most of this -- most of these array of factors are pretty uncontroversial. i think every member of this chamber will agree with the trump administration that we should never place children in prisons or jails with hardened, potentially violent criminals when their parents are being lawfully prosecuted for entering the country illegally. we need to see that this is how we got to where we are now. entirely, reasonable decisions that seemed to make sense at the time, that children should not be held for any longer than is strictly necessary, that they should never be detained with adults in a jail cell in potentially dangerous circumstances. a lot of that seemed to make sense at the time. but at the same token, i and many others certainly don't want family members to be separated from one another as a consequence of officials doing their duty and enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold. i focus toms and border -- i

know custom and border protections, david higgerson and all the other men and women that work under them in the rio grande valley, they're trying to do their job. they're trying to enforce the law. that's what we've asked them to do. that is their duty. and it's a good thing. and i think we should all appreciate their attempt to do so in a very complex environment. well, this is where i have some questions for the minority leader, senator schumer and others. senator feinstein, my friend from california, who i worked with on a number of pieces of legislation, she secured the support of all members of the democratic side of the aisle on a piece of legislation which does nothing to ensure that the law will be enforced. sure, it purports to deal with family separation, but basically provides a get you out -- get

out of jail free card to any adult who crosses across the border, they go from a zero tolerance program by president trump's administration to a zero enforcement program thus having an incentive for people to come across the border illegally. and that will continue to be a draw on people from different parts of the world who would love to move to the united states. we can be sympathetic. we can be concerned. we should do everything within our power to help them so they can live in their own country safely, but we know we simply can't have an open border policy so that everybody and anybody who wants to move to the united states can do so. that's why we have exceptions like asylum claims that have to be decided by an immigration

judge. yesterday, senator schumer expressed some doubt that president trump -- excuse me. he said that president trump alone could fix this situation by sning a presidential order, but even though the president has stated his decision to do so, i think that's likely not going to be decided finally by the president but rather by the courts when that executive order is challenged based on the other legal considerations that i mentioned a moment ago, ninth circuit decision, a consent decree in the flores case and other statutes. i don't think our friend on the -- the democratic leader actually believes president trump can do this by a flick of the pen otherwise wouldn't have cosponsored the bill by the senator from california to address this situation. why in the world would he propose legislation if he

actually, sincerely believes that the president alone can fix this problem? the truth is we here in congress, and the president, we have a shared responsibility and a role to play in addressing this crisis at the border. but the result of the proposal by the senator from california embraced and cosponsored by the democratic leader is that it makes it impossible to enforce the laws that congress has written when it comes to adults illegally entering the united states when they are accompanied by a child. and believe it -- we should not be under any illusion that the criminal organizations who facilitate the movement of people from other countries into the united states, they understand these gaps in our laws. that's why they sent tens of thousands of unaccompanied children into the united states in 2014, creating that humanitarian crisis, and they

know well that because of the gaps in our law that allow adults with children to be treated differently, they've -- they are exploiting that for financial gain. well, the result of the proposal by the minority leader and our democratic colleagues means that it's impossible to enforce laws that congress has written. ending zero tolerance means ignoring the law, and that amounts to ignoring the will of the people that put members of congress in office and ending our respect for the rule of law. ending zero tolerance, as they would seek to do, means tolerating criminal activity. as i mentioned, these are organized criminal -- criminal organizations, transnational criminal organizations they are times called, and they will trade in anything that makes them money, people, guns, drugs,

any sort of contraband you can imagine. and not applying the law to illegal entry does nothing but fuel them and feed their money machine, which is why they continue to do what they do. the other concern i have with the legislation proposed by our democratic colleagues, even though he has said only the president can fix it, is that while legislation from the senator from california does seek to keep families together, a goal we share, it doesn't specify where those families should be held. that's a big problem. because when it comes to the safety of these children, we don't want to leave that open to interpretation or misunderstanding. we want to be sure and clear that where these families are kept that it should be in separate residential housing facilities away from hardened, potentially violent criminals.

