Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Owen Gomory from my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on January 16, more than 2 months ago, the House passed a supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 268, which addressed the needs of all communities impacted by recent natural disasters. The House-passed disaster bill provided assistance to help people impacted by Hurricanes Florence and Michael, the Hawaii volcanoes, and the California wildfires. It provided aid to the people in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Guam, who were struck last year by typhoons, and the people of American Samoa, who were devastated by Cyclone Gita. It continued assistance for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to help them continue their recovery from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. They passed it 2 months ago.

Instead of moving quickly on this package to help those Americans in need, Senate Republicans, at the President's insistence, held up the House bill because it included assistance for Americans in Puerto Rico. Instead of giving aid to the people who need it, the President has chosen to delay it over petty grudges and political concerns.

The President's refusal to help Americans in Puerto Rico not only delays the important disaster bill that many of the other States are relying on to

speed their recovery efforts, it discriminates against the over 3 million Americans who reside in Puerto Rico, and that is wrong. We have never--certainly in my years here--had disaster bills in which we say that Americans in this State can be helped, but we do not like the Americans in this State, so they cannot be helped.

This is the United States of America. We are supposed to take care of all of our citizens when there is a crisis, not pick and choose who gets assistance based on who we are aligned with politically. I have voted for disaster relief for red States, for blue States, for purple States because they are part of the United States of America. I feel that as a country we have to come together to help each other when there is a disaster.

Certainly Republican Senators and Democratic Senators helped the State of Vermont when we were hit with a disaster a few years ago. Well, today it is Puerto Rico, and all of the Americans in Puerto Rico need our help.

A year and a half ago, it was hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. It is rare that anybody ever gets hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. An estimated 2,975 Americans lost their lives. Homes were demolished, communities destroyed. It was an extraordinary disaster, and it requires a commensurate extraordinary response.

I am glad we are finally moving to debate on the House-passed bill because we need that. We actually ought to just pass the House-passed bill, but, unfortunately, the Republicans say they will file a substitute that will take us backward, not forward.

Again, at the President's insistence, it eliminates critical assistance for the Americans in Puerto Rico provided for in the House bill, as well as assistance to other U.S. territories. It eliminates State-revolving funds that would help Puerto Rico rebuild damaged water systems and ensure they are resilient and can stand up to future storms. It eliminates a 100-percent cost-share for FEMA that would help cash-strapped Puerto Rico access Federal aid. It eliminates money to help Americans ensure that Puerto Rico is able to rebuild their electrical grid. It eliminates $68 million in Medicaid assistance for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, whose programs face serious shortages due to the increased need.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this money is not needed. They point to previous disaster supplemental bills and argue that we have already addressed the needs of Puerto Rico, and we should move on. Well, that is untrue. We provided Puerto Rico with significant assistance, as we should have, given the extraordinary nature of the storms that ravaged the island and given the extent of the devastation, but as damage assessments come in and the full picture of the devastation becomes clear, we must continually reassess and provide them what is needed to fully recover.

I remember when this first happened, back when the White House was saying there may be two or three or four or a dozen fatalities in Puerto Rico. Well, they were off by thousands. There were 2,975 people who lost their lives, not just a handful.

We don't simply appropriate the same amount of money to each State or territory that is hit with a disaster no matter the level of damage. We look at each place, and we provide what is needed for the people to rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives.

I will give you one example of why one size does not fit all. With Katrina, we in Congress passed six supplemental disaster packages--not one, six--to help rebuild Louisiana and Mississippi because the storm was unlike anything we had ever seen. They needed the assistance coming in over time. I supported the help for Louisiana and Mississippi. No one at the time would have argued to stop after the first tranche of funding we provided and then leave them to fend for themselves, because they are Americans. We saw there were more problems, and we added money.

This is no different.

The President reportedly came to the Capitol and met with Senators yesterday and made his case as to why we should not continue aid to Puerto Rico. Let me repeat. The President of the United States-- something I have never seen in my 45 years here with either a Republican or Democratic President--affirmatively argued that we should refrain from helping American citizens in need.

Of course, like so many things the President has said, it was not based in fact or reality. He claimed that Puerto Rico had received over $90 billion in Federal assistance, but it has not. He knows it has not. Why does he keep saying this when he has to know that what he is saying is not true? He claims it is using Federal money to pay off its debt. It has not. The President knows that is not true. Why does he keep saying it?

Some here in this body have claimed that Puerto Rico has in the bank $20 billion in previously appropriated money that they have failed to spend, and they argue that we should provide no more until it is drawn down. I do not know if they are getting their talking points from the White House or what, but that is simply false.

The bulk of the money to which they refer, which we Republicans and Democrats alike voted to appropriate over 1 year ago, is being held up by the administration in redtape and bureaucracy. It seems as though it is being purposely held back because of inaction by this administration. Billions of dollars that Congress approved over 1 year ago for disaster recovery efforts remain in the U.S. Treasury in Washington, DC, not where they belong--assisting the American citizens of Puerto Rico. There is no excuse for that.

They cannot have it both ways. The administration cannot simultaneously hold up recovery dollars for Puerto Rico and then point to Puerto Rico's failure to spend it as an excuse not to provide additional assistance. In other words, they are holding these billions away from Puerto Rico, saying: You cannot have it, but why are you not spending it?

Come on. You cannot do that. You cannot claim they are not spending the money that is being held back from them, and then say that is why they do not need additional assistance.

Yesterday, Senator Schumer and I sent a letter to the administration about these bureaucratic delays and demanded answers.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter dated March 25, 2019, to Mick Mulvaney, Peter Gaynor, and Ben Carson.

Mr. President, yesterday the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that it will review whether the White House has deliberately interfered with the timely distribution of hurricane funds to Puerto Rico. That is pretty amazing. I have never seen a case that I remember where the inspector general of Housing and Urban Development had to look into whether the White House was deliberately interfering with funds to go to a disaster area.

I know firsthand what it is like to see a State hit by disaster. Tropical Storm Irene hit Vermont in 2011, and it devastated our State. People lost their homes, roads were washed out, bridges destroyed, and communities forever changed. I saw bridges twisted like a child's toy. I saw farmhouses that had been on the north side of the river, which were now on the south side of the river, upside down and destroyed. I saw farmers' fields wiped out, businesses ruined, schools destroyed, roads necessary to bring medical supplies into villages gone. I know firsthand. I know as a lifelong Vermonter that in these moments the Federal Government is a critical partner in the effort to recover and rebuild.

It is the same in other States--North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are all counting on us to get this bill across the finish line.

That is why, 3 weeks ago, I put a compromise on the table to create a path forward. I did it in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It was a reasonable proposal. It does not restore everything that had been eliminated from the House bill, but it was a compromise that focused on the most critical proposals and the immediate needs. Had Senate Republicans accepted this proposal, we likely would have seen quick passage of a disaster bill in a bipartisan fashion in both the Senate and the House. It actually would have eliminated the need for a conference and would have gotten the assistance to the people who need it sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately, it appears the President will not accept even this reasonable offer. It makes me think about when he closed down the government for over 1 month because the Congress gave him only $1.6 billion for a wall, and then he reopened the government when we gave him $1.3 billion. I don't know if they actually read the proposals and bills that we sent.

In this case, I think it is obvious what is happening. The President is willing to endanger the entire disaster package for all of the United States because he wants to pick winners and losers. When there is a disaster, there are no winners and losers. Americans come together to help everybody. Yet he wants to say who gets assistance in the wake of disasters based on his own arbitrary standards and political grudges. That is unacceptable. Where is it going to end? Which State will the President disfavor next? Remember that just a few months ago, the President, in a tweet, threatened to cut off aid to California as they were reeling from some of the worst fires in recent history. He sent a tweet telling millions of Americans he doesn't want to help. We are an independent branch of government. We have to have a responsible party in the room, and it should be Congress.

I think back to when Vermont was hit by disaster and hurricane flooding. As I was traveling around the State the day after, surveying the damage, I was receiving emails from a number of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, saying: Vermont stood with us when we had a disaster; we will stand with you today.

That is what I want to do. I want to help, just as I voted to help Louisiana six times and Mississippi for their damage. It wasn't for a political benefit for Vermont, but it was because we are Americans and we all stand together.

To think that we might consider a disaster package that picks and chooses which Americans are helped when they have all suffered equally from disasters, and to say: OK, you, American, we favor you, you get money. You, American, I don't like you. So you are not going to get money. That is not the American way. That is not the way the Senate should be.

