Floor Statements

Mr. President, as I listen to the objection of my colleague from Utah, I am really struck by the absurdity and exaggeration involved in opposition to these commonsense measures that would simply save lives. The idea that we haven't debated background checks--what could be more untethered to reality? We have debated background checks for as long as I have been in the U.S. Senate and before then, when I was attorney general seeking to champion universal background checks. We have debated them in the Judiciary Committee ad nauseam. And we have shown, through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, that we can break the hold of the gun lobby that is the source of those absurd and ridiculous arguments.

Background checks take no guns away from any law-abiding citizen. They simply assure that people who are dangerous to themselves or others don't have them. That is the purpose of red flag laws, which I have also championed, and many of the other measures that we seek to pass--the repeal of PLCAA, which guarantees unbridled immunity to gun manufacturers; ghost guns, which we seek to ban because law enforcement finds them so dangerous; and numerous other commonsense measures.

I am here on behalf of a bill, Ethan's Law, S. 173, which ought to be common ground for everyone. It simply requires safe storage. And we know that 500 Americans every year, including more than 100 children, die from unintentional firearm injuries, many of them involving weapons that are unsafely stored.

There are loaded and unlocked guns in the homes of 4.6 million American children, and many of them perish because their parents or their neighbors' parents fail to safely store those weapons.

Nobody knows it better than Kristin Song. Her son died as a result of an unsafely stored weapon just after his 15th birthday. He was with a friend, and a firearm stored in a Tupperware box was used in play by these two young boys. Ethan Song died, and Ethan's Law, which I am seeking to pass by unanimous consent today, is in his memory. It was passed by the State house of representatives in Connecticut and our State senate. And 26 States--red, blue, purple--already have some form of safe storage and child access prevention laws on the books.

We know from the record of these laws in Connecticut that they work; they save lives. And we know also that gun owners believe that safe storage ought to be the law, ought to be required, ought to be mandated so that lives are saved.

In fact, even the firearms industry--including the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation--agree that safe storage is a critical part of responsible gun ownership.

The NRA tells gun owners that ``[s]trong boxes and security cases . . . are inexpensive and give . . . quick access to . . . firearms in a defensive situation.''

The NSSF tells gun owners to ``[a]lways make absolutely sure that firearms in your home are securely stored out of the reach of children and . . . unauthorized persons.''

Ninety percent of the guns used in unintentional shooting deaths by children were left unlocked and loaded. The numbers are outrageous and depressing, but we can do something, and we should do something. And that is why I am here today to urge that we pass a bill that ought to be common ground--bipartisan common ground--and show that, in fact, democracy can work. We can pass measures that save lives that should be bipartisan. There ought to be no Republican versus Democratic debate on this floor or anywhere else. It ought to be a matter of

common sense and common agreement across the aisle.

Mr. President, so as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 173 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that this bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

No single gun owner will lose a gun--none--as a result of this measure.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this issue--persistent, consistent, constant in seeking the truth; very simply, seeking the facts.

We are here about the authorization of a subpoena to three individuals--Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo, and Robin Arkley--who have engaged in, we know for sure, a pattern of gift-giving, including lavish vacations, private jet flights, school tuition, and even a luxury RV. These wealthy political activists have given those gratuities, we know for sure, but we know very little else because the Supreme Court has no code of ethics.

The U.S. Supreme Court could defuse a lot of the degrading rumor and speculation if it were simply to do as every other branch of government, as every other judge except for the U.S. Supreme Court does and impose a code of ethics. Its refusal to adopt a code of ethics lies at the core of our reason for being here today.

But, in my view, these subpoenas are part of an effort to save the Court from its own self-inflicted ethical crisis. It is an ethical conflagration of its own making. The Supreme Court Justices are the only Federal judges who are not subject to a binding and enforceable ethical code, and that leads to the next point.

The Judicial Conference is a creation of this body, the U.S. Congress. We are looking into what the Judicial Conference should be doing and what it may know and should be held accountable for knowing. Our investigative effort directly concerns a creation legislatively of the Congress. It is perfectly proper. It raises no constitutional issues.

All this stuff about the independence of the Supreme Court--yes, it is an independent branch of government, but it is not nonaccountable. Funds for it are appropriated. Rules of evidence are created. There are numerous ways that it, in effect, is held a part of an overall and overarching Government of the United States of America.

The small circle of individuals here who have engaged in these gifts--all of them far-right, wealthy donors; some of them having cases before the Court--raises issues that are profoundly important to the credibility of the Court itself. So, again, we are seeking to save the Court, in a sense, from its own potentially self-inflicted continuing degrading and diminishing.

The fact that the polls show the Supreme Court has plummeted in public opinion is not the reason for us to investigate, but they reflect a secrecy, combined with these potentially improper gifts, that is undermining the Court as an institution.

I say it sadly because I was a law clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court to Justice Harry Blackmun--who, by the way, would not even go to dinner with someone who might at some point in the future have a case before the Court. I have argued cases before them, before the U.S. Supreme Court. I have real reverence for the Court as an institution. So I am especially sad but also particularly angry that the Court is failing-- totally failing--to take action that it owes the American people and itself, because the Supreme Court as an institution will be diminished by its continued refusal to create an ethics code and the refusal to disclose the truth about these financial relationships. These twin refusals bring us here today.

