Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to finish the colloquy of the Democratic Senators who talked about this important issue--the need to reopen the government and to stop the shutdown--and I intend to do so before 9 o'clock. I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire and all the colleagues who appeared on the floor today.

On Friday, January 11, if we do not end this shutdown, it will be tied for the longest shutdown of government in the history of the United States. It is also a payday where more than 800,000 Federal employees will not get a paycheck. My quick census research suggests that is essentially the population of South Dakota. More than 800,000 people who just want to serve their country, some of whom have been forced to work without a paycheck, will not get a paycheck on January.

Friday, January 11, is right after Christmas, when a lot of Christmas bills come due. Friday, January 11, is in the middle of winter, when heating bills are at their highest. Friday, January 11, is right before the beginning of the college spring semester, and families will be sitting around kitchen tables to write tuition checks for their kids to go to school for the spring semester. That will be this Friday.

This shutdown hurts workers. I told stories of workers in Virginia who have already suffered, and my colleagues have as well.

It hurts citizens. I had the experience two Saturdays ago of going to four Federal--either national forests or Park Service operations and seeing gates closed. I watched families come up. They had driven. They may not get a lot of vacation. They had a lot of kids in the car, and they were coming up to have fun with their families that day. I watched the looks on their faces as they pulled to the locations and saw the gates closed and the sign saying that they weren't able to enjoy the day they had planned with their family. That is not the same as missing a mortgage payment, but for families who are stretched in time and want to spend a day enjoying time with each other--I saw the looks on their faces as they were turned away.

Mr. President, you and I have worked together on an important initiative to train students, college students, to be our next cyber professionals. Today is the cyber jobs fair that the National Science Foundation sponsors for college students all over the country. It was at National Harbor. I went there. I walked by a lot of students who had come because they want to serve the country as cyber professionals, and they were having interviews. But a lot of the booths--the Department of Justice--there was a booth, there was a sign, but there was nobody there. There was nobody there from the Federal Agency to hire.

These are effects on everyday citizens, kids who want jobs, Federal agencies that want to hire workers, families who just want to go to the parks.

This is hurting workers, it is hurting citizens, and it is hurting our country.

In conclusion, I just want to say: Why? Why would we want to hurt Federal workers? Why would we want them to be without a paycheck? Why do we want to hurt everyday citizens? Why do we want to hurt the reputation of the country?

Because I could see from the looks on the faces of those getting turned away at the park not just aggravation, I could see: What kind of country is this? I am a hard-working person, I pay taxes, I am coming to a national park, I am coming to a national forest, and I am getting turned away because the President wants to shut down the government over a debate about border security.

You know, Mr. President, because you and I worked on it together, in February, $25 billion for border security, that wasn't enough. The President blew up the deal. Five years ago, $44 billion of border security wasn't enough for the Republican House.

We want to fund border security, but as I conclude, I just would say to this President: Do not hurt American workers. Do not hurt American citizens. Do not hurt the reputation of the greatest country on Earth.

I would say to my Republican colleagues, please be willing to vote and support exactly what you voted and supported just 3 weeks ago.

Why the change in position? Why was it OK in December, and it is not OK now? Is it not OK because the President suddenly said he didn't like it? Is it the job of the article I branch to play Mother May I with the President and seek his permission to be an article I branch? I don't believe it is. Let's end this shutdown. Let's reopen government. Let's do border security and immigration reform the right way.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I stand to support this.

Jamal Khashoggi was a Virginia resident. His children are American citizens and Virginia residents, and it is important for the Senate to speak on this matter.

I withdraw the objection.

Mr. President. Today, I am pleased to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, to introduce the Fair Housing Improvement Act of 2018. This legislation would advance our nation in its long pursuit of achieving equal protection under the law and protecting all Americans from discrimination. This bill would prohibit housing discrimination based on source of income or veterans status and give millions and families and veterans greater access to affordable housing and economic mobility.

Many of you know I'm a former civil rights attorney. My practice focused on fair housing and I witnessed the pain experienced by families who were discriminated against as they searched for a home. Today, veterans who are good tenants with supportive housing vouchers can be turned down for an apartment or lease renewal because of how they pay their rent. Housing decisions should be based on your merits, not harmful stereotypes about those who receive housing assistance. If you pass a screening and background check, you shouldn't be denied a place to live because of your service record or how your rent will be paid. Unfortunately, this happens in America every day and it is wrong.

This legislation has support from organizations focused on affordable housing and helping those who have served find a place to live, including National Fair Housing Alliance, National Housing Law Project, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans Association of Real Estate Professionals. Many of my colleagues in this chamber strongly support the housing vouchers that help 2.2 million veterans and low-income households live in decent, stable private market housing. I've said previously that your home is critical to your identity and central to the life of every American. I want to share a story about two of my constituents that illustrates the need for this bill.

Rudolph Nanez is a Navy veteran who lives in Virginia Beach with his wife, Jessica Youness. Rudolph moved to the United States from Spain as a teenager and earned a high school diploma. He joined the Navy and served three years on active duty, followed by several years in the reserves. Three years ago, Rudolph and Jessica faced a housing crisis and feared they would have to live on the street after temporarily relocating to a hotel. Fortunately, with the assistance of local Virginia nonprofits, they were able to find a home.

In September, Rudolph's wife Jessica contacted my office after they received an abrupt notice that their lease would not be renewed and they had to leave their home within 10 days, despite paying a portion of their rent regularly through a supportive housing voucher for veterans, known as HUD-VASH. Jessica was frustrated because, as she said, it takes time to find an apartment that will accept these vouchers. She couldn't understand why, after calling multiple apartment management companies to find an available unit, she then had to explain to the company representative what a supportive housing voucher was.

