Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, there are few responsibilities--I would say none--more important than our duties in connection with the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. Much is at stake in the nomination that is before the Senate now to appoint Judge Brett Kavanaugh as the Justice who will replace Justice Kennedy. So much is at stake--the future of Roe v. Wade, affordable healthcare, particularly, preexisting conditions and the protections of them for millions of Americans.

But I am not here to talk about Judge Kavanaugh as a nominee. I am here to talk about how we reach a conclusion as to how my colleagues and I vote and how we seek and pursue the truth about Judge Kavanaugh, his qualifications, his temperament, his integrity and intellect, who he is, and what kind of Justice he will be.

The best way to do it is to know what he has written and said--all of his writings and opinions and the articles he has written. These points are pretty basic.

I am struck by our colleagues' objection to our seeking documents they have sought in connection with past nominees when they were made by Presidents of our party. When President Obama nominated Justice Kagan, Republicans asked for documents from her years in the Clinton administration, her tenure as dean of the Harvard Law School, and even her clerkship for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Senator Grassley, now the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said at the time: ``For the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent, we must get all of her documents . . . and have enough time to analyze them so we can determine whether she should be a Justice.''

I agree. Now, unfortunately, Republicans want to apply a completely different standard to Judge Kavanaugh. They want his documents kept sealed and stored so that he can waltz onto the Court without having to answer tough questions about what he has written, said, and done. They maintain that there is nothing in the documents that would be relevant or revelatory. Well, we can't know this supposed irrelevance, and neither can they until we all see those documents.

For some reason, the Republicans seem worried. They seem concerned. They seem apprehensive. The American people and we have a right to ask: What are they concealing and why are they scared of it? What is Judge Kavanaugh hiding and why is he afraid of it? That is a question he should answer and which they have a responsibility to address before we begin the hearings. Our questions require those documents.

There is, in fact, a lot of good reason to think that those documents will be relevant and revelatory, particularly the documents from his time in the White House. My Republican colleagues are now downplaying the role Judge Kavanaugh had while working for President Bush. Republican whip and Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn, our friend and colleague from Texas, said that Judge Kavanaugh was ``more or less a traffic cop,'' but that contention contradicts what our colleagues said at the time when Judge Kavanaugh was a nominee to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator Cornyn himself said then of Kavanaugh: ``He . . . is currently Staff Secretary to President Bush, a job whose title belies the very serious and important responsibilities that individual performs.''

Senator Hatch, also a colleague and a very distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, said of Judge Kavanaugh: ``His background as Staff Secretary may prove to be particularly good judicial training.''

But for me the best indication of how important his role as Staff Secretary to President Bush was--not just as counsel, but as Staff Secretary--comes from Judge Kavanaugh himself. He said:

When people ask me which of my prior experiences has been

most useful to me as a judge, I tell them that all of them

have been useful, and I certainly draw on all of them. But I

also do not hesitate to say that my five and a half years in

the White House--and especially my three years as Staff

Secretary for President Bush--were the most interesting and

in many ways the most instructive.

I would read that sentence again, but I am not sure I need to. It will be in the Record, and it is well-known to many of my colleagues.

Judge Kavanaugh went on:

As Staff Secretary, I sat in meetings where he talked with

President Hu and then-President Musharraf and President

Karzai and Prime Minister Blair and Pope John Paul. I was at

the G-8 in Scotland when the London subway bombing occurred.

I saw and participated in the process of putting legislation

together, whether it was terrorism insurance or Medicare

prescription drug coverage or attempts at immigration reform.

I worked on drafting and revising executive orders. I

remember times on the Hill in negotiating last-minute changes

in legislation. I saw regulatory agencies screw up. I saw how

they might try to avoid congressional mandates. I saw the

relationship between independent agencies and executive

agencies and the President and White House and OMB. I saw

FOIA requests.

That is from Judge Kavanaugh.

If there is any indication as to why we need those documents from the time he was Staff Secretary to President Bush, it is from Judge Kavanaugh's own words. If we want to know what kind of Justice he will be, we need to understand the decisions he has made and the lessons he has learned in that most informative job. If we refuse to even try, we have abdicated our constitutional responsibility. We have a duty.

I submit, with great respect, that the request made by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee involves all of us abdicating that responsibility unless we protest and raise a hue and cry and force the production of additional documents. This goes beyond any sort of partisan divide, and it goes beyond the question of whether any of my colleagues are voting for or against Judge Kavanaugh. It is about our constitutional responsibility.

These documents, as Judge Kavanaugh himself has said, would, in effect, reveal much about Judge Kavanaugh, for he worked on just about every major issue as counselor to President Bush and as Staff Secretary to him.

In a recent interview, Karl Rove noted: ``Literally every document that goes to the president on a policy issue has to pass through the hands of the staff secretary.''

As he himself has said, Judge Kavanaugh was at the President's side at many pivotal moments of the Bush Presidency--from the passage of the partial-birth abortion ban to debates over same-sex marriage and well beyond. We should know just what Judge Kavanaugh said as Staff Secretary to President Bush during those and other critical moments of the Bush Presidency. His advice to President Bush

and his role in those decisions are relevant. I think that word understates its importance. It is critical to our judgments about his qualifications.

Perhaps--maybe just by chance--there is nothing in those documents. When Judge Kavanaugh was in the White House, maybe he was just a traffic cop, as Senator Cornyn has claimed, or was an honest broker, as the judge described himself at his confirmation hearing. Yet, if that were true, what are they hiding? Why do they need to conceal it? We should have the opportunity to determine whether Judge Kavanaugh had truly been an honest broker, just a traffic cop, or had just passed documents through his hands without his having had any input. The best way to determine this is by reviewing those documents.

Judge Kavanaugh made this very point when he was an appellate court nominee. At his confirmation hearing, he was asked how Senators should assess his record. He answered: ``I think that's done through an assessment of going back, in my case, 16 years of my career and looking at the kinds of things I've done in the staff secretary's office.''

We should heed those words. They are the words of Judge Kavanaugh. We should examine all of the documents. It may take some additional time to review all of those documents but maybe not if there is nothing in there that relates to his view and his opinion and his role. If he were just a traffic cop or an honest broker, we can get through them very, very quickly. Regardless of the time involved, there is no more important task that we will undertake as U.S. Senators than to decide on his qualifications for being a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Anything less would be a dereliction of our duty.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the historic ship USS Nautilus, SSN-571, and her historic submerged transit of the North Pole on August 3, 1958.

The USS Nautilus was the first commissioned nuclear-powered ship in the U.S. Navy. President Harry S. Truman laid the keel for the future ship on June 14, 1952, at the Electric Boat Shipyard in Groton, CT. Two years later, First Lady Mamie Eisenhower launched the history-making nuclear submarine when she broke the traditional bottle of champagne across the bow of the USS Nautilus.

On the morning of January 17, 1955, at 11:00 a.m. EST, the Nautilus's first Commanding Officer, Commander Eugene P. Wilkinson, ordered all lines cast off and signaled the memorable message, ``Underway On Nuclear Power.''

During its shakedown on May 10, 1956, the USS Nautilus cruised from Groton, CT, to San Juan, PR, in fewer than 90 hours, fully submerged for the entire journey. The underwater distance--1,381 miles--was ten times farther than any submerged submarine had previously sailed. Following this journey, the Nautilus would shatter all submerged speed and distance records over the remainder of the decade.

In response to the nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile threat posed by the Soviet Union following the launch of the first satellite Sputnik, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the U.S. Navy to attempt a submarine transit to the North Pole to gain credibility for the soon-to-come submarine-launched ballistic missile weapons system still in research and development.

On July 23, 1958, the USS Nautilus departed Pearl Harbor, Hi, under top secret orders to conduct Operation Sunshine, the first crossing of the North Pole by a ship.

Eleven days later, Commander William R. Anderson announced to the 116 men aboard, ``For the world, our country, and the Navy: THE NORTH POLE.'' Thus, on August 3, 1958, the USS Nautilus became the first watercraft to reach the geographic North Pole, 90 degrees north, known also as the geographic ``top of the world.''

Following this momentous voyage, the USS Nautilus and her crew earned the Presidential Unit Citation, the first ever awarded in peacetime.

