Floor Statements

Mr. President I want to bring to the Senate's attention the story and the example of Alberto Curamil, an environmental activist who is a member of the indigenous Mapuche people in Chile's Araucania region. The Mapuche are Chile's largest indigenous group, and since the 1800s they have struggled to protect their culture, territory, rivers, forests, and natural resources against encroachment and destruction by settlers and energy companies that have often acted with impunity and the backing of the government. Mr. Curamil has dedicated his life to this cause. It is the existential struggle of indigenous people in scores of countries as the insatiable global demand for energy, arable land, water, timber, oil, gas, and minerals threatens their ancestral lands and way of life.

Several years ago, during a prolonged drought in Chile, the Ministry of Energy announced a plan for two large hydroelectric projects in Araucania, without consulting the Mapuche people who live there. The projects would reportedly divert more than 500 million gallons of water for power generation, severely limiting water flow and damaging the ecosystem of the Cautin River on which many of the Mapuche people depend for survival.

Mr. Curamil, who has three children, lives on the outskirts of the town of Curacautin. He is a farmer who raises animals. His wife teaches the Mapuche language. Fearing what the harm to the river would mean for his people, he organized Mapuche and non-Mapuche, environmental organizations, lawyers, and academics to try to stop the projects. In public protests and in court, they argued that the government had ignored Chilean law which

requires free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities before approving such projects. Despite harassment, threats, and violent attacks, Mr. Curamil succeeded in uniting the opposition, and in 2016 the projects were canceled.

But that was not the end of it.

On August 14, 2018, Mr. Curamil was arrested by Chile's national police and imprisoned. He has been charged with assault during a bank robbery in which a guard was injured and hostages taken. An anonymous witness reportedly said that one of the robbers looked like a Mapuche, and they arrested Mr. Curamil. There have been no judicial proceedings, and Mr. Curamil remains in pretrial detention.

Mr. Curamil and his family say that he is a victim of retaliation for his environmental activism, that he was attending a meeting in a different town at the time of the robbery, and that multiple people can attest to his presence there. At the time of his arrest, his house was ransacked by police and left in a shambles.

In November 2018, another Mapuche, Camilo Catrillanca, age 24, died after being shot in the back by police. He was a member of the Mapuche Territorial Alliance, a grassroots organization that seeks to reintegrate the Mapuche people through reclaiming their language, territory, and rights that were fractured and repeatedly violated during the past two centuries.

I mention these events to put in context the recent announcement that Alberto Curamil was selected as one of the 2019 winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize. The prize honors grassroots environmental activists from around the world, singling out individuals for their extraordinary and sustained efforts to protect the natural environment, often at great personal risk.

Not only did Mr. Curamil lead a successful challenge to the unlawful decision by the Chilean Ministry of Energy, he is being subjected to what many suspect is a flagrant and vindictive abuse of the judicial process of the type that we have come to expect in countries with authoritarian governments like Russia but not democracies like Chile.

If the Chilean authorities have credible evidence to support the charge against Mr. Curamil, they should produce it in a public trial and provide him with the opportunity to defend himself. Instead, nearly 10 months since his arrest, he languishes in jail while his wife and children are alone fending for themselves.

The attempts to intimidate and silence Mr. Curamil and the threats to his people and the natural environment are not unique. This is happening to indigenous people all over the world, and each year the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize helps to call attention to those like Mr. Curamil who have risked their lives on behalf of their communities, wildlife species, rivers, lakes, forests, and oceans that are being threatened or destroyed.

Mr. Curamil is an activist for environmental and social justice that Chileans should take pride in. Like the many hundreds in attendance in San Francisco and Washington who cheered when his daughter, Belen Curamil, received the prize on his behalf, the Chilean people should recognize Mr. Curamil for his courageous defense of Chile's natural environment and diverse cultural heritage.

We should also be concerned that Mr. Curamil 's arrest takes place against a backdrop of escalating violence between the national police and Mapuche activists. At the heart of the dispute is land ownership and lack of consultation on legislation or investment projects that directly affect the Mapuche. Timber is Chile's second-largest export commodity, worth billions of dollars annually, and the political elite is deeply invested in the industry. Mapuche activists are engaged in a campaign against the timber industry and its defenders in the government. In response, prosecutors are using an anti-terrorism law originally introduced by the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet to stifle political dissent. The law allows for indefinite pretrial detention, investigations being kept secret for up to 6 months, and evidence admitted in oral hearings from anonymous witnesses, as in Mr. Curamil 's case.

This situation is aptly described by Global Witness in its 2017 report, Defenders of the Earth:

It is increasingly clear that, globally, governments and

business are failing in their duty to protect activists at

risk . . . Ironically, it is the activists themselves who are

painted as criminals, facing trumped-up criminal charges and

aggressive civil cases brought by governments and companies

seeking to silence them. This criminalization is used to

intimidate defenders, tarnish their reputations and lock them

into costly legal battles.

Chile's police have intervened violently on the side of private companies, intimidating Mapuche communities. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples warned that the government and police are increasingly targeting activists who are campaigning to protect their land from mining, logging, and dams. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has condemned the Chilean Government for applying anti-terrorism laws against Mapuche leaders.

According to Amnesty International, ``Although violence against defenders is a constant in the region, little is known about what is happening in Chile, especially in relation to the historical context of criminalization and stigmatization of the Mapuche and their leaders. The Chilean authorities have an obligation to guarantee conditions that enable human rights defenders to carry out their work and to establish protection mechanisms for environmental defenders and Indigenous leaders who face constant criminalization and stigmatization.''

Again, these circumstances are not unique to Chile. Similar confrontations are occurring in many countries. But Mr. Curamil's receipt of the Goldman Environmental Prize should cause everyone to pay attention, and to ask, Should not these issues be handled better? Is it acceptable for the Chilean Government to label these largely defenseless, mostly impoverished people as ``terrorists,'' for trying to protect their territory and way of life? Should not the Chilean Government act as a convener of a dialogue that recognizes the legitimate rights of its indigenous population, that ensures they are consulted in a timely and meaningful way, as the law requires, about decisions that affect them, and that their views are properly reflected in those decisions? Is that not the government's responsibility? To listen to its citizens who have traditionally been ignored and whose way of life is threatened and to find creative, sustainable solutions?

I join others in congratulating Alberto Curamil for setting an example at a time when the natural environment is under siege due to human development; recklessness, and greed. We see the consequences on every continent--tropical forests cut down for oil palm plantations, coral reefs destroyed, rivers polluted, dammed and diverted, fish populations depleted, and other wildlife species facing extinction.

Earlier this month, a UN assessment of the world's biodiversity compiled by 145 experts from 50 countries over 3 years, reported that ``the health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.''

