Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we raise this point today, not just because of what has happened to Donald Trump's nominees over the last 2 years, but we reached this point because 16 years ago the Senator from New York started this Senate down a path that was unprecedented in 200 years. For 200 years, any President's nominees got an up-or-down vote. That was the custom, the unwritten rule, if you will.

Starting in 2003, specifically geared toward a brilliant young lawyer named Miguel Estrada, the Senator from New York warped those unwritten rules and customs. That has brought us to where we are today. So today Senator Schumer will reap what he sowed. I will call it Miguel Estrada's revenge.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college that my colleagues are introducing this week. It is just the latest radical proposal by the Democrats to upend our constitutional system of government.

Why all the sudden interest in these changes? It is very simple.

The Democrats and their media wing still can't get over that they lost the 2016 election, so they have spent the last 2 years looking for scapegoats. First, it was the collusion hoax, but the Mueller report has put an end to that. Now they blame the Constitution itself and want to eliminate the electoral college, which they claim robbed the so- called popular vote winner of her rightful office.

Let's be clear about something up front: We have never had a Presidential election with a popular vote winner or loser in the genuine meaning of those words. It is not how we contest the Presidency, and it never has been. Campaigns organize their entire strategies around the electoral college. Guess what. Hillary Clinton did too. She just didn't do it very well. For the losers to complain afterward that they really won is like a football team that gets outscored but says it won the game because it made more first downs or like a basketball team that got outscored but says it won the game because it made more free throws.

Yet let's suppose that we do change the rules of the game. Let's suppose we get rid of the electoral college. What would we get?

Get ready for nationwide recounts and election contests. If you thought Bush v. Gore was a circus or that California's ballot harvesting operations were a fraud, wait until you see a nationwide recount. Getting rid of the electoral college would also encourage fringe third parties with all of the instability we see in European parliamentary elections. Neither candidate received 50 percent of the vote in 2016. Imagine an election in which a winner would not even get 40 percent of the vote. How would the Democrats respond to that?

Of course, getting rid of the electoral college could further reduce the role of the States in our elections. The Founders believed, rightfully, that the States were sovereign political communities that had real interests and real views that deserved to have a voice in the national government apart from simple, nationwide majority rule. The Founders didn't want our vast continental Nation to be ruled like colonies from a few coastal capitals. They wanted our one, true national officeholder to understand and account for the diverse ways in which we work and live and think.

Under the electoral college, which I hasten to add is just like in the Senate, the States can express their will as States. Hawaiians get to speak as Hawaiians about whom the President ought to be. The same goes for Vermonters and Arkansans. Doing away with the electoral college would be especially harmful to the small States while it would concentrate power in big States and in a few megacities. So it is not surprising to see Senators from California and New York and Illinois supporting this radical proposal. They have obvious reasons to weaken the smaller States.

I have to confess that I am a little surprised that my colleague from Hawaii is joining their effort because it would relegate his small island State to the status of a colony--ruled from afar by a few vast cities on the mainland. Hawaii, with its 1.4 million people, would have less say in our Presidential elections than would San Diego. It would barely outpace Dallas, TX.

Politicians who support abolishing the electoral college say it would break the supposed stranglehold that rural red States have on our elections, but this isn't really a red or blue issue. Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia all have a greater say about who leads our country,

thanks to the electoral college, and the last I checked, none of those places are Republican strongholds nor does one party ever have a so- called stranglehold on the electoral college. It is far from it. In the 1980s, people spoke about the Republicans' electoral college lock. In more recent times, they have spoken about the Democratic Party's blue wall in the electoral college.

My State and New Mexico, for instance, were fiercely contested in the Bush era--not so much anymore. In 2008, Barack Obama won Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes in a cakewalk. Eight years later, Donald Trump eked out a victory in the Keystone State. Next year, Ohio might not be a competitive Presidential election State, but Texas may be. Politics can change fast, and the electoral college changes with it, which forces candidates to consider our entire vast country. Without it, a candidate could actually ignore Wisconsin, yet still win.

I should also point out that my colleague's amendment this week is not the only proposal to scrap the electoral college. A number of States have also signed on to a so-called interstate compact that would require those States to ignore the express will of their voters and award their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.

It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I would prefer to call it the ``Small State Suicide Compact.''

It is designed to circumvent the difficult process of amending our Constitution, which of course means it is unconstitutional. There is already a process for changing the Constitution. It is called the amendment process.

So I will give some praise to my colleagues this week for filing a constitutional amendment to change the electoral college legally, but I would point out that the Democratic Party's willingness to bypass our Constitution to eliminate the electoral college reveals that what is at stake here is not really democratic principle but one single thing-- power, seizing it and holding on to it.

Me? I think I will stick with the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton said of the electoral college: If it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.

I am with Hamilton.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate has unanimously rejected the so-called Green New Deal. In a display of political courage for the ages, 43 Democrats voted present, including many of the bill's own sponsors.

Now, many of them are running for President. In fact, these days, it seems that all of the Democratic Senators are running for President and perhaps may realize what a disaster the Green New Deal is for them.

The Green New Deal would force a transition in just 10 years--one decade--to 100 percent green energy, whatever that is. But it is an impossible goal that would require trillions of dollars of taxes and the effective nationalization of private industry in America.

That is not all--no, not all.