but our democratic bill that every single one of the democrats have signed on to doesn't even address that. as i said, in fact, their bill would likely result in many adults entering the united states ill -- states illegally getting off scot-free because of the no enforcement zone extending basically up to 100 miles from the authority, not just the border patrol, but the f.b.i., the u.s. attorneys, and others, would be essentially prohibited from prosecuting anybody for violation of our laws. now, all of us sat up and paid close attention when former first lady laura bush and the current first lady, malania expressed their concerns about family separation and called on us for a better way to end the current crisis, and i agree with them. in fact, we've gotten off to a

pretty good start. led by our colleague from income in some of our colleagues and i just a few minutes ago have introduced a bill called keep families together and enforce the law act. the goals of this legislation are pretty straightforward. keep families together in safe, secure facilities while their cases are waiting to be decided by a court. we set mandatory standards of care for family residential centers to make sure that they are hygienic and safe and the sort of place where we can treat people compassionately. we also authorize 225 new immigration judges because of the huge backlog that make it hard to handle all of the cases that come across the border while we give these families a chance to move to the head of the line to get their case decided on an expeditious basis

so while they are detained in these safe facilities, their cases are decided quickly and if they are rewarded asylum it can be done on a timely basis rather than being left in limbo. i talked to the senior senator from california, senator feinstein, that these are elements of a bill that we might be able to agree to, democrats and republicans, in order to address the common concerns we have about family separation. throughout the course of our discussions, though, it has become clear that this is something we all believe, that families crossing the border should be kept together. where we may differ is whether or not that should also go along with a joint commitment to enforce our immigration laws, but as i said earlier, this is not an either or situation. we can keep parents and children together while at the same time

remain resolute in enforcing our immigration laws, something i believe we should do. the trump administration said it will not violate any -- it will not tolerate any violation of those laws and that all offenders will remain on the table for prosecution, but there's no reason for our democratic colleagues to oppose what i've laid out, either we are or we are not a nation of laws with a government that enforces those laws or we are a nation with no law and open borders, simply waving through anybody who wants to come into the country at their discretion. i would urge all of our colleagues to work together to continue talking about and supporting a bill that represents these shared values. if we come together, we can resolve this situation swiftly and ensure these families are kept with their families and that they can be expeditiously

taken before an immigration judge so they can claim an immigration benefit. i look forward tower colleagues working together to try to solve it. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call.

mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. last week, president trump took what i believe is a historic first step in making america and the whole world more safe, more stable, and more secure. his efforts to end north korea's nuclear weapons program has already, i believe, produced tangible results. north korea is dismantling a test facility. it is also committed to recovering and sending home the remains of americans killed during the korean war. now the trump administration is taking the next steps. the state department is hard at work at follow-up discussions. secretary of state pompeo says he may return personally to north korea before very long. when we heard from president trump about his trip to singapore last week, he was upbeat about the talks. he understands that these follow-up talks were going to be where the specifics, where the specifics really start to be discussed. that's where, as they say, the rubber meets the road. now, i think the talks have a very real opportunity for success.

success means an agreement that is durable, enforceable, and verifiable. it means an agreement that eliminates all nuclear weapons from north korea through the entire korean peninsula. nothing less. so i'm cautiously optimistic about the talks. president trump has applied a program of maximum pressure, and that's brought north korea to the table. we had a hearing in the foreign relations committee and the upload from the whole discussion was this -- sanctions work. so the next stage of these negotiations are going to help us understand if now is the right time, if the kim regime is truly ready to give up its nuclear weapons. if it's not ready, the pressure can resume, the pressure can even be increased. the maximum pressure approach will ultimately work, if not today then someday. meanwhile, the united states is in a very strong negotiating

position. we know that as a result of the efforts by president trump and the strong position we are in, it is something that not just we know but north korea knows as well. we know exactly what we need to have happen in these talks, exactly what north korea must do. we're willing to walk away if an agreement falls short. that, mr. president, is how you win a negotiation. when president obama negotiated with iran over their nuclear program, i think he lost sight of that important rule. he wanted a deal so badly that what he was willing to accept was a bad deal. president trump is a negotiator, and i am confident that he's going to walk away if the only deal to be had is one that is bad for the united states. i'm confident that he can reach our goals of a nuclear-free north korea today or at some point down the road. i remain very clear-eyed as does the president about the possibilities as well as the

