Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Lee for his leadership on this resolution. At a time when many bemoan the lack of bipartisanship, we are seeing it here--people coming together around an issue of enormous concern. I want to thank Senator Lee and Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, also one of the leaders in this effort, and the other 17 cosponsors of this resolution. In one-half hour or so, we are going to be casting one of the most important foreign policy votes that we have cast in recent years. It is a vote to demand that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen be addressed. It is a vote that will tell the despotic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that we will no longer be part of their destructive military adventurism. It is a vote, as Senator Lee just mentioned, that says that the Senate respects the Constitution of the United States and understands that the issue of war-making--of going to war, putting our young men and women's lives at stake--is something determined by the Congress, not the President of the United States. It is a congressional decision, not a Presidential decision, whether that President is a Democrat or a Republican. In March of 2015, under the leadership of Muhammed bin Salman--then Saudi Defense Minister and now the Crown Prince--Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates intervened in Yemen's ongoing civil war. Let's be clear. Yemen has been a poor and struggling country for many years, but as a result of the Saudi-led intervention, Yemen is now experiencing the worst humanitarian disaster in the entire world. In one of the poorest countries on Earth, as a result of this war-- according to the Save the Children organization--some 85,000 children have already starved to death and millions more face death, face starvation, if this war continues. According to the United Nations, Yemen is at risk of the most severe famine in more than 100 years, with some 14 million people facing starvation. Further, Yemen is currently experiencing the worst cholera outbreak in the world, with as many as 10,000 new cases developing every week, according to the World Health Organization. Cholera is a disease spread by infected water that causes severe diarrhea and dehydration and will only accelerate the death rate and the misery in that country. The cholera outbreak, as it happens, has occurred because Saudi bombs have destroyed Yemen's water infrastructure, and people are no longer able to access clean water. The fact is that the United States, with limited media attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs that the Saudi-led coalition is using. We have been refueling their planes before they drop those bombs. We have been assisting with intelligence. In too many cases, our weapons are used to kill civilians. As is now well known, in August there was an American-made bomb that obliterated a schoolbus full of young boys, killing dozens and wounding many more. A CNN report found evidence that American weapons have been used in a string of such deadly attacks on civilians since the war began. According to the independent monitoring group Yemen Data Project, between March 2015 and March 2018, more than 30 percent of the Saudi- led coalition's targets have been nonmilitary. A few weeks ago, I met with some brave human rights activists from Yemen, and they are urging Congress to put a stop to this war. They told me that when Yemenis see ``Made in U.S.A.'' on the bombs that are killing them, it tells them that the U.S.A. is responsible for this war, and that is the sad truth. This is not the message the United States of America should be sending to the world. The bottom line is that the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and irresponsible military policy. Above and beyond the humanitarian crisis, this war has been a disaster for our national security and the security of our allies. The administration defends our engagement in Yemen by overstating Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. While Iran's support for Houthis is of serious concern to all of us, the fact is that the relationship between Iran and the Houthis has only been strengthened with the intensification of this war. The war is creating the very problem the administration claims to want to solve. The war is also undermining the broader effort against violent extremists. A 2016 State Department report found that the conflict had helped al-Qaida and the Islamic State's Yemen branch ``deepen their inroads across much of the country.'' This war is both a humanitarian disaster and a strategic disaster in our fight against international terrorism. Further, let's never forget that Saudi Arabia is an undemocratic monarchy controlled by one family--the Saud family. In a 2017 report by the conservative Cato Institute, Saudi Arabia was ranked 149th out of 159 countries in terms of freedom and human rights. For decades, the Saudis have funded schools, mosques, and preachers who promote an extreme form of Islam called Wahabbism. In Saudi Arabia today, women are treated as third-class citizens. Women still need the permission of a male guardian to go to school or to get a job, have to follow a strict dress code, and can be stoned to death for adultery or flogged for spending time in the company of a man who is not their relative. Earlier this year, Saudi activist Loujain al-Hathloul--a leader in the fight for women's rights--was kidnapped from Abu Dhabi and forced to return to Saudi Arabia. She is currently being held without charges. The same is true of many other Saudi political activists. Sadly, President Trump continues to proclaim his love and affection for the Saudi regime. The brutality and lawlessness of that regime was made clear to the whole world with the murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. Pathetically, as part of his continuing respect for authoritarian regimes around the world, President Trump rejected the findings of the CIA's assessment that the Saudi Crown Prince was responsible for that murder. Finally, an issue that has long been the concern of many of us--and Senator Lee touched on that very thoughtfully--it is the Congress, not the President of the United States, who, under our Constitution, has war-making responsibility. For too long, under Democratic and Republican Presidents, we have abdicated that responsibility. Today, I say to my conservative friends: Respect the Constitution. Reclaim Congress's rightful role on the issues of war and peace. Congress has not authorized the war in Yemen; therefore, that war is unconstitutional, and that must change and must change now. In a few minutes, we are going to undertake a very important vote, and I hope that all of my colleagues--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--will vote to discharge this resolution. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President today, I would like to recognize an extraordinary Vermonter, Enid Wonnacott, on her more than 30 years as executive director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, NOFA-VT. For three decades, Enid has worked tirelessly to build the organic agriculture movement and develop a sustainable, resilient, and accessible food system in our State of Vermont and across the United States. During Enid's tenure at NOFA-VT, Vermont has grown from 50 organic farms to more than 700, and many of those farmers, as well as countless consumers and agricultural advocates, have benefitted greatly from technical assistance and training provided by NOFA-VT under Enid's guidance. Recognizing that those farmers need good market opportunities to be viable businesses, Enid helped foster the growth of farmers' markets, community supported agriculture, and initiatives for institutions to procure locally grown food. She helped develop Vermont's farm-to-school program that provides students with healthy food and connects them to local agriculture through educational programming. I especially appreciate Enid's long-held belief, which I share, that healthy local food should be accessible to all people regardless of income, and I applaud NOFA-VT's efforts to make good food affordable through subsidized farmers' market coupons, CSA shares, and more. Enid has worked on many Federal and State policies to promote sustainable agriculture. She was instrumental in developing Federal organic standards and was an early advocate for agricultural systems whereby farmers enhance the quality of the soil and environment while they also produce healthy food. Enid has been mentor to many agriculture and food system leaders throughout the State and region and has served on the Vermont Sustainable Agriculture Council. It should come as no surprise to anyone who knows her, Enid received the Vermont Agriculture Hall of Fame Award this year for her many contributions to our State. Of course, Enid did not do these things alone. First, she has an excellent and committed staff, but perhaps even more important, she has the unwavering support of her husband Harry Frank and their wonderful children, Lila and Eli. Her family is a large part of Enid's success, including the countless hours they spent working alongside her at NOFA events, more than a few of which involved staffing a portable, wood- fired pizza hearth. I am not only enormously grateful for al of Enid's many contributions over the years, but I am also proud to count her as a good friend. At a time when there is a growing recognition of the profound impact agriculture and food have on our health and the health of the planet, it is heartening to know that we have people like Enid Wonnacott fighting for a more environmentally sound and fundamentally just food system.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, several of my Republican colleagues have mentioned that some of us came out in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh almost immediately after he was nominated by the President. Count me in. I was one of those people. I say that without any apologies whatsoever because I was familiar with the record of Brett Kavanaugh on the court where he sits. I was familiar with his record as a member of the Bush administration. I didn't have all of the information, but I surely had enough to understand that if confirmed and seated, he would absolutely be a member of the hard-right majority, which has done so much harm to the people of this country over the last many years. Right off, within 24 hours, I was opposed, and that was exactly the right decision. That is why tomorrow I will vote against the seating of Judge Kavanaugh. Many people in this country do not fully appreciate the role the Supreme Court plays in our lives. They know what the President does. Maybe they know what Congress does. They don't know what the Supreme Court does. I would suggest that in North Dakota and Vermont and all over this country, you have people who are saying: What kind of corrupt campaign finance system do we have? It is not just progressives who say that. Conservatives say that. Republicans say that. Democrats say that. Who believes in the United States of America that a handful of billionaires--some Democrats, mostly Republicans--can spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent their interests? Who thinks that is right? Not many people do. People do not understand that we are in that position today because of a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision regarding Citizens United--a decision that is now undermining American democracy. There are those who think Citizens United did not go far enough, that billionaires should be able to give money directly to Senators and Congressmen, make them directly their employees. I have zero doubt that Judge Kavanaugh will continue that majority approach to allowing billionaires to control our political system. In 1965, an enormously important act was signed by Lyndon Johnson, called the Voting Rights Act. It said that all of our people, regardless of the color of their skin, should have the right to vote. It is not a very radical idea. Yet a few years ago, the majority of the Court gutted that decision and said that it wasn't necessary anymore. States would do the right thing; time has come and gone. Days, hours after that decision was made--a 5-to-4 decision--attorneys general all over this country and Governors were working overtime to figure out how they could suppress the vote, how they could make it easier on themselves to deny people of color, poor people, and young people, the right to vote. That was a Supreme Court decision. If you are upset and you are wondering about how in America we have States trying to make it harder for people to vote when our voter turnout numbers are pretty low compared to the rest of the world, that was a Supreme Court decision. I have zero doubt again, when it comes to protecting our democracy and the rights of people to vote, that Judge Kavanaugh will be on the wrong side of that issue. Today in America we are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people. The Affordable Care Act was an important step forward. By a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that expanding Medicaid in a State was optional, and we had many--I think 17--States that said: No, we are not going to expand Medicaid. Millions of low-income people, children were denied the healthcare this Congress voted to give them. I have zero doubt that Mr. Kavanaugh will continue that effort to make it impossible for us to guarantee healthcare to all of our people. The Janus decision attacking unions was a 5-to-4 decision; the Muslim travel ban, a 5-to-4 decision. I didn't need to hear about the issue of sexual assault in the beginning before it arose. I knew this nominee would be highly partisan, and that was only confirmed more strongly just a couple of weeks ago when he went before the Judiciary Committee again. That is issue No. 1. If any of you out there are now dealing with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, or other life-threatening illnesses, understand that Republicans in a number of States in this country are trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that major parts of the Affordable Care Act are unconstitutional, including the protection