Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, we are in the midst of a stealth campaign. Normally, we think about ``stealth'' as associated with bombers or submarines, weapons platforms designed to go, in effect, under the radar, to avoid detection, to escape public notice or the notice of our adversaries.

This stealth campaign is really hiding in plain sight. It is a campaign to remake our Federal judiciary in the image of the far-right extreme of the Republican Party, the far-right extreme ideologically and politically, a campaign, in effect, to outsource selections of judges to groups that reflect those extreme points of view--the Heritage Society and other such groups.

Shortly, we will consider the nomination of the latest individual nominated by the President, outsourced to those groups: Eric Miller, of Washington, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The effort here is to drastically reshape our judiciary but, in the process, also dismantle the norms and practices critical to the health of our democracy. The judiciary is essential to the health of our democracy.

In the future, when we look back on this era--a dark and dangerous time for our democracy--the heroes will be our free press and our independent judiciary because they have been selected in the past by both Republican and Democratic Presidents based on qualities of integrity, intelligence, and independence.

That norm, common to both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past, has been broken by this one. One of the norms that has been broken in the U.S. Senate relates to the use of blue slips. Most of the public has no idea what blue slips are. They are the traditional mechanism used over decades to afford home State Senators the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval for fitness, a basic quality of a President's judicial nominee to a court that has jurisdiction over their State.

What is the reason? Well, Senators just happen to spend a lot of time talking with folks at home. We talk to farmers, businesspeople, lawyers. A lot of those lawyers know fellow lawyers. Of course, we receive the ABA qualified or unqualified ratings, but they are single words based on fact gathering that may or may not be as reliable as our colleagues--the lawyers who appear in front of judges, who go to court every day, who have settlement conferences, who rely on the word of their colleagues, which is either good or bad, who know their integrity and intelligence, who know whether they have the temperament to sit in judgment of cases that will have enduring and irreparable ramifications for the litigants who appear in front of them.

Respecting the blue-slip tradition ensures that when there is a Federal judicial vacancy--for Connecticut, for example--that the President nominate a qualified candidate from Connecticut with the advice and consent of Connecticut Senators. The same is true for the Presiding Officer's home State of

Tennessee or any of the other States involved here. I am sure my colleagues from Texas or North Carolina or wherever would want a Democratic President to consult them when making appointments to the courts that have jurisdiction over the people, the litigants, the folks who have to go to court with their grievances in their States. Blue slips may be a courtesy, but they are important to the functioning of our society.

Until the Trump administration, only five judges had ever been confirmed with only one blue slip in the last 100 years. That means one Senator from that State objected. Only five went through with that one objection and with the other Senator saying OK.

To our knowledge, no judge has ever been confirmed without having both blue slips from their home State Senators. Eric Miller would be a first.

Sometimes it is good to be a first but not so here. We are witnessing another norm being shattered in realtime. We need to know from the majority: Is this the road we really want to go down in this Chamber?

I take my constitutional responsibilities very seriously, especially when it comes to the confirmation of judges, as someone who has spent most of my professional career in the courtroom, either as a lawyer in private practice or a U.S. attorney for Connecticut or as attorney general in my State for 20 years.

This issue is important because not only is it a matter of courtesy, but it is a matter of completeness.

This nomination is a stealth nomination in a very important sense, also, as far as the process for his confirmation is concerned. Only one Senator--one Senator--has actually asked him questions on the record in public. That is because his confirmation hearing was scheduled at a time when only one Member of the U.S. Senate was there to ask him questions.

It was held during a month-long recess in October. Only two members of the committee--Senators Hatch and Crapo--could attend the hearing. Only Senator Crapo questioned Mr. Miller for a 5-minute round of questions.

All 10 Democratic members of the Judiciary, including me, wrote to Senator Grassley to have the hearing rescheduled. We asked, and he refused. We wrote Senator Grassley again to have a second hearing so that the full committee could provide advice and consent after questioning Mr. Miller's nomination. We had no success.

If Mr. Miller is confirmed, he will have been questioned by that one Senator, Mr. Crapo--out of 100--for a grand total of 5 minutes. That is not the way this system should work.

I do take my constitutional responsibilities seriously. This process makes a sham of the obligations we all have a sworn duty to fulfill.

In conclusion, let me say that in November of 2018, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the President. He described that case as ``a disgrace.'' He painted the ruling of the Ninth Circuit as biased by describing one of the judges as an ``Obama judge.'' President Trump ultimately stated that the Ninth Circuit is ``not fair'' because every case the administration files in the Ninth Circuit results in a loss.

He has made no secret of his frustration about judges generally, whether they were chosen by Republican or Democratic Presidents in the past. He has made no secret of his contempt for judges who uphold the rule of law and, as Chief Justice Roberts said, ``do equal right to those appearing before them.''

Chief Justice Roberts also stated that an ``independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.''

The nomination of Eric Miller betrays that essential principle of the American judiciary. It diminishes and reduces the independence of our judiciary at a level that we can ill afford and at a time when independence is most important. I think this nomination is particularly objectionable in light of that lack of independence.

Mr. Miller's nomination is opposed by the National Congress of American Indians, the Native American Rights Fund, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, and NARAL Pro-Choice America because of positions he has taken. Those positions are also objectionable to me, but what is most important is his lack of independence, the lack of proper process in his confirmation, and his lack of qualifications for this job.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against him today.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, with a heavy heart, I wish to pay tribute to Sergeant Rambo N557, a medically retired military working dog--MWD--who dedicated his life to the Marine Corps and raising awareness for his fellow retired working dogs. Sadly, Sergeant Rambo passed away earlier this month. He will be remembered for his loving spirit and lifetime of service.

Sergeant Rambo served as an explosive detection MWD based out of MCCS Cherry Point, NC, from January 6, 2011, to April 11, 2012. Throughout his Active Duty, Sergeant Rambo completed 620 stateside searches, two official stateside missions, and about 1,000 hours of training. Unfortunately, a left shoulder injury prevented him from deploying. Nonetheless, he served valiantly alongside his handler, protecting their base and the community until retirement.

Connecticut native Lisa Phillips, who served in the U.S. Army as a veterinary technician, adopted Sergeant Rambo after his retirement. Despite needing an amputation because of his earlier injury, he remained committed to serving his Nation.

Well loved by people of all ages and capacities, Sergeant Rambo visited summer youth groups and local nursing homes, connecting with and bringing hope to children with special needs and elderly people suffering from dementia. His joyful and empathetic personality allowed him to bond with people across the Nation.

Sergeant Rambo also used his experiences to highlight animal welfare, military, and veteran issues. He became the mascot for Alamo Honor Flight, accompanying World War II veterans to Washington, DC, and for Gizmo's Gift, a nonprofit that supports people who have adopted retired working dogs by offering free medical care and other necessary financial support. He and Lisa attended press events with me, helping gain backing for the Canine Members of the Armed Forces Act, which sought to improve care for MWDs once their Active Duty ends by streamlining the adoption process and establishing a national non- profit to cover the veterinary costs associated with retired working dogs. Several provisions of that act have become law.

