Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished leader.

Madam President, all of us in this body mourn the recent passing of former Senator Paul Sarbanes. Those of us who served with him have known him as one of the finest and most accomplished Senators with whom we have served. And what a great pleasure it was to work with him, on so many issues.

In addition to his impressive legislative accomplishments, Paul Sarbanes was one of the Senate's keenest interrogators and one of the Senate's finest orators. In the Senate community, most of all we knew him for his wit, for his warmth and kindness, and for his decency.

I would like to call to the Senate's attention an insightful remembrance of Senator Sarbanes by Paul Glastris that was published this month by the Washington Monthly.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, what our Nation witnessed and what Members of Congress and the dedicated staff that work in the Capitol witnessed on January 6 was a deadly attack on one of our most sacred and historic constitutional duties: the count and final certification of the results of our Presidential election. The violent insurrection that occurred in the Capitol, which took the lives of five people, including an officer of the U.S. Capitol Police, was an attack on our democracy. The votes cast in the 2020 Presidential election were counted and recounted. The results were challenged in the courts and ultimately were certified in every single State. Yet, citing the baseless chant that the election was ``stolen,'' an angry and violent mob stormed the Capitol in an effort to suspend the democratic process, overturn the will of the American people, and ensure that now-former President Trump remained in office. These insurrectionists vandalized the very heart of our government and threatened and harmed those sworn to protect it.

In a column in the VTDigger, Haviland Smith, a Vermonter and the first chief of counterterrorism operations for the Central Intelligence Agency, makes the strong case that the insurrection on January 6 was an act of domestic terrorism. I am certain that the FBI and the Department of Justice will continue to investigate and, where appropriate, to file charges and hold these people to account. But in this Chamber, we must heed Mr. Smith's wisdom. As legislative body, as public servants, we must reckon with the lies and anti-democratic discourse that fueled this attack and work to ensure that such an act of domestic terror never occurs again.

I ask unanimous consent that the piece written by Haviland Smith, titled ``Domestic Terrorism in the Capitol,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, amid the chaos of the last 4 years, it is almost difficult to parse out the particular challenge that was 2020. Faced with deadly pandemic wrought by COVID-19 and the ensuing economic crisis, millions of Americans lost their jobs and found themselves in a newfound state of uncertainty and instability. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from the pandemic, and millions have been infected. Meanwhile, families across the country have lost their homes and businesses due to worsening hurricanes, floods, and wildfires brought on by intensifying climate change. And there are socioeconomic challenges, too, that linger and grow due to inequality, political division, and racial injustice, all things that have defined the last year.

George Will poignantly wrote on January 1 in the Washington Post about the challenges we faced throughout the past year and will continue to face moving forward. In his piece, Mr. Will highlights a greater overarching challenge as well: that we, as humans, do not have all encompassing control over our circumstances. There are greater forces in play; yet our choices and decisions can dictate to some degree the impact of those forces.

As we begin our work in the 117th Congress, I hope we can come together to better equip our families, communities, and society to respond to our current challenges and prepare our country to effectively combat similar challenges in the future.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Will's column, ``2020 was a booster shot against human hubris,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. January 6, 2021, will forever mark a historic day for our Nation. Not simply because our beloved Capitol building--the very heart of our democracy--laid under siege. Not simply because rioters stormed the Senate and House floors, assaulting Capitol Police officers and leaving a wake of destruction along the way. Not simply because the President of the United States encouraged his supporters to commit these felonies--to march to the Capitol and ``to fight,'' in his words. No, today will also be remembered because of what happened before all of that. Today, over 100 Members of the House and a dozen Senators supported a ploy to deprive the States and the American people of their constitutional role to choose our next President--a ploy that amounts to nothing less than an assault on our Constitutional republic.

The President's obscene claim that the election was stolen from him, which he continued to spout even while his rioting supporters roamed the Halls of the Capitol today, has been disproven time and again. Every single Senator knows that Vice President Biden won the election and did so decisively. Claims that President Trump won reelection are not just fantasy; they are delusional. And citing voters' mistrust in the election results as grounds for this stunt is particularly disingenuous given that those concerns have been fueled by the President's own baseless conspiracy theories--not by the evidence, not by the facts, and not by State election administrators, both Republicans and Democrats, who actually oversaw these elections and know what they are talking about.

President Trump and his allies have now lost more than 60 cases in courts across the country, by judges of every political stripe, including those appointed by the President. The lopsidedness of these decisions has been extraordinary. It has been nothing less than a wholesale rejection of the President's claims. But this is not surprising. The President's own Attorney General said there is no evidence of widespread fraud. His own Department of Homeland Security described it as the ``most secure election in American history.''

President Trump serves no one but himself. He is not a custodian or guardian of our democracy. He is a man whose every decision is driven by his shallow self-interest. I did not expect him to be gracious in defeat. I expected him to throw tantrums. I am not even surprised that his rhetoric has incited violence, as it has today. That is who President Trump is; we have all known that for some time. I am surprised and disappointed that so many Members of this body have let it get this far. After he incited rioters and criminal actions by a mob attacking America's symbol of democracy, our Capitol, what more will he do? He should just leave. He has damaged the country enough.

Our job today is simply to count the votes and to certify that Joe Biden won the election. Pretending that Congress could effectively overturn the will of the American people has, predictably, poured gasoline on an already lit fire. We must now get to work to put this fire out. I am glad that Congress is taking the first step now--that is, to stop with this nonsense and certify this election. The next step will be harder. The only way we stand a chance of coming together as a country, let alone making progress for the American people, is by working together.

I am thankful to the many Senate Republicans who have forcefully rejected this dangerous political stunt, even before the violence. Your words had meaning and sent a message to the country that our democracy will endure.