Rudolph and Jessica each have a disability and rely on public transportation. It was challenging to find housing near a bus stop and they needed time to save for a deposit on a new home. My office was able to work with the property manager to get Rudolph and Jessica's lease extended through next June.

This story had a happy ending. But it didn't have to come to this point. More than a dozen states and over 70 local jurisdictions have enacted laws to prohibit source of income discrimination in housing, and it's time Congress did the same.

Mr. President. Today, I am pleased to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, to introduce the Fair Housing Improvement Act of 2018. This legislation would advance our nation in its long pursuit of achieving equal protection under the law and protecting all Americans from discrimination. This bill would prohibit housing discrimination based on source of income or veterans status and give millions and families and veterans greater access to affordable housing and economic mobility.

Many of you know I'm a former civil rights attorney. My practice focused on fair housing and I witnessed the pain experienced by families who were discriminated against as they searched for a home. Today, veterans who are good tenants with supportive housing vouchers can be turned down for an apartment or lease renewal because of how they pay their rent. Housing decisions should be based on your merits, not harmful stereotypes about those who receive housing assistance. If you pass a screening and background check, you shouldn't be denied a place to live because of your service record or how your rent will be paid. Unfortunately, this happens in America every day and it is wrong.

This legislation has support from organizations focused on affordable housing and helping those who have served find a place to live, including National Fair Housing Alliance, National Housing Law Project, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans Association of Real Estate Professionals. Many of my colleagues in this chamber strongly support the housing vouchers that help 2.2 million veterans and low-income households live in decent, stable private market housing. I've said previously that your home is critical to your identity and central to the life of every American. I want to share a story about two of my constituents that illustrates the need for this bill.

Rudolph Nanez is a Navy veteran who lives in Virginia Beach with his wife, Jessica Youness. Rudolph moved to the United States from Spain as a teenager and earned a high school diploma. He joined the Navy and served three years on active duty, followed by several years in the reserves. Three years ago, Rudolph and Jessica faced a housing crisis and feared they would have to live on the street after temporarily relocating to a hotel. Fortunately, with the assistance of local Virginia nonprofits, they were able to find a home.

In September, Rudolph's wife Jessica contacted my office after they received an abrupt notice that their lease would not be renewed and they had to leave their home within 10 days, despite paying a portion of their rent regularly through a supportive housing voucher for veterans, known as HUD-VASH. Jessica was frustrated because, as she said, it takes time to find an apartment that will accept these vouchers. She couldn't understand why, after calling multiple apartment management companies to find an available unit, she then had to explain to the company representative what a supportive housing voucher was.

Rudolph and Jessica each have a disability and rely on public transportation. It was challenging to find housing near a bus stop and they needed time to save for a deposit on a new home. My office was able to work with the property manager to get Rudolph and Jessica's lease extended through next June.

This story had a happy ending. But it didn't have to come to this point. More than a dozen states and over 70 local jurisdictions have enacted laws to prohibit source of income discrimination in housing, and it's time Congress did the same.

Mr. President, I also rise to speak on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

When he was nominated to fill the vacancy occasioned by the retirement of Justice Kennedy, I immediately began to read all I could about his record. I reviewed his judicial opinions, law review articles, speeches, and I reviewed, such as they were made available, documents produced from his time working with the Bush administration and his work with the special prosecutor, Ken Starr.

Following the review, I met with him to ask him serious questions about his record. I then watched his Judiciary Committee hearing with interest. After that hearing, based on all I had seen and read, I announced my opposition to his nomination for two reasons.

First, the Nation needs a Justice with the backbone to stand up as an independent check against both the President and Congress. That is why our Nation gives judges life tenure, so they can render independent rulings without fear of losing their jobs.

In a whole series of writings, speeches, and rulings over the course of many years, both as a lawyer and as a judge, Judge Kavanaugh has embraced an unusual deference to Executive power. I think this is one of the reasons the President nominated him, and I don't have confidence that Judge Kavanaugh will hold the President accountable to the law.

Second, Judge Kavanaugh's writings as a Bush administration lawyer-- at least those that the majority has allowed us to see--demonstrate his personal view that settled law is settled only until five Justices decide to do something different.

This is true, as a matter of realpolitik, but I am left with serious questions about what other areas of settled law might be unsettled, should he ascend to the Court.

I can understand how my colleagues might reach different conclusions on the two issues that led me to oppose this nominee, but since I announced my position, two additional issues of great importance have arisen.

The first is how the Senate, as an institution charged with leadership, will respond to the real and pervasive problem of sexual assault. The second issue is how blatantly partisan we would want the Supreme Court to be.

Christine Blasey Ford has come forward alleging that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. Deborah Ramirez has come forward to allege that he sexually humiliated her during a party during his time at Yale.

The two allegations by two people who do not know each other, about instances that happened in different times at different places, have striking similarities. Both Ford and Ramirez allege that Kavanaugh was under the influence of alcohol and, in the presence of other people, assaulted or sexually humiliated them while others stood by laughing-- laughing. In both allegations, the sexual abuse of a woman was treated as some form of entertainment for other persons.

People who have suffered from sexual assault or harassment are watching to see how the Senate responds to these serious charges. And what do they see?

A hearing where Dr. Ford described her experience calmly, credibly, and candidly, while Judge Kavanaugh attacked her claims, as well as those of Ms. Ramirez, as nothing more than a partisan political conspiracy; a narrowly limited, 5-day investigation by the FBI, which, under orders from the White House, contacted a handful of witnesses, while dozens of witnesses proffered by Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez were ignored; and a single copy of the FBI investigation notes made available for Senators to read, provided that its meager contents not be shared with the press or public.