pitfalls. i think we should be clear-eyed and concerned. the world remains a very dangerous place. our adversaries, including north korea, are cunning, opportunistic, they are aggressive. so we need to be sure that we don't lose sight of what we're dealing with. the kim regime, going back to his father and his grandfather, have a history of appalling attacks on their own people. they have shown no interest in human rights, in the political rights, or the civil liberties of north koreans. so i think that history will judge this family very harshly. all that said, making the world a safer place and doing what is best for america means that we have to deal with other countries as they are. sometimes it includes sitting down to negotiate with other countries and other leaders who have a terrible record on human rights. the united states must continue to do all we can to force hostile nations back from the brink of war. we must encourage countries to embrace democracy, to abide by the rule of law, and to support the freedoms and the rights of

all people. as president kennedy once said, it is not peace -- is not peace in the last analysis basically a matter of human rights? the worst human rights violations imaginable would be a nuclear explosion killing millions of people, some of them instantly, many of them slowly and in agony. president trump knows that's what these negotiations are about, that the stakes are high, and that mike pompeo is the right person for this difficult job. he understands the people he's negotiating with, and he understands the facts on the ground. during the confirmation hearing to be secretary of state, mike pompeo said an interesting thing about america's place in the world. he said if we don't lead for democracy, for prosperity, and for human rights around the world, he said who will? so i think it's clear that the secretary of state approaches these talks with a clear and -- a clear understanding of what american leadership looks like. he also knows what americans' strength looks like.

the president hit the pause button on military exercises scheduled for later this year. he can just as easily restart the exercises. we have 28,000 united states troops in south korea. i visited some of them who are from my home state of wyoming. the united states navy is still in the area. they remain ready and at moment's notice. so america's going to be in a position of strength at every step of these negotiations, whether it's economic, diplomatic, political, or military. you know, i was critical of president obama's iran deal because it was a bad deal, not because ending iran's nuclear program was a bad idea. i was critical of the iran deal because it gave up too much in return for too little. it made permanent concessions for temporary return. it was critical because it was done without the support of the american people through their representatives in the senate. now, i'm confident that president trump will not make the same mistakes. president trump has given kim jong-un a taste, just a taste of

what it means to be welcomed as one of the peaceful civilized nations of the world, and it's up to kim if he wants to remain in this world or if he wants to return to being an isolated, backward, pariah state as north korea has been for so long. it's up to kim if he wants to embrace civilized norms of respecting the human rights and the freedom of people. that's his decision to make. as for the rest of us, we can remain hopeful while still being skeptical. we cannot insist that the talks in north korea must lead to breaks immediately. no one can make a promise like that. no one can expect that is the only standard of success. what we can expect is that our president will always put the interests of the american people first, whether he's negotiating with our allies or with our adversaries. that's what the american people expect, and i think all of us can rest assured that president trump will keep that promise. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. as we await the details of the president's executive order today, we know enough already to have serious and significant concerns about the continuing policy of this administration in dealing with asylum seekers coming across our borders. make no mistake, ending family separation would be a welcome and humane step, but the solution cannot be the immoral and unlawful detention and imprisonment of children.

family separation cannot be replaced by family incarceration and imprisonment. indefinitely imprisoning children and families is still inhumane and ineffective law enforcement. president trump's current policies as articulated in this executive order will put children behind bars indefinitely and indiscriminately, and that is intolerable in a free and democratic society. children will experience many of the same lasting trauma that they do now in the current situation, and the world will continue to watch the spectacle of the american government locking up innocent children and throwing away the key. locking up innocent children

