Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, we are here in the middle of National Military Appreciation Month. So I am pleased to join my colleagues in showing our Nation's gratitude for every single soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coastguardsman who is serving or has served our Nation with honor. This month is specially dedicated to our Armed Forces, but, of course, we have ample reason to celebrate and appreciate them year- round, because our troops serve year-round and around the clock and willingly accepting limitations on their own freedom and comforts so their fellow Americans can live in freedom and security. Right now, thousands of American troops serve in dangerous conditions overseas far from home. Even now, at this moment, our troops are engaged in combat, surrounded by the enemy, fighting courageously. We are all thankful and proud of their service and indebted for their sacrifice. But it is not only them. Two weeks ago I had the privilege of attending a medal ceremony in Arkansas where seven veterans of the Korean war were honored for their service and for actions they took in defense of our freedom nearly seven decades ago, so that these long-ago actions were not forgotten. One week ago, I had the opportunity to thank our military spouses-- the unsung heroes of our Armed Forces--for their work raising families despite the hardships of military life. Those are just a couple of events from the last couple of weeks. Yet they are multiplied countless times every day across our country and around the world wherever our troops and their families are present. At airports, troops returning from overseas are greeted with hugs and cheers. The remains of our fallen heroes are greeted with odd silence. At dinners and restaurants, a uniform or even a veteran's hat will sometimes still earn a veteran or soldier a free meal from a grateful neighbor and fellow citizen. Here in Washington, honor flights for our veterans still get police escorts with flashing sirens, and children salute those veterans, sometimes asking innocently about their memories at battle. Across the river at Arlington National Cemetery, sentinels of the Old Guard stand at attention and walk the mat around the clock and in all weather--just as they have for the past 82 years--to ensure that those unknown soldiers and every person whose headstone graces those beautiful rolling fields rest in eternal peace. I am proud to live in a country that honors its military in such a fashion, but, more importantly, I am proud to live in a country whose military is worthy of such honor. So to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coastguardsman, I extend my gratitude, my respect, and my thanks to you and your family for your honorable service, not just today, not just this month but every day. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, 5 years ago, I, along with 46 of my fellow Senators, released a letter to Iran's Ayatollah letting him know that any nuclear deal he reached with President Obama wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on unless it was ratified as a treaty by two- thirds of the U.S. Senate. We wrote: ``The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.'' A lot of people were upset by this letter, but I don't really know why. All it did was state a straightforward lesson on American civics-- something any ninth grader who has read our Constitution should know. Yet the Ayatollah agreed to a deal with President Obama that was not, in fact, approved by two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, it was almost rejected by three-fifths of the Senate. Just as we cautioned, not 3 years later, a new President did, in fact, revoke that deal with the stroke of a pen. Today is the 1-year anniversary of America's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, and a lot has happened since then. Just this morning, Iran threatened to renew its rush to the bomb, stockpiling more uranium and producing more heavy water--even threatening to enrich nuclear fuels to dangerous levels in the months ahead if the civilized world does not cave to its demands. We know better than to cave in to the ayatollahs. The United States will remain steadfast in our maximum pressure campaign against Iran until that regime abandons its nuclear and missile program and its support for terrorism. I welcome the news that the President is announcing new sanctions on Iran's mining industry as well. As for our European allies and partners and members of the business community abroad, I hope Iran's threats will serve as a needed wake-up call. Any attempt to invest in Iran's market under any circumstances other than Iran's complete and verifiable cessation of its full range of malign activities will be fraught with huge legal and financial risks--huge risks. Businesses shouldn't put themselves in that compromising position, and European partners shouldn't give in to Iran's high-stakes nuclear blackmail. Of course, today's announcement is just the latest dangerous provocation by the Iranian regime. In the past year, Iran and its well- armed proxies have continued their killing spree across the Middle East--the same spree they were on before and during the Iran nuclear deal. This time, the United States has stood up to Iran rather than rewarding its evil deeds. We designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps for what it is--a foreign terrorist organization--for plotting attacks around the world and arming groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the very same groups that slaughtered innocent civilians in Israel just last weekend with no regard for the lives they purportedly represent in Gaza. We reimposed sanctions on Iran that were waived by President Obama. We have also recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, affirming a close ally's right to defend itself against Iranian-backed aggression. These are good things. Iran is a weaker adversary today than it was a year ago when it was flush with bribe money from its nuclear deal with the Obama administration. Not everyone sees it that way. At least six Democratic Presidential candidates have talked about reentering this outdated obsolete nuclear deal with Iran. They would give the ayatollahs and his armies sanctions relief yet again at a time when Iran's economy is on the mat, not just in recession but in borderline depression. If we were to give them sanctions relief, we know what they would do with that money. We have seen this movie before. They would use it to build ballistic missiles, to kill and maim innocent civilians, and to fuel chaos in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and further abroad. A return to the Iran deal would be a disastrous decision, but more importantly, such a decision would be every bit as reversible as the first. When are these people going to learn? Everybody ought to keep in mind this simple fact, whether you are a politician making promises or on the campaign trail or a business leader considering major investments in Iran. To make it abundantly clear, on the 1-year anniversary of our withdrawal from that horrific, terrible nuclear deal, I have a gift for them all. It is the first anniversary. So it is a paper gift. I have introduced a resolution with my colleagues that reaffirms the policy of the United States to never, never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the resolution reaffirms that sanctions can only come off of Iran once it meets the basic conditions approved by Congress under existing law. Among other things, that law requires that Iran must stop supporting terrorism and dismantle its ballistic missile program before sanctions can be waived. They can't simply be waived by a President using his so-called pen and phone. I hope this resolution clears up any confusion about where the United States stands with respect to Iran and for anyone considering investing in the Iranian market. America will continue to apply maximum pressure against the ayatollahs' regime so long as they continue their campaign of terror and violence against the United States and our allies throughout the Middle East, and we will continue to assist those allies as they fight against Iranian-backed aggression. To the Ayatollah and all of the rulers of Iran: Happy anniversary. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON. 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. COTTON. 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.

Mr. COTTON. 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.

Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON

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

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

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

Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President. The ACTING PRESDIENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.