John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I rise to honor the life and legacy of William M. Detweiler who passed away on March 27, 2019, at age 79. Mr. Detweiler was a lifelong advocate for veterans and a former national commander of the American Legion. His commitment to our country stands as a shining example for every American. He leaves behind a legacy of compassion for his fellow servicemembers that touched everyone who knew him. Mr. Detweiler was born in New Orleans, LA, on January 28, 1940. He was a graduate of St. Aloysius High School and Loyola University, where he earned both his undergraduate and law degrees. Mr. Detweiler served as a captain in the U.S. Army Intelligence Corps and, later, as assistant chief of staff for the U.S. Army Defense Center at Fort Bliss, TX. He then joined the U.S. Army Reserve and returned home to New Orleans to practice law. During his law career, Mr. Detweiler served on various local, State, and national veterans committees. In 1973, President Nixon appointed him to serve on the Veterans Administration's National Rehabilitation and Education Advisory Committee, which he later went on to chair. As a member of the American Legion, Mr. Detweiler served in a number of capacities including Department of Louisiana judge advocate, chairman of the National Public Relations Commission, chairman of the National Foreign Relations Commission, national vice commander, and national commander. While serving as national commander of the American Legion, he fought for the extension of service-connected disability benefits for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. He was also involved in the planning and development of the National D-Day Museum in the heart of New Orleans, which later became the National WWII Museum. In his most recent leadership role with the American Legion, Mr. Detweiler served as the chairman of the organization's traumatic brain injury--TBI--and posttraumatic stress disorder-PTSD-committee. He was serving as chairman of that committee on March 27, 2019, when his final battle, with pancreatic cancer, came to an end. William M. Detweiler was a tireless advocate for the veterans community, and we thank him for his lifetime of service to our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it is my privilege to recognize a veteran-owned Louisiana small business that has not only grown and succeeded but has also steadfastly remained dedicated to their customers, employees, and community. This week, it is my honor to name BBQGuys of Baton Rouge, LA as the Senate Small Business of the Week. In 1998, Mike Hackley began what has been an American entrepreneurial success story. After serving over 10 years in the U.S. Air Force and working in the real estate and retail sectors, Mike followed his passion of outdoor living and started his own business, opening a retail location called The Grill Store & More. Recognizing the potential that e-commerce had early on, he founded bbqguys.com in 2001. He started out with single-digit employees. Today, BBQGuys has grown to become one of the largest outdoor living online retailers in the world, employing nearly 300. With the success of the retail operations, Mike continued growing his business, founding Blaze Grill, and began to design and manufacture premium barbecue grills with manufacturing operations in the United States. In just a few years, Blaze is already one of the top grill manufacturers in the market. Even with BBQGuys' growth and success, Mike continues to prioritize his employees, making an effort to say good morning every day to team members and maintaining an open-door policy for all. Mike believes in treating his employees like family--a belief he extends to his customers. This culture of hospitality has ultimately resulted in high employee retention and a reputation for outstanding customer service. BBQGuys has been named as one of the Best Places to Work several times by the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report and achieved an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau. BBQGuys has also been named one of the 5,000 Fastest Growing Businesses in the U.S. by Inc. Magazine for 11 consecutive years. BBQGuys is also involved in the Baton Rouge community, participating in several local community activities including Toys for Tots, the Youth Oasis Children's Center, LifeShare Blood Center, and Friends of the Animals of Baton Rouge. BBQGuys is a true representation of the American dream--following a passion, committing to hard work, treating people--customers and employees--with the utmost respect, and growing a very small business of single-digit employees into a leading global business that is constantly innovating. It is my distinct pleasure to honor Mike and the entire team at BBQGuys as the U.S. Senate Small Business of the Week. I commend them for their service to the Baton Rouge community and look forward to watching their continued growth and success. BBQGuys, you make Louisiana proud.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to talk briefly about two subjects. The first is sexual harassment. More specifically, I want to talk about a bill I am going to be introducing. It is about the abuse of nondisclosure agreements across government. There are victims of sexual harassment who are prohibited from talking about their experiences because of a nondisclosure agreement that is attached to a settlement and has been paid for by taxpayers or, in some cases, with private funds. Victims are silenced. Victims are silenced so voters can't find out about this disgusting behavior. I have always believed that sunlight is the best antiseptic and the best disinfectant, and it is long past time, in my opinion, that we stop revictimizing people who wanted nothing more than to come to work every day and be treated with basic human dignity. The title of my proposed law is the Stop Silencing Victims Act. It is really very simple. It would say that if you are a State or Federal employee or if you are a public official or a public employee and you are accused of sexual harassment and you settle that lawsuit--whether you settle it with taxpayer funds or private funds--then a nondisclosure agreement is prohibited in that settlement unless the victim wants to have a nondisclosure agreement. In other words, if you are accused of sexual harassment and you settle the case, the taxpayers are entitled to know about the settlement unless the victim decides otherwise. I am going to be careful here. We believe passionately, as we should, in due process in America; that just because you are accused of something doesn't mean you are guilty of it. Some of my colleagues have suggested in the past that you are morally tainted if you don't automatically believe all accusers. I don't agree with that. I think you are morally tainted if you don't treat both the accuser and accused with respect and dignity and due process. So the purpose of my bill is not to take away anybody's due process. Just because you are accused of something doesn't mean you are guilty of it. Having said that, I think we have to face the facts in America. We have had far too many instances of sexual harassment. We have seen it in Hollywood repeatedly. I don't know how the actors in Hollywood have time to make movies; they are too busy molesting each other. It is not just in Hollywood. It is all across society. It is in the Halls of Congress. It is in the halls of State government. It is in the boardroom. It is all across America. For the first time in a long time, women who are usually--not always but usually--the victims of sexual harassment have started to speak up. I thank them for that. My bill will further enhance their voice. If they make an accusation of sexual harassment and the alleged perpetrator is a State employee or Federal employee and the lawsuit is settled, no longer will you be able to have an agreement that says nobody can talk about it unless the victim wants to. Once again, I think this kind of transparency will help us fight a very serious problem in America because this is no country for creepy old men or for creepy young