After Operation Sunshine, the USS Nautilus enjoyed many more successes in her long and illustrious career of duty in the U.S. Navy, such as in October 1962, when she participated in the naval quarantine of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Over the years, the USS Nautilus played an integral part in numerous North Atlantic Treaty Organization--NATO--exercises and a variety of developmental test programs. On September 14, 1966, the USS Nautilus celebrated 300,000 nautical miles of ocean faring.

Having pioneered the use of nuclear power at sea, the USS Nautilus continued to serve alongside many of the more modern nuclear-powered submarines. In April 1975, the USS Nautilus participated in Exercise Agate Punch. She was cited by the Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Group 12 as ``Not Getting Older--Getting Better.''

In the spring of 1977, the USS Nautilus deployed for the last time to the Mediterranean Sea, and on April 9, 1979, the Nautilus set out from Groton, CT, on her final voyage to Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, CA. On May 25, 1979, the USS Nautilus shut down her reactor for the final time, and she reached Mare Island 4 days later.

Following a career spanning 25 years and over half a million miles steamed, she decommissioned on March 3, 1980.

On May 14, 1980, President Jimmy Carter authorized Groton, CT, as the permanent home for the USS Nautilus, and on May 20, 1982, the USS Nautilus was designated a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior. Following an extensive historic ship conversion at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, the Nautilus was towed to Groton, CT, for the final time, arriving on July 6, 1985, in preparation for display to the public as a museum.

On April 11, 1986, 86 years to the day after the birth of the submarine force, the historic ship Nautilus, joined by the Submarine Force Museum, opened to the public as the first and finest exhibit of its kind in the world, providing an educational and visible link to yesterday's nuclear-powered submarine.

I am delighted to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the North Pole transit by USS Nautilus, SSN-571, and her accomplishments over the last 64 years. The historic ship Nautilus is a testament to American ingenuity, courage, and technical prowess. She deserves the greatest reverence and continues to serve as a reminder to future generations of Americans as she rests alongside modern day nuclear submarines at the Naval Submarine Base New London.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Arizona if he wishes to be heard first.

Mr. President, I am honored and grateful to follow the very powerful comments of my friend and colleague from Arizona. They remind me of our mutual friend, his colleague and partner from the State of Arizona, Senator John McCain, whom we miss at this moment more than ever. Senator McCain is with us in spirit, and those words remind us that the threat we face at this perilous time in our national history must be met with a truly bipartisan response.

The threat we face is every bit as serious as any in the history of this country because it involves an attack on the pillars of our democracy. We know that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor involved a

physical assault with immediate loss of life. Russia's attack on this country in 2016 is every bit as serious and urgent.

In the words of the Director of National Intelligence, our former colleague Dan Coats, this incident should put us truly on alert. Those blinking lights based on objective and unvarnished evidence, as he put it, of a pervasive, continuing attack should bring us together as a legislative body and as a country.

This issue really is not about Donald Trump as much as it is about our Nation. The summit in a sense realized our worst fears; indeed, our deepest nightmare. At best, it was going to be a gift to President Putin because it legitimized him and elevated him on the world stage, even if no words followed that private meeting.

The truth is that it happened, and the President of the United States was a puppet, a patsy, a pushover--in fact, an appeaser, in the worst tradition of that term--on the public stage. The President put Russia over this country. He failed to fulfill his oath of office to defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He failed to put America's interests first. In fact, he blamed America first. He blamed everyone except for Putin and himself.

Now he has attempted, shamefully, to rewrite history--unartfully, incredibly. He has said, in effect, that some editing, some minor change in grammar, would allow him to escape the universal condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum of his shameful surrender to Vladimir Putin.

The question is, What does Vladimir Putin have on Donald Trump? We will not know until the special counsel finishes his investigation. We must do everything in this body--and this point is central to what we are saying today--to protect the special counsel against the continuing onslaught and assault from Donald Trump's cronies and surrogates on the far right--the fringe of the Republican Party--who are seeking to discredit the special counsel investigation; indeed, talking about impeaching Ron Rosenstein and demanding documents involved in that investigation. We must now pass the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.

If Donald Trump is serious and he believes that the Russians, in fact, interfered with our democracy, what he will do now is implement the sanctions that were made mandatory on Russia. He has violated his duty by continuing to avoid imposing them. He will authorize the Cyber Command to take aggressive measures--not simply defensive--and penetrate and disrupt the systems of cyber within Russia that are used against us. He will authorize the exposure and revelation of Russian oligarchs' and Vladimir Putin's wealth around the world, hidden and concealed--the result of their corruption in Russia. He himself can undertake these measures.

If the Senate is serious about protecting the United States, it will order that the transcripts and notes and any documents and the security team who attended that summit come to the Congress in a closed briefing and eventually an open one, under oath, so the American people can know. They should be required to provide whatever they know about what happened in that private meeting so that we know what happened and the implications of what happened are truly known.

Just yesterday, the Department of Justice issued a criminal complaint against Maria Butina. It followed indictments against 12 Russian individuals. Maria Butina is a Russian agent who worked through the NRA to influence and corrupt our political system--again, part of the Russian attack on this country. We need to hold hearings now to know whether Russia has been using organizations like the NRA and other shell companies to illegally funnel money into our election.

I will close where I began. These issues transcend partisanship. They ought to be put above the everyday issues that concern us. We cannot say that we weren't warned. The failure to act and act now to hold Russia accountable, to make them pay a price, to show them that we will not tolerate--nor will our allies--this kind of interference in our elections will mean they will do it again. History will judge us harshly.

Our allies were never more important than now. They are victims of the same kind of attack. Rather than trashing and beating them, as President Trump has done, we should bring them to our side and express to them, as this Senate did by a 97-to-2 vote, that we are committed to NATO and that if one of us is attacked, all of us are attacked. In fact, almost all of us are under attack right now.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, first of all, I want to say how honored and grateful I am to follow my friend and distinguished colleague, who has outlined some of the reasons that I would vote against this nominee. I especially respect his raising this issue of the blue-slip approval process, which is probably unknown to the vast majority of Americans.

Let me begin by saying, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, as a litigator who has spent about 40 years in the courtroom before Federal and State judges of all kinds all over the country, why the blue slip from a U.S. Senator matters to justice.

We debated this issue on the Judiciary Committee. It is a time- honored tradition that Senators be consulted, that they return a blue slip; that is, approval of a nominee from their State. That is because Senators, such as Senator Merkley and Senator Wyden, are rooted in their States. They know the lawyers. Many of us are lawyers. They know the colleagues of people who may be nominated to the U.S. district court or the court of appeals in the jurisdictions that cover the areas that they serve. They know the lawyers who have appeared before these judges--their qualifications and sometimes their faults. Also, they know the opinions of these lawyers, their records in court, and how they have performed. They know their character, their integrity, and they know their records outside of the courtroom as well.

You have just heard tonight from Senator Merkley some statements that are extraordinarily revealing. The American people deserve to know them, and my colleagues deserve and need to consider them.

For generations, the blue-slip process has ensured that judges are well-suited for the States where they will preside. The majority's decision to ignore this process and, for the first time--very, very significantly--to ignore it with respect to both Senators from a State is a precedent that is profoundly damaging to this institution and to American justice.

It isn't about us. It isn't about our prerogatives or our pride. It isn't about our hurt feelings or our sense of insult. The sun will rise tomorrow on all of us in this Chamber, and we will go on to do the business of this Nation, but for many people who will go into a courtroom where Ryan Bounds may preside, they will experience a lesser standard of justice than they deserve, a lesser standard of justice than most judges provide. They deserve better. They are ultimately the losers, not we. It is not about us. The American people are the losers if we destroy this principle and norm that Senators must approve nominees who are from their own State.

Only rarely, very rarely, is a fraction of the nominees found unacceptable by the Senators from their States. In my experience, in my 8 years here, I think there have been maybe a few, and with good reason. But this President shows that no principle is safe and no norm is inviolate in the rightwing fringe's campaign to remake the Federal judiciary and to remake it in the image of the far right in this country.

They have an ideological agenda and no respect for quality in deciding who will serve on the judiciary. Those groups that are trying to remake the court of appeals and the Federal district courts--that is, to remake judges at the lower level--whether it is the Federalist Society or the Heritage Foundation, are also responsible for the President's decision to make himself a puppet of their recommendations, letting them pick judges who meet their anti-choice and anti-healthcare litmus tests.