This is true in Chile as it is in virtually every country. Complacency is not an answer, and I hope the Chilean Government will recognize that people like Alberto Curamil should be listened to and supported, not threatened and jailed.

Mr. President, many of us are increasingly concerned that, since President Trump's reckless decision to abandon the multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran, which by all accounts Iran had been complying with, the administration has been on a collision course that could draw us into a war with Iran. Although the President insists that is not what he wants, he is known to change his mind on a whim, and the statements and actions of others in his administration, including some who were vocal proponents of the unnecessary and costly war in Iraq, leave little doubt that they favor a policy of regime change.

We all deplore Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, its horrific violations of human rights, and its constant outpouring of hateful

anti-American, anti-Israel rhetoric, but a war with Iran would be far worse, and no one can be certain how it would end. As tensions increase, a misunderstanding or provocative act by either Iran or the United States could quickly trigger retaliatory strikes that spiral out of control, drawing us, our allies, and our adversaries into protracted hostilities. Rather than risk that potentially disastrous result, the administration should be partnering with our European and Middle Eastern allies on a strategy of negotiations to reduce regional tensions. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a recent op-ed in ``The Guardian'' by Peter Westmacott, former British Ambassador to the United States, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it has been nearly a decade since Justice John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court. His absence on the bench is perhaps felt more now than ever. Justice Stevens' nomination was the first of 18 Supreme Court nominees I have considered in my years in the Senate. As a young Senator, it was a privilege to support his confirmation in 1975. It was a vote I have long been proud of. Justice Stevens had a storied tenure on the Supreme Court and ultimately became the third longest serving Justice in our Nation's history.

Justice Stevens' commitment to the law and conduct on the bench was beyond reproach. His legacy is one of integrity, dedication to public service, and a recognition that the Constitution protects all Americans equally. He was part of majorities that protected LGBT rights, disability rights, and limited the death penalty.

The Supreme Court has never been perfect. Justice Stevens would be the first to acknowledge as much, but I cannot help but compare his many years on the Court with today. Today, the Supreme Court almost reflexively sides with corporate interests over individuals' interests, even when precedent or so-called textualism and originalism stand in the way. We have also seen an unprecedented blockade of a Supreme Court nominee, and we have a President intent on nominating the most ideological nominees to the bench I have ever seen, nominees who have been preapproved by opaque far-right special interest groups. Many of these nominees have long records of outright hostility toward reproductive rights, environmental protections, and voting and civil rights. They even refuse to accept that Brown v. Board of Education, a foundational civil rights decision settled 65 years ago, is indeed settled law. It is equally predictable and deeply unfortunate that Americans increasingly view the courts as a purely political institution.

Our Constitution and laws are intended to serve the people, protecting the freedom of individuals from the tyranny of government and helping to organize our society for the good of all. It is up to the judiciary to ensure our laws have meaning. This is a duty Justice Stevens' recognized and relished.

How I miss his jurisprudence, his steady voice, and his leadership.

I ask unanimous consent that a May 11, 2019, feature by Robert Barnes from The Washington Post entitled, ``John Paul Stevens looks back on nearly a century of life and law, but worries about the future,'' be included in the Record.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a wonderful friend, Bishop Thomas C. Ely, who is retiring from his leadership position of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont.

Bishop Ely has been an outstanding servant of the Vermont diocese since his consecration as bishop in 2001. During his tenure in the Green Mountain State, he has served as the leader of the 45 Episcopal congregations in Vermont and one more across Lake Champlain in Essex, NY. He has visited all parishes once a year and counseled many clergy members. Bishop Ely's devotion to human dignity and dignity education influenced every church in the diocese. He demonstrated this as chairman of the board and as an educator of Rock Point School in Burlington, where his wife Ann worked all through his tenure as bishop. Bishop Ely, as a promoter of social justice and equality, also showed leadership in many other ways. He has been active in immigrants' rights, marriage equality, improving the lives of those living in poverty and in Bishops Against Gun Violence. His work on human rights is illustrated in his long commitment to the human rights organization Cristosal, which works in Central America.

Recently, Bishop Ely completed the successful Partnership Campaign for Rock Point, raising over $2 million to assure the future of the 130 acres owned by the Church on Lake Champlain in Burlington. The funds will improve the trails and facilities in partnership with the city of Burlington and the Lake Champlain Land Trust, preserving 93 acres for public access.

I am proud to say that Bishop Ely lives his faith, through worship, leadership, and through action to improve and enrich the lives of all Vermonters. His journey of faith and action would not have been possible without the love and support of Ann Ely who, in addition to her work at Rock Point School, has also been deeply involved in St. Paul's Cathedral in Burlington.

The outpouring of gratitude and love for Tom and Ann has been enormous, in particular at the May 18, 2019, convention, where Vermont Episcopalians elected their next bishop. The applause would not cease until Bishop Ely motioned for quiet, so that proceedings could continue. Bishop Ely is loved by his people and greatly appreciated by many Vermonters for his principled leadership. He made a difference, helping us to live up to our ideals, and will be fondly remembered, as he and Ann enter a new phase of their lives. Marcelle and I are delighted that Tom and Ann will continue to be citizens of Vermont, living in the beautiful town of Newfane. We both value their friendship.

In honor of Bishop Ely's retirement, I ask that the December 5, 2017, Episcopal New Service article ``Vermont Episcopal Bishop Thomas Ely announces plans to retire,'' be entered into the Record.

Mr. President, Darn Tough Vermont says that their factory in Northfield, Vermont, is the ``Sock Capital of the World.'' I'm loath to object to that claim. Over the past 15 years, Darn Tough has steadily grown from a small sock producer for other companies into a world-renowned brand of their own. They've created good paying jobs to Vermont and have a deep commitment to American manufacturing. Darn Tough is a great example of the many hearty small businesses that drive Vermont's economy. It is with pride that I recognize their achievements.

Marc Cabot opened Darn Tough's factory, Cabot Hosiery Mills, in 1978. He started by producing private label socks--other companies sell these under their brand name--for large companies like Brooks Brothers and Old Navy. This was a steady business. But things became difficult in the 1990s when many of those customers began to move their production overseas. By the early 2000s, Cabot Hosiery Mills was struggling.

Marc's son, Ric, who had been involved in the family business from a young age, came up with an idea to save the company. He decided to transition Cabot Hosiery Mills from a private label producer to its own brand: Darn Tough Vermont. Ric envisioned a superior, outdoor-oriented sock that was knit right in Vermont. Its quality would speak for itself.

At first, Ric had to give Darn Tough socks away to get noticed. He gave out 3,500 pairs of Darn Tough socks at the Vermont City Marathon in 2004, and soon after word, began to spread about a mysteriously durable sock with a lifetime warranty produced right in Vermont. Darn Tough's brand and sales have been growing steadily ever since.