men or for creepy middle-aged men or for anybody--man or woman--who would use his or her power to obtain sexual favors from somebody in fear of them in power in the workplace or otherwise. Immigration Madam President, I believe any President is entitled to surround himself with the advisers of his choice. I firmly believe that. As you know, our recent Secretary of Homeland Security has been replaced. She and the President met on Sunday, and they mutually decided there would be a change at the top in Homeland Security. Secretary Nielsen decided to resign. Shortly thereafter, her White House colleagues, her friends--the people she has worked with day in and day out to try to solve this crisis of illegal immigration into America--immediately became anonymous sources and proceeded to cut her to pieces off the record. Of course, our press, as it is entitled to do under the First Amendment, feasted on it. These were Secretary Nielsen's colleagues; the people she worked with on a daily basis. This is America. Within reason, you can say what you want, but you ought to put your name to it. You shouldn't hide behind the label of an anonymous source. I believe, and I suspect the Presiding Officer does, too, that we should treat people with dignity and respect. I felt and still feel Secretary Nielsen's former colleagues did not show her dignity and respect. In fact, their behavior was classless. I think Secretary Nielsen did the very best she could under difficult circumstances, for we do have a problem at the border. ``Problem'' is an understatement. In March, we had 100,000 people come into our country illegally. That is the most in 10 years. If that continues, we are going to set a record this year of the number of people entering our country illegally. We are a nation of immigrants, and I am proud of that. Americans cannot be called anti-immigrant. Every year, we welcome a million people across the world to come into our country and become Americans. They do it legally. They follow the law--they are properly vetted; they get in line; they wait patiently. Then we welcome them in. We are a nation of immigrants, and I am very proud of that. Unfortunately, we have another 500,000 to 600,000 people who don't follow the rules. They come into our country illegally. Illegal immigration is illegal. Even if you think it is a good idea--and I don't--if you care about the rule of law, which is one of the bedrock principles in America, then you would want to stop illegal immigration. It is just that simple. I don't care who the President puts in charge of Homeland Security. I don't want to leave that statement in isolation or allow it to be taken out of context. Obviously, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is a very important post, but I don't care which man or woman the President chooses, for we are not going to solve this problem until we do three things. Some brandnew, shiny, magical wonder pony is not going to gallop in and save us here. We have to solve this problem ourselves. The first thing we have to do is to build a wall. I am not talking about a wall from sea to shining sea. We have 1,900 miles of border. I am talking about barriers that are strategically placed. You cannot seal a 1,900-mile piece of real estate without having a barrier. It can't be done. If you don't believe me, ask Israel. That is why it has a 400-plus-mile border wall with the West Bank. That is why Saudi Arabia has a border wall with Yemen. That is why India has a border wall as do Bulgaria and Malaysia. I could keep going. Border walls work. All border walls say is: If you come into our country, come in legally because we believe in the rule of law. The second thing we need to do, as the Presiding Officer well knows, is to pass asylum laws that look like somebody designed the things on purpose because what we have now doesn't fit that description. If you are coming from Central America--from El Salvador, from Nicaragua, from Guatemala--all you have to do is make it to American soil, say the magic words, and you will be allowed into our country. You will be told: We are going to give you a court date. Yet we are so far behind in our immigration court that the court date will likely come in a year and a half or 2 years. You will be released into the country, and you will be told to come back for the court date. Some do. Many don't. No other country that I am aware of has an asylum law as upside down as ours. You could drive all across Washington, DC, and pick the first person you find who is living under the interstate and say: You draft an asylum law for us. It would be better than the asylum law we have right now. The U.S. Senate ought to be debating America's asylum laws right this second. I am not saying the other things we are doing--we are in the personnel business--aren't important, but there is not a single issue right now that is more important. Congress needs to do its job, and the Senate ought to be debating this issue right now. I don't know how it will turn out. How about we just surprise ourselves for a change and do something intelligent by putting the issue on the floor of the Senate and by letting us debate it and offer amendments. We might be surprised at what we can achieve. The third thing we are going to have to do to solve our problem is to convince our friends in Mexico and our friends in Central America--El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua--to work with us in terms of solving this problem. What I would like to see the President do is to call an immigration summit. He has declined to do it, but I am going to keep talking about it until I persuade him to call an immigration summit. Invite the President of Mexico and the President of the Northern Triangle Central American countries. Let's come together, and let's talk about the problem. There are some bad people coming across the border. Some of them are from Central America. The President is right about that. We have gang members, drug dealers, criminals, child sex traffickers, and adult sex traffickers. Yet all of the people coming across are not bad people. They are coming because they are scared. I read an analysis the other day of a poll conducted by Vanderbilt University. It was the most expensive, thorough poll that one could do. They didn't call people on the telephones; they talked to people in person. It was a representative sample. This poll found that between one-third and one-half of the people with whom they talked who lived in Central American countries--the so- called Northern Triangle countries--had been victims of crime within the past year, usually of extortion. That is the problem in these Central American countries--the gangs are running the countries. In many cases, the police and elected leadership are complicit. I mean, imagine how bad things would have to be for you to take your child and your spouse and decide ``I am going to leave where I am and walk, with the clothes on my back, 500 to 1,000 miles to another country because that is how bad things are where I am right now.'' That is the case with many of the people in Central America. I don't know the answer. I think we should start with a Presidential summit--not representatives of the President's but a Presidential summit of the President of the United States, President of Mexico Lopez Obrador, and the Presidents of the Northern Triangle countries. Let's see what we can do to try to solve this problem. There is precedent for this. Back in the late 1990s and well into the next decade, we had a terrible problem with drug cartels and cocaine coming into this country from Colombia. We didn't solve that problem overnight. We solved it by working with Colombia to develop what we called then Plan Colombia. We sat down with the President of Colombia and said: We will work with you. We will even provide some of the funding in return for specific commitments--one being to stop growing cocoa leaves, for example. It has taken a decade, but we have not completely solved the problem. Yet, if you visit Colombia today, it is a different country. Let me say again--and I will end on this note--that I am not anti- immigration, and I don't think most Americans are. We are a nation of immigrants, but illegal immigration undermines legal immigration. Some of my colleagues don't agree with that. They don't make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Some of my colleagues, I am convinced--and it is their right, for this is America; believe what you want--believe that illegal immigration is a moral good. I don't. I think illegal immigration is illegal, and I think it hurts our country. We are not going to solve this problem until we control the flow of people from Central America, until we revise our asylum laws, and until we build a barrier. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk again for a few minutes about S. 1, which is sponsored by Senator Rubio. As I have cautioned the last few times I spoke on the subject, nothing I say is meant to be construed as a criticism of Senator Rubio. There are some really good things in this bill, as the Presiding Officer knows. I forget the title of it. I think Senator Rubio is calling it the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act. I like the fact that S. 1 reaffirms our commitment to protecting Israel. I think that is important. I think Israel is certainly our best friend in the Middle East and one of our best friends in the world. Some days I think Israel is our only friend in the world. S. 1 is going to strengthen America's bonds with Jordan, and I think that is very important. Jordan has been a key ally in fighting terrorism and, frankly, a key ally in helping us deal with the humanitarian catastrophe as a result of Assad and his butchering of his own people in Syria. S. 1 is going to combat a radical economic warfare campaign against our friend Israel. That is long overdue. S. 1 is also going to create new sanctions on the Government of Syria. I support all of those. I intend to vote for S. 1, despite the fact that, in my opinion, there is a great deficiency with S. 1. I know Senator McConnell offered an amendment to reflect the will of the Senate with respect to whether America ought to get out of Syria. In his amendment, he suggested that we should not. I voted against Senator McConnell's amendment not because I think he is wrong but because I just don't know if he is right. I don't think most Members of Congress know. We have received such conflicting information, and I have asked Senator McConnell to hold a briefing for us--a classified briefing in which we bring over people who think we should get out and people who think we shouldn't get out, and let us hear the facts and the informed opinions of people who know better than we do. Frankly, I would like to see us do the same thing with respect to Afghanistan. I share the President's concern about nation-building. We have spent $6 trillion since 2001 in the Middle East. I share the President's concern about mission creep. But, once again, just as I am not saying that Senator McConnell is wrong; I just don't know that he is right, and, quite frankly, I am saying the same thing with respect to President Trump. I am not saying he is wrong about withdrawing from Syria; I am just saying I don't know if he is right. I do know this: President Trump is going to do what he thinks is best for America. The Senate can pass all of the bills and resolutions about the will of the Senate that it wants to, but if the President of the United States thinks it is best for the American people and the world to withdraw all troops from Syria, then my experience is, by God, he is going to do it. If he does it, one of my biggest concerns, which could have been addressed in this bill, is if we would have been allowed to offer amendments, supposedly as the world's greatest deliberative body, we could have fixed this problem. The problem I am talking about is the Syrian Kurds. Let's just call it like it is. I mentioned that Israel has been a great ally, as well as Jordan. This bill is being sold as, well, this is to protect our allies in the Middle East, in part. What about the Syrian Kurds? I think there are 50 or 60 million Kurds throughout the world. They are mostly in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Why aren't the Kurds allowed to self-determine? Even if the Kurds didn't believe in democracy--and I think they do; they want sovereignty like we have, and they want to be able to self- determine--the truth is, we wouldn't have beaten back ISIS without the help of the Syrian Kurds. I don't want to get off into this discussion about whether or not ISIS is defeated. If you look at just the statistics, a couple of years ago, there were 100,000 ISIS jihadists. There are not 100,000 now. There are less than 5,000. A couple of years ago, ISIS had its own caliphate. They just went in there and carved out their own country. They don't have it anymore. So you can debate whether we defeated them. I am not sure we will ever completely defeat the jihadists, whether they call themselves ISIS or al-Qaida or what. But I know this much: We could not have beaten back ISIS without the help of the Syrian Kurds. A lot of our other friends said: Yeah, you go get them. You go fight. We will be glad to hold your coat while you fight. That was not the Syrian Kurds. They got in there with us. The Syrian Kurds have enemies in this world. I am not making any accusations or disparaging comments about our friends in Turkey, but President Erdogan has been very vocal about how he feels about the Kurds, including, but not limited to, the Syrian Kurds. I worry about them if we leave. I had an amendment that didn't require--it didn't require--anybody to do anything. It just said: Mr. President, if we leave Syria, this will give you the authority to keep our friends, our allies, the Syrian Kurds, from being butchered, from being opened up like a soft peanut. America's foreign policy has never been just about interests; it has been about values. America's foreign policy has always had a moral component. Part of the moral component in our foreign policy is that we don't leave our friends behind. That is what we are potentially doing with this bill. It could have been easily fixed. It could have been fixed if the Senate had been allowed to be the U.S. Senate. I don't hate anyone. I love and respect all of my colleagues, and I mean that--even the jurists and everybody in their own way, especially in this body, and I have gotten to know all of them, and I am so proud to be a Member. But it does bother me sometimes; it seems we are kind of like--it is almost Orwellian. We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others, and I think that irks the American people. I think had we been able to offer amendments, we could have fixed that problem with the Syrian Kurds. I hope I don't have to come back and say told you so. I hope after we leave Syria--and I think the President is going to leave Syria--I hope the Syrian Kurds are just fine. I hope they are just fine. But if they are not, I hope we will not look back and say that we had a chance to protect our friends and do the right thing, but we didn't do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks in the unlikely event I don't finish them by 12:30.