Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019

Madam President, I would like to speak about the legislation that is before us right now on the floor. It is the annual National Defense Authorization Act, incredibly important legislation that the Senate, pretty much every year, is able to pass on a bipartisan basis.

It is really an exception. There is so much else that we are locked up on here with partisan gridlock. With regard to our troops, we tend to come together, Republicans and Democrats, and make commitments to them that we are going to give our men and women serving in the Armed Forces the resources and support they need to carry out their critical mission.

We have now proceeded to that legislation. I want to talk a little about it. It has a lot of incredibly important things in it. It is really important to Ohio.

In my State of Ohio, we have a lot of defense installations. They are very important to our national security because they do important work. They are also important to our Ohio economy. Ohio's defense spending now accounts for more than 66,000 direct jobs, more than $4 billion in salaries, and more than a $14 billion economic impact. Forty-three of our 88 counties in Ohio are impacted by these facilities. So they are critical to our State, to our economy, to our soldiers and their families, and to tens of thousands of civilian employees as well.

Again, because of the good work being done in Ohio, including at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is our largest single employer in Ohio, it is really important to our military readiness and to our national security. This bill has proceeded through the Armed Services Committee in the bipartisan manner in which it usually is done. I love seeing that. It is legislation that every Member of this body, I hope, will be able to support at the end.

It has a lot of important initiatives and some much needed reforms-- including, by the way, this year, a 3.1-percent pay raise for our troops. I think that is necessary. They are in harm's way around the world. They are ensuring our safety, and we should ensure that they are fairly compensated for their hard work and their sacrifices.

One of the bill's other important initiatives that has a big impact on my State is authorizing $1.7 billion to increase the rate of production for both our M1 Abrams tanks and also for upgrades to 165 tanks that are already in service. That is an increase from last year's figure. It also authorizes about $249 million to upgrade the Stryker armored fighting vehicles.

This is great news for the men and women who are out in the field in our Armed Forces. They love these vehicles, and they need them. The Abrams

and the Stryker are the most advanced and lethal tanks and armored vehicles on the battlefield today. One of our priorities in Congress should be to ensure that we are providing our troops with what they need to be able to do their duty and to protect themselves. We want to be sure they have the highest quality equipment to be able to do that. Only by ensuring that these funds are allocated to such key vehicles like this can we be sure our Armed Forces are able to maintain their advantage--their qualitative advantage on the battlefield.

This isn't just a big win for our military, however. It is also a big win for a plant called the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, or JSMC, which is the tank plant in Lima, OH. The best tanks and armored vehicles in the world are made at this plant. It has the best workforce in the world to do it. I have seen them in action many times. It is the only facility in the United States that has the capacity to produce tanks like the Abrams tank and the Stryker armored vehicle. It is a really important strategic asset for our country in Lima, OH.

Having been out there a lot, visiting with the workers, watching them work, seeing what they can make, and having talked to the soldiers in the field who use these products, I can tell you how important they are. Most recently, I was at the Lima tank plant in March where I was able to speak directly with the workers there about the long-term health of the Lima plant, which the Obama administration, about 8 years ago, attempted to shutter.

The President sent a budget to Congress--President Obama--saying we would like to close down the tank plant because in the future we won't need these tanks, at least not immediately, and some day we will have a new generation of tanks, and meanwhile, let's just shut down this plant. Some of us stood up, and I fought against that. We were able to convince the U.S. Congress to overturn what the President wanted to do and instead to provide funding for the tank plant to keep it open. Even though production was down at that time, we were able to keep the plant open and not have it be mothballed, as the administration wanted to do. Thank goodness we did that because now we know--particularly with the Russian influence in Europe and what our allies are telling us they need--that we have to have these armored vehicles and these tanks, and we need to continually upgrade them.

If we had shut down that plant, we would have lost this incredible workforce that is there building something that is unique. There is nothing quite like the welding, as an example, and the cutting that goes into our tanks. We also would have lost the supply chain. That would have been detrimental. It would have cost taxpayers so much more to try to take that plant out of mothballs and recreate it again than to keep it open as we did.

Now, frankly, we kept it open mostly through foreign sales. Other countries around the world, including our allies, were still buying Abrams tanks and Stryker vehicles. And Israel was buying the Nemera vehicle, which is an armored vehicle that is much like our Abrams tank without the turret. That kept us going, plus a little bit of upgrade to our tanks.

Now, today, again, and since 8 years ago, when there was a proposal to shutter this plant, we have been able to increase production slowly but surely to the point that today we have the ability to really have that plant humming. We have a lot of people who are working. It is on its way up, and that is really exciting.

The funding allocated under this legislation we talked about today is really important because it will allow this JSMC--the Lima tank plant-- to hire, train, and retain more workers dedicated to making the best equipment possible to protect our troops.

I will tell you that the workers at the tank plant are very proud of what they do. A lot of them are veterans. They know that what they are doing every day by providing these armored vehicles has the potential to save the lives of the American men and women in uniform across the world who are relying on these vehicles to keep them safe and to be able to have that qualitative advantage on the battlefield by having the best equipment possible.

Last year, I had the opportunity to be the first Member of Congress to see the latest models of the Stryker Dragoon vehicles, up-armored at Lima. This was a real fight also. The Army came to us and said: We need to have some additional capability with regard to our Stryker vehicles to be able to push back against potential threats on the European continent. At that time we had no tanks in Europe, and we needed to upgrade what the Strykers could do by providing for additional lethality, particularly to provide a turret on top of the Stryker vehicle. We did that.

Now, as I saw with the 2nd Calvary Regiment in Germany, they are using these vehicles, and those drivers of those vehicles, those other troops who are using those vehicles, love them. It feels like, again, it gives them the ability to be effective on the battlefield. They are also training with a coalition of our allies, including Poland, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. The work our men and women in uniform are doing with our allies in Europe is vitally important because it forms a framework of defense to protect our NATO allies from aggression.

The importance of an American military presence in Europe has never been in doubt, but perhaps now, more than at any time since the end of the Cold War, the security of Europe is uncertain. We have seen repeatedly, these past few years, instances of military aggression, electoral interference, and diplomatic provocation by Russia toward its western neighbors.