Over the past 15 years, the Cabots have rebounded from the brink of bankruptcy to a company nearing $50 million in sales annually. Ric, who is now the CEO and president, is leading Darn Tough in its latest expansion. They've added over 50 new knitting stations and are in the process of expanding their workforce of over 250 Vermonters. Darn Tough doubled down on American manufacturing when their partners wouldn't-- now they're seeing their reward.

I am proud to recognize the contributions and achievements that Darn Tough and the Cabot family has made over their over 40 years in Vermont. I ask consent to enter into the Record a VTDigger article titled ``Making it in Vermont: Darn Tough doubles down on Northfield facilities.'' It describes the hard work that goes into making each Darn Tough sock and highlights Darn Tough's commitment to Vermont and Vermont values.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2379.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, this may seem like just a perfunctory thing, but I want to speak about what we just did.

The Senate passed legislation to permanently reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This is the sixth time I have worked to reauthorize this lifesaving program since I and my Republican partner, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, of Colorado, authored the legislation to establish it more than 20 years ago.

My role in authoring this program--and my commitment to it ever since as we have reauthorized it and reauthorized it--was, in part, motivated by a horrific incident the year before Senator Nighthorse Campbell and I created it.

On August 19, 1997, a man named Carl Drega went on a killing spree along the Vermont and New Hampshire border. After hours of pursuit, Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New Hampshire cornered Drega, and in an ensuing exchange of gunfire, he was killed.

During the shoot-out, all of the Federal law enforcement officers involved were wearing bulletproof vests. This includes John Pfeifer, a Vermonter and a

longtime friend. His father was one of my favorite professors in college, and I remember John as a child. He was seriously wounded. In fact, at that time, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and his family were staying with us at our home in Vermont.

We visited Officer Pfeifer, who was a U.S. Border Patrol agent, in the hospital. He was grievously wounded, but he survived and later became the Chief Patrol Agent of the sector. I have always feared--and I believe he agrees--that had it not been for his bulletproof vest, the outcome for John and his family may have been much worse.

Some of the state and local officers involved were not that fortunate. Two New Hampshire state troopers were killed. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. I don't know whether vests would have saved their lives. Let us hope they would have.

One thing I do know is that no officer should have to serve without having the benefit of wearing a bulletproof vest. That is what this is all about. I am immensely proud of this program. It is the most tangible support that all of us in Congress--both parties--can provide to our Nation's law enforcement officers.

To this day, for far too many jurisdictions, especially rural and smaller agencies, vests cost too much, and they wear out too soon. This program fills in the gap. It has provided more than 13,000 law enforcement agencies with 1.35 million vests. It has saved the lives of countless officers, several of whom have shared their stories with the Judiciary Committee, here in the Senate, during previous years. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office, more than 3,000 officers' lives have been saved by vests since 1987. It makes me very proud to know these officers can still be with their families and their departments.

Just yesterday, my office received a call from the Union City Police Department in Georgia. Last month, one of its officers, Jerome Turner, Jr.--shown in this photograph--was shot multiple times when he responded to a call. One round hit him directly in the chest, but it did not get through his bulletproof vest. When backup arrived, Officer Turner was lying on the ground from his other injuries. He went through 6 hours of surgery, but he lived. His department called yesterday to tell me that the vest that saved his life was purchased through this program. Everybody in my office and I just applauded at that news.

My staff also had a chance to talk with Officer Turner. He is still recovering, but he said he is happy to be home with his family--his family he might never have seen again. He also said what we all know to be true--the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program is critical to ensuring officers around the country can return home to their families after their shifts.

Officer Turner knows a lot about this program. It turns out that he previously served as the chief of police in a small town in Florida, which is the Presiding Officer's State. He used this program to outfit his officers with protective vests in order to keep his officers safe while they were protecting us.

This week is National Police Week. It is a time for the Nation to honor the many brave men and women in law enforcement who have lost their lives while having served their communities. That includes the 163 officers who were lost last year--52 of them killed by gunfire. The fact that Congress has now passed legislation to permanently reauthorize this program places real meaning behind our words of tribute. The legislation also increases the funding for vests as, year after year, only a fraction of the need is met.

This program is not now, and never has been, partisan. When we started, I said that I and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, of Colorado--a Republican--started it. I am especially grateful to Senator Lindsey Graham for being the lead cosponsor of both this and the last reauthorization.

Last week, our bill was being considered by the Judiciary Committee. I have to admit I was a bit surprised and very humbled when Chairman Graham called up an amendment to name the program after me and when it then got a unanimous vote from Republicans and Democrats. I am always going to be thankful, for the program is personal to me, and it is personal, certainly, to the officers who wear these vests.

I thank my many staff who have worked on this program for 22 years, including Dave Pendle, Erica Chabot, Ed Pagano, Bruce Cohen, Matt Virkstis, Kristine Lucius, Chan Park, David Carle, Jessica Berry, and many others.

I am also thankful to the entire law enforcement community, which has spoken with a single voice on this issue--a single voice. In particular I would like to thank Chuck Canterbury, Jim Pasco, and Tim Richardson with the Fraternal Order of Police--all friends of mine. The FOP has strongly supported this program from the beginning, and has been there for each of the six reauthorizations.

I would also like to thank for their support the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Tactical Officers Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Last, I would like to thank the sponsors of the House companion which the Senate just passed, Congressmen Bill Pascrell and Peter King.

Without this legislation, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program would expire next year. Once this legislation is signed into law, it will never expire. It has already saved the lives of so many, and placed vests on the backs of well over one million officers. Now we know that millions more officers will be protected, and millions of officers like Officer Turner will be able to go home to their families.

I wonder if the Senate would allow me to tell a story.

When we were doing the reauthorization, I had asked a police officer from Pennsylvania to come and testify. He came. His parents, his wife, and his children sat behind him. He gave very moving testimony. He said the two most important things to him in life were his family and law enforcement. He told us about how, a short while before, he stopped a car at a routine traffic stop. He got out of his police car, and the person in the other car stepped out and fired four shots at him--point blank. He fell over. Others caught the person.

He said: As I was falling, I thought I would never see my family again. I had a couple of cracked ribs. They came to visit me in the hospital. I went back home with them to their love and care. Then I went back to work. This is what saved me.

He reached under the table and held up a bulletproof vest, and you could still see three large caliber slugs embedded in it.

He said: Those would have been in my heart. I never would have seen my family, and I never would have gone back to law enforcement.

At that time, I was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. After his testimony, I asked if we could have a unanimous vote to reauthorize. It was the fastest unanimous vote I can remember in that committee.

As I said then and as I say now, this is the least Congress can do on behalf of our Nation's law enforcement officers. Obviously, I am proud to have had the legislation named after me, but I am proud of all of the Senators over the last 20-plus years--Republicans and Democrats-- who have supported it. I am glad we have done it. Now it will head to the President for his signature, and I am sure the President will sign it without delay.

