro is a problem.

One of our best partners in fighting drugs in the hemisphere is Colombia, but right now, Colombia is overwhelmed. They don't have enough money to dedicate to the anti-drug cause at a time when cocaine production--the growth of coca and the production of cocaine, I should say--in Colombia is at historic levels 3 years running. Where is that cocaine headed? A lot of it is headed to our streets, and that will be on top of fentanyl, heroin, and all the other problems we have. We are going to have a cocaine crisis in this country because all that cocaine is headed here.

Colombia is out there trying to fight against it, but their resources are being drained because they have at this moment at least 1 million or 1.2 million Venezuelan migrants who have had to leave Venezuela and are now in their territory. If the United States suddenly absorbed 1 million migrants over a 12- to 18-month period, we would struggle to afford what that would entail. Imagine Colombia, whose economy is a fraction of the size of ours--that means that instead of spending money to fight drug cartels to prevent them from bringing drugs here, they have had to dedicate resources to the humanitarian cost of housing over 1 million people, and growing.

It is not just Colombia that is being compromised. Ecuador has about 170,000 Venezuelan migrants. Peru has about 250,000 Venezuelan migrants. These people are not bad. I am not criticizing the migrants. But these are not big governments. Some of these governments have budgets smaller than most of our States have. They cannot afford this, and it is threatening to collapse their public health system, which means we may not have a humanitarian catastrophe just in Venezuela; we may soon have a growing economic catastrophe in Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia--multiple countries in our hemisphere. And geography matters. It would be a terrible thing if it were happening in Africa or halfway around the world, but it would directly impact Americans and our economy and well-being because of how close it is to our country, in multiple ways.

So if you think that having a humanitarian crisis in multiple countries in our hemisphere--including countries aligned with us in the war against drugs--is a problem, then you should care about what is happening in Venezuela.

What is the road forward now? I hope people have been compelled to at least understand that this is about more than just caring about democracy. That is a big part of it. We do care, and we are proud of it. But it is a lot more than just that. This is in the national interest of the United States. We should be proud, not just of the bipartisan support in favor of the interim President and of democracy in Venezuela, we should be proud of the job the National Security Council, the White House, and the State Department have done. Unlike 25 or 30 years ago, this wasn't some unilateral American action where we went in and told everybody what to do; this is international organizations, like the OAS.

Today, the Secretary of State appeared at the OAS personally to argue the American case, and he was joined by 15 other countries that voted on a resolution agreeing with our principles on this and their principles. The leadership of these countries under the auspices of the Lima Group has been extraordinary. The United States is an equal partner to them in this endeavor.

What will probably happen now is that Maduro, instead of being the one who arrests the interim President, will turn it over to the courts to let them decide. Well, he controls the courts. They are all his cronies. They are also corrupt, by the way, sanctioned by the U.S. Government. He could very well move to try to arrest the interim President, Juan Guaido, tomorrow or the next day, although the eyes of the world are upon him, and the consequences for that would be extraordinary and severe.

They are now saying: Let's have negotiations. This is a tactic they have used repeatedly, and they use it because they all know we like negotiations. Everybody--anytime there is an international crisis, why don't we all just sit down and negotiate our way through this? Ideally, that would be the outcome. But he doesn't really want negotiations. He wants a delay tactic. He has done this multiple times. There were negotiations from the Vatican, and they gave up. Then the former Prime Minister of Spain was involved in some of these negotiations. Those were a total catastrophe. He is just doing this to bide time. Now he is talking about Mexico and Uruguay being the host of the negotiations. I wouldn't be surprised if he soon says: Let Russia come in and be the interlocutory. How about that for a national security threat, a national interest threat--having Vladimir Putin brokering political agreements in the Western Hemisphere. Putin would love it. He fancies himself a great global leader. You are going to see him do something like that, all in an effort to bide time. He has no intention of negotiating anything.

It bides him time to do what? It bides him time for his fake constituent assembly to change the Constitution towards one-party rule or even potentially to call on new flash elections at some point for a new national assembly under this fraudulent election system he set up. To many people, he will say: We had an election, and the opposition lost. But it won't be a real election if the people who could win are not allowed to run, are not allowed to advertise, have no access to the media. They control the ballot box, and they extort people with access to food.