Authorizing a subpoena is not a step that I take lightly. None of my colleagues do. But the weight of the Court's ethical crisis makes it necessary.

The American people deserve a Supreme Court that is ethical, impartial, and accountable. The highest Court in the land is not higher than the law. It is not above accountability. It may be independent, but it is not unto its own, as it seems to believe it is.

We are past Halloween. All of the charades and shams that have been offered as arguments are about as valid as the costumes people were wearing the other day, October 31.

The Supreme Court has a commitment and a promise under our Constitution. It has to deliver on that promise or its credibility will be further diminished, and the Supreme Court as a pillar of justice-- and it must be a pillar of justice--will be eviscerated in the eyes of the American people.

I look forward to authorizing these subpoenas and helping to restore the reputation of our United States Supreme Court.

I yield to my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Hirono.

Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Rhode Island and join him in urging confirmation of these highly qualified and experienced men and women to positions of great trust and responsibility in our military, but they are just a fraction of the total whom we have an obligation to confirm.

Rather than looking at the transcript of my remarks today, I urge my colleagues to view or read the record of last night. There were 3 to 4 hours of eloquence and intransigence--eloquence on the part of a number of our colleagues, including Senator Graham, Senator Young, Senator Ernst, and Senator Sullivan, seeking to persuade one Member of the U.S. Senate whose intransigence is preventing the Nation from having the benefit of military leadership that it needs and deserves.

Again and again and again, Senator Tuberville objected to confirmation of individual nominees for the highest and most responsible position in our U.S. military. Make no mistake, he said repeatedly that he would permit those nominees to go forward as long as they were considered individually, and our colleagues gave him the opportunity to allow them to go forward. But he has continued to change the goalposts, to alter the conditions of approving their confirmation, simply because of a personal preference on policy that those nominees had nothing to do with. Our colleagues made that point repeatedly, as well as the damage to our national security that is resulting from his intransigence. Our military readiness is undermined. Morale is reduced. Recruitment is severely damaged. The health and well-being of military families, including, most prominently, the Commandant of the Marine Corps--our prayers are with him. Our hearts are with his family. We hope for General Smith's speedy recovery.

But, right now, our military is lacking the leadership that it needs in key positions around the world, and it is impacting not only their professional abilities but also their personal lives: kids going to school, selling homes. We are making life more difficult for men and women who serve and sacrifice to keep us safe.

As one of our colleagues said last night--and I am quoting--I think I am done with this. I hope this body will be done with the intransigence of the Senator from Alabama and move forward with a resolution. I am proud to say I participated in drafting it. It is narrowly tailored to fit this situation, applying only to this session, for key positions in our military that are essential to confirm, seeking to surmount the obstructionism that has gridlocked and paralyzed this body in moving forward.

It is time to reform the rule. That time is, in fact, overdue. The regrettable illness of our Commandant, the threats around the world, in Israel and Ukraine, make it no longer a matter of choice. We must move forward with this draft resolution, and I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of doing so.

As one of our colleagues on the other side said last night, this intransigence, this resistance to allowing the body to move forward and confirm these nominees is going to ``wreck'' the military. That is not some hypothetical fear; it is a real prospect that we need to avoid. The precedent of an individual Senator using a policy preference to stop confirmation is one that will potentially wreck this body's credibility and ability to move forward with key nominees for a variety of positions in the military and outside it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am grateful to follow my friend--and he is a friend--the Senator from Kansas, who stated very eloquently a number of challenges that lie ahead and the reasons we do have to come together on a bipartisan basis to make America and the world more secure.

Like him, I found last week to be both frustrating and discouraging, but I have been heartened, first, by the overwhelming bipartisan votes in this Chamber in favor of aid to Ukraine--in fact, in support of a bipartisan compromise that included aid to Ukraine and provided a temporary extension of funding, which eventually became the core of the measure adopted by the House.

I have been encouraged as well by the leadership of Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell in coming together with Senator Collins and Senator Murray to say that we will fulfill our obligation to Ukraine and that we will do it promptly.

That is why I am on the floor of the Senate right now--to emphasize the urgency of making sure that we provide Ukraine with the tools, the financial support, the humanitarian assistance, and the arms that it needs to win. And it can win. It is making solid, steady progress. I have seen the maps. I have visited Ukraine four times in the last 18 months. Ukraine can win, and it will win if we provide Ukraine with the tools it needs, but it must be done now.

We owe it to the men and women who are in those trenches right now, bleeding and dying, and who are watching America.

We owe it to the leadership of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy, who has asked me on each of those four visits: Will the United States stay by our side? And I have assured him that, yes, we will be solid.

We owe it to our allies who are also watching--our allies and our adversaries. And, make no mistake, the Chinese have changed their view of whether they can count on the United States to fail and falter, because, so far, we have stood strong, sending a message to China about what we would do if China invades Taiwan.

The world is watching, and history is watching.

To my colleagues, there are few, if any, votes you will take or actions by which you will be measured more intently and importantly than what we do right now--not months away but days away--on what we must do in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

I urge the administration to take whatever action is necessary-- again, not just in statements, not just in words, but in deeds.