In 2015, the American Humane Association named Sergeant Rambo the Military Dog of the Year. He and Lisa used this platform to give a TEDx Talk the next year about MWDs and Gizmo's Gift. Then, in March 2017, they testified before the Connecticut General Assembly about a bill to establish K-9 Veterans Day in our State.

My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to Lisa during this difficult time. We know without a doubt that Sergeant Rambo's legacy will leave a positive impact on the lives he touched and causes he championed for years to come.

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

Mr. President, in just a matter of hours, we are expected to vote on the nomination of William Barr to be Attorney General of the United States. This office is one of paramount importance to the people of this country, and as a former U.S. attorney, the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut, I have deep respect--indeed, reverence--for this office and the legal authority it commands and the moral powers it embodies.

So the stakes of this nomination, especially at this point in our history, could not be higher.

I believe William Barr should not be confirmed, and it has more to do with the role of the Attorney General of the United States than with his specific positions or policies on issues where we may disagree.

I do disagree with William Barr on positions he has taken on civil rights, women's healthcare, reproductive rights, and the powers of the Presidency.

At this moment in time, at this hour of our history, an imperial Presidency, such as envisioned by many of the doctrines that William Barr has espoused, in my view, would be an absolute catastrophe. Giving the President the power, in effect, to override statutes or refuse to enforce them or disregard Supreme Court precedent, especially with this President, would be a recipe for disaster.

An imperial Presidency at any point in our history is unwise. At this moment in our history, it would be catastrophic. That view of a unitary Executive and all that comes with it is one of the reasons I would have reservations about this nominee, but for me, the transcendent issue--as it was with Jeff Sessions, our former colleague--is whether this nominee will be the people's lawyer or the President's lawyer. Will he put first the interests of the American people or of President Donald Trump? Will he have foremost in mind the public interests or the personal interests of the President who appointed him?

Unfortunately, I am left with deep concerns, doubts, and questions that

are disqualifying. The best example is his position on the release and disclosure of the special counsel's report. There were doubts--and there continue to be--among some of my colleagues about whether he will, in fact, allow the special counsel to do his job. He said that he would resist firing the special counsel and that he would allow Robert Mueller to finish his investigation, but he was pretty careful to avoid specifically committing that he would permit subpoenas to be issued, indictments to be brought, resources to be provided, and other essential factors that go into the effectiveness of the special counsel.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt on those issues, there remains his refusal to commit that he will provide the evidence and findings of the special counsel directly to Congress and directly to the American people. For me, that refusal to commit is one of the factors that are disqualifying.

The American people want transparency for the special counsel, as they do in their government generally. Just yesterday, the Washington Post released a poll indicating that 81 percent of Americans believe the Mueller report should be released. That number includes 79 percent of Republicans. The simple, stark fact is, the public has a right to know. The American people paid for the special counsel's report. They deserve to know everything that is in it, and they deserve not only the conclusion but also the findings of fact and his prosecutorial decisions and the underlying evidence that he considered in making those decisions. The clear specter arises that he will choose to bring no indictment against the President or other officials and that there will be no disclosure of the report, which would be tantamount to a coverup. What we may be watching is the Saturday Night Massacre in slow motion.

The reason this issue is of such paramount importance to this nomination relates to the obligation that the Attorney General has to promote transparency. In his responses to me, he said he would follow all the rules and regulations without delving into all the words and technical issues relating to those rules and regulations. The simple fact is, they provide near complete discretion to the Attorney General.

The American public has a right to see the Mueller report, not the Barr report. We have a right to see not what William Barr in his discretion permits us to know but, in fact, what the findings and evidence are--the Mueller report, not the Barr report. My fear is that despite his very vague references to wanting transparency, his refusal to commit to making that report public reveals his state of mind: that he will abridge, edit, conceal, redact parts of the report that may be embarrassing to the President. In effect, he will act as the President's lawyer, not as the people's lawyer.

During a hearing, I asked William Barr point blank, if he were presented with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed a crime, would he approve an indictment. He declined to answer the question directly or clearly. He pointed to two Office of Legal Counsel opinions saying that a sitting President cannot be indicted. I asked what he thought, not what the OLC thought. Would he permit an indictment against a President if presented with incontrovertible evidence of criminal wrongdoing? And he said he saw no reason to change the policy embodied in those OLC memos. The assumption is wildly held that Robert Mueller will follow those OLC memos, and William Barr confirmed those assumptions.

There is also Department of Justice policy that prosecutors do not speak publicly about people they are investigating but are not prepared to indict. I followed those policies as U.S. attorney. I know them well. In the normal case, they are fully applicable, but these two policies taken in combination lead to a truly frightening outcome: If the President cannot be indicted but has committed crimes, the American people may never know. That is, in effect, tantamount to a coverup. The American people may never know about that proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They may never see those findings in evidence. They may never have the benefit of the full report. Even though it may leak in dribs and drabs, in parts, they will never have the full and complete picture.

That is why I believe so strongly in the legislation that Senator Grassley and I have offered to require transparency. It is called the Special Counsel Transparency Act. It would require that there be a report. If the special counsel is transferred or fired or if he resigns or at any point completes his investigation, there would be a report, and it would be required that that report be provided to the American people. It would be mandatory, not discretionary.

I believe this issue is a transcendent one in this era--the public's right to know the truth about the 2016 election and the President's responsibility for any obstruction of justice or any collusion with the Russians. Again, it is about the public's right to know and about the Attorney General's responsibility for enabling the public's right to know. His answers were evasive and deeply troubling, and instead of providing straightforward and forthcoming answers, he was, in effect, evading and avoiding the question.

In addition to the special counsel's investigation, there are at least two U.S. Attorney's Offices--the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia--that have concurrent investigations into Trump campaign activities during this same period of time and beyond. In the Southern District of New York, the President has been essentially named as an unindicted coconspirator. He is individual No. 1, an unindicted coconspirator. That is a distinction he shares with only one other President--Richard Nixon.

The unencumbered continuation of these investigations is of vital public interest. That is why I asked Mr. Barr whether he would impose any restrictions on these prosecutors. Again his answer was evasive and deeply troubling. Instead of issuing a simple no, he stated that the Attorney General has the responsibility and discretion to supervise U.S. attorneys, and he declined to say that he would defer to them. He declined in the hearing, and he did again in our private meeting. That answer gives me no confidence that, if confirmed, William Barr will avoid interfering in the investigations now underway in those two additional jurisdictions, where, in fact, they may pose an even more dire danger that his culpability will be revealed and perhaps prosecuted. It should not give the public any greater degree of confidence either.

On other issues--the emoluments clause, for example. When I asked him, he said: I haven't even looked up the word ``emolument.'' That is a direct quote. There are a number of very high-profile cases against the President involving the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution because the President has been violating it. The chief anti-corruption provision in Federal law is the emoluments clause. Litigation is underway. Decisions have been rendered in the district courts in favor of the standing of 200 of us Members of Congress who have challenged the President's lawbreaking. I am proud that that case--Blumenthal v. Trump; Blumenthal and Nadler v. Trump--is proceeding. William Barr has a responsibility to know about that case and to say whether he would recuse himself from it since he was appointed by the defendant in that case, and if not, what justification there can be for continuing to make decisions about it.