Nowhere is Russia's continued maligned behavior on display more than in the country of Ukraine. For the past 5 years, we have seen Ukraine work to break free of Russia's orbit and seek greater integration with the democratic framework of the West, with the EU, with the United States, and with our NATO allies. Most vividly during the 2014 Maidan protest in Kiev, Russia responded to these appeals for democracy by illegally invading and annexing Crimea, which remains occupied in violation of international law to this day.

In the eastern region of Donbass, more than 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed fighting Russian-backed separatists. I have been to the frontlines, the so-called line of contact in the Donbass, and let me tell you that it is very much a hot war. Just last November, the Russian Navy attacked three Ukrainian naval vessels and captured two dozen Ukrainian sailors in international waters near the Kerch Strait. These individuals remain unlawfully detained by the Russian Government to this day. I urge my Senate colleagues and the entire international community to join me in calling for the release of those sailors.

I know here, on this side of the Atlantic, what is happening in Ukraine can sometimes seem like it is half a world away, but it is not. It is very relevant. In a sense, it is where the modern battle is taking place between two different ideologies--between whether a country wants to go toward freedom and democracy in the West or whether, again, to stay under the orbit of the Russian influence.

Here, in Ohio, we have a large and vibrant Ukrainian-American community, particularly in Northeast Ohio, who have a vested interest in seeing that their ancestral homeland can defend itself from Russian aggression as it works to align itself more with NATO and the West while promoting a platform of democracy, freedom, transparency, and free markets.

Frankly, we should all be supportive of Ukraine's efforts to reshape itself as a beacon of liberty in the region. As cochair of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, which I cofounded with my colleague Dick Durbin, I have been an advocate of the Ukraine as it works to break free from Russia's influence. I traveled to Kyiv to meet with their newly elected President, Volodymyr Zelensky. I am encouraged from my meetings that they will stay on the right path toward reform, but to properly do so, they also have to defend themselves from Russian aggression.

For the past 3 years, I have successfully introduced and passed amendments to the legislation before us today, the National Defense Authorization Act, to expand U.S. military aid to the Ukraine. These provisions built and expanded the primary statutory framework for U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

This year, I was pleased to see a further $300 million authorized in lethal

and nonlethal aid to Ukraine in the NDAA. This security assistance package is good news and sends a strong signal that America stands with the Ukrainian people, and we will make sure their military has the capabilities it needs to defend its sovereign territory on land and in the sea and air.

But our commitment to Ukraine security should extend to other forms of support as well. I have offered an amendment that I hope will be included in the final bill to pressure Russia to release the Ukrainian sailors kidnapped in the Kerch Strait. It would do so by adding the release of the 24 Ukrainian sailors as a condition for any U.S. military cooperation with Russia. We need to take a firm stance against Russia's blatant disregard for international law in this matter, and passing this amendment will help us do so.

I am glad to see that the National Defense Authorization Act will keep the lines of production running, from the factory floors in Lima to the frontlines all around the world. I am glad we will be continuing to help Ukraine defend itself from unlawful Russian aggression. I hope we can also push for the release of the Ukrainian sailors who have been detained illegally in the Kerch Strait.

I look forward to voting on the bill's final passage in the Senate in the next week so the men and women who give so much of themselves to keep us safe have the resources they need to fulfill their important mission.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to rise today to speak to the Senate and compliment two of my colleagues, Senator Jim Inhofe from my State of Oklahoma, my senior Senator, and Senator Jack Reed, for their leadership and bipartisan work on this year's National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020.

This is a complicated bill. It has had hundreds of amendments, both in committee and in the initial managers' package that came out of committee that has already been debated, and there are a lot more amendments that are still being debated in the process.

It is an incredibly complicated issue to bring the authorization and information for all military for the next year. It is something that Congress has done for a long time. But for Jim Inhofe, this is his first year to chair this committee and to actually be the driver for this, and I think he has done an exceptional job of walking through this piece of legislation.

It is a $750 billion authorization. There will be additional appropriations that have to be done to be able to designate that, but that is exactly what President Trump had asked for and said is what is needed, and it is what the Department of Defense has said that they would need to keep our country safe and to prepare for the future.

There are a lot of elements in the bill. I want to identify a few of them, beginning with a 3.1-percent pay increase for our troops. That is something that is much needed. The pay for our troops has been very, very behind for a long time, and this starts an initial process of getting them a little bit above inflation to start trying to catch up.

It also deals with an issue that is very important to our military families, and that is their housing. There are many areas and many bases and posts around the country and around the world where the housing has fallen behind: mold issues, plumbing issues, electrical issues, roofing issues, and flooring issues. It is important for the members of our military to have a safe place that they come home to that really feels like home. They are traveling around the world. They are in difficult places, and as much as their families can be kept safe and have a place that they can make home as a family--that is exceptionally important. For those single men and women, it is important that they have a place where they can actually get rest and have connection with each other. This bill deals with additional funding to deal with housing, which is much needed.

This bill also deals with spouses, in their transition from facility to facility, being able to pick up an additional job. For many of the spouses who are traveling with our men and women in the military, when they move to a new base or post, they also want to pick up a new job in that place. It takes months to do that transition now.

There is also an issue with licensing. If they have a professional skill in one State, when they move to another State, there are some additional hurdles for them just to move to that next State. This bill helps deal with that and, again, helps those families know that when they move, as we ask them to move to different locations, it is a little bit easier on their family to also pick up a second job if they choose to do that.

Oklahoma is home to Altus Air Force Base, Tinker Air Force Base, Vance Air Force Base, Fort Sill Army Post, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, and, of course, the amazing facilities for our Army and Air International Guard. We have a lot of folks in Oklahoma who are veterans who come back to Oklahoma to retire, and a lot of folks who are actively serving there. This bill deals with every one of those facilities in some way.

