Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I am going to commend the senior Senator from Florida for what he said. Throughout my career, I have been so impressed and so grateful for his strong voice on the environment. He is the only Member of this body who has seen Earth from space.

Mr. President, I hope the Saudi royal family was paying attention to yesterday's debate in the U.S. Senate. The bipartisan vote on S.J. Res. 54, of which I am a cosponsor, was significant for multiple reasons, but most of all for what it says about the potency of the outrage and disgust in this country and in the Congress about the conduct of Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince.

That outrage has been building over time, as the number of civilian casualties since Saudi Arabia's intervention and ongoing aerial bombardment of Yemen--one of the world's poorest countries--has swollen into the thousands. We have all seen the photographs of the dead and dying and of children who are just skin and bones. It is said that 85,000 children already have starved to death. The UN warns that 13 million Yemeni civilians could starve to death by the end of this year, if the war does not end.

Of course, the Houthis and their Iranian benefactors share much of the blame for the death and destruction in Yemen, but we are not supporting them. Rather, until recently, we were providing aerial refueling for Saudi warplanes, and we continue to provide the Saudis with intelligence and targeting assistance.

As if the kidnapping of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, the blockade of Qatar, the imprisonment of women's rights activists, and the carnage in Yemen were not enough, the outrage toward the Crown Prince finally boiled over with the horrific, premeditated murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a respected journalist, Saudi citizen, and American resident, who had criticized the royal family.

Mr. Khashoggi's murder and dismemberment by Saudi Government agents at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul triggered an international outcry, and it exposed the depth of depravity of the Saudi royal family. That an ally of the United States would so brazenly commit such a crime and then so blatantly attempt to cover it up, speaks volumes.

After a string of lies by the Saudi authorities, it is only due to the Turkish

Government and independent investigative journalists that we know that Mr. Khashoggi was murdered, a crime punishable by death in Saudi Arabia and many other countries. In fact, far lesser crimes--even some nonviolent crimes--are punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.

While we owe thanks to the Turkish Government for exposing the facts about Mr. Khashoggi's case, we cannot ignore that Turkey's President Erdogan is also responsible for widespread repression, including the arbitrary arrests and imprisonment of journalists, civil servants, and thousands of other critics who have been convicted and locked away after unfair trials. Torture is rampant in Turkey's jails, as it is in Saudi Arabia.

We know that multiple Saudi officials, including the Foreign Minister, Minister of Interior, Ambassador to the United States, and others--all members of the royal family--lied to the world, including on international television, repeatedly changing their story about what happened to Mr. Khashoggi. Perhaps most revealing was how cavalierly and shamelessly they lied, clearly assuming that their lies would be accepted at face value.

According to press reports the impulsive Crown Prince, while disclaiming any involvement in or knowledge of the crime, shortly after Mr. Khashoggi's disappearance referred to him as a ``dangerous jihadist,'' which was also false.

The Saudis have yet to say what happened to Khashoggi's remains, except that they were turned over to a ``local collaborator.'' Who and where is that person? What more are they hiding?

Reports indicate that the Saudis sent a team to Istanbul to destroy evidence of the crime, during the very period when the White House and State Department were insisting that the Saudi Government deserved more time to determine the facts. Instead, the Saudis were trying to cover their tracks.

There is every reason to believe that the Saudi royal family is still lying about who was involved.

We also know that, before murdering Mr. Khashoggi, the Saudi Government has had a long history of abducting, imprisoning, and executing dissidents and others after sham trials in violation of international law.

In the United States, the media's attention, for a time, was diverted by President Trump's racist rants about a so-called migrant invasion, his made up claims of voter fraud, his partisan lies about Democrats, his steady stream of vitriolic and divisive rhetoric that has incited others to violence here and abroad, premidterm election frenzy, and now its aftermath.

I mention this because, for the past few weeks, the murder of Mr. Khashoggi had been eclipsed by other headlines. No longer. The vote on S.J. Res. 54 is the Senate's initial answer to the Saudi royal family and to the Trump administration.

This crime, on top of everything else, was so wicked, so repulsive, that no amount of money, no amount of oil, and no amount of lies can obscure it.

The Trump administration lobbied hard against the resolution, warning that, despite the Saudi royal family's many transgressions the U.S.- Saudi relationship is too important to risk. No one is seeking to sever relations with Saudi Arabia. But far more important is that the United States stands for the truth, for justice, for the laws of war, and that we don't stand by when top officials of another government, whether ally or adversary, conspire to murder a journalist or dissident and lie about it.

As of today, the Saudi authorities continue to ignore appeals to reveal what happened to Khashoggi's remains. After so many lies, they insist that the 18 men under arrest are the only ones involved in Mr. Khashoggi's murder. No one who knows anything about the Saudi royal family, which controls the Saudi Government with an iron fist, believes that.

President Trump, who has been loath to say anything that might implicate the Saudi royal family, at one point said there would be ``very severe'' consequences if investigations conclude that the Saudis are responsible. Since then, even as it has become obvious that the Saudis, including the Crown Prince, are responsible, he has said nothing further about what those consequences would be. To the contrary, he said ``maybe he was, maybe he wasn't,'' but either way, it doesn't matter to President Trump.

Secretary Pompeo has said that Saudi Arabia has made a ``serious commitment'' to hold senior leaders and officials accountable for the murder of Mr. Khashoggi; yet so far, no senior Saudi leader or official has been arrested, and the Saudis appear to have rejected the Turkish Government's demand that the 18 individuals who have been arrested be turned over to face justice where the crime occurred.

According to press reports, the conclusion of U.S. intelligence experts is that such a heinous, premeditated crime by Saudi agents inside the Saudi consulate could not have taken place without the Crown Prince's knowledge and support. Does anyone seriously believe otherwise? Yet yesterday, the CIA Director was barred by the White House from meeting with Senators to answer questions about this. Knowing what we do about this White House, the inescapable conclusion is that whatever she would have told us would have contradicted the President's defense of the Saudi Government.