Ukraine is waiting for the longer range artillery, the ATACMS, that it needs to pound targets where the Russians gather intelligence, where they store supplies, where they conduct their leadership. Those ATACMS are necessary--not just the HIMARS but the longer range artillery. We need to train the pilots. That can be done under existing authority and financial support. They need to provide munitions--we are producing more, but Ukraine continues to use them at a rate of roughly 10 times or 15 what we are providing; drones, which have become the new fulcrum of the battlefield not only to gather intelligence but to deliver the kind of ordnance that we need to provide.

These actions by the administration can be done with existing funding. But the fact of the matter is that, as of this week or just days afterward, the Pentagon may well run out of funding for new weapons platforms. Without an immediate replenishment, it cannot, over the longer term, provide Ukraine with critical systems, like the air defense platforms, that Ukraine needs to protect its civilians as well as its military targets. Winter is approaching, and Russia will continue to bombard its infrastructure unless it has that air defense. Those systems, the hospitals, the schools, the grid for electricity are now supremely susceptible to that kind of air bombardment.

We know Patriot air defense works. I have seen it myself in the midst of air raids on Kyiv, where I went to the bunker and Kyiv's air defense successfully fended off those missiles and drones that were coming after it.

We know the urgency of those ATACMS. We have heard it from the Ukrainians. We have heard it from our own military about how important they can be. I urge the administration to provide that longer range artillery as soon as it can do so.

But we have a larger task ahead of us. The supplemental at $24 billion is a necessary start right now. We can take advantage of the bipartisan agreement that we have expressed in this Chamber and in the House to make it happen, to move quickly and promptly.

I recognize there is turmoil in the House of Representatives. I am clear-eyed about the possibility of growing fatigue among the American people. But it is on us in the U.S. Senate. It is on us as leaders to make the case and convince America that it is on us and in our interest because if we fail now to make this investment, the costs will be far greater when Putin wins.

We will have the need not just to provide weapons platforms but troops on the ground because that will be our treaty obligation if Putin then goes against Romania, Poland, Moldova, Finland, and Sweden. He will pick one of them.

We know he will be on the march if he wins in Ukraine, and we will have proved him right about our faltering and failing. It will encourage not only him but also China, and we will have a far greater cost. It is our national security on the line. Ukrainians are fighting for our future, not just theirs; for our independence and freedom, not just their own.

We have a national security interest in this fight, and we need to make the American people understand it.

Sometimes history is personal. Sometimes it is shaped by a leader who has the courage and strength to step forward and put his life on the line. That is what Volodymyr Zelenskyy has done. He has inspired the people of Ukraine and the people around the world by staying in Ukraine and providing that leadership that is so important.

I once asked him how he thought it would end. He said: In the end, it will be fine. And if it is not fine, it is not the end. They are determined, as he told me, to fight with pitch forks, if necessary. But we can't let them fight with pitch forks. We need to give them what they need to be successful and to vindicate the losses they have suffered.

I have seen them in Bucha, the mass grave sites, where women and children had hands tied behind their backs, shot in the head, hundreds of them--a repeat of Stalin and Hitler in their killing of innocent people in exactly those ``bloodlands,'' as Professor Snyder has called them.

We have all seen images of cities leveled, literally destroyed, not just Bakhmut but Mariupol. We have heard about children kidnapped from areas that Russia has occupied. I have talked to the prosecutor general about those thousands of children--literally thousands--taken from their parents, supposedly orphans, but their parents were still alive and parents taken away from children to Belarus.

There is a reason why the International Court of Criminal Justice has issued a warrant for the arrest of Vladimir Putin and why he would be judged a war criminal if he ever were brought to trial--because he has committed atrocities that have no match in recent history for their scale and scope and their brutality.

We are dealing with someone who has no respect for human life--either Ukrainian life or Russian life--because he will continue to send his people into the maw like cannon fire.

In the face of that evil, the Ukrainians are determined. But we need to match their courage and strength with the resources that they need and with the arms that they need.

Sometimes history is personal in what it means to us. My own dad left Germany in 1935. He came to this country at the age of 17. He spoke virtually no English. He had not much more than the shirt on his back. He knew no one. He left Germany alone at the age of 17 because he saw what was coming. He succeeded in bringing over his parents and his siblings and lost the rest of his family to the kind of brutality and atrocity that we are witnessing right now at the hands of Vladimir Putin.

History doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes. Evil often does repeat, even if it is not by the same people against the same people. What we are seeing now is evil. There are very few places in the world or conflicts or circumstances where there is, in fact, no gray area--black and white, good and evil.

The world is watching now to see how we will keep faith: keep faith with our allies that have invested along with us at our side, keep faith with the people of Ukraine, and maybe most important, keep faith with ourselves and with our values.

We are being watched not just by the world but by history. And our values and our self-image, our ability to look ourselves in the mirror and say, ``Yes, we did our job,'' is now what is at stake.

History will remember us either as paragons of liberty or ineffectual bystanders.

We can't wait for 45 days. We need a supplemental now. The men and women in the trenches of Ukraine can't wait 45 days for bullets and bandages. The people in Kyiv facing this winter without, potentially, food and electricity can't wait 45 days to know that we will stand by them. They are fighting for their future, for the dreams of independence and democracy.