I have served in the Senate for 46 years. I can tell you that history will remember this sad day. So let us ensure that it is not just remembered for the destruction, for the President's recklessness, and for those in Congress who so casually attempted to overturn the will of the American people. Let us work together now and certify this election, so this day will also be remembered for those who stood up and rejected this dangerous political stunt for the good of the Republic and for the good of the American people.

Madam President, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings, Ms. Agnes Callamard, recently released her report on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi after a 6-month investigation. I encourage everyone to read the report, and I want to share several of her findings.

First, Mr. Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. It was an extrajudicial killing that violated numerous international laws, and for which the Government of Saudi Arabia is responsible.

Second, there is credible evidence warranting further investigation of the

liability of high-level Saudi officials, especially the Crown Prince.

Third, once Turkey publicly announced Mr. Khashoggi's murder, the Saudi Government used consular immunity to obstruct Turkey's investigation until the crime scene could be cleaned, and there are reasons to conclude that the destruction of evidence could not have taken place without the Crown Prince's knowledge.

Fourth, Saudi officials falsely denied knowledge of Mr. Khashoggi's murder for more than 2 weeks, and they continue to deny state responsibility.

Fifth, the trial of the suspects who have been charged in Saudi Arabia will not deliver justice or the whole truth.

Sixth, Jamal Khashoggi's remains have yet to be located and turned over to his family.

Some have ignored the findings in the report, as the lobbyists who continue to rake in millions of dollars from the Saudi Government have encouraged, and as the Trump administration appears inclined to do. But ignoring the facts doesn't change what happened. And it bears repeating: The fact is, a journalist was murdered by the Saudi Government in a manner that implicates officials at the highest level in the royal family. The fact is, the Saudi Government engaged in a flagrant coverup and continues to deny any responsibility. The fact is, the steps being taken to pursue justice are a sham.

After the report was released, the Saudi Foreign Minister dismissed its finding as not containing any new information--as if the murder, coverup, and lack of accountability are irrelevant because they have been previously reported.

While many of the summary findings in the report may not be new, they are supported by roughly 100 pages of detailed information in which the Special Rapporteur and her team document official reports from the U.S., Saudi, and Turkish Governments, they include quotes from interviews conducted around the world, and they share excerpts of the gruesome intelligence information to which they had access.

Ms. Callamard presented the facts, her own conclusions, and the methodology used to reach those conclusions, and she was clear about where there were limitations of her inquiry. The report shows a meticulous and objective effort to find the truth. For that reason, it stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by both the Saudi Government and the Trump administration.

The Special Rapporteur also made several recommendations, including some that are directed specifically to the United States. They include the following:

Open an FBI investigation into the murder of Mr. Khashoggi, and pursue criminal prosecutions within the United States as appropriate.

Make a determination under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act regarding the responsibility of the Crown Prince, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia.

To the greatest extent possible, consistent with national security, declassify materials relating to the murder of Mr. Khashoggi.

And hold congressional hearings on the responsibility of top Saudi officials and demand access to the relevant classified materials.

After Ms. Callamard's report was released, President Trump, just like the Saudi Foreign Minister, dismissed its findings. He made clear he intends to take no action in response to the report.

In addition, despite Secretary Pompeo's repeated claim that the administration is ``committed to holding each individual accountable'' in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the facts indicate the opposite. The administration continues to refuse to adhere to its legal requirements--refuses to follow the law--under the Magnitsky Act to determine liability in the murder, including the liability of the Crown Prince.

In fact, President Trump has made no effort to conceal that the administration's complicity in protecting the Saudi royal family is linked to billions of dollars in sales of U.S. weapons to the Saudi Government. During an interview shortly after the report was released, the President admitted to not raising the U.N. report with the Crown Prince, and said: ``Saudi Arabia's a big buyer of American products; that means something to me.''

Asked whether Saudi Arabia paid the right price for the United States ``to look the other way,'' President Trump said: ``No, no. But I'm not like a fool that says, `We don't want to do business with them . . . Take their money.' ''

I was a prosecutor for 8 years. The fact that premeditated murder is being condoned because of billions of dollars in Saudi money is unconscionable.

According to President Trump, our relations with Saudi Arabia should not change regardless of the outcome of any investigation. Think about that. The President is saying that no matter what the evidence shows, no matter how compelling the evidence implicating the Crown Prince in murder and obstruction of justice, that should not affect our relations with the Saudi Government. That is a shocking statement.

Instead, the administration has limited its response to imposing sanctions only against individuals who reportedly carried out the murder, as well as a few other officials believed to have played a role in ordering or facilitating the operation, and has argued that, by doing so, it has fulfilled its commitment to pursuing justice.

It is the same as what the Saudi Government has done--claim to be holding the hit men accountable while absolving the Saudi leadership and royal family of any responsibility.

Yet the Special Rapporteur has rightly emphasized that the pursuit of justice for Jamal Khashoggi and his family is about finding the truth.

Secretary Pompeo recently spoke about the need to ensure that our principles guide our policy. That is a view I share, but I have to wonder what he meant by that pious statement. What principles was he talking about? There is no evidence that the administration is being guided by principle in the Khashoggi case. To the contrary, there is every reason to believe this administration has made a calculated decision to do the opposite. In fact, the President has said as much.

There should be nothing controversial about holding accountable a government that systemically represses and abuses its own people, that is currently arbitrarily detaining American citizens whom it has also reportedly tortured, that has repeatedly committed war crimes in Yemen that potentially implicate the United States, and that is responsible for the premeditated murder of a widely respected journalist.

I hope other Senators will join me in calling on the Trump administration to lead the international community by example. Our government should put Special Rapporteur Callamard's recommendations into practice, and we should urge other governments to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee came together and we approved by a vote of 30 to 1 an emergency supplemental to address the most urgent humanitarian needs at our southern border. Some would say that the way the Senate has been led lately, you couldn't get a 30-to-1 vote to say the Sun rises in the east.