Those tests really are President Trump's test. He said: I am going to appoint judges who are pro-life. He berated the Chief Justice because he was responsible for upholding the Affordable Care Act and clearly showed that he would appoint judges who would strike it down.

His decision to pick a Supreme Court Justice nominee who believes that the President should be above the law perhaps should surprise no one, but his outsourcing of that decision to those same rightwing groups that are trying to remake the lower courts is truly unprecedented. He has become a puppet of those groups in all of his judicial nominees and most particularly in his Supreme Court nominee.

I know my colleagues will want to speak tonight about Ryan Bounds and other related issues, but let me just say about Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that he has shown that he meets the Trump litmus test because he has been vetted and screened by those rightwing groups. He has shown that he would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade and that he would, in fact, strike down significant protections--indeed, protections for millions of Americans under the Affordable Care Act--from preexisting conditions.

He also believes that a President can refuse to comply with a law if he believes it is unconstitutional--if he

alone believes it is unconstitutional--even if the law was duly passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. He has written: ``Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.''

Judge Kavanaugh has also written that the President should be immune from even investigation for criminal or civil wrongdoing. Under his view, a President could not be investigated or indicted, could not be held accountable under the law, and would not have to respond to a civil suit or a subpoena or a request to be investigated by law enforcement. That is the rule he believes should be adopted.

It is clear from Judge Kavanaugh's position on Executive power that he is a staunch supporter of, in effect, an imperial Presidency. He believes a President is above the law and immune from checks and balances. This view is antithetical to our democratic principles and tradition. It is in keeping with Donald Trump's view of the Presidency. It is out of sync with what our democracy needs now, especially with this President.

President Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration of dictators like Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin. His apologists will tell us to ignore Judge Kavanaugh's view of Executive power--pretend like they don't exist--but we have a responsibility to consider them, to take into account these extreme views on Executive power. They must be a central issue in this confirmation battle.

He would, in effect, welcome legislation enabling the President to fire a special counsel for any reason or no reason at all, and if we have learned anything over the last 24 hours, it is that the special counsel's investigation must be protected. It must be protected against the concerted and coordinated, concentrated effort of the Trump surrogates and cronies to discredit or derail it. It must be protected against efforts to impeach Rod Rosenstein. It must be protected against the President's own threats, continuing to call it a witch hunt, when we see more and more in indictments and convictions that it is real and significant. Donald Trump cannot be permitted to derail it.

We will talk again about Judge Kavanaugh.

As to Ryan Bounds, the decision is for now, and because he has been rightly denied approval through the blue-slip process, because the abandonment of that process does such grave potential damage to American justice, and because Ryan Bounds is unfit by virtue of many of his views and past statements to serve on the Federal bench, I will oppose and vote against him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are at a crossroads, a historic turning point for the U.S. Supreme Court and our country. This body is often called upon to consider court nominations for the district courts and the courts of appeals, but we are at an extraordinary decision point for the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest Court in the land, a branch of government that can shape the law and culture of this country for generations to come.

When we are called upon to consider a Supreme Court nominee, ordinarily we have to read tea leaves. Ordinarily we have no way to know with certainty the values and beliefs that someone will bring to the Court. Ordinarily Presidents make every effort to persuade us that their nominees were picked on the basis of merit, not ideology. So ordinarily we look forward to hearing what nominees tell us about their beliefs and values, since they are unknown when we first hear their names.

We live in times that are the opposite of ordinary. These are not ordinary times. We live at a time when there is, right before our eyes, an ongoing assault on the rule of law in this country, coming from the President of the United States on down. We live at a time when the courts are critically important to our democracy because they are a bulwark for fundamental rights and liberty, and when the history of this era is written, I believe that our judiciary and our free press will be the heroes because they stood between the President defying the law and preserving those key freedoms and rights that are foundational to our democracy.

What we know about the President's nominee for the highest Court in the land--the most important to that effort against this assault on the rule of law--is that he will ``automatically'' vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. We know that he will vote effectively to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and to undermine protections for millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes, obesity, alcohol abuse, addiction to opioids, stroke, Parkinson's, and many other preexisting conditions. Millions of Americans suffer from those kinds of sicknesses, including more than 500,000 Connecticut residents. We are a State of about 3.5 million people, so you can do the math. There are a lot of Americans who suffer from preexisting conditions.

We know these facts because we have heard them from none other than the President of the United States, who said that his nominee would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade and who berated Chief Justice Roberts for upholding the Affordable Care Act in his decisive swing vote. When a President tells you he is trying to eliminate basic legal rights and liberties for the people of the United States, you better take him at his word, and I do. But in this case, actually we need not take the President at his word because we can review the facts--in fact, the circumstantial evidence surrounding this nomination.

The President has allowed himself to become a puppet of rightwing fringe groups--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which have been trying to strike down Roe v. Wade and overturn it for decades. As one recent news story put it, if you want a seat on the Supreme Court, the man to see is not Donald Trump; it is Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society have made clear their desire to overturn Roe v. Wade for years, and Mr. Leo's friend, Ed Whelan, brags about Leo's efforts, stating: ``No one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade than the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo.''

The President of the United States outsourced this decision to the Federalist Society and other groups long intent on overturning Roe v. Wade. They produced for him a list. He selected from that list, and the rest is an unfortunate, deeply tragic chapter in American history.

The Heritage Foundation has been vehement in its desire to overturn and strike down the Affordable Care Act and deny many Americans access to health insurance. It has fought to end protections for people who suffer from these conditions, and they are not only the ones I have mentioned but also many others that are common throughout our society. Its efforts to shape the Supreme Court are a part of a conscious, concerted strategy in a war on the ACA.

Perhaps as troubling as any other fact about this nominee, to many of us who have seen the horrific, unspeakable effects of gun violence, Judge Kavanaugh is the dream candidate of the NRA. He has taken the view that almost all commonsense, sensible measures to stop gun violence violate the Constitution.

He is the dream pick of the NRA. He is a nightmare for the students of Parkland, the survivors of Orlando, Columbine, San Bernardino, and all of the mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, and all of the victims and survivors, their loved ones, families, and friends, who know the tragic effects of those 90 people gunned down every day in America. Those 90 victims every day in this country who die as a result of gun violence bear witness to why we should reject this nominee.

Just minutes after Judge Kavanaugh's nomination was announced, the NRA endorsed him, showering praise on his extreme record against gun safety. As an appellate judge, Judge Kavanaugh heard the sequel to Heller, a case regarding the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's gun registration requirement and semiautomatic assault rifle ban. On a panel of all Republican appointees, Judge Kavanaugh was the only judge to vote to strike down both gun safety measures as unconstitutional.

His basic premise is that gun laws have to be similar or identical to laws that he considers ``traditional'' or ``longstanding.'' He rejects bans on assault weapons and gun registration requirements. He has no clear definition of what is ``longstanding'' and enables a statute to be upheld. But consider his logic. He has, in effect, ruled out any statute that bears no resemblance or connection to laws on gun violence on the books in 1789. That is a breathtaking concept of the constitutional test that should be applied to measures against gun violence.

The Founders almost certainly never considered the possibility of universal background checks at a time when it might have been impossible to do it anyway and when the kinds of firearms available were very different than they are now. By Judge Kavanaugh's logic,

Congress would seemingly be prohibited from requiring universal background checks, even though more than 90 percent of all Americans want them on the books.

That is a radical view, even for the far right. Should Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can say good-bye to a slew of gun safety measures around the country in States like Connecticut, California, New York, or, now, Florida. Many other States are realizing that they should be on the right side of history and the right side of the American people and adopt commonsense, sensible measures. They would be struck down by the logic that Judge Kavanaugh would bring to the Supreme Court. We would have fewer safeguards against the scourge of gun violence.

There is now one mass shooting every day and 90 deaths every day in America. This country is in the midst of an epidemic of gun violence--a public health emergency. With Judge Kavanaugh as a member of the Nation's highest Court, this epidemic would continue unabated.

This nominee is part of a concerted, coordinated effort to roll back the clock, to take the Nation back to a time--one of our darkest eras-- when abortion was criminalized, when women died and they were denied access to contraception and the morning-after pill, when Americans were denied healthcare because of those preexisting conditions, and when civil rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, and workers' rights were largely ignored.