The Green New Deal would also overhaul or rebuild all existing buildings in the United States to achieve maximum energy efficiency-- all--every single home and building in America. I guess you could call it the ``Extreme Home Makeover Mandate.''

The Green New Deal also calls for taxpayer-funded college and jobs for every person in the country, even for illegal aliens and even if you are unable or unwilling to work. That is according to a press release the Democrats sent out and then tried to send down the memory hole when it was justly mocked, and understandably so.

Jobs for everyone who is unable to work and unwilling to work--there is a big difference between those two groups of people.

The radical nature of the Green New Deal cannot be overstated. The amount of control it would give to politicians and planners in Washington would be the envy of Soviet Russia. Actually, it would make Stalin blush. And it would take Stalinist tactics to achieve a Green New Deal.

To borrow from Churchill, ``Socialism may begin with the best of intentions, but it always ends with the Gestapo.'' Who else is going to come into your home and make sure that it is energy compliant? Who else is going to confiscate your gas-using pickup truck? Who else is going to ensure that you don't commit the terrible crime of eating a hamburger?

Perhaps we can come up with a better name for the Green New Deal--one that reflects its true lineage. Might I suggest the Red New Deal, the color of Communist regimes the world over, or perhaps the Green Leap Forward in honor of Mao.

I gather some House freshmen might actually feel pretty comfortable with those labels. They claim these radical ideas are necessary to stop the threat of climate change--a threat so dire, the Democrats insist-- so dire that we will all be dead in 12 years--12 years--if we don't surrender to totalitarian levels of power over our lives to central planners in Washington.

Yet we gave them a chance to vote on this existential, apocalyptic threat and they all said: Meh, maybe later.

So this isn't really about climate change or even the environment. I

mean, come on. What do free college for rich kids and guaranteed jobs for lazy bums have to do with climate change?

The answer is: Nothing. And that tells you all you need to know about what the Democrats are up to.

The Green New Deal isn't a real policy proposal. It is just the Democrats' most fanciful and frightful dreams wrapped in one shiny package. I would call it a policy platform, but that would probably give it too much credit for substance.

The President put it very well. He said the Green New Deal is more like an undergraduate term paper, one written late at night after too many bong hits, judging from its botched rollout.

If you really feared a climate catastrophe, you would do a couple of simple things. First, you would build as many new, beautiful, carbon- free nuclear powerplants as you could. But the Green New Deal omits nuclear energy entirely, no doubt to please the Democrats' crony renewable energy lobbyists and the anti-nuclear know-nothings in the Democrats' base.

Second, you would get tough on the world's biggest polluters, especially on China. Foreign nations, after all, have driven almost all of the growth in global carbon emissions since the turn of the century.

But the Green New Dealers seem to believe America is the root of all of the world's problems, even though our emissions have been declining. It is just another case of the Democrats' guiding principle: Blame America first.

Of course, if we did something as stupid as pass the Green New Deal, most foreign nations would just laugh at us and keep building their economies and keep polluting while we tanked our own economy, immiserated our citizens, and lost millions of jobs in pursuit of a fantasy.

The Green New Deal would amount to America's unilateral disarmament on the world stage, which for some Democrats is probably a feature and not a bug. But sometimes even terrible ideas deserve a vote. So we gave them a vote on the Green New Deal, and the bill's own sponsors complained.

In any event, the Senate flunked the Democrats' term paper unanimously, and the only reason the Green New Deal got an F is that there is not a lower grade. So common sense prevailed this time, although I have a feeling this is not the last time we have heard of the Green New Deal.

Remember, this is not the hobby horse of some eccentric socialist fringe of the Democratic Party--oh, no, not at all. The Green New Deal has 90 Democratic cosponsors in the House. That is nearly two out of every five House Democrats, and the Democratic Presidential candidates have rushed to endorse the Green New Deal. Remember that when you step into the voting booth in 2020.

But let me wrap up on a more serious note. I have made a lot of jokes about the Green New Deal, and, believe me, the Green New Deal is laughable. But for many Americans, the Green New Deal is no laughing matter.

Imagine, if you will, a mom and dad and a couple young kids outside Little Rock, let's say. Every day, they drive the kids to school. They commute into the city where they work and back out to the suburbs, just so they can afford a home. When they are home on the weekends, maybe they try to fire up the grill on the patio to have a little cookout for the kids.

This working-class family is doing its best to live the American dream and pass it on to their kids. The Green New Deal is not for that family. It would outlaw their entire way of life, from the minivan in the garage to the hamburgers on their grill, to the house they call home.

The Green New Deal would be a death sentence for America's families. Yet the Democrats have the nerve to sell it as a rescue mission. I reject that fraud on America, and now so does the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the President's declaration of a national emergency. We have reached a moment of crisis, but it is not a constitutional crisis; it is a crisis on the border, a crisis of American sovereignty. When hundreds of thousands of foreigners arrive at the southern border and demand entry, that is not migration; that is an emergency and a threat to our sovereignty. The stories speak for themselves.

Last Thursday, an American citizen named Rocio Alderete was shot to death on a bridge over the Mexican border near McAllen, TX. Early reports suggest Rocio was caught in a shoot-out between cartel gunmen and the Mexican police, but whatever the case turns out to be, Rocio has perished--the latest American victim of lawlessness at our southern border.