The bill reflects weeks of good-faith negotiations between Republicans and Democrats to forge a bipartisan agreement to mitigate what has been an escalating humanitarian crisis--one where infants and toddlers are sleeping on cold cement floors in wire cages and under bridges. Inaction is simply not an option for those who care about alleviating the suffering of desperate children and families seeking refuge in the United States.

Action in the Senate requires compromise. That is the reality in a body where 60 votes are required to move a bill forward. No one, Republican or Democrat, is going to get everything they want--including me, and I am the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee--but that is the nature of compromise. One thing I am not willing to compromise on is our American values, and this bill reflects that.

The Senate supplemental protects unaccompanied children, some of our most vulnerable migrants, by securing funds for their safety and their well-being in HHS custody. It includes $109 million to ensure the safety and well-being of those children through post-release wraparound services, legal services, and case management to get children out of cages and put them in loving homes. It puts restrictions on the use of influx facilities. It establishes standards of care to ensure that children are kept in safe, sanitary facilities where they are properly cared for--not cages.

Our bill will mitigate inhumane conditions faced by migrant families in DHS custody by providing funds to improve conditions in grossly overcrowded facilities and buy food, clothing, and medical services for the people in our care. It provides money to ensure that we have diapers, formula, baby wipes, and other essential supplies for infants and toddlers.

Like the rest of the country, I read in horror the reports from a border facility in Clint, TX, where the children were unbathed, where sickness was spreading, and where infants were being cared for by other young children in custody barely old enough to care for themselves. No child, no matter where they are from, deserves to live in such conditions.

Our bill improves due process for migrants by expanding access to legal services and our immigration courts. It provides grants to nonprofit organizations and local jurisdictions that provide critical services in shelters to migrants released from DHS custody. Bolstering border security and treating migrants with humanity are not mutually exclusive goals. Indeed, accomplishing both together is the American way. We are America. We can do two things at once.

Apparently, President Trump never got the memo about our American values. Since the day he took office, he has demonized and vilified immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees at every opportunity. Through false and inflammatory tweets and cruel policies, he has worked to instill widespread fear among immigrant communities, targeting asylum seekers as if they were hardened violent criminals.

In just this past week, he threatened widespread arrests of thousands of immigrant families, seemingly without concern for the many families that would be torn apart and the separated children who happen to be American citizens who would be left behind. Now he has backed away from that threat temporarily, but he has promised to revisit it.

Just last week, the Trump administration went to Federal court to argue that it should not be required to give detained migrant children toothbrushes and toothpaste, soap, towels, showers, or proper sleeping conditions when in U.S. custody--that such amenities are not part of the definition of ``safe and sanitary'' conditions.

What would we say if another country were holding Americans like that?

It has become painfully obvious: President Trump views immigrant families, asylum seekers, and refugees not as human beings but as political ammunition intended solely to rile his base. When asked about the horrendous conditions at DHS and ORR facilities

and the separation of families, he said it is not true and he repeated his threat of mass deportations--even though many of us here in the Congress in both parties have seen it. He is either willfully ignorant about what has been widely documented or he has no qualms about lying about it.

Not a single one of the President's anti-immigrant, fearmongering tactics would address the very real humanitarian crisis overwhelming our southern border. This is exactly why the bipartisan Senate supplemental does not provide a single dollar for President Trump's request for hundreds of millions in additional dollars for the incarceration of immigrants in ICE facilities.

It is why we did not provide any of his requested funds to pursue misguided policies like ``Remain in Mexico,'' which law enforcement officials have stated actually encourages, not discourages, illegal crossings. It is why, in a bipartisan way, we included a strict prohibition on the transfer of supplemental funds for any purposes other than addressing the humanitarian crisis at the border. And finally, it is why we refused to include any of the deeply harmful, unprecedented changes to our immigration and asylum laws that the President has advocated for.

I am under no illusion that this supplemental bill will address all of the problems with our immigration system--far from it. It is a temporary solution to address some of the most urgent issues. We need to have a broader debate about comprehensively addressing those problems, just as we did years ago.

Years ago, a bipartisan group of Senators put forward a thoughtful, bipartisan immigration bill. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I held three hearings on the bill. We had five days of markups. We considered 212 amendments, 141 of which were adopted, including nearly 50 from Republicans. And then 68 Senators supported the legislation on the floor.

Unfortunately, the Republican Speaker of the House would not bring up the bill, even though it would have passed overwhelmingly, because he thought it might violate the Dennis Hastert rule. I think, if we were to have that same process here again today, I would bet we would also have 68 Senators--Republicans and Democrats--vote for it.

Yet this is a conversation and a debate we will have to have on another day. I will be happy to work with those Republican and Democratic Senators who worked together to get an immigration bill before, but we are not going to do it in the context of an emergency supplemental, which is meant to address the most urgent humanitarian needs at the border. It is why Senator Shelby and I and others-- Republicans and Democrats--have worked for weeks, quietly behind the scenes, in order to put this together and get our 31 votes. It is because we know we have to first act to provide safe, humane care for the migrant children and families who seek mercy and safety.

It was yesterday that the House passed its own version of an emergency supplemental for the southern border. It is also a very good bill, and it goes further in offering protections to immigrants in our care than we are able to do in this Chamber, because there have been objections from the Republican side of the aisle. It provides important additional protections for children who are under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement and for those being held at CBP processing facilities, and I support that. We should be taking care of the children in our custody as if they were our own. Taking care of children is not a partisan issue. We should all agree on that.

I am also pleased that the House bill includes a provision to protect the funding that Republicans and Democrats have already appropriated to address the causes of migration in Central America. I am upset the President has threatened to take that money and reprogram it elsewhere.

