[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 61 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2298-S2306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AUTHORIZATION ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order of April 8, 2019,
the Senate, having received from the House H.R. 2030 and the text being
identical to S. 1057, the bill is considered read three times and
passed, and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon
the table.
The bill (H.R. 2030) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
H.R. 1602
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, there is one thing pretty much every
American can agree on. It is that illegal robocalls are a major
nuisance. Who hasn't been annoyed after answering the phone and
discovering it is an automated message asking you to purchase some
product or provide sensitive personal information?
But, of course, these calls aren't merely a nuisance. Scammers use
these calls to successfully prey on vulnerable populations, like the
elderly, who may be less technologically savvy. It is no surprise that
people are deceived. I think most of us have received robocalls that
sounded pretty credible, and the practice of spoofing numbers adds
another layer of deception. Scammers can disguise the actual number
they are calling from so the call looks like it is coming from a
legitimate number. You may recognize the number calling you as a
trustworthy local number, but the actual call may be from a scam
artist.
I remember an article from my home State a couple of years ago that
reported that scammers had successfully spoofed the number of the
Watertown Police Department. So to anyone who received that call, it
looked as if it was really the Watertown Police Department calling.
If the source looks credible and the call sounds credible, it can be
difficult not to believe it, which is why people fall prey to robocall
scam artists every single day, sometimes with devastating consequences.
Scammers' goal is to steal the kind of personal information that can
be used to steal your money and your identity. When scammers are
successful, they can destroy people's lives.
There are laws and fines in place right now to prevent scam artists
from preying on people through the telephone, but unfortunately, these
measures have been insufficient. Almost a year ago today, when I was
chairman of the Commerce Committee, I subpoenaed Adrian Abramovich, a
notorious mass robocaller, to testify before the committee. His
testimony made it clear that current fines are insufficient to
discourage robocallers. Robocallers just figure that those fines are
part of the cost of doing business.
[[Page S2299]]
In addition, the Federal Communications Commission's anti-robocall
enforcement efforts are currently hampered by a tight time window for
pursuing violations. To address these problems, at the end of last year
I introduced the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence Act, or the TRACED Act.
Last week, my bipartisan legislation passed the Commerce Committee by
unanimous vote. The TRACED Act provides tools to discourage illegal
robocalls, protect consumers, and crack down on offenders. It expands
the window in which the FCC can pursue intentional scammers from 1 year
to 3 years, and in years 2 and 3, it increases the financial penalty
for those individuals making robocalls from zero dollars to $10,000 per
call to make it more difficult for robocallers to figure fines into
their cost of doing business.
It also requires telephone service providers to adopt new call
verification technologies that would help to prevent illegal robocalls
from reaching consumers. Importantly, it convenes a working group with
representatives from the Department of Justice, the FCC, the Federal
Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, State
attorneys general, and others to identify ways to criminally prosecute
illegal robocalling.
Criminal prosecution of illegal robocalling can be challenging.
Scammers are frequently based abroad and can quickly shut down shop
before authorities can get to them, but I believe we need to find ways
to hold scammers criminally accountable. There are few things more
despicable than preying on and exploiting the vulnerable, and scammers
should face criminal prosecution for the damage that they do.
I am very pleased that the TRACED Act has now moved to the full
Senate for consideration. I am grateful to Senator Markey for
partnering with me on this legislation, and I am pleased that this
bipartisan bill has been embraced by all 50 attorneys general, by the
Commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal
Communications Commission, and by major industry associations and
leading consumer groups.
Later this week, I will hold a hearing on the Commerce Committee
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the
Internet, which I chair, to further examine the problem of illegal
robocalling. I will work to get the TRACED Act to the President's desk
as soon as possible.
This legislation will not prevent all illegal robocalling, but it is
a big step in the right direction. I look forward to helping consumers
by enacting the TRACED Act's protections as soon as possible.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Trump Administration
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the watchword in the executive branch
today is ``chaos.'' This chaos stems from one source and one source
only--President Donald Trump and his extreme agenda--and America is
paying the price.
Everyone agrees there are issues at the border, but if you are the
President and if you are in charge of our national security, you don't
tweet your way into a strategy; you don't keep changing policies; and
you don't keep switching personnel if you want to make progress on the
most challenging issue that is facing our country.
Every day, we hear this is the President's new policy, and 2 days
later, we hear it is not happening. People are being fired because they
tell the President, according to news reports, that he can't break the
law when he wants to do something. You cannot keep changing personnel,
changing strategy, and tweeting your way through a problem as serious
as this. That is why there is chaos when it comes to border issues--all
created by the President and his whimsical, erratic, and oftentimes
nasty pursuit of policy.
Even the Republicans are worried sick about the chaos President Trump
has created over the week. My friend John Cornyn says this is all a
giant ``mess''--his words. Well, my friend from Texas is correct. Yet
this dysfunction is not confined to a few Agencies; this chaos is
throughout the executive branch because Donald Trump has the same kind
of switching of personnel, changing of policies, and trying to tweet
his way through a problem in other areas as he does with regard to the
border.
Let me remind my colleagues that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Interior Secretary, and the EPA Administrator each
resigned amid scandal. The Trump administration has not yet nominated
anyone for probably the most important Cabinet position, the Secretary
of Defense, since Secretary Mattis's departure, and when he departed,
Secretary Mattis had a scathing rebuke of President Trump's policies.
Look at the chaos at the State Department, where the damage extends
way beyond America's borders. Because of incompetence and inaction,
there are no nominees to more than 30 vacant key positions at State,
including Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Special
Envoy for North Korean Human Rights. There are no nominees to be our
Ambassador to Pakistan or Egypt and none for Qatar or Thailand.