At some point, I wouldn't be surprised to see him declare a state of emergency, maybe go out there and trigger some fake incident, a false flag, where agitators go out and commit violence, and he will say: The protesters are out of control; declare a state of emergency. Why would he do that? So he can paralyze the streets. No one can be out there protesting. And if the opposition tries to leave their homes, now they have a pretext to arrest them.

There is really only one way forward, and that is to do everything we can to

strengthen the legitimate interim government, and that began today. The interim President's first request was for humanitarian aid to help bring food, medicine, and medical supplies to the people inside Venezuela.

The Secretary of State of the United States immediately announced that as an initial step, we will provide, immediately, $20 million. I know they are working on how to deliver that into Venezuela and how they can position that so the Venezuelan people have access to it. This is on top of and apart from the aid we are already providing the migrants in Colombia and other places.

That is a good first step. On day one on the job, the interim President, Juan Guaido, made a request of the international community, and America immediately stepped forward. And I believe very shortly, in a matter of days, there will be significant humanitarian aid--food and medicine--awaiting the people of Venezuela, either within their own territory and distributed through the Red Cross or some other nongovernmental organization or just across the border, where they can access it.

We have to continue to make clear to the elites in that country that there is no future for Maduro, that there is no way he can hold on, and that they need to begin thinking about who their loyalties should be to--the Constitution they swore an allegiance to, the people they live among, or some guy whose future is about to come to an end.

I think it is important that the National Guard know that not only should they not repress the people but that they will be held accountable if they do. Ultimately, I believe this deeply. I know the generals and all the guys at the press conference in the fancy uniforms have sworn allegiance--you know how nervous they were--but I can state that the rank-and-file fighters did not. Do you know why? Because the rank-and-file soldier and the midlevel officer in the military don't have corruption deals; they are going just as hungry as everybody else. They have massive rates of desertion, people just abandoning posts.

When you saw the images yesterday of the hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, you know that many of those soldiers have mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and loved ones, wives, and children in that crowd. Do you know who else knows that? The military brass. I know for a fact that they have significant doubts. In fact, they probably do not even believe that if they ordered the military to act against their own people, the military would, because there is no way these rank-and-file soldiers are going to shoot on their brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and other loved ones.

So we need to step forward and continue with the humanitarian aid. We need to help use the leadership of the United States to put together reconstruction aid.

We need to help the interim President with whatever he needs to carry out a legitimate free and fair and internationally supervised election, which he should call for in the next 45 days.

This is the path forward. It is in our national interest. It is the right thing to do. It reflects our values, but it also reflects our interests as a nation. That is why this matters. That is why we should care. This is not halfway around the world. This is in our own hemisphere. It is just a few hours' flight away, and it impacts more than just one country. It impacts an entire hemisphere.

I will close with this. There has been a lot of criticism historically over the U.S. role in the Western Hemisphere. During the Cold War, the criticism was that we were supporting rightwing dictators, fighting off communism, but we were involved in some coups, and we had a heavy hand and got in and imposed ourselves. Then we went the total opposite way, and for many years--in fact, up until recently, no one talked about the Western Hemisphere, and to the extent we did, it was about migration and drugs. It was almost, frankly, a complete abandonment of the portfolio.

What you are seeing now is the potential birth of a new Latin America--a new Western Hemisphere, one in which the United States is an important partner but not a unilateral actor. When you see 16 countries in this hemisphere come together in an economic and diplomatic way, from Peru to Chile, Colombia, Argentina, and Brazil, when you see the OAS come alive after years of--frankly, when is the last time any of us here discussed anything of the things happening at the OAS? You start to see the beginning of not just a way to confront the crisis in Venezuela but of a hemispheric partnership whose impetus may have been this crisis but creates a path forward that is in our national interest. Imagine if, in fact, democracies and free people of this region came together not just to tackle dictatorships but to tackle drugs, to tackle the root cause of migration. Imagine a hemispheric 16- , 18-regional-nation response to what is happening in El Salvador and Honduras and Guatemala to cause these people to undertake this dangerous journey with their children, in many cases; imagine if it wasn't just the United States but us working in partnership with all these other countries to tackle these hemispheric challenges. I will tell you, that is in our national interest.

Not only is this an opportunity to do the right thing in Venezuela, it is an opportunity to give a start to a new hemispheric reality, a new Latin American reality that serves the national interest in this country and allows us to live in a hemisphere that is free and prosperous, where people do not have to abandon their homelands, where people can stay in their countries, if they so choose, and raise their families and not have to undertake dangerous journeys to other countries for fear of their lives.