Again, William Barr is a distinguished attorney. He has a strong background and qualifications. He served in this position before. He has very impressive credentials. He and I differ on issues of policy, but the main question relates to disclosure and transparency, to fidelity and priority, to the American people's interests--putting them unquestionably above the President's. Because I have such deep reservations and concerns about his determination to do so, I will oppose him as Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize Dr. Steven M. Southwick on the occasion of his retirement.

For over 30 years, Dr. Southwick has dedicated himself to researching combat-related PTSD. His impressive work has helped make great strides in the efforts to alleviate suffering and promote resilience for veterans. Much of the necessary progress in this field is thanks to Dr. Southwick's diligent studies.

A graduate of Yale College, the George Washington School of Medicine, and the Yale Psychiatry Residency, Dr. Southwick served in the U.S. Army before attending medical school. During his service, he was stationed in Germany. His time in the military would shape the path of his future research.

In 1985, Dr. Southwick joined the faculty of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System and the Yale Department of Psychiatry. Throughout his career, he has worked not only with combat veterans, but also with a range of trauma survivors, including athletes, astronauts, civilians with PTSD, and former prisoners of war.

Some of his many notable accomplishments include leading the first mechanistic neurobiology study of PTSD and, along with his colleagues at the National Center for PTSD, being among the first to study the biological and cognitive underpinnings of resilience among U.S. Special Forces trainees. Through such research, Dr. Southwick pioneered the study of human resilience and introduced a new perspective on trauma. I have been fortunate to learn firsthand during visits to the center about the progress he and his colleagues are making on this complex but extremely critical condition that affects many veterans and first responders, and I commend them on their vital work.

He now serves as the medical director of the clinical neuroscience division of the VA National Center for PTSD and the Glenn H. Greenberg Professor of Psychiatry, PTSD, and Resilience at the Yale University School of Medicine. In these positions, Dr. Southwick has mentored countless future leaders in the field of PTSD research.

Dr. Southwick is the recipient of numerous honors and takes part in a number of journals, committees, and seminars in his area of expertise. Though he is recognized for his immense contributions to the realm of PTSD research, he is also highly regarded and beloved by his colleagues, students, and patients.

I applaud his lifetime of service and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Dr. Southwick on his well-earned retirement.

Thank you, Madam President.

I join my colleagues today in calling for a simple, commonsense solution to one of the most vexing, unnecessary, and avoidable crises in recent history.

The present paralysis of Agencies' essential governmental functions is intolerable and unacceptable. It is shameful and embarrassing to every Member of this body, but it should be most shameful and embarrassing to the Chief Executive of the United States, who is singularly responsible for it by insisting on a wall and agreement to it as a condition for reopening the government.

President Trump is singlehandedly blocking progress toward providing the American people with the services and the essential public functions they need and deserve.

The impact is on the consumers of those functions. We are all consumers. We all fly and depend on the air traffic controllers and the TSA. We all eat food and depend on inspections by the FDA. We all consume drugs, and the approvals of essential pharmaceutical medicines are vital to all of us. We all need and deserve the protection provided by the U.S. Coast Guard, whose brave men and women are receiving no pay--none.

Many of those 800,000 workers going without pay are also working without pay. I have sponsored a measure that will enable them to avoid foreclosures and repossessions of their cars and other financial crises through measures similar to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I have sponsored and supported calls for providing them with unemployment compensation. The ones who work need the compensation and the benefits to put food on the table and make sure they stay in their homes.

These 800,000 workers are experiencing real pain. They are real people with real lives going through financial hardships.

On Monday, I met with many of them at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks. I heard them share their personal stories about how the shutdown is causing them real harm. I also heard about their dedication to doing their job and how the air controllers and----

The TSA are overtired and need that help.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Let me just finish by citing Adrian Pellot, one of those workers whom I met on Monday. Adrian is a behavior detection officer. He has done it for more than a decade. He is one of those workers going without pay. I will just leave you with this thought. He told me:

We have no income right now. We're bleeding money. Just

day-to-day things. Food. I still have to pay the bills.

So do all of those 800,000 workers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow the Senator, our neighbor from across the country. We share a common interest and commitment to one of the great military services in this country, the U.S. Coast Guard.

Connecticut is proud to be the home of the Coast Guard Academy and numerous Active-Duty-serving Coast Guard men and women. Not only are we proud of them, but we are deeply mindful of the debt we owe them. It is a debt that is immeasurable in dollars and cents. It is a debt we owe them for the safety and security they provide this country and the blood they have shed in defense of the country.

Failing to pay them is a moral failure, and that is why I am proud to be joining the Senator from Washington as well as Senator Thune in a measure to provide payment for the Coast Guard, and I hope we will meet this obligation as soon as possible.

We also have an obligation to other Federal workers because they are suffering and sacrificing during this shutdown, now 26 days long.

One of them, among the workers I met just last Monday, is Adrian Pellot. He served in the Air Force. He has worked as a behavior detection officer for more than a decade. He is also one of the TSA workers at Bradley not receiving pay.

He said to me:

We have no income right now. We are bleeding money. Just

day-to-day things. Food. I still have to pay the bills. The

electric company, the cell phone company--they don't care.

They are brutal. To feel like we are poker chips or leverage

is very, very infuriating. We are people--we have lives--not

just a number to throw around. I want the government to

reopen.

Nothing I say here expresses more eloquently and powerfully the obligation we are failing to meet.

I will be proposing legislation to provide workers like Adrian unemployment benefit compensation. States like Connecticut now must seek approval from the Department of Labor of the United States to provide unemployment compensation for workers who are on the job but unpaid.

The workers who are furloughed and unpaid can receive that compensation. The folks showing up to work, keeping us safe in the skies, assuring that our security is met at the TSA lines, are unpaid, and they are uncompensated out of the State workers' compensation system, and they should be.

That is why I will propose legislation for fundamental fairness and necessary benefits for workers like Adrian and his partner, Sarah Small, who has been a TSA officer for over 11 years. She currently works part time at Bradley as a TSA officer, and she is in nursing school.

She said to me: ``It's more nerve-racking because of the fact that if this shutdown lasts any longer, one of us is going to have to find something.''

They are just two examples of thousands across the country. My colleagues, every one of you has an Adrian Pellot or a Sarah Small or a Coast Guard service man and woman or someone like them who are working without unemployment compensation, having to pay bills, mortgages, put food on the table. They are unable to do it because the government is shut down.

Let us reopen the government. Let us meet our obligation. Let us do our job, and the man down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House ought to be doing his job too.

In the meantime, let's help them meet their bills and save them from debts much as we do servicemembers with their relief fund; another legislative measure I will be advocating and advancing. We owe it to them. We owe it to the country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. The votes are there to pass these six bills. The majority leader, in effect, is acting as a buffer for the President. He is not serving this body because he knows that his own Members would vote for it and vote to reopen the government. That is because they are hearing the American people tell them, as they are telling us: Reopen the government.