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to continue talking about a subject that I talked about yesterday, and that is our situation in the Middle East--specifically, but not exclusively, with respect to Syria. To focus my thoughts, I want to begin talking about S. 1, which we are considering and will be considering shortly. We have been considering the procedural matters. S. 1 is the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act. Its sponsor is the senior Senator from the Presiding Officer's State, Senator Rubio. He has done an extraordinary job with this bill. We both know Senator Rubio. He is whip-smart, as I said yesterday. Speaking for me, he has forgotten more foreign policy than I will ever know. This is a good bill. I will just mention a couple of things. Senator Risch has worked very hard on it as well. He is, of course, the chairman of our Foreign Relations Committee. There is a lot to like in S. 1. I just made a list walking over here. No. 1, S. 1 is going to reaffirm our commitment to protecting Israel. Israel is easily our most important ally in the Middle East and is easily our most important friend in the Middle East. On some days, I think they are easily our only friend in the world, and we should support our friends. Let me say that again. We have to support our friends, and Israel is a friend. This bill will support Israel, and I like that. So I am going to vote for the bill. No. 2, Senator Rubio's bill strengthens our bond with Jordan, another key ally. Jordan is a key ally in fighting terrorism and the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Assad's butchering of his own people in Syria, along with the help of Vladimir Putin in Russia. No. 3, Senator Rubio's bill will combat a radical economic welfare campaign against Israel. That is very important. You either support Israel or you don't. It is time for everybody to stand up and be counted. I do. Finally, Senator Rubio's bill creates new sanctions on the Government of Syria. I am not sure they are going to be enough, but it is a start. It targets those who have been laundering money to help the Assad regime. I support all of these things. I support S. 1, sponsored by Senator Rubio. I thank him, Senator Risch, and everybody who has worked so hard on S. 1. There is a way to make S. 1 better, and I have an amendment pending that will do that. I have heard some of my colleagues correctly say that S. 1 is about standing with our allies, and that is important. Certainly, America's foreign policy is centered, in part, around interests but not exclusively around interests. Values are important too. If you have a foreign policy just based on your nation's interests, all you do is go from deal to deal to deal, and everything becomes expendable, depending on what day it is. America's foreign policy has never been based exclusively on interests. I am not saying interests aren't involved, but it has been based on values. One of our values in America is that we stand with our allies. That is what S. 1 does. It stands with our friend Israel. It stands against our enemy Assad. It stands with Jordan. I will tell you who it doesn't stand with--the Syrian Kurds. The Kurdish people are one of the largest--if not the largest--minorities in the world that is stateless. There are Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. They don't have a caliphate. They don't have a country. They are occupying northeast Syria right now, and I believe they want peace. I believe--some of my colleagues disagree with me--that they believe in democracy, and that they, in large part, embrace Western values. I understand that is debatable, but I will tell you one thing that is not debatable. We would not have defeated ISIS without the help of the Syrian Kurds. That is just an actual fact. You can write that one down and take it home to Mama. Before somebody starts saying, well, we haven't defeated ISIS, I say: You never defeat the terrorist group. They will just change their names. Has every jihadist in the world been eliminated in the Middle East? No. Duh. We will never eliminate all of them, but that doesn't mean the President was wrong to say a couple of years ago, when he became President: I don't know how many jihadists are calling themselves members of ISIS. There were 100,000. There sure aren't 100,000 today. I know they had a capital in Raqqa. I know they had a caliphate in the Middle East. I know there were at least 100,000 of them, but there aren't 100,000 of them now. We wouldn't have beaten back ISIS without the help of the Syrian Kurds. The President has announced that he is going to pull American troops out of Syria, and he is talking about pulling American troops out of Afghanistan. I know there is a lot of debate about that. To be truthful, I don't know who is right and who is wrong. Senator McConnell has a vote on his amendment to S. 1 today. I am not sure I am going to vote for it. It is not because I think he is wrong, but it is because I am not sure he is right. I am not sure who is right. The President says one thing, his intelligence community says another, and Members of the Senate say a multitude of things, as we always do. We have to get this one right. There is a lot of talk, not by Senators, but I have seen the opinions in the press. They say that this is all just a bunch of cynical politics, that the whole purpose of S. 1--and I don't believe it, but I have heard people say it, and I guess I can see their point--is about making somebody take a tough vote; that is all it is about. Well, I don't care about tough votes or easy votes or the politics of this. I think what the American people are looking at is that we have been in Syria, and we have been in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have spent trillions of dollars. Why are we there? Have we accomplished why we are there? And if not, when are we going to accomplish it? And, by the way, how much more will it cost? I think the President makes a very valid point about nation-building and about mission creep. I have listened to this debate, and I honestly don't know, and I don't think the American people know. I know the intelligence community may be split, but we in the Senate, all of us--I have met every Member of the Senate--all have brains above a single cell organism. We can have experts come over here and brief us and tell us the pros and the cons. We haven't done that, and that really bothers me. I am not here to criticize Turkey or President Erdogan. I am not saying I agree with everything President Erdogan does or everything Turkey does, but Turkey is a NATO ally, and that means a lot to us. Turkey is supposed to be a friend. I wish we could have better relationships with Turkey. I would like to have a trade deal with Turkey, but I also want to protect our friends the Syrian Kurds. It is no secret and it is no understatement to say that President Erdogan, his administration, and Turkey have had some pretty harsh things to say about the Syrian Kurds and about some of the things that Turkey might do if we pull out and the Syrian Kurds are left exposed. I know that puts us in a very difficult situation. It puts the Senate in a very difficult situation. It puts the President in a very difficult situation. Well, that is why we are here. The purpose of this amendment, which I hope the Senate will support-- I hope I will be allowed to bring it up--is not to make anybody take a tough vote or an easy vote. It is not about the 2020 elections. It is not about trying to get back at the House. It is about trying to allow us to focus and, hopefully, resolve a problem coming down the pike, like thunder on a summer night, that we are going to have to face: What are we going to do if we pull out or minimize our presence in Syria, and our friends the Turks attack our friends the Syrian Kurds? What are we going to do? I don't want to see us wait until that happens and have us all running around like a bunch of sprayed roaches trying to figure it out. We need to deal with it now. We don't need to deal with it on the politics, and we don't need to deal with it in terms of who we are trying to make take a tough vote. I would like to see the Senate have a briefing. I would like to bring experts over to talk to us--those who believe we ought to remain in Syria, those who believe we ought to leave. While we are at it, let's do the same thing about Afghanistan. Then let's talk to the American people straight up: Here is what we have decided, and here is why. Here is the game plan. Here is when it is going to be completed, and here is what it is going to cost. I am going to go back to where I started. I am not naive, nor is the Presiding Officer. A country's foreign policy always has involved with it interests--your own interests--but it is not interests alone. There has to be a moral component to a nation's foreign policy, and our moral principle is that we stand by our friends. I am glad we are standing by Israel. I am going to vote for the bill. I am not sure I am going to vote for the amendment this afternoon, but I am going to vote for the