Let's pass a bill that addresses the needs of all communities impacted by disaster and do it now. People are waiting. The needs are pressing.

I will file an amendment today with my recommended compromise. It provides a reasonable path forward--one that allows us to move quickly to get assistance to the people who need it now. I hope all Members will support it.

The Governor of Puerto Rico made a strong statement this morning.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello.

The Americans in Puerto Rico do not have representation in this body. Vermont is probably as far away from Puerto Rico as just about any State, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii. They do not have anybody to speak directly on their behalf on such an important matter. The Governor has spoken out. I urge every Member to read what the Governor has to say. I agree with him. Americans in Puerto Rico should be helped just as Americans in Texas, Americans in Oklahoma, Americans in California, or Americans in New York, or wherever disaster has struck. We are the United States of America. Let's start acting like that on behalf of all Americans, not on behalf of political biases.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this is a debate worth happening. I appreciate the comments from my New England neighbor. It is an important matter for us to consider.

President Trump declared a national emergency, citing a ``crisis'' at the southern border, but it has become more and more evident he did it for one reason, to do an end run around Congress and the Appropriations Committee, and use taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border that Congress has refused to fund.

For 3 years, he failed to convince Congress--a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House--that his wall was a good idea. For 3 years, he requested that Congress fund his cynical campaign promise to build a ``big beautiful'' wall on the southern border, and for 3 years, the Republican-controlled Congress refused. Even when his own party controlled both Chambers of Congress, he could not convince enough Members that it was a good idea. Certainly, nobody accepted his pledge that Mexico would pay for the wall. We all knew the U.S. taxpayers would have to pay for it.

So instead of accepting that we are in a democracy, and he is not a monarch, instead of accepting that we are in a democracy and there are two other coequal branches of government that could constrain his actions, the President has decided to ignore the Constitution and the will of Congress and go it alone. Actually, Congress alone has the power of the purse. Congress having exclusive power over our government spending priorities is one of the most critical checks and balances in our constitutional system.

Anybody who goes back and reads the history of the founding of this country knows that the reason we are the oldest existing democracy currently in the world, is that we believed in checks and balances.

The President, of course, could propose funding for whatever projects he wants, but it is the job of Congress to decide where to invest the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. In a democracy, every President from George Washington to now is supposed to respect those decisions. After not getting what he wanted, this President has invoked the National Emergencies Act. He is stretching the powers given to him in that act beyond all recognition. He has declared a national emergency on the southern border.

We are not responding to a national emergency. There is no crisis on our southern border requiring such extreme action. What kind of national emergency is declared only after you lose a 3-year funding fight with Members of your own party? What kind of national emergency is resolved by a vaguely defined, multiyear construction project? The truth is clear. He is trying to use this authority as a means to a political end.

When Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act in 1976, it conveyed certain powers to the President to use in the event of a true emergency that required quick action. I remember. I was here during the debate. There was a Republican President. It assumed that whoever sat in the Oval Office would have enough respect for the office and the power being conveyed not to abuse it. Those of us in the Senate, at that time, felt that whether it was a Republican or Democratic President, they would not abuse the power. President Trump has failed that test.

Presidential emergency powers should only be invoked in a true time of crisis. It is an abuse of power to invoke these authorities just because he couldn't do what he wanted in any other way. We are now seeing what he would do if he had these powers.

The President wants to raid money meant for military housing and military base improvements to pay for his wall. This comes almost in the same week we see in the news that so much of military housing is infested by mold, by rats, by asbestos, and by all these other problems. Is he going to take the money that would make this housing safe for the men and women in our military to pay for his wall? Is he going to take money from Camp Lejeune that was hit by Hurricane Florence and badly damaged? I know Camp Lejeune. When my son was in the Marines, he spent time there. Is he going to take money from Tyndall Air Force base, which was flattened by Hurricane Michael? What about money for schools for military families, like the school at Fort Campbell, KY, or a child development center at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland? What about essential training facilities that would ensure military readiness, like a special operations training facility at Fort Bragg, NC--which I have visited. Congress chose to fund these projects over an ineffective, wasteful wall. Congress had to say, where does the money go? We felt these things to help our military and military families made far more sense than the wall. Congress used its constitutional power--let me emphasize that--Congress used its constitutional power of the purse to set priorities for how to invest the American people's hard-earned tax dollars.

The President is trying to label opponents of his action as weak on border security or weak on crime. That is nonsense. I don't know any Member of the Senate, of either party, who doesn't believe in border security or is in favor of crime.

Let's see what he asked for. Instead of border security, he wanted $5.7 billion for the wall. Congress approved a border security package--money for fencing along with technology added between the ports of entry, and additional personnel. That is real border security, not a political stunt. Now the President is saying: Thank you for your views; thank you for following your constitutional power, but I am still going to do it my way. Where is he going to stop?

The fact that it is a political game was shown when this Congress passed, overwhelmingly, $1.6 billion for border security. The President threatened to veto that. Then after closing the government for 35 days--costing the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars for nothing--he signed the bill that did not give him the $1.6 billion that he threatened to veto but that gave him $1.3 billion, and that he signed. If anybody thinks this is just playing games, that states it.

Over the past 2 years, we have seen the erosion of our institutional checks and balances in the face of creeping authoritarianism. The time has come for Congress and Members of the President's own party to take a stand. Congress simply cannot afford to remain silent in the face of such an unprecedented violation of the separation of powers.

I understand Senator Lee has introduced a bill to reform the National Emergencies Act. I appreciate the thought he has put into this issue. I am certainly going to review his legislation with an open mind, but make no mistake, legislation to fix future abuses of this law does not address the abuses we have that are happening right now. His bill does not address the fact that this President is trying to do an end run around Congress--an end run around Democrats and Republicans alike--and is cynically using an emergency declaration to fund a request on which we had voted but of which we did not approve. We must send a message to the President that this is unacceptable. This is not something we never voted on. We have voted on this matter, and under the Constitution, that is what is supposed to carry the day.

I hope my Republican friends will take a moment to take stock of where we are. President Trump is going to be but a moment in our Nation's history. The Constitution controls our history no matter who is President. For the sake of appeasing a man who made a foolish campaign promise that was never grounded in reality, will they not stand up for the institution in which they serve? For the sake of appeasing a President who detests any limits or checks on his authority, will they forever diminish the role of Congress as a coequal branch of government?

Now is the time for country over party. I will vote aye on the joint resolution of disapproval, and I urge all Senators to do the same.

I do not see any Senator who seeks the floor.

Mr. President, is this under controlled time?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time consumed by the quorum be equally divided between both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the past dozen years, the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, with financial support from the United States and other countries, has worked in collaboration with Guatemala's Public Ministry. That partnership has enabled courageous Guatemalan prosecutors to investigate and bring to trial cases they never could have pursued without the international ``shield'' and assistance provided by CICIG. It has also enabled courageous constitutional court magistrates to defend Guatemala's weak judicial institutions. In a country where throughout its history high-ranking public officials, including senior military officers, and corporate elites have enjoyed near total impunity for corrupt acts and violent crimes, the Guatemalan people finally saw that justice is possible.

Not surprisingly, that collaboration encountered fierce opposition from its inception. The same high-ranking officials and elites who feared becoming the targets of corruption investigations sought to curtail CICIG's role. Last year, that opposition culminated in President Morales expelling the CICIG commissioner and subsequently announcing that the agreement establishing CICIG would be terminated, effective immediately. That announcement was made, without warning, after months of negotiations between Guatemalan, UN, and U.S. officials on reforms requested by the Morales government, which would have established the position of Deputy Commissioner as well as certain reporting and oversight requirements.

In response to that announcement, as well as other worrisome trends in Guatemala, last week Senator Cardin and I, along with Representatives Torres and McGovern, introduced legislation in the Senate and House entitled the ``Guatemala Rule of Law Accountability Act.'' Its purpose is to respond to the flagrant actions by the Morales government to subvert the rule of law, including its campaign against

Mr. President, it has been more than 5 months since journalist and American resident Jamal Khashoggi was tortured and murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. More than 5 months since the Saudi Government initially denied it had anything to do with Mr. Khashoggi's disappearance and told the world, in a calculated and quickly disproven lie, that he left the consulate unharmed.