That was the message that Senator Schumer delivered. It is simple, direct, and it is true. The American people want the government reopened. They know we have disagreements all the time. We disagree about policy and politics, proposals and legislation, but we don't shut down the government simply because we disagree. The government continues to do its work and serve the American people even as we have disagreements.

Our friends on the other side, the Republican leadership, are complicit in this shutdown by refusing to permit us to do our duty and our work, which is to consider and pass legislation that will keep the government serving the people of the United States. If the President vetoes those bills, there may well be enough votes here to override them. That is our job as well.

The reason the American people want us to reopen the government is that they know the crisis here is one that Donald Trump has made himself. It is a manufactured crisis involving dedicated public servants who are missing paychecks, taxpayers denied critical government services, economic hardship for small businesses, and low- income Americans. It is a crisis that is spreading.

It is not a crisis at the border in security that the President, supposedly, is witnessing as we speak here. There is a humanitarian crisis at the border, which is also of Donald Trump's making, but the broader crisis throughout this country will affect our economy, our education system, our transportation, and the real security of this country, which is our ability to help each other.

I have looked at those folks in the face, most recently the day before yesterday, at Foodshare, our food bank in Connecticut, which will soon be unable to meet the challenges and needs of the food insecure in Connecticut because the Commodities Distribution Program will be crippled. Their cost and transportation and storage will be overwhelming and unmet. Children and seniors will begin to go hungry because their reserves will be exhausted by the end of this month.

I have spoken to the Coast Guard members who will be unpaid. Alone among our military services--unfairly, unfortunately, unacceptably-- they will be unpaid. We know in Connecticut the value of our Coast Guard as a military branch of our government. We are home, proudly, to the Coast Guard Academy, with over 2,000 Active-Duty servicemembers, cadets, and civilian employees who are feeling the direct effect of this Trump shutdown.

In reality, it is a Trump lockout, not a shutdown. He is locking out so many dedicated workers of our Federal Government. But the Coast Guard is continuing to work. It is the only branch of the military that isn't guaranteed pay during this Trump shutdown because, by a quirk of history, it is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, not the Pentagon. These Active-Duty Coast Guard members based in New Haven and New London and across the country are continuing to protect our Nation's security, continuing to rescue Americans at sea, continuing to interdict drugs that threaten our Nation, and they are going unpaid.

That is why a bipartisan group of Senators--and I want to thank Senators Thune, Cantwell, and others--have introduced legislation to pay them during this Trump shutdown and any other shutdown going forward. I call on the Senate leadership to immediately approve this bill and allow it for a vote. Our military members in the Coast Guard deserve better, but so do all of the homeowners of this Nation who are seeking mortgages and must put those efforts on hold, so do the community development block grant projects that create jobs and economic growth, and so do law enforcement, essential to our security, who are going untrained.

Food safety inspections have been suspended. Housing safety inspections, like the ones at Barbour Garden in Connecticut and Infield apartments, have stalled.

Breweries, like many in Connecticut--and I am hoping to visit a number tomorrow--are unable to deliver their products to market and onto store shelves.

The National Parks have been left unsupervised.

Last week, the Hartford Courant highlighted the story of Bryan Krampovitis. He is a resident of West Haven and an air traffic controller at Bradley International Airport. A number of traffic controllers are here in Washington, DC, and they will be outside this building later today. He is continuing the work, but he told the Hartford Courant:

I'm a single father of my daughter, and she relies on me to

be her sole provider. I have a home and mortgage. It's a hard

time to be in. I'm forced to continue to go to work or face

the possibility of losing my job.

If the Federal Government is still closed at the time of his next scheduled pay, he will receive ``a zero dollar paycheck.''

Like him, so many of these Federal workers are living paycheck to paycheck, and they will be without that paycheck. The effect, though, will be on Americans as a whole.

The President continues to divide us with rhetoric that is distorted and divisive, with misleading, malign mendacity. I am reminded of the sign I saw on TV: ``Stop truth decay.'' The President should stop truth decay as he visits the border today. He should recognize that there is no crisis, insecurity at the border; that it is manufactured by him. The idea that drugs are imported across the border is correct, but it is at the ports of entry. The idea that terrorists are coming across the border is factually absurd. In fact, the 3,700 figure the President broached has been completely debunked. The idea that the wall will be effective or practical has been abandoned by members of his own administration who have recognized that a wall from sea to shining sea is simply impossible and impractical.

So we are left with a vanity problem--an applause line in the President's campaign--that has become a wall to progress. It is a wall to progress only in the President's mind, as everybody in this body knows there is a path forward to reopen the government. That is what the American people want--to reopen the government, to adopt the bills that are necessary for these agencies to go back to work, and to reopen the Department of Homeland Security as well while we debate those disagreements we have and do our jobs.

The Congress must do its job and send to the President the bills that are necessary to reopen the government and save America from this manufactured, unnecessary, unacceptable crisis that has come to us and our country from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, with a heavy heart, I wish to pay tribute to Otto Delikat, a remarkable role model, survivor, and family man. Mr. Delikat passed away on December 23, 2018 at the age of 96.

His life was similar to many of the Jewish faith during that era, an ordinary man with extraordinary spirit and indefatigable will to survive. He will be remembered for his outstanding commitment to his communities and readiness to share his experiences in order to promote freedom and democracy.

Mr. Delikat was born in Vienna, Austria, where he grew up with his father, stepmother, brother, and two sisters. As a young man, he worked on a farm in Germany, where his family's religion was not known. When World War II began, he returned to Vienna. With his father already in a labor camp, a 17-year-old Mr. Delikat volunteered to go to the same camp. He and about a dozen others from the labor camp were sent to work in a brick factory.

One of the men working with him in the labor camp escaped, which resulted in the rest of their group getting locked up in prison for a year. When the prison sentence ended, Mr. Delikat and the other Jewish prisoners were handed over to the Gestapo and sent to concentration camps.

Mr. Delikat spent just under a year in the Flossenburg concentration camp. Then, in October 1942, he and the other 16 people left with him were transported to Auschwitz. He was imprisoned there for around a year, working some of this time as part of a labor squad tasked with going through the luggage people took with them when they arrived on transports. After the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, he and about 3,000 other prisoners went to clean up the wreckage. Despite falling ill from the typhoid epidemic that killed over half of the inmates during their first winter in Warsaw, Mr. Delikat survived.

Eventually, the SS evacuated the prisoners in 1944, not even half of whom survived the several days' long march when their attempts to run toward water led to machinegun fire. Those who made it to the cattle cars, including Mr. Delikat, then went to Dachau. Mr. Delikat was soon relocated to another concentration camp in southern Germany, where he met a civilian who helped him pass letters to and from Vienna. Thanks to the kindness of this civilian, he learned his father was still alive.