indiscriminately and indefinitely is a betrayal of american values. much like the policy of family separation, this new policy of indefinite and indiscriminate family imprisonment hearkens back to the worst days of our country's history. japanese children were imprisoned with their parents, but the gaze of history rightly judged that decision hargsly -- harshly, and so will history judge us harshly if we permit inhumane and immoral policy to be carried out without our protest and opposition. we must now shame the administration into adopting a

humane and moral policy instead. this policy threatens to be costly. it will be costly in dollars and cents. the estimate is approximately almost $800 per day for every incarcerated person or detained individual, but even more costly will be the undermining of our moral authority and our image around the world and our own sense of offending our basic morality, our image of ourselves, our sense of our own morality must be offended by imprisoning indefinitely and indiscriminately families with their children. and there are alternatives. one is stronger oversight and supervision over families that

can be released without danger of flight or physical violence. these programs have been tried and they have been proven successful. family case management efforts have produced appearance rates before 90%, and those alternatives must be explored instead of detaining and incarcerating differently an indiscriminately children with their families. the world, and all of us, were repulsed by the images of children separated from their families. those sights and sounds were searingly painful, but so must be children in cages and behind bars indefinitely without the basic services and respect for

humanity that our nation -- our great nation has epitomized. at the core of the current administration policy is so-called zero tolerance which results in criminal prosecution of the asylum seekers. the president has recognized the public outrage and yielded to it but the policy of zero tolerance will continue. and the current approach of detaining and incarcerating these children indefinitely likely violates court orders issued in 1997 and 2016 but indefinite and indiscriminate of children and families ought to violate as well our rules of morality and humanity. i urge the administration to

explore alternatives to work with congress on real reform, to support the legislation that has been supported by every democrat in this body that would, in effect, avoid imprisonment of immigrant families. and beyond that legislation, we should pass compassionate and comprehensive immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows and improves the due process rights so that adjudication is fairer and more effective. we must shame this administration to do what is right, to end zero tolerance and support changes to our immigration system that represent the best in america, not as the house bill's to be --

house bills to be voted on today or tomorrow reflect the worst. we are here, mr. president, on world refugee day appropriately. and we ought to acknowledge the remarkable journeys of refugees and asylum seekers as they pursue freedom and opportunity over the immense obstacles they encounter. we should recognize their contribution to our country, their talents, their energy that they bring here. we should recognize the humanitarian importance of the refugee resettlement programs nationwide. though victims of global conflicts come here from all parts of the world, almost all these refugees are also

resilient survivors who embrace their new lives and contribute to their communities, even after these harrowing journeys to the united states. too often we fail to recognize their contributions to american communities. but today we celebrate all that they offer. today, on world refugee day, we commemorate that connecticut, since 2005, has resettled 7,000 refugees. our small state with 3.5 million people from all over the world, particularly in major resettlement cities like bridgeport, hartford, and new haven, today, proudly, i would like to share some of those stories from refugees who have made connecticut their home and highlight the important work this my constituents are doing to support refugees. there are several refugee agencies throughout connecticut that serve as a key touchstone

for these refugees by providing essential case management and employment services. i'm proud of these organizations, grateful for the work they do. iris, the integrated refugee and immigration services, connecticut's largest immigration services organization headquartered in new haven. they resettle refugee families in over 35 of connecticut's towns. likewise, the connecticut institute for refugees and immigrants, located in bridgeport, assists refugees and immigrants in resolving legal, economic, linguistic and social barriers as they immigrate into their communities. let me tell you about the journey of esa and their --

their three children. they settled in west connecticut during the 2016 election. this family fled syria to jordan after one of their members was abducted by the regime. when they arrived in the united states, esa started working as a parking attendant in a hospital parking garage r garage, and -- garage, and imina launched a catering service. their children are happy to go to school. let me tell you about rafid. he was an electrical engineer in baghdad who worked with the united states army corps of engineers during military operations in iraq, but after he received death threats from insurgents, he fled with his family to jordan and then