This is not the Senate blocking nominees as much as the President
likes to blame somebody else for his problems; this is the President's
own administration that has failed to nominate people for such
important positions, and many of these positions have been long vacant.
The areas we mentioned are ever important in our changing world, and
this administration is simply failing to nominate anyone.
We should be projecting stability and continuity through our State
Department. Instead, it has been battered and belittled by its own
administration to the point at which both sides in Congress have spoken
out. Just yesterday, we learned the administration is pushing out the
head of the Secret Service amid a new scandal surrounding a security
breach at Mar-a-Lago, the so-called winter White House. Now joining the
others who are gone--fired by Twitter or whatever--is the head of the
Secret Service. All of this chaos has one source and one source only--
the President of the United States and his erratic, vacillating
attitudes toward policy and personnel.
Across a broad spectrum of issues, his policies are so extreme that
even good-faith nominees eventually face a choice--leave the
administration or be consumed by the quicksand of the Trump swamp.
I hope the President or some of the people around him will realize
that his administration is far from a fine-tuned machine; it is a slow-
motion disaster that the American people see in action every day.
Women's Health
Madam President, on women's health, the Senate Judiciary Committee
will hold a hearing today on a sham bill that would further restrict
women's access to care.
Every woman and every family in America should shudder at the
Republicans' campaign to take away the rights of women to make
decisions about their own health just to satisfy a hard-right, radical
agenda that the vast majority of Americans completely disagrees with.
This bill would unduly restrict women's rights to make their own
health decisions. Dr. Jennifer Conti, who is a clinical assistant
professor of OB/GYN at Stanford, described the 20-week mark set by the
bill as ``just an arbitrary limit set in place by politicians that has
no medical or scientific backing.'' Let me repeat--``an arbitrary limit
set in place by politicians''--politicians making decisions about
women's health. That is what is wrong here.
What is more, a 20-week ban is, arguably, unconstitutional. Just 2
weeks ago, a Federal judge in North Carolina ruled it was. We know the
20-week ban is just a start among those who want to take away women's
rights. They will try to go for a 10-week ban, then a 6-week ban. It is
all part of a radical, relentless effort to completely and
unequivocally strip women of their right
[[Page S2300]]
to make their own healthcare decisions.
The rhetoric we will hear from the Republicans in this hearing will
be much the same we have heard for years. Whether it is a vote we took
in the Senate or a new law protecting one's rights in my home State of
New York, the Republicans have repeatedly used scare tactics and
falsehoods to mislead the public. Yes, these are nothing but scare
tactics, but don't take my word for it. Time and time again, fact
checkers have ruled the Republicans' rhetoric on these issues to be
outright false.
Let's be clear. Across the country, the reproductive rights of women
are under attack. In statehouses across the country, the Republicans
are forcing through radical proposals that would dramatically limit
women's rights to make their own choices--in Mississippi, in Georgia,
in Kentucky. This is a threat to women in all 50 States, not just in
those 3. It is dangerously out of step with the American people.
The Trump administration is even imposing a gag rule on healthcare
providers to stop them from discussing the full range of options with
women who consider having abortions. They are literally preventing
doctors from doing their jobs. It is illogical, intrusive, and
hypocritical that the Republicans in Washington would tell a doctor
what he or she can or cannot say to a patient in a private medical
conversation.
I have been around here long enough to remember when the Republicans
were preaching that government should never come between a patient and
his or her doctor. Why the change? Since taking office, President Trump
and his Republican colleagues have repeatedly prioritized restricting
women's reproductive freedoms and have strategically placed obstacles
in the way of their accessing the healthcare they deserve. Donald Trump
and our Republican friends believe they know better than American
women. That is wrong, and American women totally disagree with them.
Yet, while the Republicans across the country push these proposals,
they look the other way when President Trump proposes cutting programs
that help newborns and young children.
The President wants to cut Medicaid by more than $1 trillion. That
provides healthcare coverage for 37 million children. He wants to
eliminate programs that support emergency medical health services for
children and that address autism and developmental disorders.
I hope my Republican colleagues will join us instead of slipping down
this radical, ideological, and deeply misguided path to strip away the
rights of women.
H.R. 268
Now on disaster relief, as I said yesterday, the question of
providing funding for our fellow Americans hurt by natural disasters is
not an either-or proposition, but Republicans have treated it like one.
They argue that we can either have funding for our neighbors in the
Midwest, or we can pursue aid for Puerto Rico that the President
opposes. For the President of the United States to pit American
citizens against each other is simply un-American, and for Republicans
in the Senate to go along with him is exhibit A of their refusal to
stand up.
Some of my colleagues have said: Well, we are giving Puerto Rico just
food stamp money. OK. Let's give all the other States just food stamp
money. See if they think that is going to help them rebuild their homes
and deal with the roads and all the other things that natural disasters
have brought. Of course not.
That is the double standard, and it is not going to happen. We know
the House, to their credit, is standing firm.
Let's come up with a compromise that funds both. As Americans have
always done when American citizens in one part of the country are in
trouble because of disaster, we come together and help them all--not
just the ones the President likes or finds politically advantageous but
all. We don't say: We will give just food stamps to some but complete
disaster relief to the others. That is wrong, and that hurts American
citizens in Puerto Rico and elsewhere.
Last week, Senator Leahy and I presented a solution that solves all
the problems--$16.7 billion in relief for all Americans affected by
natural disasters, including $2.5 billion in new funding that could
help communities with the new disasters in the Midwest. It had support
for Puerto Rico and the people in the other territories.
It is about time we stop this standoff, pass disaster relief, and
help our fellow Americans before the next storms make their unwelcome
arrival.