Since last October, Border Patrol agents have apprehended more than 260,000 illegal aliens at the border, which is a surge of 90 percent-- almost double from the previous year. For the most part, these aren't young men who are coming for work, as has been so often the case in the past; rather, they are Central Americans who are gaming our generous asylum laws. Instead of running away from the Border Patrol, these illegal aliens run to it so they can be captured and released into the country, with notice to appear in court, which they hardly ever do. Thanks to stupid laws and activist judges, illegal aliens are even using little kids as legal force fields because being detained with minors increases their odds of being held in America rather than to be turned around and sent home.

As a result, we see all of the horrors of the human smuggling trade at the border today. Women and girls are sexually assaulted at horrific rates. Hundreds die in the desert each year of thirst and exhaustion. Infectious diseases we had all but eradicated with vaccines are appearing again in border communities. ICE health officials have found 236 confirmed or probable cases of mumps among detainees in the past year after having reported zero cases for the previous 2 years.

This surge of illegal aliens is swamping law enforcement's ability to do its job. ``Overwhelmed'' is the word we hear so often from agents. Border Patrol Commissioner Kevin McAleenan says: ``This is clearly both a border security and humanitarian crisis.''

The consequences of this crisis stretch far beyond the border. Sometimes it stretches thousands of miles away. An American--1 of 192 every day--dies of a drug overdose. The poison in his veins flows across the Mexican border. A brave police officer and father, Corporal Ronil Singh, of California, was shot dead the day after Christmas after his killer snuck into the country illegally. We have failed to protect our border, as any sovereign nation must, and our people are dying because of it.

The President has declared a national emergency because of this crisis. Yet the administration's sensible, long overdue efforts to secure the border have been met only by howls of outrage from the Democratic Party and its media wing. Judging from their reaction, you would think the real emergency was not our lawless border but any genuine effort to secure it. The minority leader called the President's emergency declaration a ``lawless act'' that showed ``naked contempt for the rule of law.'' Other members of the self-styled resistance have compared the President to Hitler.

These are curious, overheated claims, I have to say. To be lawless, after all, one must act outside the law. Yet the President's critics don't even bother making that case, probably because they don't have much of one to make.

The President isn't purporting to invoke his inherent Executive powers under article II of our Constitution. He does not even claim to defend his constitutional prerogatives from legislative encroachment. On the contrary, he is only exercising the statutory authority that has been delegated to him by us, by this very body--the U.S. Congress. More than half of the $8.1 billion the President is using to build the wall and secure the border comes from nonemergency statutes that have been passed by Congress. The remainder comes from an explicit delegation of various powers to the President in the event of a national emergency, just like the one the President has declared, which we also delegated him the authority to do. I should add, the National Emergencies Act passed nearly unanimously, with only five ``no'' votes in the House.

I am sympathetic to arguments that the National Emergencies Act is too broad and gives the executive branch too much power. That is a reasonable debate to have. Believe me, Congress has ceded too much power to the Executive for more than a century and has expanded an administrative state that increasingly deprives our people of having a meaningful say in their government, so I invite my Democratic colleagues to reconsider the wisdom of this path.

Maybe we can also reform the EPA. Perhaps we can require up-or-down votes in Congress in order to approve big regulations so politicians around here can show some accountability for once. I am ready to have those debates. Believe me, I am ready. In the meantime, don't pretend we didn't delegate all of these powers or that it is lawless for the Executive to use the laws we have passed just because you deplore him.

If you want to see lawless Executive action, by the way, you can look, instead, to the last administration. President Obama purportedly gave millions of illegal aliens legal status and work permits, which was in clear violation of statutes that had been passed by this Congress. He also expressly defied our ban on bailout payments from the ObamaCare slush fund to big health insurance companies. It is strange how I don't recall the self-styled resistance manning the ramparts and rushing to the Ninth Circuit back then. In fact, I only recall a lot of congressional fanboys of the President's using the pen and phone to encroach on our constitutional prerogatives.

I have also heard from some Senators who admit the President is acting lawfully but who worry about the slippery slope of Executive power. I respect this

view. Our system of separated powers calls on each branch to jealously protect its own powers, but one can ski to the bottom of a slippery slope pretty fast. A Republican declares a national emergency today on the border. A Democrat--or who knows these days, maybe a socialist-- will tomorrow declare a gun violence emergency to confiscate guns or will declare a climate change emergency to shut down coal-fired powerplants.

I acknowledge it doesn't take much to imagine such abuses by a future liberal President, especially with the gang they have running today, but that is precisely what such actions would be--abuses. What the law says matters here. We have delegated to the Executive the power to enforce the Nation's immigration laws, including by an emergency declaration. We have not delegated to the Executive the power to confiscate guns, to close powerplants or any of the other common entrants in the parade of horribles on the slippery slope. That is the difference between lawful and lawless government, and that is the case here.

Still, others claim the crisis on the border isn't bad enough to call a national emergency. Some have gone so far as to deride it as a fake emergency. If killings, caravans, and cartels at the border are fake emergencies, I would really hate to see a genuine emergency.

Let's suppose we take their claim seriously. We at least ought to compare the crisis at the border to past national emergencies to see how they all stack up. Right now, there are 32 national emergencies in effect--32 national emergencies. Among them is a national emergency related to election fraud in Belarus. Another is in response to the breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon. A third is in response to a failed coup in Burundi.