for people who have preexisting conditions. If you are struggling with diabetes, cancer, heart disease, serious illness, worry, and worry a lot, about what Mr. Kavanaugh will do with the other four members of the hard right in taking away your ability to get the healthcare you desperately need at an affordable cost. If you are a woman or, in fact, a man or, in fact, 70 percent of the American people who believe a woman has the right to control her own body and you don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned--and that is the last poll I saw, 70 percent of the American people holding that opinion--worry, and worry a lot, because I fear very much if a case-- and we think a case may come before the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade-- worry about what Kavanaugh will do with the other four rightwing members of the Court. That is issue No. 1. If Brett Kavanaugh were a choir boy, if he were one of the most wonderful human beings ever to walk the face of this Earth, based on his policies, based on his decisions, I would vote against him. It turns out that maybe he has not been a choir boy. I could only concur with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, in expressing what we are hearing in our own office. I come from a small State. Yet as a result of Dr. Ford's testimony, we have received comments from 11 Vermonters who relayed, to some degree, their stories about sexual assault. We received a letter from a woman who was 70 years old, who told us about a horrific experience that happened to her when she was 14 years of age. While almost all of the comments that came in were from women, there were some from men who were abused as boys. Some 20 to 25 percent of women in this country have been sexually abused. Wow, that is a crisis. That is an epidemic. Clearly, our goal must be to do everything we can to make it easier for women to come forward with these terribly painful and life-lasting experiences, make it easier for them to speak their truth. It is hard to talk about President Trump and continue to use the word ``unbelievable'' because things he does literally are unbelievable every other day, but I think maybe he might have hit a new low, even for Trump. Dr. Ford brought forth her testimony. I think the vast majority of the American people believed her. The President of the United States--the man who should be telling women we want to hear your truth, we want to hear your pain--this President, in the most vulgar way imaginable, actually mocked Dr. Ford. What kind of message does that send to women all across this country who are suffering? It sends the message that they will not be believed. They will be dismissed, and the most powerful person in this country will mock them. Even for a disgraceful President like Trump, this is, in fact, a new low. It is not even the policies I am quite convinced that Kavanaugh will pursue. It is not only the very serious and credible allegations regarding sexual assault that were in no way fully investigated by the FBI. I read the report, and it was a very limited report. It certainly did not do justice to Dr. Ford. The FBI agents did not even interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh. I don't know how you have an investigation in which you don't interview the two major figures in that charge, that allegation. It is not only the lingering question that came from two--at least two--credible women, but it is also the very important question of Judge Kavanaugh's veracity, his honesty. I think I heard more than one Republican Member of this body say: Well, you know, if he is lying, he should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet there is, in fact, very strong evidence that the testimonies Judge Kavanaugh gave recently and in years past, when he was first appointed to a judgeship, were not honest. Let me give you a few examples. In his previous testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. Republican staffers stole files, and that was pretty clear. The question that was asked of Judge Kavanaugh was, in fact, had he seen those files; was he familiar with those files? The answer he gave was no, he was not familiar with those files. It turned out the emails released as part of these hearings show these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails, in fact, had the subject line ``spying.'' In 2006, Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he didn't know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to its being reported by the New York Times this year. An email revealed that while at the White House, he might have been involved in some conversations about that program. It sounds as though he was not telling the truth. In 2004, Judge Kavanaugh testified that the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court was not one that ``I worked on personally.'' It turns out that may not have been true as well. In 2006, Judge Kavanaugh testified: ``I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.'' New evidence released that is part of these confirmation hearings suggests that statement may not have been true. Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly said that he did not have a serious drinking problem, that he had never blacked out, never acted in a belligerent way. There are a number of his classmates who suggest otherwise. In fact, there is a piece in the Washington Post today, signed by three of his classmates, I believe, at Yale who suggested the very opposite. Are they lying? Are these people coming forward into the public eye to be abused? Are they lying or, in fact, is Judge Kavanaugh not tell the truth? Judge Kavanaugh testified he treated women ``as friends and equals'' and ``with ``dignity and respect.'' Numerous entries in his school yearbook would seem to contradict this. The issue is not just what he did; the issue is that he is not telling the truth about what he did. Judge Kavanaugh was not the only person in America to drink a lot in high school and in college, not the only one. If he had come forward and said ``Yeah, you know, I did have a drinking problem; I have overcome it, but I did,'' that would have been perhaps telling the truth, but that is not what he said. On it goes. It is likely, as I understand it, that those of us who are opposed to Judge Kavanaugh will, in fact, be on the losing side of that vote tomorrow. I am very sorry about that. History has a funny way of responding to what goes on. I think this nomination, to a much greater degree than I think anyone would have expected, has aroused the American people from coast to coast. It has aroused them in terms of the issue of sexual assault and whether we deal with that issue honestly. It has aroused the American people in terms of the issue of veracity and whether or not we are going to have a member on the Supreme Court who, in fact, is honest. It has aroused the American people in understanding that the function of the U.S. Supreme Court is to render justice with impartiality, with justice for all--not to simply represent the wealthy and the powerful and billionaire campaign contributors. So I think this whole process has been an enormous learning experience for the American people. While we may lose tomorrow, I think the end result of what has taken place here--the disgrace of what has taken place here--will reverberate in a very positive way for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, one out of four women in this country has been a victim of sexual assault. This is an epidemic, and it tells me-- and I think the vast majority of the American people--that we need a culture change in the way boys and men respond to women. Last night, the President of the United States--instead of understanding that we have to change our culture, instead of understanding that we have to make it easier for women who have been victims of sexual assault to come forward and tell their stories--got up on a podium in Mississippi and mocked Dr. Ford, made fun of her. Here is a woman who has come forward to do what she thought was right as an American citizen, understanding from day one that she would be attacked by political opponents. The result of her having come forward was that she has received death threats; she has been separated from her children; and she has had Nazis protesting outside her house. That is what she has gone through, and the President's response to her courage is to mock her, to make fun of her. What kind of message does that send to women and men all over this country--women who are struggling to determine whether, when they come forward, they will be laughed at, they will be rejected? The President of the United States should lead this country in changing that type of culture, making it easier for women to come forward and tell their stories, making it clear to boys and men that in this country, that type of behavior is unacceptable. Yet we had a leader of our country, a President of the United States, mocking this woman. I hope that every Member of this Chamber, regardless of their feelings about Kavanaugh, would come forward and express disgust and outrage at the behavior of President Trump with regard to Dr. Ford. A number of my Republican colleagues have come forward and said: You know, at the very beginning of this process, well before the allegations of sexual assault or the veracity of Mr. Kavanaugh, there were people coming forward, saying they were opposed to the nomination. I plead guilty. I was one of those people. I announced my opposition to Judge Kavanaugh probably a day after Trump made that nomination. Let me tell you exactly why I came out early against Judge Kavanaugh. The reason is that for years now there has been a hard right 5-to-4 majority on the Supreme Court who have time and again made rulings that represented the wealthy and the powerful, rulings against the interests of working families, women, the environment, children, and the poor. Based on the statements that Kavanaugh has made over the years and based on his judicial rulings, I had no doubt that, if seated, Kavanaugh would become part of that hard-right majority. I should tell you now, based on the last hearing that took place before the Judiciary Committee where we saw Mr. Kavanaugh's politics come out, my initial judgment turned out to be exactly right. If he is seated, he will be part of the hard right--a hard right that ruled on Citizens United that billionaires in America have the right to undermine our democracy and spend as much money as they want to elect candidates who represent the wealthy and the powerful. I fear that if Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, he will take Citizens United even further. We have a hard right on the Supreme Court by a 5-to-4 vote that gutted the Voting Rights Act--an act designed to protect minorities from discrimination in terms of their ability to vote. Literally the day after that decision came down, there were Republican Governors and attorneys general all over this country working overtime, shamefully, cowardly, to make it harder for poor people, people of color, and young people to vote. I have no doubt that if Mr. Kavanaugh is seated, he will be part of that hard-right philosophy. So I apologize to nobody for, within 1 day of that nomination, saying that I was opposed to it. That is my view. Obviously, many of my Republican colleagues, maybe some Democrats, did not reach that conclusion. However, in the past 3 months and especially in the past few weeks, we have heard credible accusations of sexual assault by several women. These are charges that must be thoroughly and seriously investigated by the FBI. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh will have a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court--a lifetime seat. Yet we have the Republican leader and other Members saying: We have to rush this process along. We have to give the FBI just a few days in order to complete their investigation because, my goodness, we have to fill that empty seat on the Supreme Court. How hypocritical is that? Let me remind my colleagues that less than 2\1/2\ short years ago, following the death of Justice Scalia, my Republican colleagues simply refused to even consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for a seat on the Supreme Court, and they left that seat open for 10 months until they got a Republican President. If you could wait for 10 months to fill that empty seat, I think you can wait a few weeks more for us to do a thorough investigation of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. We are dealing with not only Judge Kavanaugh's rightwing political philosophy; we are dealing with not only the serious allegations of sexual assault, which have to be thoroughly investigated; we are dealing with another very important issue, and that is the issue of veracity, whether Judge Kavanaugh was honest and truthful in terms of his responses to questions asked of him recently and years before when he came before the Judiciary Committee. I have heard colleagues say--I think rightfully--that regardless of philosophy, if somebody lies to a U.S. Senate committee, that person should not be seated. What we need right now, not in a few days' period, is a thorough investigation not only of the charges, the allegations of sexual assault, but also issues of whether Judge Kavanaugh has been honest when he has come before the Judiciary Committee. Let me give a few examples of what I mean--things that need to be explored. In his previous testimony before the committee, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times whether he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democratic staffers. He said he didn't know anything about it when he was in the Bush White House. Yet emails released as part of these hearings show these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the Bush White House staff. In fact, one of the emails had the subject line ``spying.'' Was Judge Kavanaugh telling the truth, or was he lying? We have to determine that. In 2006, Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he didn't know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by the New York Times. This year, an email revealed that while at the White House, he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. Was