Nominations
Finally, on judges, today, the Republican leader will follow through
on his plan to remake the judiciary in the image of President Trump.
Irony of ironies, the first nominee we will consider is a gentleman who
supported the Republican leader's decision to not consider even a
committee hearing or a vote on Merrick Garland. That is galling.
Mr. Domenico and the other nominees we will consider today are
outside the mainstream--way outside the mainstream--and should not be
rushed through this body. Two hours of debate on a lifetime
appointment? Shame on our Republican friends who went along with that.
By participating in this sham process, every Republican will fully
own each and every radical decision each of these nominees makes. We
see what is happening now. A very conservative justice in Texas is
taking healthcare away from millions of Americans. He is taking away
their protection for preexisting conditions.
My fellow Republicans, you are on warning: If you keep voting for
these judges, you are going to carry the burden of their awful
decisions that will hurt so many Americans. They are so far out of the
mainstream.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from
Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Women's Health
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the minority leader explained, we
unfortunately expect that today Senate Republicans will again make an
effort to spread lies and misinformation about why some women decide to
have abortions later in pregnancy, and they will do so instead of
listening to women like Judy, from my home State of Washington, who
learned that her son's organs were not developing properly--one lung
was just 20 percent formed, and the other was missing entirely; women
like Darla, from Texas, who learned that the complications one of her
twins was facing could endanger the other's life as well; women like
Alyson, a mother of six, who learned that one of her twins had died in
the womb and the other was facing severe complications and that her own
health was in severe risk from the pregnancy; or countless patients in
States that have so severely undermined access to safe, legal abortion
that women struggle to exercise their rights protected under our
Constitution.
It is worth asking, with so much else going on, why are Republicans
spending time doubling down on lies to undermine women's reproductive
health? The unfortunate truth is that my Republican colleagues are not
repeating these falsehoods because they are concerned about children or
families; instead, they are doing whatever they think will help them
reach their goal of taking away access to safe abortion in the United
States of America.
Republicans may not be listening to women or doctors or families like
the ones I just mentioned who had to make extremely difficult
decisions, but Democrats are listening. We know women need to be able
to make the healthcare choices that are right for them and their
families, and healthcare providers need to be able to let medical
standards, not politics, drive patients' care.
None of this should be controversial, and for the vast majority of
people across the country, it is not. But as long as Republicans are
holding partisan hearings to spread misinformation and lies or pushing
anti-doctor, anti-women, and anti-family legislation or putting up new
barriers to make it harder for women to access reproductive healthcare
or trying to defund trusted healthcare providers like Planned
Parenthood through harmful gag rules or jamming through far-right,
ideological judges to chip
[[Page S2301]]
away at Roe v. Wade, Democrats are not going to stop fighting back on
behalf of women, men, and families in this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests.
I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GARDNER. And I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
complete my remarks before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Daniel Desmond Domenico
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in support
of Dan Domenico, the district judge we will be voting on shortly.
I strongly support Dan Domenico for the district court position in
the District of Colorado. Dan has impeccable academic and legal
credentials. A native Coloradan, he is well known and well respected
throughout the entire Colorado legal community. These characteristics
make him very well suited to be on the bench.
A native of Boulder, CO, Dan received his undergraduate degree from
Georgetown University and his juris doctorate from the University of
Virginia--it has been a good week for the University of Virginia: a new
Federal judge and a national championship--where he graduated order of
the coif and was the editor of the law review.
After law school, Dan joined the respected firm of Hogan & Hartson
and then clerked for Judge Tim Tymkovich, who is now the chief judge on
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Following his clerkship, Dan continued his public service as a
Special Assistant to the Solicitor in the U.S. Department of the
Interior. There, he advised the Secretary and the Department on matters
related to national parks, fish and wildlife, Bureau of Land Management
issues, and Indian affairs. These are all areas that matter a great
deal to Colorado and the West.
Dan was then appointed to be the solicitor general for the State of
Colorado. While he was the youngest person tapped for the position, he
then became the longest serving solicitor general in our State's
history, holding the position for 9 years. As solicitor general, Dan
represented the State in both State and Federal courts, including the
U.S. Supreme Court. He oversaw all major litigation for the State, and
he provided legal advice to the Governor and State agencies.
Dan is currently the founding and managing partner at the Kittredge
LLC, where he represents clients in high-stakes, complex litigation and
appeals. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Denver's
College of Law, where he teaches courses in natural resources law and
constitutional law.
As impressive as this background is, it is also an insight into the
type of judge Dan would be. I am particularly struck by Dan's service
as the Colorado solicitor general.
While the Democratic leader may object to Dan Domenico, two
Democratic Governors in Colorado did not. In fact, they kept his
service. In fact, Dan served as solicitor general for the State of
Colorado during one Republican Governor and two Democratic Governors.
He served, regardless of party, with competence and zeal. That is what
the Colorado legal community would tell anyone who wishes to listen.
His approach to the legal issues he confronted was the same regardless
of the party in power. He looked to the law. And that is what we expect
in every judge. That is what Colorado wants. That is what our country
needs. We need experienced practitioners who are respected by their
peers and who will faithfully apply the law regardless of politics or
place in life. That is what I believe Dan will do, and that is why I
enthusiastically support his nomination and hope my colleagues will
follow suit as well.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
of Daniel Desmond Domenico, of Colorado, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Colorado.
Mitch McConnell, Johnny Isakson, Roger F. Wicker, John
Boozman, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Shelley Moore Capito,
Pat Roberts, Roy Blunt, Deb Fischer, David Perdue, Todd
Young, John Thune, Mike Rounds, Steve Daines, John
Hoeven, Thom Tillis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Daniel Desmond Domenico, of Colorado, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Colorado, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Johnson) would haved voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth)
is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 65 Ex.]
