Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. One last thing. Who is the gentleman who is thinking about laying people off from Montana, that business?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Luebeck, I have never met you. Maybe one day I will. I enjoy my visits to Montana. Give us 24 more hours. I am hoping and praying that we can write the bill. End the negotiations right now, write the bill, and vote on this thing, House and Senate, and put it on the President's desk in the next 24 hours. Sir, if we can't, we have let you down and everybody else in the country like you. To my Governor in South Carolina, you had to institute some very strong containment policies so we don't become New York. People in my State--there are 1,700 restaurants in Myrtle Beach, restaurants and bars. We are going into Easter in a few weeks, and that is when the season begins. Our Canadian friends would be coming down any day now. They want to go swimming in March. We are glad to have them. We don't like swimming in March because it is too cold for us, but the Canadians like it. It is a win-win. They are not coming. Those 1,700 restaurants and bars, in this bill, if we pass it, can go to a credit union or a bank. You can borrow money to pay your employees up to $8,000. You can borrow money to pay the rent, pay yourself as the owner, and we will forgive it and make it a grant for 6 or 8 weeks. That will change everybody's life all over South Carolina. It is time to change people's lives. It is time to stop negotiating. It is time to vote.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 9:30 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, may I just add to what Mr. Cotton from Arkansas just said. It is dangerous. I think it is disgraceful. It is irresponsible, and it is not going to work. We are not going to do this. I think people on our side are willing to go big. For Republicans, it is not so easy in 1 day to spend all we are going to spend in a single year. We are going to spend in 1 day about $1.8 trillion--probably closer to $2 trillion when it is over with. That is as much as we would spend in an entire year for discretionary spending. That is big. I would like to go smart. If you are going to go big, you need to be smart, right? You don't need to go crazy. The only reason we are not voting on this bill is because the House hijacked this process. Nancy Pelosi tried to control impeachment. She tried to set the terms of the debate for the U.S. Senate in the impeachment trial before she would send over the impeachment articles. Do you remember that whole debacle? And as we were dealing with this impeachment garbage, China was on fire. You will hear more about that later in the year. I guess what I would say is that we need to get on with it. You are not going to be successful. We are not going to let this happen to the American people. Rahm Emanuel, whom I actually like, said: For every crisis is an opportunity. This is not your opportunity to impose same-day voting. In the House bill, they are requiring every State in the Union, whether you like it or not, to allow same-day registration and voting. I personally would like to do that in South Carolina but not to combat the coronavirus. That is a dream they have. This is not the time to enact that dream. If you are on a ventilator or if you are a nurse at a hospital and are waiting on medical supplies, please tell them you can't get your stuff until the Republicans agree to same-day voting. They are literally holding hostage the relief for doctors and nurses, for towns and cities, and for businesses that have had to lay off their workers for same-day voting, for corporate diversity, for $15-an-hour minimum wage. If you get a dime of money in your business under the House bill, you will have to pay your employees $15 an hour. Literally, they are using this sad day in America to enact policies that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through the U.S. Senate. They see this as a moment for them. We see this as a moment for you. They see this as an opportunity to do things they couldn't do without the country's being on fire. To my Democratic colleagues, I will work with you to make sure that the money going to American corporations goes to the right people. All of us don't want stock buybacks. All of us want to make sure that the money is lent and not given as a grant to the big companies in this country. All of us are willing to do more to help the States. We are willing to work on the problem. We are willing to take your legislative wish list and allow you to use this moment of crisis to turn the country upside down. I don't know why you want to do this, but I know this: If we were doing this, the media would be eating us alive. If there were a House bill that the Republicans were writing that did away with the right to unionization, every major paper and TV station in this country would be talking about how the Republican Party is going nuts in its trying to take an ideological agenda and attach it to a national crisis that we haven't seen since World War II. So two things are going to happen. We are not going to give in, because it is wrong. It corrupts everything about why we are here. We worked with the House-passed bill that we didn't like because we needed to get something done that was relevant to the problem. To the Speaker of the House, you see this as an opportunity to do things you couldn't do otherwise. The Republicans see this as an opportunity to do things that have to be done now in order to save lives. I have never been more disgusted since Kavanaugh. You tried to destroy a good man's life just to keep the seat open. Close friends of mine in the House have publicly said that this is an opportunity to reshape the country in ``our image.'' It is not going to happen. We didn't let you destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life to keep the seat open, and we are not going to let you turn the country upside down to shape it in your image. We will work with you, in a very generous fashion, to help people who have lost their jobs and to help doctors and nurses who have run out of supplies. Shame on you. Shame on you for coming in at the eleventh hour and taking good faith negotiations and throwing them in an ideological ditch. To the American people, they are going to give in because what they are wanting to do should make you as mad as hell. If you have a family member who is suffering, do you really think now is the time to impose same-day voting? With regard to student loans, a $10,000 loan forgiveness for every student loan in the country is a debate we will have but not on this bill. Let me tell you what it would cost to forgive $10,000 on every student loan in this country--about $500 billion. Here is the question: If you are going to spend $500 billion, wouldn't you want to spend it on the virus? Wouldn't you want to spend it on hospitals that are under siege? Wouldn't you want to spend it on businesses that are shut down and have no hope of opening up anytime soon? So we are going to hold our ground to focus on the people who need the help the most. We are going to say no to an ideological agenda. I can't believe that we are having to do this. What the hell has happened? How could we get here as a nation? We have come a long way from ``we are all in it together'' to this. To my colleagues on the other side, I am more than willing to work with you on unemployment insurance and on all of the things that are in this bill. I am not going to give in to the hijacking of the legislative process by the most partisan people in the country at a time when people are dying. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, later in the day, I will be making a motion to table the Paul amendment that would require offsetting the $7.76 billion for the coronavirus against the foreign operations account. Senator Paul is at it again. He is consistent. I respect his view; I just reject it. What he would be doing is basically upending the fiscal year 2020 agreement on foreign assistance spending passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump. He would be putting our Nation at risk if this amendment actually passed. One percent of the Federal spending is foreign assistance in different fashions and ways, including our commitment to our friends in Israel and other programs we have that I think are national-defense oriented. The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition--consisting of 500 businesses, NGOs, military, and faith leaders--has warned that ``cuts of this magnitude would have devastating consequences on our ability to confront unprecedented global challenges--including countering China's growing influence around the world, supporting partners in the fight against extremism, and addressing the impacts of the Venezuelan refugee crisis on key allies like Colombia.'' I would even go further: This cut would devastate the foreign assistance account in terms of being able to deal effectively with the effects of the virus overseas. David Beasley, head of the World Food Programme, warned in an AP article, which I would like to make part of the Record, that ``if the coronavirus continues to create panic around the world, and there is an economic downturn, I have been telling European leaders, and leaders around the world, you don't have enough money set aside to address the needs in Africa, East Africa, West Africa, in the Middle East right now.'' We are only beginning to understand the cost associated with the virus. I want to compliment Senators Shelby and Leahy for putting this package together. I compliment the White House, the Senate, and the House. There was a huge vote in the House. If we accept Senator Paul's offset amendment, we will be devastating our ability as a nation to deal with this matter overseas. As to Senator Paul's world view, I have consistently rejected it. When it comes to international terrorism, I have no desire to go back to the pre-9/11 footprint of where we ignore problems over there, hoping they will not come here. When it comes to fighting disease and containing viruses, I think we understand that we have to be present over there, and in an effective way, to control the spread of the coronavirus, Ebola, and other diseases that can make their way to America. We have always rejected these types of offsets by Senator Paul. I think the best thing we can do is have an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Count me in for dealing with the deficit, but this is penny wise and pound foolish because the $7.6 billion, if it is taken out of the foreign operations account, makes this country less safe on multiple fronts. I will be making a motion to table at the appropriate time. And I urge my colleagues to understand that what happens over there matters to us over here. This would devastate programs like the Benjamin Gilman International Scholarships and participant schools like Berea College and Western Kentucky University. There is a ripple effect of enormous proportions. It is not going to do much for the debt, but it will do a lot to make us less safe. I yield to Senator Leahy.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to again compliment you and Senator Shelby. You always deliver. You always seem to be able to do things that other people can't do at a time when we need you to deliver for the body and the country. Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record an article, ``UN food aid chief fears for Africa, Mideast amid new crises,'' and a U.S. Global Leadership Coalition letter, dated March 5, 2020.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wrap up by saying that Senator Paul is consistent. Every time he wants to pay for something, he comes to the foreign assistance account. I understand the argument: Why are we spending over there when we have problems here? That sounds good until you realize how the world is. On September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11, we didn't have one soldier in Afghanistan, not an embassy, not an ambassador, not a dime of aid. The Taliban were in charge, and they gave al-Qaida safe haven. That is where the planning of the attacks and 9/11 originated. Looking back, wouldn't it have been nice to have had some influence in Afghanistan on September 10? All I can say is, I will never go back to that pre-9/11 mindset of ignoring the world, because I have learned, like most Americans, the world can come here in a very bad way or very good way, depending on how we defend ourselves. This 1 percent of the budget--foreign assistance to deal with problems over there--is absolutely essential in terms of global health. He exempted the global health component of the foreign assistance account, but the money--$7.76 billion--will destroy other things in the account that I think are vital to our public health here and our national security and our alliances. You cannot fight problems like this by yourself. You need partners. You need to get involved over there so the virus doesn't spread any more here than necessary. I hope that people will listen to what Senator Leahy just said, that this was a negotiated agreement. We all came together to get a budget. Senators Shelby and Leahy did a wonderful job working with the House and the White House to get us to where we are today. This amendment would upset everything. I am going to move to table it at the appropriate time. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time be considered expired.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to table the Paul amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, before Senator Sasse leaves, I say to the Senator, I just can't thank you enough for the passion and the persuasion you bring to these issues. You speak from the heart. You speak with reason. You make a lot of sense, and over time, you will prevail. Just stick with it. Your day will come. What he is saying is, if you try to abort a child, and the child survives the abortion, shouldn't the doctor and the nurses and everybody involved treat the child the same as if they came into the world some other way? I think the answer is yes. Really, these two pieces of legislation are about us as a nation. This is 2020. Who are we as Americans? To me it is odd that we even need to have a discussion about this. I am just perplexed that this is even a problem. Abortion is legal in the United States. There are certain restrictions on it, but I just can't believe we can't rally around the idea that if a baby survives the procedure and is alive and breathing and functioning, medical science doesn't kick in to save the baby. It is just--I don't know. I don't know what happened. What happened to our country that we are even talking about this? It is 2020, for God's sake. It is not 1020. Anyway, just hang in there, Ben. Your day will come. My legislation--I have been doing this for a few years now. We are one of seven nations in the world that allow abortion on demand at 20 weeks, along with North Korea, Vietnam, China, Singapore, the Netherlands, and Canada. What would this legislation do at 20 weeks? This is about the fifth month in the birthing process. The bill is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Why do we call it that? Medical science has determined that a child at 20 weeks is capable of feeling excruciating pain. So if there is an operation to save a child's life or to repair a medical defect at 20 weeks, they provide anesthesia to the child because, during the surgery, the child feels pain. You can see that when a child is poked, they actually repel against the poking. The bottom line is, I find it odd that medical science requires anesthesia to save the baby's life, but during that same period, you can dismember the child. That is what we are talking about here. What kind of Nation are we if, at the fifth month--this is 20 weeks into the birthing process--we are one of seven nations that allow abortion on demand? There are exceptions for the life of the mother-- that hard decision if the mother's life is impacted by the child, and we will leave that up to the family--and if the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest. But beyond that, we want to eliminate abortion on demand at the 20-week period because, I would argue, that doesn't make us a better nation. It doesn't advance anybody's cause. The bottom line is, based on medical science, we know that this child has nerve endings intact. Medical encyclopedias encourage young parents to sing to their unborn child during this period of development because they can begin to associate their voice and recognize who they are. I find it odd that we would encourage young parents to sing to their unborn child at 20 weeks; we require anesthesia to save the child's life; but we are also a country that allows the child to be dismembered. It makes no sense to me. They have exceptions that make sense: life of the mother, the result of rape or incest where there is no choice at all. The bottom line is that these two pieces of legislation are going to continue to be advanced until they pass. It takes a while for America to kind of get focused on what we are saying here