Floor Statements

Mr. President, in light of the vote later today on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy legislation, or S.J. Res. 54, I rise today to discuss the situation in Yemen and the path forward. As many know, over the last year I have focused persistently on the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

My activities have been manyfold. I have issued letters to the administration and the Saudi Government, an administration nomination, hearings, a Senate resolution, and countless meetings, briefings, and phone calls with senior administration officials, Saudi officials, and leaders of the NGO community.

My goal? My goal has been to address impediments to the delivery of humanitarian assistance--food, fuel, and medicine--into the country of Yemen.

Now, we have seen some progress, and I have been encouraged by this. The USAID-funded World Food Programme cranes have been delivered, and the Red Sea ports have been opened. According to the United Nations, since the ports were open, we have seen more than 884,000 metric tons of food and more than 410,000 metric tons of fuel delivered to the ports of Hodeidah and Saleef alone.

Of course, we understand the importance of the food. But why is the fuel so important? Well, without the fuel, you can't run the water treatment facilities and, therefore, the cholera epidemic that has broken out in Yemen will only get worse. So 884,000 metric tons of food and more than 410,000 metric tons of fuel have resulted in the saving of countless of lives in Yemen.

Look, there is a continued humanitarian crisis in Yemen. A lot of problems persist, and we need to address those. We have seen progress with respect to the delivery of some of the humanitarian assistance I mentioned, but commercial and humanitarian vessels have been offloading their lifesaving cargo less quickly than we would like. So there is a lot left for us to do.

The National Security Council presidential statement issued on March 15 related to Yemen indicated that there are still over 22 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. This is the world's largest humanitarian disaster. The risk of famine persists for millions of Yemenis.

The Saudi-led coalition continues, unfortunately, to impose unacceptable delays on ships carrying food and fuel into Yemeni ports. According to the U.N., the Saudi-led coalition caused 5.9 days of additional delay in the month of February on ships going to the major ports of Hodeidah and Saleef. Those delays continue this month.

Now, why does this matter? Well, this matters, of course, because we don't want people to suffer. It is inconsistent with our basic human values. It is inconsistent with what we Americans believe. When people suffer, it also exacerbates a national security crisis. It facilitates radicalization.

In fact, last week I chaired a Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on this very topic--the connection between food insecurity, specifically, and the instability or radicalization of those who are food insecure. The hearing demonstrated that there is now a strong, evidentiary, and academic basis to conclude that it is in America's clear national security interest to address food insecurity, as well as a lack of fuel and medicine. A retired Marine Corps general testified at that hearing, Lieutenant General Castellaw. I thought he put it succinctly. He said: ``Food crises [can] grow terrorists.'' Well, we have seen a lot of terrorists grown in Yemen in recent years.

The longer the civil war persists in Yemen, the worse the humanitarian crisis will grow. This will radicalize yet more people and provide even further opportunities to Iran to undermine our national security interests and those of our partners.

What are our objectives in Yemen? That is a fair question. It is one that all of us as policymakers and, really, all Americans ought to be asking. Well, consistent with our humanitarian principles and our national security interests, I believe we have to continue to pursue two primary objectives. First, we want to address the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, and, second, we want to press all parties to end the civil war.

The real question here--because I don't think there is agreement on those two primary objectives--is how can we best achieve these two goals? That takes me to the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution before us today. We, of course, need to fulfill our article I constitutional responsibilities. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution indicates that it is Congress's responsibility to declare a war, and it is Congress's responsibility to authorize the use of military force. I share Senator Lee's conviction, Senator Sanders' conviction, and Senator Murphy's conviction that we need to take that responsibility very, very seriously. This is why I introduced an authorization for the use of military force last year. It is also why I have been working with Chairman Corker of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kaine, and other members of the committee to break a logjam in negotiations--some principled disagreements that exist with respect to what the authorization for the use of military force should look like moving forward.

We have finalized an updated AUMF against Islamic terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS that will merit consideration in coming weeks. In fact, we heard from Chairman Corker. He has now offered a public assurance that there will be hearings on the issue of authorizing military force and there will be marking-up and reporting of legislation so that this 17-year-old authorization for the use of military force can be re-upped. My own view is that whatever one thinks of the legal merits of this long war under the authorizations given in 2001 and 2002, the further away we get from that point in time, where a past Congress authorized force, the more attenuated that argument is and the less power it has. Moreover, we owe it to the men and women in uniform to consistently debate our involvement in overseas conflicts. So I commend the chairman for agreeing with other members of the committee that we need to have hearings and to pass legislation specifically on this matter through the committee of jurisdiction through what we call regular order.

Let me share with those who are watching my remarks here today what I believe the wrong approach is. I believe S.J. Res. 54 is the wrong approach. That resolution sidesteps the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It doesn't lead to the sort of fulsome debate. It doesn't allow us to hear from professional witnesses and members of the administration the way a formal committee hearing and markup would allow.

Moreover, the legislation is never going to become law. It will never become law. It is an exercise in messaging. Now, messaging is important. We need to make the argument, and I respect my colleagues for making their principled arguments. They are strong in conviction, and they make each of them quite articulately. But the administration has already indicated that the President wouldn't sign this into law. The administration has already indicated that they do not regard, under the law, that we are engaging in hostilities, which is required to trigger the law they have invoked. So this will never become law.

Moreover, we most certainly will not be overriding a Presidential veto should this pass out of the Senate and the House and go to the President, whereupon he would veto it. So this will never become law.

The last reason I think S.J. Res. 54 is the wrong approach is because it will not achieve our shared objectives. It would fail to achieve its stated objective because the administration rejects the premise of the Sanders-Lee legislation related to hostilities, as I have already stated.