Let me give a few examples. The KC-46 tanker--a brandnew tanker that will be the refueler for the next generation--has already begun its delivery. It

is coming to Altus, and it is already there at Altus Air Force Base. In fact, I had the privilege, along with Senator Inhofe, to ride in from Seattle on the very first KC-46 tanker coming to Altus Air Force Base in the 97th Air Mobility Wing. That wing does all the training for every pilot who will fly the KC-46 for the decades ahead. Whether they are in the Reserve or in the Guard or Active Duty, they are going to be connected to Altus Air Force Base for the KC-46. It has long been awaited, and it is finally arriving.

This bill does the authorization for an additional 15 tankers, as we are modernizing that force, and we will do a few every single year for quite a while.

The bill includes funding for the procurement of critical Army weapons and combat vehicles, including the Paladin Integrated Management System upgrade, which is assembled in Elgin, OK, right next to Fort Sill. The Fires Center of Excellence at Fort Sill organizes, trains, and equips all the Paladin units in the Army Paladin Integration Management. In fact, the skills that are coming in at Fort Sill Fires Center of Excellence are asked for all over the world. Almost every one of our allies and every single foreign base is asking for the good folks from Fort Sill who are trained to help protect our men and women around the world.

Additionally, Senator Inhofe and Senator Reed and all their staff have worked to get in some of the amendments that I brought in on the base text. Those amendments--they heard it out. We got a chance to have dialogue. They have now been included long term.

One of those that I worked with one of my colleagues on--Senator Shaheen--we worked on a sense-of-the-Senate on dealing with Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally. They worked very closely with us in the development of the F-35, but we have a problem. The leadership in Turkey is now reaching out to Russia to buy the S-400 air defense system. The F-35 is incompatible with the S-400 Russian system sitting right next to it. We will never ever allow the F-35 to sit next to the Russian S-400 system.

We tried to make that clear in multiple conversations with Turkey and with Turkey's leaders. We tried to bring this up over and over again. I worked with Senator Inhofe, along with my colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Jack Reed, to make it clear that we will not allow the F-35 to be sold to Turkey if they are also going to purchase the S-400 from Russia.

I maintain my strong support for the F-35 program and applaud its advanced capability. The military actually will be shaped around the F- 35 in the days ahead, based on its capabilities. But we cannot allow Turkey to have the F-35 and also buy a Russian system at the same time.

One of my other amendments that I dealt with when I was dealing with Turkey and the F-35 and the security of that advanced weapons system also dealt with something that some folks may not have noticed, but I did, and other folks have as well, and that is the retirement of chaplains.

We lose track at times that when people enter into the military, these mandatory retirement ages will sneak up on folks. Well, it is especially so for chaplains because many chaplains actually enter into their service in the military after--as a second career. For many folks in the military, that is their first career, and then they have a second one, but not so for chaplains. Many of them are pastors or missionaries or counselors in hospitals and other locations. They get into their service and then time out.

Chaplains need a little bit of extra time to serve so they can serve a full term with the U.S. military. One of our amendments in this bill allows those chaplains to be able to complete service and be a part of that.

There are many other aspects of this bill that is literally hundreds of pages long that deal with military service. I want to bring up one additional element. It is an element that has been in great debate in conversation here in Congress, and it deals with the country of Iran.

This bill deals with not the military policy specifically with Iran but deals with our defense and our preparation for any enemy, including Iran. There is an amendment coming up for debate and conversation that changes the rules of engagement with Iran, that literally says to this administration that they cannot engage in any hostilities with Iran. They can only defend themselves if attacked but cannot respond until they get a vote from Congress.

I cannot imagine a worse set of rules of engagement for anyone in the U.S. military who is forward-deployed and facing risk from Iran than to say: You can respond when Congress votes for it.

I will certainly vote against that amendment, as it comes up as one of the final amendments, to say to our military leadership: I will not handcuff you in the face of the threat that is Iran.

I have heard folks on this floor and in the media want to lay the issues we have with Iran on President Trump. May I remind this body that we had 444 hostages taken in Iran in 1979. Iran was the mover that bombed Beirut and our Embassy there in the 1980s. Iran is the one that attacked the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and killed many of our folks in the 1990s. The reason Bashar Assad is still in power in Syria right now is because Iran and their forces have brought them up. The reason there is a civil war in Yemen right now is because Iran is providing the weapons there and the insight to be able to instigate that civil war that is happening in Yemen right now. The reason there is constant peril on Israel's borders all the way around is because Iran is funding Hezbollah and Iran is funding Hamas.

Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and the instability in the region is not something new and is not President Trump's fault. It has been a long-term issue with not only the United States but all of the West and all of the region.

Our issue is not with the Iranian people. They are smart. They are entrepreneurs. They are well educated. But they also live under the thumb of a ruthless regime led by the ayatollahs. That regime squashed the Green Movement several years ago in Iran--the people just wanting more freedom.

The issues we are facing with Iran right now are not President Trump's fault, are not because he is being mean, just as Iran's attack on the Khobar Towers and the murder of many of our people was not because President Clinton had put sanctions on Iran the year before. It wasn't President Clinton's fault that the Khobar Towers were attacked; it is not President Trump's fault in this case. He has pushed back on a terrorist regime and is demanding that they change their ways not only in the nuclear setting but also in conventional terrorism around the region and, quite frankly, around the world. We cannot allow them to continue to terrorize their neighbors.

No one wants a war with Iran. That is why we have used sanctions and diplomatic means to address this. All these accusations that the President is secretly going to try to take us to war with Iran I find absurd, especially for the man who is trying to get us out of a war in Afghanistan, out of a war in Syria, and out of a war in Iraq. Suddenly, secretly, he wants to get into a war with Iran? That is absurd.

All of the region is looking to us to help push back on the biggest bully in the region for decades, and every President since Jimmy Carter has tried to isolate and push back on Iran. I do not want to suddenly limit President Trump from trying to isolate and push back on Iran because some folks don't trust him.

In the days ahead, we as a nation will cautiously, diplomatically, economically isolate Iran to try to bring them into cooperation with the rest of the world, but in the meantime, let's not handcuff our folks who are in harm's way in that region and tell them: If you want to respond, come and get a vote from us first.