bill. I just wish we would stand by our friends the Syrian Kurds. Thank you. I yield to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as you know, today, or very shortly, the Senate is going to be taking up S. 1, called the Strengthen America's Security in the Middle East Act. Through the Chair, I would say, S. 1 is being offered by Senator Marco Rubio, the senior Senator from Florida. He is, as we also know, whip smart, and Senator Rubio has forgotten more about foreign policy than I will ever know. I have enormous respect for him, and nothing I say today is meant to criticize his extraordinary efforts on this bill, much of which I have supported and will continue to support, but there is a deficiency in S. 1. We can do better by filling that hole. Once again, Congress is paying lip service to protecting our allies in the Middle East. We are calling this bill a protector of our allies in the Middle East, and in large part it is, with a major exception-- because, once again, the U.S. Senate is leaving behind our friends and allies, the Kurds. It is not the first time the Kurds have been left behind. The Kurds were left behind when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and they remained a stateless people. The Kurds were left behind as modern states grew up around them, in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, where they had no political representation, where the Kurds had no future besides oppression. The Kurds were left behind again in 2011, when allied troops pulled out of Iraq, and ISIS was just beginning to emerge. It is time we break that pattern, once and for all, and the Senate can do it in Senator Rubio's stellar effort in the form of S. 1. As I said, S. 1 does some really good things. I thank Senator Rubio. It will reaffirm our commitment to protecting Israel, certainly our closest friend in the region, maybe our best friend in the world. Sometimes I think Israel is our only friend in the world. S. 1 will strengthen our bond with Jordan, another key ally in fighting terrorism and the humanitarian catastrophe caused by the Syrian refugee crisis. It will combat a radical economic warfare campaign against Israel. Let me say that again because it is important. S. 1 will combat a radical economic warfare campaign against Israel. I support that unconditionally. S. 1 will create new sanctions on the Government of Syria that targets those who have been laundering money to help the Assad regime. I support all of those things, but with all the respect I can muster, I say, gently, it is a lie. It is a lie for anyone to say that S. 1 protects all of our allies in the Middle East because it will not. S. 1 makes no mention of our Kurdish allies at all. I have an amendment pending--I have offered an amendment, rather, that would fix that. There are 30 million Kurds in the Middle East. They don't have a state, they don't have a country to call their own. They are not really safe anywhere. As a result, the Kurdish people have suffered tremendously throughout history. They have been subjected to discrimination, massacres, forced relocation, and countless other human rights violations. Saddam Hussein attacked more than 4,000--4,000 Kurdish villages--not people, Kurdish villages--with poison gas and other chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. One hundred eighty thousand people died. They were murdered. Many more were tortured. Even more were imprisoned. Thousands fled, not that they had anywhere to go. In the 1990s, Turkish soldiers made a hobby out of burning down Kurdish villages. Since 1984, more than 40,000 Turkish Kurds have been killed. They still face oppression today in nearly every country they inhabit. The Turkish Defense Minister made that clear in December, when he said that when the time comes, the Kurds ``will be buried in the ditches they dug. No one should doubt this.'' That is a quote. Through all this incomprehensible suffering, the Kurds have stood by America, and we have stood by them through the decades, through thick and through thin. The Kurds have been instrumental at every phase of U.S. engagement in Iraq and Syria, every phase. Going back to the 2003 invasion, Kurdish fighters have been crucial boots on the ground in the fight against Islamic tyranny, and that is just a fact. The parts of Iraq retaken and controlled by the Kurds were strongholds for Western values like democracy and capitalism and multiculturalism. In fact, when allied forces withdrew in 2011, not a single U.S. soldier had lost his or her life in Kurdish territory. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, better known as the SDF, have been another set of boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS. With the help of coalition supplies, weapons, and airstrikes, the SDF recaptured large parts of Northern and Eastern Syria from ISIS's iron grip. Four years ago, the Presiding Officer will recall, there were 100,000 ISIS soldiers. Thanks in large part to our Kurdish allies, those numbers today are 5,000. Today, ISIS has surrendered 99 percent of its territory, including its capital in Raqqa. The so-called caliphate fighters are now being held to a small sliver of territory on the eastern border with Iraq near the Euphrates River. Our Kurdish allies deserve much of the credit for these successes. It is plain to see that the Syrian Kurds have been invaluable in America's fight against jihadists and tyrants in the Middle East. The SDF, Syrian Kurds, controls nearly one-quarter of Syria right now. That is land that doesn't belong to ISIS; that is land that doesn't belong to Assad, a butcher; that is land that doesn't belong to Russia; and that is land that doesn't belong to Iran. More importantly, it is land where the Syrian Kurds know they will be free from persecution and from slaughter. For a while now, I have been asking my colleagues in the Senate to support my amendment to S. 1. My amendment would promote stability and security for our close friends in the Middle East because it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do, and America's foreign policy has always had a moral component. My amendment will allow the United States to defend the Kurds in Syria by giving the President--not requiring the President to do anything. It would give the President the authority to use our military as he deems fit to keep our promise and to protect our allies--and all of our allies. After all, the Kurds have contributed to the fight against ISIS, and we owe them some peace of mind as we draw down our presence in the region. As we draw down our presence in the region, it is time to stand up and stand by our friends to make sure the fight stays won. The threat of U.S. military force has been a major deterrent for the reemergence of jihadists like ISIS and al-Qaida. As the Presiding Officer knows well, weakness invites in wolves. Our presence has held back Assad, it has held back Turkey, it has held back Russia, and it has held back Iran from gaining stronger footholds in the area. Without assurances of our support, as we wind down our effort in Syria, the Kurds will be left behind to fend for themselves. Without the Kurds, we cannot be certain who will step in to fill the power vacuum in the areas of Syria they currently control. We can only guess, and the answers to those guesses don't look good. If the Kurds are vulnerable to attack from Turkey or Syrian rebels, they might have to turn to their enemies for protection out of fear. Even if they don't, they can't fight off the Turkish military if the Turkish military decides to attack and pursue the remnants of ISIS at the same time. To abandon the Kurds now would be unconscionable. To abandon the Kurds now would compromise the security of our allies, Israel and Jordan, and it would risk exposing the region to more turmoil. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to think about the Kurds as they consider how best we can strengthen America's interests and security in the Middle East. It is time we make sure America keeps the promises we made to all of our allies--not just some of our allies, all of our allies--in the Middle East.