I see nobody else who seeks recognition.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a remarkable and unique person, Vermont Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Skoglund, who will soon be retiring after serving 25 years with the Vermont judiciary.

Justice Skoglund is what we all want to see in a jurist and public servant. She is dedicated, personable, and highly committed to the rule of law, but her path to the Vermont Supreme Court was anything but typical. As a single mother working hard to get by in the 1970s, law school was not an option. Instead, she took advantage of Vermont's ``Reading the Law'' approach that allowed her to study while serving as an apprentice of sorts with the Vermont Attorney General's office. After being admitted to the Vermont Bar, she would go on to serve as chief of the civil law and public protection divisions in the AG's office before being appointed to the bench in 1994 by then-Governor Howard Dean. She would be elevated to the supreme court just 3 years later. At the time, she was only the second woman to serve on Vermont's highest court. Today, women make up the majority of its five justices.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Justice Skoglund during her many years of living and working in my hometown of Montpelier. Her personal story was so compelling that she was my first choice in 2008 to keynote Vermont's Women's Economic Opportunity Conference, an annual event I have now hosted for 23 years.

But no tribute to Justice Skoglund would be complete if it did not mention her keen sense of humor. Perhaps it is this trait that has so deftly served her these many years, for as serious as the supreme court must be in delivering justice, Marilyn Skoglund has demonstrated time and again the benefit of

laughter in our lives. She finds the time to appreciate what some might only see as mundane; she cherishes her friendships, and she mentors those who will succeed us. By her own account, she has led a full life.

I ask unanimous consent that these excerpts of the May 1 Seven Days profile of Justice Skoglund be printed in the Record.

Madam President, today, I am honored to recognize the president of the University of Vermont, UVM, Thomas Sullivan, who is stepping down this June after 7 years as a remarkable leader for the university.

Tom's tenure as the 26th president of the University of Vermont came during a tumultuous time in higher education. Despite demographic declines and reduced public investments in higher education, Tom made quality, affordable education and investment in scholarship his top priorities.

Tom expanded UVM's course offerings, oversaw 20 building projects, and

helped increase the value of UVM's endowment by 80 percent. When appointed in 2012, Tom was given the responsibility of heading UVM's Move Mountains fundraising campaign with the goal of raising $500 million by 2020. Because of Tom's personality, passion, and, at times, persuasion, the University hit its fundraising goal a year ahead of schedule, a very impressive accomplishment considering the economic hardship that has defined the last decade. The success of this campaign increased scholarships for students, invested in top-tier faculty, and made capital investments to improve the student experience.

While the university has continued to evolve, under Tom's leadership, UVM has managed to stay true to its founding as a Land Grant university. Tom has worked tirelessly during his tenure to expand UVM's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--STEM--offerings including the 4-year construction of a $104 million STEM Complex. Tom shares the belief that income should not be a barrier to a good education. Because of his dedication to the education of all students, Tom was instrumental in developing UVM's Catamount Commitment, which promises Pell Grant-eligible Vermonters that the reminder of their tuition will be covered, either through grants or waived by the university entirely.

Tom's tenure at UVM tops off a long and distinguished professional experience in the field of academia. Tom taught at the law schools of the University of Missouri, Washington University in St. Louis, MO, and was appointed to be a dean and professor of law at the University of Arizona College of Law. Following his time at the University of Arizona, he began his 17-year tenure at the University of Minnesota, where he eventually was appointed to become its senior vice president and provost.

Calling Tom a prolific academic and legal scholar would be an understatement. He has written 11 books and over 50 articles primarily in the field of antitrust litigation. In addition to his writings, in 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee had the honor and privilege of obtaining Tom's advice and consultation on the confirmation of then- Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lasting impact of Tom's work in the field of legal studies is no small feat and will be felt for generations to come.

It is rare to find Tom's unparalleled selfless dedication to academia and the needs of students across the country as well as throughout the world. Over the course of his 7-year tenure, Marcelle and I have had the pleasure on multiple occasions to enjoy the company of Tom and his wife Leslie. They are wonderful people who care about nothing more than giving the next generation the opportunity to succeed through academics. Tom's charming and caring presence will surely be missed on campus, but we look forward to having Tom and Leslie as Vermont residents for some time. Marcelle and I thank Tom for his service, and we wish him and Leslie all the best in the next chapter of his distinguished career.

Madam President, I want to speak briefly about the courageous environmental activism of Alfred Brownell, a native of Liberia now living in exile in Boston.

Mr. Brownell is an environmental and human rights lawyer and the executive director of Green Advocates, a Liberian organization that he founded to promote environmental justice for indigenous communities. Like so many environmental activists around the world, he has been repeatedly harassed and threatened. He was forced to flee his country with his family due to fear of reprisal for his outspoken and tireless work to protect the traditional land rights of his countrymen and against the sale, without their consent, of vast areas of forest to Golden Veroleum Liberia, a Southeast Asian-based company that produces palm oil. Now a visiting scholar and teacher at Northeastern University, Mr. Brownell continues to conduct research and classes on the issues that have come to define his life.

Mr. Brownell was recently recognized by the international community for his perseverance in protecting Liberia's forests on which thousands of Liberian families and many endangered species of wildlife depend. He was honored in San Francisco and Washington as one of six recipients of the prestigious 2019 Goldman Environmental Prize. It is important that we not only pay tribute to Mr. Brownell for his extraordinary contribution to his people and his country but that we be aware that despite this international recognition, he continues to fear returning to his native country.

I have long supported U.S. assistance to help Liberia overcome years of a brutal armed conflict, and I will continue to do so. But I regret that the Liberian Government has sided with the palm oil company and against their own local farmers. Unable to intimidate Mr. Brownell, government officials tried to silence him by offering him government jobs in return for his cooperation. When that failed, they put his house and his family under police surveillance, publicly accused him of sedition and economic sabotage, accused his organization and other environmental rights organizations of undermining Liberia's sovereignty, and lied about him to incite an assassination attempt. Since December 2016, he has been living in exile, with no indication from Liberian officials that their hostility toward him and his cause has diminished.

Government intimidation of civil society activists and scholars is antithetical to open and accountable democratic societies. It is what we have come to expect of shortsighted or, even worse, corrupt officials and the outsized influence of corporate interests.

If the Liberian Government is serious about attracting foreign investment for job creation and sustainable economic development--goals we all support--it should recognize that Mr. Brownell is a patriot of whom all Liberians can be proud. Liberian officials should encourage him and his family to return to Liberia, and point to him as an example of how one courageous and determined individual can make a positive difference for the country.

Rather than benefiting a foreign corporation producing a monocrop for export, the Liberian Government should be protecting its biologically diverse forests and wildlife, not destroying them and polluting the rivers on which local inhabitants depend and displacing people who have lived there for generations.