In closing, I again thank Senator Inhofe, who has done tireless work on this NDAA, and Senator Jack Reed for their great bipartisan leadership on this. They have done yeomen's work on this.

I hope that this bill will not only pass the Senate but that we will put it on the President's desk in the days ahead and give some stability to our military forces around the world and that they will know we understand that 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and in every time zone in the world, they are standing watch for peace and freedom. They are not a threatening presence. They are a peaceful presence, and

their strength has brought exceptional peace to the world. I am grateful for them and for their families and for the amazing sacrifice they make every day.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is Wednesday. Now, normally it is Thursday when I come down here to talk about somebody who is making a huge difference in my State, somebody we refer to as the Alaskan of the Week, someone who is doing something for the community or the State or the country or maybe all of the above. I know we have a new set of pages, but I think it is commonly known that this is the most anticipated speech of the week by the pages. I see the heads nodding, so that is great.

You guys are learning well, early, so that is wonderful, and I know that the Presiding Officer really enjoys it as well.

I am going to talk today about Calvin Williams, whom everybody in Alaska knows as Cal, who is our Alaskan of the Week, who lives in Anchorage via Louisiana. I am going to talk a lot about Cal here and why he certainly deserves this great honor, but also when I give these remarks, I like to talk just a little bit about what is going on in Alaska at the time.

We have just celebrated the summer solstice, which in a lot of States isn't a big deal, but in Alaska, it is actually a huge deal. It is the longest day of the year, which was last week, and that really means something. You get the 12 midnight Sun energy, and everybody is out. There are celebrations throughout the State. Friends and neighbors gather at parties and community events well past 12 midnight. I had the opportunity to spend last weekend in Fairbanks, AK, where there was a 12 midnight Sun baseball game and a 12 midnight Sun 10K run. I got to participate in some of that. There was just great energy and a great feeling and a lot of sunlight all night.

Across the country and in Alaska, we also just celebrated Juneteenth, which marks the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Anchorage celebrated the weekend before last, and Cal Williams, our Alaskan of the Week, was there, as he has been there nearly every year since the first celebration in the 1980s. Cal is a staple at that event and has been at so many other events in Alaska over the decades where people get together, where he has been a community leader and has tried to do good things for our communities throughout the State. So let me tell you a little bit about Cal and how lucky we are to have him in the great State of Alaska.

He was born in 1941 in Monroe, LA. I know we have some Louisianans as pages here. That was the segregated South, and he was born 7 days before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He is from a very patriotic family. His parents immediately joined the cause of fighting and supporting our Nation during World War II. His mother worked in the factories to help out the war effort, and his father joined the Army and was sent to the Pacific theater to defend America.

Basically, Cal was raised by his grandmother, who happened to live across the street from church and a K-12 Catholic school, built and run by the Franciscans to serve the African-American Catholic community in the area. Nobody in his family was Catholic, but it was the best school in the area, so that was where he went. The lessons he was taught at this school, the Little Flower Academy--to serve the less fortunate, to feed the hungry, to help all in need--have stayed with Cal forever and have really driven his sense of service.

The much beloved Sister Consuela, who was the longtime principal and homeroom teacher, made sure that he learned all this.

Sister Consuela was feared and respected. If you did

anything bad, if the Sister didn't see you [do something

bad], you knew that God did. I carry that with me today.

After high school, he attended Grambling State University--another all-Black school--where he pursued theater and singing. Anybody who knows Cal knows this is another thing that has stayed with him throughout his life.

Then, like his patriotic mom and dad, he decided to enlist in the Air Force. He was stationed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, where he worked on the Titan II Missile System--an elite position, something that he credits to the schooling he received at Little Flower.

When he got out of the Air Force, he made it back to Louisiana to take care of his father, who had gotten sick. This was during the height of the movement for civil rights--one of the greatest movements, of course, in our Nation's history, a lot of which took place here on this Senate floor. As he often does, Cal jumped in. He jumped in with both feet. He began working with CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality--one of the leading civil rights organizations in the early years of the civil rights movement. He and six other students were the first Black students to proudly integrate what was then called Northeast Louisiana State College.

Eventually, a friend who had moved to Alaska talked him into coming up to our great State. This was in 1965. Cal brought all of his intelligence, his theatrical and musical talents, his abiding deep faith, his fun, and his deep commitment to civil rights and community service to our State in 1965.

In some ways, it was a good time to be an activist in Alaska. Our State certainly isn't perfect. It is a State, though, that is very committed to equal rights and justice for all. Yet, just like everywhere in the country, we had our problems, and we had our challenges. As I mentioned, we certainly were not perfect in that realm, so Cal had work to do.

Initially, he was a dishwasher in the hospital by day and was a community activist by night. He helped to lobby the mayor's office in Anchorage to get paved roads and to bring electricity to predominantly African-American neighborhoods. He also helped bring people into the voting booths, which was so important.

The same friend who brought him to Alaska, Charles LeViege, started a newspaper that focused on the African-American community. He joined with the Alaska Native leadership to lobby for the landmark legislation that, again, took place on the Senate floor, here, in 1971--the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. He became the president of the Anchorage chapter of the NAACP, of which he is still a vice president to this very day.

I have only gotten to 1971, and you can see how much he has done.

In the 1970s, he had a little sojourn in Hollywood to fulfill a lifelong dream of being in the movies. He was. He got some gigs--a spot in a film with Angie Dickinson. The pages don't know who she is, but she was a great actress.

But like some people who leave Alaska, he missed it too much, so he decided to come back, and he did.

So over the years since he has been back, he has helped raise funds for an African-American economic development venture. The group built a building in the Fairview community of Anchorage, which is still there today. They had a social club on the top sponsored by the Alaska Black Caucus--a place to meet with executives and bank officers in a nice setting, community leaders.

He worked in television. He worked for the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, which has been key to helping people get home ownership.

All through these years, he clung to his roots and his faith. He is a member of the Knights of Columbus and a faithful parishioner at St. Anthony's Catholic Church in Anchorage, where he is the director of the church's Filipino gospel choir, which sounds like angels. ``When we sing,'' he said, ``we sing for the Lord.'' And no doubt, when they sing, the Lord is listening.