Mr. KENNEDY. Afterward, I would ask that my amendment be read. Now I would again ask for a quorum call.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to temporarily withdraw my unanimous consent on my amendment, although I reserve the right to return.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I hear no objection. May I ask that my amendment be read? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am.

Mr. KENNEDY. Toward that end, I hereby offer a second amendment that I am sending to the desk. This second-degree amendment will amend amendment No. 65 proposed by Senator McConnell. I ask that the amendment be read.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I am smiling because of the great admiration and respect I have for the senior Senator from New York. I love to hear him talk.

Mr. KENNEDY. He has waxed eloquently many times in this Chamber. I remember back in 2005, 2006--I was a mere lad--that we had a bill before this Chamber that was called the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Senator Schumer and then-Senator Obama--a rising star--and Senator Hillary Clinton talked passionately and eloquently about how it was impossible to secure a 1,900-mile piece of real estate without having barriers. They talked eloquently. I remember agreeing with them wholeheartedly that legal immigration makes our country stronger, that illegal immigration undermines legal immigration, and that one way to stop illegal immigration--not the only way but one way--was with a border barrier. That was then. This is now. Now, my esteemed colleague knows full well that his resolution will not accomplish either border security or the opening up of this government because President Donald Trump is going to veto it. It will be a futile, useless exercise. We can go through it if the Senator wants to. He can spend all day trying to teach a goat how to climb a tree, but he is better off hiring a squirrel in the first place. There is a measure before this Senate, and the President has put a proposal on the table that will satisfy many of the concerns of our Democratic friends and will ensure border security. For that reason, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as my colleagues know, we have about 41,000 Active-Duty servicemembers in the U.S. Coast Guard. They are running vital missions right now in the South China Sea. They are protecting our airspace and ports along about 12,000 miles of coastline. They are performing search and rescue missions that include nearly 1,200 Active-Duty Coast Guard personnel in my home State of Louisiana, the Eighth Coast Guard District. For that reason, I think the members of our Coast Guard need to be paid during this shutdown until we resolve our differences. We need to resolve our differences. There are some good Members of Congress, but right now, the American people are wondering what they are good for. It seems to me that we ought to be able to reach an agreement that secures the border--which I happen to believe can't be done without a barrier--and that also opens the government. For that reason, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coast Guard be paid; that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 6, H.J. Res. 1; that the Wicker amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Of course.

Mr. KENNEDY. I love to hear him talk. He can talk the ears off a jackrabbit.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes today about America's foreign policy, I want to talk about interests, and I want to talk about values. As you know, Congress is about to consider our foreign policy priorities in the Middle East. As we do that, I want to draw attention to some of our most vital allies in the Middle East. These allies have stood by America and we have stood by them for decades, through thick and thin. As a result, American interests in the Middle East have been protected, and their people have been protected as well. I am talking about the Syrian Kurds. I am talking about Israel. I am talking about Jordan. In my judgment, America must now stand by the Syrian Kurds, Israel, and Jordan--all of whom have paid a heavy price for the destabilization in Syria over the past 5 years--to make sure that this fight stays won. Once the Senate turns our attention to S. 1--and we will eventually-- I plan to offer an amendment to S. 1 that will allow the U.S military to defend the Kurds in Syria, if need be. It would give the President the authority to use the U.S. Armed Forces as he deems fit to keep our promise and to protect our allies. That is all my amendment would do. It wouldn't require anything, but it would give the President of the United States the authority to protect one of our allies in the Middle East--the Syrian Kurds--because, after all, the Kurds contributed mightily to the fight against ISIS, and we owe them. We owe them some peace of mind as we draw down our presence in the region. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces--better known as SDF--have been another set of boots on the ground in our fight against ISIS. In the words of former Secretary Mattis, Kurdish fighters ``shredded'' ISIS. We couldn't have done it without them. With the help of coalition supplies, weapons, and airstrikes, the SDF--the Syrian Kurds--have been able to recapture large parts of both northern Syria and eastern Syria from ISIS's iron grip. That is just a fact. Four years ago, there were nearly 100,000 ISIS fighters. Thanks to our Kurdish allies and others, including American blood and treasure, those numbers have now dwindled to just 5,000. Today, ISIS has surrendered 99 percent of its territory. Let me say that again. Today, ISIS has surrendered 99 percent of its territory, including its former capital of Raqqa. To put that accomplishment in perspective, in January 2015, ISIS controlled more than 34,000 square miles of Syria and Iraq. Thirty-four thousand square miles of Syria and Iraq was ISIS-controlled territory. The world looks a lot different today. Less than 3 weeks ago, the so-called caliphate--the ISIS caliphate--withdrew from their last major urban stronghold in Syria. They are now being held to a small sliver of territory on the eastern border with Iraq, near the Euphrates River. I think it is plain to see that the Syrian Kurds have been indispensable in our fight against the Islamic State. Today, the SDF-- the Syrian Kurds--control nearly a quarter of Syria. That land no longer belongs to ISIS. That land is being lived in peacefully by the Syrian Kurds. It doesn't belong to Russia, and it doesn't belong to Iran. It is land where the Kurds know they will be free from persecution and slaughter. There are 30 million Kurds in the world, as the Presiding Officer well knows. They are living in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. In each country, the Syrian Kurds have been subjected to discrimination, massacres, forced relocation, and countless other human rights violations. The Kurdish people are one of the largest, if not the largest ethnic minority in the world that doesn't have a state or a country to call its own. After World War I, when Western interests carved up the Middle East, the Kurds were left without a state, despite President Woodrow Wilson's