We were not able to reach agreement on that issue in the Senate, but in a few moments, we will have an opportunity to vote on the House bill. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will be able to support it.

Neither the House nor the Senate bill has any funding for additional ICE detention beds. This is no mistake. The President's predisposition to turn to mass detention above all else is cruel, irresponsible, and also a horrible waste of taxpayers' money. There are alternatives to detention that exist that are safe and less expensive.

The administration needs to use the resources it has for ICE detention services to house those people who truly present a danger to our communities and not lock up every man, woman, and child simply for being here. Lock up those who really do present a danger. Most 5-year- old children do not. It makes no sense to lump them all in together. We carefully negotiated ICE's bed levels in the fiscal year 2019 Homeland Security Appropriations bill just a few months ago, which was passed by both Republicans and Democrats, and there is no reason to revisit it now.

We have heard that the administration plans to set up a request to fund more ICE detention beds through reprogramming the money that we need. I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in opposing any such request. The administration should not do administratively what both Republicans and Democrats have rejected.

Unfortunately, this is a pattern with this administration. It just wants to ignore bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate. It ignores the will of Congress. It uses loopholes and ignores traditional norms in the appropriations process. It uses suspect readings of the law to accomplish its agenda. When Congress rejected the administration's request, it acted as though it was above the law, above the Constitution. Nobody is above the law in this country. None of us in the Senate are, and neither is the President of the United States.

Let's not forget the President's declaration of a national emergency to fund his wall when Congress debated it and refused to provide him the money he had requested. We have to stand up for ourselves as an institution. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join me--not as Democrats or Republicans but as U.S. Senators--in saying no to this President when he blatantly ignores the will of the Congress.

I thank Chairman Shelby for working with me on this bipartisan humanitarian assistance bill.

We need to work quickly to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate bills so we can get a bill to the President's desk. I hope President Trump will have the good sense to sign the supplemental bill into law. Then let's turn to the much needed debate on comprehensive immigration reform. We showed we could do it when I was the chairman of the Judiciary. We showed we could get a 2-to-1 vote in this body. Let's do it again.

Of course, I urge Members to oppose the Paul amendment.

Four months ago, Republicans and Democrats came together and appropriated funds in the State and Foreign Operations Act that would help counter terrorism and human trafficking, promote democracy, combat poverty, provide humanitarian aid, and support global health programs. A bipartisan majority of Congress supported this funding and the President signed it into law. The Paul amendment proposes to rescind $4.6 billion, clawing back programs with a wide range of consequences.

Counterterrorism programs would be cut. These funds support programs that target vulnerable youth to prevent radicalization. These programs provide governments with the tools to counter the influence of violent extremist organizations, including by countering terrorism financing.

Programs to combat human trafficking would be cut by the Paul amendment. These programs support nongovernmental organizations that promote stronger government policies and programs to combat human slavery and trafficking. They help hold perpetrators accountable and support governments that are combatting human trafficking, and they help to protect victims of trafficking.

Programs that strengthen civil society, independent media, and promote democracy in Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Hungary, Egypt, and many other countries would be cut. These funds support efforts to hold governments accountable for repression, promote freedom of expression and religious freedom, and provide services to victims of persecution.

The Paul amendment would claw back humanitarian aid. There are more people forcibly displaced in the world today than at any time since World War II. It is a global humanitarian crisis that is contributing to instability and insecurity, including in our own hemisphere. The amendment would rescind funding for U.S. refugee aid and aid to victims of famine, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.

And funding for PEPFAR, programs to combat malaria and TB, and other global health programs would be cut by the Paul Amendment. This includes programs to respond to deadly pandemics like Ebola.

There are countless other examples, since the Paul amendment uses a meat cleaver approach to demolish most of our international development and humanitarian programs that reduce poverty, respond to crises, build free markets, and strengthen democratic institutions.

Why are there unobligated balances in these programs? These funds were appropriated only 4 months ago and are available for obligation through the next fiscal year for multiyear projects. That is how foreign assistance works.

In the last two foreign aid appropriations laws, Senator Graham and I included targeted rescissions of funds that could no longer be spent effectively, or that were about to expire. That is the responsible approach, and one that preserves the integrity of the appropriations process. That is not the approach in this amendment.

I urge members to vote no on this amendment and pass the bipartisan bill reported by the committee 30 to 1 so that we can sit down with the House tonight to work out the differences with the House bill.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Rubenstein, an intern with the Appropriations Committee, be granted floor privileges for the length of the current debate on H.R. 3401, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019.

Mr. President, I have spent much of my career in the Senate working to eradicate landmines, which kill and maim far more civilians than combatants. These insidious, inherently indiscriminate weapons often remain active for years or even decades after the fighting has ended and the soldiers have left, lying in wait for the unsuspecting footstep of a child on her way to school, or a farmer working in a field.

In 1997, the Yemeni Government signed the Mine Ban Treaty which outlaws the production, stockpiling, export, and use of anti-personnel mines. With the help of international donors, they made great strides in humanitarian demining, to the point that, by 2012, they were on the cusp of declaring the country landmine free. Unfortunately, the civil war between the Houthi rebels supported by Iran, and the Yemeni Government supported by the Saudi-led coalition, changed everything. The use of landmines made a resurgence, due to Iranian mines that the Houthis have planted by the thousands throughout the country. More than 9,000 Yemenis have reportedly been killed or injured by landmines, the overwhelming majority of them innocent civilians.

Children are especially vulnerable to mine accidents. They run and play; they explore open fields; they are curious about strange objects. Most children who step on a landmine will die from loss of blood before they can obtain medical attention, and the survivors often do not have access to the specialized care and support they need. Even children who do not become victims are affected by landmines in their communities. They cannot play or go to school without fearing for their lives, and they suffer from malnutrition when militants turn farmland into minefields.