He visits prisons to read the Bible with inmates, sings every week to the patients at Providence Extended Care and every other week to our senior home, which we call the Pioneer Home in Alaska. The residents there love Cal's Elvis impersonations.

If you are in Alaska and happen to be there for Christmas, you should stop by Bean's Cafe, a place where the hungry go for a meal, and Cal will be there every Christmas wearing a Santa cap, singing for hours for everybody who comes in the door.

This is a gentleman who has done so much for his community and my State, and what is he most proud of? When asked, ``My greatest achievement was in 2017 when I received the St. Francis Stewardship Award from the Archdiocese of Anchorage,'' Cal said.

St. Francis was the patron saint of the Little Flower Academy. ``I have come full circle,'' he said. ``Sister Consuela would be proud of me.'' Then he adds: ``But nothing was ever enough for her.''

It is enough for all of us, though, Cal. I thank him for all he has done for Anchorage, for so many different communities, for Alaska, and as an example for our country--for his generosity, kindness, enthusiasm, faith, and faith-filled service throughout his life.

Congratulations to Cal for being our Alaskan of the Week.

Tribute to Thomas Mansour

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that my office is saying goodbye to my very first Coast Guard fellow, recently promoted-- actually, promoted yesterday--to lieutenant commander, Thomas Mansour.

Thomas happens to be sitting right next to me here on the Senate floor. Tom is from Montgomery County, MD. He graduated from Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, FL. We were lucky to have him join my office as a Coast Guard fellow for the last 2 years, and he has done great work.

I am going to brag about him a little bit here on the floor. I will probably embarrass him.

Among other things, he was instrumental in the 2018 Coast Guard Authorization Act. The subcommittee that I chair on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is in charge of the Coast Guard. We were the ones drafting that. It had many provisions in it for the whole Coast Guard, certainly many for Alaska and other parts of the country.

He also brought his expertise to the 2017 and 2018 Homeland Security budgets. His efforts helped secure landmark appropriations for the first Polar Security Cutter, an icebreaker for the Coast Guard, the first one in 40 years, and for critical infrastructure projects for the Coast Guard around Alaska and around the rest of the country.

Probably his signature initiative--and very, very hard work--was on a bill that we affectionately know in my office as the Save Our Seas Act, both the first one, which our offices worked closely on with Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island and was signed by the President last fall to much fanfare in the Oval Office, and our Save Our Seas Act 2.0, which Senator Whitehouse and Senator Menendez and I rolled out in a press conference just this morning.

SOS 2.0, as we call it, is an innovative piece of legislation that really sets us on a promising path as a nation to tackle the serious problem of plastics, ocean debris, and trash that enter our oceans and harm fisheries, marine life, and possibly human life. This litter ends up on the shores of Alaska, all around America, and threatens the livelihoods of coastal communities throughout America.

Tom did yeoman's work to ensure that we introduced in the Senate today a comprehensive, substantive bill that all stakeholders-- Democrats, Republicans, the Trump administration, environmental groups, industry--are all working on together. Literally, all of the key stakeholders on this critical issue are pulling on the same oar.

He did incredible work on this bill. He is a great team player, someone I am proud of and we are going to miss.

Tom is getting married this summer to his fiance Meg, and they will be entering a whole new chapter in their lives. It will be an exciting one, I am sure. We wish them all the best.

I can't thank Tom enough for all of the work he has done for my State, for our country, and I ask that all of my colleagues in the Senate recognize the great work that he did. Just here on the spot, I might even make him an honorary Alaskan of the Week for the great job he has done.

Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about Tom.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today on our second rule of the day. This one is on a supplemental appropriations bill for the southern border. While the Rules Committee met to consider this bill last night and took testimony on it, due to some reported revolts in the Democratic Caucus, we did not actually report this bill out last night.

Instead, we met on this bill at 5:30 this afternoon and reported it to the floor 10 minutes later, using the same-day authority that Chairman McGovern has so often referred to as martial law.

Our emergency meeting this afternoon includes several last-minute changes in the bill that have provided little opportunity for anyone on either side of the aisle to actually review. Tragically, that is the story of this bill: last-minute changes made on short notice in an attempt to push through a partisan agenda at the expense of not only deliberation and consideration by the House of Representatives but, more importantly, at the expense of innocent children.

H.R. 3401 is a supplemental appropriations bill providing funding for the humanitarian crisis on the southern border. When it comes to H.R. 3401, I have good news and bad news.

The good news is that the Democrats finally agree that we need a supplemental appropriations funding bill for the southern border after Republicans have been sounding the alarm for months. The fact is, as my friends know, the President first requested assistance in this matter on May 1, almost 2 months ago.

A lot of the crisis at the border is because my friends simply didn't discharge their responsibilities. If you are the guy that is supposed to pay for the toothpaste and the soap, and you don't, you have some measure of responsibility when they are not delivered on time.

There is actually some more good news here. There is a real opportunity

for us to produce a bipartisan, bicameral bill that can become law.

The bad news is that H.R. 3401 is not that bill. In here, the majority is once again making no pretense to even pretending to work with the minority.

H.R. 3401 contains several partisan provisions.

It fails to provide supplemental funding for the Department of Defense despite the significant resources the military has expended responding to this crisis.

It includes partisan policy riders that tie the hands of the administration and fail to provide the flexibility necessary for the government to adequately address the crisis.

Most notably, this bill was produced without any Republican input at all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what I said a moment ago. Both Republicans and now Democrats agree that there is a need for a supplemental appropriations bill. Why the majority failed to take advantage of the opportunity this agreement provides, I don't know.

Until the majority chooses to work with Republicans on this and produce a bipartisan bill, I fear we will simply be heading down the exact same path we have trodden so often before in this Congress, with the House pushing yet another piece of partisan legislation that will not pass the Senate and will not be signed into law by the President. That is disappointing, to say the least.

Mr. Speaker, this state of affairs could and should have been avoided. Instead of pushing three partisan bills this week, the majority could have chosen to work with Republicans to craft bipartisan bills to address all three of these problems.