argument that this would be--and indeed is--unfair. The truth is that the Kurds in the world today, no matter where they are, are not completely safe anywhere. The Turkish Defense Minister made that clear just this last December when he said that when the time comes--when the time comes, the Turkish Defense Minister said, the Kurds ``will be buried in the ditches they dug. No one should doubt this.'' That is a direct quote. Just last week, Secretary of State Pompeo said that ``ensuring that the Turks don't slaughter the Kurds [and] the protection of religious minorities there in Syria'' are ``still part of the American mission set.'' Secretary Pompeo is a wise man. Our troops there in the region who stand beside our Kurdish friends do more than simply offer supplies and logistical support to the Kurds; they are a visible sign of our solidarity in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Without assurances of our support, the Kurds will be left to fend for themselves. Without the Kurds, we cannot be certain who will step in to fill the power vacuum in the areas of Syria that they currently control. We just cannot. We can only guess, and the answers aren't good. The threat of U.S. military force has been a major deterrent for the reemergence of jihadists like ISIS and al-Qaida. We know that. Our presence has held back Assad, Turkey, Russia, and Iran from gaining stronger footholds in the area. If the Kurds are vulnerable to attack from Turkey or Syrian rebels, I fear they may turn to our enemies for protection. Even if the Kurds didn't, they can't fight off Turkish troops and pursue the remnants of ISIS at the same time. For America to abandon the Kurds in Syria now would compromise the security of our allies, would compromise the security of Israel and Jordan, and would risk exposing the region to more turmoil. I think it was the late, great Ambassador George Kennan, writing, of course, during the Cold War, who said: ``If the policies and actions of the U.S. government are to be made to conform to moral standards''--not self-interest, to moral standards--``those standards are going to have to be America's own, founded on traditional American principles of justice and propriety.'' The Ambassador was correct. As I read his words, as I have read his words, and as I have studied his words, I thought long and hard about what he meant by ``American principles of justice and propriety.'' If justice is getting what you deserve, as C.S. Lewis said, and propriety is doing what is right, as I think most of us believe, then we should give the President the authority to protect the Kurdish people. That is what my amendment would do. We have to do it because they are our friends. We also have to do it because it is the right thing to do for America's interests and for the Middle East peace process. Once we take up the bill, I want to urge my colleagues in the Senate to consider my amendment and to help me make sure that American foreign policy continues to have that important moral component. Standing with our friends in the face of evil despots and dictators is just as important today as it was during the Cold War. I understand President Trump's decision with respect to Syria. I understand his concern about mission creep. I understand his concern about America's failure in our efforts at nation building. I think all of the American people are frustrated with the Middle East. All of us want a prosperous America, but all of us in America want a prosperous world. And we have been disappointed time and again by totalitarian governments in the Middle East. I don't want any of my remarks today to be construed as critical of the President's decision with respect to Syria. Frankly, I don't know whether he is right. I am still listening to both sides. I know this: American foreign policy never has been and never should be based solely on self-interest. Certainly, self-interest is part of it, but American foreign policy also has to have a moral component. Morality in this case dictates that if we withdraw from Syria, we do not allow our Kurdish allies in Syria to be butchered and gutted like a fish. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to join my colleague, Senator Cassidy, to talk about the unspeakable tragedy that happened last Thursday near Gainesville, FL, when a large tractor- trailer crashed into a car, crossed into oncoming traffic, and struck a church van that was bound for Disney World. I wish I understood why bad things happen to good people. There were five kids--five youngsters--from Marksville, LA, who lost their lives in that terrible collision. They were Joel Cloud and Jeremiah Warren, both 14 years old; Cara Descant, aged 13; Brieanna Descant, aged 10; and Cierra Bordelon, aged 9. These five youngsters were members of the United Pentecostal Church in Marksville, LA. They were five beautiful lives, full of potential, who were gone before their time. It is heartbreaking, and there are, simply, no words. I will say it again. I wish I understood why bad things happen to good people. I can't imagine any greater suffering than a parent's being asked to bury a child. The love of a child is not like the love for a parent or a spouse or a sibling. That is deep love. Yet, as my late father used to tell me, ``Son, you will never, ever understand love until you have a child.'' I can't think of any greater suffering than to ask a parent to bury his or her child. I want to tell each of these kids' families, the United Pentecostal Church in Marksville, the whole community in Marksville, and the Avoyelles Parish that the entire State of Louisiana grieves with you and that you are in our prayers. The Marksville van was carrying some very precious cargo. In total, there were 12 passengers: 3 women--one of whom is pregnant--and 9 children. There were survivors--thank you, Lord--but many of the survivors were gravely injured, and I pray that they all have a swift and full recovery. I want to express my sympathies to the families of the two drivers who died in that accident. I also thank the first responders who put themselves at risk every day to try to save lives during these catastrophes. There are no words to describe this tragic accident. It happened far too close to the holidays, but there is never a good time. I am going to say it again. If I make it to Heaven, the first question I am going to ask is, Why do bad things happen to good people? For now, I just pray that these families will find the strength they need to go on and that all the injured are healed quickly. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about the so-called criminal justice bill that we will soon be voting on in the U.S. Senate. I want to make it very clear that I don't believe there is a single, solitary Member of this body who would do anything intentionally to jeopardize public safety. I don't believe that for a moment. I do believe, though, that there will be some sharp divisions over the merits of this bill. I don't intend to vote for the bill, but I recognize that sometimes fairminded people disagree. What I want to do today is to just share with you my perspective on this legislation. There are some things in this bill I really like--the provisions to try to give prisoners job training and mental health counseling, and, in some cases, give them the opportunity to obtain a GED--the so-called anti-recidivism provisions. I support them. For years, I have argued that there is no reason, with technology, that we can't give every prisoner in State and Federal prison the opportunity to get a GED. I support the part of the bill that would house inmates, when we can, within 500 miles of their homes, so they can receive visits from family. I think that might help them not to recidivate. There are other things in the bill that I like, but let me explain why I am not going to support--not going to vote for--the bill, although I will have some amendments to try to make it better. My objection is to the approach of the legislation. I think it is backward. I believe the primary goal of a criminal justice system is not deterrence. It is an important goal, but it is not the most important goal. Neither is retribution nor rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution are important goals of a criminal justice system, but they are not the most important. For most Americans, the most important goal of a criminal justice system is justice. Again, that is not to say that deterrence and rehabilitation aren't important, but they go to the effectiveness of your penal system. They have nothing to do with justice, which is what we try to do here in the U.S. Congress when we establish rules for sentencing criminals. What is justice? It has been talked about, debated, and discussed through the ages. I can tell you what justice means to me and what it means to many people who are smarter than I. Justice exists when people receive what they deserve. For example, justice exists when the people of Tibet are allowed to worship the Dalai Lama, because they deserve freedom of religion. Justice exists when a rapist receives a penalty that is proportionate to his crime. That, to me, is justice. I will say it again. Justice exists when people receive what they deserve. I didn't say that--not first. I agree with it. C. S. Lewis did in an essay called ``The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.'' Before C. S. Lewis said it, Immanuel Kant said it, and before Immanuel Kant said it, Saint Augustine said it. I will say it again. Justice exists when people receive what they deserve, and that is what the American criminal justice system is about. It is not supposed to be primarily about deterrence and rehabilitation, though those are important goals. The ultimate goal is justice. That is why I think this bill is backward. This bill says our sentencing provisions, as established by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, are unjust. That is the assumption in the bill. Rather than try to fix them, we are going to give almost unfettered discretion--if you read the 150-page bill carefully, and I have--to the bureaucrats in the department of corrections to fix our mistakes. If you follow the logic of the proponents of this bill, it is like putting paint on rotten wood. The sentences are unjust, they assume. Therefore, we are going to give the wardens and the Director of Bureau of Prisons the authority to let out whomever he or she wants to. I know there are checks and balances, supposedly, built in there, but read the bill carefully. In the final analysis, this is going to be a subjective call as to who gets out early and who doesn't. If you wanted a debate on this floor of our sentencing provisions and whether they are just, I would pounce on it like a ninja--I would be here all day and all night--but I am not going to vote to pass the buck to the bureaucracy and trust it to do the right thing. That is our job. If the sentences are unjust, then, by golly--by God--let's fix them, but let's not just give our authority to the Bureau of Prisons and expect it to fix our so-called mistakes. Now, I am not conceding that we have made mistakes. I don't know because we haven't focused on the sentencing part. I am not sure that this body has the courage. I am just not sure we have the courage, and that disappoints me. That is why I am against this bill. We have talked a lot about rehabilitation, and we have talked a lot about deterrence, which are both important things. Yet we have talked very, very little about justice, and in the final analysis, that is what the American people expect from us. I am going to offer two amendments that, I think, will improve this bill, and if my glasses had not fallen off, I would have read them to you. Instead, I am going to tell you about them, but I wrote them down carefully so I could try to be precise. They are very simple amendments. Senator Cotton and I are offering these amendments together. I am going to let him explain his amendment. Here is what my two amendments would do. My first amendment would say that victims count, that victims matter. It would direct the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, before he releases an inmate early--a rapist, for example, because the warden or the director thinks he is nonviolent--to contact the victim of that rape and say: Hey, I have made the decision to let this guy out early, and I wanted to tell you about it, and I wanted to give you the date that he is going to be released. I want to give you a chance to write me a statement about how you feel about it, and I promise to read it. It doesn't give the victim veto power. I wish it could. All it says is that before a warden lets a child molester or a pedophile or a rapist or a fentanyl dealer go, he has to call the victim, and if the victim is dead, he has to call the victim's next of kin and say: Hey, I have made the decision to let this person out. I wanted to tell you about it. Here is the date I am going to let him out. You have the right to write a statement about it, and I promise you I will read it. Some of our colleagues call that a poison pill. I call it fairness to the victims. I call it common sense. I call it justice. The second amendment is equally simple. It just says to the Director of Bureau of Prisons: You are going to be letting these criminals go. Once a quarter, you have to make available to the public, without naming the inmates names--we are going to keep them anonymous--a list of the people you let out of prison early. You have to publish the crimes for which they were in prison. You have to publish their rap sheets so we can know what else they served time for, if any, in prison. You also have to tell the public whether they have been rearrested and, if so, what for. That is it. Some of my colleagues call this a poison pill. I call it transparency, and I call it common sense. I deeply regret--and I will conclude on this note--that I cannot support this legislation, because I think there are ways we can improve our penal system. In my opinion, if we want to do justice in a piece of legislation, let's not do it by giving our discretion and our law- making authority to the bureaucracy to decide who gets to stay in prison and who gets to go home early. We make those decisions ourselves on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in front of God and country and the voters. We don't hide behind a bureaucracy. That is why I am going to oppose this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.