As the Saudi Government's complicity became clear, its explanations became even more convoluted. We were told to accept that the operation that resulted in Mr. Khashoggi's death was an interrogation gone wrong, carried out by rogue agents who somehow flew to Istanbul, executed Mr. Khashoggi, and worked with a local collaborator to cover up the crime, all, despite their ties to the highest levels of government, without the knowledge of the Crown Prince. Although Senators--Republicans and Democrats--who have been briefed on the matter found that possibility preposterous, President Trump and Secretary Pompeo seemed ready to accept the Saudi Government's lies.

The truth is that, while there is a mountain of information circulating in the press that suggests the Crown Prince was involved in the planning and approval of the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi, there are still many unanswered questions.

We know the Saudi Government identified certain Saudi officials who allegedly carried out this murder, but we do not know how they were identified, what these officials were asked, by whom, and what they have said about the crime, or why some of them were brought to trial and others were not.

We know that the Trump administration sanctioned 17 Saudi officials, but we have not been told to what extent or why these individuals were targeted for sanctions and others were not. We know that there was a local collaborator, but we have not been told his nationality or identity, nor the whereabouts of Mr. Khashoggi's body, which has not been returned to his family.

What do we know? We know that the Saudi Government--the royal family--is sticking to the latest version of its story, absolving itself of any culpability. The Trump administration maintains, despite many mixed signals, that it is doing everything in its power to ensure Mr. Khashoggi's murderers are held accountable for their actions.

If that is true, we would expect the administration to be transparent and to cooperate with the Congress.

But while I would like to be persuaded of their commitment to pursuing justice in this case, their efforts to date have been anything but convincing. On October 10, 2018, Senators Corker, Menendez, Graham, and I, along with a majority of the members of the Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to the President to trigger a 120-day review and determination on the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act with respect to any foreign person involved in the murder of Mr. Khashoggi. The response of the administration has been to ignore the legal requirement to make that determination. This is only the latest attempt by the administration to obstruct the Congress's access to information about this crime.

Rather than ignoring its legal obligations and keeping Congress in the dark, the administration should be working with Congress and the international community, to expose the truth about who gave the orders to kill Mr. Khashoggi. If the administration has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by being part of the effort to see justice done.

One way for the administration to prove it is serious about accountability is to fully cooperate with the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, who is reviewing the evidence in the Khashoggi case. The White House, the State Department, and our intelligence agencies should promptly provide her with any relevant information in their possession.

As I stated on February 3, 2019, if the President continues to take actions such as ignoring the clear mandate of the Magnitsky Act or otherwise refuses to cooperate with the investigations of this murder, the White House will share the blame for attempting to cover up the crime and for helping those responsible to evade justice.

The administration should also urge the Saudi Government to guarantee a fair and public trial for the men accused of being involved in the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, that meets international standards of due process. A trial that fails to disclose all of the facts--a trial that is rushed and secretive--will be seen as simply further obstruction of justice. Real accountability must occur in this case.

We know all too well that Mr. Khashoggi's murder is only one example of the brutal way in which the Saudi Government, led by the Crown Prince, treats anyone it perceives as a threat, which means anyone who dares criticize the government or who advocates for human rights.

Since May 2018, prominent women's rights advocates have been imprisoned and tortured by the Saudi Government or banned from traveling, without any criminal charges being brought--women like 25- year-old Loujain al-Hathloul, who had a driver's license from the United Arab Emirates and advocated for the right of Saudi women to drive, but was arrested in a sweeping crackdown on women's activists just before the Saudi Government lifted the ban on female drivers. Dr. Hatoon al-Fassi, another women's rights advocate and a history professor, was arrested in June 2018 and remains confined to this day. While these women have not been charged, their so-called crime is obvious: engaging in independent activism. The royal family will do whatever it takes to make clear that they alone can create change in Saudi Arabia.

That is why, like these women, anyone of influence, including average citizens who advocate for reforms, is at risk in Saudi Arabia. It is not only opposition that the Crown Prince fears, it is the appearance of capitulation to ordinary citizens that he seeks to avoid by cracking down on those who are merely advocating for reforms he himself claims to support. His repression has touched every segment of society, from journalists to women's rights advocates to economists like Dr. Essam al-Zamil, who was detained in September 2017, presumably due to his opposition to the Crown Prince's economics plan, and Mohammad Fahad al- Qahtani, an economics professor and human rights activist who was sentenced in 2013 to 10 years in prison for breaking allegiance with the royal family and defaming the judiciary.

Sometimes the motivation behind the Crown Prince's actions is a complete mystery. One egregious case is that of Dr. Walid Fitaihi, a U.S. citizen who earned his medical degree from George Washington University and a master's degree in public health from Harvard University. Dr. Fitaihi was seized by Saudi authorities for unknown reasons in November 2017. He has reportedly been severely tortured, and he remains in prison. In fact, before Mr. Khashoggi was murdered, he wrote about Dr. Fitaihi's detention on social media to decry the arbitrary and repressive trends developing under the Crown Prince's rule. Like Jamal Khashoggi, there is not a shred of evidence that Dr. Fitaihi is guilty of anything. He should be released immediately. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the March 4, 2019, editorial in the Washington Post, entitled, ``Saudi Arabia is torturing a U.S. citizen. When will Trump Act?'' which highlights Mr. Fitaihi's case, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

These cases are only a fraction of the known examples of the Crown Prince's repression. There are countless others that don't escape the royal family's tight control of information in the country. This is the so-called reformer we are told to put our trust in to help lead Saudi Arabia into the future. As others in this body have said, he is no reformer; he is an impulsive, ruthless gangster. It would be naive not to think that the Crown Prince's actions will lead to greater public resentment and instability in Saudi Arabia and jeopardize our long-term interests in the region. Contrary to the thinking of the White House, no amount of arms sales and no amount of oil can change that reality.

I urge all Senators to join me in urging the White House and in supporting legislative action as appropriate to protect our national interests by ensuring that United States relations with Saudi Arabia are guided, first and foremost, by our principles and, most importantly, by our commitment to the rule of law.

Mr. President, as the longest serving Member of the Senate and also the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I feel compelled--and I normally don't come down and speak about these things--but I want to warn about the destruction of long-held norms and traditions that have protected the Senate's unique constitutional role with respect to lifetime judicial appointments.

This is an extraordinary responsibility on the part of the U.S. Senate. The Constitution quite properly allows any President to nominate whomever they want for a lifetime position on our Federal courts, but as our Founders said, the Senate has to give advice and consent because of the effect of this person's lifetime position. They go way beyond the term of the Senators who vote for them and the term of the President who nominates the person.

In fact, until recently, and certainly during the years I have served here, Members of this body knew well they had a say when it came to who serves in the Federal courts in their States. It didn't matter whether you had a Republican or Democratic President or a Republican or Democratic majority in the Senate; blue slips protected the prerogative of home State Senators and gave meaning to the constitutional requirement of advice and consent. It ensures fairness but, more importantly, I think it also ensured comity in the Senate. That now is fast becoming history, and I fear it is going to do lasting damage to the Senate.

What is happening is a disingenuous double standard. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the beginning of the Obama administration, every single Senate Republican, including many serving today, signed a letter. They made the case for the importance of the blue-slip tradition. They said it was absolutely imperative that it be respected during the new administration, the Obama administration. The Republicans said: We must do this. Well, I didn't need any reminder because under my chairmanship during both the Bush Republican administration and the Obama Democratic administration, I respected the blue-slip tradition without exception, even when it was not politically expedient to do so. I respected Republicans and Democrats alike. Regardless of who was in the Oval Office, under my chairmanship, not a single judicial nominee received a hearing without first receiving both home State Senators' positive blue slips.

I defended the blue slips, and that was unpopular in my own party on occasion, but I believed in both their constitutional and institutional importance. I also believed in the prerogatives of home State Senators and the need to ensure that the White House works in good faith with those Senators. I believed then, and I still believe now, that certain principles matter more than party. Something that, unfortunately, some, probably because they are new here, don't understand.

All of us, whether Democratic or Republican, should care about good- faith consultation when it comes to nominees from our home States. The reasons are principled and pragmatic. We know our State better than anybody else. We know who is qualified to fill lifetime judicial seats. They are going to have a tremendous impact on our communities. We know the men and women who are qualified. Without blue slips, nothing prevents our State selection committees from being completely ignored by the White House. Nothing would even prevent a New York or California lawyer from being nominated to a Texas court or vice versa.

Yet the Senate is abandoning this protection. Senators of the Republican Party who promised they would uphold it, gave their word they would uphold it, asked me to uphold it, have suddenly broken their word. That bothers me.