After liberation, Mr. Delikat spent several months working for the American counterintelligence corps tracking down members of the SS in hiding in order to bring them to justice. During his time in the displaced persons camp, he met and married his wife, and they had their first child. The family moved to America, thanks to support from his wife's aunt, where Mr. Delikat quickly found work and they welcomed their second child.

When asked about how he survived, Mr. Delikat emphasized he ``always looked for tomorrow.'' He did not think about the days that would follow, but instead focused on the hope he would make it through the current day and wake up the next. He also said his experiences throughout the Holocaust led him to become active in Jewish communities, including 50 years at the Oceanside Jewish Center. He served as chairman of the temple's House committee, was named their man of the year in 1994, joined the men's club, and served on the Holocaust committee.

Mr. Delikat considered it of the utmost importance to share his experiences with others. He recognized his story and the stories of fellow survivors would be lost if not told. He liked to talk about what he went through at every available opportunity, emphasizing the positive ideals of our Nation by underlining the importance of living in a free and equal society.

My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to Otto's family during this difficult time, particularly to his two children, Janet and Michael, four grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. May their many wonderful memories of Otto provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend Senator Isakson, as well as the ranking member, Senator Tester, for their leadership on the Veterans' Affairs Committee in this past session. I have been proud and honored to work with them, and I look forward to doing so in the next Congress on issues so important and challenging. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of our veterans.

In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 299, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2017, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I greatly respect my colleague from Utah, and I thank our friend from Georgia for his positive remarks on this topic, but more than words are necessary; we need action. We need dollars and cents to brave Americans who undertook to serve this country, who risked their lives, and who have suffered for years and years from the severe health effects of their contact with Agent Orange and other toxins on the battlefield. They deserve the same benefits as their comrades who served on land. They served in the territorial waters. Year after year they have been denied simple justice--action that fulfills our obligation to them. I greatly respect the words, the rhetoric, the pledges, but asking them to wait denies them justice.

There is an adage we quote frequently: Justice delayed is justice denied. That maxim has particular force here because these veterans, very simply, are passing away. They will be denied the benefits they are owed by this Nation. They will be deprived of the just compensation for injuries they received, like their fellow veterans who served boots on the ground on land, if they are not compensated for the injuries they received when they served in those territorial waters off Vietnam.

This measure has been brought to the floor before. Last week, I joined my colleagues Senators Tester, Gillibrand, Daines, and Brown to demand that simple justice for blue water Navy veterans. Today I am joined by Senator Baldwin of Wisconsin, my very distinguished colleague and friend, to whom I will yield shortly.

Our calls to unanimously pass H.R. 299 were blocked, and that is why we are back here again. In these closing hours of this session, we have the opportunity and obligation to do right by those veterans and to follow our words by our actions. Today the Senate has another chance, even in these last hours, to right a wrong.

Currently, the VA gives the benefit of the doubt to some veterans who have been exposed to toxic substances but not to others. Despite the fact that defoliants were indiscriminately used, only some of those veterans who were affected by them--those veterans suffering from cancer and skin disease and other aftereffects--are eligible for healthcare and benefits to address the health effects of their exposure.

Others, like Gerry Wright of Connecticut, are forced to shoulder the burden of proving they are suffering from this toxic exposure.

I ask my colleagues to reconsider their opposition. I ask them to think about the veterans of their own States who suffer from these kinds of diseases. I ask them to consider men and women like Eugene Clarke of Redding, CT. Because of his experience in Vietnam, he has spent most of his years fighting on behalf of veterans who served there and veterans who served in Korea in the 1960s. He has been a champion. His advocacy, backed by strong support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, shine a light on these problems.

Today only veterans who were served on the Korean DMZ, from April 1968 through August 1971, are eligible for presumption, despite the fact that from 1966 through 1969, about 55,000 servicemembers were sent to Korea each year.

Mr. Clarke was instrumental in providing evidence that defoliants were sprayed during testing prior to 1968. His efforts have inspired me and my colleagues to introduce the Fairness for Korean DMZ Veterans Act. He is a veteran of that experience. He has fought for the Korean veterans, but he has also added his weight in support of the Vietnam veterans who served after he did.

Two years ago, I pledged to Mr. Clarke that I would fight as long and as hard as possible to make sure veterans who served in the Korean DMZ receive compensation and healthcare if they suffer from agent orange- linked illnesses. I am here today because of him, because of Korean War veterans, and because of Korean veterans who served in the DMZ.

I ask my colleagues to reconsider their opposition. In the limited number of days left in the 115th Congress, we have this important opportunity. We have this tremendous opportunity for anybody who cares about not only the veterans of Vietnam but also their descendants by extending healthcare, vocational training and rehabilitation, as well as providing a monetary allowance to children suffering from the aftereffects through their parents.

I ask my colleagues to do the right thing.

I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, in closing, I am grateful to my colleague from Wisconsin and my colleagues across the aisle. This measure was bipartisan. It was passed unanimously in the House of Representatives. It should be unanimous here. The money is not a problem. The money is there. The predictions about outlandish possible financial exposure are simply products of fantasy. I know my Republican colleagues almost unanimously on the other side of the aisle understand that simple fact. But even if the costs were higher than they are projected to be, we have an obligation to do the right thing. We have a moral duty to make sure we fulfill our promise.

I know the Presiding Officer has been a strong advocate for our veterans. I know my fellow members on the Veterans' Affairs Committee join me in this belief.

The costs of this program are the costs of war. They are the costs of keeping our troops on the DMZ in Korea. They are the costs of having sent them to Vietnam. They are the costs of sending our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and this measure would provide a study of the possible effects in terms of their health from those kinds of poisonous and toxic exposures. The modern battlefield is filled with toxins and poisons, and the injuries that result from them are the costs of war. We need to recognize that fact and refuse, absolutely reject the possibility that we will continue to delay even longer the justice these men and women deserve.

I can pledge to my colleagues that if we fail to do it this session, we will be back again next session. The costs to our conscience, if not to our budget, will rise in the meantime.

I am pleased to call on my very distinguished colleague and military veteran from Illinois, Senator Duckworth.

Mr. President, I wish to close by thanking my colleagues, Senator Duckworth and Senator Baldwin, and say that I would like to end this session on a positive note. I am going to be proud to yield to one of my very good friends and one of our most distinguished colleagues, Senator Shelby from Alabama, who has done such important work on appropriations and our budget. I thank him for it.

I hope that in the next session, this great body will see it in its heart, as well as mind and conscience, to do the right thing--not sometime in the next 2 years but in the first days and weeks so that these veterans have simple justice. I will champion it. I know colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us, and we can get it done. We must.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, sometime in the next 2 weeks, we will leave this body and this session, and many of us will return in January for the next one. We will leave many challenges unmet and many problems unsolved, partly because of the partisanship that has paralyzed the Congress, our Federal Government, and many of our States.

The model for what we should adopt as the spirit going forward as we begin that new session is articulated powerfully in a letter that was recently sent to us by 44 former colleagues--10 Republicans, 32 Democrats--coming together to cite the challenges this Nation faces and the need for us to do so in a bipartisan way, coming together in the spirit of what makes this country the greatest in the history of the world.