because abortion is an uncomfortable topic to talk about, particularly in the early stages of the pregnancy. But what Senator Sasse is saying is that in the case of the child surviving an abortion, there is really not much to talk about. We should protect the life that is now a being. The baby survived. I don't know why the baby survived. I don't know how the baby survived. I just know that decent people would want to come to the child's aid once she does survive. Just imagine what it must be like, after the baby survives the abortion, to be left unattended for 1\1/2\ to 3 hours. That says a lot about us as a nation. I just think we are better than that. It is kind of odd that we even have to have this debate, but apparently we do because this happens more than you would ever think. Babies actually survive abortion, and the rules in this country are that you just let it die. There is no longer required care. That, to me, as Senator Sasse said, is barbaric. It doesn't make us a better people, and it really doesn't affect the abortion debate because the baby survived. My legislation is about us as a nation too. How does abortion on demand in the fifth month advance the cause of America? I don't think it does. We have exceptions in those instances where it is a tragic choice between the life of the mother and the unborn child and in the cases of rape or incest, which are tragic and criminal, but generally speaking, we would like to get ourselves out of a club of seven nations that allow abortion on demand at a time when the parents are encouraged to sing to the child and you have to provide anesthesia to save the child's life because you would not want to operate on a baby in a fashion to hurt the child. I dare say that if you are a doctor and you try to save the baby's life at 20 weeks through surgery and you don't provide anesthesia, you are going to wind up getting yourself in trouble. I find it odd that the law would allow the dismemberment of the child even with anesthesia, but that is where we are. To Senator Sasse, I say that you are an articulate spokesman for your legislation. One day, we will prevail. It took 15 years to pass the late-term abortion ban. It is going to take a while, but our day will come. At the end of the day, the sooner America can get this right, the better off we will be. With that, I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I would like to rise in opposition to Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution, S.J. Res. 68. I have had a longstanding opposition to the War Powers Act. I think it is an unconstitutional intrusion on the ability of any Commander in Chief to defend the Nation and to direct military operations. This statute passed, I think, in the 1970s. It was a way to deal with the Vietnam war. I have always believed the best thing Congress can do when it comes to dealing with military operations--longstanding conflicts that it disapproves of--is to cut off funding. I think that is what the Framers had in mind. The inherent authority of any Commander in Chief to defend the Nation is part of our constitutional checks and balances. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. You cannot have 535 people planning and implementing military operations. That 535 would be Congress. Can you imagine what would happen if our Nation had to respond in real time and we had to get 535 Members of Congress to agree on anything? This resolution is designed to prevent actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran without congressional authorization. It does acknowledge in the law that we can take defensive action. We can always defend ourselves. I think that is inherent to putting people in harm's way. I have been consistent over time. I have opposed the War Powers Act being used against all Presidents, Republican or Democratic. I will continue to do so because I do believe, from a national security point of view, this will create a nightmare for our country's ability to defend itself. Every Commander in Chief has to have the latitude and the flexibility to engage enemies of this Nation in real time and to send messages that are clear. When the President decided to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear agreement early on in his Presidency, I supported that action. We are trying to find a way to replace it with something that is more sustainable and acceptable to the region and the world. Without boring everyone with the flaws in the Iran nuclear agreement, I thought it was a bad deal. It gave the Ayatollah and his henchmen a bunch of money without their having to change their behavior. It was tied to their nuclear program and had nothing to do with their missile program or their being the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Now you see Iran has been acting out since this agreement has been signed. Iran has been involved in operations in Yemen, Lebanon, and throughout the entire region. It has captured American sailors on the high seas and humiliated them. Its efforts in Lebanon put Israel's very existence at risk by its flooding Lebanon with weapons that could be used to destroy our friends in Israel, and it is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. I applaud the President for standing up to the Iranians. They have attacked the largest oilfield in the world in Saudi Arabia, and they have attacked international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The President decided to use military force against Soleimani, who was a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and a commander who was on the international no-fly list--for lack of a better term--who was sanctioned by the U.N. I think he was a legitimate target of war because he had been pushing war against the United States for decades. We have had at least 500 to 600 soldiers killed in Iraq from IEDs that had been developed in Iran and had been used inside Iraq. They have been very, very lethal to American forces. Now we find ourselves in a position wherein Iran is getting more provocative, and the worst possible thing Congress could do would be to send a mixed signal. I want the Iranians to know that the Trump administration would like a new deal and a better deal but that it has to occur through negotiations and that if they continue to dismember the region and develop technology that could destroy our friends in Israel or that could one day come to our homeland, they will be met with all options on the table. The authors of this resolution are friends. Senator Kaine has had a longstanding concern about the original AUMF that had come right after 9/11. It is one thing to try to rewrite it; it is another thing to use the War Powers Act to tie the hands of the President at a time when our Iranian enemies--and they are the enemies of the United States and the region and the world--are becoming more provocative. The Iranian people could be a great ally one day, but the Ayatollah is a religious Nazi, in my view, and I can't imagine why we are doing this now. It makes conflict more likely, not less. If this passes, the President will never abide by it. No President would. It will be vetoed, if that is the appropriate way to do it, but it is going to have no effect on his ability to conduct military operations. It will have an effect on our enemies' perception of the will of the United States to stand up to Iranian aggression. It will have an effect on our allies: Can you really trust America? Our friends in Israel are watching with great concern about this debate. I will oppose this resolution--the fundamentally flawed concept of having a statute that would restrict military operations based on the view of 535 Members of Congress. We can only have 1 Commander in Chief, not 535. I think the War Powers Act, as it has been written, is blatantly unconstitutional. Having said that, we find ourselves at a time of choosing in the Middle East, for the Iranians are making calculations every day of how hard to push: What would the Americans do if we did this or that? I want the Iranians to understand that when it comes to their provocative behavior, all options are on the table. Let me tell you the scenario that I fear the most. The Iranians are now up against the wall because of sanctions. What if they reactivate the centrifuges that have been dismantled or at least mothballed? They have probably not been dismantled. What if they began enriching uranium at 20 percent? What if they went from 3.5 to 20 percent? Going from 20 to 90 takes months, not years. What would be the appropriate response? Would that be a hostile act under the War Powers