Even that minimal investigation raises serious concerns about these claims and Judge Kavanaugh's general truthfulness, but by moving forward to a vote anyway, the unmistakable message to survivors is that the Senate does not take allegations of sexual assault seriously.

More than 150 survivors of sexual abuse from Virginia have reached out to me to share their personal stories and ask that the Senate show we care about survivors. Some of these people are women I have known for decades who had never shared their stories with me.

A woman from Alexandria wrote:

As a citizen, veteran, assistant professor, mother,

grandmother, wife and sexual assault victim at age 17 in

1968, I want to thank Dr. Blasey Ford for her testimony. I

have never told anyone of the sexual attack, and I am 68

years old.

A woman from Sterling wrote:

I want my future daughters to grow up in a country where

sexual assault and abuse is taken seriously by every official

and legal professional in the United States.

A man from Chesapeake wrote:

As a male sexual assault victim, I understand how difficult

it is to come forward. I strongly and respectfully urge you

to attempt to empathize with those of us who have been

abused.

A survivor from Radford wrote expressing dissatisfaction with the minimal investigation, saying, ``It makes me feel like if my attacker were nominated for the Supreme Court, that I wouldn't be taken seriously either.''

A woman from Williamsburg wrote:

Dr. Ford has agreed to full investigations into her

experiences, but our leaders are failing her and every

American citizen. I watch this unfold with anticipation,

hoping that my representatives will listen to us.

An immigrant from Henrico:

When my family immigrated, an American couple who had

helped sponsor our family became my temporary legal

guardians. My sponsor mother was wonderful but did not know

that her husband repeatedly molested and raped me. It started

at age five until I returned to my family at age nine--my

older daughter's current age.

What are these survivors asking? First, that a real investigation into the charges be conducted; that the dozens of witnesses proffered by Ms. Ramirez and Dr. Ford not be ignored; and finally, that the Senate not confirm to the Supreme Court a person with a question mark by his name.

To confirm Judge Kavanaugh under these circumstances would send a powerful message that the Senate--and now possibly the Supreme Court-- is a hostile environment for survivors of sexual assault.

The second issue raised by these allegations is how partisan we want the Court to be. A person accused of any offense--especially sexual assault--is entitled to defend themselves. It is natural to be emotional and even angry of such an offense if one felt falsely accused. But Judge Kavanaugh went far beyond that. He claimed that the allegations of Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez were part of a political conspiracy connected to the Democratic Party, outside activists, and the Clintons.

The performance was insulting, and the conspiracy charge was a complete fabrication. There is no evidence to suggest that politics created Dr. Ford's account of being attacked at a party, her history of seeking counseling years before the nomination, the notes from her therapist, her willingness to take a polygraph, the results of that polygraph, the extensive corroboration of her story of alcohol-fueled house parties in the DC suburbs in 1982, or the admitted exploits of the alleged co-assailant, Mark Judge.

There is no evidence to suggest that politics created Ms. Ramirez's account of being sexually humiliated at Yale. Indeed, if the FBI were willing to interview witnesses who are now speaking publicly, there is ample evidence corroborating the account.

So when a nominee who in the past advocated slash-and-burn partisan tactics as part of the Starr investigation reveals that he still harbors partisan resentment and attempts to shrug off serious claims of sexual assault as a political conspiracy connected to ``outside leftwing . . . groups'' or the Clintons, he reveals a temperament that would be very dangerous if added to the Supreme Court. That is why retired Justice John Paul Stevens has come out urging a ``no'' vote on this nomination.

The good news is that there is a solution to this. There is a solution. We need not settle for a nominee burdened by questions regarding sexual assault allegations or excessive partisanship. There are numerous jurists who could meet the standards of a Republican President and a Republican Senate majority who do not have these issues. Why approve a nominee whose approval would send a hostile message to sexual assault survivors? Why approve a nominee whose nomination and approval would send a message of concern for those who don't share his political views? We can find a nominee who will not cause sexual assault survivors, litigants, or lawyers to fear how they will be treated by the Nation's highest Court.

For the good of the Senate and for the good of the Court, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kavanaugh nomination, and I ask the President to send up a nominee who will not hurt the reputation of either institution.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues Senator Wicker, Senator Warner, and Senator Durbin to address a pressing issue in the defense appropriations bill, and that is language to allow the Navy to proceed with a two-ship buy for aircraft carriers.

The Navy has been working on a two-ship buy since last year, culminating in its release of a request for proposal, RFP, in April. If the Navy is able to procure the next two Ford-class carriers in a single contract, initial estimates point to over $2 billion in savings, at least 10 percent. Funds that would be saved could be applied to other programs within the shipbuilding account or within the Department of Defense generally.

Those savings come about in part through the shipbuilding suppliers across the country who would be able to provide the parts and material needed to build an aircraft carrier in a much more efficient and cost- effective manner. We would be giving these suppliers some degree of predictability. Many of these suppliers are small businesses and single source suppliers who need a demand signal that the country is serious about building up the Navy fleet.

The military shipbuilding supply base is fragile and has shrunk significantly since the last Navy buildup. For nuclear shipbuilding, during the 20-year period between 1977 and 1996, Electric Boat, Newport News, and the industrial base delivered almost 90 nuclear ships in the Ohio-, Los Angeles-, Seawolf- and Nimitz-class programs. The industrial base population during that time was in excess of 17,000 suppliers. Today there are about 3,000 carrier suppliers. The predictability provided by the two-ship carrier buy would enable industry to invest in increasing the capacity of their facilities. This investment will contribute to lower shipbuilding acquisition costs and enable our country to build the Navy our Nation needs.