Despite all the Saudis' phony denials, the President appears disposed to ignore his own intelligence experts and rely instead on the Saudi royal family to investigate itself. Why? To protect billions of dollars in contracts for U.S. weapons purchased by the Saudis for use in Yemen. The White House has apparently concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will ride out this storm and remain in power for years to come.

Journalists the world over face unprecedented dangers. Those who criticize corrupt, repressive governments do so at great risk to their own safety and the safety of their families. They are regularly the targets of harassment, threats, and assassination for nothing more than doing their job. If the Saudi royal family can escape punishment for the premeditated murder of a Washington Post journalist, what does that say to journalists everywhere? What does it say about the United States, if we are willing to accept that?

Yesterday, the vote to discharge S.J. Res. 54 showed that we do not and will not accept it. If the Saudi royal family hopes to salvage its tattered reputation and relations with the United States, it will need to take far more decisive action to end the mayhem in Yemen and bring to justice all those responsible for murdering Jamal Khashoggi.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Luigi Telara, who passed away earlier this year on April 1. An Italian sculptor who hailed from the marble quarries of Carrara, Italy, Luigi's life was one of hard work, dedication, and beauty. While he spent a majority of his life in Italy, Luigi lived in Proctor, VT, where he worked for the Vermont Marble Company for 6 years. Although his time in America was short, the impact of his work can still be seen today in Vermont, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and even right here in the U.S. Capitol.

Although fostered and honed in his home country, Luigi's love for the art of sculpting spread far beyond his European roots. After attending Professional Institute for Marble, Industry, and Crafts--l'Istituto Professionale per l'Industria e l'Artigianato del Marmo--and later on Magistero d'Arte in Florence, the State of Vermont was lucky enough to become a second home and a source of inspiration for Luigi's grand marblework and refined artistry. He joined the Vermont Marble Company in 1955, where he was able to sculpt pieces we continue to feature here today, on the steps of our Capitol.

It was during his 6 years at the Vermont Marble Company that Luigi Telara made his mark on our great democratic institution with his assistance in the creation of the plaster models of the god of war and goddess of peace statues that stand atop the Capitol steps. ``War'' is a male figure with his head slightly titled and his gaze fixed ahead, ready to conquer what is ahead of him. To the right of ``War'' is ``Peace,'' standing in a contrapposto pose, holding a fruit-bearing olive branch in her left hand, extending it towards ``War.''

Luigi's work should serve as a subtle reminder of what is at stake when you

are a Member of the Senate, the Nation's conscience. An important message that is too often overlooked. Next time you are running up the steps to make it for a vote, take a second to appreciate the dedication to detail that was put into the statues by Luigi, by Francesco Tonelli, by Franco Marchini, and by Geno Fregosi at the Vermont Marble Company.

Following his tenure at the Vermont Marble Company, Luigi went back to his hometown of Carrara where he became a teacher at the Instituto d'Arte Felice Palama di Massa and held the position of chair for 30 years. He never lost his passion for the art of sculpting, as he would continue to carve as a private practice.

Although not a citizen on paper, Luigi exemplified what it means to be an American. The United States is a country of immigrants after all, a great melting pot of cultures, and as Luigi's life and work demonstrated, our democratic institutions are the better for their service. Legacies like Luigi's serve as a reminder of what we as a nation lose when we put up walls and close our doors to those seeking to do what our ancestors did before us. We must not turn inward. We must continue to shine our great light and be the beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks begin at this point and not a minute or so ago.

Mr. President, as we all know, we have a constitutional obligation as U.S. Senators to provide advice and consent to a President's nominee. That is not advice and rubberstamp; it is advice and informed consent.

I do my best to scrutinize each nominee on the merits, regardless of party, and decide whether they deserve a lifetime appointment to our Federal bench. During my 44 years in the Senate, I have actually voted for more Republican nominated judges than almost all but one or two Republican Senators in this body today.

The simple fact is, given Mr. Farr's track record of working to systematically dismantle the franchise for thousands of African- American voters, Thomas Farr becomes one of the most controversial nominees of either party I have ever encountered. Someone who has made a career out of attacking a sacred constitutional right, indeed the very right that gives democracy its name, simply does not belong on the Federal bench.

Let's begin with his role on Jesse Helms' Senate campaign in 1990--a campaign I remember very, very well. The Department of Justice alleged that Senator Helms' campaign sent thousands of postcards to every African-American precinct, falsely telling voters that they were ineligible to vote and threatening prosecution against those who did. Mr. Farr served as a top lawyer to Senator Helms at the time. He appears to have misled Congress about his role in that brazen voter suppression scheme. When Senate Judiciary Committee members asked Mr. Farr whether he knew about or had provided any counsel on the decision to send these postcards, Mr. Farr said he hadn't learned about their existence until after they were mailed out, but a former DOJ official has stated that Mr. Farr definitely knew about the postcards before they were sent out and that Mr. Farr's responses to Congress were just plain contrary to the facts.

Setting aside this outrageous attempt at voter suppression, each Senator in this Chamber should care whether the President's nominees tell the truth. If a nominee will not tell us the truth, especially when they are under oath, then they are unfit to take another oath--the oath of judicial office.

Mr. Farr's embrace of voter suppression appears only to have grown after his work on the Helms campaign. In 2013, he chose to defend North Carolina's racially restrictive voting law--a voting law that the Fourth Circuit struck down because it ``target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' Undeterred, between 2014 and 2017, Mr. Farr again defended North Carolina legislature in numerous lawsuits alleging that it had racially gerrymandered its State house and senate map. In each of these cases, higher courts found North Carolina's gerrymandering to be unconstitutional.

There is a pattern here. It is deeply troubling. Mr. Farr has dedicated his skills as a lawyer to suppressing the right to vote for minorities. His refusal to acknowledge, under oath, his involvement in disenfranchisement operations makes him doubly unqualified for the Federal bench.

I urge all Senators who care about the right to vote and who care about the right of this body to hear the whole truth from a President's nominees, especially when they are under oath, to vote no on Mr. Farr's nomination.

As a child, I remember going into voting booths with my parents in Montpelier, Vermont, and watching them vote. They emphasized to me, my brother, and my sister how important it was to be able to vote, that democracy required it.