resettled in connecticut where he works as a team leader at the ship manage -- ship manufacturing company in milford. he started his own sub-contracting company, golden gate contracting. he is truly an entrepreneur in the best sense of that word. and francis an evelyn -- and evelyn, who fled persecution in rwanda and the democratic republic of conga to settle in bridgeport, connecticut. when they shared their story with my office, they said, quote, we understood the american dream is alive in all of us if we wish to work hard. francis and evelyn certainly embody that american dream. connecticut's constituents have embraced these refugee families. they have opened their hearts to

these individuals and families who are seeking nothing less than the american dream and escape from the trauma of war, the violence of persecution and the face of oppression. in the face of unimaginable upheaval and horror, they have come to this country and made that journey. i am grateful to them for their courage and i'd like to recognize one of my constituents who has demonstrated equal courage and strength, college professor janet bower. she established the hartford global migration lab. through this program, janet's

students tutor at jubilee house and help with homework at the publicry.ra jean silk with the community alliance for refugee settlement has also worked with refugees and done immiecial good at a time -- immeasurable good at a time of deplorable conflict when the horrors of war are all too real every day. the trump administration has capped refugee resettlement at 45,000 this fiscal year, the lowest in american history. even with this cap, the estimate is that the united states will resettle only about 20,000 refugees this year. each of these statistics, each of those numbers represents an individual human life transformed by coming to this

country, given new light and life. i hope the administration will commit to resettling at least 75,000 refugees in fiscal year 2019. again, as i close, mr. president, i want to emphasize the importance of this day, the historic significance of our turning a point and taking advantage of an opportunity to do right and to do better than we have. i urge that colleagues across the aisle join in supporting a policy that stops indefinite and indiscriminate imprisonment of children. it may be with their families, but it recalls the worst chapters in our history when families were detained

indiscriminately and indefinitely. and when the judgment of history is made, i hope that we will be spared the kind of blame that rightly went to previous generations who made the wrong decision. let us do what is best for america. let us exemplify the best in america. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the 74th anniversary of the g.i. bill which we will celebrate later this week. before the senator from connecticut leaves the floor, i want to thank him for his comments. i want to followup briefly on what he said. as the presiding officer knows and our colleague from connecticut knows, every wednesday morning here there is a prayer breakfast, it's democratic, republican,

independent, and a number of senators come together and have breakfast and one of the senators talks about their faith journey and how it affect -- and how it affects their work here. i was asked to speak and sometimes people ask, what kind of democrat are you, i say i am a democrat who read matthew 25. when they are hungry you fed me, when i was thirsty, you gave me -- when i was a strange are in your land, you did welcome me. on a day, every day here the -- the chaplain starts our session with a prayer and the rehab -- we have bible study groups and i want to take main and i don't expect -- a minute and i don't expect my friend from connecticut to stay on the floor, but i wanted to cite a

couple of scrictures in the -- scriptures. in the old testament, chapter 19, we read these words, when a strange remember resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. the next verse, 34, says, you will treat the stranger who so jurns with you as the native along you you and you will love him because your stranger -- your strangers in the land of egypt. in the new testament, the words of jesus. we read in matthew 18, verses 2-6. he, being jesus, called a little child and placed among them. his child and others disciples placed among them. jesus said truly i tell you unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. therefore, whoever takes the lonely position of this child who was with them that day is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and whoever welcomes one

such child in my name welcomes me. and the last verse, matthew 18, verse 6, says if anyone causes one of these little ones, those who believe in me, to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea. that is pretty clear, pretty straight talk. as we used to say in the navy, the straight skinny. it's probably good news, the old testament, new testament for us to keep in mind. i want to thank again my colleague from connecticut for his words. my colleague from connecticut, by the way, is a -- he spent time in uniform, his sons have spent times in uniform. i think one or two may still be serving. i was fortunate enough coming back from southeast asia at the end of the vietnam war, having been a naval flight officer for a number of years, to be eligible for the g.i. bill. the g.i. bill that i was eligible for was a bill that