The two-ship buy would enable the Navy to field an aircraft carrier at least 1 year sooner than the program of record.

I was proud to work with my friend and partner in shipbuilding, Senator Roger Wicker, to cosponsor a bipartisan letter addressed to Secretary Mattis in December asking for the Department to support a two-ship buy in its fiscal year 2019 budget. In addition to Senator Wicker and me, 15 Senators cosigned, and a similar letter with 131 signatures came from the House.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to Secretary Mattis by me and my fellow Senators be printed in the Record at the conclusion of this colloquy.

When Assistant Secretary of the Navy Geurts testified before the Seapower subcommittee in April, he and I spoke about the need to get the Navy's assessment of the RFP and validation of the savings in time to support necessary legislation in the fiscal year 2019 defense bills. Secretary Geurts promised an initial look in early May, but as the authorization and appropriations processes move forward, unfortunately, we are still waiting to hear from the Department of Defense. I must say I am very disappointed with the lack of urgency which the Pentagon is displaying on this initiative.

As we wait, the great savings that this proposal would generate will erode as the Navy is only able to contract for one ship at a time.

In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, we included specific preconditions in authorizing the two-ship buy, including detail on how significant savings will be achieved and a commitment to full transparency to any changes to the funding profile.

As currently written, the defense appropriations bill would not allow the Navy to procure two aircraft carriers in one contract, and I understand this is probably out of frustration with the lack of a proposal to the committee including complete budgetary estimates and funding profiles. Again, let me say I share the concern that the Department of Defense has been slow to complete necessary analyses and present the Defense committees with a plan.

We often talk about acquisition reform and smarter buying in this body, and this is a perfect opportunity to innovate procurement and contracting. Let's not squander this chance because of bureaucratic inaction.

While I will not seek to amend the appropriations bill today, I ask the chairman of the committee, Senator Shelby, and Ranking Members Leahy and Durbin to ensure that, when this bill goes to conference with the House, the final language be written in a way that would not preclude the two-ship buy from going forward in fiscal year 2019, with all the requisite approvals from the Defense committees being preserved.

Mr. President. As the skills students need to be successful in the 21st century evolve, so too must the type of instruction they receive. Educators must provide educational opportunities that teach to the challenging State academic standards that meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. At the start of every school year we see the same news headlines about exploding class sizes and districts facing unfillable openings. Teacher and principal shortages plague the whole country, and are worst in our rural communities, but it's a problem we can solve.

In 2015-16, more than half of U.S. States reported shortages of educators in mathematics, science, career and technical education and for English learners. Further, 48 States identified special education as a shortage area in their reports to the U.S. Department of Education and half of all schools and 90% of high-poverty schools are struggling to find qualified special education teachers. If current trends continue, we would see as few as 200,000 available teacher hires each year by 2025, resulting in a gap of more than 100,000 teachers annually.

Additionally, in public schools today, the majority of the student population is comprised of students of color; however, teachers of color only comprised 20% of the teacher workforce in 2015-16. African American teachers made up more than 8% of teachers in 1987, but only made up 6.7% in 2015. It is critical for our teaching workforce to grow more reflective of the population of students it serves.

This is why I am pleased to introduce today the Preparing and Retaining Education Professionals Act, or PREP Act. The PREP Act aims to increase access to high-quality teacher and leader preparation, diversify the teacher workforce, and address the significant national teacher and school shortages. More specifically, this legislation would expand the definition of ``high need'' districts under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to include those experiencing teacher shortages in rural communities and in areas such as special education, English language, science, technology, engineering, math, and CTE, to allow for access to additional support and improvement. It would also encourage school districts to create partnerships with local community colleges and universities to ensure their programs are educating future teachers in areas where there is a shortage of educators. It would increase access to teacher and school leader residency programs and preparation training and require States to identify areas of teacher or leader shortages by subject across public schools and use that data to target their efforts. Additionally, the PREP Act increases support for teacher preparation programs at Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) or Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to support a diverse and well-prepared educator workforce.

The improvement of our country's educational system lies in our ability to prepare, support, and retain quality educators. When teachers and school leaders are equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed, they are more likely to stay in their roles and positively impact young people and their communities. As we move towards the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle see the PREP Act as a commonsense opportunity to help ensure that students in every zip code across the country have access to t well-prepared teachers and school leaders they deserve.

Mr. President. As the skills students need to be successful in the 21st century evolve, so too must the type of instruction they receive. Educators must provide educational opportunities that teach to the challenging State academic standards that meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. At the start of every school year we see the same news headlines about exploding class sizes and districts facing unfillable openings. Teacher and principal shortages plague the whole country, and are worst in our rural communities, but it's a problem we can solve.

In 2015-16, more than half of U.S. States reported shortages of educators in mathematics, science, career and technical education and for English learners. Further, 48 States identified special education as a shortage area in their reports to the U.S. Department of Education and half of all schools and 90% of high-poverty schools are struggling to find qualified special education teachers. If current trends continue, we would see as few as 200,000 available teacher hires each year by 2025, resulting in a gap of more than 100,000 teachers annually.

Additionally, in public schools today, the majority of the student population is comprised of students of color; however, teachers of color only comprised 20% of the teacher workforce in 2015-16. African American teachers made up more than 8% of teachers in 1987, but only made up 6.7% in 2015. It is critical for our teaching workforce to grow more reflective of the population of students it serves.