Judge Kavanaugh telling the truth in his response to the committee? In 2004, Judge Kavanaugh testified that the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court ``was not one that I worked on personally''--again, when he was in the Bush White House. Documents now contradict that statement. Newly released documents also call into question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles Pickering ``was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.'' Was he telling the truth? If he was not telling the truth on these issues, does that tell us something about the character of this man who wants to take a seat on the Supreme Court? In 2006, Judge Kavanaugh testified: ``I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.'' New evidence released as part of these confirmation hearings contradicts that assertion. Those are issues not dealing with the allegations of sexual assault. In terms of the recent allegations, Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly told the committee that he never drank to the point where he didn't remember something. He also denied ever becoming aggressive when he drinks. This is not an issue of whether somebody drinks. Millions of people drink. This is an issue of whether he was being honest in his responses. As you know, there have been a number of reports from those people Judge Kavanaugh attended high school with and attended college and law school with that contradict his assertion about his drinking habits. Judge Kavanaugh himself, in a 2001 email, referenced ``growing aggressive'' during a weekend vacation but that he ``didn't remember.'' Again, the issue here is not drinking; the issue is veracity. Was he telling the truth? On another issue, Judge Kavanaugh testified that he treated women ``as friends and equals'' and with ``dignity and respect.'' Numerous entries in his school yearbook would seem to suggest otherwise. Was Judge Kavanaugh's statements to the committee truthful? Again, whether you like his philosophy or you don't, it is important for us to ascertain the veracity of his testimony. Judge Kavanaugh claimed that he and Dr. Ford ``did not travel in the same social circles.'' Dr. Ford said that she dated Chris Garrett, referenced as a friend in his yearbook. In fact, she testified that Garrett introduced her to Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh claimed numerous times in response to Dr. Ford's allegations that ``all four witnesses say it didn't happen'' and that witnesses ``refuted'' Dr. Ford's story. Yet one of the witnesses simply said she didn't remember the party in question that took place decades ago but that, in fact, she believes Dr. Ford. Kavanaugh testified that he had ``no connections'' to Yale, when, in fact, he was a legacy student whose grandfather attended the school. Kavanaugh claimed that he had no idea his mentor and good friend Alex Kozinski was sexually harassing his clerks and creating a hostile work environment, but Kozinski's behavior was such an open secret that some law schools were warning potential applicants to stay away from Kozinski. Kavanaugh claims he was not on Kozinski's infamous email list but refused to even search his emails to double-check. Was Judge Kavanaugh telling the truth about his relationship with Judge Kozinski? These are very serious issues. Millions of Americans are deeply involved and concerned about these issues--issues not only about philosophy, issues about sexual harassment of women, issues about veracity. This is a question we have to get to the bottom of. We do not need artificial time limitations. Let's do it right, before we cast a vote on Judge Kavanaugh. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a matter of extraordinary importance to the future of American democracy and, in fact, democracies all over the world. At the Helsinki summit on Monday, President Trump embarrassed our country, undermined American values, and openly sided with Russia's authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin, against the U.S. intelligence community's unanimous assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. Senator John McCain is right when he said: It was-- [It was] one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump's naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake. That is not Bernie Sanders talking. That is former Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain. On Tuesday, after a strong international backlash, Trump, in a bizarre statement, claimed he misspoke and, of course, blamed the media for reporting what he said, even then he could not help but suggest that the electoral interference ``could be other people also'' and not just Russia. In an interview last night, Trump changed his answer yet again and acknowledged, in the meekest way possible, that, yes, Russia meddled in our election, and, as the leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin is responsible. This is a step forward, but it is not remotely sufficient. Who knows what tweet the President will release tomorrow? He seems to come up with a new response every few hours. Today, we face an unprecedented situation of a President who, for whatever reason, refuses to acknowledge the full scope of the threat to American democracy. Either he really doesn't understand what is happening--and that is possible--or he is under Russian influence because of compromising information that they may have on him or because he is ultimately more sympathetic to Russia's authoritarian oligarchic form of government than he is to American democracy. Whatever the reason, Congress must act now. Democrats must act and Republicans must act if we are serious about preserving American democracy. We must demand--and I know this is a radical idea--that the President of the United States represent the interests of the American people and not Russia. Let us be as clear as we can be. Russia has been interfering not only in U.S. elections but in the elections of other democracies--the United Kingdom, France, Germany. I yield to the Democratic leader.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Democratic leader for his strong efforts on this enormously important issue. I want to reiterate that this really is not a Democratic resolution. If there is any resolution that should be bipartisan, this is it. My Republican colleagues believe in democracy. I know that. We believe in democracy. Together, we and the American people must make it clear that we will not allow Russia or any other country on Earth to undermine our democracy. Let's be very clear that Russia has not just been interfering in U.S. elections but in elections of other democracies around the world--the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to name just a few countries. Russia's goal is to advance its own interests by weakening the transatlantic alliance of democracies that arose after World War II, while also inflaming internal divisions in our country and in other countries. We should also be clear that this interference is directed from the very highest levels of the Russian Government. Last week, Special Counsel Mueller announced a set of indictments of 12 members of Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU. There can be no doubt that given the nature of the Russian Government, Vladimir Putin was directly involved in this effort. But our concern is not only what has already happened; more importantly, it is what could happen in the future. What happened in 2016 was an outrage, but we have to make sure it does not happen in 2018 and future elections. Last week, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a former Republican U.S. Senator, raised the alarm on growing cyber attacks and threats against the United States in a range of areas--a range of areas, not just elections--including Federal, State, and local government agencies, the military, business, and academia, saying that the situation is at a ``critical point.'' Coats said Russia is ``the most aggressive foreign actor, no question, and they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy.'' Coats compared the warning signs to those the United States faced ahead of the September 11 terrorist attacks. This is a clear and present threat to our democratic system and those of our allies. Ultimately, of course we want a peaceful relationship with Russia. We do not want a return to the Cold War, and we surely do not seek any type of military conflict. But at the same time, we must be very clear that we oppose what Putin is doing, both in terms of his foreign policy and his domestic policy. On foreign policy, we will not accept Russia interfering in the elections of democratic countries, stoking political tensions by promoting hatred and suspicion of immigrants and minorities, and trying to undermine longstanding alliances between democratic allies. In 2014, in violation of international law, Russia invaded neighboring Ukraine and annexed the Crimea region. Russia has assassinated political opponents abroad, most recently through the use of poison in Salisbury, England. The British Government concluded in that attack that it was most likely carried out by Russia's military intelligence service. Domestically, Putin has undermined democracy in Russia, crushing free speech, jailing political opponents, harassing and assassinating journalists who criticize him, and increasing persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. On Monday in Helsinki, President Trump had an opportunity to speak out on all of these things and more, to confront Putin about these destabilizing and inhumane policies. He chose not to. Well, here is the main point: If for whatever reason the President of the United States is not going to do what is right, Congress must do it. Democrats must do it. Republicans must do it. The Congress must make it clear--and this is the resolution I am introducing and asking for unanimous consent--the Congress must make it clear that we accept the assessment of our intelligence community with regard to Russian election interfering in our country and in other democracies. Does anybody doubt the truth of that? The Congress must move aggressively to protect our election system from interference by Russia or any foreign power. Does anybody deny the importance of that? The Congress must demand that the sanctions against Russia, as the Democratic leader mentioned, which passed with 98 votes, be fully implemented--98 votes on that issue. The Congress must make it clear that we will not accept any interference with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel Mueller, such as the offer of preemptive pardons or the firing of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and that the President must cooperate with this investigation. Time and again, I have heard Republicans, including leaders, make it clear that there should not be an interference in that investigation. There is nothing new here on that point. Finally--nothing new here, either--the Congress must make it clear to President Trump that his job is to protect the values that millions of Americans struggled, fought, and died to defend: justice, democracy, and equality; that he is the President of the United States and his job is to protect the interests of the American people, not Russia. Tweets, comments, and press conferences--and I know many of my Republican colleagues have been involved in those activities. They are fine. They are constructive. But we need more from Republican Senators now. It is time for the Senate to rein in the President's dangerous behavior. If their leadership--Senator McConnell--will not allow votes on this extraordinarily important matter, then my Republican colleagues must join with Democrats to make it happen, or all of their fine-sounding words of concern will become meaningless.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky just told us that he wants dialogue with Russia, he wants diplomacy with Russia, and that he thinks it is important that we communicate with Russia. I agree. Who disagrees with that? There is not one word in this resolution that suggests that the United States of America should not aggressively engage in diplomacy with Russia to ease the tensions that exist between the two countries. What the Senator said is totally irrelevant to what is in this resolution. What this resolution says is that we are going to tell Russia: Stop interfering in our elections. What this resolution is about is telling Russia to stop interfering with the elections in democratic countries all over the world. What this resolution is about is saying that we should implement the sanctions overwhelmingly voted for by Congress. What this resolution is about is that we will not accept interference with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. What this resolution says is that the President must cooperate with the investigation of Mr. Mueller. That is what this resolution is about. It has nothing to do with ending diplomacy with Russia at all. That is inaccurate. I would hope that, if not today, in the very near future, Republicans will join Democrats and do the right thing in our effort to preserve American democracy.