As I have said many times before, the use of landmines is an affront to civilized societies. Regardless of who uses them, they are an illegitimate weapon, triggered by the victim, and are often used to terrorize and brutalize the innocent. They impede development for decades, even generations. In Vietnam today, for example, landmines continue to kill and injure civilians 44 years after the war ended. The Houthis' use of landmines cannot be justified any more than their use of child soldiers and other violations of the laws of war, and should stop immediately.

Similarly, the United States should stop supporting Saudi Arabia's indiscriminate bombing in Yemen which has caused thousands of civilian casualties. This war will not be won militarily, and the longer it drags on the more innocent people will pay the price, with their limbs, their livelihoods, and their lives.

The Department of State is supporting efforts to help locate and destroy landmines in Yemen, but far more needs to be done. Even though

the Yemeni army, the UN Development program, and nongovernmental organizations have cleared more than 300,000 mines in the country, it is estimated that at least 1 million remain.

The Leahy War Victims Fund, administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development, has provided artificial limbs, wheelchairs, rehabilitation, and vocational assistance to landmine survivors in many countries, and could be used in Yemen.

Yemen was an impoverished country before Iran and Saudi Arabia decided to go to war there, which has caused immense suffering among the Yemeni people. War crimes have been committed by both sides, and by providing weapons to the Saudis, we also are implicated. Every effort should be made to pressure the Houthis to stop using landmines and child soldiers, and the Saudis to stop their bombing of civilian areas. The Department of State should increase its support for humanitarian demining in Yemen, and the U.S. Agency for International Development should increase its support for organizations that help mine victims rebuild their lives.

Mr. President, tomorrow, I will be back home in Burlington, VT, to take part in a joyous occasion. In an afternoon ceremony at the Ethan Allen Homestead, I will attend a naturalization ceremony in which 14 new Americans from 11 countries will be administered the Oath of Allegiance. The participants will be surrounded by family and friends as they stand proudly next to the American flag and formally became U.S. citizens. It will be an honor to stand with them.

As we celebrate these immigrants who will join our ranks as American citizens, today, on World Refugee Day, we must not forget the plight of millions of refugees who have not been as fortunate. Right now, there are over 70 million people across the globe who have been forcibly displaced from their home countries by the horrors of persecution, war, famine, and chaos. In 2018 alone, nearly 13.8 million people were newly displaced, meaning that 25 people were forced to flee their homes every single minute of 2018. Nearly half of all refugees are children under the age of 18, many of them just infants and toddlers.

On World Refugee Day, we must recommit ourselves to the hallowed American tradition of being a refuge for the persecuted and the oppressed. Welcoming refugees with dignity is not a Democratic or a Republican priority; it is the American way. We are a better country for it. No single administration will ever be able to erase that from our DNA as a nation of refugees and immigrants.

I couldn't think of a better way to highlight the indelible contributions of immigrants and refugees to our society than to share a personal story that my good friend, U.S. District Court Judge Bill Sessions, recently offered at a naturalization ceremony at Vermont's State House marking the 17th anniversary of 9/11. Judge Sessions' remarks came just months after he suffered a life-threatening injury, only to later discover that the medical professionals who helped save his life were the very same immigrants he had sworn in as American citizens years earlier.

I for one, am most grateful that they were here in America to save his life.

I ask unanimous consent that Judge Sessions' statement be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, later this month our Nation will mark the 50th anniversary of the momentous uprising at the Stonewall Inn, an occasion that led to June being designated as Pride Month. From parades and celebrations to quiet remembrances, millions of Americans are reflecting on the progress made in the last 50 years for LGBTQ rights, but under the current administration, I fear some of that progress is at risk.

President Trump, who once claimed to be an ally of the LGBTQ community, has proven to be anything but that. His administration has pursued a series of administrative rule changes that seek to undermine the progress made by the LGBTQ community. That includes, at seemingly every opportunity, attempting to make life more difficult for transgender individuals, a community of people who already face daily discrimination.

The Trump administration has worked to erase the gender identities of Federal inmates; to restrict access to healthcare and allow homeless shelters to freely discriminate against LGBTQ individuals under the false guise of religious freedom; and to ban transgender servicemembers from our Armed Services, many of whom have served this country for years, including during times of war.

If discrimination by policy were not enough, President Trump also nominated an unapologetic anti-LGBTQ zealot for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, a nominee Senate Republicans are ready to confirm on the floor this week.

Matthew Kacsmaryk has a long history of espousing uninformed, offensive, and downright bigoted views of LGBTQ individuals. In 2016, he wrote that the existence of transgender identity is a ``delusion'' and that treating transgender patients in accordance with their gender identity is ``radicalism.'' He has repeatedly disparaged the LGBTQ rights movement and described efforts to roll back progress as a ``Long War Ahead.'' He has argued that discrimination against LGBTQ persons should be legal in employment, public accommodations, and healthcare. He has opposed equality in every possible arena, including anti- discrimination provisions in reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Trafficking and Prevention Act, two pieces of legislation that I authored and care about deeply, legislation that attempts to defend the most vulnerable in our society.

No one can credibly claim that an LGBTQ individual, seeking nothing more than equality under the law, would receive a fair hearing from a Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a man who considers himself a warrior in the effort to roll back LGBTQ rights. He is simply unfit to serve as a judge. The fact that Senate Republicans would consider the nomination of Matthew Kacsmaryk during Pride Month adds additional insult to the LGBTQ community, which rightly speaks with a single voice in opposition to this nominee.

Protecting LGBTQ rights need not be a partisan effort. Senator Ted Kennedy and I worked with Republican partners to pass the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, which ensures that hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity are federally recognized and prosecuted. I also worked with Senator Crapo when we authored the landmark reauthorization and expansion of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013, which expanded protections for LGBTQ victims. The Senate has an opportunity to come together again in enacting much-needed reforms by passing the Equality Act.