Act? I know this: It would be an unacceptable outcome for the United States. I hope the Trump administration is communicating to the Iranians that any effort to have a nuclear breakout--a dash to a bomb--would be considered a threat to the United States, our allies--particularly Israel--and would be met with military force if the provocation were to continue. I can't think of a more dangerous scenario in real time than the Iranians' making a miscalculation that the international community--particularly the United States--will sit on the sideline as they try to ramp up enrichment and have a breakout toward a bomb. The regime believes that if it can ever get a nuclear weapon, it will be home free, that the world will back off. All I can say to the world is that containing the Ayatollah with a nuke is a non-option for me. If you are in Israel, it is not even close to being an option. What you have to understand is that the Iranians are wanting to make a bomb, not build powerplants for peaceful purposes. They want a bomb for a reason--not as an insurance policy to guarantee the regime's survivability but to enact a religious agenda that is very dangerous, very radical, and very real. People don't want to believe things like this. After World War I, nobody wanted to believe that Hitler had a plan that included killing all of the Jews. People just thought he was bluffing and talking, rhetoric-wise, just to grab more land and that he would be appeased if you just gave him one more thing. It is hard for peace-loving people to imagine that folks like Hitler actually exist and will do the things they say they will do. It is hard for us here, in the safety of the United States, to imagine that someplace in the Mideast, there is a regime that is bent on our destruction because of our religious differences. Here is what I do believe: If the Ayatollah had a nuclear weapon, he would use it, and it would be a competition for the first use. Would the Iranians go after the Sunni Arabs, who are the mortal enemy of the Islamic faith and the regime? Would they go after Israel? There is no spot on the planet for a State of Israel in the radical Shiite theology. Would they come after us, the greatest of all infidels? I don't know where we would be--No. 1, 2, or 3--but we would be in the top three. I do know this: Our Arab allies and our Israeli friends can never let that day come. The best way to prevent the Ayatollah from having a nuclear breakout is for Congress and this administration and every other administration to make it clear what will happen if you try. We were able to win the Cold War because all parties and every President adhered to the idea that we would stand up to the expansion of communism. This is one of those moments in history in which I hope we do not miscalculate. The Iranians are watching. North Korea is watching. The world is watching. I am hoping that Congress will not miscalculate because, if we pass this resolution, the chance of war goes up, not down. The chance of a nuclear breakout becomes almost inevitable. I ask all of my colleagues to think long and hard about how they will vote today. You may think nothing will really happen if this passes because it will never become law as we know law to be in the United States. You are right about that. Yet you are wrong about the signal it will send. It will send a signal that will be picked up by the most dangerous people on the planet that we really don't mean it when we say: When it comes to Iran's getting a nuclear weapon, it will never happen. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, let me just begin with a note of optimism. You are going to get to pick the next President, not a bunch of politicians driven by sour grapes. I don't say that lightly. I didn't vote for President Trump. I voted for somebody I wouldn't know if they walked in the door. But I accepted the fact that he won. That has been hard for a lot of people to do. And it is not like I am above the President being investigated. I supported the Mueller investigation. I had Democratic colleagues come to me and say: We are afraid he is going to fire Mueller. Will you stand with us to make sure Mueller can complete his investigation? And I did--2 years, $32 million, FBI agents, subpoenas, you name it. The verdict is in. What did we find? Nothing. I thought that would be it. But it is never enough when it comes to President Trump. This sham process is the low point in the Senate for me. If you think you have done the country a good service by legitimizing this impeachment process, what you have done is unleashed the partisan forces of Hell. This is sour grapes. They impeached the President of the United States in 78 days. You cannot get a parking ticket, if you contested it, in 78 days. They gave out souvenir pens when it was over. If you can't see through that, your hatred of Donald Trump has blinded you to the obvious. This is not about protecting the country; this is about destroying the President. There are no rules when it comes to Donald Trump. Everybody in America can confront the witnesses against them, except Donald Trump. Everybody in America can call witnesses on their behalf, except President Trump. Everybody in America can introduce evidence, except for President Trump. He is not above the law, but you put him below the law. In the process of impeaching this President, you have made it almost impossible for future Presidents to do their job. In 78 days, you took due process, as we have come to know it in America, and threw it in the garbage can. This is the first impeachment in the history of the country driven by politicians. The Nixon impeachment had outside counsel, Watergate prosecutors. The Clinton impeachment had Ken Starr, who looked at President Clinton for years before he brought it to Congress. The Mueller investigation went on for 2 years. I trusted Bob Mueller. And when he rendered his verdict, it broke your heart. And you can't let it go. The only way this is going to end permanently is for the President to get reelected. And he will. So as to abuse of Congress, it is a wholesale assault on the Presidency; it is abandoning every sense of fairness that every American has come to expect in their own lives; it is driven by blind partisanship and hatred of the man himself. And they wanted to do it in 78 days. Why? Because they wanted to impeach him before the election. I am not making this up. They said that. The reason the President never was allowed to go to court and challenge the subpoenas that were never issued is because the House managers understood it might take time. President Clinton and President Nixon were allowed to go to article III court and contest the House's action. That was denied this President because it would get in the way of impeaching him before the election. And you send this crap over here, and you are OK with it, my Democratic colleagues. You are OK with the idea that the President was denied his day in court, and you were going to rule on executive privilege as a political body. You are willing to deal out the article III court because you hate Trump that much. What you have done is you have weakened the institution of the Presidency. Be careful what you wish for because it is going to come back your way. Abuse of Congress should be entitled ``abuse of power by the Congress.'' If you think Adam Schiff is trying to get to the truth, I have a bridge I want to sell you. These people hate Trump's guts. They rammed it through the House in a way you couldn't get a parking ticket, and they achieved their goal of impeaching him before the election. The Senate is going to achieve its goal of acquitting him in February. The American people are going to get to decide in November whom they want to be their President. Acquittal will happen in about 2 hours; exoneration comes when President Trump gets reelected because the people of the United States are fed up with this crap. But the damage you have done will be long- lasting. Abuse of power. You are impeaching the President of the United States for suspending foreign aid for a short period of time that they eventually received ahead of schedule to leverage an investigation that never happened. You are going to remove the President of the United States for suspending foreign aid to leverage an investigation of a political opponent that never occurred. The Ukrainians did not know of the suspension until September. They didn't feel any pressure. If you are OK with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden doing what they did, it says more about you than it does anything else. The point