That prospect is frightening. For President Trump, the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is about more than just undermining or eviscerating these fundamental rights. It is about undermining and eviscerating the rule of law.

Judge Kavanaugh has written that the President can refuse to enforce a law if he believes that it is unconstitutional--if he alone believes it is unconstitutional--even if that law was duly passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. He has written that special counsels--like Robert Mueller, who is investigating the President--should be appointed only by the President and should be removable by the President. Under that rule, Robert Mueller never would have been appointed as special counsel, and the President would be able to fire him for no reason at all--except that he is investigating the President.

Finally, Judge Kavanaugh has written that the President should not have to deal with those responsibilities or burdens that the rest of us, ordinary Americans, fulfill. A President under Judge Kavanaugh's rule could not be investigated or indicted, could not be held accountable under the law, and would not have to respond to a civil suit, a subpoena, or a request to be investigated by law enforcement. He need not be interviewed by the FBI or cooperate with law enforcement because under Judge Kavanaugh's concept the President is above the law. Nothing is more fundamental, no principle more sacrosanct in this country--no one is above the law. No President. No one is above the law.

A President who has demonstrated unprecedented disdain for the rule of law has nominated a Justice who will tell him he can ignore the law. A President who has fought tooth and nail against the special counsel's investigating some of the most serious crimes has nominated a Justice who would allow him to fire the special counsel at will for no reason. A President who faces not only the prospect of indictment but an ongoing civil suit brought by nearly 200 Members of Congress--I am proud to be leading them--for his violation of the chief anti- corruption provision in the Constitution would be declared above the law, immune from lawsuit and accountability.

We are going to continue with that lawsuit to make sure that the President obeys the Constitution and comes to Congress for consent before he accepts the payments and benefits in the hundreds of millions of dollars that he is doing every day. Judge Kavanaugh would absolve him of accountability.

These are no ordinary times. In the coming days, I will be speaking out on other areas where Judge Kavanaugh would undermine the rights of everyday Americans and put the rights of corporations and special interests above them.

Judge Kavanaugh would prevent Congress and the States from passing commonsense gun violence laws that will save lives. He would invalidate a slew of existing laws in States across the country, and he would leave powerful corporations to prey on consumers, workers, and anybody who wants to breathe clean air or drink clean water.

These prospects are not imaginary or abstract. Read his opinions and his writings. In one area of law after another, Judge Kavanaugh poses a clear and present danger to our fundamental liberties, to effective government, and to the rule of law. To the people who say to me ``What can we do?'' our challenge is a call to action. It is to mobilize and galvanize America, just as we did during the healthcare debate, when they said the Affordable Care Act would be repealed, and we mustered Americans' sense of outrage and alarm.

I say to the students of Parkland who spoke so eloquently and movingly, your time has come; to the patients who came to my townhalls in Connecticut and spoke so powerfully about their fear of what would happen to them and their insurance coverage if preexisting conditions were declared in violation of those insurance policies, your time has come; to all who care about civil rights and civil liberties, workers' rights, and gay rights, your time has come. We need to hear your voice here, just as we did during the healthcare debate, as powerfully and eloquently. The challenge is yours in stopping this nomination, as it is our responsibility to demand specific answers that this nominee recuse himself from any consideration of the President's financial dealings or the special counsel and to reject the phony platitudes and the evasive and vague answers that have been accepted before, because we know that the old platitudes adhering to settled precedent is meaningless. We do not live in ordinary times. We need extraordinary efforts to make sure that the U.S. Supreme Court remains faithful to the rule of law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his focus on the farm bill and thank him for the work we are doing together on the Consumer Protection Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I look forward to continuing that work together, which involves so closely and importantly the rule of law.

Mr. President, I come to the floor on a separate issue involving the rule of law. We have been reminded literally within the last 24 hours about the importance of the rule of law as applied to the families who have sought to cross the border and experienced extraordinary cruelty and inhumanity when their children were taken from them. A court, literally in the last 24 hours, issued an order requiring that those children be reunited with their families. That decision is not only a humane and moral one, it is also in accord with constitutional and statutory requirements. Those children never should have been separated from their parents, but now, because of the court, an excessive and abusive use of power will be corrected.

We are living in a time of unparalleled threats to the rule of law and fundamental rights and liberties from a Chief Executive who seems to have no respect for them. The courts are exercising their traditional role--in fact, the role the Founders envisioned for them as a check on unhinged Executive power.

We also learned just today that a key figure in the judicial system, Justice Kennedy, will be retiring this summer. This retirement is earthshaking and gut-wrenching, and his departure means a historic challenge is ahead. The American people should have a voice. My Republican colleagues should follow their own precedent. A confirmation vote should take place after the new Congress is seated. A historic decision--one that will literally shake the decisions of the courts for years and likely decades--requires deliberate consideration that simply is impossible in the short months we have between now and the election; indeed, politically charged months.

The future of privacy protections, women's healthcare, and many basic civil rights, including healthcare--whether young people are on their parents' insurance until the age of 26, whether people are vulnerable to preexisting condition abuses, whether people have basic healthcare rights that

are guaranteed to them under the Affordable Care Act--all of these rights are at stake and at risk.

The Supreme Court is not just marble pillars and velvet drapes. Its decisions have a direct impact on people's lives and the lives of our children. So we are in this Chamber at a critical moment when the judicial system literally will be determined for decades to come.

Nothing brings this issue home more readily and dramatically than viewing the children who have been separated from their families and the families themselves at the border.

I visited the border this past Friday, along with my colleagues Senator Heinrich and Senator Udall of Utah--two good friends and colleagues. At each stop we made, we saw the devastating human impact of this President's immoral and inhumane policies of family separation and family detention. In Tornillo, TX, we visited a tent city where teenagers, 14 to 17 years old, are confined--in effect, incarcerated in a modern-day internment camp. Make no mistake, they have been deprived of basic access to the outside world and of access by that outside world to them.

The deprivation of liberty is the core definition of incarceration, and the potential detainment of tens of thousands of families in exactly that kind of tent city located on our military bases throughout the country should frighten and alarm every American because we are seeing repeated in a different age, in color rather than black and white, the images of those internment camps where thousands of people of Japanese descent were sent during World War II.

We may not agree with every decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but we know it is unique. It is certainly different as a judicial institution. It should be considered unique in choosing open-minded and fair jurists in the mold of Justice Kennedy for these positions--not right-wing fringe ideologues.

I believe colleagues on both sides of the aisle will stand up and be counted if that kind of right-wing fringe ideologue is nominated. We certainly must use every tool available to stop that kind of nominee because what is at stake are real lives like the ones I saw in El Paso.

I met with a 2-year-old girl who trekked across Mexico with her father for a month. Her father held her as we spoke to him. He must now worry whether she will be separated from him and detained indefinitely and indiscriminately. The anguish and anxiety I saw in that girl's eyes still haunt me, and it will be with me for a long time.

We saw a legal, moral, and humanitarian crisis unfolding before our eyes in realtime. This administration claims it is solving this crisis, but the clear, virtually undisputed evidence suggests exactly the contrary. More than 100 facilities nationwide house migrant children, and the administration is looking to open even more facilities, very likely, on military bases, and little progress has been made on reuniting these families.

The Department of Health and Human Services has reported that 2,047 unaccompanied minor children are still in its custody. Health and Human Services Secretary Azar claimed before the Finance Committee yesterday that there is ``no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located.'' He claimed that ``every parent should know where their child is located.''

The reality is, there is no plan to reunite them. Thousands of parents have no idea where their children are. What is happening on the ground is that many parents are enduring the pain and suffering of simply not knowing where their child is, and many children have the pain and suffering of not knowing where their parent is. The father of the 2-year-old whom I saw clutching his child to his chest as she stared into the unknown future ahead of her has no reason to believe the Secretary of Health and Human Services because he knows what the reality is on the ground.

If the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Homeland Security can tell parents where their children are as easily as Secretary Azar claims, they should have done so yesterday. They should have done so before Friday when I visited.

We all know, from firsthand accounts, it simply isn't happening and that the emotional, mental, and physical damage to these families will last a lifetime for many of them. That trauma will be enduring. The President claims his Executive order has solved these problems, but it has not. All it has done is substitute family imprisonment and incarceration for family separation.