I hope my colleagues will pay attention to that letter. Yesterday, I entered it into the Congressional Record, and I am proud today to cite parts of it that I think are worthy of our attention. They say--and they are right--that ``we are at an inflection point [in our Nation's history] in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must be upheld.''

That is a quote from a letter which puts us on notice that we have a historic obligation to work together, as they have come together in this letter, as they did so often to accomplish great things in this body.

They say:

We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel

Robert S. Mueller III's investigation and the House's

commencement of investigations of the president and his

administration. The likely convergence of these two events

will occur at a time when simmering regional conflicts and

global power confrontations continue to threaten our

security, economy and geopolitical stability.

Above all the issues that occupy us in these closing days of the session and will confront us as we begin the next, the backdrop is a dangerous world and severe jeopardy to our democracy and rule of law.

They say, and we should keep in mind, that during their service in the Senate, at times we were allies and at other times opponents, but never enemies.

That is the spirit that must move us as we end this session, but, more importantly, as we begin the next session. That commitment to the rule of law that these 44 of our former colleagues have expressed must animate us as well.

The three former colleagues who signed from Connecticut could not be more different. Senators Weicker, Dodd, and Lieberman are different as people, in character, and in background in almost every way, except in their commitment to this country and in their allegiance to that principle of coming together in a bipartisan way.

I hope we will take this lesson. I am far from the most appropriate Member of this body to be lecturing anyone on the spirit of this great institution, but it has impressed me over a long time. My colleagues who were here today supporting criminal justice reform, on both sides of the aisle, embody that spirit as well.

We have a real opportunity on criminal justice reform to do real tangible good. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. Yet, at 2.1 million incarcerated people, we have nearly a quarter of the world's prisoners. Anybody who has been a prosecutor-- and we have many in this body--knows the complexities and the challenges of dealing with crime and ensuring fairness and justice in our criminal system.

As a former U.S. attorney and attorney general of the State of Connecticut, I have been proud and privileged to work with the professionals of our law enforcement community. I have marveled at their dedication, professionalism, and skills. I have been impressed so deeply by our corrections officers and the men and women who every day go to work staffing and manning the prisons and other correctional facilities where the justice system extends its reach over people's lives. My experience has taught me that protecting public safety is not simply a matter of locking up people for the longest possible time.

The Federal Government currently spends billions every year maintaining our prison population--the largest in the world. If we really want to keep people safe, there should be more dedication of resources to State and local enforcement, who patrol our streets, keep our communities safe, and provide role models for many of our young people.

Much of the money that we spend now could be better devoted to more effective investigation, training, and equipping prosecutors with the tools they need, ensuring the most dangerous of the criminals are not only apprehended but kept behind bars and the least dangerous are given an opportunity and a second chance to make good out of their lives.

Targeted innovative programs have been shown to deal with crime more effectively than broad, blunderbuss, lock-them-up kinds of programs. Spending billions of dollars on extended prison sentences for nonviolent criminals may seem tough on crime, but toughness in a war on crime has been shown to be insufficient. More than being tough, we need to be smart. The human and financial costs of mass incarceration simply are not worth the costs. This legislation sets a marker that it is time to make a change.

Opponents of reform want to play on our fears. They want to see every convict as a threat, every ex-convict as a menace. They deny the fundamental premise of our human justice system and our criminal justice--that we must seek rehabilitation and recovery, not just punishment; that people can make good from second chances.

As an example, let me cite Reginald Dwayne Betts, who is a Connecticut resident and a graduate of the Yale Law School. When Betts was 16, he made a serious mistake. He joined a few friends and others he hardly knew, getting into a car with them and joining in a robbery. The driver of the car, a man in his early twenties, was unknown to Betts. He appeared to be in charge. Betts asked him for his pistol. He was given the firearm and told to keep the safety on so there would be no accidental gunshot. They headed to a mall where Betts, holding the gun, signaled for a man to get out of his car. Betts and his friend stole the vehicle and drove away. They were arrested the next day.

That was Betts' crime. He pleaded guilty to carjacking, attempted robbery, and a firearm charge. He faced a maximum sentence of life plus 13 years

in prison. At his hearing, Betts apologized. He apologized, first and foremost, to his mother and his family and the man he had terrorized. He expressed genuine remorse for his actions. His apology was heartfelt. He knew he had broken the law. He knew he had to face the consequences, and he owned that responsibility.

For the very real crimes he committed as a 16-year-old, he was sentenced to 9 years in an adult prison. That is hard time. Like so many children, he was tried as an adult and he was imprisoned with grown men.

During that time in prison, Betts read every book he could, he completed a paralegal course, and he learned Spanish. He demonstrated an initiative and willingness to learn which was extraordinary. He embodied the principle of rehabilitation and redemption that our criminal justice system treasures as a vital principle, but the system never gave him an opportunity to reenter society as a productive citizen.

His reading was not part of an education program that gave him college credits or degrees. The paralegal course he took did not produce any certification. The Spanish he learned was not formally recognized by anyone. None of the skills he taught himself would qualify him in the eyes of an employer when he was released from prison as a 24-year-old. Most employers wouldn't even look past the box that he was forced to check identifying himself as an ex-felon.

Fortunately for Betts, and very unusually for him, the literary knowledge he acquired during his time in prison was enough to impress the owner of a bookstore who gave him a job. He enrolled in a community college and graduated with honors. He went to the University of Maryland on a scholarship. He earned a bachelor's degree and a master's in fine arts in poetry, and, eventually, he went to Harvard for a Radcliffe fellowship and published a book of poetry.

Mr. Betts had a criminal record, and it was an ongoing punishment, as it is for every ex-felon and every former convict in America. It follows him everywhere, as it does everyone convicted of a felony, regardless of how much time he served or where he did it. Despite his stellar academic record, the fact that he was an active member of his community and a loving husband and father, he couldn't get a single interview for a job.

Betts tried again. He applied to law school and was accepted at one of the finest institutions of the country. He chose to go to Yale Law School and become an attorney, which he is today.

Betts will be the first to tell you that his extraordinary story is unusual among people who have been convicted of a felony. He has spoken with eloquence and passion about the struggles people like him face, both in prison and once they enter society again.

Most of my life has been spent in law enforcement. Most of my career has been devoted to pursuing cases against people who break the law. I know that justice involves both punishment and redemption. It is supposed to be penance and rehabilitation. We do not discard the people who have committed crimes. We do not abandon them in our country. In principle--but in action, all too often--yes, they are discarded and abandoned, and so they become recidivists, a polite euphemism for people who commit crimes again and again because they are given no constructive alternative.

Some are dangerous and need to be locked away for life or for long periods of time that are necessary to rehabilitate, but we also know that many nondangerous convicts could be released with rehabilitation, skilled training, and education--the kind of training that Mr. Betts had.

We are debating a bill now, the FIRST STEP Act, which tries to bring balance back to our criminal justice system. The current system throws away and discards people like Dwayne Betts--a loss to us and to society. These draconian prison terms provide few incentives for prisoners to prepare for reentry, and that is the gap the FIRST STEP Act seeks to address. It is an injustice it seeks to correct. The bill will allow judges to sentence below the mandatory minimum sentences for low-level nonviolent drug offenders who cooperate with the government.