We have to start somewhere. I can think of no better place to start than on behalf of the people of Venezuela who have suffered terribly for far too long under a dictatorial, corrupt regime that tortured their children and murdered their fathers and mothers and denied a once-prosperous country the future they deserve.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today is the last day for the Senate pages who are here with us today. This is a little known fact--I didn't even realize this until it was presented to me--but the 115th Congress, which we just concluded, had more session days than any Congress since 1951. That goes to tell you that these pages worked incredibly hard, and we are grateful. We hope their experience here was rewarding. They should know that there are several Members here serving on this side who once sat there.

I shouldn't be here by the time the pages get here, I hope, but we look forward to their service to our country in the years to come in whatever they decide to do.

Thank you for all of your work.

We truly appreciate the time they have put in.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to highlight the hard work and unique entrepreneurial spirit found in small businesses across my home State of Florida. Each week I recognize a small business that exemplifies perseverance and dedication to the local community. Today, as chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it is my distinct pleasure to name Bailey's General Store in Sanibel, FL, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

Bailey's General Store has a long history of providing essential goods to the people of Sanibel Island. Founded in 1899 by Frank P. Bailey, the Sanibel Packing Company provided groceries and other general supplies to both locals and visitors before there was a bridge to the island. Three generations of the Bailey family have continued to expand the business, one of the oldest in Lee County, while still honoring their roots. In a nod to its heritage, the original 1926 Model-T that was used as a delivery vehicle in Bailey's early days is still displayed in the store today.

Today Bailey's General Store has two locations on Sanibel Island and serves as a one-stop shopping solution, providing their customers with a plethora of supplies, from groceries and hardware to delivery and catering services. Bailey's is now owned by Richard and Mary Bailey Johnson, who continue the high standard of service to which Sanibel Island residents and visitors have grown accustomed. In addition to the general store, the Bailey Johnsons' team operates Bailey's Coffee Bar. Located just inside the entrance to the store, the coffee bar serves as a gathering place for tourists and locals alike to enjoy all types of drinks, including their unique ``Bailey's Blend,'' in the store's historic atmosphere. In September 2018, as part of their annual Best of the Islands banquet, the Island Reporter and Sanibel-Captiva Islander recognized Bailey's for the best chocolate shop, coffee bar, grocery store, general store, and wine selection on Sanibel and Captiva Islands.

Bailey's General Store is not only a great place for those on Sanibel Island to shop and relax, it is an integral part of the community. In addition to his role as owner, Richard also works to make Sanibel Island a better place for both residents and tourists. He currently serves as the chair of the capital campaign committee for the renovation of the Bailey-Matthews National Shall Museum. The museum held a ground-breaking ceremony arlier this month and is on track to open to the public in early 2020. The family-owned business is committed to giving back to their community. Bailey's holds an annual fundraiser for the local FISH food pantry, supports the local Kiwanis Club, and sponsors a hole at the annual miniature golf event to raise money for the Community House on Sanibel. Additionally, Bailey's has been recognized by the Lee County Economic Development Council for their contributions to the local economy.

Like many Floridian small businesses, Bailey's General Store is an outstanding example of resiliency. Bailey's has overcome a number of disasters outside of their control, from multiple hurricanes to the recent red tide bloom. Regardless of circumstance, the team at Bailey's has remained steadfast in times of adversity again and again. Their contributions to the Sanibel Island Community were especially noble in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma in 2017. Despite damage to the store, Bailey's reopened the day after the storm to provide island residents with much needed food and supplies. The store became a lifeline for residents and helped to reestablish normalcy in the midst of chaos, while Bailey's employees worked for 10 days to clear debris. Bailey's General Store's contributions to their community are an outstanding example of corporate citizenship, and I commend them for continuing to rise to the occasion when their community is in need of help.

Bailey's General Store serves as a model for any small business wishing to provide superior service to their customers, while serving as a gathering place and pillar of the community. The team at Bailey's routinely goes above and beyond to ensure their customers' needs are met, while also trying to improve their beachside community. Again, I would like to congratulate Richard, Mary, and all of the employees at Bailey's for being named the Senate Small Business of the Week. I wish you continued success in your future endeavors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 28, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand that there are three bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 12 noon, Friday, January 25, 2019; and, further, that following the prayer and pledge, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.