I don't deny that those are all genuine problems or that an American response may well be warranted--far from it. Yet I doubt many Americans would put them ahead of a serial violation of our sovereign border by millions of foreigners. If the Belarusians warrant an emergency declaration, then surely Americans do, too, when we face a crisis at our southern border.

The Democrats used to take border security seriously, but in elite society these days, ``border security'' are bad words, and ``wall'' is practically a four-letter word unless they are the walls that protect the rich and the powerful and the politically connected from a dangerous world. Look in the news. The Democrats' newest Presidential aspirant, Robert Francis O'Rourke--a former Congressman and failed Senate candidate--has gone so far as to suggest the tearing down of existing barriers at the southern border, which I am sure has thrilled all of the good people in El Paso who don't live in a world of private planes and security details.

Regrettably, the Democrats' hostility to border security couldn't come at a worse time for our country because there is, indeed, a crisis at the border, and we ought to be addressing it.

We could be spending this valuable legislative time tightening up our asylum laws or cracking down on employers who exploit illegal aliens instead of hiring American workers or ramping up drug enforcement. Instead, we are debating whether a crisis at our southern border can be called an emergency. Instead of solving a problem, we are trying to spin it.

So I have a simple suggestion for my colleagues: If you are genuinely alarmed by the President's invocation of the very emergency powers we delegated to him, instead of furrowing your brows and tugging your chins and gravely citing Youngstown Sheet, let's tackle this emergency declaration by making it unnecessary. Let's get to the root of the problem and secure our border once and for all. No more border crisis, no more emergency--it is as simple as that.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to commemorate two Medal of Honor recipients who passed away last month. Every Medal of Honor recipient has served his country with extraordinary valor and with little or no regard for his own life and safety.

Air Force Col. Joe Jackson and Army LTC Charles Kettles were no exceptions. They were both pilots and both served honorably in the Vietnam war. Both were responsible for extraordinary rescue missions of American soldiers trapped deep behind enemy lines against incredible odds. These two men were patriots who by chance, skill, and strength of character became true American heroes. They are gone now, but their legacies and examples will always live on. It is up to us to learn from them.

Col. Joe Jackson passed away on January 12 at the age of 95.

Jackson enlisted in the Army Air Corps in 1941, serving as a gunnery instructor for the duration of World War

II. But he may never have been a pilot--may never have been a hero--if not for a chance event in that war.

One of his friends, a flight engineer, fell ill right before a B-25 bomber flight. Jackson agreed to take his place. During the flight, one of the engines caught fire. The pilot didn't know what to do, but Jackson did. His timely instructions helped extinguish the fire, possibly saving the aircraft. Emboldened by this incident, Jackson decided to become a pilot--and he did, flying 107 missions as an F-84 Thunderjet pilot during the Korean war and becoming one of the very first pilots of the U-2 spy plane.

That in itself would be a pretty distinguished career of honorable service, but Joe Jackson returned for more, decades later. At the age of 45 he answered the call of service once again, volunteering with the Air Force's 311th Air Commando Squadron to fly cargo planes in Vietnam. It is not often a cargo pilot gets a chance to distinguish himself in combat, but it was in that very role that Joe Jackson earned the Nation's highest honor.

May 12, 1968, was supposed to be a routine cargo mission for Joe Jackson and the crew of his C-123. That all changed when the American special forces camp at Kham Duc was attacked by the North Vietnamese. As the Viet Cong overran the camp and established firing positions just off the landing strip, an emergency evacuation began of the much smaller American contingent.

The evacuation quickly turned into a turkey shoot. Eight aircraft and helicopters were shot down or destroyed on the runway during the desperate evacuation of Kham Duc. In a horrible tragedy, one cargo plane was shot down by North Vietnamese forces shortly after takeoff. All aboard the aircraft perished--the American air crew, plus some 150 South Vietnamese civilians. Eventually, the airlift succeeded in evacuating nearly all of the camp's survivors. But as the last scheduled plane left the runway and the order was given to bomb the remainder of the camp, a horrible discovery was made: Three American soldiers had accidentally been left on the ground. Joe Jackson's plane was the closest to the area, so he made a split-second decision. ``We're going in,'' he said.

The C-123 cargo plane was not known for its agility, but Joe Jackson tested its limits as an aircraft. He banked the plane into a breathtaking turn and descent, dropping 9,000 feet to the runway in a matter of seconds. The plane instantly drew fire from the enemy, including an anti-armor rocket that crashed just shy of the aircraft but, providentially, did not detonate. The three beleaguered soldiers boarded Joe Jackson's aircraft, and he gunned it, lifting them to safety.

That terrible assault on Kham Duc exacted a high toll in American lives. But thanks to Joe Jackson's quick wits and skillful flying, that toll was much lower.

Joe Jackson remained in the Air Force until 1974, when he retired as a full colonel. He taught at the Air Force Air War College so that future pilots could learn from his example. Then he worked for Boeing, helping that great company build airplanes for use in peacetime, not just wartime. He ultimately settled in Kent, WA, with Rosamund, his wife, to whom he was married for 74 years and with whom he had two children.

Joe Jackson was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Lyndon Johnson in January of 1969. He later described the heavy burden that recipients of that honor must shoulder. He said:

I have to represent the thousands of Americans who have

served the country. You have to make them proud of what you

have done and what they have done.