So there is a better approach. Rather than just criticizing S.J. Res. 54--and let me be careful to distinguish between criticizing the legislation that we will be voting on later and my colleagues, because I have great respect for my colleagues and their motives. I wanted to play a more constructive role in this debate. So I wanted to introduce legislation that would provide leverage to pressure the Saudis to actually end the civil war in Yemen and to actually improve the humanitarian situation. At the same time, we have to acknowledge and respond to Iran's malign behavior in Yemen, as well as the presence in Yemen of ISIS and AQAP--al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. This is arguably the most aggressive and most dangerous al-Qaida franchise in the world. We also have to recognize Saudi Arabia's legitimate right to not have ballistic missiles launched into their cities. This is our partner.

So I wanted to develop a bipartisan compromise that could actually pass out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be passed by both Chambers, and signed by the President of the United States. I think we are well on our way to doing that. I wanted to develop legislation that would actually further its stated purpose and our objectives in Yemen-- ending the civil war and addressing the humanitarian crisis.

So that is why I and Senator Shaheen introduced S.J. Res. 55 on March 8. Now, since then, we worked with the committee, we have worked with members of both parties, and we have worked with the administration and outside experts to further refine our legislation, making numerous substantive changes and principled compromises.

The current version of our legislation would require the Department of State to certify in an unclassified and written report that Saudi Arabia is undertaking the following: No. 1, an urgent and good-faith effort to conduct diplomatic negotiations to end the civil war in Yemen; No. 2, appropriate measures to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Yemen by increasing access for Yemenis to food, fuel, and medicine, including through Yemen's Red Sea ports, the airport in Sana'a, and external border crossings with Saudi Arabia; and, No. 3, demonstrable action to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure resulting from its

military operations in Yemen, including by complying with applicable agreements and laws regulating the use of cluster munitions and other defense articles and services purchased or transferred from the United States.

Now, if the Department of State can't make that certification, then U.S. air refueling missions, which are essential to the Saudi coalition's operations, would end. They would be prohibited under our law. Given the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and our national security interests there, I appreciate Chairman Corker's commitment today to mark up Yemen legislation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when we return from recess in April.

So based on this reasoning, which I have laid out quite clearly here today, I plan to oppose the Sanders-Lee-Murphy legislation today. Instead, I will support legislation like ours that could actually become law and would provide the administration the leverage they need to result in real change in Yemen.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 387.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to speak in support of two pieces of legislation I introduced that are included in the continuing resolution we will vote on today: the Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act and the Modernizing the Interstate Placement of Children in Foster Care Act. Both of these bills are very important to Hoosiers, and I am glad we will finally see them become law after 6 years of working in a bipartisan way to get them across the finish line.

Let me tell you why these two measures are so important to Hoosiers and really to all Americans. The Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act empowers our public and private sectors to implement evidence-based social and public health interventions to address some of our Nation's most pressing social challenges.

America has a celebrated and vibrant civil society. We have a history of not turning first to government to solve some of our thorniest social and public health challenges but instead turning to our neighbors, turning to our local communities, perhaps our local not-for- profit groups or our community heroes, and we discover that oftentimes they are better situated to address these thorny challenges than are government programs. That is not to suggest in the slightest that government doesn't have a very important role in addressing these broad social challenges. Government can indeed make a difference but so can these other organizations.

We have a growing evidence base without any partisan tinge to it. It is broadly agreed that we have a growing evidence base of those things that are working to address challenges such as homelessness, asthma in low-income communities, and getting the long-term unemployed back into the workforce. Name the social ill, and there is likely a not-for- profit group or even a for-profit group in each of our individual States which is making a meaningful difference on this front.

The challenge is, how do we scale up these evidence-based interventions in an era of scarce resources? Well, because social impact partnerships are focused on achieving results, taxpayer money is only paid out when desired outcomes are met. Government payments are made possible because when we really help somebody, when we really are able to help them achieve their goals and turn around their lives, that frees up government money. So we use those avoided costs and future government savings to pay back those who invest in scaling up things that really work to improve lives.

Let me give an example of what has also been called pay for success. There is a service in Indianapolis that connects registered nurses with low-income pregnant women. The Nurse-Family Partnership helps ensure both mom and baby are healthy throughout the pregnancy and through the infant's life. They hit specific metrics that save the Federal Government money. Under this legislation, a philanthropic organization like Indiana's Lilly Endowment could invest in the Nurse-Family Partnership to scale up their work. As long as the metrics continue to be met, as long as success is achieved, the investor is paid a return out of those future government savings.

It makes a whole lot of sense, which is why it passed unanimously out of the House of Representatives previously and why I believe it will be passed into law after passing this Chamber and be signed into law by the President in the coming days.

Social impact partnerships address our moral responsibilities to ensure that social programs actually improve recipients' lives and do so in a fiscally prudent manner. They also respond to the imperative of improving our economic health by harnessing the capabilities of every able-bodied citizen.

We ought to be treating every American like they are an asset to be realized, not a liability to be written off, not a consumer of programs but somebody with real potential. We want every American to achieve their full human potential.

To recap, who is going to benefit? Well, the recipients of these services, through the public-private partnership, will benefit--the least among us--taxpayers will benefit, and every American will benefit as our communities become strengthened, as more enter the workforce, as public health is improved, and so forth.

The next bipartisan measure, which I expect to get across the finish line today, is the Modernizing the Interstate Placement of Children in Foster Care Act. This bill expedites the time it takes to place children into loving homes, and we will see why it is so important and so timely that we pass this legislation today as well.

Thousands of children in my State of Indiana have lost loving parents to opioid addiction. I have seen it up close and personal. I used to represent Scott County, IN. This was ground zero in our State for the opioid epidemic. It made national news, not in a good way. So many good people have been adversely impacted in this community, and I know there are communities like this across the country that are being impacted to varying degrees by the opioid crisis. I fear that if we do nothing, we will lose thousands in the next generation as well.

Modernizing the outdated interstate child placement process is one of a number of proposals that are urgently needed. This legislation will incentivize States to connect to an electronic interstate case- processing system that has already achieved substantial reductions in the time it takes to place these children into homes.