This is why I am pleased to introduce today the Preparing and Retaining Education Professionals Act, or PREP Act. The PREP Act aims to increase access to high-quality teacher and leader preparation, diversify the teacher workforce, and address the significant national teacher and school shortages. More specifically, this legislation would expand the definition of ``high need'' districts under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to include those experiencing teacher shortages in rural communities and in areas such as special education, English language, science, technology, engineering, math, and CTE, to allow for access to additional support and improvement. It would also encourage school districts to create partnerships with local community colleges and universities to ensure their programs are educating future teachers in areas where there is a shortage of educators. It would increase access to teacher and school leader residency programs and preparation training and require States to identify areas of teacher or leader shortages by subject across public schools and use that data to target their efforts. Additionally, the PREP Act increases support for teacher preparation programs at Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) or Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to support a diverse and well-prepared educator workforce.

The improvement of our country's educational system lies in our ability to prepare, support, and retain quality educators. When teachers and school leaders are equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed, they are more likely to stay in their roles and positively impact young people and their communities. As we move towards the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle see the PREP Act as a commonsense opportunity to help ensure that students in every zip code across the country have access to t well-prepared teachers and school leaders they deserve.

Mr. President, I regret it is necessary to introduce legislation that prevents a President from withdrawing from NATO. Our allies with whom we have fought alongside since World War II and earlier in some cases, are seriously questioning our allegiance for the first time in the history of the modern international order. President Trump has chosen to call our European allies ``foes'' while aligning himself with a brutal and repressive authoritarian, Vladimir Putin, over the professional assessment of the U.S. intelligence community. Troubling news continues to flow from the President's disastrous trip to Europe for the NATO summit and his meeting with President Putin in Helsinki. And for the first time ever, we are forced to ask what options we have to preserve U.S. membership in the primary tool of peace and stability for the last 70 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

In response to the only invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, more than 1,100 servicemembers from our NATO allies have given their lives fighting alongside the United States. This is a sacrifice that should not be so easily cast aside by our President who continues to inaccurately depict the alliance as a protection racket and ``obsolete.'' While we must continue to press every country to continue increasing defense spending to meet the agreed upon goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024, it is disconcerting to watch the President disparage these allies and make threats to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. Unfortunately, without action from Congress, this President might try to terminate U.S. membership in NATO. For this reason, we must affirmatively pronounce our legal position with regards to NATO, use our constitutionally required power of advice and consent to block any withdrawal and we must preemptively authorize legal proceedings to challenge any future decision to withdraw.

This legislation I am introducing today along with Senators Gardner, Reed, and McCain, is a bipartisan message to the President and the necessary tool needed to block the President from terminating the NATO treaty. It is the affirmative position of the United States Senate, supported by this Bill, and previous resolutions passed by this Congress, including and by the original vote of 82-13 in 1949 to give the Senate's advice and consent to join NATO, that the United States of America through their elected officials are unequivocally opposed to the U.S. withdrawing from NATO. This legislation also asserts our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent to U.S. membership in treaties. Just as the President sought and received the advice and consent to enter into NATO, the President must also receive the advice and consent to terminate treaty membership--especially when such a decision would be at odds with the opinion of the Senate and the American people. Finally, this Bill will authorize Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate in challenging any decision to withdraw from NATO and specifically grant Federal courts jurisdiction to consider the case.

I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill to ensure that the opinion of the Senate is upheld and the safety of the American people prioritized through our continued membership in NATO. I strongly encourage my colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I regret it is necessary to introduce legislation that prevents a President from withdrawing from NATO. Our allies with whom we have fought alongside since World War II and earlier in some cases, are seriously questioning our allegiance for the first time in the history of the modern international order. President Trump has chosen to call our European allies ``foes'' while aligning himself with a brutal and repressive authoritarian, Vladimir Putin, over the professional assessment of the U.S. intelligence community. Troubling news continues to flow from the President's disastrous trip to Europe for the NATO summit and his meeting with President Putin in Helsinki. And for the first time ever, we are forced to ask what options we have to preserve U.S. membership in the primary tool of peace and stability for the last 70 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

In response to the only invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, more than 1,100 servicemembers from our NATO allies have given their lives fighting alongside the United States. This is a sacrifice that should not be so easily cast aside by our President who continues to inaccurately depict the alliance as a protection racket and ``obsolete.'' While we must continue to press every country to continue increasing defense spending to meet the agreed upon goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024, it is disconcerting to watch the President disparage these allies and make threats to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. Unfortunately, without action from Congress, this President might try to terminate U.S. membership in NATO. For this reason, we must affirmatively pronounce our legal position with regards to NATO, use our constitutionally required power of advice and consent to block any withdrawal and we must preemptively authorize legal proceedings to challenge any future decision to withdraw.

This legislation I am introducing today along with Senators Gardner, Reed, and McCain, is a bipartisan message to the President and the necessary tool needed to block the President from terminating the NATO treaty. It is the affirmative position of the United States Senate, supported by this Bill, and previous resolutions passed by this Congress, including and by the original vote of 82-13 in 1949 to give the Senate's advice and consent to join NATO, that the United States of America through their elected officials are unequivocally opposed to the U.S. withdrawing from NATO. This legislation also asserts our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent to U.S. membership in treaties. Just as the President sought and received the advice and consent to enter into NATO, the President must also receive the advice and consent to terminate treaty membership--especially when such a decision would be at odds with the opinion of the Senate and the American people. Finally, this Bill will authorize Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate in challenging any decision to withdraw from NATO and specifically grant Federal courts jurisdiction to consider the case.

I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill to ensure that the opinion of the Senate is upheld and the safety of the American people prioritized through our continued membership in NATO. I strongly encourage my colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I also rise to speak about our Federal workforce.