of the abuse of power article is that you made it almost impossible now for any President to pick up the phone, if all of us can assume the worst and impeach somebody based on this objective standard. He was talking about corruption in the Ukraine with a past President. And the Bidens' conduct in the Ukraine undercut our ability to effectively deal with corruption by allowing his son to receive $3 million from the most corrupt gas company in the Ukraine. Can you imagine how the Ukrainian Parliamentarian must have felt to be lectured by Joe Biden about ending sweetheart deals? What you have done is impeached the President of the United States and willing to remove him because he suspended foreign aid for 40 days to leverage an investigation that never occurred. And to my good friend Dick Durbin, Donald Trump has done more to help the Ukrainian people than Barack Obama did in his entire 8 years. If you are looking for somebody to help the Ukrainian people fight the Russians, how about giving them some weapons? This is a sham. This is a farce. This is disgusting. This is an affront to President Trump as a person. It is a threat to the office. It will end soon. There is going to be an overwhelming rejection of both articles. We are going to pick up the pieces and try to go forward. But I can say this without any hesitation: I worry about the future of the Presidency after what has happened here. Ladies and gentlemen, you will come to regret this whole process. And to those who have those pens, I hope you will understand history will judge those pens as a souvenir of shame. Mr. President, this is my second Presidential impeachment. My first was as a House manager for the impeachment of President Clinton. I believe President Clinton corruptly interfered in a lawsuit filed against him by a private citizen alleging sexual assault and misconduct. It was clear to me that President Clinton tampered with the evidence, suborned perjury, and tried to deny Paula Jones her day in court. I believed then and continue to believe now that these criminal acts against a private citizen by President Clinton were wholly unacceptable and should have cost him his job. However, at the end of the Clinton impeachment, I accepted the conclusions of the Senate and said that a cloud had been removed from the Presidency, and it was time to move on. During the Clinton impeachment, I voted against one Article of Impeachment that related to lying under oath regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While the conduct covered by that article was inappropriate, to have made such conduct impeachable would have done grave damage to the Presidency by failing to recognize that, in the future, the office will be occupied by flawed human beings. It was obvious to me that President Clinton's lying under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, while wrong, was not a high crime or misdemeanor and that many people in similar circumstances would be inclined to lie to protect themselves and their families. As to the impeachment of President Trump, I feel compelled to condemn the impeachment process used in the House because I believe it was devoid of basic, fundamental due process. The process used in the House for this impeachment was unlike that used for Presidents Nixon or Clinton. This impeachment was completed within 78 days and had a spirit of partisanship and revenge that if accepted by the Senate will lead to the weaponization of impeachment against future presidents. President Trump was entirely shut out of the evidence gathering stage in the House Intelligence Committee, denied the right to counsel, and the right to cross-examine and call witnesses. Moreover, the great volume of evidence gathered against President Trump by the House Intelligence Committee consists of inadmissible hearsay. The House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings were, for lack of a better term, a sham. And most importantly, the House managers admitted the reason that neither the House Intelligence Committee nor the House Judiciary Committee sought testimony in the House from President Trump's closest advisers, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, is because it would have required the House to go to court, impeding their desire to impeach the President before the election. It was a calculated decision to deal article III courts out of President Trump's impeachment inquiry due to a political timetable. The Senate must send a clear message that this can never, ever happen again. As to the substance of the allegations against President Trump, the abuse of power charge as defined by the House is vague, does not allege criminal misconduct, and requires the Senate to engage in a subjective analysis of the President's motives and actions. The House managers argued to the Senate that the sole and exclusive purpose of freezing aid to Ukraine was for the private, political benefit of President Trump. It is clear to me that there is ample evidence--much more than a mere scintilla--that the actions of Hunter Biden and Vice President Biden were inappropriate and undercut American foreign policy. Moreover, there was evidence in the record that officials in Ukraine were actively speaking against Candidate Trump and were pulling for former Secretary of State Clinton. Based on the overwhelming amount of evidence of inappropriate behavior by the Bidens and statements by State Department officials about certain Ukrainians' beliefs that one American candidate would be better than the other, I found it eminently reasonable for the President to be concerned about Ukraine corruption, election interference, and the behavior of Vice President Biden and his son Hunter. It is hard to believe that Vice President Biden was an effective messenger for reform efforts in Ukraine while his son Hunter was receiving $3 million from Burisma, one of Ukraine's most corrupt companies. As Professor Dershowitz described, there are three buckets for examining allegations of corrupt motive or action with regards to impeachment. The first is where there is clearly only a public, national benefit, as in the analogy of freezing aid to Israel unless it stops building new settlements. The second is the mixed motive category in which there is a public benefit--in this case, the public benefit of exposing the Bidens' conduct in the Ukrainian energy sector--and the possibility of a personal, political benefit as well. The third is where there is clearly a pure corrupt motive, as when there is a pecuniary or financial benefit, an allegation that has not been made against President Trump. It is obvious to me that, after the Mueller report, President Trump viewed the House impeachment inquiry as a gross double standard when it comes to investigations. The House launched an investigation into his phone call with President Zelensky while at the same time the House showed no interest in the actions of Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden. The President, in my view, was justified in asking the Ukrainians to look into the circumstances surrounding the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, and whether his termination benefited Hunter Biden and Burisma. It is clear to me that the phone call focused on burden-sharing, corruption, and election interference in an appropriate manner. The most vexing question was how the President was supposed to deal with these legitimate concerns. The House managers in one moment suggest that President Trump could not have asked the Attorney General to investigate these concerns because that would be equivalent to President Trump asking for an investigation of a political rival. But in the next moment, the House managers declare that the proper way for President Trump to have dealt with those allegations would have been to ask the Attorney General to investigate. They cannot have it both ways. I believe that it is fair to criticize President Trump's overreliance on his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate alleged corruption and conflicts of interest regarding the Bidens and Burisma. However, I do not find this remotely an impeachable offense, and it would be beneficial for the country as a whole to find ways to deal with such matters in the future. Assuming the facts in the light most favorable to the House managers, that for a period of time the aid was suspended by President Trump to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and election interference, I find both articles fail as nonimpeachable offenses. I find this to be the case even if we assume the New York Times article about