When our children were growing up, we said the same to them: Always vote. No matter who you vote for, vote. It is a sacred right.

I have been in countries where people fought revolutions, had family members die for their right to vote, but they all show up; everybody who is left shows up when they can vote. I want to think that my grandchildren will have the right to vote when they grow up, that all of my grandchildren--no matter what color their skin is--have the right to vote. That should be the same for everybody's child, everybody's grandchildren in this country.

Mr. Farr doesn't think that should be the case. He does not think people of color should be able to vote. That is wrong, and such a person does not deserve my vote or any other Senator's vote to sit on the Federal court.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of further quorum calls be equally divided between the two leaders.

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

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

Mr. President, this Friday, November 30, at noon, Vermonters will be gathering to see a large crane carefully hoist a 14\1/2\-foot carved statue of Ceres, the goddess of agriculture, atop the newly gilded dome of the statehouse in Montpelier. I was born in Montpelier, and I am proud of this because it is going to be a great moment for our State and for everyone involved in the project, which has captured the attention of not only Vermonters but of those who have been following the project from great distances with the help of social media.

The new version of Ceres replaces a 1938 replica of the original statue that was removed last April after too many severe Vermont winters took a toll on the wood figure. Since that time, Vermont artists Jerry Williams and Chris Miller have been hard at work creating the new Ceres, first sculpting a model and then, out of a big piece of mahogany, they chiseled the final mahogany figure.

Marcelle and I and my sister Mary, along with David Schutz, had the pleasure of visiting the Vermont Granite Museum in Barre, VT, a few months back to witness Mr. Miller at work.

I am the grandson of two stone carvers. One of my grandfathers immigrated to Vermont from Italy. The other, my Irish grandfather, carved stone in Barre. So it was a thrill to see how Mr. Miller used the original tools of the trade.

He took raw wood and turned it into the fine details we now see, from Ceres' flowing robes to the distinctive veins in her hands. It was really remarkable to see this hunk of wood turn into a real person.

Both artists learned their techniques by studying in the studios of Barre's stone carvers. It is a specialized art that requires intense dedication, patience, skill, and practice. We are so fortunate that artists such as these have carried on a tradition that makes Vermonters proud.

It reminds me of the times as a child when I would go in and watch stone carvers at work in Barre, where my father was born, and watch them turn stone into pieces of pure art.

In this case they are using wood. Incidentally, the reason the statue is made out of wood instead of stone is that wood weighs less, and there is only so much weight the dome can hold.

I grew up in a home across the street from the Vermont State House. Ceres was always in our sights. Walking to school, coming back from school, doing my paper route, and being out with my brother and sister and my parents, we would always see Ceres. She is a strong figure, one that befits a State where farming and soil and hard work are so closely linked to our lives.

Frankly, over the past few months, when I have been home in Vermont, going by the statehouse and seeing it without Ceres has been odd because it has always been part of my life. So this Vermonter and Vermonters like my wife Marcelle and others are going to be glad to have her back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this November 10 article from the Barre, VT, Times Argus, profiling these two sculptors be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, it is with great appreciation and a touch of sadness that I note the upcoming retirement of Sarah Carpenter. Her retirement culminates 20 years of dedicated service as the executive director of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, VHFA. Through her enduring commitment to affordable housing, Sarah has helped tens of thousands of Vermonters into homes and helped to establish and shape our State's affordable housing infrastructure.

Sarah's career spanned four decades during which time she was a consistent leader in the affordable housing community. As executive director of Cathedral Square Corporation between 1983 and 1998, Sarah worked to develop and manage housing that met the needs of differently abled and aging Vermonters. She oversaw the operation of 430 units of supportive housing and provided housing development and management assistance to 20 projects across the State.

As executive director of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, Sarah advanced the agency's mission to finance and promote affordable, safe, and decent housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income Vermonters. Sarah oversaw $2.2 billion in lending in Vermont, and in her time with VHFA, the agency closed over 10,000 home loans, making a significant contribution to homeownership in the State of Vermont. She has been an effective leader whose work has expanded the amount of permanent supportive housing dedicated to people experiencing homelessness. Not only was Sarah an inspiring leader, she was also a strong and compassionate manager. Since 2015, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce and Vermont Business Magazine have included VHFA on their list of Vermont's Best Places to Work.

Sarah's contribution to the affordable housing community extends into her community service. She is a founding member of the Housing Vermont board and a founding member of the Burlington Community Land Trust. She has been a member of dozens of boards and special committees dedicated to various aspects of housing finance and the promotion of safe, affordable, and decent housing for Vermonters of all means. Her service has been recognized by numerous awards, including the Senator Patrick Leahy Leadership Award from the Committee on Temporary Shelter in 2007.

Sarah is a lifelong Vermonter who has dedicated her career to ensuring those in her home State can afford a home. She was a key architect of the system that today creates and finances the production and preservation of affordable rental housing across the State. She has worked closely with my office to improve the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, including ensuring priority is given to projects that propose to target 25 percent of their units to Vermonters who have experienced homelessness. Sarah's informed advocacy has strengthened this and other Federal housing programs so they can work for Vermont and Vermonters. I commend her service to the State and thank her on behalf of the countless Vermont families that she has helped into homes.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for her comments. She has had a strong voice of reason and conscience throughout this whole debate.

This is not a normal confirmation vote. I have now served in the Senate for 19 Supreme Court nominations, more than any other Senator. I have never seen so much at stake with a single seat. I have never seen this much at stake precisely because this is about so much more than one seat. Indeed, the integrity of two of the three coequal branches of our Republic is at stake. This vote will decide whether the U.S. Senate--which, at its best, can serve as the conscience of the Nation-- causes the Supreme Court to be indelibly tainted in the eyes of millions of Americans, perhaps more than half of the country.

To be clear, my opposition to Judge Kavanaugh is not because he was nominated by a Republican President. In my 44 years in the Senate, I have voted for more Republican-appointed judges than almost every single Republican Senator serving today. That includes, of course, voting to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts. But Judge Kavanaugh is not a typical conservative nominee. My opposition is driven by my firm belief that his confirmation will bring great harm to the court, to this body, and to millions of hard-working Americans.