A most basic duty of government is to protect its citizens. By allowing President Trump to repeatedly attack the LGBTQ community without taking action or speaking out, the Senate is failing in our duty. American citizens will suffer greatly from discriminatory policies and judges with hostility toward the LGBTQ community. People at their most desperate will be refused medical care and turned away from shelters. Soldiers will be forced to hide who they are or risk being discharged and prevented from serving the country they love. Inmates will be housed with people of a different gender, opening the door to abuse.

If the President is able to sanction overt discrimination against marginalized members of society with impunity, the words ``all men are created equal'' have little meaning. I implore each member of this body to stand up for the rights of all our LGBTQ constituents and friends, not just during Pride Month, but every month. I, for one, will stand with them.

nomination of allen cothrel winsor

Mr. President, we have had many discussions on what is happening on appropriations bills. So I thought I could help clear some things up.

Next week, the Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up a supplemental appropriations bill. We are doing this to address the humanitarian crisis, which it is, on our southern border. There is absolutely no need for this to be a partisan process. So many of us, Republicans and Democrats, agree we need to address the humanitarian crisis on our southern border.

We have seen the news reports showing crowded conditions at Custom and Border Protection facilities. We have seen the pictures of women and children sleeping outside on the ground because the facilities are full. I have gone through places where they basically have cages holding children--and this is happening in America. And we have seen the numbers of unaccompanied children in our care swell as kids come across the border looking for help and compassion.

Now, most of these people are fleeing violence or dire poverty in their home countries. Most know how dangerous the trek north will be, but they feel they have no choice but to make the trek anyway. Some have said they know they may die on the trek north, but they are going to die from gang violence and the murderers back home if they do not. They fear for their lives.

By the time they reach us, they are exhausted, they are scared, and they are hungry. The vast majority actually just turn themselves over to Border Patrol Agents as soon as they cross into the United States. Rather than try to evade law enforcement, they look for the U.S. authorities in uniform. They turn themselves in to them and are then escorted by Border Patrol through the billion-dollar, actually useless, Trump wall. They are not looking to do us harm. They are looking for mercy.

Now, we may disagree about what has led to this crisis and what changes may be needed to our immigration system. But I take issue with claims from across the aisle that Democrats oppose any and all solutions to address this crisis. Everybody knows that is simply false.

We have a responsibility to make sure that the people in our care are treated humanely. After all, we are Americans. We ought to show the world we stand for American values. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I take this responsibility seriously.

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement--the Agency that cares for unaccompanied children who cross the border--is running out of money. They are expected to exceed their Federal appropriations by the end of this month. Because they are running out of money, they have already begun to scale back on services that are not critical for life and safety, including education, recreation, and legal services. We ought to take action. Customs and Border Protection processing facilities are vastly over capacity. That not only creates dangerous conditions for the migrants who are in our care but also dangerous conditions for our Border Patrol staff.

We have seen these pictures of men and women and children sleeping outside with Mylar blankets in temporary shelters, under bridges, and in overcrowded conditions inside facilities that cannot accommodate them. I have seen this. It cannot continue. We have to do better. We Americans have American values. We should act like it.

The Senate Democrats are willing to provide money to address these problems. We have a responsibility to do so--Republicans and Democrats both--but we also have a responsibility to put basic conditions on this money. We want to make sure the taxpayers' dollars are appropriately spent. We cannot provide a blank check, especially to this administration.

HHS and DHS facilities have to meet appropriate standards. So the care we provide reflects the fact that we are Americans with American values. We must not let detainees languish outdoors in 100-degree temperatures for more than 30 days without showering or changing clothes--and that is happening.

Children in our care should only be housed in facilities that meet State licensing requirements--not in cages. They should have access to education, recreation, and legal services. DHS should not be using information on potential sponsors for unaccompanied children to deport them. We found that has happened. We had people willing and capable of taking care of these children instead of the U.S. taxpayers spending thousands upon thousands of dollars. Instead of saying thank you, we say: Well, we are going to check your background. Maybe we should deport you.

It makes me think about the number of people who have served in our military and overseas that are immigrants and then get deported. Now, that is hard to understand. It is probably easier to understand for people who have refused to serve, but it is hard to understand.

That is no different than saying: Oh, you served our country, you faced dangers, and you were shot at wearing the uniform of this country. But we are throwing you out.

Now, Members of Congress with oversight responsibility of these Agencies should be able to have access to detention facilities. The Trump administration should not request these resources

from Congress and then not tell Congress what they are going to do with it by saying: We sure as heck are not going to let any Member of Congress--Republican or Democrat--see what we do with it.

Money appropriated for humanitarian assistance should be used for humanitarian assistance. It should not be diverted to pay for a wall, which would do nothing to solve this humanitarian crisis.

Now, these should not be controversial propositions. They are reasonable conditions to include. They should get bipartisan support. We can do it if Republicans want to, but what we are not going to do is allow the Trump administration to use this humanitarian crisis to supplement funding for an enforcement agenda that is not only controversial but also ineffective and cruel.

For example, the President has asked for funding to increase ICE detention facilities by 7,600 beds. There is no need for this increased funding. We should not provide it.

The administration's inclination at every turn is to just use detention to solve our immigration problem, while not actually working to solve our immigration problem, at enormous cost to the American taxpayers. It is expensive, inefficient, and it is wrong. The other thing is that it does not work. Alternatives to detention exist. They are safe, effective, and enormously less expensive to the taxpayers.

The administration needs to use the resources it has for ICE detention services to house those people who truly present a danger to our communities. Yes, house somebody who is a criminal. House somebody who has a criminal record. But do not lock up every man, woman, and child simply for being here without proper documentation, spending thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars to lock up a 5-year-old. They are really not the people we should worry about. But the Trump administration's dramatically escalating the arrest and detention of immigrants who have no criminal record makes no sense. It is an enormous waste of taxpayers' dollars.