Mr. Bolton is accurate. The Ukrainians received the military aid and did not open the requested investigation. The abuse of power Article of Impeachment is beyond vague and requires a subjective analysis that no Senator should have to engage in. It also represents an existential threat to the Presidency. Moreover, the obstruction of Congress article is literally impeaching the President because he chose to follow the advice of White House counsel and the Department of Justice and he was willing to use constitutional privileges in a manner consistent with every other President. This article must be soundly rejected, not only in this case, but in the future. Whether one likes President Trump or not, he is the President with privileges attached to his office. The House of Representatives, I believe, abused their authority by rushing this impeachment and putting the Senate in the position of having to play the role of an article III court. The long term effect of this practice would be to neuter the Presidency, making the office of the President only as strong as the House will allow. The allegations contained in this impeachment are not what the Framers had in mind as high crimes or misdemeanors. The Framers, in my view, envisioned serious, criminal-like misconduct that would shake the foundation of the American constitutional system. The Nixon impeachment had broad bipartisan support once the facts became known. The Clinton impeachment started with bipartisan support in the House and ended with bipartisan support in the Senate, even though it fell well short of the two-thirds vote requirement to remove the President. In the case of President Trump, this impeachment started as a partisan affair with bipartisan rejection of the Articles of Impeachment in the House and, if not rejected in the Senate, will lead to impeachment as almost an inevitability, as future Presidents will be subject to the partisan whims of the House in any given moment. My decision to vote not guilty on both Articles of Impeachment, I hope, will be seen as a rejection of what the House did and how they did it. I firmly believe that article III courts have a role in the impeachment process and that, to remove a President from office, the conduct has to be of a nature that would shake the very foundation of our constitutional system. The impeachment of President Trump was driven by a level of partisanship and ends justify the means behavior that the American people have rejected. The best way to end this matter is to allow the American people to vote for or against President Trump in November, not to remove him from the ballot. These Articles of Impeachment must be soundly rejected by the Senate because they represent an assault on the Presidency itself and the weaponization of impeachment as a political tool. They must fail for a variety of reasons. First, the conduct being alleged by House managers is that there was a temporary suspension on military assistance to Ukraine, which was eventually received ahead of schedule to leverage an investigation that never occurred. This is not the constitutional earthquake the Founders had in mind regarding bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Second, the articles as drafted do not allege any semblance of a crime and require the Senate to make a subjective analysis of the President's motives. Third, the record is abundant with evidence that the President had legitimate concerns about corruption, election interference emanating from the Ukraine, and that Vice President Biden and his son undercut U.S. efforts to reform corruption inside Ukraine. The second article, alleging obstruction of Congress, is literally punishing the President for exercising the legal rights available to all Presidents as part of our constitutional structure. This article must fail because the House chose their impeachment path based on a political timetable of impeaching the President before Christmas to set up an election year trial in the Senate. The Senate must reject the theory offered by the House managers with regard to obstruction of Congress; to do otherwise would allow the House in the future to deal article III courts out of the impeachment process and give the House complete control over the impeachment field in a way that denies fundamental fairness. Because it took the House 78 days from start to finish to impeach the President of the United States and, during its fact-gathering process, the House denied the President the right to counsel, to cross-examine witnesses against him, and the ability to introduce evidence on his behalf, the Senate must reject both Articles of Impeachment. I am compelled to vote not guilty, to ensure impeachment will not become the new normal. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. GRAHAM. I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Cruz and Cornyn, for both parties.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Alexander, Cruz, Portman, Toomey, Sullivan, and Murkowski to the counsel for the President.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I send a question to the desk from myself and Senator Cruz.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Johnny, at some point, this has to be painful for you. Very few people get together at their own funerals. What we are trying to say is that we like you. You are a breath of fresh air in a body that has a hard time agreeing on much. I have known you since I got into politics. I served in the House with you, and I have served in the Senate with you. I have traveled the world with you. I have played golf with you. I have had dinner with you. I have gotten to know your family. To sum it up, when it comes to being a U.S. Senator, Johnny Isakson has become the gold standard. God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, No. 1, there is nobody I admire more on foreign policy than Senator Menendez. He has been a champion of this cause. My objection will not be to sugarcoat history, nor to rewrite it. I just met with President Erdogan and President Trump about the S- 400 purchase and about the problems we face in Syria from the military incursion by Turkey, and I do hope Turkey and Armenia can come together and deal with this problem. But given where we are in Syria and some hope that maybe we can resolve things, I object, not because of the past but because of the future.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to move to table this amendment. Being the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, this is taking one disaster and creating 100 in its place. This $4.6 billion will destroy all the humanitarian assistance we have passed to deal with an unprecedented wave of refugees. The global health programs are all impacted severely, including PEPFAR and the child survival and maternal health programs. This money comes out of those accounts. Can you imagine how it is going to be to deal with Ebola after cutting the Global Health Program? Programs to counter the influence of Russia and China will be zeroed out. Counter-human trafficking programs will be dramatically reduced. Counterterrorism programs are all affected by this amendment. You are taking one problem at the border, and if you enact the Paul amendment, you will create 100 in its place. So I move to table the Paul amendment No. 902. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be voting in support of the resolutions of disapproval, and let me tell you why. A strategic relationship with the United States should be coveted, and the difference between a relationship and a strategic relationship is very important. We deal with people all the time that engage in practices that we don't like, abhor, and are against. Sometimes you have to sit down and talk with Putin about Syria. Sometimes you have to sit down and talk with the Chinese, even though they imprison the Uighurs. And there are even more egregious examples of the people you have to deal with, because that is part of the world as it is. But when you have a strategic relationship--and we have had one with Saudi Arabia for years--it is different. What brings me here today? I want the people in Saudi Arabia--I have many friends there. I value my relationships there. I appreciate all that Saudi Arabia has done in the past to work with the United States, militarily and otherwise, but I want to be clear to my friends in Saudi Arabia--and really throughout the world--a strategic relationship has certain requirements attached to it. You don't have to run your country like the United States would have you do. You don't have to mirror the United States in terms of your values, but you do have to respect the relationship. There are certain minimum requirements that I think come with a strategic relationship: No. 1, you cannot kill somebody in the most brutal fashion in a consulate of another country--which violates every norm known to the international community--because they wrote a bad article about you. You cannot imprison people and torture them in the fashion that has been going on in Saudi Arabia. You cannot hold the Prime Minister of another country captive for a period of time to bend them to your will. You cannot rendition people that just simply oppose your views. Terrorism cannot be defined as simple dissent. The reason I am voting with Senator Paul and others today is to send a signal to Saudi Arabia that if you act the way you are acting, there is no space for a strategic relationship. There is no amount of oil you can produce that will get me and others to give you a pass on chopping somebody up in a consulate. Did MBS do it? Yes--not because the U.N. said so but because our intelligence and my common sense lead me to believe there is no other viable alternative. You can figure this one out pretty quickly. What happens next? It cannot be business as usual. Saudi Arabia has been a partner. They will have to be a partner in the future. Shooting rockets into Saudi Arabia from Yemen--Iran supporting the Houthi rebels--bothers me. Defensive armaments, I support, but the war in Yemen is out of control. I am trying to deliver the strongest message I know how to deliver: Don't take this relationship for granted--and obviously you have. It is disrespectful to the President of the United States to put him in this position. It is disrespectful to all the allies in Congress for you to put us in this position. Clearly, you don't care that much about this relationship. You care more about the critics and maintaining power at any and all cost. Here is the deal: My relationship with Saudi Arabia is forever changed, and it will not go back to the way it used to be until Saudi Arabia changes its behavior. The leadership of Saudi Arabia has charted a course that is unsustainable. I reject. There is no amount of oil that can be produced to change my view that our values are more important than oil. We can get oil from other people, but your values come from within. There is no amount of threat coming from Iran that is going to require me to give a pass to this brutal, barbaric behavior. More is expected of a strategic partner. Saudi Arabia doesn't protect the United States from Iran. To believe otherwise is recasting conditions on the ground. Saudi Arabia has been a partner. I hope they can be in the future, but Saudi Arabia, through their leadership, made a tremendously bad decision, and it is just not Mr. Khashoggi. Until you change in Saudi Arabia, until you embrace the concept that the strategic relationship with the United States is important, therefore, I must respect it--I am not telling you how to run your country. I am not saying you have to be a Jeffersonian democracy. I respect the right of self-determination by all people, but I will not bless or turn a blind eye to brutality that, in my view, disqualifies a person or a country from being a strategic partner. If this doesn't do it, what would? If we give this a pass, what is next? We are going to stand up to the thugs in Iran. We are going to push back against China's cheating. We are going after al-Qaida, ISIS, and all the other bad actors on the planet. We are going to work with people we don't like, but when it comes to a strategic partnership, we need to put the world on notice: It comes with a minimum price, and that price is you cannot have a strategic relationship with the United States and behave in a fashion that shows no respect for human dignity, no respect for international norms. You have lost me, and that is too bad. I have been on this floor a lot standing up for our friends in Saudi Arabia--which has not always been easy to do--but the days of treating Saudi Arabia the way I used to treat them are over. My hope is we can find a way to restart this relationship, but it is going to require change. That is why I am voting to support these resolutions. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to compliment Senator Shaheen for doing her homework on Syria--traveling, understanding the strategic implications of losing in Syria for the United States and our allies. In New Hampshire and South Carolina, there is not a lot of talk about Syria. It is not that people don't care; it is just that we have our plate full here at home with all of our needs in our own backyard. The thing I can tell people throughout the country: You ignore these problems at our own peril. The wave of refugees that came out of Syria when the civil war first began is going to replicate itself--or I guess we can all sit on the sidelines and watch 3 million people be killed. I hope we don't do that. Idlib is a province in northwestern Syria. The opposition is basically in a corner near the border with Turkey. Assad, with the help of Iran and mostly Russia, is trying to break their will and literally destroy them. Within this group of people--about 3\1/2\ million--there are some really hardcore al-Qaida types--Al-Nusra, all kinds of names associated with the groups--but they are radical Sunni Islamists, and they would bring ISIS back roaring. We don't want them to win the day, and we sure as heck don't want Iran to control Syria. I think it would be a huge mistake for the United States to let Assad prevail in this war, and let me tell you why: It never ends with him. Every radical Sunni Islamist group in the world will use Assad's presence in Syria as a recruiting tool. He is a proxy of Iran. Without Iran, there would be no Assad. So you create a great recruiting opportunity for radical Islam if you let Assad prevail. On multiple occasions, our country has said Assad must go. Why? Because he is a war criminal. He has lost all legitimacy. Russia will have basically trumped the United States--no pun intended--in the backyard of the Middle East, Syria. President Trump, to his credit, changed his decision to withdraw all forces in northeastern Syria and have a holding force with more international involvement to prevent ISIS from coming back in the Manbij area, making sure that Iran doesn't come down and take over, with Assad, that part of Syria and that Turkey doesn't come into northeastern Syria to deal with the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurdish elements of the YPG. A small American contingent force has brought some stability to northeastern Syria. Our Kurdish allies who stepped up to the plate feel like they are in a better spot--we have to realize that Turkey has a legitimate concern about the YPG elements--but to keep everybody apart and make sure ISIS doesn't come back. Nobody is talking about Idlib. President Trump, to his credit, did tweet on June 2--just a few weeks ago--``Hearing word that Russia, Syria and, to a lesser extent, Iran, are bombing the hell out of Idlib Province in Syria, and indiscriminately killing many innocent civilians. The World is watching this butchery. What is the purpose, what will it get you? STOP!'' Good tweet. The only way it is going to stop is for Russia and Iran to pay a price for helping Assad. It is Russian jets with Syrian jets that are indiscriminately bombing civilians in Idlib. If Idlib falls and these people flush out of Syria, you are going to have another wave of refugees coming to Turkey, which is saturated, and eventually Turkey is going to open up the floodgates back into Europe, and we are going to repeat this all over again. To my European friends and allies, you have been reluctant--except the French and the British--to help us in northeastern Syria with a holding force. How many times do you have to see the same movie to understand we need to do something different? What do you tell the European population? That we don't have the will to put a few thousand troops in Syria to make sure that we are not flooded in Europe with people fleeing for their lives? It just never ceases to amaze me how quickly we forget the lessons of the past. As to Idlib, they have broken the agreement we had. Turkey, to its credit, has been trying to find a political solution in that part of Syria. Senator Shaheen and I both know that the only way you end this war is through a political negotiation in Geneva. By having some American forces with our partners in northeastern Syria, we have leverage over the outcome. If we could stand Assad down in Idlib, we would