Judge Kavanaugh has been relentlessly dishonest under oath. I am not just referring to the fact that he was not telling the truth about his high school drinking or the obvious misogyny in his yearbook or whether he is ``Bart O'Kavanaugh,'' who passed out from drunkenness. All of that, of course, does speak to his credibility, as he concocted far- fetched story after far-fetched story, all to avoid conceding facts that would corroborate the Brett Kavanaugh as described by Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez.

But it is much more than that--much, much more than that. Every single time Judge Kavanaugh has testified before the Senate--in 2004, in 2006, and twice in 2018--he has misled and dissembled. On issues big and small, anytime he has been faced with questions that are incriminating, or would place

him in the middle of controversy, he has shown that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. He misled the Senate. Following questions by both Republicans and Democrats, he misled the Senate about his role in a hacking scandal and thefts from the U.S. Senate. He misled the Senate about his role in confirming several controversial judicial nominees and in shaping the legal justifications for some of the Bush administration's most extreme and eventually discredited policies. I have never seen a nominee so casually willing to evade and deny the truth in service of his own raw ambition. For decades, that ambition has let him, step after step, evade the truth if it is in any way going to stop his ambitions.

The truth is, we are just beginning to learn about Judge Kavanaugh's dishonesty under oath. His false testimony during his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings only came to light as the Judiciary Committee obtained some of his White House emails--some because Senate Republicans blocked access to 90 percent--90 percent--of his White House records. Compare that to when Justice Kagan was here, we made sure that Republicans and Democrats had 99 percent of her records, and they were briefed on the remaining 1 percent. Here, 90 percent was blocked. So everything we have learned about his prior dishonesty comes from just 10 percent of his record. Many more of these records are eventually going to become public after today. In fact, I joined a lawsuit, led by Senator Blumenthal, to force the National Archives to release these records. So if 10 percent of his records show dishonesty, what are the chances that the other 90 percent do not contain additional evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's dishonesty under oath? I would say the chance is about zero.

It is not just Judge Kavanaugh's veracity that is disqualifying; it is also his temperament and his partisan zeal. When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004, he was known only as a hyper-partisan political operative. Because he was seen as so hyperpolitical, it took 2 years to get him confirmed. Since Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, I had wondered whether his earlier partisan zeal that held him up for 2 years has remained.

Well, it was confirmed last week that it does remain. I have never seen a nominee, either Republican or Democrat, so consumed by partisan rancor. In testimony that veered into a tirade, he angrily attacked Senators and dismissed Dr. Ford's testimony as part of a smear campaign to ruin his name and sink his nomination. His conspiratorial ramblings--attributing the allegations to ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons,'' wherever that came from--were an insult to Dr. Ford and to survivors of sexual violence everywhere. It is not how a patron of the President of the United States continues to deride victims of sexual violence.

Former Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee--actually, he was the first nominee I was able to vote on as a U.S. Senator, and I voted for him. This Republican appointee, well-respected Supreme Court Justice, declared that Judge Kavanaugh's unhinged performance last week demonstrates ``potential bias.'' Justice Stevens said that ``for the good of the Court,'' Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation ought not to proceed. Just yesterday, contrary to the statements made on the floor of the Senate, the American Bar Association announced that it is reopening its evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh's fitness to serve as a judge. These developments--both unprecedented--should serve as flashing red warning signs to any Senator inclined to vote yes at this time.

And there are more flashing red signs.

Dr. Ford's credible and compelling testimony captivated the Nation and inspired survivors of sexual violence across the country. Every minute of her testimony was credible. She disclosed the abuse long before Judge Kavanaugh was a household name. She remembered vivid details of that night. She expressed 100 percent certainty that Judge Kavanaugh was her abuser. In a moment that I will never forget, when I asked her: Doctor, what is your strongest memory--something that she could not forget--she testified: ``Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two'' as a teenage Brett Kavanaugh and a friend drunkenly assaulted Dr. Ford.

Dr. Ford had nothing to gain by coming forward. I believe her, just as I believed Anita Hill. In my view, no one who truly believes Dr. Ford can credibly justify voting yes. Unfortunately, the Senate appears to be on the brink of failing Dr. Ford, just as it will fail Ms. Ramirez, and just as it failed Anita Hill.

The FBI investigation completed over the last few days falls short of any standard. And it fell short by design. We have already heard about its deficiencies from Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and numerous other witnesses who attempted, unsuccessfully, to share relevant information with the FBI.

Senate Republican leadership in the White House did everything in their power to ensure this investigation was not a search for truth but rather a search for cover. Even a basic search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford, as well as her husband and her therapist. A search for truth would have allowed the FBI to view numerous high school and college classmates who come forward saying they could provide information about Judge Kavanaugh's conduct during those years that was consistent with the allegation.

A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview a man who wrote a sworn statement asserting he could corroborate Ms. Ramirez's allegations or two women who contacted authorities with evidence that Judge Kavanaugh tried to head off Ms. Ramirez's story before it became public. That was in clear contradiction to his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to at least speak with Julie Swetnick, a third accuser.

As Vermonters said to me last weekend when I was home, if they have nothing to hide, why the rush? If they have nothing to hide, why don't they take the time to find the whole truth?

Instead of calling on the FBI to take these basic investigatory steps, inexplicably, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee has solely tried to discredit these women. The committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of Ms. Swetnick. This individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident but instead wanted to describe the alleged sexual preferences of Ms. Swetnick. According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence--one of the most nonpartisan and respected voices on Capitol Hill--this shameless attempt to smear the victim violates the intent of the Rape Shield law.

Look what happened. On the one hand, you have the President of the United States at a rally trying to shame the victim, who, of course, is a woman. Then, on the other hand, we have Ms. Swetnick, who has never even been interviewed by the FBI. She was ignored. She was silenced. Then, to follow the routine of this administration, she was shamed. It is outrageous she has been treated that way.

Republicans have also claimed the other individuals Dr. Ford identified at the gathering where she was assaulted have refuted her testimony. These Republicans know that is false. Those individuals stated publicly they do not recall the event.