In Virginia, there are about 170,000 Virginians who are Federal employees. The density of Federal employees in our State is significant. I follow the comments of my colleague from Washington. They do all kinds of very important work. I think about the nurses at the Wounded Warrior hospital at Fort Belvoir, who are DOD civilian Federal employees. I think about folks who work in the Appalachian Regional Commission trying to help the Appalachian part of our State find economic strategies to move ahead. And there are so many others. I rise on their behalf to speak with significant concern about what the administration is doing.

The Executive orders the President issued are part of a concerted effort to go after Federal employees, the majority of whom are hard- working individuals driven by the pursuit of public service.

Under this administration, before these Executive orders, the workforce had already been subject to hiring freezes, proposed pay freezes, and cuts in their retirement. These additional Executive orders severely restrict or eliminate longstanding workplace rights and perpetuate less-than-optimal working conditions. They are being hastily implemented by managers across executive branch agencies, many of whom are political appointees who don't have history or expertise in working with particular agencies. Existing collective bargaining agreements are being torn up or ignored without good-faith negotiations.

Let me talk about the implications for hundreds of thousands of Federal employees.

First, under the Executive order of the administration--and this may be the one I am most concerned about--it will be easier to fire employees without due process, which leaves employees open to retaliation for personal or political reasons.

We have seen not just the administration but the President himself fire notable Federal employees--the FBI Director, for example, and others--and call others into question and challenge them publicly, in public settings, for just doing their jobs. What most incites the President to try to attack these Federal employees is if they take any position that he views as disloyal to him. If they are doing an investigation into ethical violations or other improprieties, then he goes after them and even fires them.

Leaving employees open to being fired because the political leader doesn't think they are loyal enough is not the system we should have or allow. Making it easier to fire employees without due process--we have seen how the President can use these authorities, and I don't think we want to expand them.

The orders also severely eliminate collective bargaining between agencies and employees. These agreements are relied on to ensure that employees have fair representation in the workplace, and now they are often being replaced with take-it-or-leave-it guidelines crafted by political appointees who may not understand an agency's mission.

I will conclude and tell you what I am hearing from Virginia. We have already heard firsthand accounts just since May 25 from Virginia and other agencies about the effect of these Executive orders.

We have a Social Security Administration office in Falls Church. The Social Security Administration is a pretty important agency because people who rely on Social Security deeply need it. The agency deals with all kinds of issues, from the processing of Social Security checks to determinations about Social Security disability benefits.

At the SSA office in Falls Church, VA, the agency notified union representatives that they are not allowed to use office space, computers, or email--not even on personal devices or personal time--to discuss personnel matters with employees. What kind of manager of employees would prohibit discussion of employment matters in the workplace or even on personal time or personal devices? What that means is that union officials, who are subject to valid and protected collective bargaining agreements, have to do all their representational work at home in order to honor their members' rights, which are guaranteed by law to be represented.

The HHS headquarters, where many Virginians are employed, is using Executive orders to say that they don't need to bargain with unions over grievance procedures, transit subsidies, and telework. At the HHS, the agency recently sat down at the table for a discussion but then only allowed the discussion to occur for a few hours before unilaterally getting up, walking out, and declaring that it was over.

We should have strategies and policies that encourage cooperation between management and employees, not pit them against one another, as this administration is currently doing.

With that, Mr. President, I speak on behalf of all of these good people in Virginia, particularly to raise the concern about weakening protections so employees can get fired without any kind of due process. I think that leaves them open to retaliation, firing for political reasons--other than the merits of the work--and I rise to speak against it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, nearly 5 million young people ages 16 to 24, or 1 in 9 youth, are disconnected from both school and work. These disconnected youth often face significant barriers; they are three times more likely than other youth to have a disability, twice as likely to live below the federal poverty threshold, and significantly more likely to live in racially segregated neighborhoods. Disconnection can leave young people without the entry-level work experience and post-secondary credentials they need to succeed in the workforce and with significantly less lifetime earnings than the typical worker.

Disconnection also imposes significant costs on affected young people, their communities, and the overall economy. According to Measure of America, in 2013, youth disconnection resulted in $26.8 billion in public expenditures, including spending on health care, public assistance, and incarceration.

Dedicated Federal funding to support summer and year-long employment for youth can help to mitigate and prevent disconnection, as well as help young people, their communities, and the economy to flourish and develop our future workforce. Twenty years ago, dedicated Federal funding supported an estimated 500,000 summer jobs for youth. However, when the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) eliminated Federal stand-alone funding, participation in summer youth employment programs dropped by 50 to 90 percent in most local areas. Through targeted resources and supports, including funding for summer and year-long employment and comprehensive supports for youth, we can move closer as a country toward reconnecting the millions of young people who have slipped through the cracks and prevent disconnection from occurring in the first place.

This is why I am pleased to introduce today The Opening Doors for Youth Act. The Opening Doors for Youth Act aims to assist the 5 million at-risk young people who are disconnected from both school and work find summer or year-long jobs that help them to succeed in future careers. The bill provides, Federal funding so local communities can create partnerships with businesses, mentoring, financial literacy planning, and other supportive services. Through the partnerships, workforce boards can use funds to cover up to 75 percent of wages for each eligible young person participating in the program.

Young people play a critical role in our economy and communities and we must ensure that they have the resources and skills to find and maintain jobs that set them up for future success. With the right resources, city governments, local workforce boards, school districts, and employers can work together to help us close the employment gap we're seeing for at-risk young people. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle consider The Opening Doors for Youth Act commonsense legislation that moves the needle forward on promoting access for all youth to meaningful employment.