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, at the Helsinki summit yesterday, President Trump embarrassed our country, undermined American values, and openly sided with Russia's authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin against the U.S. intelligence community's unanimous assessment that Russia interfered in our 2016 Presidential election. John McCain is right when he says it was ``one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump's naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.'' That is not Bernie Sanders. That is former Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain of Arizona. Today, after a strong international backlash, Trump, in a bizarre statement, claimed he misspoke and of course blamed the media for reporting what he said. Even now he could not help but suggest that the electoral interference ``could be other people also,'' not just Russia. Today, we face an unprecedented situation of a President who, for whatever reason, refuses to acknowledge an attack on American democracy. Either he really doesn't understand what has happened or he is under Russian influence because of compromising information they may have on him or because he is ultimately more sympathetic to Russia's authoritarian-oligarchic form of society than he is to American democracy. Whatever the reason, Congress must act, and must act now, to demand that the President of the United States represent the interests of the American people and not Russia. Let us be clear. Russia has been meddling not only in U.S. elections but in the elections of other democracies--the United Kingdom, France, Germany, to name just a few. Russia's goal is to advance its own interests by weakening the transatlantic alliance of democracies that arose after World War II, while also inflaming internal divisions in each of these countries. We should also be clear that this interference is directed from the very highest levels of the Russian Government. Last week, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced a set of indictments of 12 members of Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU. There can be no doubt that given the nature of the Russian Government, Vladimir Putin was directly involved in this effort, but our concern is not only what has already happened, it is what could happen in the future. Last week, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a former Republican Senator, raised the alarm on growing cyber attack threats against the United States in a range of areas, including Federal, State, and local government agencies, the military, business, and academia, saying the situation is at a ``critical point.'' He said: [Russia is the] most aggressive foreign actor, no question. And they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy. Coats compared the warning signs to those the United States faced ahead of the September 11th terrorist attacks. This is a clear and present threat to our democratic system and those of our allies. Ultimately, of course, we want a peaceful relationship with Russia. We do not want a return to the Cold War, and we surely do not seek conflict, but at the same time, we must be very clear that we oppose what Putin is doing, both in terms of his foreign policy and his domestic policy. On foreign policy, we will not accept Russian meddling in the elections of democratic countries, stoking political tensions by promoting hatred and suspicion of immigrants and minorities and trying to undermine longstanding alliances between democratic allies. In 2014, in violation of international law, Russia invaded neighboring Ukraine and annexed the Crimea region. Russia has assassinated political opponents abroad, most recently through the use of poison in Salisbury, England, on a former spy and his daughter, a chemical attack that endangered the lives of many civilians. The British Government concluded that this atrocious attack was likely carried out by Russia's military intelligence service. Domestically, Putin has undermined democracy in Russia, crushing free speech, jailing political opponents, harassing and assassinating journalists who criticize him, and increasing persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and the LGBT community. President Trump had an opportunity to speak out on all of these issues, to confront Putin about these destabilizing and inhumane policies, but he chose not to. If the President of the United States is not going to do it, Congress must. The Congress must make it clear that we accept the assessment of our intelligence community with regard to Russia's election meddling in our country and in other democracies. The Congress must move aggressively to protect our election systems from interference by Russia or any foreign power and work closely with our democratic partners around the world to do the same. The Congress must demand that the sanctions against Russia that were passed last year be fully implemented. The Congress must make it clear that we will not accept any interference with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel Mueller, such as the offer of preemptive pardons or the firing of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and that the President must cooperate with this investigation. Finally, the Congress must make it clear to President Trump that his job is to protect the values that millions of Americans struggled for and died to defend--the values of democracy, justice, and equality. Tweets, comments, and press conferences are fine, but we need more from Republican Senators now. It is time for the Senate to rein in the President's dangerous behavior. If their leadership will not allow votes on dealing with this extraordinarily important matter, then my Republican colleagues must join with Democrats to make it happen, or all of their words are worthless. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I rise to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This is an issue I will return to in the coming weeks and months at greater length, but I did want to say a few words about why I am in opposition to Mr. Kavanaugh. I think many Americans have a pretty good sense of what the function of Congress is and what the President of the United States does, but, in fact, I think many Americans do not fully appreciate the role that the Supreme Court plays in our lives. In the past decade alone, the Supreme Court has issued some incredibly controversial and, to my mind, disastrous decisions that have had a profound impact on the lives of the American people. Let me review for a moment why this nomination is so very important by looking at what the Supreme Court, often by a 5-to-4 vote--a one- vote majority--has done in recent years. If you go out onto the streets of any community in the United States of America--whether it is a conservative area or a progressive area--what most people will tell you is that we have a corrupt campaign finance system--a system that today, as we speak, allows billionaires to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy elections. Most Americans, whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents, do not think that is what American democracy is supposed to be about. What most people think is that the majority should rule. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, but everybody gets a vote--not a situation in which billionaires can spend unlimited sums of money to support candidates who represent their interests. That is, in fact, what goes on right now. Many Americans may think that was a decision made by Congress, made by the President. That is not so. That disastrous decision that is undermining American democracy came about by a 5-to-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. That is what a Supreme Court decision can do. It can undermine American democracy and create a situation where the very wealthiest people in this country can buy politicians and influence legislation. Several years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but the Court also ruled that the Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable Care Act had to be optional for States. I am on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which helped to write that bill. I can tell you that there was almost no discussion--I don't recall any discussion--about whether or not that legislation would apply and all elements of the legislation would apply to every State in the country. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not the case. They said that the decision of expanding Medicaid was up to the States. Today, we have 17 States in our country that still have not expanded Medicaid. What that means in English--in real terms--is that today there are millions and millions of people, in 17 States in this country, who are ill, people who can't afford healthcare, people who are literally dying because they don't go to the doctor when they should, and that is all because of a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not only the issue of campaign finance or the issue of Medicaid and healthcare where the Supreme Court has acted in a disastrous way. I think everybody knows that our country has a very, very shameful history in terms of civil rights. It has been a very long and hard struggle for us to finally say that in America, regardless of the color of your skin, regardless of your economic position, you have the right to vote. It is not a radical idea, but it is a struggle for which very brave people fought for many decades. In 1965 the Congress finally passed the Voting Rights Act, which had the impact of eliminating racial discrimination in voting. That Act, passed by Congress, has been reauthorized multiple times since. In other words, what Congress said is that everybody in this country has the right to vote, regardless of the color of your skin. In 2013 the Supreme Court--again, by a 5-to-4 vote--ruled that parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were outdated, and they struck down a major part of that law that guaranteed that all Americans had the right to vote. Literally days after that decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, officials in State after State responded by enacting voting restrictions targeted at African Americans, poor people, young people, and other groups of citizens who don't traditionally vote Republican. Literally days after that Supreme Court decision, State officials said: Wow, we now have the opportunity to make it harder for our political opponents to vote. They moved very, very quickly with restrictive voting rights laws. That situation was created by, once again, a 5-to-4 vote by a conservative Supreme Court. Just this year, we saw the Supreme Court rule against unions in a really outrageous decision in the Janus case, designed to weaken the ability of workers and public employees to negotiate fair contracts. Just this year, we saw the Supreme Court uphold President Trump's Muslim ban and other important pieces of legislation. This is already a Supreme Court that, given the option, will rule, as they have time and again, often by a 5-to-4 vote, in favor of corporations and the wealthy and against working people; that will continue to undermine civil rights, voting rights, and access to healthcare; that are edging closer and closer to ruling that a person's religious beliefs should exempt them from following civil rights laws. Having said that, let me say very briefly why I oppose the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. As it happens, I do not usually believe anything that President Trump says because I think, sadly, that he is a pathological liar, but I do think this is a moment where we should believe one thing that he said during the campaign. I think, in this instance, he was actually telling the truth. During the campaign, he was asked if he wanted to see the Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that protects a woman's right in this country to control her own body. He responded to that question: Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be--that will happen. And that'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. That is Donald Trump during the campaign. On a separate occasion, as many recall, Trump suggested that women who have abortions should be punished. I have very little doubt that while he may evade the question of whether or not he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade--I have zero doubt--he would not have been appointed by Donald Trump unless that is exactly what he will do. As I think we all know, President Trump put forth a list of 25 potential justices, all of whom were handpicked by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. These two extreme rightwing groups claim they have ``no idea'' how any of the people on that list would rule on Roe v. Wade, but overruling Roe has been a Republican dream for 40 years. Please do not insult our intelligence by suggesting it is possible that any of these candidates could secretly support a woman's right to control her own body. That will not be the case. That brings us to Judge Kavanaugh. You may remember that last year the Federal Government was sued by an undocumented teenage girl they were keeping in detention in Texas. She discovered that she was pregnant while in detention and tried to obtain an abortion. Judge Kavanaugh wanted to force her to delay the proceeding, presumably until it was no longer legal under Texas law for her to obtain an abortion in that State. When he was overruled by the full DC Circuit, he complained in a dissent that his colleagues were creating a right to ``abortion on demand.'' Does that sound like someone who is going to strike down State laws that create undue barriers to abortion access, or does it sound like somebody who had no problem with forcing a teenage girl to carry a pregnancy to term? There is also another case percolating out of Texas that could have even graver consequences for tens of millions of Americans. The State of Texas and 17 other Republican States have sued the Federal Government, claiming that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, and the Department of Justice under Donald Trump agrees with them. While I do not know how Judge Kavanaugh would rule on this case--nobody could, of course, know that--I will note that in another case about the ACA, he suggested that the President could simply refuse to enforce laws that he deems unconstitutional, regardless of what the Courts say. What we are dealing with here is, literally, a life-and-death decision regarding preexisting conditions, regarding the issue of whether today you have cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or some other life-threatening illness. Before the Affordable Care Act, an insurance company could say to you: Oh, you have a history of cancer, we are not going to insure you because we can't make money out of you because that cancer might recur. It might be: You are too sick and we are going to lose money on your case and we are not going to insure you or, if we do insure you, your rates are going to be five times higher than somebody else's of your age. One of the major achievements of the Affordable Care Act, which was supported by 90 percent of the American people, is that we must not end the protections the American people have today against