Even if that did not come to pass, the majority at the Rules Committee could have worked with us to make minority amendments in order and to give all Members an opportunity to fix these flawed bills on the floor, or at least be heard. That they did not is merely yet another indication of where the majority's priorities lie, with pushing partisan bills to score political points and avoiding doing the hard work of actually making law.

There is a chance to change this, Mr. Speaker, but in order to do so, the majority needs to decide whether they are here to score political points or if they are here to make law.

I remind my friends on the other side, passing a bill that is a partisan bill through this Chamber won't solve the problem. I congratulate them on having a vehicle to go to conference. That is a good thing. But when they get there, they are going to find out they are going to have to do something they haven't done, frankly, throughout their tenure in the majority, and that is actually sit down and compromise with people on the other side of the aisle and work with the administration.

I hope they prove up to that task because if they don't, we will have exactly the same result--that is, legislation passing here but not succeeding in the other Chamber.

That will not solve the crisis on the border. It will exacerbate it.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some pretty harsh words about the administration's failure to respond. The reality is the administration asked 2 months ago of our friends who were slow to respond.

The administration warned us of what would happen, and it is unfolding

in front of our eyes, and it is unfolding because of the failure of Democrats in the House to actually take it seriously.

Let's go back to the rhetoric at the time: it is a manufactured crisis; it is not real; it is all made up.

That turned out to be a bad mistake, and it set us back weeks in this Chamber getting to where we finally are beginning to get a response.

Frankly, our friends simply couldn't get their act together on this for a while. I am glad they are beginning to do that now.

But let's also look at a little history, Mr. Speaker.

This problem isn't new. What is new is the slowness to respond. We faced this very same problem when we were in the majority and President Obama was in office in 2014. He asked for $3.7 billion. He got it within 24 days, and he got it without a lot of extraneous conditions added on it. That is exactly the opposite of the manner in which our friends on the other side are responding at the last minute. But they are responding, and for that I give them some credit.

But again, what is new is the slowness of response, the unwillingness to work with the other Chamber, and the unwillingness to work with the President to meet an emergency that he warned us was coming 2 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Arizona an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to briefly yield myself such time as I may consume to make a quick point.

My friend is saying there is no money for Border Patrol and the military. Whose custody do you think those children are in for the first couple of days?

The problems are actually at those facilities. They have not been identified at Health and Human Services, other than they are just simply too full because my friends have spent so much time arguing about this rather than giving the administration the money that it asked for in a timely fashion, 2 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, fellow Rules Committee member, and distinguished doctor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 3056, the Border Crisis Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2019.

Unlike the bill before us today, H.R. 3056 provides all the necessary funding that the administration has requested to address the humanitarian crisis on the southern border. The bill provides funding for the Department of Defense, which has expended significant resources responding to the crisis. It also provides the funding for refugee and entrant assistance and for U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the administration has requested and has told us is necessary to meet the crisis.

Most notably, this bill does so without adding any of the partisan riders that plague the majority's version of the supplemental. We can provide funding to meet this crisis without tying the hands of the administration and leaving them no wiggle room or flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to begin by telling my good friend how much I respect him, how much I admire him. I know how passionate he is on the issue of the children. No doubt about that.

I also want to tell my friend that I think, 8 weeks ago, we should have been acting on this. We were told there wasn't a crisis, and there wasn't a serious effort on the other side.

Last night, when my friends were struggling to find the votes, frankly, we could have delivered a lot of votes. Instead, they moved the bill further to the left to placate the most extreme elements in their own conference. I think that is going to make to it much harder to come to a deal eventually with the Senate and with the administration.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this rule. The rule will make in order consideration of H.R. 3401, a supplemental appropriations bill that could have been a bipartisan bill. Instead, the majority chose to make it partisan, failing to fund the national security elements of the border crisis, including partisan policy riders that tie the hands of the administration.

Not to be outdone, the majority also pushed through last-minute changes, using the same-day rule authority that had not been adequately considered by anyone on either side of the aisle.

Let me just reiterate, for the record, to reinforce the point my friend Mrs. Lesko made. Look, we got this bill at 4:57. We convened the Rules Committee at 5:30.

I can read things, but I can't always understand everything, let alone research everything in 33 minutes. We haven't got a single opportunity to offer a single amendment to this bill.

That is unfortunate, and I don't think it is a process that is likely to lead to a successful outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``no'' on the underlying measure.

Let's go to work on a bipartisan bill. Let's meet all the requests the administration has asked for, in terms of resources. Give them the flexibility they need to do the job and recognize this is not a new problem.

We dealt with it, frankly, pretty successfully when President Obama was here by giving them the resources and the flexibility they needed. I am sorry my friends are not extending that same courtesy to the current President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it has been 56 days since the Trump administration asked for emergency funding to address the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, 56 days.

The New York Times had two editorials--not one, but two. Mexico is now sending 15,000 troops to the southern border. But Democrats, Madam Speaker, have rejected a bill to provide the aid that is needed not once, not twice, not even 10 times, but 18 times.

Madam Speaker, I was shocked when I actually heard from the other side of the aisle that someone said there is a crisis. I guess after 56 days, they read some of those editorials. Now, after weeks of doing nothing and denying that a crisis exists, they are offering legislation that is misguided and is purely political.

They are, once again, taking what should be a bipartisan issue and inserting partisan poison pills. I would say I would be shocked, but this isn't the only issue they have done that on this year.

Madam Speaker, they took a bill that had a 100 percent vote from Republicans and Democrats dealing with prescription drugs, and before it got through the Speaker's Office, Madam Speaker, it became political, a poison pill.

They took a bill that was in Ways and Means that got every Republican and every Democrat to vote for it, but, again, before it came to the floor, another poison pill.

I guess we might have to get used to this, but the American public should not.

Madam Speaker, that isn't how it is being used on the other side of this building. In the Senate, they actually took up this issue. They passed it out of committee 30-1.

I know my colleagues might be shocked because I said that went through committee. I know my colleagues might be shocked because I said it was bipartisan. I know my colleagues might be shocked because they actually let the Senators read the bill.