Frankly, before I dove into this, I just assumed that our foster care system was digitized; that it had found its way into the 21st century; that we weren't using paper files that were being mailed back and forth several times to process adoptions, especially under these very trying circumstances, but that is not the case. We need to make sure a child will spend less time being shuffled from foster home to foster home, and this legislation will achieve that.

We need to make sure a situation where children are taken in and out of school without a set routine is put to an end. For children caught up in a system struggling to meet community needs, we should do everything possible to get them immediately placed in a setting that is best for them, regardless of State boundary lines.

In summary, these bipartisan, bicameral bills were developed over 6 years, beginning during my time in the House of Representatives. I consulted with key stakeholders to make sure there would be broad support, and

there is. I have had countless discussions with Hoosiers and other experts about how to tackle these challenges.

The continuing resolution we will vote on today isn't perfect. I remain concerned about our spending levels, and I maintain that we need to take long-term action for the fiscal health of our country. However, with our commitment to our military and the inclusion of these two important pieces of legislation, I will be voting for the CR for the good of all Hoosier children, families, and communities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of--and to share a sample of--the positive results my State of Indiana is already experiencing as a result of tax reform. Hoosiers like Chelsee Hatfield, who accompanied me at the State of the Union address last week, are already seeing the benefits of this historic tax overhaul. Chelsee is a young mother of three. She is a teller at a rural branch of First Farmers Bank & Trust Company in Tipton, IN. Chelsee recently learned that she is going to receive a raise and a bonus as a result of tax reform. This additional income will help Chelsee go back to school and earn her associate's degree. It is also going to enable her to put money away for her children's college education.

First Farmers Bank & Trust is also investing $250,000 per year--per year--in community development in the small rural communities where they serve businesses and individuals. Moreover, First Farmers is going to invest $150,000 per year in employee development. This is just one company throughout the State of Indiana, and we are seeing all sorts of stories like this already emerging.

Chelsee and the employees of First Farmers Bank & Trust represent so many regular Hoosiers who work in small towns and in our large cities, and they are going to see real benefits, substantial benefits, for themselves and their families. As a result, the entire State and country, of course, will benefit as well.

Indiana, like so many States, is already seeing a steady stream of tax reform success stories like these--and has ever since we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I will just go through a number of these positive stories that are emerging.

Anthem, an Indiana-based health insurance company, announced on Monday that more than 58,000 employees and recent retirees will receive $1,000 contributions to their retirements. Now, in my family and in so many families around this country, $1,000 is a lot of money. That is just in the here and now. Moving forward, we can expect increased economic growth, a greater demand for workers, and for more wages to increase. Just in the near term, we know that Anthem has said it will give retirees and employees $1,000 contributions to their retirements.

Family Express Convenience Stores, out of Valparaiso, announced it is boosting its starting wage for employees at their 70 locations throughout Indiana. Gus Olympidis is its CEO, and he said: ``We feel obligated to pass on a significant portion of the tax savings to our staff.'' Of course, we have heard this from a number of employers and their leadership. They are passing on tax savings to their employees because they want to retain these employees. This, of course, is a good way to do it.

Southwest Airlines announced that it will be investing in a new fleet of airplanes, and the engines will be built by Hoosiers in Lafayette.

FedEx is investing $1.5 billion in its Indianapolis hub and is providing bonuses to its workers.

First Midwest Bank raised its minimum pay for hourly employees to $15 an hour at its 18 Northwest Indiana branches.

These are real results--real compensation and real benefits--already being experienced by rank-and-file Hoosiers--the people who help keep this economy humming.

I listened very carefully to Hoosier voices when we were debating the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and I am glad to see their voices were heard, in the end, by a majority of my colleagues. Workers at companies of all sizes are already beginning to see the benefits of a tax code that is simpler, that is fairer, and that allows Hoosiers to keep more of their hard-earned money.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to Hoosiers: protecting our unborn children. Right now, Hoosiers from across the State of Indiana are traveling to Washington, DC, to take part in tomorrow's March for Life. This annual event brings together the unsung heroes of the life movement--those who have dedicated their lives to saving innocent children.

Now, despite what is often portrayed in the media, life-affirming principles are supported by a majority of Americans. A poll by POLITICO and the Harvard T.H. Chan School for Public Health showed that 58 percent of Americans--almost three in five Americans--oppose allowing Medicaid funding to be used for abortion.

According to the Quinnipiac University polling, 60 percent of Americans, including 46 percent of Democrats, support Federal legislation limiting abortion after 20 weeks.

I am proud to cosponsor the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This act would protect unborn children at 20 weeks postfertilization-- the point at which scientific evidence proves abortion inflicts pain.

It is estimated that this commonsense legislation will save roughly 12,000 to 18,000 babies annually, and it will not apply, incidentally, to cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.

Before being elected to the U.S. Senate, I sat on the board of directors of Hannah House. This is in Bloomington, IN, where I live. It offers women loving support during pregnancy.

I further spent 2 years as a smalltown attorney in little Paoli, IN, and I offered free legal services for parents who wanted to adopt. So you can see why I am very passionate about helping children find loving homes and helping caring adults become parents. I have seen firsthand, through my own experiences, the importance of advocating for those who cannot advocate for themselves.

The United States is one of only seven countries in the world that allows abortions after 20 weeks. This list includes human rights violators like China and North Korea. This isn't company we want to keep.

During this time, when there is principled disagreement on so many

issues--Republicans disagreeing with Democrats, conservatives disagreeing with progressives, surely, we can come together and take action that a significant majority of Americans want. So I am hopeful this critical legislation will receive a vote on the Senate floor very soon.

Thank you.

I yield back my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We know the world has changed a whole lot in the last 30 years--the way we travel, how we communicate, the way we work, our hairstyles, the clothes we wear, the movies we watch, the music we listen to--but one thing hasn't changed: Our outdated Tax Code hasn't kept up. We simply can't afford to wait any longer. Now is the time to act.

Hoosiers need a raise. Working families across America need a raise. American businesses need to remain competitive in what is an increasingly global and hypercompetitive economy.