We are the most powerful, wealthiest, and the greatest Nation in the world not simply because of the example of our power but the power of our example.

There are a lot of folks--and I was one of them--who are discouraged and frustrated, as I said right at the start, about the ability of our democracy to work, given what we went through over these past days. But we can show our values and our democracy at its best if we help the Ukrainians at this moment of unparalleled crisis for them.

If we delay and falter, we lose time, and the loss of time and delay essentially means defeat.

I urge my colleagues to join me to find a way forward, a path to vote as soon as possible to make that aid available to Ukraine. It is our obligation and our opportunity, at this critical moment in our history, when the world is watching and when others, long from now, will look back and watch what we did or failed to do.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in mourning the passing of a great and good colleague, someone we knew not only as a fellow worker here and a colleague but also as a friend.

Every one of us had a personal connection to Dianne Feinstein. She had no enemies. She had adversaries, she differed, but she could differ and disagree without being disagreeable, as the saying goes. She established personal connections with all of us over her many years of service.

I have listened to my colleagues on the floor this morning, and coming through to me is not only a sense of pain in her passing but also joy in knowing her.

What strikes me is that she leaves a legacy--yes, a legacy--in legislation, in good works in California that impacted people's lives there, but her real legacy is people. Her legacy is the people who regard her as a role model, the people who were inspired to follow her into public service, the people who stood up and spoke out--and often it was truth to power as she did--because she was there. She blazed the trail. She showed how to do it.

I first became aware of Dianne Feinstein in the early 1990s as a newly elected State attorney general, advocating for an assault weapons ban in the State of Connecticut--the early 1990s, and she was doing it at the Federal level. Connecticut and the Congress did it together.

Then I defended our Connecticut law in the Connecticut courts with many of the same arguments that we used to challenge Federal law.

She stood alone in those days as an advocate and a champion of gun violence prevention, and she modeled the curve that has led to the modern movement of gun violence prevention. And it is a movement now because she knew it would require the American people to be as outraged as she was and saddened by the death that she personally witnessed in San Francisco. And she would often recall it in very personal terms.

For her, all of these causes were personal. Her service and her helping people were personal. And she understood that service and results, accomplishments, required that we be bipartisan, that we work across the aisle, that we work with people who disagreed with us and try to find common ground. That is what she did relentlessly and tirelessly.

So her service, her grace, her generosity, her sensitivity, her caring will continue in the people that are her legacy, in the people who will and should, always, preserve her memory as a motivation for continued service.

I am proud to have been her friend as well as her colleague, and I will always treasure the great and good model and mentorship that she provided for so many of us, as we go through these next days of grief and pain but also joy in knowing her.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I am very pleased and proud to speak to my colleagues today about Vernon Oliver, whose nomination is before us. We will vote on it shortly. I anticipate that he will be approved, and I hope it will be with bipartisan support because Vernon Oliver represents exactly the kind of jurist, lawyer, public servant whom we want on the Federal bench.

Judges on our Federal trial courts are often the face and voice of justice. All too often, litigants are there for justice, and it is the end of the road for them one way or the other because they don't have the resources to appeal to the courts of appeal, which sit in other States, far away often, requiring expenditure of resources. So that district judge sitting in the court where, often, they live is the person who represents justice--the face and voice of justice--for them.

Vernon Oliver is exactly the kind of person who will be trusted to give justice. He grew up in Bridgeport, with not a lot in his home in the way of financial resources. He worked hard, went to the University of Connecticut for his B.A. and then for his J.D. The University of Connecticut prepared him for a life of public service, and that is what he has done, with a brief break for private practice and as a temporary assistant clerk for the Hartford Judicial District.

He joined the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice, serving in the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, and then as a prosecutor in the Bristol Superior Court.

Then I had the great honor to hire Vernon Oliver to be an assistant attorney general. And I say I had the great honor because when I knew him first, when I met him, I knew he was the kind of person who would be a really superior, extraordinary assistant attorney general.

He went to work in the child protection unit, which essentially tries to protect children from abuse and neglect, tries to hold families together or reach some resolution when there is violence or other kind of dispute that divides them.

Here is what I learned about Vernon Oliver: He has a strong mind, he has a big heart, and he has a passion for justice. He handled dozens, hundreds, thousands of those cases over the time that he served as an assistant attorney general, and each one of them required him to focus his mind and his heart and that passion for justice. He took every one of them seriously, the same seriousness for every one. They are often extremely demanding, not just intellectually but emotionally, and he stepped up. He showed the fiber of his character.

He was nominated in 2009 to be a judge on the Connecticut Superior Court. His nomination was done by a Republican Governor, Jodi Rell. Throughout his 15 years on the bench, he has presided over numerous civil and criminal cases, including approximately 30 bench trials, approximately 20 jury trials, and thousands of hearings.

You don't really need to listen to me about Vernon Oliver; you can go to his colleagues, the legal community of Connecticut. A group of Connecticut attorneys, many of whom have practiced in front of Judge Oliver, wrote that he has ``an exceptionally keen legal mind'' and ``is committed to the fair and impartial administration of justice.'' The George W. Crawford Black Bar Association noted that ``[Judge Oliver's] decisions are well reasoned and thoughtful'' and that ``[p]ut simply, he is a phenomenal judge.''