Madam Speaker, when we were on this floor being sworn in, there were a lot of promises made, and a lot of promises have been broken.

There was a rule change, 72 hours. It actually marked the number of hours.

Last night, I watched the Rules Committee. They were going to come before the Rules Committee with a bill that we did not see in committee.

But do you know what? They couldn't get the votes. So we had to say no to the Rules Committee.

They will come back at 10. So I eagerly waited at 10. No, we could not come back.

It is going to be at 11. I eagerly waited for 11. It did not happen.

But, luckily, politically, they got in the back of the room and they were able to buy off some more, Madam Speaker, in a political nature and rush something to the floor.

I wondered if they were going to keep that rule that they championed so hard about 72 hours. Well, I don't know, maybe 5 equals 72. I am not sure what math they keep nowadays.

But let's talk about how they make this problem even worse, because I am not sure anybody has read the bill. I am not sure even if those on the other side know what is in it.

Now, here is how it is worse. Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services cannot share information about the sponsors of children.

Think about that for one moment. They are making sure two departments cannot share information within their own government.

Now, this is necessary to ensure that children are not placed with human traffickers or with predators. Maybe if they had a little time and maybe if they didn't care about politics, they would have allowed a little sharing of information for the children.

Organizations like Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice are underfunded. Requests for pay and overtime costs for Border Patrol agents are denied. Think about that.

In the last month, 144,000 people were apprehended coming across the border illegally. These are unbelievable numbers that we have not seen in decades.

So what do the Democrats rush? Deny overtime and deny the ability for those who are serving us the ability to work.

Immigration judges do not get the resources they needed for additional staff or courtroom space or equipment. America is a country that believes in the rule of law, but I guess on this floor it is not the case. The majority wants to deny it.

Now, I wonder that maybe, Madam Speaker, on the other side they say: Well, it is just a rush to judgment; it is such a big bill, I didn't get to read it.

But do you know what? Earlier today, everyone in this Chamber had the ability to vote for more funding for judges just to deal with this crisis, because I have heard, Madam Speaker, on the other side of the aisle, they actually now use the word ``crisis.''

It only took 56 days, but, lo and behold, when they had that moment not to be confused, not to have a big bill but only that subject, every single Democrat on the other side of the aisle, except seven, said ``no.'' So the majority made sure they put in this political bill as well.

Deny overtime during a crisis, because you said it was a crisis, but make sure nobody can work. You have a crisis, but make sure, Madam Speaker, that we can't have the judges down there, because somehow, I guess, maybe you don't believe in the rule of law; and additional funding to investigate human traffickers who you know are smuggling these children across the border is not included.

Maybe, Madam Speaker, that is why you want to rush this bill to the floor. Maybe that is why you don't want to give people an opportunity to read it.

How will you answer that? How will you answer that additional funding to investigate human traffickers who are smuggling children you do not want to include, Madam Speaker?

Did you read the editorials? Is it wrong to prevent the administration from improving the welfare of unaccompanied children, as this bill will do?

Democrats are far more interested in appearing to help children than in actually helping them. The pace and volume at which children have crossed our border over the last year have completely overwhelmed our existing resources.

Madam Speaker, you are making sure that nobody could work overtime during this. In the first half of 2019, more than 56,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended by Customs and Border Protection. That is a 74 percent increase from last year and higher than the yearly totals for the last 5.

Luckily, someone finally realized that is a crisis--but make sure there is no money to deal with it. Health and Human Services shelters are full and out of money. They cannot care for the children if Congress does not pass solutions.

Now, HHS Secretary Alex Azar sent us a very clear message. Madam Speaker, this is what he said: ``I can't put a

kid in a bed that does not exist and I cannot make a bed that Congress doesn't fund.

Madam Speaker, to think that you would knowingly pass something that causes this problem.

Madam Speaker, Democrats are proud that their bill, unlike the Senate, does not help our overstretched law enforcement officers. That is shameful to take pride in making sure they do not get the help.

Border Patrol agents now spend half of their time processing claims and caring for families in custody, including making trips to hospitals and clinics. They are going beyond the call of duty every day and deserve our support, whether you like them or not. If the children who come across our southern border are to be properly cared for, Madam Speaker, Democrats' distrust of our national law enforcement officers must stop.

Madam Speaker, it has been 56 days, but all Democrats threw together is a sham bill more than 3 hours ago. It does not adequately fund what needed to be funded and would only make the crisis worse. Democrats are holding another vote late in the night on legislation that has no chance of becoming law.

Madam Speaker, we are better than this.

Madam Speaker, it is not very far if you walk out these doors; you look down that hall; you will see the other Chamber.

Do you know what happened in the other Chamber? They worked a bill through committee. They worked a bipartisan bill through committee. They didn't run it to the floor in 3 hours. They didn't tell the Rules Committee to be ready and wait and wait and wait and then quickly after, they cut a deal, on one side. They took something that is critical, something that is serious, and they acted that way.

History will write about what happens on this floor. Madam Speaker, you may get emotional; you may be proud of your actions; but the question will be: Will history be kind to you? The question will be: When you voted that day, when you were sworn in, did you really mean 72 hours?

Madam Speaker, when you stand on the floor and you speak of a crisis and you speak of caring for children, why would you not fund to make sure people are not trafficking them?

Madam Speaker, when you spoke about there was a crisis on the border, why would you not fund the men and women who work for our government? Why would you try to deny them overtime?

Madam Speaker, I know the Fourth of July is soon, and I know Members want to get out of here, but America is more than a country. America is an idea, an idea of self-governance, an idea that the rule of law matters.

This is not one of our finest moments. This is not one that I am proud of. What is so shameful, Madam Speaker, is, just a few yards away, they are showing us an example.

Are you rushing because you are afraid the Senate is going to send us something that is bipartisan? Are you rushing because you are afraid the Senate will actually make law?

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things we could play political games with, but I never thought children would be the one you wanted to use. We are better than this.

There is a moment in time where you should stand up to your own leadership. There is a moment in time that you should stand up for this country. There is a moment in time, Madam Speaker, and this is it.