The bill we are voting on today will provide real relief to all Americans, especially middle-class families and those of modest means. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will creates a Tax Code that is simpler, that is fairer, and that allows Hoosiers to keep more of their hard-earned money, and that is what they want.

This bill we are voting on today will help create an environment where jobs and businesses can grow by making permanent a corporate tax reduction to 21 percent. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That is no way to remain competitive.

We will lighten the burden on small businesses with this legislation. I come from a small business family. My dad worked 6, 7 days a week growing up. He sold HVAC equipment and spent a lot of time on the road. I know because he told me that it irked him that when he added up his profits, he discovered toward the end of the year that over half of what he earned he paid to various forms of government. We provide relief to businesses like that.

We shift the structure of the international tax system so that foreign profits from U.S.-based companies will be invested right here in American communities, not overseas.

Throughout this process, I have listened carefully to extensive feedback from the people of Indiana, and I have to say that I am grateful for all the Hoosiers who weighed in over the course of this effort. They helped me shape this work product in a way that will more benefit the people of Indiana today and for future generations.

I heard, for example, from Susan from Indianapolis. Susan said:

Our tax system has become so complicated--the average

person needs to hire someone with expertise to help. If most

of us didn't have to hire help--right there we'd be saving

money.

Susan, you are right, and that is why we have lightened the burden for millions of Americans with this proposal.

Under this act that we will be voting on this evening, 9 out of 10 Americans can take the standard deduction. We have doubled the standard deduction, vastly simplifying compliance with a convoluted, unfair Tax Code that picks winners and losers. We undo so much of that with this bill we will vote on this evening.

I heard from Debbie from Clark County. Debbie contacted my office about her business's challenges. Debbie said the following:

We are constantly striving to reinvest in our company

through new equipment and increased wages to hire and retain

good employees. A lower corporate tax rate will allow us to

buy more equipment and offer . . . better wages.

It is common sense, and I am glad that Debbie contacted me to reinforce what is on the mind of so many Hoosier business owners.

This bill continues and expands the support for Indiana's highest priorities, and that is why I will be supporting it. Among these priorities are deductions for contributions to benefit our charitable organizations essential to communities throughout Indiana and throughout our country and keeping tuition waivers for graduate students untaxed. I again thank the graduate students and all the stakeholders throughout Indiana who had concerns related to this issue. They weighed in. We made changes to the legislation to accommodate their concerns, and this will enable Hoosiers to be better equipped to thrive in this ever-changing global economy in which we live.

We managed to maintain the earned income tax credit so that work pays more than joblessness. We expanded the child tax credit for families trying to make ends meet. We protected the adoption tax credit so that caring adults can become loving parents. We preserved private activity bonds. These benefit low-income housing and help to build hospitals and schools and other essential programs in the communities that need them most.

Now, the bill also makes good on our promise to repeal what many regard as the most oppressive aspect of ObamaCare--the individual mandate tax. I promised Hoosiers for years and years that I would get rid of the individual mandate. Tonight we will be fulfilling that promise.

In Indiana nearly 140,000 Hoosiers chose to pay this tax instead of buying insurance they either don't want or can't afford. In my home State, 81 percent of those who paid this tax made less than $50,000 per year. This comes from the IRS. And 40 percent of the people who pay this tax make less than $25,000 a year. Tell me this isn't a tax on the working poor.

This bill lifts the burden for families in Indiana and across the country, and it is one of the many reasons that I will be proudly supporting it. Collectively, this is a no-brainer. This legislation will lead to an increase in capital investment, which will lead to an increase in economic growth. This bill will make workers more productive so that they earn higher wages. This bill, across every income category, will cause Americans to see a reduction in their tax rates and more take-home pay--more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. So many Americans haven't seen an increase in take-home pay in well over a decade. It is time to provide relief to hard-working American families. It is time to create certainty for our job creators so that they can create more jobs.

I look forward to helping to move this legislation across the finish line this evening. I hope we get some bipartisan support in that effort.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to offer a few brief comments on the confirmation of Ms. Jennifer Newstead and the situation in Yemen. Ms. Newstead was nominated to serve as the legal adviser of the Department of State.

This is an incredibly important position. The legal adviser is the principal adviser to the Department of State on all legal matters, domestic and international. The legal adviser is also the principal adviser to other Federal agencies on legal matters involved in foreign relations. Through the Secretary of State, the legal advisor advises the President and the National Security Council. For an individual to serve well in this position, they must understand the law and be willing to provide objective and reliable legal advice.

I believe Ms. Newstead is well qualified to serve in this position. She has an impressive educational background, and she has served in senior positions at OMB, the Department of Justice, and in the White House. That is why I supported her nomination in committee.

With that said, before she received a floor vote, I wanted to confirm that she had a full and accurate appreciation for U.S. law as it relates to impediments to humanitarian assistance, and the clear application of those statutes to Saudi Arabia and Yemen. That is why, over several weeks, I engaged in three rounds of specific written questions and answers with Ms. Newstead related to the law.

After those detailed exchanges, I am confident that Ms. Newstead understands the proper application of laws like 22 U.S. Code 2378-1 to Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

I appreciate her written statements to me regarding that and other statutes, and I appreciate her commitments to be as transparent and responsive to my office as possible.

Before I conclude, allow me to offer a few words on the situation in Yemen. Yemen is experiencing the world's largest food insecurity crisis. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs published a report earlier this month. The report found that

almost 18 million people in Yemen are food insecure with more than 8 million facing starvation.

The war and Saudi Arabia's impediments to the delivery of food, fuel, and medicine are the primary causes for this crisis. Saudi Arabia's impediments to humanitarian assistance in Yemen violate international law, humanitarian principles, and U.S. law. They also undermine U.S. national security interests.

Since March, I have taken a number of steps to demand an end to the Saudi impediments to humanitarian assistance and to encourage the administration to use its significant leverage with Riyadh.

On December 6, the President said, ``I have directed officials in my Administration to call the leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to request that they completely allow food, fuel, water, and medicine to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need it. This must be done for humanitarian reasons immediately.''