He is a phenomenal person, not just an extraordinary judge. That is why Connecticut State Representative Christie Carpino, a Republican, wrote this to the committee, our committee, the Judiciary Committee: ``[Judge Oliver's] breadth of knowledge in both criminal and civil law, as well as the diversity of his judicial assignments, makes him uniquely qualified to be appointed to the federal bench'' and that ``he has the demeanor one could only hope all jurists possess.''

I take this time to talk to my colleagues because I think we need to be mindful of a standard, a standard of excellence on our Federal bench. I thank and commend President Biden for this

nomination because he has recognized the importance of diversity, as well as high performance intellectually, and he has enabled us, I think, to raise that standard.

Judge Oliver is a perfect example of that standard, and he is the gold standard we are seeking to achieve and I believe we are achieving when we confirm him and others who have those same qualities.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from Kansas and engage in this bipartisan colloquy for a measure that truly has bipartisan support. My thanks to Senator Klobuchar for her leadership as well. And I am going to be followed by Senator Coons, who has dedicated himself to civil rights and liberties around the world.

This issue is one that rises above politics. Every so often in this body, we are able to rise above politics, never often enough for many of us. But here is an opportunity to put down a marker, to make a statement, to show with our votes that a great Nation keeps promises. America is the greatest Nation in the history of the world. We need to keep our promises. And I know about those promises, not only as a member of the Armed Services Committee who has visited Afghanistan several times but also as a father. My two sons served during this period of time. My oldest son Matthew was an infantry officer in the Marine Corps, in Helmand Province. My second son is a Navy SEAL. And let me just put it very bluntly: As a dad, as a public official, as an American citizen, I want Americans who are deployed overseas to be helped by people in the country that we are fighting to serve. Not only in America and our self-interest here, but also abroad when our troops are deployed and put in harm's way, they depend on exactly the kind of Afghan allies whom we promised we would not abandon.

And if we want to count on those kinds of allies all around the world--not only in Afghanistan and Iraq and that part of the world, but in Africa, in South America--we need to keep our promises. If we lose that credibility and trust, our troops will be in danger. Our sons and daughters will be at risk when they depend on those interpreters, the guards, the guides, the security aides, and all of the kinds of allies that we enlist--Afghan allies--who put their lives on the line and now have targets on their backs if they were ever to return.

It is bad enough that many of those allies are still in Afghanistan and at risk of torture and murder, but we need

to keep faith with the Afghan refugees who have come to this country. I want to salute the veterans, as did my colleague Senator Moran. They have been heroes in this fight. Their championing this cause has made a tremendous difference, and I thank them for recognizing that there is a moral imperative here. That is the reason that our promise needs to be kept.

And I will just close--and there is much more that I could say, but I know colleagues would like to comment, as well, in the limited time we have--by saying that these families, these Afghan refugees, are coming to this country, and they are flourishing here. They are contributing to their communities. They have jobs that matter. They are learning our language. They are imparting to our people the rich cultural heritage that they bring with them, the tastes and the colors of their country, as well as their incredible history. They are enriching the United States of America. We need to keep them here, and we need to give them the security and sense of permanency that is essential for them to continue to flourish.

They can't have jobs, they can't put their children in schools, and they can't keep housing if they are in limbo. So as a practical matter, we must move. We should have done it last session. We have the opportunity now. It is an obligation. Let's vote on this amendment to enable our Afghan allies to stay in this country as they deserve and need to do.

Mr. President, I have but a few minutes to speak to my colleagues and to the Senator from Alabama, but, more important, to the American people. I have only minutes, but the damage of this hold will be years. Be aware, America. Be angry, America, as I am angry, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, as a dad of two veterans--a Marine Corps officer who served in Afghanistan and a Navy SEAL who served during these last 20 years. And all of the veterans of America who are angry that our U.S. military is being used as a political pawn, is held hostage; that brave, determined professionals who want to lead and take our military to the fight that lies ahead--they are in limbo. And it isn't just the 273. It is all who report to them, all who depend on them, all who look to them for leadership.

I had breakfast this morning with the Acting Commandant, General Smith, of the U.S. Marine Corps. For the first time in 100 years, the U.S. Marine Corps has no Commandant.

Vice Admiral Franchetti, who was chosen to lead the Navy, the first woman to be in that position, has been held hostage.

Gen. Charles Brown, uniquely accomplished aviator and leader, unable to assume his responsibility as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And under them, men and women like Lt. Gen. James Bierman, nominated to be Lieutenant General of the United States Marine Corps and Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, Operations; and Maj. Gen. Bradford Gering, to be a Lieutenant General in the United States Marine Corps and Deputy Commandant, Aviation.

These men have served 35 years.

Maj. Gen. Gregory Masiello, to be Lieutenant General of the United

States Marine Corps and Director, Defense Contract Management Agency.

These men and women have put their careers, their lives, their families on the line, and now they are waiting because our colleague from Alabama wants to make a political point. He has a political policy, and he is using these military nominees as pawns and hostages. It is nothing short, in effect, of an assault on our U.S. military.