YEAS--55
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Jones
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--42
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Cruz
Duckworth
Johnson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are
42.
The motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Texas.
Order of Business
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all
postcloture time on the Domenico nomination expire at 2:15 p.m.;
further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of
the Senate's action. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate
recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Supporting Veterans
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was fortunate to grow up in a military
family. My dad served for 31 years in the U.S. Air Force. He actually
started out at a very young age as a B-17 pilot in the Army Air Corps
before the Air Force was even created.
He was stationed at Molesworth Air Force Base in England and flew
missions across the English Channel into Germany during World War II.
He flew 26 of those missions, and he was successful in completing each
one of them except for the last one. On the 26th mission, he was shot
down and captured as a POW for the last 4 months of the war.
Growing up in a military family obviously means a lot to me. I grew
up with a father who demonstrated every day what it means to be a
patriot. Of course, like most military brats--that is what we called
ourselves--I spent a lot of time traveling around the country. Of
course, I was born in Texas and consider San Antonio home, but we
[[Page S2302]]
lived in Mississippi and in Kensington, MD, right outside the District
of Columbia. I graduated from high school in Japan. This is pretty
typical of a lot of military families because they tend to move around
quite a bit. One of the biggest challenges, being a student growing up
in a military family, is frequently having to change schools. That
requires a little bit of resilience on the part of the student because
they have to learn how to make friends, even in new settings.
Despite the challenges of moving around as a kid, there was one thing
I was always grateful for. I had the privilege of witnessing not only
my dad but so many others of our U.S. military servicemembers in
action. Seeing their courage and sacrifice showed me early on that
there is nothing we can do to adequately repay these men and women for
their service to their country, but you better believe we have to try,
and we are going to keep trying--not just to repay them but to
recognize them and to honor them.
In Congress we accomplished a lot for our military over the last few
years. We restored America's defense with the greatest investment in
the military in decades, including the largest troop pay raise in
nearly 10 years. That is after we tried unsuccessfully to do what we
have done from time to time, which is to cash in the ``peace
dividend.'' Unfortunately, we can't cash in the peace dividend because
there never seems to be peace, as much as we would hope and pray for
that.
But supporting our heroes on the battlefield is only part of our
responsibility toward the military. We are also focused on ensuring
that they get the care, support, and opportunities they need once they
come home and take the uniform off as a veteran.
I have heard from many of my veterans in Texas who are frustrated
with the services provided by VA facilities. They shared stories about
having to travel hours upon hours to receive care, sometimes forcing
them to accept lower quality care or sometimes to forego it entirely.
Both in Texas and across the country, VA facilities have notably been
plagued by inefficiency, lack of accountability, and quality of care
issues. Making matters more challenging, the VA has been hindered by
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. The Veterans' Administration has more
than 300,000 people working for them. So bureaucracy should be its
middle name. It is not designed to be efficient, but it is incredibly
frustrating and costly for our veterans as they seek to get the care we
promised them and that we are dutybound to provide.
Sadly, in some cases veterans turn to alternative coping mechanisms
that can lead to destructive addictions. We know that self-medication
is a real problem, particularly for mental health issues, and veterans,
unless they are diagnosed properly and receive the correct medical
care, can spiral down as a result of an alcohol or drug addiction,
which is a coping or self-medication mechanism that does not work out
well. Those stories do not end well at all. Those are some of the
challenges we have facing our veterans and trying to provide them with
the services they are entitled to and have earned.
But there is a good news part to this story. Last summer we took a
major step to provide veterans with the healthcare they deserve when we
passed the VA MISSION Act. This legislation will make significant
reforms in the Department of Veterans Affairs and provide veterans with
more flexibility to make decisions themselves regarding their
healthcare. In other words, they don't have to adapt to the system. The
system can adapt to them and be flexible to their needs.
One of the most common frustrations I hear from my Texas veterans is
that it is sometimes impractical to travel to the next VA hospital when
they need care. This legislation, the VA MISSION Act, consolidates and
improves VA community programs. In other words, you can get the care in
your community. It allows veterans to receive care from private
hospitals and doctors.
It also provides funding for the Veterans Choice Program to continue
until the approved Veterans Community Care Program matures and is fully
in effect.
The VA MISSION Act included some of the most substantial reforms to
the veterans healthcare system in years, lowering the barriers to care
for veterans and giving them more treatment options. It has also
provided the largest funding increase in recent history for veterans'
care and services and modernized the VA's electronic health record
system.
My hope is it will provide some needed relief to veterans and their
families who aren't happy with the status quo, and we will continue to
work with them until we get this right, to build on these reforms until
we are able to provide the sort of care all of our veterans need and
deserve. We don't want to just provide for these men and women's
physical needs, we also need to ensure that they have adequate mental
health resources as well.
Last Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Veteran Urgent
Access to Mental Healthcare Act. Enacted as part of the 2018
Consolidated Appropriations Act, this law now allows those discharged
under certain other-than-honorable conditions access to critical mental
health care facilities. Veterans who are struggling deserve to be
carefully evaluated at the onset of their mental illness and supported
with the VA medical treatment necessary for their recovery.
I was proud to introduce the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act,
which established peer-to-peer services that connect qualified veterans
with other veterans to provide support and mentorship. One of the
things I hear from our servicemembers, when they take the uniform off,
is that what they miss most about the military is the camaraderie and
sense of teamwork and mutual support. This legislation is designed to
try to provide some transitional support for peer-to-peer services, to
connect qualified veterans with other veterans during that period of
time. It will also allow qualified veterans to obtain treatment,
recovery, stabilization, and rehabilitation services.