provided me $250 a month to help pay for my tuition, my expenses at the university of delaware where i was in the business school, trying to earn an m.b.a., which i ultimately did. the benefit for g.i.'s today is not $250 a month. as my colleagues know, it's more like whatever tuition costs are, particularly lane grant college, is paid for by the g.i. bill. if you go to a private school or something outside of your state, the benefit could be higher. there is a cap on that. i think it's over $20,000. the expenses for tuition, tutoring, books, fees paid for by the g.i. bill. in delaware, there is a monthly housing allowance, and there is in every state. the monthly housing allowance in delaware is $2,000 a month. that compares with those of us who at the beginning of vietnam

where we got $250 a month. i don't deny or feel bad about the current g.i.'s, sailors, airmen and women, i don't bad about them getting a lot more. it's a good benefit and one worth celebrating. my dad came back from world war ii. my dad and most of my uncles served in either world war ii or korea. i was born after the war was over. my dad somewhere along the line when i was a little kid talked about how he got his early training after the war. i was not old enough to understand what he was talking about, but somewhere shortly after the war ended in 1945, he came back to west virginia. as best i could figure out, he took -- other people took advantage of the g.i. bill which was new then, and he went to colleges and universities. my recollection is frank lautenberg who was a senator here for a number of years went i think to harvard. people went to different kinds of colleges and universities,

maybe community colleges. my dad apparently got training doing -- not going to a two-year school or four-year school but becoming a -- gaining a skill. and the skill that he apparently gained was to be able to fix wrecked cars. and to do body work on those cars. and he worked in a place called brorson oldsmobile in west virginia. he must have been pretty good at what he did. one day an insurance adjustor was coming in to look at a car that was insured by nationwide. he talked to my dad for a while. the insurance agent said you sound like a pretty sharp guy. i'm surprised that somebody who seems to have as much on the fall as you do is here fixing wrecked cars. you could do what i do? my dad said be a claims adjustor for nationwide insurance? the fellow said yeah. sure enough, a year later my dad apparently became a claims adjustor for nationwide

insurance. he had a high school degree from a school just outside beckley. my mother did as well. neither of them went to college. my dad worked for nationwide for probably 25 years or more, maybe 30 years, at different places around the country. one of his last assignments was to run the home office in columbus, ohio, for nationwide insurance, the training school for nationwide insurance adjustors from all over the country. here's a guy with a high school degree, served in world war ii with honor, had a chance to get a g.i. bill benefit and turned it into a lifetime opportunity to provide for himself and his family, enabled my sister and i to go on and finish school. thanks to the navy. i got my navy scholarship and used money from overseas to help my sister go to school. the g.i. means a lot to my family and it means a lot to a lot of families. i just think, mr. president, that this is a benefit which has been around now for, i believe,

74 years this friday. think about that. three-quarters of a century this friday. it's -- this friday marks the 74th anniversary of president franklin roosevelt signing the servicemen's readjustment act of 1944 into law. this legislation is more commonly known, we call it the g.i. bill. we have always called it the g.i. bill. thanks to the g.i. bill, millions of returning world war ii veterans flooded the colleges and universities and ushered in an era of unprecedented economic expansion. the -- since 1944, the g.i. bill has transformed our country and the lives of millions of veterans, including me. it really helped to create a middle class in this country as millions of g.i.'s came back, had a chance to learn a skill, go to college in many cases and have economic opportunities for themselves and their families that have never before been

possible. so this week we are recognizing for the first time the historical significance of the g.i. bill. we will designate a week as national g.i. bill week. i want to thank several senators, senator sullivan from alaska, a colonel in the marine corps. he is the chairman and ranking member of the senate veterans' affairs committee. senator johnny isakson, senator jon tester for joining me in introducing the resolution in the senate to disney june 18-22 as national g.i. bill commemoration week. i want to thank house veterans' affairs committee chairman rowe and ranking member wells for introducing the same resolution in the house of representatives. and i want to thank the american legion for their hard work in making this resolution a reality and for advocating for veterans and veterans' education benefits in congress, as have other service organizations, but i think the american legion was present at the creation and worked very hard right at the