insurance companies that would bring back preexisting conditions--that would discriminate against people who were ill. It is very likely that case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet 90 percent of the American people say we should not discriminate against people who have cancer or heart disease and that insurance companies should not be allowed to deny them coverage or raise their rates to levels that people cannot afford. The Trump administration has supported the argument of the Republican Governors and will not defend the ACA in court, which will come to the Supreme Court. Unless I am very mistaken, Judge Kavanaugh will vote with the rightwing majority and allow discrimination against people who have serious illnesses to, once again, be the law of the land. Time and again, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with the interests of corporations and the wealthy instead of the interests of ordinary Americans. He has sided with electric power utilities and chemical companies over protecting clean air and fighting climate change. He has argued, if you can believe it, that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has saved consumers billions and billions of dollars from the greed and illegal behavior of Wall Street and financial institutions, is unconstitutional because its structure does not give enough power to the President. He has also argued against net neutrality. He dissented in an OSHA case and argued that SeaWorld should not be fined for the death of one of its whale trainers because the trainer should have accepted the risk of death as a routine part of the job. While nobody can predict the future, we can take a hard look at Judge Kavanaugh's record and extrapolate from his decisions what kind of Supreme Court Justice he will be. I think the evidence is overwhelming that he will be part of the 5-to-4 majority, which has cast decision after decision against the needs of working people, against the needs of the poor, and against the rights of the American people to vote freely, without restrictions. This is an issue to which I will return. I just want the American people to understand, when they hear this debate taking place here and think, well, it is the same ol' same ol'--with people yelling at each other--that this is an enormously important decision which will impact the lives of tens and tens of millions of people. I hope very much that the American people become engaged on this issue, learn about Judge Kavanaugh's record, and join with those of us who are in opposition to his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor BG Michael T. Heston of Richmond, VT. This Sunday, July 15, 2018, Brigadier General Heston will relinquish command of the Vermont Army National Guard and celebrate his military retirement. We are truly fortunate to have such a dedicated leader as Brigadier General Heston serving in our Armed Forces, and I sincerely thank him for his 32 years of extraordinary service to Vermont and our country. Brigadier General Heston began his military career as an enlisted member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. He received his commission from Vermont's officer candidate school in 1990 as a second lieutenant and then swiftly rose through the ranks, reaching his current rank of brigadier general in 2014. Throughout his career, Brigadier General Heston has commanded at all levels, from platoon leader of an armor platoon to commanding the entire Vermont Army National Guard, leading the women and men of the Green Mountain Boys in critical missions within our State of Vermont, as well as overseas, including three deployments to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. His unwavering leadership and dedication has been recognized with numerous awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal with bronze oakleaf cluster, the Meritorious Service Medal with three oakleaf clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with three oakleaf clusters, the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with silver oakleaf cluster and two oakleaf clusters, the Vermont Career Service Award, and many others. In addition to his military service, Brigadier General Heston served as a member of the Vermont State police from 1983 until his retirement in 2009. He has also served as the deputy adjutant general of the Vermont National Guard since 2014, a position he will continue to fill as he enters civilian life. We are fortunate to continue benefiting from Brigadier General Heston's many years of experience as he mentors leaders and members of Vermont's National Guard and provides invaluable advice and support to the adjutant general. There is no doubt that Brigadier General Heston's decades of dedication, leadership, and service will be long remembered by a grateful State and Nation. I know his wife, June, their children Kelsey and Keegan, and his fellow members of the Vermont National Guard join me in congratulating him on his many accomplishments so far and wishing him well in the next phase of his career. The State of Vermont is lucky to count him as one of our own, and we look forward to his continued presence with the Vermont National Guard.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to speak about the very important role that emergency medical services play in our communities. Moreover, in rural areas like my State of Vermont, many of these ambulance drivers, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians are volunteers, making significant personal and financial sacrifices to keep the rest of us safe. We owe them all a very deep debt of gratitude. In particular, I would like to mention one individual from my State of Vermont: Chris ``Jake'' Jakubiak. This year, the American Ambulance Association honored Chris as a ``Star of Life,'' for his exceptional skills and commitment to his patients and community. In addition to his full-time job, for the past 14 years, Chris has served as a part-time emergency medical technician. Chris has also been a volunteer firefighter for the past 31 years. To my mind, this kind of selfless service to his community makes Chris a true hero. Of course, Chris is not alone in this regard. Emergency medical services are a critical component of a robust primary care system in the health infrastructure in Vermont and all across the country; yet it is clear they face significant challenges in terms of recruiting and retaining volunteers, stocking enough medication, and accessing essential equipment. To my mind, if a person is willing to risk their life to protect others, then we in Congress should be able to provide them with the resources they need to do the job. That should include incentives for young people to become paramedics and emergency medical technicians and funding for these providers to purchase enough naloxone and EpiPens and maintain emergency vehicles, among other solutions. At a time when we are relying more and more on our first responders to protect our communities from crises like the opioid epidemic and natural disasters, we must do everything we can to support these hard- working and dedicated neighbors.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Merkley and others for organizing this important discussion--a discussion designed to reclaim American values. I also want to take this opportunity not just to thank Senator Merkley but to thank millions of people from coast to coast--people who are conservatives and progressives, Democrats, Republicans, Independents--for getting on the phone, for calling Members of Congress, for expressing their outrage that in the United States of America today, we have small children who are torn from their mothers and their fathers and locked up in detention cages. All over this country, regardless of one's political view, one understands that is not what this country is about and must never be about. Tonight, as I understand it, we have Democrats here, but opposition to this policy is widespread. Let me quote from a recent op-ed that Laura Bush, our former First Lady, the wife of a conservative Republican, wrote. This is what she said: Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These images are eerily reminiscent of the internment camps for U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history. This is former First Lady Laura Bush. The good news is, because the American people spoke up, because some Republicans finally had the guts to do the right thing and convey their displeasure to the President, Trump has changed his policy. Let us be clear that the Executive order he issued today goes nowhere--nowhere-- as far as it should go. Mr. President, I am going to ask consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Daily Beast, a publication that came out tonight. What they say is, there is no guarantee in this Executive order, as Senator Kaine has indicated, that the fate of the 2,400 children currently imprisoned will be changed. There is nothing specific in the Executive order that says those 2,400 kids will, in fact, be reunited with their parents. Presumably, this will apply to future apprehensions where children will be imprisoned with their parents. Second of all, there is an effort in this Executive order to overturn the 1997 Flores settlement, which limits the government's ability to keep children in detention and orders them to be placed in the least restrictive settings as possible. If you can imagine it, what this Executive order does is raise the possibility of children being in prison for very long periods of time. Is that better than them being separated from their parents? I guess. But does anybody really believe we should be imprisoning for an indefinite period of time little children? There are better ways to deal with this issue. What is clear to the American people is that once again we have a President who caused this crisis by undoing existing policy. We have a President who I believe just the other day said: Nothing I could do, it is law. Sadly, once again, he was lying. It is not Federal law. His decision to separate children from their parents was his decision and his decision alone, as he acknowledges today by announcing an Executive order ostensibly doing away with that policy. Let me remind the American people that this terrible Executive order he issued separating children from their parents is not the first terrible Executive order with regard to immigration. Let us remember that months ago, Trump created the DACA crisis and put 1.8 million young people in this country--young people who were raised in this country, who are working and going to school or serving in the military--in danger of deportation because of a decision he made. I say to the President, start working hard on a new Executive order and make that Executive order clear that the 2,400 children, now in jail, separate from their parents, will, in fact, be reunited, and make it clear that we will not keep children in prison for an indefinite period of time. By the way, while you are at it, why don't you deal with the DACA crisis you created and provide the legal status that 80 percent of the American people want to see for the young people in the DACA Program? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the article I referred to from the Daily Beast printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, before I go to the substance of my remarks, let me just say what I think is on the minds of millions of Americans today, whether they are progressives or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans or Independents. The United States of America is not and must never be about locking up little children in cages on the southern border. Right now, we have the opportunity, and must take advantage of that opportunity, to pass legislation to end that horrific practice. Madam President, I want to take this moment to thank my colleagues for their very hard work on the Department of Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons which I will articulate right now, I intend to vote against it, and certainly one of those reasons is that when you have legislation that expends $716 billion-- let me repeat it--$716 billion, it is totally unacceptable that we do not have a serious debate on the floor of the Senate that amendments are not accepted to improve this legislation. I have submitted a number of amendments, and other colleagues, I know, have done the same. I want to express my strong feelings about our Nation's bloated military budget, particularly in light of the many unmet needs we face as a nation. A $716 billion military budget is over half of the discretionary budget in this country. The size of that budget tells me we need vigorous debate on it. We need to find where there is waste, where there is fraud, where there are cost overruns, and to simply pass that gigantic budget without scrutiny is simply not acceptable. I have heard over and over my Republican colleagues and some of my Democratic colleagues come down to the floor to complain about a $21 trillion national debt--and they are right. That is a huge debt we are leaving to our children and our grandchildren, but I do find it interesting that I do not hear any objections to the size of this military budget, to the fact that it has been expanded by $165 billion over the next 2 years. So what I do find is that when we talk about providing healthcare to all of our people--and doing what every other major nation on Earth that guarantees healthcare as a right and not a privilege does-- suddenly people are standing up and saying: We can't afford it. It is too expensive. But when it comes to a $716 billion military budget, which is more than the 10 next countries combined spend on defense, I do not hear a word about the size of the budget and about our deficit. We have been told over and over that we cannot make public colleges and universities tuition-free; that we cannot lower the student debt levels that millions of people in this country carry decade after decade; that we cannot make public colleges and universities tuition- free, but somehow we can spend $716 billion on a military budget. Even though over half of older Americans have no retirement savings, we have been told we need to cut Social Security, not expand Social