As Dr. Ford told the Judiciary Committee, this is not surprising, as ``it was a very unremarkable party . . . because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening.'' One of these individuals has said publicly she believes Dr. Ford.

Republicans have claimed the investigation failed to review core objective evidence for any of these allegations. Despite the numerous restrictions placed on this investigation, that simply is not true, but a predicate fact for developing thorough corroborating evidence is a thorough investigation. This investigation fell far short. When I was a prosecutor, I never would have allowed an investigation to have left out so many salient points. It is a disservice to Ms. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, Ms. Swetnick. It is a disservice to survivors everywhere.

The manic rush to place Judge Kavanaugh on the bench was more important to many in this Senate than these women. Pushing toward confirmation while so many leads remain unexamined will forever taint a Justice

Kavanaugh, and, unfortunately, the Supreme Court itself.

Yet truth can be dogged. It has a way of coming out, eventually. For any Senator who votes yes while troubling new developments in this nominee are occurring in real time, it will be on their conscience when more disqualifying information later emerges--and it will. I urge them to think carefully about what a ``yes'' vote would mean to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, to the integrity of the Senate, and to the increasing divisiveness in our Nation.

As partisan as this process has been, this is not a partisan dilemma. Many prominent conservatives will make a fine Supreme Court Justice. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I voted for more Republican nominees than almost any Republican Senator in this body, but these other people would not cast a shadow over the Supreme Court and a shadow over the U.S. Senate. Judge Kavanaugh is not that choice. To avoid risking permanent damage in the integrity of our institution as a government, I urge Senators to join me in voting no on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is extraordinary where we find ourselves today. We are on the verge of a cloture vote and possibly a confirmation vote for Judge Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court. At the same time, we have credible allegations of sexual assault against a nominee, and they are not just lingering; they are developing.

The FBI investigation that we hoped would be full and fair has turned out to be neither after the Trump White House and Senate Republicans appear to have successfully imposed so many restrictions as to render it almost meaningless.

I am afraid that from the very beginning of this nomination, the vetting of Judge Kavanaugh has never been a genuine effort to discover the truth. Instead, at every turn, it has been a transparent and partisan attempt to keep the American people in the dark about the vulnerabilities of a controversial nominee who, if he is confirmed, is going to shape our lives for a generation.

From start to finish, at every step, this has been a unilateral effort by the Trump White House and Senate Republicans to protect their nominee instead of protecting the American people or--I might say--to protect the Supreme Court. They have been driven by the impulse to rush and to conceal.

I want to commend my friends Senator Jeff Flake and Senator Chris Coons for working together in good faith to demand more from this process. An investigation into the serious allegations of sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh is the first step, but it should have happened weeks ago.

Until now, such investigations have been routine any time new, derogatory information surfaces about a nominee. Unfortunately, the investigation completed over the last few days falls short of any reasonable standard. I think it fell short by design.

We have already heard about many of its deficiencies from Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and numerous other witness who attempted unsuccessfully-- attempted unsuccessfully--to share relevant information with the FBI.

The Senate Republican leadership and the Trump White House did everything in their power to assure that this investigation was not a search for truth but rather a search for cover.

A search for truth would have allowed the FBI to interview Dr. Ford's husband and her therapist, both of whom have stated that Dr. Ford mentioned Kavanaugh as her assaulter years ago.

A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview numerous high school and college classmates who have come forward saying they could provide information about Judge Kavanaugh's conduct during those years that was consistent with the allegations and which contradict Judge Kavanaugh's sworn testimony.

A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview a man who wrote a sworn statement asserting that he could help corroborate Ms. Ramirez's allegations or two women who contacted authorities with evidence that Judge Kavanaugh tried to head off Ms. Ramirez's story before it became public. That was an apparent contradiction--a total contradiction--with his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. In fact, a search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to at least speak with Julia Swetnick, a third accuser. A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to speak with Mark Judge's ex-girlfriend, who recalled that Mr. Judge told her ``ashamedly'' about a sexual incident that eerily mirrors both Dr. Ford's and Ms. Swetnick's allegations.

There is no mistake here: This investigation was rigged by the White House and Senate Republicans.

Instead of calling on the FBI to take these basic investigatory steps, inexplicably, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee has solely tried to discredit these women. The committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of Ms. Swetnick's.

This individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident but instead salaciously described the alleged sexual interests of Ms. Swetnick's. According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence--one of the most nonpartisan and respected voices on Capitol Hill--this shameless attempt to smear a victim violates the intent of the rape shield law. And to add to it, Ms. Swetnick was never even interviewed by the FBI. She was ignored. She was silenced. Then she was shamed. It is outrageous, the way she was treated.

Republicans have also claimed that the other individuals Dr. Ford identified at the gathering where she was assaulted have ``refuted'' her testimony. Well, that is just false. These individuals stated publicly that they do not recall the event. As Dr. Ford told the Judiciary Committee, that is not surprising, as ``it was a very unremarkable party . . . because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening.'' Yet one of these individuals has said publicly that she believes Dr. Ford.

After reviewing the FBI's report this morning, within minutes, Republican Senators claimed there is a lack of corroborating evidence for any of these allegations. Despite the numerous restrictions they placed on this investigation, that claim is simply not true. But a predicate fact for developing thorough corroborating evidence is a thorough investigation. That is basic. And this investigation false far short. It is a disservice to Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and Ms. Swetnick. I would go further to say that it is a disservice to survivors anywhere in this country.

Dr. Ford's credible and compelling testimony captivated the Nation and inspired survivors of sexual violence across the country. In a moment that I will never forget, when I asked her for her strongest memory, something from the incident she couldn't forget, she replied: ``Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two'' as a teenage Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned Dr. Ford down to the bed and attempted to sexually assault her. I believe what she said.

The reason that a thorough, independent investigation is so critical is not because we need additional proof that Judge Kavanaugh was not telling the truth about his high school drinking or the obvious misogyny in his yearbook or whether he is ``Bart O'Kavanaugh'' who passed out from drunkenness. All of us here know he wasn't telling the truth in his testimony about that. The reason we needed a thorough investigation is that these women have offered credible accusations, and they have identified potential corroborating witnesses and evidence, and the Senate needs to know all of the facts before it can place the accused on the Nation's highest Court for a lifetime appointment.