This Executive order is in clear violation of the Flores settlement agreement, which is legally binding on the U.S. Government. It prohibits detaining children for more than 20 days, in effect, imprisoning them with their parents, as the Executive order has the effect of doing. Putting aside the humanitarian and moral costs to this Nation and the damage to our image around the world, the cost per individual per day in Tornillo is $2,000. Let me repeat that number. The cost per individual per day for every person in Tornillo is $2,000. That cost alone, financially, is intolerable, but moral and humanitarian costs are even more profound.

This Executive order is destructive. It is draconian. It is no answer to the problem of family separation and detention. The evidence is clear from my visit to the border, so far as I am concerned but also in everything the administration said, that the time is now to end this immoral and inhumane zero tolerance policy that involves, integrally, criminal prosecution, and the rest of these issues really flow from that criminal prosecution because it triggers the imprisonment. In effect, confinement without bail is the way it would be looked at in the civilian setting.

This administration must adopt less restrictive alternatives if it wants to guarantee the appearance of these families for their hearings. We know less restrictive alternatives work, they have been proven in the past, and they also cost less. They are more humane. They protect our moral principles, and they are less expensive.

Piecemeal announcements from this administration have been contradictory and unclear. It has been the opposite of transparent. Congressional committees now must exercise our responsibility for oversight and scrutiny. There must be hearings. It must involve all the Federal agencies with responsibility. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am particularly concerned that the Department of Defense is dramatically increasing its involvement in immigration and enforcement. The plan is to build these tent camps on two military bases in Texas. Fort Bliss in El Paso is one of them, and unaccompanied children will be held at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo. The families at Fort Bliss and the unaccompanied children at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo will be, in effect, incarcerated at the bases of military men and women who serve and sacrifice for the values that will be betrayed by that illegal and immoral confinement, in violation of the Flores agreement and fundamental principles of fairness.

Military services are preparing, as well, to offer additional military bases to detain migrants. DOD has sent 21 Active and Reserve uniformed judge advocates to the border on temporary order to prosecute Department of Justice immigration cases. All of these developments represent a clear diversion of Department of Defense resources from military mission to immigration enforcement.

The Presiding Officer and I serve together on the Armed Services Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee. We both know the deep and serious consideration that was required as to resource commitments in the latest National Defense Authorization Act--the difficult decisions that had to be made in a time of scarce resources and growing danger around the world through our military and national security. I am concerned that these policies will comprise military residents and immigrants on American military installations.

I consistently oppose the use of these military installations to house unaccompanied migrant children. I will continue to oversee the Department of Defense's involvement in this critical issue.

Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the Senate Armed Services Committee must hold

an oversight hearing on this issue as soon as possible. We owe it to the American people. Family separation and detention should no longer be a political issue. We need to come together and make sure the President understands that migrant children can no longer be treated as pawns or hostages--as leverage to secure changes to parts of our immigration system that have nothing to do with the plight of these immigrant families. We should reject this President's crude and cynical political strategy. We cannot risk continuing to separate and indefinitely detain migrant families. These practices offend our basic sense of morality and justice, and they are unnecessary to protect our borders.

Yes, we all want border security. Yes, we want to stop drug traffickers and human traffickers from taking advantage of our borders. We want more resources in judges and Border Patrol agents and members of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service. They should have the resources and support they need. We met with many of the dedicated men and women who are serving in those agencies. Violating our basic sense of due process, abrogating due process rights so adjudication is denied and due process is abrogated certainly should be intolerable.

At this juncture, the emergent need that has to be addressed now is reuniting these families. If shaming the administration is what is needed, we should do it, but ultimately the rule of law will be enforced by our courts. They will be regarded in history along with our free press as the bulwark between a potentially tyrannical Presidency and preservation of our fundamental rights. Now is the time to celebrate and protect those basic rights and the rule of law.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize MG Thaddeus J. Martin on the occasion of his retirement from his position as adjutant general of the Connecticut National Guard.

A dedicated member of our military, Major General Martin has influenced Connecticut for the better and set an impressive standard for the future of the Connecticut National Guard thanks to his decades of leadership and public service. He is well regarded by his peers and has consistently proven himself as a mindful and quick-thinking leader.

Major General Martin began his military service in 1977. He received his commission in the U.S. Air Force through officer training school in 1980 and completed training as an aircraft maintenance officer in 1981. Throughout his years on Active service, he held several squadron and wing-level assignments and completed a major command headquarters tour with Strategic Air Command.

After joining the Connecticut Air National Guard in 1990, he held command positions at the squadron, group, and wing level and completed a statutory tour with the National Guard Bureau. He also served as the assistant adjutant general for the Connecticut Air National Guard prior to becoming the adjutant general of the Connecticut National Guard.

Major General Martin is the longest currently tenured adjutant general in the Nation and the third longest serving adjutant general in Connecticut's history, having reached 13 years in the position last month. During his time as adjutant general, he oversaw the Connecticut National Guard with great integrity, addressing emergencies in the area, and offering military support on behalf of the United States wherever necessary. Major General Martin's decades of service to our Nation enabled him to diligently and tirelessly carry out his responsibilities of providing forces for the Governor and Chief of the National Guard Bureau that were always mission-ready. As the direct link to National Guard State resources, he routinely worked to better prepare Connecticut and the Guard to face new challenges.

Already in his first year as adjutant general, he dealt with challenges from the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Major General Martin played a key role in establishing a lasting flying mission for Connecticut by helping to organize the transition from the A-10 Warthog to the C-130H Hercules tactical airlift platform. This flying mission recently marked its first-ever large-scale overseas deployment as a C-130 unit.

Over the past 13 years, the Connecticut National Guard has assisted with relief efforts resulting from a number of natural disasters, including Hurricanes Katrina, Harvey, and Maria, along with Superstorm Sandy, by providing essential supplies, equipment, and personnel. Additionally, over 6,000 Connecticut Army and Air guardsmen deployed in order to support international efforts. All of this was accomplished under the leadership of Major General Martin.

The Connecticut National Guard is a critical part of our State, and the unfailing commitment and leadership of Major General Martin during his tenure as adjutant general leaves his successor with an impressive and accomplished Guard that will undoubtedly continue to valiantly serve Connecticut and the Nation in the future.

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

Mr. President, as we await the details of the President's Executive order today, we know enough already to have serious and significant concerns about the continuing policy of this administration in dealing with asylum seekers coming across our borders.

Make no mistake--ending family separation would be a welcomed and humane step, but the solution cannot be the immoral and unlawful detention and imprisonment of children. Family separation cannot be replaced with

family incarceration and imprisonment. Indefinitely imprisoning children and families is still inhumane and ineffective law enforcement.

President Trump's current policy, as articulated in this Executive order, will put children behind bars indefinitely and indiscriminately, and that is intolerable in a free and democratic society. Children will experience much of the same lasting trauma that they do now in the current situation, and the world will continue to watch the spectacle of the American Government locking up innocent children and throwing away the key. Locking up innocent children indiscriminately and indefinitely is a betrayal of American values.

Much like the policy of family separation, this new policy of indefinite and indiscriminate family imprisonment hearkens back to the worst days of our country's history.

Japanese children thrown into World War II-era detention camps were imprisoned with their parents, but the days of history rightly judged that decision harshly, and history will also judge us harshly if we permit an inhumane and immoral policy to be carried out without our protests and opposition. Instead, we must now shame the administration into adopting a humane and moral policy.

This policy threatens to be costly. It will be costly in dollars and cents. The estimate is, approximately, almost $800 per day for every incarcerated person or detained individual. Even more costly will be the undermining of our moral authority and our image around the world and our own sense of offending our basic morality, our image of ourselves, and our sense of our own morality must be offended by imprisoning, indefinitely and indiscriminately, families with their children.

There are alternatives. One is stronger oversight and supervision over families who can be released without danger of flight or physical violence. These programs have been tried, and they have been proven successful. Family case management efforts have produced appearance rates above 90 percent, and those alternatives must be explored instead of detaining and incarcerating, indefinitely and indiscriminately, children with their families.

The world and all of us were repulsed by the images of children separated from their families. Those sights and sounds were searingly painful, but so must be children in cages and behind bars indefinitely, without the basic services and respect for humanity that our great Nation has epitomized.