Alfred Brownell should be a source of pride and an inspiration for all Liberians. I hope the international recognition he has received will convince the Liberian Government that it is people like him who deserve our admiration and our thanks.

Mr. president, Katherine Paterson is a Vermont author with more than 30 titles to her name and a list of awards that other writers could only dream of. She has a keenly special knack for introducing young readers to difficult topics about life and death, as she did with her well-known novel, ``Bridge to Terabithia.'' She has just added a prestigious and fitting recognition to that long list, having been named the American Academy of Arts and Letters' 2019 E.B. White Award winner. The award pays tribute to her lifetime of achievement in children's literature.

What is notable about this latest award is the modesty by which Katherine Paterson comes to it. In an interview with Vermont Public Radio, VPR, the author who has twice won both the National Book Award and the Newbery Medal said her latest award held special meaning.

``Any award that has the name `E.B. White' attached to it brings with it a great thrill of joy, since he's one of my real heroes,'' she told her VPR audience. ``He probably was one of the best writers in America, and yet he respected children so much that he wrote some of his best work for them. And that makes me incredibly happy.''

Clearly, some of E.B. White's influence has rubbed off, as Katherine Paterson's own novels show great respect for her readers, young and old alike. Her writing has been hailed for the compassion she expresses, taking on life's challenges--and tragedies--in a forthright and honest exploration for young readers. Her achievement is all the more impressive given that Katherine Paterson's first language was Chinese, having been born to Christian missionaries who immersed her in the culture before being forced to leave China in the late 1930s. Her studies of both Chinese and Japanese cultures, as well as her religious interests, are evident in her collection of writings.

We are fortunate that Katherine and her late husband John chose to settle in Vermont more than three decades ago. On both local and national levels, she has been most generous with her time, visiting schools and inspiring young people to read, while advocating for organizations that promote literacy. It is no wonder that Katherine Paterson has been named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress.

Marcelle and I are proud and honored to call Katherine Paterson a friend and, more so, a Vermonter.

Congratulations to you, Katherine, on this latest and most meaningful recognition. It is so very much deserved.

Mr. President, it is not often that I say the words ``Vermont'' and ``bow tie'' in the same sentence, except, of course, when discussing the famed Beau Ties Ltd. of Vermont. Beau Ties, Vermont's sole bow tie manufacturer, got its start as a mom-and-pop operation more than 25 years ago and maintains that ethos. They are an amazing example of the many small businesses that are the heart and soul of Vermont.

Beau Ties was started in 1993 by bow tie aficionado Bill Kenerson and his wife Deborah Venman. They ran the company out of their home and sold their bow ties through the mail. Over the years, the company has grown to employ 30 Vermonters and now has its own manufacturing facility in Middlebury. They sell hundreds of different bow ties, and their selection is constantly changing to keep customers coming back.

Though they are no longer at the helm, Bill and Deborah's desire to keep the company in Vermont has been honored. In fact, the company has never left the facility that it moved into in 1999, and many of its employees have been with Beau Ties for over 20 years.

Among its clientele, Beau Ties Ltd. can count the late Orville Redenbacher and Bill Nye. The company has also cut cloth for the Obama White House and is the official tiemaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Vermont Statehouse. I have also sported Beau Ties before: I wore one of their bow ties to the investiture of Judge Geoffrey Crawford, now chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

I am proud to recognize the achievements and devoted following that Beau Ties Ltd. has accumulated over its nearly three decades in business. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a ``Seven Days'' article titled, ``Middlebury's Beau Ties Collars the Market on Dapper Neckwear.'' It tells the story of Beau Ties Ltd., from its humble beginnings to now and of its importance to Vermont's economy and its many satisfied customers, myself included.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes regarding the Schumer-Leahy amendment. I realize this will put off the time slightly for the vote.

Mr. President, I am sorry that the Republicans objected to the earlier legislation we brought up, which would have helped the Midwest. It had money in it. Of course, we are not, by any means, asking for billions more for Puerto Rico in this amendment. In total, this amendment would add $3.2 billion, of which only $462 million is for Puerto Rico. The rest is for the Midwest floods, Alabama tornado, Florida, California, Georgia and other states.

I think it is unfortunate we have reached an impasse on the emergency disaster supplemental appropriations bill.

For months, I urged Senate Republican leadership to take up and pass H.R. 268. For nearly 3 months, it wouldn't. During those 3 months, American communities suffered, and new disasters struck the Midwest and the Southeast. The new criticism from the Republican leadership was, with the Democrats' pushing for more comprehensive aid to Puerto Rico in H.R. 268, that they must not care about the American communities that have been affected by more recent disasters.

But I would remind the Chamber that it was the Republican leadership that rejected my amendment to H.R. 268 that would have accommodated all of these other communities.

I would also remind the Chamber that the Trump administration has not asked for one dime for Hurricanes Michael and Florence, the Alabama tornadoes, or the Midwest flooding. To the Trump administration, it is as though they never happened.

I have always stood with victims of disaster around this country. When my own State of Vermont was devastated by Tropical Storm Irene, Members of this body came to me, not as Republicans or Democrats but as concerned American citizens looking to help, just as I always have, whatever State it might be. Red State, blue State, or purple State, I have always voted to support them, and today this Vermonter is here to stand with all the American communities affected by recent natural disasters.

I have not given up on finding a path forward. Today Leader Schumer and I offered a substitute that would provide $2.5 billion in new funding to address the needs of communities affected by the 2019 disasters, such as flooding in the Midwest and tornadoes in Alabama. It would also accommodate the needs of the American citizens--remember that they are Americans--in Puerto Rico and other Territories by including increased funding for the community development block grant and grants to help rebuild damaged water systems. It also includes Medicaid funding for the Northern Mariana Islands and cost match waivers for the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

Finally, it mandates that HUD speed up the release of billions in previously appropriated CDBG funding which the Trump administration has unnecessarily withheld from disaster-stricken communities in Puerto Rico, in Texas, in Louisiana, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, in Florida, in South Carolina, in North Carolina, in West Virginia, in California, in Missouri, and in Georgia. We want to get help to all of those States.

I am disappointed that once again Senate Republicans have objected to this critical assistance. We are the United States of America. We are all Americans. We cannot pick and choose which American citizens to help in times of crisis.

Frankly, I was offended when the White House referred to Puerto Rico as ``that country'' that ``only takes from the U.S.A.'' I would remind the White House to look at a history book. Puerto Rico is part of the U.S.A. These are our fellow American citizens. We in the Senate must be better than that. We must stand with all American citizens in times of crisis.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have a couple of matters I want to discuss.

Today, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science is holding its annual hearing on the President's budget request, with the Department of Commerce, with representatives from the Department.