While providing physical and mental healthcare for veterans is a top
priority, it is only part of providing a smooth transition for those
who leave military life to return to civilian life. We want to ensure
that they have ample employment opportunities as well.
Last month, the veterans unemployment rate was 2.9 percent--down from
4.1 percent in March of last year and lower than the national
unemployment rate. I would like to think that is, in part, a result of
the concerted effort we have made to provide more opportunity to our
veterans to transition into a meaningful career after life in the
military. I am encouraged by those positive numbers. We will continue
to follow them and make sure it is not just a blip on the radar screen.
Last Congress, I introduced the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act,
which is now law. It amended a 1968 law to allow grant funds to be used
to hire and train veterans as career law enforcement officers.
Everywhere I go across the State of Texas, I talk to police departments
that were really having huge challenges trying to fill the vacancies in
their ranks. This will allow more of our veterans who are trained to
serve as career law enforcement officers and use grant funds to hire
and train them further to make sure they have the skills needed in a
specific police department or law enforcement position. This bill makes
sure veterans can get hired by local law enforcement agencies when they
come out of the military with the very skills that are needed by those
police agencies working to keep our communities safe.
I also introduced the Jobs for Our Heroes Act, which was signed into
law last January. This streamlines the process by which Active-Duty
military reservists and veterans receive commercial driver's licenses.
Finally, another bill I will mention was the Harry W. Colmery
Veterans Educational Assistance Act, which made much needed updates for
veterans facing school closures while enrolled. It also increased the
resources and opportunities for educational assistance for veterans
pursuing STEM careers--science, technology, engineering, and math--
something we need more of.
Every piece of legislation I mentioned was signed into law by
President Trump and represents our commitment in the Senate to
supporting America's veterans. I am proud of the
[[Page S2303]]
work we have been able to do together on a bipartisan basis--big and
small--to provide America's veterans with the support and resources
they need as they transition to civilian life.
There is more I would like to accomplish this Congress to provide
greater care and open more doors to veterans. I look forward to working
with all of my colleagues to do exactly that.
Tribute to Lieutenant General Paul E. Funk II
Madam President, finally, I want to take just a moment to
congratulate one outstanding servicemember from Texas who just received
a big promotion. The Senate recently confirmed LTG Paul E. Funk II for
his fourth star and for the position of commanding general of the U.S.
Army Training and Doctrine Command.
Since 2017, General Funk has served as commanding general of the
Third Armored Corps at Ford Hood, where he commands about 100,000
soldiers on five installations across five States. As excited as we
were for him to take the helm at Fort Hood, it felt more like a
homecoming for General Funk.
As a matter of fact, he was born at Fort Hood and is the son of a
previous commander of the Third Corps at Fort Hood. They were the first
father-son duo to command the unit and joined a small but impressive
group of other fathers and sons who have commanded the same corps.
Throughout his career, General Funk has been deployed five times and
led soldiers during Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, twice in
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation
Inherent Resolve. General Funk is highly decorated and has received
multiple Distinguished Service Medals, the Defense Superior Service
Medal, multiple Legion of Merit awards, and numerous Bronze Stars,
among other medals.
I wanted to say a few words to congratulate soon-to-be General Funk
and his wife, Dr. Beth Funk, on this incredible accomplishment. He is
an outstanding soldier, leader, and patriot, and will do great work at
TRADOC. The State of Texas is sad to say farewell, but we wish him the
very best as he heads to Virginia for this incredible opportunity and
his continued service to our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Louisiana.
Stop Silencing Victims Act
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to talk briefly about two
subjects. The first is sexual harassment. More specifically, I want to
talk about a bill I am going to be introducing. It is about the abuse
of nondisclosure agreements across government.
There are victims of sexual harassment who are prohibited from
talking about their experiences because of a nondisclosure agreement
that is attached to a settlement and has been paid for by taxpayers or,
in some cases, with private funds. Victims are silenced. Victims are
silenced so voters can't find out about this disgusting behavior.
I have always believed that sunlight is the best antiseptic and the
best disinfectant, and it is long past time, in my opinion, that we
stop revictimizing people who wanted nothing more than to come to work
every day and be treated with basic human dignity.
The title of my proposed law is the Stop Silencing Victims Act. It is
really very simple. It would say that if you are a State or Federal
employee or if you are a public official or a public employee and you
are accused of sexual harassment and you settle that lawsuit--whether
you settle it with taxpayer funds or private funds--then a
nondisclosure agreement is prohibited in that settlement unless the
victim wants to have a nondisclosure agreement. In other words, if you
are accused of sexual harassment and you settle the case, the taxpayers
are entitled to know about the settlement unless the victim decides
otherwise.
I am going to be careful here. We believe passionately, as we should,
in due process in America; that just because you are accused of
something doesn't mean you are guilty of it. Some of my colleagues have
suggested in the past that you are morally tainted if you don't
automatically believe all accusers. I don't agree with that. I think
you are morally tainted if you don't treat both the accuser and accused
with respect and dignity and due process. So the purpose of my bill is
not to take away anybody's due process. Just because you are accused of
something doesn't mean you are guilty of it.
Having said that, I think we have to face the facts in America. We
have had far too many instances of sexual harassment. We have seen it
in Hollywood repeatedly. I don't know how the actors in Hollywood have
time to make movies; they are too busy molesting each other.
It is not just in Hollywood. It is all across society. It is in the
Halls of Congress. It is in the halls of State government. It is in the
boardroom. It is all across America. For the first time in a long time,
women who are usually--not always but usually--the victims of sexual
harassment have started to speak up. I thank them for that.