In my view, we now need to see action from the Saudis, not just assurances.

The Saudis must finally and completely end all impediments to the delivery and transport of humanitarian aid in Yemen. Each day costs many lives and patience is running out in Washington.

If Saudi Arabia continues to be unresponsive to the President's demands and demands from Congress, failing to permit the delivery of the U.S. taxpayer funded cranes to Yemen's most important humanitarian port and continuing to block the delivery of commercial fuel shipments, I stand ready to take legislative action.

I was proud to support Ms. Newstead's confirmation today, and I look forward to working closely with her.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I wish to formally recognize the 40th anniversary of the National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association, NIAAA, which is headquartered in Indianapolis, IN. Since its founding in 1977, the NIAAA has established itself as a leading professional organization for educational-based athletic programs for academic institutions nationwide. This association plays a critical role in the development of our young people as athletic administrators work tirelessly to provide access to extracurricular activities, teach strong work habits, and promote civil engagement.

December of 2017 will mark the 40th year since launching the NIAAA mission. The organization has since grown to over 11,000 members nationwide. Currently, its core curriculum consists of 45 courses with a budget over $1.8 million. Despite the known fact that physical activity improves the overall personal development of young adults, evidence argues that the quality of coaching impacts the developmental effects of extramural sports. To ensure that positive, professional development is preserved, the NIAAA offers resources for secondary school athletic administrators to manage safe, high-quality athletic programs for all students. Along with professional educational opportunities, the NIAAA has participated in 10 years of scholarship donations totaling to $120,000 and recognizing 600 students as scholarship essay winners.

The NIAAA's commitment to its mission and its efforts to provide developed leaders is inspiring. In acknowledgement of its success, the NIAAA became the first national association to be accredited by the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement in the postsecondary division. The NIAAA has also developed the only all-inclusive Professional Education Program and Certification Program for secondary school athletic administrators.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the NIAAA for their renowned administrators and for their dedication to America's youth. As one of Indiana's Senators, I am honored to represent the NIAAA and commend their commitment to responsible athletic administration.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a fellow Hoosier, Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by President Trump to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Professor Barrett's credentials are well known. She is a mother of seven children, a distinguished legal scholar at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where she herself graduated with high honors and served as editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. She clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Silberman on the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, and she is an expert on the Federal courts.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the left have made an issue of Professor Barrett's Catholic faith. Echoing what Leader McConnell has said, we do not have religious tests for office in the United States of America, period.

I applaud all of those who have spoken up as the Senate weighs Professor Barrett's confirmation. That includes Notre Dame president, Rev. John Jenkins. He expressed deep concern at the questioning of Professor Barrett's faith. Following Professor Barrett's hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reverend Jenkins wrote: ``It is chilling to hear from the United States Senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge.''

The president of Princeton University has also asked the Senate to avoid a religious test in judicial appointments. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Eisgruber wrote that Professor Barrett and all nominees ``should be evaluated on the basis of their professional ability and jurisprudential philosophy, not their religion.'' He wrote: ``Every Senator and every American should cherish and safeguard vigorously the freedom guaranteed by the inspiring principle set forth in Article VI of the United States Constitution.''

Despite the rhetoric surrounding Professor Barrett's nomination, I have yet to hear any significant doubts about her legal qualifications.

Professor Barrett has made clear that her personal views will have no bearing on her rulings as a judge. She brings the skill set and the temperament needed for the job. She will rule according to the law and according to controlling precedents, and she will be faithful to the Constitution. There is no question that Professor Barrett will make an outstanding appellate judge.

Also, 450 former students signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee in support of Professor Barrett's nomination. They wrote: ``Our support is driven not by politics but by a belief that Professor Barrett is supremely qualified.''

All 49 of her fellow faculty members at Notre Dame Law School did the same. They said:

We have a wide range of political views, as well as

commitments to different approaches to judicial methodology

and judicial craft. We are united, however, in our judgment

about Amy.

Their endorsement comes as no surprise since Professor Barrett has served on committees dedicated to bettering the lives of students, faculty, and employees of the University of Notre Dame.

In particular, she has dedicated her time to the professional development of women. She serves on the University of Notre Dame's Committee on Women Faculty and Students. As the faculty adviser for Notre Dame Law School's Women's Legal Forum, she has twice been recognized by her students with the Distinguished Teaching Award, which is selected by the graduating class to honor a faculty member. She was selected twice to receive that award.

One former student, Conor Dugan, shared his story about her willingness to help him navigate the next steps of his career right after law school. He said that despite not having Professor Barrett for a big class, she wrote him back right away and took time out of her busy schedule to help someone who was no longer at the school.

Conor says Professor Barrett has always been very responsive and a generous mentor over the years. Most importantly, he said, she tries to help people keep their perspective about the most important things in life.

Judge Silberman, for whom Professor Barrett clerked on the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, had the following to say about why she will make an outstanding Federal judge:

She is an honorable and straight as an arrow woman. She

looks at the law without preconceived notions, and she's

brilliant. She is the only law clerk I ever had from Notre

Dame, and she is as smart as any law clerk I have ever had.

She is compassionate, and she has a lively sense of rumor.

Judges, former law students, fellow law professors, and even the American Bar Association, who rates Professor Barrett as ``well qualified,'' all seem to agree that she is well suited for the job.

Now, being nominated to serve in a lifetime appointment for a U.S. circuit court of appeals is a privilege few in the legal profession will ever attain. This is a historic opportunity, as Professor Barrett would be the first Hoosier woman to have a seat on the Seventh Circuit Court.

I offer my strong support for Professor Barrett's nomination, and I look forward to the Senate's confirming her today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure to lead a subcommittee in the Foreign Relations Committee with Senator Merkley. We have always worked in a constructive fashion on some consequential issues and none more consequential than the one before us today.

With respect to the crisis in Burma, we recently met with the lead person on an international NGO who just returned from camps in Bangladesh. He briefed us on some of the horrible circumstances facing these individuals who have been forced out of Burma.