That is a first step to a more humane and effective system. This bill would make the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, making it possible for nearly 2,600 Federal prisoners sentenced on racially discriminatory drug laws to petition for a reduced sentence.

That is also a first step toward a fairer, more humane system.

The bill includes prison reform. Under this legislation, prisoners can earn 10 days off their time behind bars for every 30 days of recidivism reduction programming. That is the kind of program that would make reentry into society for people like Dwayne Betts just a little bit easier, and it gives prisoners incentives to earn skills in prison so that they can be productive members of society after they have paid their debt. That is another first step toward a more humane and just system.

The bill includes commonsense reforms--measures like prohibiting the shackling of pregnant prisoners and providing feminine healthcare products to incarcerated women.

It ends the horror of Federal juvenile solitary confinement. It helps tackle the drug epidemic that America faces by expanding opioid and heroine abuse treatment behind bars.

There are other crucial, fiercely negotiated reforms in this bill, all of which seek to take that kind of first step toward a better criminal justice system, and one day, it will be cited as an exemplar of American ideals of liberty and justice.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It is a good first step, and it is one we can be proud of supporting on a bipartisan basis in the best spirit of that letter from 44 of our former colleagues, urging us to come together and support common ground where we can improve the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from 44 former U.S. Senators be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking a number of my colleagues who have contributed so much to bringing us to this point on S.J. Res. 54. I have been very pleased and honored to work with them in cosponsoring these measures in the past--most recently in March and now today--to end all U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen that is killing innocent civilians and murdering children and committing, arguably, war crimes.

The United States should have no complicity in these actions that betray our values and our national interest, so this resolution would direct the removal of all U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities.

There are many to thank--Senators Sanders and Lee, Senator Menendez, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy--but I want to thank some people who have not been mentioned during this proceeding

Before Yemen and before the killing of Khashoggi--that is, before the civil war in Yemen and the Saudi involvement in it and before the brutal, heinous killing of the American journalist Jamal Khashoggi-- there was 9/11. The victims and loved ones of those victims are remembered by me. They are friends. They are heroes. They have fought relentlessly to hold the Government of Saudi Arabia accountable for its culpability--not yet proven in court, but they are seeking to hold the monarchy accountable for its possible involvement.

They have been largely absent from the discussion on this floor, but they are the original champions of holding the Saudis responsible for any and all possible involvement in supporting the 9/11 attack on our Nation. Make no mistake--their loved ones were victims, but it was an attack on our Nation, on the Twin Towers, on our Defense Department, on a plane that was forced to crash in Pennsylvania.

I am pleased that the U.S. Senate is pursuing justice for Jamal Khashoggi. He was a journalist, an opinion writer for an American newspaper with two young children who are U.S. citizens.

The United States has a moral obligation to end support for a government that engages in this kind of heinous, murderous action. There is intelligence that points directly to the highest levels of the Saudi monarchy--namely to the Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman.

The United States ought to end its support for the humanitarian crisis caused by the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Make no mistake--it was and is a Saudi-led attack, and the Kingdom is responsible for it, but this monarchy was doing bad things and engaged in bad behavior well before the Yemen civil war and Khashoggi's tragic death. The Saudis have a long record of violating human rights and international norms. They have funded extremism that led to the rise of terrorism. They may well have provided financial support and even training for the Saudis who went to the United States and thereafter enabled and led and participated in the attack on this Nation.

We should never forget the survivors and the loved ones of 9/11. We should never overlook the Saudi role in that horrific attack. We should never relent in supporting those 9/11 families.

Fortunately, we have made progress in holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its culpability in 9/11. In 2016, this Congress unanimously passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act-- JASTA--to allow terrorist victims their day in court, their fair opportunity to hold accountable state sponsors of terrorism, including the Saudi Arabian Government. This September, the Senate unanimously passed my resolution to release all classified documents related to the 9/11 attack. These documents are absolutely essential to giving those families their day in court because they are the evidence that is needed to establish the link the United States has--intelligence dating from those days now seemingly long ago--that inculpates the Saudis.

We must support the continued investigation into 9/11 by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and we must support those 9/11 families to ensure that the facts are made public and that the necessary individuals, entities, and governments are held accountable.

The families of victims who perished on that horrific day deserve answers about those events and circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack. We know their pain and grief are very much with them. We should respect their loss and honor it with action.

We should recognize those heroes like Brett Eagleson of Connecticut and the families of Connecticut and New York and New Jersey and all around the country--and so many are from our area of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey--who continue to demand justice and have done so year after year--well before this resolution came before us.

I say to my colleagues today, we need to keep our resolve alive and well to never forget, never yield to hopelessness, never allow our support for these 9/11 families to diminish, never cease our quest for justice in the name of Brett Eagleson's dad and his family and every family who still suffers the pain and grief from 9/11.

Given the role of the Saudi Government in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks, the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and the Saudi-inflicted humanitarian crisis, this reevaluation of the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia is long overdue.

The Saudi-led war has consisted of an aggressive campaign as brutal as the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, indiscriminately killing civilians and Houthis alike. Day after day, the humanitarian crisis of famine, cholera, other medical afflictions, and simple trauma to those children trying to grow up in the midst of exploding bombs continues to get worse. The United Nations warns that 14 million Yemenis could face starvation--14 million--14 million innocent people facing starvation.

Diplomatic efforts, in coordination with the United Nations and European allies, are vital to establish a peace framework and ensure civilian access to humanitarian aid.

In the absence of meaningful action from the United States, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen will only worsen. Regional instability will be exacerbated. America's standing in the global community will be further undercut and enduringly diminished.

In March of this year, I led a letter to the Department of Defense with my colleague Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, along with many of our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stating our concern regarding U.S. support for Saudi military operations against the Houthis in Yemen and asking about the DOD's involvement, apparently without appropriate notification of Congress, and its agreements to provide refueling support to the Saudis and the Saudi coalition partners. We were concerned that the DOD had not appropriately documented reimbursements for aerial refueling support provided by the United States.

Eight months later--just days ago--the Department of Defense responded to our letter and admitted that it has failed to appropriately notify Congress of its support agreements; it has failed to adequately charge Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for fuel and refueling assistance. That admission 8 months after our inquiry is a damning indictment. These errors in accounting mean that the United States was directly funding the Saudi war in Yemen. It has been doing it since March of 2015.

In November, the administration announced an end to U.S. aerial refueling support for Saudi military operations in Yemen, but we still must determine whether the Department of Defense was incompetent or disingenuous--or both--in failing to charge the Saudis and Emiratis for previous refueling assistance. We need accountability, a full explanation from the Department of Defense.