Last week, for example, for the first time in the history of this body, a nominee was confirmed to a seat on the circuit court over the objections of both home State Senators. That is the first time in our history that has happened. That meant my friends on the other side of the aisle had to break their word from what they agreed to before.

This week, we are voting on two additional nominees, Chad Readler and Eric Murphy, who are opposed by another home State Senator, Mr. Brown. Senator Brown made extensive efforts to reach a compromise with the White

House on these two Sixth Circuit vacancies, but the White House was not interested.

The White House knew the Republicans would not keep to the position they expected Democrats to keep when we were in the majority, and because they knew they could rely on Members of their own party not to follow tradition for the first time, they didn't even try. The White House didn't even try to consult. Even superficial consultation is an afterthought.

Senator Brown then attended the confirmation hearings. He spoke against these nominations. He cited, among other things, Mr. Readler's unprecedented actions attacking healthcare protections while serving in the Trump Justice Department.

Mr. Readler was willing to reverse Justice Department policy and sign a brief undermining protections for preexisting conditions when career Justice Department officials--career officials who have been there in both Republican and Democratic administrations--refused. They refused to reverse their well-established Justice Department policy. He, however, was perfectly willing to throw it away in court. Is this somebody we expect to be fair on the court?

Senator Brown cited Mr. Murphy's longstanding support and advocacy for restrictive voting laws in Ohio. He knows that his constituents will have to live with the ramifications if these nominees are confirmed. It will directly affect the State. He expressed his concerns about their records, and his voice, in this process as a U.S. Senator, was ignored.

These votes come on the heels of the Senate's confirming a 37-year- old nominee for the Fourth Circuit who has practiced law for less than 10 years--a grand total of 9 years. She now holds a lifetime judgeship on an appellate court, just one step below the Supreme Court. Her confirmation hearing made a mockery of the Senate's duty of advice and consent.

It marked the first time in the Judiciary Committee's history--the first time ever that a nomination hearing was held during the October recess over the objections of the other party. We found out why.

Only two Republican Senators attended the hearing, and the questioning lasted only 20 minutes for someone who demonstrated no abilities to serve on the Fourth Circuit. They knew it didn't make any difference whether she had the abilities or knew what she was doing. All they knew is that this White House had nominated her, so let's rubberstamp this.

Frankly, the Senate should never function as a mere rubberstamp for nominees seeking lifetime appointments to our Federal judiciary. We shouldn't do it whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. That is exactly what we are doing with a Republican President and a Republican majority. No matter whether the person is qualified, if the name comes up, rubberstamp it.

When I chaired the Judiciary Committee, many Senators--Republican Senators--expressed both publicly and privately their appreciation for the fact that my respect for blue slips protected their rights and gave meaning to advice and consent. Many told me this is the way it must always be, whether Republicans or Democrats are in the majority.

Well, their about-face, now that they control the Senate, is unbecoming, and it basically says that the Senate will just bow down to the executive branch. We will give up our responsibility, we will give up our authority, and we will just be rubberstamps. We might as well not even bother to show up; just do whatever we are told. It is deeply disappointing.

I know the pressure because many of my Republican friends have told me to rubberstamp President Trump's nominees. I know my warnings will fall on many deaf ears, even for those who promised me they would not do this.

I have served in the Senate long enough to know that political winds tend to change direction. Inevitably, the majority becomes the minority, and the White House changes hands. I suspect that many of my Republican colleagues who care about this institution, as do I--and there are many--are going to live to regret many of these actions.

The further down this path the Senate goes, the harder it is going to be to unring this bell. A vote for Mr. Readler or Mr. Murphy is a vote to say that we abandon our abilities as home State Senators to serve as a check not just on this President but any future President, Republican or Democrat. Basically, we are saying that we don't believe in advice and consent. Basically, we are saying that we don't believe in the Senate being the conscience of the Nation. Basically, we are saying that we don't believe the Founders of this country knew what they were doing when they said the U.S. Senate--this body of 100 people--has to represent 325 million Americans and that we don't believe they should have any responsibility, have any say in lifetime appointments.

If we abandon longstanding traditions and chase partisan expediency, I remind everybody that provides only fleeting advantage. It inflicts lasting harm on this body. It is within our power to stop it right here and right now.

I urge all Senators to ensure that home State Senators are provided the same courtesies during the Trump administration that they received from both Republican and Democratic judiciary chairmen during the Obama administration. I believe we can do that. I ask my fellow Senators to oppose Mr. Readler's and Mr. Murphy's nominations because they were done so out of the way that they should be done. Let the U.S. Senate, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, say that we are not a rubberstamp to any President. We don't take our orders from any President. We don't bow and scrape for any President. Let's act like Senators, not like a rubberstamp.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 3 years ago yesterday, Berta Caceres, an indigenous rights activist in Honduras who had been a vocal opponent of the construction of a hydroelectric dam that threatened the territory of the Lenka people, was murdered in her home.

That cowardly crime, about which I have spoken many times, was the culmination of years of harassment and threats against her life, and it was by no means an isolated case. At the time, it was only the latest of scores of assassinations of social activists who protested against the confiscation of land, forced evictions, and infrastructure development involving corrupt payoffs to circumvent environmental and social safeguards, and against abuses by Honduran security forces. Nobody has been punished for any of those other, similar, crimes.

I did not know Berta Caceres, but I knew of her. I remember when she was awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize. I remember the disgust and outrage I felt when I learned that she had been murdered.

I remember thinking that whoever would murder Berta Caceres, a charismatic leader who was recognized not only in her native country but around the world, must have been confident that they would never see the inside of a jail cell, because in Honduras only a small fraction of homicides, not to mention other violent crimes, ever results in conviction. Impunity and the corruption that enables it is a way of life there.

It was no surprise that in the days and weeks after Berta Caceres was murdered, the Honduran police tried to cover it up. It was only because of international pressure, including by the U.S. Embassy, that the fraudulent ``investigation'' did not end there, as so often happens in Honduras when the victim is not someone of notoriety.

Eventually, last November, after what seemed like interminable foot dragging, a trial resulted in the conviction of seven of those involved. That was a significant achievement, considering that absent international pressure Berta Caceres's case would have faded from memory like all the others. That trial also implicated top officials of the hydroelectric company DESA, one of whom is still awaiting trial 3 years later.

I was a prosecutor before I became a Senator. I prosecuted many murder cases. While premeditated murder is a horrific crime, it is often relatively easy to prove. In Berta Caceres's case, there was a lot of evidence. So to those who ask why, 3 years later, we are still waiting for justice, I think the answer is obvious. There are powerful forces within the Honduran Government who are beyond the reach of the Honduran justice system, and the attorney general recognizes that.

So today, 3 years later, there are some who conceived of, or knew of, the plan to murder Berta Caceres who have not been charged. The question, 3 years later, is when will they be charged? When will they be brought to justice?

Neither I nor the world have forgotten Berta Caceres. Our desire to see justice done in her case is as strong today as it was 3 years ago not only because of the importance it has for her family and her community, but for the larger cause of justice in Honduras. Impunity is a powerful, evil force, but I believe the whole truth about this crime will eventually be known.

Beyond Berta Caceres's case, the central question is whether the Honduran Government is serious about fighting the corruption that permeates not only the justice system, but practically every crevice of Honduran society and Government.

A government that is serious about fighting corruption would enact the plea bargaining law that has languished for years, without which it is extremely difficult to investigate and prosecute crimes involving top public officials or corporate executives.

A government that is serious about fighting corruption would put an abrupt end to legislation referred to as the ``impunity pact.'' That legislation would bar the attorney general from bringing charges against someone for stealing public funds until the Supreme Auditing Tribunal, whose members are all loyal to the President, has investigated and ruled on the alleged theft. It is a transparent attempt to ensure that cases of public corruption are never prosecuted.

A government that is serious about fighting corruption would support strengthening the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity, not seek to ``renegotiate'' its mandate to eliminate or substantially weaken its investigative authority.

The Honduran Government, which professes to be a partner of the United States in fighting corruption, is not doing any of these things. The inescapable truth is that it is not serious about fighting corruption, which is apparent to anyone who is not easily fooled.

Until that changes and until all those involved in the murder of Berta Caceres are brought to justice and until Hondurans who speak out against corruption and impunity are no longer vilified and attacked, the amount of assistance we provide to the Honduran Government will be far less than it would otherwise be.