have more leverage to allow the Syrian people to heal their own country. As these attacks escalate--and they will--the President and his team, in conjunction with the civilized world, needs to come up with an Idlib plan. What I want to do with Senator Shaheen is come up with some sanctions or some policies directed at the impending disaster called Idlib. I want us to put on the record our objection to what Russia, Iran, and Assad are doing and try to craft some consequences and actually work with the administration to stop what will be inevitable if we don't send the right signal, which will be the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, a new wave of refugees, and putting radical Sunni Islam on steroids, because they will come to the fight if you don't. So here is your choice, to the free world: If you don't get involved in Syria and try to end this madness, radical Sunni Islam will gladly take your place, and that is not a good outcome. There is no winning in that situation. If Assad wins, we lose. If the radical Sunni Islamist al-Nusra types win, we lose. The good news is, the best way to win is to help the Syrian people. The Syrian people don't want to be dictated anymore by Assad, which is how this all started. They are tired of living under his control. They are not radical people by nature. They are not turning to ISIS as the answer to Assad. Give them a choice. It is in our interest to be involved to some extent. We are not the world's policemen, but we are the glue that holds the world together, and Syria can be put back together only through peace negotiations where the parties have some leverage over their adversaries. It is not just a humanitarian crisis in the making. This is going to change the balance and the power in Syria and the Mideast in a very bad way. You are going to have a never-ending conflict between Iranian proxies and radical Sunni Islamic groups in Syria unless you defang both. Doing nothing sounds good on paper, until you realize what happens when you ignore a problem. I will end with this. On September 10, 2001, America did not have one soldier in Afghanistan, not one dime of aid to Afghanistan. We didn't even have an ambassador to Afghanistan. We just watched as the Taliban took over. They put women in soccer stadiums and killed them for sport because they wore the burka too short, and they blew up statues of Buddha. We were under the illusion, well, that is their problem, not ours. Well, it eventually became our problem because the people doing this stuff to women and religious artifacts of other cultures are compelled by God to deal with us. If you think leaving them alone ends this conflict, you don't understand what the conflict is about. They are driven by a religious ideology that has no place for anybody in this room, our friends in Israel, or moderate Muslims. So you can deal with them now or you can deal with them later. Assad is in a different category but is just as evil and uses the same kind of butchery. I am here to tell you--to Europe: You had better up your game when it comes to Idlib because you are going to pay a heavy price. To the Trump administration, I really appreciate what you have done in northeastern Syria. I appreciate the tweet of the President on June 2. But we have to do more than tweet. We, in the Senate, need to offer some assistance to the administration and our allies, and, working with Senator Shaheen, we will try to find a way to move forward. I appreciate her interests. There is not a whole lot of upside in talking about things like this in modern American politics. But you are always going to be viewed well by history when you address a problem, when you stand up against evil, and when you try to do something about it. It may not be popular for the moment, but time will prove you right. I thank Senator Shaheen. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for over 50 years, our Nation has preserved an annual tradition of honoring the brave men and women of law enforcement who make the ultimate sacrifice. This act of remembrance dates back to President John F. Kennedy's designation of a ``Peace Officers Memorial Day'' in 1962, which has evolved over the years to become National Police Week. Police Week now includes a weeklong celebration of our law enforcement officers and recognition for their sacrifices. Tens of thousands from the law enforcement community have descended upon Washington this week, as they gather near the National Law Enforcement Memorial to remember their colleagues and their families. The memorial was dedicated in 1991 to honor our local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. The long gray walls are curved in a way that makes them appear to go on forever. Over 21,000 names are permanently inscribed into the marble walls as a reminder of the cost of maintaining a free, safe, and civil society. On Wednesday, the 38th Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service was held right outside on the West Front of the Capitol. During this solemn ceremony, the names of 228 brave men and women were read in honor of their priceless contribution to their fellow citizens. Among those being remembered this week are six from my home State of South Carolina. Sergeant Terrence Carraway of the Florence Police Department, Detective Micheal Doty of the York County Sheriff's Office, Corporal Dale Hallman of the Saluda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy James Kirk, Jr., of the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Farrah Turner of the Florence County Sheriff's Office, and Deputy Jerry Hurd, Jr., of the Richland County Sheriff's Office will all be memorialized on those stone walls. Their names will be a perpetual reminder to future generations of the high cost of keeping South Carolinians safe. We honor them, their families, and all of the other brave men and women who died while protecting our communities. While every officer deserves to have their story heard, I would like to call attention to Sergeant Carraway and Deputy Turner. On October 3, 2018, Florence County law enforcement executed a warrant on an individual accused of sexual assault on a child. As they arrived on scene, the officers were ambushed by the suspect's father. When the officers got out of their vehicles, the father started shooting at them. The standoff and the shooting continued for 2 long hours. Despite the danger, the officers did not retreat, but continued to fight. After all was said and done, a total of seven law enforcement personnel had been shot. Sadly, both Sergeant Carraway and Deputy Turner were mortally wounded. I was fortunate enough to attend Sergeant Carraway's memorial service in Florence. It was a beautiful tribute to a life of service. This man was a decorated police officer, Air Force Reservist, coach, mentor, loving husband, father, and friend. Like many of those we are remembering this week, the Terrance Carraway's of the world are the foundation of America's goodness. This is but one small example of how our law enforcement officers put themselves in harm's way for the betterment of the community on a daily basis. These officers answered a call to take a suspect off the street, and it cost them their lives. It is our duty to honor and remember their contribution and their sacrifice. Earlier this week I introduced a resolution to commemorate National Police Week. Included are the names of 159 brave men and women who answered the call of duty, but were sadly taken from us in 2018. This resolution has unanimous, bipartisan support and honors those who have given their lives in fulfilling this noble calling. I want to thank my 99 Senate colleagues who signed on as cosponsors of this measure. In trying to grasp the essence of National Police Week, I think President George H. W. Bush summed it up best. During the groundbreaking ceremony for the National Law Enforcement Memorial in 1989, President Bush said, ``The story to be carved on these walls is the story of America, of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy and decency and to protect a national treasure that we call the American dream.'' I am proud to echo his words today and, along with my colleagues, ensure the story of our heroes is told. I encourage all Americans to take a moment this week to reflect on how law enforcement positively affects their own community. These officers show up every day on behalf of their fellow citizens to serve and protect the American dream that President Bush spoke of nearly 30 years ago. Join me in remembering the fallen, and let us ensure their sacrifice is never forgotten.