Security. I think it is time to get our priorities right, and what our priorities are about is addressing the fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country; that we have millions of seniors in Vermont and around this country trying to get by on $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year in Social Security; that our infrastructure is collapsing. Maybe we ought to start addressing the issues and the needs of the working people of this country rather than just pour more and more money into the defense budget. The time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the enormous-- and I underline the word ``enormous''--amount of waste, the cost overruns, the fraud and the financial mismanagement that has plagued the Department of Defense for decades. That is why I have offered a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Grassley and Lee, to end the absurdity of the Department of Defense being the only Federal agency to have not undergone an audit. I don't think it is too much to ask, when we are spending $716 billion, to have the Department of Defense give us an audit to tell the American people how that money is being spent. Tell us about the fraud. Tell us about the cost overruns. According to a Gallup poll a few months ago, 65 percent of the American people oppose spending more money on the Department of Defense, but that is precisely what we are doing right now--not only spending more money but spending a lot more money. As a point of comparison--and it is important we do this--the increase in military spending that is in this bill is larger than the entire budget of China. I am just talking about the increase in military spending. China spends about $150 billion a year on defense. We are going to be increasing military spending by $165 billion over a 2-year period. Russia spends about $61 billion a year on defense. This budget, again, is $716 billion. Now, I am sure our friends in the defense contractor industry are very excited about this--they are going to be making zillions of dollars--but I am not so sure working people are excited about a budget at the same time as my Republican friends tell us we cannot afford nutrition programs for children or to expand Social Security for the elderly. I think we all believe in a strong national defense, but we cannot continue to give the Pentagon and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin a blank check while we ignore the needs of working families. About half of the Pentagon's $716 billion budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors, not our troops. There are troops out there who are living on food stamps. We want to address that problem, but at the same time we do not have to make the military industrial complex even wealthier than they are today. Let us also be clear. Over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the United States has paid millions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all while making huge profits on these government contracts. Since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies have paid nearly $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct. That is $3 billion in payments to the government for fraud or misconduct. Yet those three companies alone received about $800 billion in defense contracts over the past 18 years. Does anybody care that the major defense contractors in this country, time after time after time, are found guilty of fraud and various types of misconduct? One of the amendments I have filed would simply require the Pentagon to establish a website on defense contractor fraud with a list of companies convicted of defrauding the Federal Government. I don't think that is a radical idea. The American people might want to know what companies have been found guilty of defrauding the Federal Government. Further, I find it interesting that the very same defense contractors that have been found guilty or reached settlements for fraud are also paying their CEOs and their executives excessive and obscene compensation packages. Last year, the CEOs of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, two of the top four U.S. defense contractors, were each paid over $20 million in total compensation. Moreover, more than 90 percent of the revenue of those companies came from defense spending. In other words, we have a situation where companies that get almost all of their revenue from defense contracting are paying their CEOs 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense gets, whose salary is capped at $205,000 a year. That, to me, makes no sense at all. That is why I have filed an amendment to prohibit defense contractor CEOs from making more money than the Secretary of Defense. Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive cost overruns in the Defense Department's acquisition budget that must be addressed. According to the GAO, the Pentagon's $1.66 trillion acquisition portfolio currently suffers from more than $537 billion in cost overruns, with much of the cost growth taking place after production. In other words, defense contractors say: We are going to build a weapons system for x amount of dollars, and then they simply change their mind and ask for a lot more. That is not the way you protect the taxpayers' dollars or the way you run a government. In my view, that has to change. A major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon is the fact that the Defense Department remains the only Federal agency in America that has not been able to pass an independent audit 28 years after Congress required it to do so. Very interestingly, on September 10, 2001, 1 day before 9/11, former Secretary of Defense for George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, said: Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in the building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. Yet 17 years after Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's statements, DOD still has not passed a clean audit, despite the fact that the Pentagon controls assets in excess of $2.2 trillion, or roughly 70 percent of what the entire Federal Government owns. The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded in 2001 that $31 billion to $60 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan had been lost to fraud and waste. Children in America go hungry. Veterans sleep out on the street. Elderly people can't make it on $12,000 a year of Social Security, but, apparently, there is not a lot of concern that $31 billion to $60 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost to fraud and waste. Separately, in 2015 the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for reconstruction projects. More recently, an audit conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that it could not properly account for some $800 million in construction projects. It is time to hold the Defense Department to the same level of accountability as the rest of the government. I would also like to spend a minute talking about an amendment that makes a great deal of sense to me. In this bill, we are spending $716 billion in defense spending in order to protect the American people. This bill does that through the production of planes, bombs, guns, missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, submarines, and other weapons of destruction. It is being funded in this bill. The amendment I am proposing would reduce the Defense Department by one-tenth of 1 percent. It would use that money to make us safer by reaching out to people throughout the world in ways that bring us together through educational and cultural exchange programs. At the end of the day, we are a safer country and a safer planet when we do our best to rid the ignorance and hatred that exists all over the world. One way you do that is by finding and discovering that we have a common humanity. When children from other countries come into our classrooms and our kids sit in the classrooms of other countries, it turns out that we have a lot more in common than we have in opposition. We can reduce hatred and bigotry in that way. Dialogue cannot only take place between foreign ministers or diplomats at the United Nations. It should be taking place between people throughout the world at the grassroots level. On a separate note, let me mention that since March 2015, the U.S. Armed Forces have been involved in hostilities between a Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen. I believe that the time is long overdue for us to put an end to that unconstitutional and unauthorized participation in this war. The truth about Yemen is that U.S. forces have been actively engaged in support of the Saudi coalition in this war, providing intelligence and aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of people and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse. Even now, as I speak, there are reports of an attack on the Yemeni port city of Hodeidah by the Saudi-led coalition. Hodeidah is a key entry point for humanitarian aid into Yemen. The U.N. humanitarian coordinator in the country, Lisa Grande, said last week: A military attack or siege on Hodeidah will impact hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. . . . In a prolonged worst case, we fear that as many as 250,000 people may lose everything--even their lives. The Trump administration has tried to justify our involvement in the Yemen war as necessary to push back on Iran. You will all recall that another administration told us that invading Iraq was necessary to confront al-Qaida, and another administration way back told us that the Vietnam war was necessary to contain communism. It turned out that in every instance, none of that was true. We should have asked tougher questions then. We should be asking tougher questions now, and we should be taking our constitutional role more seriously. The issue of going to war is not a Presidential prerogative. It is the prerogative of the U.S. Congress. We have now been in Afghanistan for nearly 17 years and in Iraq for 15 years. Our troops are now in Syria under what I believe are questionable authorities, and the administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even more. The time is now for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in determining when and where our country goes to war. That is why I have filed a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Lee, Murphy, Warren, and several others, that would put an end to the U.S. refueling of Saudi-led coalition planes. This amendment will send a strong message that the United States will no longer participate in this humanitarian catastrophe. Directly related to the conflict in Yemen is the issue of Iran. The Trump administration has repeatedly justified its support for the Saudi-Emirati war in terms of pushing back on Iran's activities. The Trump administration has signaled in many ways that it intends to confront Iran. If anyone has any doubt, I remind them that President Trump's new National Security Advisor, John Bolton, wrote an article a few years ago that was entitled ``To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran.'' I have very serious concerns that this administration could lead the United States into another major war in the Middle East, which is the last thing that the American people want. Let me conclude by saying this. I think everybody in the Congress believes and understands that we need a strong defense, but we do not need a defense budget that is bloated, that is wasteful, and that has in it many areas of fraud. I would hope that all of my colleagues remember what a former Republican President, Dwight David Eisenhower, said as he left office in 1961. This is what President Eisenhower said as he was leaving office: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. In an earlier speech, Eisenhower, a four-star general who led American forces in World War II--not exactly a pacifist--said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. I would ask all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to remember what President Eisenhower said. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc: Sanders amendment No. 2905, regarding the DOD audit; amendment No. 2657, regarding a citizen exchange program; amendment No. 2660, regarding Saudi refueling; and amendment No. 2506, regarding defense- contractor compensation.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you. Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending measure violates section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.