As a former soldier and as an American, let me state that there can be no finer representative of courage under fire than Joe Jackson. May he rest in peace.

LTC Charles Kettles passed away on January 21 at the age of 89.

Kettles was a helicopter pilot with the Army's 176th Assault Helicopter Company, 14th Combat Aviation Battalion, Task Force Oregon.

Flying was in Kettles' blood. He was born in Ypsilanti, MI, to a father who had flown for the Canadian Royal Air Force in World War I and later for the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II.

Kettles was drafted in 1951, which began a whirlwind of Active Duty tours in Korea, Japan, and Thailand. He returned to the armed services in 1963, volunteering as a pilot. That is one thing to note about Charles Kettles. He was always willing to volunteer for dangerous assignments. Vietnam would give him many opportunities to volunteer.

On May 15, 1967, then-Major Kettles volunteered to lead a flight of six Hueys to reinforce the brigade of the 101st Airborne Division that had been ambushed by a battalion of North Vietnamese.

The situation was pretty hairy. It pitted Americans against hundreds of the VC, and the Americans were taking heavy fire. Worse still, they were trapped in little cover in what was called ``Chump Valley,'' so nicknamed because only a chump would go there.

Major Kettles and his team landed under heavy fire from the enemy. One of the aviators later recalled that the tracers were ``like rain . . . coming straight out of the wood line.'' So intense was the enemy fire that several Americans were killed as they approached the evacuation zone. Nevertheless, Major Kettles stayed until reinforcements were offloaded and wounded soldiers were brought on board.

After that insertion, Major Kettles returned to the battlefield a second time when his helicopter was raked front to back by machine-gun fire. Mechanics later counted 40 holes in his Huey. Major Kettles' gunner was seriously wounded in this trip, but Kettles piloted his aircraft, limping back to base streaming fuel.

Those two flights would be a full day's work and then some for any aviator, but Major Kettles wasn't done yet.

Later that day, with the situation in the valley growing yet more desperate, Kettles volunteered for a third time to evacuate the remaining 44 soldiers. So dangerous was the situation that Kettles was ordered to stand down. However, he disobeyed that order.

Kettles led six helicopters on a third landing as fiercely contested by the enemy as the previous two. Soon the last helicopter reported all personnel were evacuated off the ground, and the helicopters evacuated the area. The all clear had been given too soon; a small group of American soldiers who were bravely fighting a rearguard action had been left behind.

One of those soldiers later recalled the feeling when he saw the helicopters disappear over the jungle canopy: ``If it's possible for your heart to fall into your boots, that's what mine did.''

There were now eight Americans stranded in Chump Valley against hundreds of Viet Cong. Those are long odds even for the Screaming Eagles of the 101st.

So for the fourth time that day--the fourth time--in a split-second decision, Kettles turned around his aircraft to land in a hot LZ. This time he returned alone with no gunship support.

When he landed, a mortar exploded near the front of his aircraft, blowing out his Huey's chin bubble, windshields, tail boom, and rotor. His helicopter returned with 40 holes and was 600 pounds overweight because all eight American soldiers were onboard. They all attribute their survival to his brave actions.

Kettles was later awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his extraordinary courage and self-sacrifice, but he wasn't immediately awarded the Medal of Honor. There is one thing Charles Kettles wouldn't volunteer for--the spotlight. He accepted the Distinguished Service Cross and moved on with his life, retiring from the military in 1978 after another tour in Vietnam.

Kettles moved back to Michigan, where he taught aviation management at Eastern Michigan University and worked for Chrysler Pentastar Aviation. He married twice and had nine children, who survive him, along with his wife Ann.

That is how the Kettles' story may have ended if not for a local historian who persuaded Congress and the Army to reopen the file. When they did, it became apparent to all that he deserved the Nation's highest honor. Charles Kettles was awarded the Medal of Honor in 2016 at the young age of 86. Kettles did what he could to downplay his role in saving his comrades in arms. According to him, ``The bottom line of the whole thing is simply that those 44 [soldiers] did get out of there and are

not a statistic on that wall in DC. The rest of it is rather immaterial, frankly.''

Pardon me here if I disagree for once with Lieutenant Colonel Kettles. It was due to his bravery that those 44 soldiers returned alive and back to their families. On the battlefield, valor is hardly immaterial; it is essential. Charles Kettles proved that on his four volunteer rescue flights that fateful day.

May he rest in peace. May both of these great warriors rest in peace.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to speak on behalf of the amendments offered by Senator Kennedy and myself to the FIRST STEP Act. I think many of the policies in this bill are deeply unwise to allow early release from prison--thousands of serious repeat and potentially violent felons over the next few months if this bill passes.

Our amendments will not do much to solve that problem. They wouldn't solve some of the other problems of the bill which slash some of the minimum mandatory sentences on the front end of sentencing. However, they will fix the worst parts of this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support them.

Frankly, I don't understand why any Senator would oppose them. Let me talk about what these amendments will do. The first amendment will specifically exclude early release from prison for certain heinous criminals to be certain they are going to serve the full length of the sentence to which a jury and a judge sentenced them.

Let me outline the crimes our amendment will cover and, therefore, prohibit from early release: coercing a child to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity, carjacking, assaulting a law enforcement officer, bank robbery, assisting Federal prisoners with jailbreak, hate crimes, and assault.