A thorough investigation is essential for another reason: We simply cannot take Judge Kavanaugh at his word. On issues big and small, anytime Judge Kavanaugh has been faced with questions that would place him in the middle of controversy, he has shown he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Every single time he has testified before the Senate over the years, he has misled and dissembled. He misled the Senate about his role in a hacking scandal, in confirming controversial judicial nominees, and in shaping the legal justifications for some of the Bush administration's most extreme and now discredited policies.

His appearance before us last week was no different. He gave testimony that veered into a tirade. He angrily dismissed Dr. Ford's testimony as part of a smear campaign to ruin his name and sink his nomination. His conspiratorial ramblings--attributing the allegations to ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons''--were an insult to Dr. Ford, and they are an insult to survivors of sexual violence across the country. He evaded--as he always has when under oath--basic factual questions, choosing instead to show his disdain for members of the committee who had the audacity to ask him about his behavior during the time of the allegations.

In my 44 years in the Senate, I have voted for more Republican- appointed judges than almost all serving Republican Senators. That includes voting for Chief Justice Roberts. But I have never seen such a partisan performance by a nominee of either party to the Supreme Court or any other court. I have never seen a nominee so casually willing to evade and deny the truth in the service of his own raw ambition.

If truth under oath means anything at all, Judge Kavanaugh has disqualified himself over and over and over again. He has neither the veracity nor the temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in our Nation. The truth has an odd way of coming out, one way or another. To avoid risking permanent damage to the integrity and legitimacy of our Nation's highest Court, I urge Senators to join me in voting no on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.

Mr. President, I do not see anyone else seeking the floor, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Americans are taking to the skies like never before. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a new high of 74.8 million domestic and international passengers flew in June of 2018, a 5.8-percent increase compared to last year and a 1- percent increase compared to May. June was the fifth consecutive monthly increase in system-wide passengers. In the midst of this growth, Congress has been working on legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, which sits at the center of this tremendously important industry.

Today we are sending a 5-year FAA reauthorization to the President's desk. While certainly not perfect, on balance, this is a good bill that takes positive steps for airline workers and customers and also reauthorizes funding for key programs that help rural airports. At a time when the Trump administration has sought to either eliminate or dramatically slash discretionary funding for the Essential Air Service, EAS, this bill sends a strong, bipartisan signal about the importance of EAS to rural communities across the country. In addition, this agreement will end the requirement that airports use toxic firefighting foam that can poison groundwater. Communities in Vermont have been forced to confront the aftereffects of the use of these dangerous chemicals. It is long overdue that we put an end to their use.

I am also pleased that this bill contains a small but important provision I worked to include that will authorize reimbursement for preclearance activities in the rail environment. As a longtime advocate for preclearance, I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Chairman Grassley to work with me and Senator Johnson on this language, which is necessary for establishing preclearance facilities at Canadian rail stations.

I am concerned, however, about one unrelated piece of legislation attached to this bill that grants vague and overly broad authority to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to mitigate threats posed by drones. The Preventing Emerging Threats Act would allow the government to take control over, destroy, and wiretap drones that pose a ``credible threat'' to an undefined class of Federal property. Crucially, it exempts DOJ and DHS from the protections contained in the Wiretap Act and the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Act, opening the door to warrantless wiretapping.

While there is undoubtedly potential for drones to be misused in a manner that could pose a serious threat to citizens and government buildings, this bill fails to achieve the right balance between granting DOJ and DHS reasonable authority to confront such threats and protecting civil liberties. The vague definitions of ``credible threat,'' ``safety and security'' and ``covered facility or asset'' leave the door open for serious abuse. It is imperative that Congress remain vigilant in conducting oversight to prevent misuse of this vague authority.

Despite my serious concerns about the Preventing Emerging Threats Act, I am supporting this package because it brings stability and certainty to the FAA and includes other important provisions that benefit airline passengers, employees, and Vermont. I appreciate the hard work that went into crafting this compromise. I do not support everything in this bill, but on balance, it is legislation I will vote in favor of.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama. Before I start, I should note that we have votes scheduled for 12 noon, and I may go a little bit over that, so I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my whole statement.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama and I have been friends for decades. Our wives have been friends, as the Presiding Officer knows. We have different political philosophies, but we join together in wanting to make the Senate work the way it should work and the way it used to work. We have done that in these appropriations bills. It means that the Senator from Alabama has had to decline some things in this bill that he might have liked otherwise, but I have had to do the same. That is why we are here today.

The two bills in the package before us--the Defense bill and the Labor-HHS-Education bill--are a product of hard work and bipartisan cooperation. I am pleased that those of us working together have been able to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills. It goes way beyond the procedures, way beyond working together.

These bills make important investments not only in our national security but also in the future of our country for us, our children, and our grandchildren. They demonstrate the importance of the bipartisan budget agreement we reached earlier this year.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill makes new investments in healthcare and education. We increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, the jewel that we have here in this country. We invest in working families by improving access to childcare and promoting college affordability. We provide new resources to combat the opioid epidemic-- something that hits every single State represented in this body. The Defense bill provides critical resources to support our men and women in uniform and their families and invest in national security.

I am glad we do not have controversial poison pill riders on either the right or the left in here. What we did is we did our job. We focused on what we should be doing--making responsible, thoughtful decisions on how to fund these Federal agencies. We left controversial policy issues out of it. If people want to have debates on those, then bring up separate bills and debate them up or down.

We have a continuing resolution to keep Federal agencies up and running through December 7. That is to make sure we don't face a government shutdown in the event we don't finish our work on the remaining bills. We never want to fund the government by continuing resolution; that is inefficient and actually wastes money. That is why Chairman Shelby and I have worked so hard to get the appropriations process back on track. We have more work to do. We are still in conference on a four-bill minibus. We should finish that work and send it to the President's desk before the start of the fiscal year so we won't have a CR on those agencies.