Mr. President, just a couple of short weeks ago, we finally finished the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills, and I greatly appreciate those who worked with us to get that done.

I want to talk today about the need to reach a new 2-year budget deal. We have to do that so the Appropriations Committee could then begin to work in earnest on the fiscal year 2020 bills.

We have shown that we can move the appropriations bills quickly, but we have to have the budget deal. In fact, unless we will get a budget deal, sequestration returns in fiscal year 2020. That would mean steep cuts in programs that invest in America and support working families.

It means we would have to make cuts in our defense programs for the next fiscal year--cuts of $71 billion. This is real money. There would be a 10-percent cut in funding to support our troops and to invest in military readiness.

It would also require that we cut $55 billion for nondefense programs in the next fiscal year. That is a 9-percent cut. The reality is, it means less investment in infrastructure, education, housing, or agricultural programs. It means less money for veterans' healthcare, protecting our environment, or combating the opioid epidemic.

These cuts are not just hypothetical numbers on a piece of paper. They affect real people and real families. They affect people in my State. They affect the people in the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer. They affect people in the 50 States represented by all 100 of us.

Of course, the worst part about that is the cuts will come at the same time we are facing significant increases in important programs that we have no control over.

For example, we have to fund the decennial census. The Constitution requires us to have this census, and we have to fund it by $4 billion if we are going to follow what the Constitution of the United States requires us to do in conducting the 2020 census.

We have all talked about veterans' healthcare. We have had a significant increase in the healthcare costs for veterans, and we have to have significant increases in the budget if we are going to adequately fund their health.

The VA MISSION Act, which provides additional private care options for veterans, becomes effective in June of this year. That is going to cost at least an additional $3 billion, and estimates could climb significantly higher. That is on top of the $3 billion increase for VA medical care that we have already enabled through advance appropriations.

Then we are going to need an additional $1 billion to ensure that an estimated 5 million people who receive affordable housing assistance can stay in their homes. In addition to these increased costs, we expect to lose nearly $4 billion in receipts and cost savings in other programs compared to this year.

This may sound like just a whole lot of numbers. It is more than that. It means we have $15 billion right off the bat that we must account for above this year's levels. Of course, I am sure there will be more increases that we will have to address.

As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I know how hard Chairman Shelby and I worked with Republicans and Democrats to get through the bills we had this past year. We got them done, but it was not easy staying within levels.

We have to have a 2-year budget deal. We have to negotiate it now. If we wait until the very last second to pass these bills, it will cost the taxpayers a lot more money because the Departments cannot plan. We are not going to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it is going to fix itself.

Of course, again, in the Appropriations Committee, we try to work in a bipartisan way. But we cannot responsibly do our job in the absence of cap levels that allow us to meet the needs of the American people.

Again, this is not just an accounting issue. This is the security and the well-being of the greatest Nation on Earth. It is not rhetoric; it is reality.

The budget deal has to be based on parity if we are going to pass it. It has to have equal treatment for defense and nondefense programs, as we have had in the past.

We have to invest on both sides of the ledger if we are going to create a strong national defense, a strong economy, and a healthy citizenry of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to all Senators that was received yesterday from over 300 retired admirals and generals who agree with this premise.

These admirals and generals, many of whom I know and a lot of whom I do not, have been here with Republican and Democratic administrations, but they are all people who have served our Nation and care about our Nation. They are part of a coalition called Mission: Readiness, Council for a Strong America. They call on Congress to negotiate balanced investments in both defense and nondefense programs.

They wrote: ``As members of Mission: Readiness, we recognize the fact that the strength of our military--and our Nation--is dependent on the strength of our people.''

We have certainly seen this. You can go back to the time of World War II, when Harry Truman found that we could not find the people we needed in our military because of things like malnutrition or a lack of education; we needed to improve the nutrition programs in our schools. This is not rhetoric; it is reality.

These admirals and generals want a strong United States of America, just as I do and just as every single Member of this body--of either party--wants.

If the press reports are accurate, the President is planning to send up a budget on March 11 that not only fails to provide a constructive path forward, but it is going to be dead on arrival. If press reports are accurate, the President will, yet again, propose deep cuts to nondefense programs, even though Congress has rejected President Trump's cuts for the last 2 fiscal years. Every Republican and every Democrat knows that you have to have a balance between defense and nondefense programs.

President Trump also proposes large increases for defense programs, paid for using a budget gimmick that his own Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, would rail against when he was in Congress. He says he will move large portions of the defense base budget into the Overseas Contingency Operation, or OCO, account so that it will not count against the budget caps. Mick Mulvaney and most Republicans and Democrats have said we cannot do this. It is not a recipe for success.

OCO is meant for costs associated with military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. It is there to address crises overseas. It supports our men and women deployed and in harm's way.

The OCO account should not be used as a slush fund to pay for the everyday operations of the Department of Defense or to avoid a real debate on the budget caps.

To suggest we should move billions in the base defense budget into OCO at a time when the President is actively reducing our troop presence overseas shows what a disingenuous move it is.

I went back in my notes, and I found a letter written by then- Congressman Mick Mulvaney--now the acting Chief of Staff for President Trump. He wrote this in March of 2014. It is strikingly relevant today, 5 years later. Then-Congressman Mulvaney wrote a letter signed by numerous Members. He opposed a $10 billion increase in OCO, calling it is a ``misuse'' of funds and an attempt to ``circumvent the caps'' for things unrelated to overseas combat at a time when war operations were ``winding down.'' He opposed the gimmick. He argued for greater transparency and discipline in the budget process.

He said he would not want any President--well, of course, in that case, it was President Obama--to have this power. Now he is Acting Chief of Staff of another President, and we are told the President may propose an increase of $105 billion, more than doubling OCO funding, as we are withdrawing troops. That is not the way forward.

Let's have an honest conversation, Republicans and Democrats together, about our needs as a nation. We have to do the hard work to set new caps. It is not easy. Every one of us will have to cast difficult votes. Well, so what? We are elected to a 6-year term. There is not a single Member of this body who, at one time or another during their campaigns, did not say something to the effect of ``I am willing to cast tough votes.''

Well, let us have it, this onerous conversation. Let us do the hard work to set new caps. Let us cast those difficult votes. Let us show the people who elected us they did the right thing. Let us invest in the programs. Let us strengthen our military, grow our economy, improve our infrastructure, and build the future of this country we love. Let us not use a budget gimmick to frustrate that debate. Trust me, the American people will see through that kind of a gimmick.

I am ready to have those conversations. I want to move forward with the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bills. Let's get the work done the American people sent us here to do. If we have to stay a few evenings and if we have to stay a few weekends, let's do it. It is for the greatest Nation on Earth. Let's do it. I urge leadership on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers of Congress, to begin these negotiations now.

Then we have to take up, with urgency, a disaster package. In the last 2 years, we have had the deadliest disaster seasons in recent memory--Hurricanes Michael, Florence, Irma, and Maria, the California wildfires, volcanic eruptions in Hawaii, and typhoons along the Pacific coast. These communities, States, and territories need our help.

When Tropical Storm Irene hit Vermont in 2011, I found out firsthand how devastating natural disasters can be. Roads were washed away, towns and villages were cut off from vital services, and people's homes were destroyed.

The day after Irene, I went around the State of Vermont with our Governor and with the head of our National Guard in a helicopter, landing in small towns. Many times the only way you could get into these towns was by helicopter because roads were gone and the bridges were gone.

You would see bridges, like a child's toy, twisted and a mile from where it was supposed to be. A farmhouse that had been on the north side of the river was now upside down on the south side of the river. We were in the middle of the State, and we knew it was critical. The Federal Government provided assistance to help recovery because we are part of the United States of America.

The people of Puerto Rico and others that have been so badly damaged, these are Americans. We should stand together to help them. I am sorry we were not able to reach agreement to include a disaster package in the fiscal year 2019 minibus we passed just 2 weeks ago. We were so close to an agreement on a package--so very close, Republicans and Democrats alike. It would have addressed the needs of all impacted communities.

It broke down because the President insisted we eliminate disaster assistance for Puerto Rico. I guess he thought tossing rolls of paper towels for the people is good enough. Puerto Rico is part of the United States. It is not, as the White House described it, an island surrounded by water, I guess, as compared to those other islands. It is a part of the United States. These are American people. They have served in our military. They help us in our medical facilities. They are Americans, and they cannot be left out.