At the core of the current administration policy is so-called zero tolerance, which results in criminal prosecution of the asylum seekers. The President has recognized the public outrage and yielded to it, but the policy of zero tolerance will continue.

The current approach of detaining and incarcerating these children indefinitely likely violates court orders issued in 1997 and 2016, but indefinite and indiscriminate imprisonment of children and families ought to violate, as well, our rules of morality and humanity.

I urge the administration to explore alternatives, to work with Congress on real reform, to support the legislation that has been supported by every Democrat in this body that would, in effect, avoid imprisonment of immigrant families.

Beyond that legislation, we should pass compassionate and comprehensive immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the shadows and improves the due process right so that adjudication is fairer and more effective.

We must shame this administration to do what is right--to end zero tolerance and support changes to our immigration system that represent the best in America, not as the House bills to be voted on today or tomorrow reflect the worst.

We are here on World Refugee Day, appropriately. We ought to acknowledge the remarkable journey of refugees and asylum seekers as they pursue freedom and opportunity over the immense obstacles they encounter. We should recognize their contributions to our country, the talents and energy they bring here. We should recognize the humanitarian importance of refugee resettlement programs nationwide.

Though victims of global conflict come here from all parts of the world, almost all of these refugees are also resilient survivors who embrace their new lives and contribute to their communities, even after these harrowing journeys to the United States. Too often we fail to recognize their contributions to American communities, but today we celebrate all that they offer.

Today, on World Refugee Day, we commemorate that Connecticut, since 2005, has resettled 7,000 refugees--our small State, with 3\1/2\ million people from all over the world, particularly in major resettlement cities like Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven.

Today, proudly, I wish to share some of the stories from refugees who have made Connecticut their home and highlight the important work my constituents are doing to support refugees. There are several refugee agencies throughout Connecticut that serve as a key touchstone for these refugees by providing essential case management and employment services. I am proud of these organizations and am grateful for the work they do.

IRIS--Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services--is Connecticut's largest refugee resettlement and immigrant services organization headquartered in New Haven. Volunteers welcome and resettle refugee families in over 35 of Connecticut's towns. Likewise, the Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants, located in Bridgeport, assists refugees and immigrants in resolving legal, economic, linguistic, and social barriers as they integrate into their communities.

Let me tell you about the journey of Issa, Aminah, and their three children. They resettled in Westville, CT, the night of the 2016 Presidential election. This family fled Syria to Jordan after one of their members was abducted and beaten by the regime. When they arrived in the United States, Issa started working as a parking attendant at a hospital parking garage, and Aminah launched a thriving catering business. Their children are thrilled to attend school again after years of educational disruption caused by their displacement.

Let me tell you about Rafid. He was an electrical engineer in Baghdad who worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during military operations in Iran. After he received death threats from insurgents, he fled with his family to Jordan and then resettled in Connecticut, where he works as a team leader at Schick Manufacturing in Milford. He also started his own subcontracting company, Golden Gate CT, to create jobs for other Connecticut residents. He is truly an entrepreneur in the best sense of that word.

Francis and Evelyne fled persecution in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to resettle in Bridgeport, CT. When they shared their story with my office, they said: ``We understood that the American Dream was alive in each of us if we wished to move forward and work hard.'' Francis and Evelyne certainly embody that American dream.

Connecticut constituents have embraced these refugee families. They have opened their hearts to these individuals and families who are seeking nothing less than the American dream and escape from the trauma of war, the violence of persecution, and the face of oppression. In the face of unimaginable upheaval and horror, they have come to this country and made that journey. I am grateful to them for their courage.

I wish to recognize one of my constituents who has demonstrated equal courage and strength, a Trinity College professor, Janet Bauer. She has dedicated her entire career to welcoming and integrating families. She established the Hartford Global Migration Lab, which connects college students and refugees. Through this program, Janet's students tutor at Jubilee House and help children with their homework at the Hartford Public Library.

Like her, Jean Silk, a coordinator with the Jewish Community Alliance for Refugee Settlement, has also worked with refugees and done immeasurable good. At a time of global conflict, when the horrors of war are all too real every day, the Trump administration has capped refugee resettlement at 45,000 this fiscal year--the lowest in American history. Even with

this cap, the estimate is that the United States will resettle only about 20,000 refugees this year.

Each of these numbers represents an individual human life transformed by coming to this country, given new light and life. I hope the administration will commit to resettling at least 75,000 refugees in fiscal year 2019.

Again, as I close, I want to emphasize the importance of this day, the historic significance of our turning a point and taking advantage of an opportunity to do right and to do better than we have. I urge that colleagues across the aisle join in supporting a policy that stops indefinite and indiscriminate imprisonment of children. It may be with their families, but it recalls the worst chapters in our history when families were detained indiscriminately and indefinitely.

When the judgment of history is made, I hope we will be spared the kind of blame that rightly went to previous generations who made the wrong decision. Let us do what is best for America. Let us exemplify the best in America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the President's Executive order about the separation of family policy and about the incarceration of family policy that has now replaced it. There are details that are unknown at this point about how this program will be working as we go forward, but we know enough right now to have the most serious and significant concerns about the President's Executive order.

Every great nation--even the greatest Nation in the history of the world like the United States of America--has moments of extraordinary shame, times when it loses its moral compass, and it simply takes the wrong direction. We can remember a number of them in our own Nation's history. One of them was the internment of Japanese children who were thrown into World War II-era detention camps and imprisoned, in effect, with their parents. Almost every lawyer in the United States of America and most citizens know the name Korematsu, and that is because it was a moment of shame for this country.

Ending family separation--the process of tearing children away from their moms and dads--is a welcomed and humane step, but the solution should not be the indiscriminate and indefinite detention of children. Family separation should not be replaced by family imprisonment. There is no moral advantage to incarcerating children as opposed to tearing them away from their parents. In fact, it is not only immoral, it is illegal. The courts have said so on a number of occasions--in 1997, in the Flores case, which is now well-known to everyone, but more recently, in fact, as recently as 2016. The reason goes to the core of our constitutional principle about how and when and whom we imprison, how we take liberty away from people.

Indefinitely imprisoning children and families is still inhumane and ineffective law enforcement. President Trump's current policies will put children behind bars indefinitely and indiscriminately. Children will experience many of the same enduring of trauma, pain, and harm. The world will continue to watch the United States of America lock up innocent children and throw away the key.

Much like the policy of family separation, this new policy of indefinite and indiscriminate family detention harkens back to those dark days, to those moments of shame in this country during World War II. History will judge us as harshly if we fail to speak out and stand up at this moment of testing. The gaze of history is upon us now. It is upon the President. It is upon every Member of the U.S. Senate.

There are immense costs to this policy--$775 a day, per individual, at these detention camps. Yet the costs are way beyond dollars and cents; they are to the moral image and authority of this country and to our self-image--the accountability to ourselves, to our own sense of morality and humanity.

The world was outraged when it saw children being torn away from parents, and now the President has acknowledged that his heart responded as well. Yet soon--and I would predict very soon--we will see images as striking, as stunning, and as repugnant as those images of taking children away from their parents when we see those images of the detention facilities, cages, and of children--young people behind bars and packed beyond capacity--on military bases and other places that were never designed to be holding facilities. The world will be outraged by those images as well--of the sights and sounds of those children.

We owe this new policy a special scrutiny and a strong sense of outrage if it is what it seems like right now. We cannot remain silent about the children who have been already separated from their parents. Nothing in this Executive order--not a word--provides for the reunification of the thousands of children who have already been separated from their parents. What will happen to them? Where are they? Where are their parents? How will they be reunited? What trauma will they continue to endure? This policy remains as inhumane and cruel for them as it was earlier today or this week.

All of us bear a responsibility in this moment. I urge my colleagues to take this day--World Refugee Day--to commemorate the great work done by brave individuals in this country who help to resettle refugees and the refugees themselves who had the courage and strength to come here after having made the journeys from shores far away and after having overcome obstacles most of us have never confronted.

There are solutions other than putting children into detention camps. There are release programs that involve oversight and supervision. There is also a case management program that has been working, along with other cities' efforts, that has been used for releasing them. We should choose the least restrictive alternative, the least burdensome one that best serves the purposes of law enforcement. Make no mistake, we have that obligation not only as a matter of heart and morality but also of law.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 2304.