This will be a far more effective, cost-saving, efficient way of doing things, and it can be done. In fact, I think the chairman would agree we are very close to an agreement. Most of the funding issues have been resolved. We do have some controversial poison pill riders. We shouldn't delay this package over unrelated policy matters that have no place on must-pass spending bills. Get the poison pills out and pass the bills.

There are four bills--the Interior bill, the Financial Services bill, the Agriculture bill, and the Transportation-HUD bill. These are programs that are important to the American people. They should not be frozen at fiscal year 2018 funding levels--not even for a few months.

The rest of them are so close. Look at the Agriculture bill. It provides critical support for our farmers all over the country and rural communities through investments in rural development and housing, agriculture research, and clean water programs. Every State in this Nation has rural communities--and I think of especially my own State of Vermont--and farm economies that benefit from these programs. They shouldn't have to operate under a CR.

The Financial Services bill supports regulatory agencies that the American people rely on to protect them from unfair, unsafe, or fraudulent business practices. We should fund these agencies in a responsible way, not put them on autopilot.

I am also pushing to include cost-of-living adjustments for Federal civilian workers in the final bill. That is not provided for under the CR. Failure to pass this bill on time and with a cost-of-living adjustment included will mean 2.1 million Federal workers will not see a pay raise, including doctors and nurses serving our veterans and FEMA employees responding to Federal disasters.

The Interior bill is important. It means our children and grandchildren will enjoy clean air and clean water. It supports important conservation programs, including funding for our national parks. It also provides funding for fire suppression. We just had a fire season that has been one of the worst in recent memory.

Finally, we are close to a deal on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill. I hope we can finish negotiations on this bill this week. This is our Nation's infrastructure bill. I worked very closely with Senator Shelby on this. We want to rebuild our crumbling bridges and roads. We want to invest in our communities and create jobs for thousands of workers across this country.

Funding the government is one of Congress's basic responsibilities. I would urge my friends in the other body to do what Senator Shelby and I have done. Drop poison pill riders so that we can send this bill to the President before October 1. We can do it. I realize we need 60 votes in the Senate. We don't have poison pill riders, so that should be easy to do. We can get 9 of the 12 bills across the finish line by October 1.

I am pleased we are going to be voting on the Defense and Labor-HHS package today. I thank Chairman Shelby and the chair and ranking members of the subcommittees, Senators Blunt, Murray, and Durbin, and the staff of the Appropriations Committee. We never could have done this without the hard work of both the Democratic staff and the Republican staff.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of all those staff members.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I think we are ready to vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as a member of the British-American Parliamentary Group, I would like to take a moment to recognize the 70th anniversary of the creation of the United States-United Kingdom Fulbright Commission.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Congress took steps aimed at creating a more peaceful and prosperous world. The Fulbright Program, along with the World Bank and the IMF, are reminders of the importance of collective action for the common good. Since 1946, the Fulbright Program has fostered bilateral relationships through educational exchanges with postgraduate and postdoctoral scholarships. In the words of Senator J. William Fulbright, ``the vital mortar to seal the bricks of world order is education across international boundaries, not with the expectation that knowledge would make us love each other, but in the hope that it would encourage empathy between nations . . . .'' Those words are as relevant today as they were back then.

Over the last 70 years, thousands of students from the United States and the United Kingdom have crossed the Atlantic to deepen their understanding of each other's countries and cultures. Fulbright scholarships have not only been the catalysts for great artists, journalists, scientists, lawyers, independent scholars, and many others; they have cemented friendships around the globe for generations.

I invite my fellow Senators to celebrate the many Fulbright scholars and emerging leaders who have worked in countless ways to foster tolerance and understanding in their communities, countries, and around the world. In my 44 years in the Senate, I cannot think of a time when those attributes were more needed than they are today.

Mr. President, American taxpayers are facing an uncertain time. After rushing to pass an enormously complex, budget-busting tax bill late last year, Republicans in Congress have set the table for the upcoming tax season to be a time of serious confusion for the public. At the center of this sits the IRS, which is in the midst of trying to modernize its systems, effectively perform its tax collection functions, and implement this boondoggle of a tax law. Today the Senate considers a nominee to head the IRS. While I strongly disagree with most of the tax policy decisions that this administration has made, I am supporting this nominee because the IRS deserves to have dedicated leadership at the top.

There is little debate over Mr. Rettig's qualifications for this position. By all accounts, he has extensive tax law experience and has worked closely with the IRS in advisory roles over the years. Perhaps, most importantly, he would ensure that the IRS has full-time leadership in place, which stands in stark contrast to how the administration has chosen to run the agency to date. Rather than putting an Acting Commissioner in place who would serve exclusively in that role, the administration chose instead to have a political appointee in the Department of Treasury split his time between his policy role in the Department and the critical role of leading the IRS. There is no doubt that this does a disservice to American taxpayers. It also raises questions about the political independence of the IRS.

I appreciate that many Senators will be opposing this nomination because of the egregious decision made by the administration in July to end the reporting of so-called ``dark money'' donors to the IRS. In a time when Russia has been shown to use these types of organizations to funnel money as part of an effort to influence our elections, ending the reporting of donor information raises serious questions about who this administration is aiming to protect. I was proud to join a letter led by Senators Klobuchar and Wyden urging the Department of Treasury to reinstate the reporting requirements.

At the same time, we have seen the impact that the lack of dedicated leadership and the disastrous budget cuts adopted over the years by Republicans has had at the IRS. Its website crashed on tax day, crippling the ability of millions of Americans to file their taxes on time. Rural Americans are struggling to get the help they need to file their taxes. It still needs to provide guidance to taxpayers on how the Republican tax law will impact them. Without a full-time leader in place, I worry that the IRS will be rudderless at the top. Ultimately, such an outcome would be unfair to hard-working Vermonters who just want to pay their taxes as quickly and easily as possible.

As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fight for the funding the IRS needs to meet the many challenges it faces and repair the damage caused by years of budget neglect. I will also be supporting the nominee today, despite my unequivocal opposition to the IRS dark money decision, so that the agency has the leadership it needs as well.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on this.