My bill will further enhance their voice. If they make an accusation
of sexual harassment and the alleged perpetrator is a State employee or
Federal employee and the lawsuit is settled, no longer will you be able
to have an agreement that says nobody can talk about it unless the
victim wants to. Once again, I think this kind of transparency will
help us fight a very serious problem in America because this is no
country for creepy old men or for creepy young men or for creepy
middle-aged men or for anybody--man or woman--who would use his or her
power to obtain sexual favors from somebody in fear of them in power in
the workplace or otherwise.
Immigration
Madam President, I believe any President is entitled to surround
himself with the advisers of his choice. I firmly believe that.
As you know, our recent Secretary of Homeland Security has been
replaced. She and the President met on Sunday, and they mutually
decided there would be a change at the top in Homeland Security.
Secretary Nielsen decided to resign.
Shortly thereafter, her White House colleagues, her friends--the
people she has worked with day in and day out to try to solve this
crisis of illegal immigration into America--immediately became
anonymous sources and proceeded to cut her to pieces off the record. Of
course, our press, as it is entitled to do under the First Amendment,
feasted on it. These were Secretary Nielsen's colleagues; the people
she worked with on a daily basis.
This is America. Within reason, you can say what you want, but you
ought to put your name to it. You shouldn't hide behind the label of an
anonymous source. I believe, and I suspect the Presiding Officer does,
too, that we should treat people with dignity and respect. I felt and
still feel Secretary Nielsen's former colleagues did not show her
dignity and respect. In fact, their behavior was classless.
I think Secretary Nielsen did the very best she could under difficult
circumstances, for we do have a problem at the border. ``Problem'' is
an understatement. In March, we had 100,000 people come into our
country illegally. That is the most in 10 years. If that continues, we
are going to set a record this year of the number of people entering
our country illegally.
We are a nation of immigrants, and I am proud of that. Americans
cannot be called anti-immigrant. Every year, we welcome a million
people across the world to come into our country and become Americans.
They do it legally. They follow the law--they are properly vetted; they
get in line; they wait patiently. Then we welcome them in. We are a
nation of immigrants, and I am very proud of that.
Unfortunately, we have another 500,000 to 600,000 people who don't
follow the rules. They come into our country illegally. Illegal
immigration is illegal. Even if you think it is a good idea--and I
don't--if you care about the rule of law, which is one of the bedrock
principles in America, then you would want to stop illegal immigration.
It is just that simple.
I don't care who the President puts in charge of Homeland Security. I
don't want to leave that statement in isolation or allow it to be taken
out of context. Obviously, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security is a very important post, but I don't care which man or woman
the President chooses, for we are not going to solve this problem until
we do three things. Some brandnew, shiny, magical wonder pony is not
going to gallop in and save
[[Page S2304]]
us here. We have to solve this problem ourselves.
The first thing we have to do is to build a wall. I am not talking
about a wall from sea to shining sea. We have 1,900 miles of border. I
am talking about barriers that are strategically placed. You cannot
seal a 1,900-mile piece of real estate without having a barrier. It
can't be done. If you don't believe me, ask Israel. That is why it has
a 400-plus-mile border wall with the West Bank. That is why Saudi
Arabia has a border wall with Yemen. That is why India has a border
wall as do Bulgaria and Malaysia. I could keep going. Border walls
work. All border walls say is: If you come into our country, come in
legally because we believe in the rule of law.
The second thing we need to do, as the Presiding Officer well knows,
is to pass asylum laws that look like somebody designed the things on
purpose because what we have now doesn't fit that description. If you
are coming from Central America--from El Salvador, from Nicaragua, from
Guatemala--all you have to do is make it to American soil, say the
magic words, and you will be allowed into our country. You will be
told: We are going to give you a court date. Yet we are so far behind
in our immigration court that the court date will likely come in a year
and a half or 2 years. You will be released into the country, and you
will be told to come back for the court date. Some do. Many don't.
No other country that I am aware of has an asylum law as upside down
as ours. You could drive all across Washington, DC, and pick the first
person you find who is living under the interstate and say: You draft
an asylum law for us. It would be better than the asylum law we have
right now.
The U.S. Senate ought to be debating America's asylum laws right this
second. I am not saying the other things we are doing--we are in the
personnel business--aren't important, but there is not a single issue
right now that is more important. Congress needs to do its job, and the
Senate ought to be debating this issue right now. I don't know how it
will turn out. How about we just surprise ourselves for a change and do
something intelligent by putting the issue on the floor of the Senate
and by letting us debate it and offer amendments. We might be surprised
at what we can achieve.
The third thing we are going to have to do to solve our problem is to
convince our friends in Mexico and our friends in Central America--El
Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua--to work with us in terms of solving
this problem. What I would like to see the President do is to call an
immigration summit. He has declined to do it, but I am going to keep
talking about it until I persuade him to call an immigration summit.
Invite the President of Mexico and the President of the Northern
Triangle Central American countries. Let's come together, and let's
talk about the problem.
There are some bad people coming across the border. Some of them are
from Central America. The President is right about that. We have gang
members, drug dealers, criminals, child sex traffickers, and adult sex
traffickers. Yet all of the people coming across are not bad people.
They are coming because they are scared. I read an analysis the other
day of a poll conducted by Vanderbilt University. It was the most
expensive, thorough poll that one could do. They didn't call people on
the telephones; they talked to people in person. It was a
representative sample.