Madam President, this amendment very simply directs the Postmaster General to issue a Forever Stamp to honor Gold Star families who have lost a family member in combat. It is about as simple and straightforward as an amendment to this immensely complex and costly measure could be.

We are now in the second decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at humongous costs to our Nation: In treasure, some $5 trillion, and in lives, close to 7,000 Americans have perished.

On this Flag Day, and at the beginning of the Father's Day weekend, I ask that this body approve an amendment that very simply would issue and direct the Postmaster to issue a Forever Stamp commemorating the sacrifice and loss of our Gold Star families.

All of us in this body have attended funerals. We have seen firsthand the losses suffered by brave Americans, their families, their loved ones, their friends, their dads, and their moms. All of us ought to be joining in paying tribute to those families by directing the Postmaster General to issue a Forever Stamp, which will be valid for whatever time it is used.

There is precedent for this kind of stamp. In fact, I was reminded of it by a friend and constituent, Joe Kaliko of Greenwich, CT, who was inspired by his childhood stamp collection to suggest a stamp for Gold Star families, permanently recognizing and commemorating these national heroes. The stamp was issued in 1947 for Gold Star mothers. It expired about a year thereafter. Since then, this Nation has never issued such a stamp again, but there is no better time than now to recognize this service and sacrifice.

This amendment is a very simple way to pay tribute to Americans who have lost loved ones in wars that we have permitted and authorized to go forward. Indeed, this defense bill has more than $700 billion, and a good part of it will be in support of continued American service and sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So my question to colleagues is: Who knows better about whether this stamp ought to be issued, the Postmaster General or ourselves? Their objection is that somehow there is bad precedent here in Congress authorizing a Forever Stamp. We ought to be proud of that precedent because this cause is different. Especially as we pass a measure that will support continued war efforts in defense of our Nation, protecting our national security, we ought to be especially mindful of the need to remember and pay tribute to families who have sacrificed loved ones in the service of our country.

I know that every one of my colleagues joins me in this feeling. I hope that every one of my colleagues will join me in making that feeling known to the Postmaster General. This amendment is one way of doing it.

To all of us whose sons or daughters have served--as two of mine have--during this period of war, we must be haunted by the idea that we could be one of those Gold Star families. No doubt, some of my colleagues have been touched directly and immediately--I would say almost all of us--by friends, neighbors, or relatives who have suffered these losses. Let us remember them in this special way, as the Nation did after World War II. Let us remember the moms and the dads on Father's Day, on Flag Day, and on every day.

I want to speak more generally about the National Defense Authorization Act because it is a vital and profoundly significant step toward sustaining our national defense and security.

In an era of unprecedented threats to our great Nation, the dangers have never been greater. The need for this defense--particularly in areas and domains where we are at a disadvantage, like cyber--is critically important.

The United States is the strongest and greatest Nation in the history of the world. Militarily, we have no peer. But other nations are rapidly advancing in many of the spaces and domains where our advantage was secure. In undersea warfare, in space and cyber and robotic combat, we must invest.

We need to invest not only in the hardware but also in the people--in the men and women who fight, who put their lives on the line, who wear the uniform and, equally, in the men and women who make the arms and equipment and weapons platforms they take into combat. They should never have a fair fight. The defense industrial base requires skill and training so they can make the submarines, helicopters, and Joint Strike Fighters, which we do in Connecticut and in States around this country.

The men and women who make that stuff are equally important to our national defense, and their skill training and jobs are vital to our national security. I think we need to recognize that education and training are vital parts of our defense, even though they may not be included in this bill.

I was proud to author a provision which will ensure that survivors of military sexual trauma, assault, and harassment are eligible for ``liberal consideration'' during discharge upgrade petition.

Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked to improve discharge upgrade provisions to ensure that servicemember petitions are treated fairly and expeditiously. This policy change was a crucial next step in reforming that discharge petition upgrade process.

Another provision I have led will require a zero tolerance policy toward domestic violence in the military, a long overdue provision which will ensure that offenders in the armed services are held accountable and referred to the FBI.

In defending our Nation against Russian cyber attacks, a provision in this year's NDAA will authorize USCYBERCOM to detect, deter, and defend against Russian information and weapons cyber warfare campaigns that target American Government officials. We should be doing vastly more against cyber attacks from Russia and other adversaries around the world, rather than coddling or cozying up to them, as this administration seems to want to do repeatedly. We should be recognizing they are attacking us, literally, daily in the cyber domain.

This legislation will invest in that defense industrial base, which is so vital in Connecticut and elsewhere. I am proud that Connecticut plays such a vital role in our defense industry. Five percent of our country's defense contract spending is done in Connecticut, and every dollar is critical to our national security, involving the production of submarines, electric boats, and F-35 engines at Pratt & Whitney, and helicopters at Sikorsky, notably the heavy lift CH-53. Submarines, fighters, and helicopters are proudly produced in this arsenal of democracy.

Groton, CT, is the submarine capital of the world. This bill will support submarines and this important naval installation. The NDAA includes nearly $3.8 billion for the Columbia-class program and $4.4 billion for two Virginia-class submarines. I fought to include an additional $250 million in funding above the President's request for over $3 billion in advance procurement of attack submarines to achieve the Navy's goals of 66 attack submarines for the 355-ship Navy the Nation needs. These submarines are not a luxury or convenience. They are the stealthiest, most versatile, strongest weapons platform we have, capable of delivering surveillance and special operators and cruise missiles and other vital means of war.

I have also championed more than $10.4 billion in funding for 75 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Services for the only fifth-generation fighter in production. I am so glad the administration is now supporting the F-35, after the President expressed doubts at the beginning of this administration. The bill also includes $1 billion for F-35 modernization and spares.

The 2019 NDAA includes very robust funding for helicopter production. Sikorsky helicopters, made in Stratford, CT, have served our Nation for decades. It will support collaboration involving the University of Connecticut and the Navy, $25 million above the President's request in research and development funding for warship partnerships.

As we consider these floor amendments, I want to emphasize one amendment that I have filed concerning the current immigration crisis; specifically, the predicament of unaccompanied minors.

In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared that the Justice Department would prosecute every person who illegally enters the country and separate children from their parents. Previously, families apprehended at the border were released as they waited for civil deportation hearings, but this new, cruel policy will tear apart countless families. It has already separated literally thousands of children of immigrant families from their moms and, yes, on this Father's Day, from their dads.

These heartless family-separation policies are made even more inhumane with the announcement that the Trump administration plans to house these immigrant children, who have been separated from their parents, on military bases. The only reason the Trump administration is even considering detaining children on military installations is because the number they are tearing away from their moms and dads exceeds the facilities they have available right now. The Department of Health and Human Services has already visited four military installations--both in Texas and Arkansas--to assess whether they can be used to shelter children.

Just this week, we also heard that the Trump administration is looking to construct ``tent cities''--yes, ``tent cities''--along the southern border to house unaccompanied migrant children.

This practice ought to make us ashamed and embarrassed as Americans. It is appalling. I am ashamed that the United States is not only actively destroying families and indefinitely detaining children but also using military bases to do this. Turning military installations into detention camps is a disservice to our brave military men and women. Using our military installations to in effect imprison children separated from their parents mocks their purpose and disrespects our brave men and women in uniform who rightly use them in the defense of our Nation.

My amendment in the NDAA would explicitly prohibit the Department of Defense from using any funding authorized in this defense spending package to revise or rebuild or renovate military bases to house these undocumented, unaccompanied minors.

I urge my colleagues to speak out about this disgusting and dangerous policy--not only the separation of children from their moms and dads but also the use of our cherished military bases for that purpose.

I am also proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up to the threat posed by two Chinese telecommunications companies--Huawei and ZTE. This bipartisan opposition to their continued business is a testament to our ability to work across the aisle in defense of our Nation.

Our military and intelligence leaders have repeatedly warned that ZTE and Huawei threaten the security of our networks due to their close ties to the Chinese Government. They have also violated our sanctions, broken our law, and provided equipment and services to rogue regimes, such as Iran and North Korea.

President Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross may be willing to overlook ZTE's track record, but Congress will not do so. Our amendment, which has been included in the managers' package, will prohibit ZTE and Huawei technologies and equipment from entering the networks of the U.S. Government and its contractors for the safety and security of all of us.