So nothing I say here may persuade him, but what is happening is a travesty and a tragedy for our Nation, because it undermines not just our readiness now but our recruitment in the future.

The Marine Corps is the only service that is making its recruitment goals. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, all are down significantly. And this action, which disgracefully and shamefully puts our readiness at risk and serious danger, also undermines our ability to attract the best and the brightest in this country as our military has always done. It is the reason we have the greatest military in the world.

We have all of the weapons systems. We have the kinds of hardware that we need. But, most importantly, we need the great men and women who will be discouraged by this action by the Senator from Alabama.

So I plead with him; but, most important, I ask the American people to be aware and be angry, as we all should be. And I hope that my colleagues will join the American people in persuading him that this kind of hold is shameful and disgraceful and should be rejected.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to be here today to speak in tribute to the late Lowell Weicker, a U.S. Senator from Connecticut and Governor from my State--a giant in Connecticut politics but on the national scene as well. He, sadly, passed away.

I will be introducing a resolution, with my colleague Senator Murphy, honoring him for his service to our country, and I hope that it will be enacted overwhelmingly--in fact, unanimously--by the Senate shortly.

The most common thing said about Lowell Weicker after his passing was that he was larger than life. Certainly, he was a big man in stature. He was tall, strong, forceful, and remarkable in his physical presence. He was larger than life in his fearless and relentless championing of what he believed was right and in serving people. He might have been a big man physically, but he cared about everyone. No matter how small they might be in power or wealth, everyone deserved a champion, in Lowell Weicker's view.

He had a long history of service to this country. He began in the U.S. Army in 1953, and he served through 1955, reaching the rank of first lieutenant. He went on to serve in the town of Greenwich, where I live, as the first selectman and then represented Connecticut as a Member of the House of Representatives and then for three terms as a U.S. Senator.

He is probably best known here for standing up to the President of his own party, Richard Nixon. During Watergate, he had the political courage and fortitude to say no to corruption and to persevere against attacks within his own party as he insisted, as a matter of conscience and conviction, that a President who violated the law should be held accountable. He was the first Republican Senator to call for the resignation of Richard Nixon as President. It was an act of political bravery and, more importantly, a dedication to public service and the rule of law. It was a message to the American people that nobody is above the law and that nobody can defy the Constitution of this great country, not even the President.

Although we talk a lot about it now, in his day, for him to take that position and call for the resignation of a President of his own party was also an act of potential political destruction. It was very much against his self-interest, but he stood strong, he persevered, and history has vindicated him. Beyond vindication, it has honored him for that courage.

He was also a champion of many other causes and people. Throughout his tenure, he was a strong advocate for the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disabilities in everyday activities. One example is his standing for new laws that protected people. He was a champion of public health, of preventing cuts in funding for the National Institutes of Health, of supporting scientific medical research efforts, of securing funding for AIDS and HIV treatment.

After he left the Senate under circumstances that might have discouraged a lot of people from remaining in public service, he came back--and it was one of his finest hours--as Governor of the State of Connecticut.

I was sworn in as attorney general of our State on the same day that he became Governor, and we served together for 4 years. We had what could be called a close working relationship, not always totally amicable or not always in agreement, but I knew about Lowell Weicker that what he told me was what he believed. I returned that approach, and he respected me for it even when we disagreed. He understood that the attorney general of the State, at

least in Connecticut, was not the Governor's lawyer; he was the people's lawyer. He is elected separately, and he has to do what he thinks is right.

For me, it was always the ultimate tribute to his belief in the rule of law that he respected the attorney general of Connecticut for whatever legal opinion I would give, whatever litigation I would bring, or whatever positions I would take based on the law. And he was, again, a champion of social services to the people who needed them, of education, of the kind of fairness in our criminal justice system that distinguishes us in our respect for legal rights.

He is probably best known for securing passage of a State income tax. It was incredibly unpopular. Everybody in our State who was around at the time will remember well how he refused to go around the back way to exit the capitol, even though there was an angry crowd, even though they were going to deluge him with invectives and worse. But he was going out to face that crowd, to confront them, to speak with them, to listen to them.

He was responsible for enabling the State of Connecticut to retain those essential services that people needed because he cared, and he listened.

He also signed a ban on assault weapons, the first time in Connecticut's history. We now have had one since then. I defended it in court when it was challenged on constitutional grounds. I tried the case in a Litchfield County courthouse, a 10-day trial with evidence. I tried it myself because I thought it was so important. We won, and then I argued it when the outcome was appealed. And we won again in the State supreme court. Nobody was happier in the State of Connecticut with that result when our ban on assault weapons was upheld in the 1990s.

He was a model of courage for me, a role model in standing up, speaking out for conviction and conscience, even when others disagreed, especially when others disagreed.

He did immense good for Connecticut. He left a legacy that is lasting and large that will inspire people for decades and generations to come.

I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Claudia, all of his children--a number of them good friends of mine--and to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

I hope my colleagues will join me unanimously in honoring Lowell Weicker, U.S. Senator, Governor of our State.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow Senator Klobuchar in advocating for the Afghan Adjustment Act, which we strongly hope and believe will be an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

I just want to begin where she finished in talking about the American troops who depended on these Afghan allies who now are at risk.