The representative from the Department that is invited, in my experience, has always been the Secretary--in this case, Wilbur Ross. This year, for as long as I can remember, with no public explanation, Secretary Ross declined the Subcommittee's invitation.

The Department of Commerce has a budget request for over $12.2 billion but couldn't send over its Secretary to defend it. It is extraordinary that the

Secretary provided no justification to the Republican chairman of the committee for his actions. It is extraordinary to me that this Secretary believes he should be treated differently from other Secretaries. He believes he may not be held accountable before the American people.

Secretary Ross's absence is especially concerning to me, given the last time he appeared before the subcommittee. He blatantly, objectively, irrefutably misled me about a critical issue facing the Commerce Department. Perhaps he knew he would be asked about what he said last time and would be asked to tell us what is the truth.

A year ago, I asked Secretary Ross why he had marketed the proposed addition of a controversial citizenship question to the census as being necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act. To claim that question was needed to enforce the law when the administration had no interest in enforcing it was actually laughable at the time. So I asked Secretary Ross why he had such a sudden interest in adding the question when the Department of Justice had not brought a single suit under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

This was his response, and, remember, it is a crime to lie in your testimony before the Congress. He claimed the Justice Department is the one that made the request of the Commerce Department. He made similar claims before the House. He testified that Commerce was responding solely to the Department of Justice's request, and the Department of Justice made the request for the inclusion of the citizenship question.

Those are the claims Secretary Ross made, and all of those claims are false. This was proven as a result of emails obtained through a FOIA lawsuit. It was not something he was willing to bring forth, but they had to have a lawsuit to get the truth. We now know, Secretary Ross himself made the initial request to include the citizenship question. We know it was Secretary Ross who pressured the reluctant Justice Department to claim that such a question would be helpful to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

And now we know that the inclusion of this question, as many of us suspected from the beginning, was a nakedly political act, one that involves none other than Kris Kobach and Steve Bannon. The proof of all of this is in the emails. Just 1 year before I asked Secretary Ross about this issue, he wrote that he was ``mystified why nothing had been done in response to my months old request that we include the citizenship question.''

Well, I am mystified how Secretary Ross's testimony can be construed as anything other than blatantly misleading Congress. His testimony earned him four Pinocchios from the Washington Post.

Two courts have now declared that Secretary Ross's attempt to include the citizenship question was illegal. One of them found that ``in a startling number of ways, Secretary Ross's explanations for his decision were unsupported by, or even counter to, the evidence before the agency.'' That is a remarkable, but not surprising, declaration from the court.

So today I have a simple message for Secretary Ross: You are not an investment banker anymore. You serve the American people, and part of your job is being accountable to Congress and to the public. Trying to run from Congress will not solve your problems, and trying to hide from the truth will not either. The truth has a way of catching up with you. If you don't tell the truth, it eventually becomes obvious. Secretary Ross did not tell the truth.

S. Res. 50

Madam President, to say it is disappointing that the Senate is going to vote today in relation to the resolution to reduce postcloture debate on nominations is an understatement. This is actually a resolution in search of a problem. This is an erosion of the Senate's responsibility--in fact, our sworn constitutional duty--to advise and consent to the President's--any President's--nominations. It is a removal of one of the last guardrails for quality and bipartisanship in our nomination process. It is short sided. It is a partisan power grab, and it is motivated by the far right's desire to flood the Federal judiciary with young, ideological nominees, many of whom, as we have seen time and again in the Judiciary Committee, are simply unqualified to serve on our Nation's courts. We have seen nominees who have never been in a courtroom, and they are being nominated for lifetime judgeships.

Postcloture time is a critical tool for Senators, especially those who do not sit on the Judiciary Committee, to vet nominees for lifetime judgeships. In fact, last Congress, more than one nominee had to withdraw after scrutiny during this time led the Republicans withdrawing their support. We actually took the time to ask questions-- an extra 20 minutes of questions, or an extra hour of questions. For somebody who is up for a lifetime appointment, I think that is what the American public pay us to do.

Unfortunately, for the Republican leadership the nominations process in the Senate is about quantity not quality. Let me give you an example. In the past 2 years, Republicans have disregarded the important role of the ABA. They denied them the time they needed to evaluate judicial nominees, or when they have evaluated them and they have come back saying they are unqualified, they have ignored that.

Republicans routinely stacked hearing panels with multiple circuit court nominees over Democrats' objections--something Democrats never did to Republicans. Republicans have even held several hearings over recess despite our objections. That is certainly something I would never do when I was chairman if any Republican asked me not to.

Upon the White House's changing hands from a Democrat to a Republican, the Republicans abruptly changed the policy of the blue slips. There has been a long-held tradition of honoring blue slips from home State Senators on circuit court nominees. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I respected the input of all home State Senators, no matter whether we had a Democrat or Republican in the White House and no matter whether the Senator was a Republican or a Democrat. Republicans only seem to insist on honoring blue slips when a Democrat is in the White House.

When I was chairman with a Democratic President, every single Republican wrote a letter saying the blue slip was so sacred, and every single one of them wanted it to be upheld. It had to be upheld. Whoops, a Republican comes into the White House, and we don't need it any more. Look no further than the Judiciary Committee's markup this week, where they ignored the opposition of two home State Senators who are also members of the committee, including the Ranking Member, and will advance two circuit nominees for whom blue slips were not returned.

When Democrats were in charge, no Republican would condone that and no Democrat would make them have to face that. Yet they have turned it into a partisan rubberstamp. We are not being the conscience of the Nation.

Opponents to this resolution can say it is necessary to do this because of the slow pace with which President Trump's judicial nominations are being confirmed. Let's quickly review that. In his first 2 years, President Trump had more judicial nominations confirmed than President Obama did in his first 4 years. In just 2 years, we almost doubled the number of circuit court nominations confirmed compared to President Obama's first 4 years. In fact, President Trump had more circuit nominees confirmed in his first 2 years than President Obama, President George W. Bush, President Clinton, or President George H. W. Bush.

So I don't need lectures from Senators in this Chamber about the importance of judicial nominations or the methods by which Members could frustrate the confirmation process. I lived it. I have seen it. I have served here longer than any other Member of this body.

Regardless of whether it was a Republican President or a Democratic one, I respected the role of home State Senators, the role of the Senate as a whole, and our roles as individual Senators to evaluate the nomination before us.

In 2013, in a bipartisan vote, the Senate agreed to a resolution to reduce postcloture debate that was supposed to be good for the life of the 113th Congress, not the permanent rule change proposed by S. Res. 50. Let's remember

the facts, not just some of them. All the other guardrails of the nomination process were intact at the time. Nominations were thoroughly vetted by both the administration and the committees here in the Senate. Nominees were still subject to a 60-vote threshold for judicial nomination, including circuit nominees. Cloture was never filed on a day in which a nomination was reported on the floor. For judicial nominations, hearings were not continually stacked with multiple circuit court nominees, something both Republicans and Democrats agreed on. The prerogative of home State Senators and their in-State judicial selection committees--most of which are bipartisan--were respected both before and after the resolution.