We carefully negotiated ICE bed levels in the fiscal year 2019 Homeland Security appropriations bill just a few months ago, which got strong bipartisan support. That was just a few months ago; there is no reason to revisit it now just a few months later.

Congress should also ensure that funding it approved 2 years ago-- overwhelmingly, by both Republicans and Democrats--to deal with the root causes of immigration from Central America is spent for those purposes. If we do not deal with the reasons people are leaving their countries, of course they are going to keep coming. That is just common sense, and that is why we appropriated these funds. That is why Republicans and Democrats voted to appropriate these funds and the President signed those appropriations bills. We should insist they are used for the purposes that Republicans and Democrats voted for them to be used.

When President Trump decides to withhold a half a billion dollars of that funding, that is self-defeating. That does about as much to stop illegal immigration as tweeting about it does.

So in addition to being ready, willing, and able to help address humanitarian issues at the border, Democrats are also advocating for longer term solutions that both parties should support if we are serious about solving this crisis.

As some Senators recall, when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we had months of hearings, weeks of markup, hundreds of pieces of information coming, and witnesses, and I brought a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor 6 years ago. There were 68 Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, who voted for it. Even though it passed the Senate, the Republican Speaker of the House refused to bring it up.

The irony is that yesterday the Acting Homeland Security Secretary testified that if we had enacted that bill--the bill I brought to this floor, which 68 Senators voted for--it would have made a difference in the current crisis. It is unfortunate that the Republican Speaker blocked it.

He did say it would violate the Dennis Hastert rule, and they had to uphold that. Well, no, it violated common sense by not bringing it to a vote.

So as we did back then, any immigration reform we consider today has to be done on a bipartisan basis. That is how we got the big vote here. I know that these are controversial matters. Of course they are. That is why we struggle over them. But bipartisanship is the only way to get things done around here.

Given the urgency of the need on the southern border, I hope my Republican colleagues will not use this bill as a vehicle to force debate on divisive immigration proposals that should be left to the authorizing committees, not to the Appropriations Committee. If we turn this into a protracted debate about immigration reform, we will only delay much needed humanitarian assistance on the southern border.

We could do both. Pass the appropriations bills, but then let's have a real debate, as we did a few years ago, on immigration reform, something that got two-thirds of the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--to vote for it.

As I said at the beginning, consideration of a supplemental appropriations bill to address the humanitarian crisis should never be a partisan issue. We all want to make sure that we appropriately care for the vulnerable families seeking refuge at the United States of America's border.

I urge all Members to focus on areas of agreement in this package. There are a lot of areas we can agree on, Republicans and Democrats. Focus on it, pass it, and get assistance out the door as quickly as possible.

I see another Senator is waiting.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remembrances of D-Day from Senator Blunt, the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri.

It is always memorable attending D-Day events. The first one I went to--and you just spoke of the distinguished Kansan, Dwight Eisenhower-- was with Robert Dole for the 40th anniversary. President Reagan asked the two of us to represent him in Italy when we first landed, while President Reagan went to Normandy. Subsequently, I went with a delegation with President Clinton and then with President George W. Bush, and, lastly, with President Obama. I found the experience overwhelming each time.

Last year--it was actually on my birthday--Dick Shelby and I were there and laid a wreath in Normandy. Nobody can walk by there--first, seeing all the graves and realizing that they are only some of the remains--and then walking to the cliffs and looking down, and not wonder how anybody could have had the courage to face such withering fire. For some who survived, it seemed like the enemy was using a paint brush and just wiping people out. You would see them falling all around.

A well-respected doctor from our home town in Montpelier had never talked about it. On the 50th anniversary we asked him if he would join us there. He is not a wealthy man. He treated a lot of the poor Italian immigrants for nothing. My mother was a first generation Italian American, and she always talked with him. She and my father and others raised money for him to go, and after that for the first time he could talk about it.

He came back and talked about it. He was a medic and a little guy. He went off the boat with all of his gear and just sank. He would have drowned, but somebody pulled him up and brought him to the shore. He turned to say thank you, and the man who rescued him was shot dead.

He refused to leave the beach. He just treated one person after another, and his story is not unusual. So many did that. So I thank my friend from Missouri for what he said.

Madam President, the Appropriations Committee staff was working until midnight last night, as they do so often, on the disaster supplement. We know that in January the House sent us a disaster supplemental appropriations bill to help communities across the Nation. These communities were dealing with the deadly aftermath of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and volcanoes.

It has been my experience over the years that normally disaster bills sail through both Chambers of Congress. Every Member knows that one day it will be his State or her State that needs help recovering from a disaster.

I well remember when we had a terrible hurricane in Vermont; it created the most damage in generations in our State. The day after the devastation, I went with our Governor and the head of our National Guard in a helicopter to survey the damage. For many towns, the only way we could reach them was in a helicopter. The bridges were like a child's toy, twisted and gone. The roads totally disappeared. Houses were upside down in the river.

It was heartbreaking, but as we were going there, I received email after email. My Senate colleagues, many of them Republicans, said ``Vermont stood with us when we had''--and they named the disaster. ``We will stand with you.'' That is what we do. It doesn't make any difference whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; if there is a disaster, you stand together.

What I cannot understand is that in my 44 years here--it was different this time. When we brought up a disaster supplemental appropriations bill in January of this year, the President of the United States came out swinging against it. Why? Because the bill contained assistance for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico had been hit by 2 back-to-back, category 5 hurricanes, and apparently providing assistance to 3 million Americans in need was a step too far for him. He did not want to provide aid to these Americans. ``Not one more dime for Puerto Rico'' he was reported to have said--shocking words for somebody who holds the highest office in the land, especially after they had nearly unprecedented back-to-back hurricanes.