Hurricanes Maria and Irma--they had two hurricanes--devastated Puerto Rico. They destroyed the island's homes and infrastructure. They caused the deaths of an estimated 2,975 people. It was one of the deadliest hurricanes our country has ever seen, certainly in my lifetime.

Now, we provided Puerto Rico assistance in past disaster bills, but they have so many unaddressed needs that have to be met. Many people, even after the hurricane, are still living in temporary housing. Roads, bridges, and communities still need to be rebuilt. One of the largest infrastructure projects to be undertaken on the island is the rebuilding of Puerto Rico's energy grid, which needs more assistance.

Most importantly, in the absence of supplemental assistance, we estimate that 140,000 Puerto Ricans, U.S. citizens, are going to lose nutrition assistance at the end of March.

We are the United States of America--United States of America--and this is the U.S. Senate. We are supposed to take care of all our citizens when they have crises. We do not pick and choose based on with whom we are politically aligned.

I voted for disaster relief for States that were predominantly Republican and other States that were predominantly Democratic, but I don't look at it like that. I look at the fact that they are part of the United States of America, and they had a disaster. They should be helped.

Last month, the House passed H.R. 268, a comprehensive disaster package that provided over $14 billion to help all States and territories impacted by recent disasters to help them recover and rebuild. I worked closely with the House on this bill. I believe it will address the needs of all disaster-impacted communities.

On Tuesday, Senators Perdue and Jones and others, working very hard, introduced a similar but not identical bill. I am taking these bills with me this weekend. I am going to review them carefully. I thank the bipartisan group of Senators--Senators Perdue and Jones and others--for bringing the issue back to the forefront of the Senate. I am certainly committed to working with my good friend Chairman Shelby. I also worked with Republicans and Democrats in the House Appropriations Committee. I want a package that can pass both Chambers in addressing the needs of all States and territories hit by recent disasters.

I certainly urge the majority leader, Senator McConnell, to commit to bringing this to the floor as soon as possible. With that, I see other Senators on the floor.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the White House recently unveiled the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, W-GDP, an interagency plan to increase women's global labor force participation and advancement in the workplace, improve access of women entrepreneurs to market opportunities, and remove barriers to economic growth for women.

I support the initiative, although not based on the erroneous claim of some in the White House that it is the first women's initiative ever launched by the United States. On the contrary, I and many other Members of Congress and previous administrations have supported such efforts for many years. However, there is still a lot of work to be done, and I hope W-GDP builds on those efforts.

Too many of this administration's actions have fallen far short of the President's rhetoric or have been the antithesis of what he promised, so while I am ready to do what is necessary to support W-GDP, I worry that this initiative may be part of the same story. From human trafficking at the southern border, to processing asylum applicants, to combating HIV/AIDS, this administration purports to be serious about addressing global problems while implementing policies or proposing budgets that bear no resemblance to effective solutions and in many cases would make the situation worse.

For example, while the objectives of W-GDP are laudable, it is being implemented by the same White House that sought to cut the budget for the Department of State and foreign assistance programs by roughly 30 percent in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, cuts that would have decimated funding for programs that address the needs of the world's poorest people, for water and sanitation, maternal and child health, education and employment opportunities, to stave off poverty and disease that disproportionately afflict women and girls. In fact, the President's budget did not include a single dollar for W-GDP.

This administration has also waged war on reproductive health, reportedly directing the omission of reporting on reproductive rights in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights, and one of President Trump's first acts after his inauguration was to reinstate the Global Gag Rule. In fact, egged on by extremists in his administration, he expanded it to condition funding for every nongovernmental organization, NGO, implementing any health programs for the United States overseas, even if their programs have nothing to do with reproductive health. In other words, if an NGO spends millions of dollars in India to combat HIV/AIDS, but spends $1 of its own private funds--not U.S. taxpayer funds--to provide counseling on abortion, it is ineligible for any U.S. Government funding for either purpose. Such a policy would be unlawful in our own country.

So while I support W-GDP, I caution all those who defend women's rights and support economic opportunities for women to not be distracted by one initiative this administration launched on the backs of the Congress's rejection of President Trump's budget and to call on the White House to adopt a more consistent, comprehensive approach to supporting women around the world.

With that in mind, I hope the White House will speak out forcefully and consistently about the institutionalized and systemic persecution and discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia and other countries whose autocratic and corrupt governments this White House has embraced. If the White House expects to be taken seriously about women's empowerment, it cannot remain silent about governments whose laws and policies treat women as property and that imprison women's rights activists.

This is not the only area in which the administration is purporting to support vulnerable populations while its short-sighted policies are having the opposite effect.

In a November 30, 2018, op-ed in the Washington Post, Ivanka Trump announced that the administration had

decided to limit the number of waivers for assistance for countries that are identified in the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report as failing to meet minimum standards for combating human trafficking. She also noted the administration's pledge of $45 million to a fund to end modern slavery, funds that, as is true for W-GDP, the President did not include in his budget and from an account the White House proposed to cut.

I agree with the goal of holding governments accountable for failing to meet minimum standards for preventing trafficking in persons, but informed people know that cutting funding for health, education, environmental conservation, counterterrorism, and governance programs does nothing to prevent human trafficking, while it undercuts our ability to make progress on other issues of national interest.

Yet that is exactly what the administration has done. By belatedly approaching human trafficking as if nothing else matters and limiting use of the waiver authority Congress provided, administration officials have spent months tying themselves in knots over which programs to continue and which to suspend. The result is that implementing partners are running out of money, services are not being delivered, and important programs are shutting down.

The Trump administration needs to stop governing by sound bite. If the White House is serious about addressing human trafficking and other complex challenges, it should work with Congress to secure the necessary funding and apply the law in a common sense manner that is consistent with our national interests.

Mr. President, I want to briefly discuss the situation in Egypt, a country where unchecked repression has come to define the government of President el-Sisi.

The 2011 Egyptian revolution brought hope of a democratic future for the country, but it has failed to materialize, subverted by aspiring autocrats. After winning historic democratic elections in 2012, the Morsi government sought to consolidate its control, issuing a declaration to provide the President with sweeping authorities and eliminating checks on Executive power. The response was another popular uprising and a military coup led by then-Defense Minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Although cheered by some who favor President el-Sisi's crackdown on the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and anyone suspected of being affiliated with it, his Presidency has become a model for autocratic rule. His police have arrested human rights lawyers, journalists, civil society activists, and opposition politicians. Anyone who criticizes the regime or calls for a more democratic system is threatened, arrested, and accused of ``terrorism'' or some other vague crime against the state. Once detained, they have been subjected to physical and psychological abuse while they wait for months or more often years before being subjected to sham trials that make a mockery of due process.

Earlier this month, President el-Sisi's government took another step to consolidate his rule. Egypt's rubberstamp Parliament approved constitutional amendments that would enable el-Sisi to remain in power until 2034, 12 years beyond the end of his second and final term. Other amendments would enable el-Sisi to tighten his control of the judiciary, create a second Parliamentary chamber dominated by Presidential appointees, and expand the authority of the military to codify its role in civilian political life. Egypt today is a civilian government in name only. The military, led by el-Sisi, effectively wields total control.

In 2011, we all hoped the Egyptian people had a brighter, albeit challenging, political future ahead of them, but 7 years after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, the el-Sisi government is erasing any remaining hope for democracy in the country. The calls of those who flooded the streets under Mubarak and Morsi for greater political freedom and civil liberties, less corruption, and more accountability are treated not as visions for Egypt's future, but as threats to el- Sisi himself.

Regrettably, it seems that the only constant in U.S.-Egyptian relations over the last several decades, besides Egyptian Government repression and billions of dollars in U.S. military aid, is the reticence with which successive U.S. administrations have confronted this issue. There always seems to be an excuse for why now is not the time to insist on meaningful progress to advance democracy and human rights by our ally Egypt. If not now, when? What line would the Egyptian government have to cross for the Congress and the administration to recognize the threat that a brutal military dictatorship poses to stability in Egypt, and to our long-term interests in the region?

Every U.S. administration has engaged, in varying degrees, in quiet diplomacy to address human rights abuses and corruption overseas and issued public statements or withheld foreign aid to encourage progress. Diplomacy, if backed up with consequences, can achieve results, but successive Egyptian Governments have gambled that, at the end of the day, we will look the other way in the mistaken belief that doing so serves U.S. security interests, and by and large, that has been the case.