I understand the Republican majority now wants to cry foul and accuse Democrats of needlessly holding up our confirmation process. I wish people had been here more than 2 years. I look back at the glacial pace with which Republicans allowed us to process judicial nominations for the first 6 years of the Obama administration.

From the very beginning, in 2009, Republicans inexplicably withheld their consent to consider President Obama's very first circuit nominee and one that was supported by his Republican home State Senator, the highly respected Richard Lugar.

I always look back at the shameful treatment of Merrick Garland to fill a critical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Never in the history of this country have we refused to allow a Supreme Court nominee to at least have a hearing and a vote until Merrick Garland. That was a political power grab that undermined the legitimacy of the Senate and the courts. This claim was made: We don't vote on Supreme Court nominees in an election year.

Well, of course we do. I remember almost all of us Republicans and Democrats voting on a nominee that President Ronald Reagan made in an election year when he was going to be leaving the Presidency. Looking back might provide a glimpse of history, but it will do little to restore the comity that was a hallmark of the Senate when I first came here--a hallmark which made the Senate seem like the conscience of the Nation, not a partisan political stamp.

Looking forward, this resolution will do little to restore the comity and will further polarize the Senate, which is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. It will only further contribute to the politicization of our courts. The Federal courts are perceived throughout the world as above politics and are now being seen, more and more, as a political rubberstamp for President Trump.

When the Senate Rules Committee held a hearing to evaluate the proposal back in 2017, I remarked that the word ``obstruction'' had become a term thrown about in the Senate whenever unanimous consent was not provided. ``Duty,'' unfortunately, is a word we hear too little in this body.

Vermonters, time and again, give me their trust not only to represent Vermont values here in Washington but to protect the centuries-old institutions that have sustained our democracy and that made us the longest existing democracy currently in the world. The Senate is part of why that democracy still exists. The Senate should reject this resolution. We cannot abandon the traditions that made the Senate, at its very best, the conscience of the Nation in exchange for short-term political gain and going from the conscience of the Nation to a partisan rubberstamp. That is not the Senate that I admire. It is not the Senate that has been led by some of the best Republicans and Democrats I have known over my decades here. It is not the Senate we want to see in the history books.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, while my friend is still here on the floor, he was absolutely correct when he pointed me out as saying that I have long supported disasters, whatever State is involved, whether it is a red State, blue State, or purple State. I believe in helping Americans. We are all part of the United States of America.

I think we do waste time sometimes in having debates on things we should not. For example, when the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate and we had a bill to keep our government open and to fund part of the barriers along the Mexican border, both the Senator and I voted the same way. We voted for the bill. It would have given $1.4 billion that the Executive could use toward security. The President threaten to vetoed that, saying it was not enough even though the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats had voted for it in the House and the Senate. So he shut down the government for 35 days, which caused unprecedented hurt to Americans of all political persuasions all over this country. I believe the CBO said it cost the country about $11 billion.

What did he then sign? The new bill we came up with, which had $1.3 billion. He rejected the bill the Republicans and Democrats had supported that had $1.4 billion, shut down the government, ruined the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Americans, cost our economy over $10 billion, and then signed a bill to get $100 million less.

I worry we are in somewhat the same situation now. We seem to be deciding which Americans are going to be helped based on a tweet. I believe all Americans should be helped, and I voted for disaster relief for the States of every Senator who is on the floor presently. I have never asked what their priorities were or what their political background was; if they had a disaster, I voted for it. I think it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stand with American communities in crisis.

I praised Chairman Shelby and his staff for their efforts to move this process forward. I know communities in Senator Shelby's State recently experienced their own natural disaster. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as a U.S. Senator, and as a Vermonter, I am ready to stand with the people of Alabama because that is what we Americans do.

When Tropical Storm Irene devastated my State in 2011, Members of this body came to me not as Republicans or Democrats but as American citizens eager to help their neighbor. When disasters have hit other parts of the country, I have done exactly the same.

But now we should know that for more than 1 year, one of our neighbors has been in crises. In 2017, Puerto Rico was hit by two back- to-back category 5 hurricanes. It is an almost unprecedented disaster-- two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. At first, the administration was saying: Well, there is only a handful of people who died. Well, it turns out that we estimated that 2,975 Americans lost their lives. That is one heck of a handful. Their homes were demolished. Their communities were destroyed. This was more than 1 year ago.

Today, if you fly over Puerto Rico, the landscape will still be specked with blue plastic tarps that serve as temporary roofs and shelters. From the ground, you see that the wear and tear of a year and a half has frayed that plastic. The boards haphazardly holding up these plastic roofs have warped, and they appear ready to collapse.

The New York Times wrote a story on the 1-year anniversary of the storms. The stories told are heartbreaking.

One woman, Martina Cruz Sanchez, described her hurried routine every time it rains. First, she has to climb a ladder to where her roof used to be before 100-plus-mile-an-hour winds ripped it off and scattered it around the island. Then, using a hose, she has to manually siphon off the accumulating puddles to keep the roof from leaking on what little she has left.

Ms. Cruz's situation is not unique. On a different part of the island, Pablo Figueroa is forced to live in the only corner of his small home that still has a roof. Two others described living out of a tent attached to their neighbor's garage. A fallen tree remains from where it first crashed through Paula Cruz Ortiz's home. Julia Rivera, a mother of nine, laments that she has ``lost everything'' except her ``faith in God.''

Across the island, water-logged walls have gone unrepaired and have begun to rot. A hospital that was flooded was overtaken by toxic mold-- a hospital. A hospital that was flooded was overtaken by toxic mold. A year after the storm, it remained closed.

The mold in 82-year-old Leomida Uniel's home has stained the walls black. This 82-year-old person had a lung infection as a result.

When Carmen Cruz was asked about losing her home, she said: It was a little house--two bedrooms--but for me, it was a castle.

I tell these stories because these are American citizens. I would tell the same story if they were Vermonters or whatever other State they might be from. They are American citizens. These are our neighbors. These are human beings. Let's treat them as such. To do any less is an embarrassment to our country, this body, and our humanity. This was an extraordinary disaster and requires an extraordinary response.

What has happened? Let's be very frank. Let's be very honest about what has happened. Instead of standing with our neighbors, our fellow Americans, the President has chosen to hold petty grudges, which is way beneath the Office of the Presidency. He wants to pick winners and losers by deciding who gets assistance based on his own arbitrary standards. That is wrong. This Senator says that is un-American.