It is not just an intellectual point; it is a practical security measure. These two companies are instruments of Chinese influence, and they are peddling that influence throughout the world. We will ensure through this provision that these two telecommunications companies beholden to the Chinese Government are not a part of our communications system in this great Nation.

I am proud to support this NDAA.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, a U.S. Marine Corps officer, Alexander Monte, be granted floor privileges for the length of the current debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from Connecticut on a topic that has bedeviled and baffled us together almost since the time we became Senators. It is a topic that is heartrending and gut-wrenching for both of us.

I thank him for his leadership and partnership in this effort.

Mr. President, we are here on the 2-year anniversary of the tragic Orlando

nightclub attack. On June 12, 2016, a man armed with an assault rifle and a pistol, with hatred in his heart, stormed the Pulse nightclub and murdered 49 people. This man turned a safe haven, a place of joy and celebration, into an unimaginable nightmare.

On that day, and on so many other days--in fact, virtually every day--all of us who lived through the Sandy Hook massacre firsthand relived the terrible tragedy of that day in our State.

Tonight, coincidentally, Sandy Hook Promise, a group that was formed in the wake of that tragedy and has done so much good work around the country to make our Nation safer, is having its annual dinner. I will be attending and speaking there with many who were involved in seeking to make sense of that tragedy and accomplish specific, tangible, commonsense measures since then.

The Orlando nightclub attack remains the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in our Nation's history. We ought to take particular time today to commemorate this national tragedy. We also should think about the epidemic of gun violence, like Sandy Hook, and hate crimes generally across the country--which may not involve gun violence--that plague our Nation daily, the greatest Nation in the history of the world. This scourge of hate crimes and gun violence-- often the two go together--is a continuing plague.

In an average year, more than 10,300 hate crimes that are committed involve a firearm. That is more than 28 every single day.

Meanwhile, the FBI tells us that for the second year in a row, hate crime offenses are on the rise in this country, an increase of 6.3 percent from 2015 to 2016, and that increase itself follows a 7-percent increase from 2014 to 2015. These statistics are stunning. They are particularly sad, given the underreporting of hate crimes. We know that many hate crimes are never reported because of embarrassment and fear of retaliation. The real incidence of bias-motivated crimes is likely much higher than even these intolerable numbers tell.

We know that LGBT people are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group. I am heartbroken to report that LGBT people are introduced to these instances of violence at a very young age. There is no preparing children for it.

The youth experience of this kind of bias, bigotry, and hatred is extraordinarily high, and it often is manifested in violence and physical harassment in school. Students report being severely beaten and robbed by their peers. One young man recounted being beaten, driven 5 miles out of town, stripped naked, and left to walk home alone.

When we hear these stories, we should not be surprised that more than half of LGBT youth feel unsafe in their schools. We should not be surprised, but we should be outraged. We should be angry that this kind of bias, bigotry, and harassment continues to affect LGBT people. In this great Nation, it is intolerable. Schools should be places where young people learn, grow, and build friendships, free of fear of being assaulted by their peers and becoming the next victim of this unspeakable crime.

Apart from the bias, bigotry, and hate crimes that are the result of this kind of unacceptable precedent, gun violence continues to plague our schools, as well as churches, theaters, and other public places. But the plague of gun violence is not only in the mass shootings, which attract the most attention. It is the one-by-one or smaller groups that account for the 96 deaths every day and 30,000 deaths every year.

These numbers have become so familiar as to be banal. The banality of this evil is itself an insidious disease. It eats away at the moral core of our country. It continues to make us a lesser nation.

Our failure to act makes this Chamber complicit in those deaths. This body cannot avoid its moral culpability for those deaths. The Senate of the United States and the entire Congress are, in effect, aiding and abetting this epidemic of gun violence, which is probably the most deadly public health crisis that plagues our Nation right now.

Imagine if a communicable disease, say Ebola, took 90 lives every day. There would be marches in the streets and demonstrations. The country would react, but it has become so inured to this public health epidemic of gun violence that there is no reaction unless there is a massive incident like the Parkland High School shooting.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School became a turning point for this country on gun violence. When young people demonstrate, march, hold vigils, and walk out of schools--in Ridgefield, I attended one of those walkouts, a profoundly moving and important event. I believe these events can provide a turning point that will move this country into a new social change era, a new movement of social change comparable to the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement and marriage equality and women's healthcare, a movement that can truly transform this Nation, raise its consciousness, but also elicit action.

We need not only more words and rhetoric and speeches but also action on the commonsense measures that this body has failed to enact: background checks applied to all gun purchases; tightening the information that goes into the database used in those background checks, even beyond the Fix NICS bill that was a minor change adopted earlier this year; a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips; a closing of the 72-hour loophole involved in the background check system for purchases of a gun; and, of course, the hate crimes or red flag statute that enables police and family to go to a court to seek a warrant to make sure that someone who is dangerous to himself or others will not be permitted to buy or possess these weapons.

These commonsense reforms have been before us for years, and since Sandy Hook, nothing has changed. This body has been inert and reprehensibly unresponsive. We know these measures work. We know from Connecticut's experience that they reduce crime and homicides. We know from our State's adoption of these reforms that we can lessen the number of shootings, as well as deaths and injury. We know what doesn't work: arming teachers in school, a proposal rejected by the law enforcement community, by the education community, and by ordinary citizens in communities around the country.

Connecticut has shown by our experience that these commonsense, sensible measures do work, but they cannot protect Connecticut citizens alone because our borders are porous.

Even a State like Connecticut, with the strongest gun laws in the country, is at the mercy of States with the weakest because guns are trafficked across State borders. So we need national standards and national laws that will protect us in Connecticut and all around the country who are at risk.

The new social change movement, powered and fueled by young people, can break the vicelike grip that the gun lobby has held over this Congress for so many years--indeed, for decades. I have worked on this issue literally for 2\1/2\ decades or more. When I was attorney general of the State of Connecticut, I championed and we passed a measure to ban assault weapons, among other reforms. It was challenged in the court. All of the same arguments were raised then legally that are raised now. We defeated them. In fact, I tried the case and argued it in the Supreme Court. Those arguments are as invalid today as they were then--based on the Second Amendment or void for vagueness or equal protection--and they will fail in the courts just as they did in our courts then. I have never felt nearer than we are now to meaningful reform because of those students, because of those young people, because of the outpouring that is riveting America and moving us forward, but it has to be translated and galvanized into votes in this coming election and in elections to come so that the will of the people is heard here and the vicelike grip of the gun lobby is broken.

Walking out of schools and walking into polling places is what is required, and these young people are showing us the path to do it. Even while we work in that arena, organizations like Sandy Hook Promise are showing us how to educate in a totally bipartisan way and raise awareness in our schools and bring people together so that we solve our conflicts peacefully and with words, not conflict.

Scarlett Lewis, whose son Jesse was killed at Sandy Hook, has worked hard on social and emotional learning--another way to bring us together at the earliest of ages. Social and emotional learning has been her mission since Jesse's death, and she has formed a foundation to choose love, to enhance the ethos of teaching young people that they can solve their disagreements and conflicts with words and caring that they can be taught in school.

First, of course, teachers need to be taught and trained how to do that teaching, and that is why I sought an amendment to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with her inspiration to build that movement.

There will always be hateful people who want to lash out and destroy. On this anniversary of the Orlando nightclub massacre, we cannot concede defeat, and we cannot relent or relax our efforts. We need to commit to action, not just reflection or rhetoric. Every child who goes to school should do it without fear. Every person who goes to church should have no doubt about the safety of that sacred place or any other house of worship. Anyone who goes to a movie theater or to any other public place should do it without the apprehension that a person with a gun might be in wait.

For our LGBT community, we need a statute like the NO HATE Act that I have proposed--I introduced it last year--which would address the bigotry and bias that continues to plague them, not just in the hateful words but in the violence and harassment they suffer. Enforcement of the laws that exist now is absolutely essential. In fact, enhanced enforcement--devoting more resources to the police, FBI, and prosecutors who pursue these crimes--ought to be a challenge that we meet without question.

On all of these fronts, we should be united. It should be bipartisan. There should be no political division to make America safer, to make sure that we fulfill the vision of our great country that we will live peacefully together and enjoy equally the opportunities that are entitled by all of us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my law clerk, Charlotte Schwartz, be granted floor privileges for the length of my remarks during today's session.