Mr. President, nearly 5 million young people ages 16 to 24, or 1 in 9 youth, are disconnected from both school and work. These disconnected youth often face significant barriers; they are three times more likely than other youth to have a disability, twice as likely to live below the federal poverty threshold, and significantly more likely to live in racially segregated neighborhoods. Disconnection can leave young people without the entry-level work experience and post-secondary credentials they need to succeed in the workforce and with significantly less lifetime earnings than the typical worker.

Disconnection also imposes significant costs on affected young people, their communities, and the overall economy. According to Measure of America, in 2013, youth disconnection resulted in $26.8 billion in public expenditures, including spending on health care, public assistance, and incarceration.

Dedicated Federal funding to support summer and year-long employment for youth can help to mitigate and prevent disconnection, as well as help young people, their communities, and the economy to flourish and develop our future workforce. Twenty years ago, dedicated Federal funding supported an estimated 500,000 summer jobs for youth. However, when the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) eliminated Federal stand-alone funding, participation in summer youth employment programs dropped by 50 to 90 percent in most local areas. Through targeted resources and supports, including funding for summer and year-long employment and comprehensive supports for youth, we can move closer as a country toward reconnecting the millions of young people who have slipped through the cracks and prevent disconnection from occurring in the first place.

This is why I am pleased to introduce today The Opening Doors for Youth Act. The Opening Doors for Youth Act aims to assist the 5 million at-risk young people who are disconnected from both school and work find summer or year-long jobs that help them to succeed in future careers. The bill provides, Federal funding so local communities can create partnerships with businesses, mentoring, financial literacy planning, and other supportive services. Through the partnerships, workforce boards can use funds to cover up to 75 percent of wages for each eligible young person participating in the program.

Young people play a critical role in our economy and communities and we must ensure that they have the resources and skills to find and maintain jobs that set them up for future success. With the right resources, city governments, local workforce boards, school districts, and employers can work together to help us close the employment gap we're seeing for at-risk young people. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle consider The Opening Doors for Youth Act commonsense legislation that moves the needle forward on promoting access for all youth to meaningful employment.

Mr. President, I rise to follow my leader and talk about this issue of great importance.

Let me begin with something I cherish. I have a photo, taken on December 1, 2016, of one of my children in snowy fields in Lithuania in a U.S. military operation with NATO troops called Operation Iron Sword. The photo is of my son taking the oath of office to become a captain in the United States Marine Corps. He was deployed with 1,200 members of his battalion on the border of Russia between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, to protect America against a nation that General Joe Dunford, the head of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, describes as our principal adversary. These 1,200 young men and women were deployed far from home, working together with a nation on the Russian border to protect them and to protect our country.

My son was not alone with the Marines; there were also troops from many NATO nations and Lithuania and troops from other service branches of the United States. I hope you will forgive me for being a little bit Marine-centric.

The Marine motto ``Semper Fidelis'' means ``always faithful,'' but I think that motto applies not just to marines but to all who wear the uniform in the United States, certainly those helping the European allies counter Russian aggression and those 1.3 million people on Active Duty today--``always faithful.''

After the last week, a very profound question has been raised. While our troops can carry that and meet that ``always faithful'' standard, I think we have some significant questions about this President. Would he meet the same standard--``Semper Fidelis,'' ``always faithful''? Would he meet it for this country? Will the Senate meet the ``always faithful'' standard?

In the President's first year and a half in office, exercising the responsibility to be a Commander in Chief, I would say he has been a bit more of a ``disruptor in chief.'' We have had Presidents of both parties since the beginning of the 20th century--Presidents Wilson, FDR, President Truman, President Reagan, other Presidents of both parties--who always tried to be Commanders in Chief, who tried to be builders of security, builders of alliances. That is not the path the current President has taken. He has tried to be more of a disruptor.

He has pulled America out of a diplomatic deal with Iran that allied nations in the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran was complying with. I am not aware of the United States ever unilaterally backing out of a deal when there was a consensus that the other nations were complying with it.

He has pulled us out of a climate accord that we reached with other nations in Paris.

He has unilaterally decided that the United States would be the only holdout nation not participating in a U.N. global compact on migration to try to deal with the problem of migrants around the world.

He has loved to name-call our allies. It was shameful last week on his trip

to Europe that, essentially sitting in Prime Minister Theresa May's front office, he trashed her--one of our great allies. He trashed Angela Merkel, and he has done this before to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister of Australia. Important allies of the United States have found themselves being name-called by this petty man. He has undercut valuable U.S. alliances. He described last week the European Union and Europe as our principal foe. He has repeatedly described NATO as obsolete. He has now launched trade wars against allies of the United States, asserting that national security demands that he do so.

The Presiding Officer and I were together in a meeting with the Canadian Foreign Minister in the last couple of weeks. She looked us in the eye and asked: Do you know how insulting it is that you would describe Canada--with the longest, undefended border in the world with another country, your ally in every war since the War of 1812, whose troops are serving side by side with Americans in Afghanistan, and who are fighting ISIS in Iraq today--as a national security threat?

We heard the same thing from Germany's Foreign Minister in the aftermath of this parade of insults against our allies last week. In the aftermath of using a national security waiver against our allies, the German Foreign Minister said just yesterday--and these should be painful words for anybody who cares about this country--that the United States is no longer a reliable ally.

To top all of this off, if there is a new low--and it may be debased even further tomorrow--it is the President's performance of standing next to Vladimir Putin, whose aggression against other nations, including the United States, has put troops, like my son, on the Russian border to work with allies halfway around the world--far from their families, far from their homes--and taking Putin's side over that of patriotic Americans who are working in our national security establishment and who have unanimously concluded that Russia attacked our 2016 election.