I know firsthand about the translators and guards and others who served, putting their lives on the line, because like many of my colleagues, I visited Afghanistan. I saw them at work. Now, in Connecticut, I have had the privilege of calling many of them my friends, and their families--dear friends. I also know firsthand because my son Matthew, who was a Marine Corps infantry officer in Afghanistan, had a translator whom he succeeded in bringing back to this country but only because he was a lawyer, and he knew how to navigate the intricate and challenging rules that applied. It took him 2 years--2 years--to bring back the man who helped him survive his time in combat there.

Senator Klobuchar is absolutely right. It is a promise. Great nations keep their promises. These individuals are among our most loyal friends. The test is that they put targets on their backs from the Taliban. They knew they and their families would be at risk if the Taliban ever took over. Now the Taliban has done it, and they cannot return nor can their families.

So I want to thank all of my colleagues--the bipartisan group--who strongly support this amendment; but I also want to thank our veterans who literally camped out in the swamp, outside the Capitol, for days, weeks, hoping at the end of the last session that we would adopt this measure. Our veterans are standing strong behind our allies--Afghan allies--who they know put their lives on the line for them, who they know put their families at risk for them.

I am grateful to our veterans' groups, the USOs, the kinds of allies that we have individually and all around the country, who have said they are going to make it a priority to make sure we treat fairly these Afghan allies.

We should give them permanent status--a path to permanent status--in this country rather than the temporary, uncertain status that they have right now.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Mr. James ``Jim'' Wade, an expert trial attorney, towering figure in Connecticut politics, and dear friend to so many, including myself.

Born in Staten Island, NY, and raised in Simsbury, CT, Mr. Wade received his undergraduate degree from Yale University in 1959 and his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1962. Upon graduating from law school, Jim served honorably as a lawyer for the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps, a testament to his dedication to public service.

Following his service with the Navy, Jim returned to Connecticut and began a distinguished career as an attorney at Robinson+Cole. He became known for his willingness to take on diverse legal cases, including unpopular clients, but Jim's strong legal principles ensured they all received zealous representation. Jim was well-known for his mentorship of countless young attorneys. Throughout his long career, he was honored with numerous awards, including induction to the American College of Trial Lawyers in 1980 and the Hennessey award, given by the Connecticut Bar Association to an attorney whose career has manifested a dedication to the highest ideals and standard of the legal profession.

In addition to his love for the law, Jim had a passion for politics and was very actively involved for decades. A lifelong Democrat, he started his political career as a selectman in the town of Simsbury. Jim later became a trusted counselor to the Democratic Party in Connecticut, representing it before the U.S. Supreme Court in a reapportionment case. He was also a longtime trusted advisor to Governors, legislators, and others in public service. Jim's commitment left an indelible mark on Connecticut politics, and our State and Nation are better because of Jim's many contributions and dedication to the law.

Jim was truly a remarkable person, who upheld the rule of law with energy and intellect and epitomized a dedication to public service. I deeply valued my friendship with Jim and always appreciated his insight and perspective. My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to his family during this difficult time, particularly to his wife Helene, his two children, and his grandchildren. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Jim's life and legacy, both large and lasting.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Judge William S. Greenberg, a dedicated public servant, celebrated jurist, and fierce advocate for our Nation's veterans.

Born in New York and raised in New Jersey, Judge Greenberg received his undergraduate degree in 1964 from Johns Hopkins University and his J.D. in 1967 from Rutgers University in Newark. Upon graduating from law school, Judge Greenberg enlisted in the U.S. Army as an armored cavalry crewman beginning his long history of service to our Nation. In 1970, he earned a commission in the Judge Advocate General's Corps and eventually retired as a brigadier general in 1994 after decades of honorable service in the U.S. Army Reserves.

Judge Greenberg spent the beginning half of his career in private practice as a litigator. He was a founding partner of Sterns & Greenberg from 1970 until 1976 and of Greenberg & Prior from 1976 to 1989. He retired from private practice as a partner in McCarter & English in 2012, after he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims by President Obama. After his confirmation in the Senate, Judge Greenberg was sworn in for a term of 15 years on December 28, 2012, allowing Judge Greenberg to apply his skills and energy as a judge to two of his greatest passions: the law and veterans service.

This nomination to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was the culmination of a career dedicated to advocating for our Nation's veterans, both in and out of the courtroom. Judge Greenberg devoted much of his career to ensuring his fellow veterans had the best legal representation. After the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001, Judge Greenberg established the New Jersey State Bar Association's Program of Military Legal Assistance for members of the military Reserves who were called to active duty. This pro bono program connects volunteer lawyers with soldiers who need legal representation for everything from disability benefits claims, to employment

and family law issues that they face both during and after deployment.

Judge Greenberg also admirably represented wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center during their physical disability hearings. For his remarkable work, Judge Greenberg was recommended by the White House to become Chairman of the Reserve Forces Policy Board in 2009 and honored with the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, the second highest civilian award in the Department of Defense.