It is interesting to compare the Trump administration's selective condemnation of government repression in other countries, where the number of political prisoners is a fraction of those in Egypt, to President Trump's pronouncement that President el-Sisi as a ``great guy.'' What a sad commentary on what this country purports to stand for.

We must acknowledge what history has repeatedly shown, that upholding our values is the best way to protect our interests. That does not mean cutting off all aid and walking away from Egypt. That kind of reactionary approach is equally short-sighted. What it does mean is that we need a more principled, measured, and consistent policy and make clear that our aid is not a blank check--that Egypt's leaders are not above the law; that freedom of expression is universal; that due process is a right; that torture, cruel and inhuman treatment are forbidden under international law; and that governments should be accountable to their people.

At a time when President el-Sisi is seeking to manipulate the legislative process to cement his hold on power for life, senior officials at the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon need to stand up for what is first and foremost in our national interest: the principles that define us as Americans.

I hope all Senators will join me in encouraging the Trump administration to learn from the mistakes of its predecessors and realign our policy toward Egypt with our values.

Mr. President, this morning, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services and Related Agencies held a hearing on the opioid epidemic and how States are responding to the crisis. I was pleased Beth Tanzman, the executive director of Vermont's Blueprint for Health, agreed to be a witness at today's hearing to share the innovative approaches Vermont has taken to combat opioid use disorders. Ms. Tanzman has also served as Vermont's deputy commissioner for mental health and also directed adult mental health services for Vermont's Department of Mental Health.

While certainly not spared from the opioid epidemic, Vermont is ahead of much of the country in many ways: Our State openly identified the problem, and our former Governor, Peter Shumlin, dedicated his entire State of the State address in 2014 to constructively seek ways to not just help addicts get clean, but to halt this scourge in its tracks. Public health leaders, addiction specialists, doctors, and State leaders came together and implemented a system to integrate substance abuse treatment with primary healthcare.

Ms. Tanzman's testimony focused on the system developed through this collaboration, known as the Hub and Spoke Model. The plan helps support those in recovery with nine regional

hubs, offering daily medication assisted treatment for those with complex addictions, and spokes, where patients receive follow-up care, counseling, and general wellness services. This framework has allowed Vermont to virtually eliminate wait times for treatment, which can be enormous barriers for individuals needing help.

Every State in the Nation has seen the impacts of opioid abuse. Ms. Tanzman's testimony was informative and offers an important perspective for other States struggling with treating addiction. I ask unanimous consent to that her testimony from the Appropriations Committee hearing this morning be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island.

I could not help but think--as I saw the picture of John Chafee, with whom I had the honor of serving here in the Senate--of John Chafee's close friendship with Robert Stafford, who was my senior Senator when I came here, both having served in World War II, both with a naval background, both people who cared first and foremost about the country and the environment. I am going to speak a little bit further about Bob Stafford as we go.

When we laid John Chafee to rest in Rhode Island, I remember sitting there and listening to the eulogies. Both Republicans and Democrats were speaking about this man.

Also, referring to what the Senator from Rhode Island has said, more than 30 years ago we had cooperation and bipartisanship. It was a hallmark of the U.S. Senate. It was a bipartisan group of Senators who sounded the alarm about climate change. They made a very modest request to the Office of Technology Assessment. They said: Study the issue of climate change and make recommendations to avert global disaster.

Those Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, were concerned that human activity might directly cause permanent, destructive, and widespread changes to our planet's climate system--changes that would put our entire economy, ecosystem, and, our very own existence at risk.

As I said, one of these Senators was my senior Senator, my mentor, when I came here and one of the finest Senators who ever served-- Republican Robert Stafford, from Vermont.

Today, led by Senator Whitehouse, I think that what many of us are trying to do is what Senator Chafee and Senator Stafford did. We want to recall that moment in 1986 and renew the warning those Senators issued 33 years ago.

Let me speak about Senator Stafford. When I came here at the ripe old age of 34, I was the only Democrat ever elected in my State. Robert Stafford was ``Mr. Republican.'' He took me under his wing. He had been a Congressman. He had been a Governor. He had been an attorney general. He served in World War II and in Korea. He was a mentor, but he was also an example. His legacy is one of sensible, pragmatic Vermont values that he brought to Washington for decades. They weren't Republican or Democratic.

Senator Stafford was--like most Vermonters--a champion for the natural environment. With his work on landmark environmental legislation, like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Superfund program, Senator Stafford represented the best of Vermont's commitment to sustainability.

His appeals to reason and for common ground, and his belief in sound science resonate even more today than when he left this body three decades ago. If he were here today, I believe he would be calling on both sides of the aisle to act now to ensure that we can pass on a secure and livable planet for generations to come and to act before it is too late.

Today, so many people still refuse to accept what is now an overwhelming scientific consensus--that climate change is real and that humans are the dominant cause of it. What is worse, for the last 2 years many in Congress have willfully accelerated the devastation caused by global warming by enabling the Trump administration's erosion of our Nation's bedrock environmental protections--protections that I have fought for throughout my nearly 45 years in the Senate.

As climate scientists warn of the urgent need to reduce emissions and reverse the global rise in temperatures, many Senators have refused to preserve even the status quo. Instead, in the last 2 years, we have seen the rollback of commonsense regulations, often at the behest of private interests that have spent decades misinforming the public and suppressing their own science on the long-term hazards of the fossil fuel industry.

Alarmingly, this week the Senate is poised to confirm someone to lead the Environmental Protection Agency--the Agency that is charged with safeguarding the air and water on which we depend--who, despite the scientific consensus, denies that climate change is the great threat we face today.

To growing numbers of Americans it is saddening--actually, it is maddening--and most of all, deeply alarming that the Trump administration and many others in leadership positions have made Trumpism's anti-science, know-nothing agenda their default position. This poses existential threats not only to our children and grandchildren but to our generation.

More than three decades ago, long before protecting our planet became a partisan issue, the Environment and Public Works Committee held 3 days of hearings on climate change. Those 1986 hearings compelled a bipartisan group of Senators to acknowledge and warn the public about a ``fundamentally altered planet'' as a result of the ``substantial greenhouse warming'' that was projected.

They asked what could be done to prevent consequences ``ranging from disruption of forest, crop, and ocean productivity to shifts in population,'' and ``extreme weather events, such as droughts, monsoons, and lowland floods.'' These words of warning were neither radical nor partisan. They were sensible.

So what has changed since then? The ice caps are melting--only faster. Certainly, the glaciers I saw when I visited Antarctica 25 or so years ago had been there for eons, and they are now fast disappearing. Our coastline is still disappearing but faster. Farmers and ranchers are still concerned about prolonged droughts and extreme weather, only, today, the fires and storms are more frequent and more devastating.

Just last month, the intelligence community's ``Worldwide Threat Assessment'' offered a sobering conclusion. This is the intelligence community's assessment: ``Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.''

We know that bipartisan action on big environmental threats is possible. In fact, soon after the climate change hearings in 1986, Marcelle and I climbed Vermont's Camel's Hump with President Reagan's EPA Administrator. We wanted to show him the terrible damage caused by acid rain. We could see that mountain from our home. We could see the changes up close. They were very obvious. With President Reagan's EPA Administrator's support, we moved ahead with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and they were signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. It was not a partisan issue. The result was a great reduction in the scourge of acid rain. We see these results every day.

Today we are in danger of taking such results for granted. It is up to us to protect this planet. If we don't, who will? There is no more urgent responsibility.

There are bold ideas for how to address this challenge. The Green New Deal offers a valuable roadmap for debate and a pathway for action. The time for dallying around the edges of the issue is over. We all share responsibility for where we are today. So, likewise, we have an obligation to attack this issue, but not with cynical show votes, not with feel-good votes intended to demonstrate a political divide rather than what should be universal acknowledgment of what we know to be true--that climate change is real, and human activity is the primary cause of these threats to our way of life, our communities, and our planet.

We have to channel the American innovative spirit that has improved our lives for centuries. We have to find creative solutions for reducing carbon emissions, and then we have to invest in those solutions. We have to reorient our workforce toward the great opportunities that are opening for green-economy jobs. We should invest in

leading the whole world in developing clean energy solutions. We have to address this real emergency head-on. Not only can we curb climate change, but, in doing so, we can transform the American economy.

Over 30 years ago, a handful of forward-looking Republicans and Democrats stood together in this Senate. I was proud to be here when they issued their challenge, but the time for delay is over. In fact, our time is running out.

Let this renewed vigor in addressing climate change, brought about by the bold proposed Green New Deal, be the catalyst for real change. Let's stand together.