This poll found that between one-third and one-half of the people
with whom they talked who lived in Central American countries--the so-
called Northern Triangle countries--had been victims of crime within
the past year, usually of extortion. That is the problem in these
Central American countries--the gangs are running the countries. In
many cases, the police and elected leadership are complicit. I mean,
imagine how bad things would have to be for you to take your child and
your spouse and decide ``I am going to leave where I am and walk, with
the clothes on my back, 500 to 1,000 miles to another country because
that is how bad things are where I am right now.'' That is the case
with many of the people in Central America.
I don't know the answer. I think we should start with a Presidential
summit--not representatives of the President's but a Presidential
summit of the President of the United States, President of Mexico Lopez
Obrador, and the Presidents of the Northern Triangle countries. Let's
see what we can do to try to solve this problem.
There is precedent for this. Back in the late 1990s and well into the
next decade, we had a terrible problem with drug cartels and cocaine
coming into this country from Colombia. We didn't solve that problem
overnight. We solved it by working with Colombia to develop what we
called then Plan Colombia. We sat down with the President of Colombia
and said: We will work with you. We will even provide some of the
funding in return for specific commitments--one being to stop growing
cocoa leaves, for example. It has taken a decade, but we have not
completely solved the problem. Yet, if you visit Colombia today, it is
a different country.
Let me say again--and I will end on this note--that I am not anti-
immigration, and I don't think most Americans are. We are a nation of
immigrants, but illegal immigration undermines legal immigration. Some
of my colleagues don't agree with that. They don't make the distinction
between legal and illegal immigration. Some of my colleagues, I am
convinced--and it is their right, for this is America; believe what you
want--believe that illegal immigration is a moral good. I don't. I
think illegal immigration is illegal, and I think it hurts our country.
We are not going to solve this problem until we control the flow of
people from Central America, until we revise our asylum laws, and until
we build a barrier.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to complete my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Religious Intolerance
Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I rise to discuss a new and growing
fundamentalism--a fundamentalism of intolerance and bigotry that is
spreading on our college campuses, in our university systems, and in
the media. It is a fundamentalism that wraps itself in the language of
tolerance but that is, in fact, a cloak for discrimination against
people of faith. This new fundamentalism would undermine the most
important constitutional guarantees and traditions of our Nation that
have allowed us to live in civil peace and civil friendship for over
200 years, and that is the subject of my remarks this afternoon.
The latest example of this new fundamentalism of intolerance comes
from Yale University--in particular, from Yale Law School--where we
learned last week that Yale Law School had imposed a new policy that
would block students who work for certain faith-based organizations
from accessing resources that are available to all other students.
Specifically, that policy would prohibit students from receiving school
resources if they decided to work for an organization that takes
religious faith into account when hiring. Unlike Federal law, Yale's
policy, as announced, failed to include an exemption for religious
organizations even though Federal law recognizes the rights of
religious organizations to hire based on their faiths.
What we are talking about here is something very simple. Yale said to
a group of students that if those in the group wanted to work for
faith-based organizations, they would not be able to access the same
funds or the same loan repayment programs that are offered to all other
students who work for all other organizations. As to what Yale held out
to students as being a neutral and generally available program for
folks who chose to work in the public's interest either during the
summer or after law school, Yale Law School, last week, said: Oh, no.
It is not going to be available if you are a student of faith and
choose to go to work for an organization that is faith-based and want
to pursue its faith-based mission.
Ironically, this was done in the name of tolerance. Yale said it was
trying to
[[Page S2305]]
foster a more tolerant environment. In fact, this is the most rank
intolerance. It is flatout discrimination. It is discrimination against
religious organizations and nonprofit organizations that are pursuing
their good work and that are, in many instances, doing so without
asking their clients to pay a single cent. It is discrimination on the
basis of faith, pure and simple. It is discrimination against students
of faith who want to go to public interest organizations that share
their faith missions and who want to do good in the world by pursuing
those beliefs while helping those who are in need. It is
discrimination, at the end of the day and at the root of the matter,
that rejects this country's commitment and our First Amendment's
commitment to pluralism.
You know, our First Amendment is an extraordinary text. When enacted,
it was the first of its kind in the world, and it makes an
extraordinary commitment. It says that the people of this country have
the right to pursue and to observe their religious beliefs, whatever
they may be, so long as they do so in peace with one another. It is, as
an old friend of mine once said, the right to be wrong. The First
Amendment guarantees that every single American can pursue his or her
most fundamentally held, deeply held religious beliefs so long as they
don't harm other people. That doesn't mean we all have to agree on what
our religious beliefs are. It doesn't mean we have to agree on the
outcomes our religious creeds lead us to.
Our First Amendment recognizes the right to be wrong, but this new
fundamentalism, this new intolerance and bigotry does not recognize the
right to be wrong. In fact, it wants to eliminate the right to be
wrong. It wants to say that, no, we all have to agree. We all have to
now share Yale's view of what an appropriate religious mission is. We
now have to share Yale's view of what students should be doing with
their time. We have to share Yale's view of what our deeply held
beliefs, religious or otherwise, should be.
This sort of fundamentalism insists on a monochromatic view of the
world that we all believe the same thing, that we all act in the same
way, that we all behave the way our elites want us to behave. Well, I
submit to you that is not the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
That is not our great tradition of pluralism. That is not what has
allowed us to live in civil peace and civil friendship for these many
years.
The question is, Why do Yale Law School and other institutions pursue
policies like this? Well, it is not because of the law. Let's be clear
about that. In fact, Federal law and, indeed, our Constitution prohibit
precisely this kind of targeting of people of faith for disfavor. Just
in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called Trinity Lutheran
that policies that target the religious for special disabilities based
on their religious status are unconstitutional. Indeed, as I said
earlier, Federal law explicitly prohibits the targeting of individuals
for their religious faith.