The Department will be seeking reimbursement for its refueling support, but I will continue to demand and conduct oversight to get to the bottom of this apparent negligence. I have made the DOD aware of my concerns, and I will evaluate whether an inspector general investigation is necessary to determine the extent to which U.S. taxpayer funds--potentially millions and tens of millions of dollars-- were used to fund the Saudi war and used to fund it without the legally required acknowledgment and approval from the Congress of the United States.

Very simply, the United States should not be funding this war. We should not be supporting this war. We should not be providing intelligence or logistics support. We should not be complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of civilians in Yemen, the murder of children, the famine and humanitarian crisis that are ongoing right now. That is why today we should pass this resolution.

It is all the more important today, as well, that the Senate take a stand, given the Trump family ties to the Saudis and the President's habit of undermining the intelligence community. In the absence of leadership from the President, Congress must reassert its constitutional responsibility to authorize the use of U.S. military support.

We must take action to uphold the Constitution, as well as American values and interests. Intelligence assessments indicate with high certainty that members of the Saudi royal family, including the Crown Prince MBS, ordered and orchestrated the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. But both President Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner have undermined these findings and tried to stifle the intelligence community conclusions. They have undermined not only these conclusions but more broadly the intelligence community itself.

President Trump has debased and dishonored brave intelligence professionals by demeaning their fact-based conclusions as ``feelings.'' President Trump has falsely claimed that ``we may never know all the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi.''

His Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, unfortunately, have further demeaned those findings by saying that there is no direct evidence or there is no smoking gun. The fact is that there is powerful and compelling evidence.

We know from public statements of my colleagues coming from briefings by the intelligence community, and we recently learned that the White House Middle East adviser--I should put ``adviser'' in quotes--Jared Kushner offered advice to his close friend Muhammad Bin Salman about how to ``weather the storm'' during the warranted backlash of Saudi Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Rather than ensuring accountability, Jared Kushner is inexplicably offering support.

There is also stunning evidence that the Saudi Government lobbyists reserved blocks of rooms at the Trump hotel in Washington, paying for an estimated 500 nights in the luxury hotel just 3 months after President Trump was elected, bringing veterans to Washington to lobby against JASTA, the bill I mentioned earlier--the bill that enables the 9/11 victims to have their day in court, the bill that upholds American interests and American values and American people.

The effort of the Saudi Government to bring those veterans to Washington and fund their stays in the Trump hotel was a despicable irony and insult to America, but it yielded the Trump Organization $270,000 and millions of dollars, by the President's own acknowledgment--indeed, his boasting--go to the Trump organization from condos, apartments, and offices rented or bought in New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC, to say nothing of deals that may be contemplated by the Trump Organization now or after Donald Trump leaves office. These kinds of payments and benefits directly implicate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. They are part of the reason that I have enlisted almost 200 of my colleagues in the U.S. Congress in a lawsuit called Blumenthal v. Trump, and I believe this lawsuit, which claims that the President violated the chief anti-corruption provision of the U.S. Constitution, will shed even more light on those payments and benefits from Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world. These friendships and conflicts of interest demonstrate the very flawed and likely corrupt basis for the Trump administration's foreign policy with Saudi Arabia.

American credibility is at stake. We must end all U.S. involvement in the Saudi war. We must sanction the top levels of the Saudi monarchy under relevant statutes like the Global Magnitsky Act. We must ensure that the President removes U.S. forces from any hostilities against the Yemeni people.

There are countless reasons to vote for this resolution. I call on my colleagues to support it and to make sure that U.S. support for this unacceptable conflict in Saudi--the aggression and attacks by Saudi Arabia on innocent civilians--is ended now.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator Brown, Senator Tester, most importantly, Senator Gillibrand, and our good friend Senator Isakson.

Senator Isakson and Senator Gillibrand and I worked together closely on this issue when I was the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. We engaged the VA through hearings, through meetings, through any way that we could reach the VA so that it would grant the presumption to all veterans who served in the territorial waters of Vietnam during the Vietnam war and were exposed to Agent Orange, to give them simple justice, and to treat them with the same presumption of service-connected disability as their fellow veterans who served in the Vietnam conflict with boots on the ground. If they served in those territorial waters, they deserve that same presumption.

Beyond the abstraction here, I want to talk about the face and voice of this problem, which, for me, is my good friend Gerry Wright.

Gerry Wright rode across this country on a motorcycle. The mantra on the motorcycle was ``Sprayed and Betrayed.'' Gerry Wright is a victim of Agent Orange. He suffers from some of the same conditions as those brave veterans who served with boots on the ground. He joined me, along with Paul Scappaticci, Cinthia Johnson, and Gary Monk on Veterans Day. Just as he rode across the country, we came together to raise awareness about this issue.

If Americans saw and heard those faces and voices, if my colleagues heeded their call, there would be no objection in this body to this legislation. It is all of us who share a responsibility, and it is the VA that has to acknowledge responsibility, as well, for its opposition over the years and its actions blocking simple justice for these veterans.

In the absence of justice from the VA, we have fought over these years--just as the blue water Navy veterans have fought for decades--to achieve that justice, and 5 months ago, that justice seemed within reach when the House unanimously passed, 382 to 0, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act.

The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee held a hearing on this legislation in August. Members had more than sufficient time to consider the language. There are more than ample funds to cover it. There is no reason--none whatsoever--for delaying this legislation, which has such broad support from the Veterans Service Organizations, stakeholders, and members of this body.

I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation also includes a provision that I led with Senator Moran and Senator Tester that would treat with fairness our Korean veterans. It is called the Fairness for Korean DMZ Veterans Act, ensuring all veterans who served in the Korean DMZ, when Agent Orange was used there, that they will also receive the healthcare and benefits they deserve. This measure is about justice for our Vietnam veterans, for our Korean war veterans, and it is a symbol, as well as a tangible and profoundly significant benefit of our commitment to cover the cost of war. This measure is not about a gift. It is not about charity. It is about what we owe the veteran. It is about keeping faith, making sure that we leave none of those veterans behind, and that we give them the simple justice they deserve. They have fought for this recognition over years, and ``sprayed and betrayed'' will be the appropriate designation if we fail in this duty for them.

Again, I thank Senator Gillibrand and Senator Daines for their leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the bipartisan resolution--54--that is before us today. The strong, bipartisan support we are seeing on the floor--most recently from my colleague Senator Lee of Utah--shows how necessary and important this resolution is to end the complicity of the United States in the murderous war waged by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

The United States is complicit because we are providing fuel, intelligence, and other support that is only increasing the barbaric power of the Saudis in that civil war--murderous activities that are taking a toll on civilians. The blood will be on our hands if we continue to support the Saudis in this brutal effort.

The resolution before us is carefully crafted to preserve our national security and our national interests while at the same time removing our involvement from the Saudi war crimes. There seems to be no other word for what we are seeing the Saudis do. The arguments made by the administration for our support and participation carry no weight. We should never compromise our national value for the sake of arms sales. In fact, the arms contracts are a pittance or a fraction of what the administration claims. So I am proud to support this measure. It will do too little and too late what should have been done long ago: Renounce our moral and legal responsibility, as well as our practical involvement for the murderous and brutal Saudi attacks on civilians and others in Yemen.