creation to make sure that we had a g.i. bill and it would survive. but, mr. president, because this is g.i. bill week, i want to mention just a few reasons why some folks refer to the g.i. bill as the greatest legislation. you know, we have a greatest generation, my parents' generation. folks who grew up in the great depression and went on to do amazing things with their life. some people refer to the g.i. bill as greatest legislation. i want to share my own story which i have already done today. the g.i. bill made immediate financial support, education, home loans programs. i bought my first home with a g.i. bill, a v.a. mortgage-backed insurance. that's how i got -- insured my mortgage, so i was able to get the low rate of the g.i. bill. millions of veterans bought a home with the help of the g.i. bill. this combination of opportunities changed the social and economic fabric of our country, and with a 1988 report from the joint economic

committee estimating that for every one dollar the united states invested in the g.i. bill, about $7 was returned in economic growth. think about that. for every $1 we invested, $7 in return in economic growth. thanks to the g.i. bill, close to half a million engineers, close to a quarter of a million accountants, close to a quarter of a million teachers, almost 100,000 scientists, about 67,000 doctors, over 120,000 dentists, thousands of other professionals entered the workforce of the united states. and i might add they're still entering the work force of the united states. the g.i. bill truly democratized our higher education system, established citizenship and empowered the greatest generation to lead our country following world war ii. over the past 74 years, congress has enacted subsequent g.i. bills to provide educational

assistance to new generations of veterans, including the veterans readjustment benefit act of 1966, the post-vietnam war iera veterans act of 1977, the veterans assistance act of 1984, and most recently the benefit -- the bill, the benefits i just cited, post-9/11 veterans educational assistance act which we voted on and debated here i think in about my eighth year in the senate. after returning from three tours of duty over in southeast asia, as i said earlier, i was fortunate enough to be able to use the vietnam-era g.i. bills at the university of delaware. i want to just close by saying this -- senator young is on the floor. he is going to offer i think an amendment here in just a moment. a marine. proud to serve with him. i will just say marine corps, navy, different uniforms, but same team. i salute him for his service. but if you go back to -- i mentioned 2008. that was when we were falling

into the worst recession since the great depression, some of us will recall. some of these pages up here were about half their current age. now they are about 15, 16 years old. they were about 8 years old. we were falling into the worst economic hole we have been in since the great depression. the unemployment rate for our country met or exceeded -- reached or exceeded 10%. the unemployment rate i have been told by my staff was higher for veterans, higher than 10%. significantly higher, as i have been told. that was where we were in 2009 at the bottom of the great recession. since that time, a lot of veterans have come home. they have been able to take advantage of the current g.i. bill, a very generous g.i. bill. you know what's happening? they found jobs. they found economic opportunity. they are doing all kinds of things for the education that they have gained, sometimes four-year colleges, advanced degrees, two-year colleges, training schools. and the unemployment rate for our country has now just dropped

under 4%. we are in the ninth year of an economic expansion, longest running economic expansion in our country's history. and the -- but while the national unemployment rate is about 3.9%, the veterans' unemployment rate is no longer above the national average. it's below. the national average is down to about 3.9%. the veterans' unemployment rate is about 3.4%. again, i think we can say the g.i. bill has helped to educate a whole new generation of young men and women, that the g.i. bill is in no small part responsible for that. and i want us to commend my colleagues, jim webb, former senator from virginia who is the author of the legislation -- who was the author of the legislation in 2008 that a lot of us supported and voted for. but we are grateful for that support, grateful to those veterans, to the people of this country having confidence in us and making sure that we could make an investment on their behalf, on our behalf. so later this week, friday, -- people say what day is friday?