The bill sponsors have said this bill will not allow early release from prison for violent felons or serious felons. I consider coercing a minor into sex and prostitution, or carjacking, or bank robbery pretty serious crimes and usually violent crimes as well.

Our amendment would also ensure there are no violent felons released from prison or other sex offenders. This is consistent simply with the rhetoric and the talking points the bill's sponsors have used to sell the bill.

Unfortunately, the bill text does not cover all violent felons or sex offenders. Now, 62 percent of all Federal prisoners would still be eligible for early release according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. We are not solving all of the problems of the bill, but it would at least ensure that some of these most heinous criminals who prey on young children or the vulnerable are not released early from prison.

Our second amendment is a victims' rights amendment. It simply says, this bill, which creates new ways and categories under which Federal prisoners can serve their sentence, and if they do, in fact, get released from prison early, their victims will be notified and given a chance to comment. They don't get a veto. I, frankly, probably wouldn't object to that, but they just get a notice. They have a right to write a letter to the warden.

I think we should stand with victims at a time when we are passing legislation that is going to slash sentences on the front end for serious and repeat felons and then release them early on the back end. It is not too much to ask that we notify their victims when they are released early from prison and give those victims a chance to comment.

Finally, the third Kennedy-Cotton amendment would direct the Department of Justice to track the recidivism crimes of any prisoner released early from Federal prison under this law. The bill sponsors make much about the recidivism reduction training that Federal inmates will receive but how it is all evidence-based. This simply provides more evidence consistent with the traditional collection of criminal justice data of the Department of Justice. It directs the Department merely to report to Congress on the recidivism rates of inmates released under this legislation.

Again, these are very modest amendments. They are consistent with the rhetoric of the bill sponsors.

I know some of the sponsors have said this is a poison pill. I, frankly, don't see why. It is consistent with their own rhetoric, and 62 percent of all felons in Federal prison would still be eligible for early release. It does nothing to reduce the leniency on the front end for two-time and three-time drug traffickers.

These are pretty modest amendments. I wish we would have already voted on them. Senator Kennedy and I were ready to vote hours ago. I know there is some disagreement about other amendments on which we may be voting.

Let me state for the record that I also support Senator Lankford's amendment to ensure that faith-based organizations have access to Federal prisons and Federal grants as one of those very critical anti- recidivism opportunities that we provide to Federal inmates. This amendment was promised to Senator Lankford last week. Somehow it didn't get into the text of the bill. I think it could be adopted by unanimous consent. I certainly support Senator Lankford's amendment to be adopted by unanimous consent because I support faith-based organizations that work in prisons to try to help prisoners turn their lives around.

Another amendment under consideration is Senator Cruz's amendment that would exclude more offenses from early release. I support Senator Cruz's amendment as well, and I would support a unanimous consent agreement to call Senator Cruz's amendment to the floor and to pass it. It doesn't overlap exactly with my amendment. It doesn't have the same offenses, but it does have serious offenses. I think we should call that up as well. Then we can vote on the bill.

The bill has been years in the making--the result of painstaking negotiations. These amendments are pending. They are germane under the rules of the Senate. We should vote on them, vote on passage of the bill, and we should move on to the Senate's other business.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will take the 2 minutes for this division, I

believe. Senator Kennedy will take the 2 minutes for each of the next two amendments.

This amendment is very simple. It simply ensures that the sponsors' rhetoric is reflected in the text of the bill. We have heard for years that this bill would not allow violent felons to be released from prison. As it stands now, this bill allows people convicted of carjacking, bank robbery, and coercing a minor into sexual activity and into prostitution to be released early from prison, among many other things. That is just a fact of the bill itself.

The amendment that Senator Kennedy and I have offered would exclude certain specified heinous crimes like coercing a minor into sexual activity or prostitution from those prisoners who are eligible for early release. It would also ensure that no person who is convicted of any crime of violence or any sexual offense is released early from prison. That is what the bill sponsors have said all along. Unfortunately, the bill language does not reflect that rhetoric. Our amendment will ensure that it does.

I know some people have called this a ``poison pill,'' which is a slogan in the substitute of an argument. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has said that even if this amendment passes, 62 percent of Federal prisoners will still be eligible for early release.

If I could do more, I would, but I think we can all agree that people who are convicted child molesters should not be allowed early release from our Federal prisons. If you are curious about how many sex offenders we have and what our Bureau of Prisons thinks about them, let me share with you this little statistic. There are over 15,000 sex offenders in Federal prison and 72 percent of them are currently assessed at low risk. Let me say that 72 percent of those 15,000 sex offenders could be eligible for release if we don't have a simple exclusion on sex offenders and crimes of violence.

I yield the floor.

I appreciate that from the Senator from Iowa. If that is the case, I will defer to the Senator from Louisiana because I think he wanted to speak on that specific division.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will not speak for 2 minutes. There was confusion earlier about which amendments we are voting on.

Frankly, most of you have heard my arguments before. Just to clarify, this has six specific exclusions from early release--offenses like coercing a minor into sexual activity or prostitution, carjacking, bank robbery, hate crimes, as well as a catchall for crimes of violence and sex offenses.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his work on this important issue. I have had numerous ALS sufferers and family members of those who suffer from ALS approach me about this bill early in my time in the Senate, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to work with the Senator from Rhode Island to try to address this very sad problem.