No, Yale Law School is not enacting this policy because the law
requires it; they are enacting this policy because they no longer
believe in the right to be wrong. They no longer believe that our
religious faith is so fundamental, is so significant, and is so
meaningful that we ought to be allowed to pursue it peacefully, in
harmony with one another.
You know, Yale said of their policy that ``the law school cannot
prohibit a student from working for an employer who discriminates''--
that is their understanding of what religious organizations do when
they ask that the members of the organization share the same faith;
they call that discrimination--``the law school cannot prohibit a
student from working for an employer who discriminates, but that is not
a reason why Yale Law School should bear any obligation to fund that
work.''
Well, Yale Law School can certainly pursue its own beliefs, its own
objectives, and its own values, but why should they be doing it with
Federal taxpayer money? That is my question.
Yale University receives millions of dollars in Federal taxpayer
subsidies every year, which they use to pad their multibillion-dollar
endowment. Yale Law School, this seat of privilege, does not have to
accept this money from the Federal Government--I submit to you, is not
entitled to this money from the Federal Government if they are going to
engage in patterns of discrimination targeted at religious students and
religious organizations for special disfavor.
So I propose this: If Yale Law School and Yale University want to
pursue a policy of discrimination towards religious believers, they may
certainly do so, but they may not do it with Federal taxpayer money.
You know, Yale said at the end of last week that they would add an
exemption now. They said they would add an exemption for religious
organizations and religious believers. We haven't seen that exemption
yet. I notice that it took days of pressure and outcry for them to come
forward with this. I hope they will add an exemption. I hope they will
stop targeting religious students for special disfavor. But what I hope
above all is this: I hope that Yale Law School and Yale University will
recommit themselves to our proud tradition of pluralism, of diversity,
of the right to be wrong, which has been the basis for our civic
friendship, for our civic peace, for the extraordinary diversity of
thought and belief we so cherish in this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my
remarks before the lunch recess.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Sexual Assault Awareness Month
Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I rise today to focus on a serious issue
that has plagued our society and impacted the lives of so many people
across our great Nation: sexual assault.
During my time at Iowa State University, I served as a volunteer
counselor at a crisis center that provided shelter and support to
survivors of abuse and sexual assault. I heard so many gut-wrenching
stories of women and of men fleeing domestic abusers, suffering not
just physically but emotionally and spiritually. Taking calls on our
hotline from people who had been raped and sexually abused was
absolutely heartbreaking.
Abuse is not something you can just simply forget; it stays with you
forever. And I know this personally. As a survivor and as a Senator, I
feel it is important to be a voice for the thousands of victims across
Iowa and so many more across our Nation who have fallen prey to sexual
assault, to rape, to harassment, and other forms of abuse. Our country
is facing a mental health crisis, and one cannot help but feel that
these issues are all too often interwoven into the stories of so many
Americans.
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. As lawmakers, it is a stark
reminder that we must take a long, hard look at how we combat this
problem and take real steps to confront sexual assault in our society.
Just last week, with my colleagues Senator Grassley, Senator
Gillibrand, and others, we reintroduced a bipartisan bill to combat
sexual assault on our college and university campuses. Our bipartisan
measure will make campuses in Iowa safer and ensure victims are fairly
heard by changing the way our universities handle sexual assault cases.
But it is not just these young men and women at these institutions
who have been victimized. Like so many of you, I was horrified--
absolutely horrified--to hear of the crimes committed by Larry Nassar,
the USA Gymnastics doctor who abused hundreds of young athletes. The
actions of Nassar and the individuals and institutions that facilitated
and then protected his behavior are inexcusable.
The cases were also symptomatic of broader problems our society faces
on sexual assault, rape, harassment, and abuse, leaving women and men,
young and old, vulnerable. These types of failures are the reasons I
have worked with my colleagues in Congress on reforms to ensure sexual
misconduct is reported, responded to, taken seriously, and ideally
prevented. For instance, we introduced a bill to require the governing
bodies of U.S. amateur athletic organizations to immediately report sex
abuse allegations to local or Federal law enforcement or a child
welfare agency.
But the work doesn't end with our educational and athletic
institutions; we must challenge people to do better
[[Page S2306]]
to protect people from these horrendous actions. In the case of the
military, the Department of Defense should take a stronger posture in
terms of preventing sexual assault within its ranks. I say this as a
former company commander and a retired lieutenant colonel. While there
have been concrete steps taken to improve the safety of our
servicemembers, there is more that we can and should do to protect our
men and women in uniform and change the overall culture.
The message I hear all too often is that victims in our armed
services have a fear of retaliation. Folks, this is absolutely
unacceptable. Those who report sexual assault should not fear coming
forward, and those who retaliate against individuals should be punished
to the full extent of the law. I helped author a bill to make
retaliation its own unique offense under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, and fortunately for our servicemembers, this bill is now law.
It is my hope that Congress can continue to work on legislation that
addresses these issues.
While my personal story certainly does play a role in my passion for
change, so also do the stories and faces of men and women back home in
Iowa, every single one of them, with that face, with that name, with
that heart, and with that soul. It is their stories that push me to
want to make real and lasting change. Whether it is working with
Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act or fighting to reduce the
abuse of females in custody through legislation with Senators Booker
and Blumenthal, combating sexual assault should be bipartisan and
something we all can agree on.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues toward ending
sexual assault once and for all. This issue will continue to plague us
until we come together and take concrete steps to address it. We all
can and must do better.
This month, as we raise awareness of sexual assault, I hope to see
this body taking real and lasting action.
I yield the floor.
____________________