This last Friday, as Senator Merkley indicated, we also led a letter to Ambassador Haley regarding the Burma crisis. I would also note that we had an important hearing on this topic yesterday in the full Foreign Relations Committee. I commend our leadership for putting that together.

I want to share some of my thoughts about this crisis. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge folks back home in the State of Indiana. I happen to represent a significant number of Burmese Americans. These are patriotic fellow Hoosiers, who have played an instrumental role helping to educate me and members of my team on this crisis, and I am happy we can be responsive to their concerns.

It is important for all Americans to understand what is happening in America and everything outside our shores. Burma is a country that doesn't typically capture the imagination or attention of people in the United States, but, right now, in light of this humanitarian crisis, it requires all of our attention.

The Burmese military has conducted a deplorable campaign of violence against the Rohingya Muslim minority, including the systematic use of arson, murder, and rape. Our State Department tells us that nearly 300 villages have been either partially or completely destroyed by fire just since August 25 of this year by the Burmese military. That is more than half of the approximately 470 Muslim villages in northern Rakhine State.

Ambassador Haley has indicated that the Burmese military's actions constitute a sustained campaign to cleanse the country of an ethnic minority--ethnic cleansing. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has referred to this situation as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.

We have seen more than 600,000, who are mostly of the Rohingya ethnic minority, flee the violence in the Rakhine State and seek refuge in Bangladesh. They travel on foot for days, carrying what they can of their belongings, carrying their young children. It is mostly women and children who make this trek. Upon arrival in Bangladesh, we have been briefed that many of them require immediate lifesaving assistance.

To put this severity in some measure of context, yesterday, our Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development characterized the resulting population movement as ``almost unprecedented''--almost unprecedented--amidst all of the other challenges we have seen in recent years, including the migrant crisis coming out of the Middle East and across the shores of the Mediterranean. Some research suggests the refugee flow from Burma has been swifter than the exodus from Rwanda in 1994.

Many Americans will say: You know, honestly, we have a lot of challenges in the world. Why should I care about this one? Well, here is why: In Burma, we see a group of people--the Rohingya--being systematically targeted because of their ethnicity. This, of course, runs afoul of our basic values, the principles upon which our country was founded. These principles inform the rules of the international order that has existed for some number of decades now. These rules are the mortar that holds the order together. We simply cannot allow certain rules of international behavior to be violated or that will encourage other bad actors, and they will continue to be undermined, thus, undermining our national interests.

Recent history demonstrates that the systematic violation of fundamental human rights sooner or later engenders security threats to Americans, to our allies, and to our collective interests--think of Tunisia, think of Syria, think of the countries of Yemen or Nigeria. There are almost countless examples just in recent history where we have seen or are seeing right now the depravation of basic human rights. That, in turn, is undermining our values and our national interests.

Let me apply this observation about the linkage between our values and our interests--not just domestically but internationally--to the situation in Burma. We know the past and present Burmese Governments have systematically deprived the Rohingya population of their most fundamental human rights. Not surprisingly, this has compelled a small number to join the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, ARSA.

The most recent wave of ethnic cleansing began after ARSA conducted a coordinated attack on Burmese security outposts, and the Burmese military responded with disproportionate military actions and deplorable attacks on civilians.

Here is a point the Burmese Government and the Burmese military must understand. By refusing to treat the Rohingyas as full, equal citizens and by attacking their own people who just want to live in peace, the Burmese military is only going to increase the number of Rohingyas who will be radicalized, exacerbating the very problem the Burmese military says it is trying to address. So this is not in Burma's interest. I can't emphasize that enough.

Before the most recent iteration of this crisis, in December 2016, the International Crisis Group--an international nongovernmental organization--issued a report titled ``Myanmar: A New Muslim Insurgency in Rakhine State.'' The report said a number of things, among them that the ``continued use of disproportionate force that has driven tens of thousands from their homes or across the border to Bangladesh . . . could create conditions for further radicalizing sections of the Rohingya population that transnational jihadists could exploit.''

As we saw in Syria--to choose just one comparative example--when the government fails to respect the basic human rights of their citizenry, then conflict ensues. It can lead to far wider radicalization. The conflict becomes a magnet, a magnet for international terrorists. It becomes a factory that creates more international terrorists.

In short, when governments commit systematic and large-scale violence, oppression, and injustice against its own people, it creates a fertile ground for Islamist terrorist recruitment and radicalization. This is contrary to the interests of everyone, including the Burmese Government.

Further, if left unaddressed, the humanitarian and security situation in Burma and Bangladesh will worsen and increasingly threaten regional stability and U.S. national security interests.

The United States must continue to lead. There has to be an international response in Burma. We need other partners to step up and participate in that response, but the United States must continue to lead. Part of leading comes down to clarity. What do we want of the Burmese Government? I see at

least four things the Burmese Government must do.

First, the Burmese Government and their military must immediately end its ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingyas. Second, the Burmese Government must address the root of this conflict by implementing the recommendations of a U.N. panel, the so-called Advisory Commission on Rakhine State. Third, the Burmese Government must permit safe access for journalists, for humanitarians, and for a United Nations fact-finding mission and all of their personnel so we can figure out precisely what is going on and who is responsible. Finally, the Burmese Government must facilitate the safe and voluntary return of all these individuals who have been displaced.

When I leave the Senate floor today, I am scheduled to immediately visit with Burma's Ambassador to the United States. The points I just mentioned are points I intend to reiterate directly to that Ambassador.

Moving forward, the United States should lead efforts to document atrocities in Burma however we can so the perpetrators can be held accountable. I also support the administration's announcement yesterday that it is exploring accountability mechanisms that are already available under U.S. law, including the so-called Global Magnitsky targeted sanctions.

I call on countries like China and Russia to support the suspension of all international weapons sales to the Burmese military. They should not be transferring weapons to this murderous regime.