ALS is a progressive and disabling disease for which there is no cure. It is

fatal in all cases. Unfortunately, like almost every other condition, ALS sufferers are required to wait for 5 months before they receive the Social Security Disability Insurance benefits they have earned; that they earned through a lifetime of paying taxes into Social Security.

I understand the purpose of this 5-month waiting period is to weed out temporary conditions, but ALS is not a temporary condition--or to prevent fraudulent claims, but it is hard to imagine anyone making a fraudulent claim on disability based on an ALS diagnosis. The average disability beneficiaries expect to receive benefits for about 20 years, but, unfortunately, those who have been diagnosed with ALS only have a life expectancy of approximately 3 years. Therefore, the disability waiting period of 5 months means that those on ALS will lose, on average, nearly one-seventh of the benefits they have paid a lifetime for. Of course, some will lose a lot more because of ALS's particularly degenerative nature. They will lose their fight to the disease before they ever become eligible for their disability benefits.

This legislation will simply ensure that those patients and their families can access the benefits they paid into as soon as possible by waiving that 5-month waiting period for disability benefits in this one exceptional case.

I understand there is objection about singling out the particular disease or condition. I would, however, say ALS is itself a singularly exceptional condition, and any sufferer of ALS deserves our sympathy, our prayers but also our action on the Senate floor.

I also understand there is objection to the cost of the legislation, which would be $270 million over 10 years--no doubt a lot of money to all Americans--but frankly a small rounding error in the Federal budget. For that matter, it is less than the amount of money for the piece of legislation that is pending on the floor today--a criminal leniency bill that would cost $352 million over 10 years.

If we are prepared to allow legislation to go forward that slashes sentences for serious drug traffickers and let sex offenders out of prison early, even though it costs $350 million, I would suggest it is a misplaced priority to object to legislation because it costs $270 million. So I hope, along with the Senator from Rhode Island, that we can pass this legislation in this week before Christmas and give some small measure of solace to those who are suffering from ALS and their families.

I yield back to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I ask that my amendments Nos. 4097 and 4098 be made pending and reported by number.

Mr. President, I understand there will be 2 minutes of debate on amendment No. 4097.

On amendment No. 4097, I will not ask for a recorded vote. I understand opposition is enough to defeat it. I want to simply say, though, that the geopolitical realities here are, if we withdraw our support for the coalition in the Arabian Peninsula, the fight is not going to stop. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are not going to allow Iran to supply a rebel insurgency with missiles and UAVs and boats that can reach their citizens.

I suggest we should try to do everything we can to minimize civilian casualties. That is why this amendment simply says: The United States can provide information and material that would minimize civilian casualty and that would help those nations adhere to the law of armed conflict.

I regret that this amendment will not pass, but I think it will be a wise course of action for U.S. policy.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, my last amendment was about the law of armed conflict and citizens of foreign nations. This amendment is about our citizens and our troops.

The Houthi rebels have fired more than 100 missiles into the Arabian Peninsula, into the Red Sea, and into the Gulf of Aden. They have used armed, unmanned aerial vehicles and boats to attack in international waters. They have supported terrorist attacks. All of these things can range coastguardsmen, sailors, airmen, soldiers, marines, and hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens we have in the region.

My amendment will simply say that U.S. forces can engage in force protection of our own troops and our own citizens in the region. I hope we can agree that our Armed Forces should be able to take action in self-defense of themselves and our citizens in the region.

I yield back my time.

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

Madam President.

The ACTING PRESDIENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.

Madam President, I speak in support of the nomination of Dominic Lanza to be a district judge for the District of Arizona.

Dominic is my old friend and law school classmate and, maybe most importantly, intramural basketball teammate, when he was known as ``Dom'' or perhaps ``The Dominator.''

Now, I can't claim the credit for Dominic's nomination. He has the highest qualifications, and his whole life has prepared him for this moment to be a U.S. district judge. Dom graduated with highest honors from Dartmouth in 1998, where he was also an All-Ivy League and Academic All-American offensive lineman on the Dartmouth football team. He received the Barrett Award for being the outstanding graduate of his class in achievement, character, and leadership.

In law school together, he excelled, graduating with honors, serving as a member of the law review.

He went on to clerk for Judge Pam Rymer on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. For 5 years, he worked in private practice with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in their constitutional and appellate law practice, and won awards for his pro bono work.

For the last 10 years, Dom has served the people of Arizona and the people of this country in the U.S. attorney's office from the District of Arizona. As an assistant U.S. attorney, from 2008 to 2012, he prosecuted over 300 defendants for a wide variety of crimes, including immigration offenses, drug trafficking, and public corruption.

He authored more than 20 appellate briefs and argued more than 11 cases in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. From 2012 to 2015, he served as chief of the district's Financial Crimes and Public Integrity section, and he is now the chief and executive assistant U.S. attorney--the No. 2 position in the district--where he oversees the Phoenix office.

Dom said that the most important lesson he has learned in his time at the U.S. Attorney's Office is the need to represent the facts and the law fairly and accurately to the court and opposing counsel. He has also learned the necessity of treating everybody involved in the legal process--from judges to jurors, support staff, opposing counsel, and parties--with courtesy, dignity, patience, and respect.