I know firsthand that the Federal Government is a critical partner in the effort to recover and rebuild. North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, California, Texas, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands just to name a few are all counting on us to get this bill across the finish line. I have urged Senate Republicans to take up and pass the House bill, H.R. 268, since the House first passed it in January. The Republican leadership has refused. So they have forced Puerto Rico to begin to cut back nutrition assistance weeks ago.

I am glad to see that the Republican substitute amendment finally includes money for Puerto Rico's nutrition assistance program. We should get that money to the island soon, but nutrition assistance is not enough. Puerto Rico needs to rebuild. I have offered a compromise path forward from what the House passed, but it would address the needs of Puerto Rico. It would unlock billions of dollars in additional assistance for the mainland. Keep in mind that billions of these dollars are just sitting there.

If Senate Republicans would accept this proposal, we could quickly pass this disaster bill. Even though it is different than the House bill, we could pass it in the Senate, and I believe the House would pass it and forego the need for a conference and get assistance to the people who need it sooner rather than later.

I agree with my distinguished colleague and friend that we should do that this week. We could do that today. In a moment--and I alert my colleagues on the other side--I will ask unanimous consent to take up and adopt this amendment, but if the amendment is not adopted, I will vote against the cloture motion on the Republican substitute.

We cannot advance a bill that picks and chooses among Americans and says that some Americans are lesser than others. We cannot advance a bill that does not address these critical needs.

H.R. 268, the underlying House-passed bill, is a good bill. It provides for much needed relief of victims of Hurricane Florence, victims of Hurricane Michael, and the Hawaii volcanoes, and California wildfires, just to name a few of the disasters. It also continues critical assistance to Puerto Rico.

Today I filed an amendment to extend relief to the victims of the recent tornadoes in the Southeast and the flooding in the Midwest. H.R. 268 was drafted before that flooding occurred. My amendment would ensure that they receive assistance, as well.

I am about to ask unanimous consent that this amendment to the House bill be adopted, as well. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government not to pick and choose which Americans are really Americans. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stand with all American communities in crisis. We have to do it now. The needs are pressing. The people are waiting. When somebody serves in the Armed Forces--whether they are from Puerto Rico, Alabama, or Vermont--they don't pick and choose and say: Well, I will go to bat if this matter tells me to, but not this one.

I alert my colleagues that I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer amendment No. 205 to Shelby amendment No. 201 and that the amendment be agreed to with no intervening action or debate.

I said these are among other States, if you look at what I said.

If the Senator would yield.

I said in there, ``just to name a few.'' I did not leave anybody out.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer amendment No. 234 to the language proposed to be stricken and that the amendment be agreed to with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I thought it was exceptionally good news on Sunday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not implicate our President in a criminal conspiracy with Russia to attack our elections. The alternative, of course, would have been nothing short of catastrophic for our Republic.

I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. Mueller and his team for their service to our country for determining the facts of what happened during what was an unprecedented attack on our democracy. This investigation endured relentless attacks during its 22-month existence. In fact, the investigation by Mr. Mueller was attacked 1,100 times by President Trump alone during this time according to the New York Times.

These attacks may have tried to politicize and undermine Mr. Mueller's investigation, but they didn't deter his course. Anybody that knows Robert Mueller would know that he would not be intimidated by anybody, Republican or Democrat. In fact, far from being deterred, Mr. Mueller obtained 37 indictments, including against numerous close aides of the President. That marks this special counsel's investigation as one of the most productive and consequential in our history. The American people and their representatives in Congress now deserve to see the special counsel's work.

The oversight authority of this body is deeply rooted in the Constitution. We would be derelict in our duties if we did not do everything within our power to obtain a full report and its underlying evidence. We already know from the 37 indictments, and from the testimony received by the Judiciary Committee, that this investigation has uncovered serious misconduct. We know the Trump campaign was informed that Russia had stolen Democratic emails months before anybody else. We know that a senior member of the campaign enthusiastically accepted an offer from the Russian Government to provide ``incriminating'' information on Hillary Clinton, and, afterward, he and President Trump blatantly misrepresented that meeting. We know from Roger Stone's indictment that the President was told about a coming release of stolen emails, and the campaign asked Stone to keep them apprised of developments with future releases. And we know that during all of this, the President was hiding his pursuit of a lucrative business deal in Moscow.

Now, these activities may not amount to a crime, but they certainly amount to serious misconduct that reached the highest levels of the campaign and this administration, and they certainly raise questions about the President's baffling relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin. This relationship has been baffling to both Republicans and Democrats.

That doesn't even touch on obstruction of justice. Attorney General Barr's letter revealed that there is still nonpublic evidence of the President's attempts to interfere with this investigation. The special counsel did not conclude whether the President's obsessive interference in this investigation qualifies as obstruction. Yet he stated that his report does not exonerate the President--does not exonerate the President. That is an extraordinary statement.

Apparently, Attorney General Barr believes there is insufficient evidence to charge obstruction, but Mr. Barr also believes that it is not obstruction for a President to interfere with an investigation by exercising his Article II powers. Regardless, he believes that the only mechanism for holding a sitting President accountable is through Congress.

Let's accept all of that. I don't necessarily accept all of it, but let's assume he is accurate in that. Then I would hope he would agree that it is the judgment of Congress and of the American people that is of the utmost importance in this moment. There is simply no justification for hiding even a portion of the Mueller report. The President has claimed it totally exonerates him.

With respect to the collusion investigation, grand jury secrecy can be waived by the courts when there is a particular need that outweighs the interest in secrecy. With respect to the obstruction investigation, executive privilege cannot be used to hide evidence of a potential crime. In fact, if you want to hide evidence of a potential crime under executive privilege, all they have to do is look at a Supreme Court case where that was tried called United States v. Richard Nixon. Any claim would likely not survive a challenge under United States v. Nixon. It is hard to imagine that such hypothetical claims were not waived when administration witnesses talked to the special counsel's office.

Transparency is really the touchstone of our democracy. Any attempt to hide swaths of the Mueller report from public scrutiny is only going to fuel suspicions that President Trump's Justice Department, which represents not President Trump but all the United States, is instead playing the role of President Trump's defense team. If no person, however powerful, is truly above the law, then no person should be permitted to conceal the results of such a critical national security investigation from public view.

I hope that in the days and weeks ahead, the Senate has something to say about that. Everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, has a stake in knowing what is in that report and seeing the whole report. After months and months of work and all the investigations, all the indictments, and all the grand jury hearings, to say we have to rely on just a four-page summary is not enough. I don't accept that. I would hope that no Senator, Republican or Democrat, would accept it.

I note that the House of Representatives voted unanimously--every Republican and every Democrat--to have the report released. I note that when we tried to have a similar resolution here, it was blocked by the Republican leader. I think the Republican leader should turn to all of us and say: Let the American people know the facts.