In conclusion, as Senator Merkley and I stated in our letter on Friday to Ambassador Haley, now is the time. Now is the time to take bold and effective actions against the Burmese Government to end the violence, not just to help the Burmese people but to help stabilize the region and protect U.S. national security interests. Now is the time to uphold our fundamental values, the values, frankly, of civilized nations. Now is the time to work with this administration and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure we can reach as peaceful and as positive a resolution to this horrible situation as possible.

I want to close by once again acknowledging the tremendous leadership of Senator Merkley. I thank him for his partnership in this effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am saddened to report the recent passing of Marjorie Counsilman, a treasured member of the Bloomington and Indiana University community. Mrs. Counsilman passed away on August 17, 2017, at the age of 93. I join her family and friends in mourning the passing of a beloved Hoosier, who was a dedicated mother and mentor to countless Indiana swimmers.

Mrs. Counsilman, or ``Marge,'' as she was affectionately known by her colleagues, friends, and family, helped lead IU's swim team to a string of national and Big Ten titles. Marge was the wife of the late IU swimming coach, James ``Doc'' Counsilman, who led the Hoosiers to six consecutive NCAA championship victories, 23 Big Ten titles, 52 broken world records, 154 American records, and 106 individual NCAA records. In 2013, Marge and Doc were inaugurated into the Monroe County Sports Hall of Fame. Trophies aside, Marge was best known for her compassion towards her fellow coaches, customers at her family-owned restaurant in Bloomington, and the countless young swimmers she encountered over her decades of service. Her impression on the sport stretches well beyond the swimming lanes of Indiana. In 2004, she was honored by the International Swimming Hall of Fame as a ``Grande Dame'' for her leadership and influence.

In 2012, Mrs. Counsilman received the Bill Orwig Award, which recognizes exceptional contributions made by nonalumnus to IU's athletic program. Marge was constantly hosting team dinners, running swim meets, and keeping the official records. Throughout her husband Doc's 33 years at IU, Marge acted as a substitute mother for all the collegiate swimmers, either providing help with assignments or offering her famous lasagna and pecan pie.

In her memory, I would ask that we take a moment to reflect on her exemplary life and model of service. It is a privilege to honor Marjorie Counsilman, and I want to offer my condolences to her two daughters, Cathy Counsilman and Jill Morris, and to the many friends and family members she leaves behind. We will continue to honor her legacy and generous spirit.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act. I want to begin by thanking Senators McCain and Reed, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I commend their continued bipartisan leadership and collaboration on behalf of our servicemembers and our national security.

As someone who served in the U.S. Marine Corps and also served on the House Armed Services Committee, I understand the importance of Congress's fulfilling its constitutional duties to our men and women in uniform.

This legislation is important for our country. It is also important to my neighbors. That includes Hoosiers serving on Active Duty, in the Reserves, and in the Indiana National Guard, as well as their families. It also helps Hoosiers working at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Crane Army Ammunition Activity, and Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Indianapolis to perform their important work, which is essential to our servicemembers.

Now, for the last 55 years, Congress has passed the NDAA. Given the threats our country confronts, it is important that we once again pass this legislation and provide our troops with the training, weapons, and support they need to accomplish their missions and return home safely. But that is not enough.

Congress must pass Defense authorization and appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year, stop the habitual use of continuing resolutions for the Department of Defense, and end defense sequestration once and for all. I stand ready to work with Senators of both parties to achieve these objectives.

I am committed to doing my part, and that is why I voted to end debate on this legislation last week and why I will support further advancing the bill today, despite the fact that we weren't able to debate and vote on amendments here on the floor.

Today, I will only note that I have introduced a couple of bipartisan amendments related to Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen. These are amendment Nos. 585 and 1081. I believe this issue deserves consideration by the full Senate, and I look forward to speaking at length on this issue again in coming days.

I share the frustration of Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed regarding the lack of floor debate and substantive votes, and I hope the Senate can do better next year. I think each Senator, the Americans we represent, and the troops who protect us are right to expect better. Now, with that said, I applaud Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for working to include over 100 noncontroversial amendments in this bill.

I am proud of the fact that the Defense bill we are going to vote on--and, hopefully, pass--this evening includes three amendments important to Hoosiers that I introduced and for which I worked with the committee to include. I would like to quickly mention two of them and then spend a little more time on the third.

The first provision is amendment No. 793. This provision would press the Department of Defense to implement Government Accountability Office recommendations or explain why they aren't doing so.

Now, let me explain why this is so important. Our Nation confronts challenges and threats of extraordinary scope. Yet the resources we have are limited. That means we need to ensure that the Department of Defense is operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible with the money the taxpayers provide. That is what our national security demands and what U.S. taxpayers are right to expect.

So when a respected organization such as the GAO, our Federal Government's auditor, conducts independent and rigorous analysis and identifies key areas for improvement within DOD, Congress and the Pentagon should take it seriously.

Here is the problem. As of this morning, there were 1,008 open GAO recommendations, including 75 priority recommendations that DOD alone has failed to address fully. Now, some of these priority recommendations relate to missile defense, ship maintenance, military readiness, servicemember healthcare, and financial management, and some of these open recommendations go back to 2009 and even earlier.

There may be a few of these recommendations in which DOD has a persuasive justification for not implementing GAO's recommendation, but I believe the burden of proof should be on DOD to either implement GAO's recommendations without delay or justify to Congress why they believe the recommendation should not be adopted. That is essentially what my provision would do.

I look forward to working with the leaders and staff of the Armed Services Committees to ensure that this important provision is included in the final legislation.

I would also like to highlight a second amendment, amendment No. 882, that I introduced and worked to include in the bill that we will soon vote to adopt. This provisions would require the Navy to conduct and provide to Congress a comprehensive review of U.S. maritime intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting capability, also known as ISRT.

In light of growing Chinese and Russian maritime capabilities, this report would require the Navy, among other things, to identify specific capability gaps and specific areas of risk when it comes to ISRT, as well as offer solutions and resources that are needed to address those capability gaps and areas of risk. The review will help to ensure that the United States retains the naval supremacy necessary to keep vital shipping lanes open, deter aggression, and defend our national security interests.