Senator Whitehouse has enlightened us on so many of these issues, but we have also learned, as he did, from our mentors--like Senator Chafee, Senator Stafford, and the others who got together in 1986. It is not partisan and it is not political. It is survival.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the legislative situation?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, President Trump declared a national emergency 2 weeks ago. He did this in order to build a pet project of his. In the process, he said it was his intent to siphon billions of dollars that Congress had appropriated to help our men and women in uniform. Now, I am not sure what lawyers he consulted, but those lawyers seem to have overlooked our Nation's founding document--the U.S. Constitution.

I know the President likes to communicate in 280 characters or less, so I will point him to a 77-character phrase he may want to review: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.''

That is a short sentence, but our Founders knew what it meant. They enshrined it in article I, section 9 of the Constitution, and they established that Congress--and Congress alone--possesses the power of the purse. That Congress has exclusive power over our government's spending priorities is one of the most critical checks and balances in our constitutional system. The President can propose funding for whatever project he wants. He has the absolute right to propose funding, but it is the job of Congress to decide where to invest the American people's hard-earned tax dollars.

Let's review the facts. For over 2 years, the President has repeatedly tried and has repeatedly failed to convince Congress that building his southern border wall is a good idea. He has failed to get a deal with Mexico despite giving his word and promising his supporters more than 200 times that Mexico would pay for it. He promised that Mexico would pay for it while knowing, of course, that Mexico would not pay a cent for it. Then he failed to get a deal with his own party even during the 2 years when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives. He also failed to get a deal after he forced the country into a 35-day government shutdown over the issue--a shutdown, incidentally, that cost our country at least $11 billion, to say nothing of the number of people whose lives were so disrupted that many either lost their apartments, were unable to pay their mortgages, were unable to pay their bills, or were unable to pay for the medical care they needed.

Yet, in the face of all of these failings, he has decided to go it alone. He has decided to stretch his powers--beyond all recognition-- under the National Emergencies Act. There is no rational basis to justify the use of this authority. So we should look at what a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats wrote--a group of 58 former senior national security officials who had to help secure our country under both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

They wrote: ``There is no factual basis for the declaration of a national emergency'' on the southwest border.

I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Declaration of Former United States Government Officials be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the reality, of course, is that apprehensions at the southwest border have dropped 75 percent since 2000. The reality is that many of the southern border communities have violent crime rates that are lower than our national average. The reality is that the vast majority of the drugs that are apprehended at the border are seized at the ports of entry, and a wall would do nothing to stop this. The President is either out of touch with reality, willfully ignoring it, or not even reading the material he gets from his administration.

Presidents do have emergency powers, but they should be invoked only in true times of crises. It is an abuse of power to invoke these authorities simply as a political step to energize a President's base. It is an abuse of power to invoke these authorities to fulfill a cynical campaign promise he never should have made. The President knew he would never keep his word or the promise he had made that Mexico would pay for this border wall.

When Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to convey these powers to the President, it assumed whoever sat in the Oval Office would have enough respect for the office and the power being conveyed not to abuse it. President Trump has failed that test. Since 1976, Presidents of the United States--Republicans and Democrats alike--have upheld and passed the test. President Trump has failed the test. Look what he wants to do. The President wants to raid money that is meant for military housing and military base improvements to pay for his wall. This is at a time when studies are coming out that show how our men and women in the military are being housed in inferior or dangerous conditions. Sometimes the buildings have mold and decay, and it affects their health. The buildings are rat invested and roach infested, but the President wants to take the money away from them to build a wall that we do not need. The President has repeatedly decried the amount of drugs coming across our border. But now he wants to raid money that Congress has appropriated for proven drug programs and counter-drug programs to pay for his wall.

Let me repeat that. In order to build a wall that would do very little to stop drugs from coming across our border, President Trump wants to take money away from law enforcement programs that actually prevent drugs from coming across our border or from programs that enhance military readiness. I wish I were making this up. It sounds like something you hear on a comedy program, but it is not comedy, it is reality, and I have to ask, what is going on?

In the days and weeks ahead, the President's emergency declaration-- which amounts to an end run around both the Constitution and Congress-- is going to be challenged, and it should be. Over the past 2 years, we have seen the erosion of our institutional checks and balances in the face of creeping authoritarianism. The time has come for Congress and members of the President's own party to take a stand. Are we a democracy, or are we an authoritarian government? It is a pretty basic question.

I have been here with every President since President Gerald Ford. They upheld the Constitution, Republicans and Democrats, and they believed in the separation of power. All of them did. We simply cannot afford to now remain silent in the face of such an unprecedented violation of the separation of powers.

It is interesting. As I sit here, I remember some of my Republican friends--and they are my friends--when President Obama was President. They shouted from every rooftop about the lurches of an imperial Presidency. In every Executive order, they saw a threat to Congress's power. In every speech, they surmised the machinations of a lawless strong man--a man Donald Trump claimed wasn't born in the United States. Now, when they are faced with a President who is literally using his Executive powers to fund what Congress specifically would not, my Republican friends should echo the same concerns.

I am glad that some in the Republican Party have begun expressing their reservations about President Trump's national emergency declaration. Certainly a number of Republicans who serve in national security positions who signed on to the material

I have put in the Record did. But fleeting comments to reporters in the hallway are meaningless unless they are willing to follow up their words with their votes.

Today, the House will vote to disapprove the President's declaration. I believe that joint resolution of disapproval will pass the House. In short order, the Senate will have to vote on it. That is going to be the true test. That will be the metric history uses to determine whether Republicans are willing to put our country, our Constitution, and Congress itself over party.

While the President's emergency declaration stumbles its way through the courts, I hope my Republican friends take a moment to take stock of where we are. President Trump will be just a blip in our Nation's history. But for the sake of appeasing a man who hundreds of times made a foolish campaign promise, never grounded in reality, will they forever change the course of the separation of powers in our country? For the sake of appeasing a President who detests any limits or checks on his authority, will they forever diminish the role of Congress as a coequal branch of government? We are the longest surviving democracy on Earth today because there are checks and balances.

I am reminded of words of caution written by George Washington, our Founding Father and our Nation's first President, in his Farewell Address. The words are as true today, and we read this Farewell Address every year on the floor of the Senate. Here is what President Washington wrote over 223 years ago:

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a

free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with

its administration, to confine themselves within their

respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise

of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The

spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all

the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form

of government, a real despotism. . . . If in the opinion of

the People, the distribution or modification of the

Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be

corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution

designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for

though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good,

it is the customary weapon by which free governments are

destroyed.

That is what George Washington said. He warned us against despots. Remember, this was a man who could have remained President for life, and he voluntarily stepped down after a second term. He was a man who did that because he wanted democracy to thrive.

He spoke of the three coequal branches of government--the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary--and he was reminding us that if you let one encroach upon the other, you start down the path of despotism. We don't need that in this country, especially in this age. We don't.

We know what despots are like. We see them around the world. We see them in South America today, in one country in particular. We see them in North Korea, where the despot had his uncle executed, his own brother murdered, and thousands of people are imprisoned, starved, and dying. A despot who continues to build nuclear weapons to keep himself in power even as his people die of starvation. In a democracy, that doesn't happen. We have checks and balances for a reason.

I am going to vote aye on this joint resolution of disapproval. I urge all Senators to do the same. Have checks and balances.

I remind the President to treat emergency declarations the same way they have been treated since 1976, the way--certainly in my experience--Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama did. That preserved democracy. Was it frustrating to each of them at times? Of course it was. I remember long discussions with President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, President George W. Bush, President Clinton, and President Obama. They would say: We want to do this. A number of us had to say: You don't have the authority to do that. And they realized that.

It is not the person who holds the office. It is not the Presiding Officer. It is not me. It is not the other 98 Members of this body. It is not the President of the United States. It is not the Members of the House. It is not the members of the courts. What rules this country is our Constitution. We are a democracy. We must keep it as a democracy. Look what happens in those countries where they ignore democracy and have despots. In Venezuela, people are going without food and medicine. In the Philippines, where there is a despot, there have been murders of people who are just under suspicion, encouraged by him. We have seen the deaths of thousands of people in North Korea because of a despot who does not care and has no sense of morality.

America is so much better. Follow our Constitution. Obey our Constitution. Realize there are checks and balances. Have both Republicans and Democrats stand up and join. Remember what George Washington said. It was good advice back then; it is good advice today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.