friday is the 74th anniversary of the g.i. bill, one of the greatest pieces of legislation we have ever passed and enacted in this country. it's a gift that keeps on giving. hopefully it will continue to do so for a long time. there are the two gentlemen who lead the veterans committee here on the floor today. i am going to wrap up and ask unanimous consent that -- that senator young, who i believe is the chair -- no? chair? no? he is the author of an amendment. i will ask for five minutes for him to speak. senator tester, two is okay with you? i ask unanimous consent to proceed when i finish five minutes for mr. young, senator young, and three minutes for senator tester. all right. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from indiana. mr. young: i thank the distinguished gentleman from delaware for his naval service, for his concern for veterans, and for his distinguished senate

service. it's a pleasure to serve with you. as a marine, we tend to make interservice jokes when we're in the company of one another, but i know we share a common dedication to making sure our veterans receive the sort of care and support they deserve. mr. president, that's why i rise today in support of amendment 2926, the milcon v.a. suicide is one of the most serious problems facing our veterans today. according to our department of veterans affairs, after adjusting for differences in age and sex, risk for suicide was 22% higher among america's veterans when compared to u.s. nonveteran adults. now, that figure is 19% higher among male veterans when compared to u.s. nonveteran adult men, and two and a half times higher among female veterans. our veterans deserve the highest

possible quality of care. mental health care services are a critical component of that effort and are essential to preventing suicides of our veterans. congress and the department of veterans' affairs has a solemn duty to ensure that programs designed to protect veterans' emotional and mental health are affected. the department of veterans affairs launched what is known as the crisis line in 2011. while we applaud the v.a. for administering this program, we embrace the fundamental responsibility of congress to exercise robust oversight of the veterans crisis line to ensure that this program is actually effective and properly supporting at-risk veterans. that's why i join with senator donnelly and congressman banks to introduce a bill to study the effectiveness of the veterans crisis line and the follow-up treatment these veterans receive. amendment number 2926 is based on the core elements of the

original s. 2174 veterans crisis line study act. studying the veterans crisis line is vital. it's vital to ensure that it is successful in its mission save as many veterans as we can, and i ask my colleagues for their support. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, i would like to thank the senator from indiana for this amendment. i think it's a good amendment and it's an amendment that we need to pass in this body. as senator young pointed out, issues around mental health are very prevalent. it's the signature injury coming out of the middle east. when these folks come back home, our men and women who have served, they need to have access especially during crisis. i want to thank senator young for bringing this amendment up. i have a different amendment. this amendment does one simple thing. it stresses the importance of the independence of the office

of inspector general to the v.a. to be honest with you, mr. president, i'm not sure we should ever have had to have this amendment, but we do. because it is clear that the v.a. is denying access to the office of inspector general to get the information it needs to carry out its mission of oversight. over the past week there have been a flurry of letters back and forth from the v.a. to the i.g. about access to information about the nature of the relationship between the two. this is what i have to say, the rhetoric coming out of the v.a. is a bit troubling. sunlight, bringing information to light is the best anti-septic for good government. when the i.g. is doing its job and doing its job correctly, that's exactly what happens. so with this rhetoric that's copping out of the v.a. -- coming out of the v.a., it opens the door to the v.a. to be able

to control or to interfere for political reasons in what should the o.i.g.'s independent oversight efforts. i'm here to tell you the v.a. is not above the law or exempt from independent oversight despite the acting secretary directing the inspector general to behave like it is his subordinate. he is not. this amendment, 29 # 1 prohibits funds appropriated in this bill to be used in a way that limits the office of inspector general's access to the information or documents that it deems necessary to investigate and the oversight of the v.a.'s work. as we have seen, the department cannot be trusted to police itself. it must be held accountable to the veterans and the taxpayers. and the office of inspector general is an important watchdog that should not be undermined. i would also like to add to the record the cosponsors of this bill. senators isakson, murray, blumenthal, hirono, gillibrand,

manchin, warren, brown, mccaskill, jones, durbin, and wyden. mr. president, this is a good amendment. it's a good government amendment. it's an amendment that will allow us, the folks in the senate, to be able to of 0 the kind of oversight we need to offer of the v.a. and make sure that it is serving the veterans of this country. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the young amendment number 2926. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

spro. the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 96. the nays are zero. the amendment is approved. under the previous order -- we'll have order in the chamber. under the previous order, the question occurs on the tester amendment number 2971. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 96. the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. i want to associate first of all, myself with the remarks from the senator from montana, senator tester, and his amendment in support of the v.a.'s inspector general. the position that i