Today, the Senate will consider final passage of the ``Minibus #1'' conference report. This package contains the Legislative Branch, Energy and Water Development, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills.

I agree with what Vice Chairman Shelby has said. When we first considered this package in June, we held our first real debate on the Senate floor on an appropriations bill in many years. We had eight rollcall votes on amendments. We adopted a managers' package that Senator Shelby and I submitted. It contained 32 more--a step toward returning to regular order.

Today, we are going to take another step. This is not exactly the bill I would have written. I think it is safe to say it is not exactly the bill Chairman Shelby would have written. We know you have to have compromise. You have to work things out. I also knew I could rely on his word, and he could rely on my word. That is why we are here today voting on this bipartisan package.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill includes significant new investments in mental health and opioid abuse treatment. We are not just talking about things we would like to do to address opioid abuse; we are actually including it in a bill. It invests $1 billion in new funding over fiscal year 2017 levels for mental healthcare programs and suicide prevention and $454 million over fiscal year 2017 for opioid treatment and prevention.

This bill also provides resources important to Vermonters. It increases funding for long-term, noninstitutional care programs like the Veterans Independence Program in Vermont, which partners with community providers to support veterans who prefer to continue living in their own homes, avoiding costly nursing home care and offering better quality of life. It provides funding for homeless veterans programs, such as the Grant and Per Diem program that offers supportive transitional housing to homeless veterans, and it includes a $40 million increase for Supportive Services for Veteran Families to help veterans and their

families secure permanent affordable housing.

The bill nearly doubles funding for the popular Adaptive Sports Grant Program and expands it so that more service-disabled veterans, including those who suffer from invisible injuries like PTSD and brain injuries, can participate in lifelong sports in their communities, or train to showcase their mental and physical training at national competitions. This bill also includes a $40 million investment for the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and its evidence- based approach to the treatment of veterans bearing the hidden wounds of war.

However, I am extremely disappointed that House Republicans and President Trump refused to accommodate funding for the costs associated with the VA Choice Program. The program is going to face a shortfall beginning in May 2019. We are not helping our veterans if we make promises we don't keep. We cannot just take funding from other programs for veterans or terminate programs to help low-income Americans or important research at the National Institutes of Health, even though the President is proposing it.

We must adjust the budget caps to accommodate programs for our veterans that have already passed Congress and been signed into law.

We made a promise to veterans. The chairman and I will work hard on making sure Congress keeps that promise.

In the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, we make significant investments that support scientific research, make America more competitive in clean energy and increase funds for renewable energy.

Congress rejected President Trump's shortsighted attempt to eliminate ARPA-E, which researches and invests in new energy technologies, and increased its funding by $60 million over fiscal year 2018. Thanks to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, investments in the Office of Science are increased by $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2017, paving the way for new and groundbreaking scientific research.

And with Hurricane Florence set to make landfall on America's East Coast, this package includes the highest ever level of funding for the Army Corps' Civil Works program of nearly $7 billion. For every dollar invested, it is estimated that there is a $16.60 return by mitigating flood damage and transportation rate savings from moving goods on our waterways.

The Energy and Water bill also makes important investments in our rural communities through regional commissions, including $20 million for the four-State Northern Border Regional Commission. We once again provide strong funding for the Weatherization Program, which helps so many families in Vermont and other northern States who struggle with high home heating prices during the cold winter months. Ad I am pleased that the bill supports much needed repairs and improvements in our environmental infrastructure and energy infrastructure and strengthens innovative ways to deliver these critical assets that will make Vermont and the entire country more resilient to the changing climate and violent weather events.

The Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill includes funding to pay congressional interns for the first time. A congressional internship offers an entrance to a career in public service, but many dedicated, young adults do not have the means to spend a summer working for free in Washington or in our home districts. By paying interns for their work, we open the door to a wider and more diverse pool of applicants looking to serve their country.

I have long realized the potential benefits to our country of providing this opportunity to talented young people from diverse backgrounds. That is why, since my first day in the Senate, in 1975, I made sure there were the resources available in my office to compensate our interns. I am glad this opportunity will now be available in every office, both House and Senate.

For the first time in the legislative branch bill, we are also requiring Senate candidates to file electronic campaign finance reports, something the House has required since 1995. This will increase transparency in campaign finance and finally bring the system into the 21st century.

This is a compromise bill. It makes significant investments in the American people. It was not an easy path to get to where we are, but the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell-Schumer agreement we entered into--the four of us--has laid the bipartisan framework for a path forward. This package does have bipartisan support. It is free of poison pill riders, and it is in line with the bipartisan budget agreement.

I commend my friend Richard Shelby for his leadership. I also thank Senators Alexander, Feinstein, Boozman, Schatz, Daines, and Murphy for their vital contributions.

This is the only successful path forward for the remaining appropriations bills, and I am hopeful that House Republicans will continue to engage with this process.

I also remain hopeful that President Trump will join this bipartisan and bicameral vision for the appropriations process.

However, the President's repeated shutdown threats are not helpful.

Just last week, at a campaign style rally, the President threatened to shut down the government after the midterm elections--an attempt that would avoid the immediate political consequences of his brash and short-sighted decision to hold the American people hostage for his useless and ill-considered border wall, which he has repeatedly promised Mexico would pay for.

A government shutdown is not a political talking point. It has real consequences on real people, and I hope the President will leave his rhetoric at his rally and work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

In the Senate, we have come together, Republicans and Democrats. We have made more progress than we have in decades in appropriations.

I hope that we will continue down this path and pass the two additional minibus appropriations bills that are in conference before the end of the fiscal year. Funding the government is one of Congress's most basic responsibilities, and we owe it to the American people to do our jobs.

Lastly, I often say I am a constitutional impediment to my staff-- Chuck Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, Jay Tilton, and Jean Kwon, as well as Chairman Shelby's staff, Shannon Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, and David Adkins, as well as the staff on both sides of the aisle for each of the three subcommittees. It takes a lot people to get a bill like this across the finish line, and I thank them for their hard work and dedication.

I am ready to vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.