From the beginning, I have said what my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues have always said. It is a role of the Federal Government to stand by all Americans in times of need. It should not matter whether you are a Georgia peach farmer, a California small business owner, or a child living in San Juan. If your community is devastated by a natural disaster, you are an American, and the American community will stand with you. That is what I have always fought for.

So here we are, 5 months later--5 months of negotiations, 5 months of talks--and we finally reach a deal on a disaster aid bill that helps all--all Americans. We don't pick and choose. It is a good deal. It addresses the need from Alabama to California and many States in between. But 5 months is too long to wait. It is far too long for the communities who are trying to rebuild their homes and their towns, so we have to act now.

The President has asked that we add $4.5 million to the disaster supplemental bill to address the issues that we face at our southern border. I agree with the President that some of this money is badly needed. We don't dispute that. But everyone in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, knows that under this President, anything to do with immigration is controversial; it is going to be hotly debated. We have been working night and day to strike a compromise on the President's request. When we finished in the middle of last night, we were close, but we are not there yet.

I hope in the next few hours we can resolve our remaining differences, but if we cannot reach agreement, then at least pass the disaster bill without it today--not tomorrow, not next week, not next month--today. Five months has been too long for America to have to wait.

We have a deal on the disaster aid bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is supported by Democrats and Republicans. It is ready to go. Let's pass it today, and let's show the American people we stand with them in times of crisis, just as Members of this body stood with my beloved State of Vermont when we were hit. We didn't say we are Republicans or Democrats. We said that we are Americans, and Americans have been hurt, and Americans stand together when we are suffering. Today, Americans are suffering across this country. Let us--as the conscience of the Nation, the U.S. Senate, let us stand with them, and let's get the disaster aid they need.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their votes. Even though the final vote might be 5 months late, today is a good day for the Congress, for the Senate, for the American people, and for the Nation.

I have said from the beginning--a position I have taken in all of my decades in the Senate--that any disaster supplemental that passes this Chamber cannot pick and choose which American citizens to help in their time of need. We are all Americans. The American community bands together to support one another when disaster strikes, regardless of where we are from, what our politics are, or what our beliefs are. That is the American way, and it is the role of the Congress to make sure that it is done.

I am glad to stand on the Senate floor today, and I am glad to be here with my dear friend, the senior Senator from Alabama and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby, to support what is a bipartisan, bicameral disaster supplemental appropriations bill.

Think of what we have done. This bill will provide long overdue aid to the people of California, Georgia, Florida, Nebraska, Iowa, North Carolina, South Carolina, Hawaii, Texas, Missouri, Alabama, and Puerto Rico just to name a few. Some of these people--they are all American citizens--have been trying to put their lives back together for nearly 2 years--since August of 2017.

It provides $19.1 billion to help communities in these States and Territories to rebuild stronger than they were before. It includes more than $2.4 billion in community development block grants, more than $1.6 billion for the Federal Highway Administration to rebuild roads and bridges, and more than $3 billion to support our Nation's farmers who lost their crops and livestock in the storms. It also provides more than $3 billion to rebuild our military's storm-damaged infrastructure.

It has been no secret that how to help the American citizens of Puerto Rico has been at the heart of our dispute on disaster aid, but I am pleased to report that the bill provides much needed assistance to these Americans, including $605 million for the Nutrition Assistance Program, and $304 million in community development block grants to help the island meet the FEMA match requirements.

One thing that we learned when Tropical Storm Irene struck Vermont is that you have rebuild better than you were so you are stronger when you face the next storm. We have included language that requires FEMA to rebuild the island stronger and better than it was before to help mitigate the damage of a future storm. We did this in certain areas in Vermont, and it made all the difference in the world.

This supplemental will unlock billions of dollars that Congress had previously appropriated for Puerto Rico and other communities across the country that the Trump administration has held back in the Treasury.

We reached this agreement because the Republicans and the Democrats came together across the aisle. It is a strong bipartisan agreement. It reflects that we are one Nation in times of need and that all Americans can count on each other. I was happy to see the strong support from the Senators here, but our work is not yet done.

Now we have to address the humanitarian crisis at our southern border. We have to help those who are fleeing from violence and persecution in their own countries. The President has requested $4.5 billion. Some of this money is badly needed. There is no dispute about that, and I will support the part that is badly needed.

Everyone in this Chamber knows these are difficult issues that are often made more difficult given the President's rhetoric and extreme policies. Difficult issues take time. Let's lower the rhetoric, and let's do as we have done here--work together. We have been working day and night to strike a compromise on the President's request. We are close, but we are not there yet. Even as of late, late last night, we were still working on that. When we return, I hope we can negotiate a bipartisan agreement to provide additional humanitarian assistance.

To reach this agreement today, many of the Senators--and I mentioned, of course, Senator Shelby, my friend, as chairman--and I, as vice chairman, worked together. So did many others, but none of us could do it without the dedicated staff that was involved. I could go home at 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock at night, but they were still there. I am talking about both the Democratic staff and the Republican staff. So I asked my Appropriations chief of staff, Chuck Kieffer, to give me a list.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks the list of names of both the Democratic staff and the Republican staff who worked so hard on this.

I said on a personal basis earlier that I remember when Tropical Storm Irene hit Vermont and how totally discouraged I was by the damage. Yet, within hours, I had texts and emails from Senators in this body--Republicans and Democrats alike. They said: When we were hit by a tornado, by flooding, by an earthquake--whatever it might have been-- Vermont stood with us, and we will stand with Vermont.

That is what we are as the United States of America. The Senate did what it should do today. The Senate acted as the conscience of the Nation. We stood together to help all Americans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.