Now, lastly, I would like to highlight amendment No. 821. I introduced it and worked with the committee to include this in the bill, and I want to thank Senator Donnelly for cosponsoring my amendment.

On January 27, the President issued a memorandum that emphasized the need for a ``modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored nuclear deterrent.'' This memorandum reiterated the longstanding and bipartisan consensus that deterring a nuclear attack on our country and on our allies depends on our ability to maintain a strong, nuclear deterrent.

Our nuclear deterrent includes three legs, also referred to as the nuclear triad, consisting of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bomber aircraft. Now, each of these legs offers an important and complementary capability making clear to any potential aggressor that a nuclear attack on the United States would be suicidal and, thereby, deterring such an attack in the first place. Perhaps that is why Secretary of Defense Mattis, referring to the deterrence of potential aggressors, said just last week: ``If I wanted to send the most compelling message, I have been persuaded that the triad . . . is the right way to go.''

Now, the challenge is that, in just the next two decades, essentially all of our Nation's nuclear delivery systems and all of our nuclear weapons will need to be refurbished or replaced.

According to a February 17 study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that could cost a total of $400 billion over the next decade. That is an enormous cost during a period when our Department of Defense has many other modernization bills coming due. Consequently, we must identify opportunities to minimize costs while not sacrificing capability.

So consistent with that fact, on January 31, Secretary Mattis issued a memorandum calling for an ``ambitious reform agenda, which will include a horizontal integration across DOD components to improve efficiency and take advantage of economies of scale.''

Consistent with that memorandum and the memorandum of the President, my amendment would require the Office of the Secretary of Defense, working with our Navy and Air Force, to

submit a report to Congress on the potential to achieve more value; that is, enhanced nuclear deterrence at a lower cost by integrating elements of acquisition programs related to modernization and sustainment of the nuclear triad.

If we can improve efficiency and program management, cost, and schedule by increasing integration, colocation, and commonality between the strategic deterrent programs of the Navy and the Air Force and their associated systems, technologies, and engineering processes, then we should do so.

Back home in Indiana, the skilled workers at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane have supported the Navy Strategic Systems Program for more than 60 years. Crane is the largest DOD supplier to the Strategic Systems Program. Crane provides the Navy's only organic high- reliability, radiation-hardening capability. Crane also serves as a leader in trusted microelectronics. What is less well known is that Crane provides important support to the Air Force's ICBM Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Program. More importantly, there is good reason to believe that Crane can dramatically increase its level of support to the Air Force's strategic programs.

That is the kind of joint collaboration between the Air Force and the Navy my amendment envisions. By breaking down stovepipe barriers between our military services, by eliminating unnecessary duplication, and by looking for commonsense opportunities for joint cooperation, we can keep our country safe and save money in the process. That is not only a win for Crane, it is a win for the Navy, it is a win for the Air Force, it is a win for taxpayers, and it is a win for the safety and security of every American.

That is why I look forward to working with the leadership and staff of the Armed Services Committee to include this amendment in the final bill.

I thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their work and tireless leadership on the Senate Armed Services Committee and for your work to bring the National Defense Authorization Act to this point.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize, with the highest respect, the service and life of George Shepard Haerle for his dedication to serving Indiana and the Nora Community Council, NCC. Over the course of NCC's 50-year history, George has volunteered 47 years of his own to leave an indelible mark on the Nora community. The great State of Indiana is proud of and ever thankful for George's distinguished commitment and exemplary service.

Since its founding, the Nora Community Council has covered 12 square miles with 25,000 to 28,000 Hoosier residents, including 60 local neighborhoods under the civic umbrella. As a chairman of the NCC, George commits hundreds of hours each year to promote growth, development, and the general welfare of the Nora community.

George Haerle's renowned service was rightfully recognized on July 29, 2017, when Governor Eric Holcomb bestowed upon him Indiana's most prestigious designation, a Sagamore of the Wabash. George follows in the footsteps of his father, Rudolf K. Haerle, who was also recognized as a Sagamore of the Wabash for his contributions to the State as the first president of the Civil War Round Table and a former longtime member of the Library Board of the Indiana Historical Society.

George has not only been a role model for the NCC, but he has also been an outstanding advocate for the community of Nora-Northside. His remarkable service is exceeded only by his devotion to his amazing family, including 7 daughters, 1 son, and 18 grandchildren. On behalf of myself and all Hoosiers, for his selfless and lifelong commitment, George is worthy of the highest praise. I feel truly privileged to have him as a fellow and lifelong Hoosier.

Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to pause and recognize the accomplishments of Boy Scout Troop No. 533 from my home State of Indiana. For the past 90 years, Boy Scout Troop No. 533 in Munster, IN, has been instilling the values of respect, honesty, and leadership in young Hoosiers that have had a lasting impact on our State. I am very proud of troop No. 533 for all of their service over the past 90 years and applaud their dedication to bettering their community.

Boy Scout Troop No. 533 was formed in 1927 by Munster native Mr. Muary Kraay when he was in eighth grade. Since its founding, troop No. 533 has been active in their community. During World War II, the Boy Scouts organized parades and rallies for war bonds, planted community gardens, practiced blackout drills, and participated in wartime recycling programs. On June 14, 1947, when President Coolidge dedicated Wicker Park in Highland, IN, troop No. 533 was there to welcome him. The Boy Scouts also had a crucial role during the September 2008 flooding of the Little Calumet River. In anticipation of the flood, troop No. 533 assisted in filling sandbags, and after the flood, they assisted in yard cleanup and regraveling driveways. Over the past 90 years, Boy Scout Troop No. 533 has produced over 100 Eagle Scouts, one of the highest levels of honor a Boy Scout can achieve.

I would like to thank Boy Scout Troop No. 533 for their 90 years of outstanding public service. On behalf of all Hoosiers, congratulations on your 90th anniversary.