For him to say ``Well, my people say they did, but he says they didn't; I can't see why Russia would,'' what an abomination to all of the hard-working Americans who are with agencies like the CIA and the FBI and with other national security agencies who have reached a consensus opinion that Russia cyber attacked the integrity of our elections. To have watched this President stand on the stage publicly and say that he believed Vladimir Putin over patriotic Americans who were doing this work was a new low. They attacked us.

A President who would say there are good people on both sides of a White supremacy rally when there were three people killed in Charlottesville, VA, including two State Troopers I knew, is the same President who would stand next to a dictator who attacked us and take his side over the side of American security professionals.

So I return to the question. The Americans who wear the uniform, whether they be marines or not, are always faithful. The President's performance, especially in the last week, raises deep questions about whether he meets that standard. Yet I think, for purposes of today, as I conclude, the question has to be: Will the Senate meet the standard?

I don't expect anyone in the administration to check this bad behavior. Some may encourage the President to do differently. Some may try to check the bad behavior, but I don't think they will be able to. I think we would be naive, frankly, to think that the House of Representatives would check the bad behavior. The fact that the Select Committee on Intelligence's investigation on the House side has gone off the rails suggests that it will not.

The question is posed pretty starkly, and it sits directly on our shoulders: Will the U.S. Senate take the steps to protect this country from the destruction we are seeing right now?

There needs to be a briefing of the Senate as to what was going on last week and what was discussed with Vladimir Putin and what could be the justification for the horrible capitulation we saw.

We need to do all we can to protect the Mueller investigation and let it reach its end point so we know who was culpable and how to protect our elections. The Russians who have invaded our election system need to be extradited to the United States. The administration needs to implement the sanctions legislation that this body passed by 98 to 2.

We also need to grapple with election security questions. I was a mayor and a Governor with boards of elections that ran elections, and no one has confidence that this President and this administration will protect American elections.

As I close, I will just say--and I have not said it in the time I have been in the Senate, and I hope I never say it again--that I think this issue and this time may well be one of the most important moments in the history of the entire U.S. Senate. We will either rise to the occasion and will show that we are always faithful or we will not. I hope we will.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise on World Refugee Day to thank the American public for standing up against the heartless decision by the Trump administration to separate children from their families at the southern border of the United States. Because the administration's policy triggered our moral gag reflex, you spoke up loudly--everyday citizens, business executives, faith leaders, Governors pulled back Guard troops from missions on the border, and airlines announced they would not facilitate separation of families by flying children hundreds of miles away from their parents. Because of you, the American public, this administration has altered its cruel policy, at least for the time being.

A new Executive order suggests that families will not be separated, but many questions remain. Will they be detained indefinitely? Where will they be detained? What process will be used to determine their fate? Will people seeking to use our legal asylum process be treated like criminals?

The most urgent question I have is this. What is the fate of the 2,300 children you have stripped away from their families? How will you assure that these children are properly returned to parents who are worried to death about them?

Congress has to exercise the most persistent oversight to ensure that these children are restored to their families. An administration that so cavalierly separated them from their parents out of a mistaken belief that the American public wouldn't care about it can hardly be trusted to reunite these families with speed and compassion. We have to stay on the task to ensure that they do.

Much has been said about the trauma inflicted upon these children taken from their parents. I want to say a word about how traumatic it is for a parent to have a child taken away without any idea when or if a child will be returned. Marco Antonio Munoz was a 39-year-old father from Honduras who made the difficult trek to the United States with his wife and 3-year-old boy. They came here in May after his brother-in-law was murdered by a drug gang near Capon. Honduras has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, and they just wanted their family to be safe. The family crossed into the United States on May 12, in Granjeno, TX--a popular crossing point for Central American families and teens who want to turn themselves in and seek asylum in the United States.

I know a little bit about families like the Munoz family. I lived in Honduras in 1980 and 1981 and have returned a number of times, most recently in 2015. The violence in these neighborhoods is severe, driven by gangs connected to a drug trade that has its origins in American demand for illicit drugs produced in Mexico, Central, and South America. The violence in these Honduran neighborhoods has a direct connection to the sad reality of addiction in the United States. When a family like the Munoz family leaves their home, they leave everything behind, and all they have is each other.

When the Munoz family was taken into custody in the United States, Border Patrol agents told them the Trump zero tolerance policy meant they had to be separated, and Mr. Munoz, the father, had a panic attack.

As one border agent said: ``They had to use physical force to take the child out of his hands.''

That is called being a parent. If you tried to take my child out of my hands, I will hold on with every ounce of strength in my body.

They took Mr. Munoz away. They put him in a car to take him to a kennel-like jail, and he fought in the car. He tried to escape when they took him out of the car. When they put him in the kennel, he rattled the cage he was in. They decided the cage wasn't strong enough, so they then transported him to a regional jail in McAllen, TX, and put him in a padded cell. The next morning, when they came to visit him, he was dead in his cell, a victim of suicide, with a piece of clothing wrapped around his neck.

An agent who found him expressed confusion about why Mr. Munoz would ``choose to separate himself from his family.'' It wasn't Mr. Munoz who chose to separate himself from his family; it was a decision by this administration to punish him and his family that separated him from his family, and with no knowledge when or if he would see his wife and 3- year-old son again, he killed himself.

When you have left your entire life behind, and all you have is your family, how can anyone fail to understand how painful it is to lose them?

As we try to reassemble 2,300 families whom this administration has spread to the winds, there will be at least one 3-year-old boy who will not be able to reunite with his father.

I ask this President, I ask the Attorney General, I ask the Secretary of Homeland Security, was it worth it? Was it worth it?

I yield the floor.