Mr. SANDERS. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their hard work in presenting this bill, but I am going to cast a very strong ``no'' vote on this legislation. This morning I want to say a few words about why I am voting no, to talk about the number of amendments I have submitted to this bill, and to express my very serious concerns about our Nation's bloated military budget, particularly in light of the many unmet needs we face as a nation. Also, I must express a very serious objection to the fact that we are dealing with a $716 billion piece of legislation that is more than half of the discretionary budget, yet we will in all likelihood not have a process that allows for amendments to be debated--$716 billion, at a time when, in Louisiana, as I understand it, they are now going to be cutting food stamps for hungry children, when schools throughout this country don't have enough money for books or for teachers' salaries. We are talking about a $716 billion military budget and this process, as I understand it, will allow for no amendments, despite the fact that virtually every Member of the Senate has concerns about this bill. Over and over again I have heard my Republican colleagues and a number of Democratic colleagues come to the floor and talk about a very serious issue, and that is the $21 trillion national debt we are leaving our kids and our grandchildren. But somehow, when it comes to giving huge tax breaks--$1 trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent--suddenly we don't hear much about that national debt. When it comes to spending $716 billion on a defense bill, my Republican friends are mute. Suddenly the debt has disappeared because it is OK to spend unlimited sums of money on the military. I have heard my Republican colleagues tell us that the United States just cannot afford to join the rest of the industrialized world--every other major country--and guarantee healthcare for all of our people as a right to a Medicare for All program. It is what the American people want, but I am told we cannot afford that. We can afford $716 billion in 1 year for the military, but healthcare for our children, for our working people, for the 30 million people who have no health insurance, and for the tens of millions of people who cannot afford health insurance--that we cannot afford. At the moment that we are engaged in a highly competitive global economy, I am told over and over again that we cannot afford to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. Hundreds of thousands of our young people are unable to go to college because their families lack the income. Millions leave school deeply in debt. No, no, no, we cannot afford to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, but we can afford to spend $716 billion in 1 year on the military. Over half of older Americans have no retirement savings--no retirement savings--yet we have Republican colleagues in the House and here in the Senate who say: Oh, we can't afford Social Security. We have to cut Social Security for people who are trying to get by on $12,000, $13,000, $14,000 a year, cutting their prescription drugs in half. Cut Social Security, yes, but think about dealing with the $716 billion military budget in a rational way? No, no, no, we can't afford to do that. We can't even afford to accept amendments here on the floor. The time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the enormous amount of waste, cost overruns, fraud, and financial mismanagement that has plagued the Department of Defense for decades. I have heard many of my Republican colleagues worry that low-income people are taking advantage of this program or that program. Do you know where the money is? The money is with the Department of Defense, and it may be time that we take a hard look at the fraud and the financial mismanagement that exists there. That is why I am offering a bipartisan amendment. I want to thank Senators Grassley and Lee for their support on this amendment to end the absurdity of the Department of Defense being the only Federal agency that has not undergone an audit. It will not surprise the Presiding Officer to note that according to a Gallup poll in February, a few months ago, 65 percent of the American people oppose spending more money on the Department of Defense; 65 percent say that we should not spend more money, yet over a 2-year period, we are going to spend some $165 billion more on the defense. So it shouldn't shock anyone that what happens here is a direct contradiction to what the American people want. The American people want healthcare for all; my Republican colleagues want to throw 30 million people off of health insurance. The American people want to ask the rich and powerful to pay more in taxes; our Republican colleagues give massive tax breaks to the top 1 percent. In defense spending, it is just the same thing. The American people say: I can't afford to send my kids to college, I can't afford childcare, and I can't afford housing. We need help. But nobody listens to that. We don't have lobbyists here fighting for working families so they can find affordable housing or affordable prescription drugs, but today we are listening to the military industrial complex and talking about a $165 billion increase in 2 years for the military. As a point in comparison--and I hope everyone hears this--the increase in military spending, the $165 billion over 2 years that we recently approved is larger than the entire military budget of China. China spends about $150 billion a year on defense. We have increased military spending by $165 billion over 2 years. Russia spends about $61 billion on defense annually. So children in Louisiana may be losing their food stamps and go hungry, but we are voting on a bill of $716 billion at a time when Russia spends about of $61 billion on defense. There are enormous needs in this country in Vermont, in California, and all across this country. We might want to listen to the needs of working people rather than just lobbyists from the military industrial complex. I believe in a strong national defense, but we cannot continue to give the Pentagon and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin a blank check while we ignore the basic needs of working families throughout this country. What this debate should be about--and, unfortunately, it will not be about--is our national priorities. Do we have to spend more money on defense than the next 10 countries combined when children in America go hungry, when veterans sleep out on the street, when we are the only major country that does not guarantee healthcare to all people? I say no, and I say that the time is long overdue for us to stand up to the lobbyists and the military industrial complex and fight for rational national priorities. About half of the Pentagon's $716 billion budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors, not into the hands of our troops. Let's be clear. Over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the United States has paid millions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all--at the same time-- while making huge profits on government contracts. Since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies have paid nearly $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct--$3 billion--at a time when oversight, frankly, is pretty weak. Yet those three companies alone received about $800 billion in defense contracts over the past 18 years. One of the amendments I have filed would simply require the Pentagon to establish a website on defense contract fraud with a list of companies convicted of defrauding the Federal Government, the total value of contracts awarded to such companies, and a list of recommendations for ways the Pentagon can penalize fraudulent contractors. My guess is that fraud is a way of doing business and these settlements are simply a cost of doing business for companies who have huge contracts with the Department of Defense. That has to stop. Further, I find it interesting that the very same defense contractors that have been found guilty or reached settlements for fraud are also paying their CEOs and executives excessive and obscene compensation packages. Last year, the CEO of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, two of the top U.S. defense contractors, were each paid over $20 million in total compensation. Moreover, more than 90 percent of the revenue of those companies came from defense spending. So they get the bulk of their money from the taxpayers of the United States, and then they pay their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages. I think the American people might like to know why a defense contractor can pay its CEO 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense, whose salary is capped at $205,000. To my mind, that is a reasonable question. How does the CEO of a defense contractor get 100 times more salary than the Secretary of Defense? That is why I have filed an amendment to prohibit defense contractor CEOs from making more money than the Secretary of Defense. Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive cost overruns in the Defense Department's acquisition budget that we have to address. According to the GAO, the Pentagon's $1.66 trillion acquisition portfolio currently suffers from more than $537 billion in cost overruns, with much of the cost growth taking place after production. I was the mayor of the city of Burlington, VT, for 8 years. Like other mayors throughout the country--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, whatever--you sit down and negotiate a contract with someone who perhaps is going to repave the streets. The contractor says: ``I'm going to do it for $5 million,'' and you sign a contract. You don't accept the fact that the contractor comes back and says: Oh, I am sorry, I made a little mistake. It is going to cost you people $10 million. That is not the way it was done in Burlington. That is not the way it is done in cities or States throughout this country. But apparently that is the way it is done at the Department of Defense. Oh, yes, Mr. Secretary, we are going to do this weapons system for $5 billion. We made a mistake; you have to pay us $10 billion. No problem. No worries. Nobody in Congress is going to raise any issue about that. GAO tells us that ``many DOD programs fall short of cost, schedule, and performance expectations, meaning DOD pays more than anticipated, can buy less than expected, and, in some cases, delivers less capability to the warfighter.'' That is not from Bernie Sanders; that is from the GAO. Let me repeat. A major reason there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon is that the Department of Defense remains the only Federal agency in America that hasn't been able to pass an independent audit 28 years after Congress required it to do so. I know the Federal bureaucracy moves slowly, but 28 years should be enough time for the DOD to do what Congress demanded that it do. The amendment Senator Grassley, Senator Lee, and I have filed couldn't be simpler. It simply says that if the Pentagon can't pass a clean audit by fiscal year 2022--not tomorrow; fiscal year 2022--then a small portion of the defense budget--about $100 million--will be redirected to deficit reduction. Interestingly, you may recall that on September 10, 2001--1 day before 9/11--former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, said: Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. In 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush's Secretary of Defense, said that DOD could not track $2.3 trillion in transactions. Yet, 17 years after Mr. Rumsfeld's comments, the Department of Defense has still not passed a clean audit, despite the fact that the Pentagon controls assets in excess of $2.2 trillion, or roughly 70 percent of what the entire Federal Government owns. The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded in 2011 that $31 to $60 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan had been lost to fraud and waste. Children in America go hungry. Young people leave school deeply in debt. People in this country cannot afford healthcare. But $31 to $60 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan has been lost through fraud and waste. Maybe--just maybe--we might want to get our priorities right and take a look at that issue. Separately, in 2015, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for reconstruction projects. More recently, an audit conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that it could not properly account for $800 million in construction projects. It is time to hold the Department of Defense to the same level of accountability as the rest of the government. I would also like to briefly mention an amendment that, to me, makes an enormous amount of sense. In this bill, we are spending $716 billion in defense spending in order to protect the American people. What this bill does is spend that money on the production of fighter planes, bombs, guns, missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, submarines, and other weapons of destruction. This amendment I have submitted would reduce the defense budget by one-tenth of 1 percent. That is not a massive cut. We would use that $700 million to make our country safer by reaching out to people throughout the world in ways that bring us together through educational and cultural programs. At the end of the day, it is not necessarily true that guns and tanks and missiles are the only way we will be safe. We will be safer when people throughout the world get to know each other and understand the common humanity that they have, when kids from Iran and Burlington, VT, can sit down and talk about the issues they face. This amendment is about helping to make us safer by investing in educational programs, allowing our kids to go abroad to learn about other countries, and allowing kids from other countries to come into the United States. Dialogue alone taking place between Foreign Ministers or diplomats at the United Nations is not the only way countries can relate to each other. That type of dialogue, that type of communication, that type of sharing of who we are should be taking place between people throughout the world at the grassroots level-- among young people, among older people, among working people, among academics. Let's try to destroy the hatred that exists throughout the world based on fear and ignorance by allowing people to get to know each other. One-tenth of 1 percent would go toward that effort. On a separate note, since March of 2015, the U.S. Armed Forces have been involved in hostilities between a Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen. I believe it is long past time that we put an end to our unconstitutional and unauthorized participation in this war. To my mind, there is no question that U.S. participation in the war in Yemen is unauthorized and unconstitutional. It is the Congress of the United States that decides whether this country goes to war, not the President. The truth about Yemen is that U.S. forces have been actively engaged in support of the Saudi coalition in this war, providing intelligence and aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of people and made the current humanitarian crisis in Yemen the worst humanitarian crisis on the face of the planet today. Even now as I speak, there are reports that an attack on the Yemeni port city of Hodeidah by the Saudi-led coalition is imminent. Hodeidah is a key entry point for humanitarian aid into Yemen. The U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in the country, Lisa Grande, said last week that ``a military attack or siege on Hodeidah will impact hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. . . . In a prolonged worst case, we fear that as many as 250,000 people may lose everything--even their lives.'' The Trump administration has tried to justify our involvement in the Yemen war as necessary to push back on Iran. Well, another administration told us that invading Iraq was necessary to confront al- Qaida, and another told us that the Vietnam war was necessary to contain communism. None of that turned out to be true. I believe that we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over the world. We have now been in Afghanistan for 17 years--the longest war in American history. We have been in Iraq for 15 years. Our troops are now in Syria under what I believe are questionable authorities, and the administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even more. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional responsibility over sending our men and women into war. It is the Congress that makes that decision. It couldn't be clearer in the Constitution. It is not the President of the United States. That is why I have filed a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Lee, Murphy, Warren, and several others, that would put an end to U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen. Let me conclude by saying this: I think everybody in the Congress believes and understands that we need a strong defense. There is no debate about that. But we do not need a defense budget that is bloated, that is wasteful, and that has in it many areas of fraud. Let me remind some of my Republican colleagues--it is hard to believe, but Dwight D. Eisenhower, who led American troops in World War II, was a Republican. This is what he said as he was leaving office, which is as true today as when he said it in 1960. He said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. That is what Dwight D. Eisenhower said way back when. Those are words that I think we should remember today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I oppose the confirmation of Kenneth Marcus to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. Mr. Marcus has a long record of targeting First Amendment- protected speech and scholarship of people with whom he disagrees. His history also reflects a hostility towards civil rights, including making racially charged accusations and opposing affirmative action. In addition, Mr. Marcus has not publicly committed to upholding the civil rights protections of every student in the country, without regard to LGBTQI status, race, home language, gender, religion, disability, or immigration status. I am particularly concerned with Mr. Marcus's nomination, given the important role that the Office of Civil Rights--OCR--plays in protecting students from discrimination in schools and on campuses, as well as holding schools accountable for their sexual assault prevention policies. As we are all aware, Secretary DeVos and Acting OCR Director Candice Jackson have already taken very concerning steps to roll back guidance and investigations of potential civil rights violations. Given his testimony before the Senate HELP committee, I fear Mr. Marcus will likely contribute to this troubling pattern of neglect at the Department. According to a joint statement by UnidosUS and National Urban League: ``Kenneth Marcus' troubling record with regard to enforcing the rights of immigrant students and English learners, and past attempts to undermine critical policies aimed at remedying racial discrimination, including affirmative action. Mr. Marcus [also] has a demonstrated history of hostility toward affirmative action and all race-based remedies to discrimination. He lacks a commitment to enforcing civil rights protections for students of color, and does not believe in disparate-impact or unintentional discrimination. J Street released a statement expressing its concerns with Kenneth Marcus' nomination, stating that ``[s]tudents deserve an assistant secretary who will uphold all of our community's values and priorities--including support for the fight against sexual violence and all forms of discrimination. We need government officials who will defend women and all those impacted by sexual violence, and who will fight this epidemic on college campuses and in our society. It's evident that Marcus would be an obstacle and not an ally in this work. His record shows that he is not prepared to take a stand against the many forms of discrimination based on gender, race, sexual identity and disability that harm students today.'' In addition, the following various education, civil and disability rights groups oppose the nomination: American Association of University Women, AAUW; American Federation of Teachers; American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee; Americans for Peace Now; Arab American Institute; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Center for Law and Social Policy, CLASP; Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund; End Rape on Campus; Feminist Majority Foundation; Hispanic Federation; Human Rights Campaign; J Street; Jewish Voices for Peace; Lambda Legal; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League of United Latin American Citizens; Middle East Studies Association of North America; Muslim Advocates; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, NAPE; National Bar Association; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of Jewish Women; National Education Association; National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; Know Your IX; People for American Way; Policy Link; Poverty & Race Research Action Council; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Southern Poverty Law Center; TASH; UnidosUS, formerly NCLR; and YWCA USA. Given the widespread opposition to Mr. Marcus's nomination, his troubling testimony in support of his confirmation, I cannot support his nomination. I urge my colleagues to likewise oppose it. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, there are parts of the VA MISSION Act that I strongly support. The expansion of the Caregivers program to veterans of all generations will help support family members who have made enormous sacrifices for their loved ones wounded in war. Raising the limits on the Education Debt Reduction Program, an effort that I helped lead, will make it easier for the VA to attract the doctors and other medical personnel they need. I am concerned, however, that despite some very good provisions in this bill, it continues a trend toward the slow, steady privatization of the VA. No one disagrees that veterans should be able to seek private care in cases where the VA cannot provide the specialized care they require or when wait times for appointments are too long or when veterans might have to travel long distances for that care. The way to reduce wait times is not to direct resources outside the VA, as this bill does, but to strengthen the VA by recruiting and retaining the best healthcare professionals to care for the brave women and men who rely on VA healthcare. The way to reduce wait times is to make sure that the VA is able to fill the more than 30,000 vacancies it currently has. This bill provides $5 billion for the Choice program. It provides nothing to fill the vacancies at the VA. That is wrong. My fear is that this bill will open the door to the draining, year after year, of much needed resources from the VA. Further, I am disappointed that the legislative process did not allow for votes on amendments that could have made this a stronger bill. The amendments I filed, but was prevented from offering, would have provided equal funding for the Veterans Health Administration and the Choice program, provided real money and a meaningful expansion of the Caregivers program, and established a pilot program for VA dental care in rural areas. In addition, I authored an amendment that would have struck the AIR Act provisions that could result in the closure of VA facilities and language clarifying that veterans may not be held financially liable for errors made by the VA. It is my sincere belief that these amendments would have gone a long way to addressing the deficiencies in the bill and providing the care and benefits our veterans have earned and deserved. I hope that my colleagues on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will work with me to make these necessary improvements in future legislation. We must do a better job in standing together against the effort to privatize the VA. I acknowledge the work done by some of my colleagues to improve this bill, but I believe it moves us too far in the direction of privatization. That is why I will vote against it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this morning we will be voting on a budget resolution written by my Republican colleague Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. This is a budget that would lead to devastating cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and education, while paving the way for even more tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large, profitable corporations. Make no mistake about it: Senator Paul's budget is an immoral budget. It is bad economic policy. While I am confident that this resolution will be defeated in the Senate, let me be very clear. Senator Paul's vision of America--balancing the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor in order to make the richest people in America even richer--is the exact same vision of the Republican Party in the House and the Republican Party in Washington, DC. So let me commend Senator Paul for being honest with the American people in terms of what he believes and for putting down on paper what a majority of Republicans in the House and billionaire campaign contributors like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson believe. And this is what they want. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, Senator Paul and the Republicans in the House do not believe that it was good enough to provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations. The budget that we are debating today would give the wealthy and the powerful an even bigger tax break. Last year, the congressional leadership came up with a bill to throw 32 million Americans off of health insurance. Senator Paul and many Republicans in the House do not believe that bill went far enough. The budget we are debating today would throw up to 45 million Americans off of Medicaid. A few months ago, President Trump proposed a budget calling for Medicare to be cut by nearly $500 billion. Senator Paul and a majority of Republicans do not believe those cuts went far enough. The budget we are debating today would cut Medicare by up to $3.3 trillion over the next decade. At a time when 10,000 people die each and every year waiting for their Social Security disability benefits to be processed, Donald Trump's budget proposed making a bad situation even worse by cutting the Social Security Disability Insurance Program. Senator Paul and a majority of Republicans do not believe that those cuts went far enough. The Paul budget would not only cut Social Security for the disabled, his budget would cut the entire Social Security program by $442 billion over the next decade compared to current law. Overall, Senator Paul's resolution calls for slashing the budget by more than 51 percent by the end of the decade. Not too long ago, if someone proposed ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as we know it so that billionaires could get a huge tax break, that would have been considered a radical and extreme agenda. Today it is the mainstream position of the Republican Party in Washington. The reality is that Republicans in Washington have never believed in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal assistance in education, or providing any direct government assistance to those in need. They have always believed that tax breaks for the wealthy and the powerful would somehow miraculously trickle down to every American, despite all history and evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, and I am only speaking for myself, I have a very different vision of America. In my view, we need to create a government and an economy that works for all of us, not just a handful of billionaires. What does that mean? It means that instead of giving over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large profitable corporations, we must demand that Wall Street, the billionaire class and large, profitable corporations start paying their fair share in taxes. Instead of trying to abolish the estate tax, which impacts less than two-tenths of 1 percent, we must substantially increase the inheritance tax not only to bring in needed revenue, but to dismantle the oligarchs that now control so much of our economic and political lives. Instead of making it easier for corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in the Cayman Islands, we need to crack down on offshore tax haven abuse and use this revenue to create 15 million good-paying American jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Instead of cutting Social Security, we need to expand Social Security so that every American can retire with the dignity and the respect they deserve. We pay for that by making sure everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class. Instead of cutting Medicare, we need to guarantee healthcare as a right to every man, woman, and child in America through a Medicare for all, single-payer healthcare program. Instead of slashing Federal aid to education, we must make every public college and university in America tuition free, and we pay for that by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculation. If we could bail out Wall Street 10 years ago, we can tax Wall Street so that every American who has the desire and the ability can get a higher education regardless of their income. Instead of listening to the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and other multibillionaire campaign contributors, it is time to start listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans who want a government and an economy that works for the many, not just the few. Let us not only defeat the Paul resolution, but let us have the guts to take on the greed of Wall Street, the greed of the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry, the greed of Big Oil, and the greed of corporate America and break up the oligarchy that is destroying the social fabric of our society.