Throughout his long career, Judge Greenberg has held many prestigious positions, including chairman of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Appointments Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association, president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, New Jersey, commissioner of the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, and assistant counsel to the Governor of New Jersey. He is also a published author and has been a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law and Georgetown Law School. But even with all of these accolades, Judge Greenberg considers his work on behalf of veterans as the most important of his career, once quoted as saying, ``I have come to consider myself, more than any other attribute, a soldier's lawyer.''

Thanks to his extraordinary commitment to justice and public service, his intelligence and legal acumen, and his tireless work ethic and compassion, Judge Greenberg is a model for our Nation's judiciary. Judge Greenberg's dedication to our country, both as a veteran himself and in his remarkable work on behalf of other veterans, will be his enduring legacy.

I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Judge Greenberg for his remarkable record of public service.

Mr. President, in just a very short time, we will be voting in this body on whether to take a step backward in our efforts to stop gun violence.

Let's be very clear: The vote in just about half an hour will be to overturn a regulation that was final at the beginning of this year and went into effect at the end of May--just weeks ago. Yet our Republican colleagues are all too ready to take that step backward on a regulation that would help prevent the kinds of tragedies that we have seen again and again and again in this great country. In a short time, this regulation will be before us in a way that, I hope, we will defeat soundly.

Just last week, we held a summit in Hartford, CT, bringing together all of the major groups involved in trying to prevent gun violence and addressed by the President of the United States, who has promulgated this regulation that requires the registration of pistol braces. It is, perhaps, seemingly, a small matter to the vast majority of Americans, but the fact is that, in the past 4 years alone, pistol-stabilizing braces have been used in a number of mass tragedies.

Just to give you an example, 10 people were killed and 3 injured at a grocery store in Boulder, CO; 9 people were killed and 27 injured outside a bar in Dayton, OH; 5 people were killed and 25 injured at a club in Colorado Springs, CO; 6 people were killed at a church school in Nashville, TN.

In each of these instances, people were killed by someone using a pistol brace. They are so dangerous because they can convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, and they do it by providing stability. A brace attaches a pistol to a shooter's arm, stabilizing the gun and allowing it to be fired from the shoulder. The shooter thereby acquires the power and accuracy of a rifle with an easily concealed pistol.

So, today, we are here to decide whether that ATF rule, supported by the President--to his credit--and designed to keep Americans safe from these makeshift rifles, will stand.

What was so apparent in Hartford when the President spoke to us there was the energy and spirit reflecting America's support for these kinds of commonsense gun violence prevention measures. All of those groups that attended, representing the American people, were, in fact, energized by a growing consensus in America: that the majority of Americans support these kinds of commonsense measures.

More and more, the gun violence prevention movement is led--not just supported but led--by young people who see our future as stopping gun violence on our streets that continues to take more than 100 lives every day. These young people--some of them were actually in Sandy Hook and were 6 years old at the time that their fellow elementary school students were taken from us--are now graduating from high school. They are voting. They are supporting candidates. They are running for office. This new generation is going to say ``enough is enough'' just as they did in Hartford at this summit and just as the President said, in effect, when he addressed them.

So the President is taking action under his present authority, even without new legislation, to try to confront and contain and stop gun violence.

We need to be committed to new legislation. I have urged background checks to be applied universally, ghost gun bans, assault weapon bans, large-capacity magazine bans, and perhaps, very feasibly and achievably in this Congress, a requirement for safe storage.

Much more is necessary as a matter of legislation, but the President is committed to taking action under his present executive authority to require commonsense measures, and this registration requirement is one of them.

Let's be very clear: It doesn't ban pistol-bracing; it simply requires that gun owners register them. The rule amends ATF's regulation to require and clarify, when someone uses a pistol- stabilizing brace to convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle, that that person needs to register the gun as a short-barreled rifle. If somebody is going to convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be explicitly registered.

Today, we have a choice. Either we allow shooters to turn pistols into powerful, accurate, easily hidden rifles, with total impunity, or we have the courage to protect our communities. That is a choice that we have right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate by every single one of us--whether to save lives or continue to enable those pistols to be more lethal, more deadly, and more intolerable.

I have been working on this issue for a long time. When I first became Attorney General of the State of Connecticut in the early 1990s, I championed a ban on assault weapons. I defended it in our State courts against many of the arguments made here. At that point, the number of advocates was a handful on our side. This movement has grown, and it has been fueled by the tragedies that we confront--the ones that I mentioned--where short-barreled rifles had been used with a pistol brace and lives had been lost because of this contraption that makes guns more lethal, more deadly.

We don't need pistol braces for legitimate uses of guns; and if they have legitimate uses, they can simply be registered.

The movement that has built over these years since the early 1990s and,

most directly, since Sandy Hook, has been fueled by these tragedies that we can help prevent going forward. That is our obligation today. The summit that came together just last week in Hartford, where the President committed himself unequivocally and dramatically to these kinds of commonsense measures, can be advanced if we permit this kind of executive action to be taken.

Now is no time for a step backward. Now is no time to say to the President: You can't take this kind of commonsense action under existing authority.

Now is the time to move forward with stronger legislation--all of those measures that I mentioned and more--that will make America safer and that will help prevent the kinds of tragedies that these pistol braces simply aggravate and fuel.

I yield the floor.