Dom has volunteered in the Court Works Program, in which students from at-risk schools perform simulated trials. He participated in the Veterans Court Program, which provides increased support and guidance to Federal criminal defendants who are veterans.

Dom participated in, completed, and received the highest marks from Senator McCain and Senator Flake's judicial nomination panel. He now has the support, as well, of Senator Jon Kyl. I commend all three men for an outstanding selection.

As I said, I can't take credit for Dom's nomination, but I can perhaps add a little bit of perspective to the kind of judge he will be from the man I knew on the basketball courts.

Dom was tough. If you were driving to the basket or fighting for a rebound, you did not want him in your way.

Dom was fairminded. If he fouled an opposing player or knocked a ball out of bounds, you would get no argument from him. He would admit that he knocked the ball out of bounds or that he had committed the foul, and play would go on.

I would say Dominic was even-tempered, something of a gentle giant. When tempers flared on the basketball courts at Hemingway, as they, in retrospect, did too often--and over silly matters--Dom was a peacemaker, separating those who might otherwise be in an altercation.

Dom was a team player. When it was time for him to take the shot because that is what the team needed, that is what he would do, but he was just as happy to pass the ball off, to set a screen, to box-out for a rebound.

Dom was good-natured--competitive to be sure, but he understood that in the grand scheme of things, we were all just a bunch of washed-up high school and college athletes enjoying a few hours off from our studies.

These are all traits that are going to put him in the best position possible to deliver justice not only for the people of Arizona but for the people of the United States. Everyone who comes before him is fortunate that Dominic Lanza will soon be a district judge.

For 42 years, Dominic has been known as Dom or the Dominator, but in just a few hours, he will be known as Your Honor. Few men, by their character and by their lives, better deserve that title than the Dominator, Dominic Lanza.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to express my support for the 20,000 men and women of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They work hard every day to keep drugs off our streets, to stop human trafficking, to protect our communities from gang violence, and, yes, to enforce our immigration laws. Theirs can be a thankless job, but they do it with courage, dedication, and professionalism. So I, for one, want to say thank you.

I wish to point out the overwhelming support that House Republicans showed for ICE yesterday, which stands in stark contrast to the contemptible display put on by House Democrats. On a simple resolution merely expressing support for the men and women of ICE, only 18 Democrats voted yes, 8 skipped the vote, 34 voted no, and 133 Democrats voted present, which is the same thing as no. That is a pretty sad state of affairs. Thirty-four Democrats condemned the men and women of ICE, and 141 Democrats don't even have the courage of their conviction--they don't even have the guts to vote yes or no--because we all know that Democrats, in their heart of hearts, want to abolish ICE. The way they tell it, ICE is a rogue agency driven by hatred and spite to tear apart communities.

Congressman Pocan of Wisconsin said that ICE is ``ripping at the moral fabric of our nation.''

Congresswoman Jayapal of Washington said that ``ICE is out of control.''

Congressman Blumenauer of Oregon calls ICE ``toxic.''

The senior Senator from Massachusetts said that we should replace ICE ``with something that reflects our values,'' which I suppose means that the 20,000 men and women of ICE don't measure up to the professor's definition of our values. I have to ask, isn't the rule of law one of those values? Because ICE's job is simply to enforce the law and to protect our citizens from crime.

In the last year alone, ICE arrested more than 125,000 illegal aliens with criminal records. Those illegal aliens were responsible for more than 80,000 DUIs, 76,000 dangerous drug offenses, 48,000 assaults, 11,000 weapon offenses, 5,000 sexual assaults, 2,000 kidnappings, and 1,800 homicides. Yes, that is right, almost 2,000 souls would still be on this Earth but for those illegal alien criminals. ICE's investigative arm seized more than 980,000 pounds of narcotics last year. These men and women are on the frontlines of the war on drugs and the opioid crisis in particular. Do the Democrats really believe we should put all these efforts on hold?

This call to abolish ICE is so irresponsible that even some Democrats--those not running for President or beholden to the radical left--are speaking out against this.

Jeh Johnson, President Obama's former Secretary of Homeland Security, said that it ``is not a serious policy proposal'' and ``would compromise public safety.'' He pointed out that even those who opposed the Vietnam war wouldn't have demanded that we abolish the Department of Defense.

Eric Holder, President Obama's former Attorney General, said, ``I don't think that substantively or politically that makes a great deal of sense,'' calling it ``a gift to Republicans.''

Sarah Saldana, who ran ICE under President Obama, has called it ``nonsensical.''

Perhaps the most insightful comment came from former Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He said, ``This makes no sense unless you no longer want any rules on immigration or customs to be enforced.'' And that, I would contend, is the whole point.

Those who want to abolish ICE just want open borders. The very bill House Democrats have introduced to abolish ICE doesn't even say which Federal agency should assume its critical law enforcement duties. They leave it up to a commission. The reason, I submit, is that they don't really care. Their obsession with open borders is so great

that they are willing to risk public safety to achieve it. These irresponsible politicians should know better. They aren't worthy to lead the brave, hard-working men and women of ICE. These officers are just trying to do their jobs and to keep us safe. On behalf of a grateful nation, I conclude by again extending them my deepest thanks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from the National Sheriff's Association about border security and immigration reform be printed in the Record.