Madam Speaker, you don't have to follow and be rushed. You can say: No, I watched what the Senate has done. I watched people with my own philosophical belief who belong to my own party work together with the other side and actually come with a bill that could become law. It is not perfect. It is not what I would agree with 100 percent. But do you know what? I understand our government is designed to find compromise.

I don't know what compromise is in this. I don't know who ever worked with another side. I don't even know who rushed it to the Rules Committee just to do some manager's amendment because you bought off a few people.

This is not our finest moment by far, but, Madam Speaker, there is a moment in time when individuals can stand up, and I am hoping that the moment is tonight, that we actually stand for what this country believes and what we will celebrate on the Fourth of July.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I appreciate that.

I have spoken to the leader on the Senate side, and they will bring it up tomorrow. They had passed this bill in committee 30-1.

I ask the gentlewoman: What would be the problem--and I know we have only had 3 hours with this bill. Why would we not take up the Senate bill when it is bipartisan and the President would sign it?

Mr. President, I begin this morning with some welcome news. After meeting with a group of 9/11 first responders last night, Leader McConnell gave them his commitment to move legislation to reauthorize the Victim Compensation Fund before the August recess. That is an important commitment.

I thank the leader. We have been struggling for years to get not a quarter, not half but the full Victim Compensation Fund, as well as, of course, the healthcare for those who bravely rushed to the towers right after 9/11 and the awful attack.

Even more importantly than thanking the leader, I want to thank the first responders who came down here to continue their advocacy. I have little doubt that without them, this wouldn't have happened. Many of them are sick. Some of them are dying.

This week, I spoke to New York police detective Luis Alvarez, who is now in hospice and dying of cancer. He would normally have been right next to John Feal and the other advocates meeting with Leader McConnell because his illness never stopped him from advocating for his compatriots. Instead of him being there, John Feal gave Leader McConnell his badge. It is

not easy for a police officer to part with their badge, but Alvarez, in his usual selfless and magnanimous way, knew how important it would be for McConnell to see it.

I remember my dear friend Ray Pfeifer. Before he passed away, he was the same way. He kept coming down, in pain, suffering, and knowing that his cancer, caused by 9/11 and the toxins in the air, was incurable, but Ray knew that if he kept coming down, it would help others who had not yet gotten those cancers but who were sure to get them because they, too, had rushed to the towers. His effort was about making sure that friends and families were cared for. That is what Alvarez stands for; that is what Pfeifer stood for; and that is what all the first responders stand for, particularly those who come down, and there are many of them.

That is the very definition of ``selflessness,'' the same selflessness that compelled these men and women to rush to the towers without a thought for their own safety, to ensure the safety of others.

Now that Leader McConnell has committed to address this issue before August, we are making real progress. We have gotten to the 5-yard line, but we are not over the goal line yet when it comes to the Victim Compensation Fund. There are still a few ways this Senate could fumble the ball. I will be there to make sure they will not.

As the leader well knows, there is a House and Senate version of the 9/11 bill. The House has already passed its version through the committee. The full House should pass it in early July. The best way to get this done without fuss or muss, without somebody fumbling the ball, as we are on the 5-yard line, would be to have the Senate vote on the House bill. I hope that is what the leader will decide to do.

I would also say to the leader, respectfully, that he need not wait for a must-pass vehicle. Based on the number of cosponsors on the Senate bill, we have 60 votes. I want to thank my colleague from New York, Senator Gillibrand, for working so hard to round up votes. We have the votes to move this bill separately on the floor and alone. It would take very little of the Senate's time to take up and pass the bill whenever the leader decides to do so. On an issue as important as this, we should consider the legislation as stand-alone rather than tucked inside a must-pass bill because we know must-pass bills often don't pass these days.

Again, I appreciate the leader's commitment. It means a great deal to the 9/11 first responders.

I spoke to John Feal this morning. He is very optimistic now but also told me: Make sure we get this done. We are not there yet. Feal and I agree. We are at the 5-yard line. We have come a long way, 95 yards down the field, but we are not over the goal line yet, and we cannot let a last-minute fumble, one way or the other, stop the Victim Compensation Fund from being fully funded permanently or at least for as long as can be, helping those who need the help.

Parenthetically, I prefer permanent or at least the 71 years that is in the House bill.

Iran

Mr. President, I also appreciate Leader McConnell's commitment on another front. Yesterday, Leader McConnell promised that the Senate would vote on the Udall amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Democrats have been urging the leader to allow this crucial vote on our Iran policy. I am pleased that this Chamber may consider it. I am hopeful that the leader and I will be able to come to some agreement on the timing of that vote soon.

This is a debate the Senate should have for the sake of the Constitution, which houses the power to declare war here in this branch, for the sake of the Senate, which has ducked too many debates and too many amendments this year, and for the sake of the American people, many of whom are worried that the President will bumble us into another endless war in the Middle East that nobody wants.

I look forward to working with the leader to schedule a time for this very important debate, a debate mandated by the Constitution.

Border Security

Mr. President, finally, on border, over the past several weeks, our Nation has come to grips with the horrendous treatment of unaccompanied migrant children at our southern border. The reports of what is happening at detention centers like the one in Clint, TX, and Homestead, FL, have shaken the conscience of the Nation.

There are hundreds of kids crammed into a facility suited for a few dozen, at most, with no beds to sleep on, no soap or toothbrushes to clean themselves, and not enough diapers for toddlers to wear. There are 8-year-olds taking care of 2-year-olds because they have been separated from their parents. Many have worn the same clothes for several weeks, many have gotten sick, and several have died while in the care of our government.

Yesterday the New York Times released this picture--a Salvadoran father and daughter, Oscar Martinez and 23-month-old Valeria, washed upon the banks of the Rio Grande after trying to cross into the United States. Her tiny head was tucked inside his shirt, her arm draped around his neck. They were holding on to each other.

President Trump, I want you to look at this photo. These are not drug dealers or vagrants or criminals; they are people simply fleeing a horrible situation in their home country for a better life.

How could President Trump look at this picture and not understand that these are human beings fleeing violence and persecution, willing to risk a perilous, sometimes fatal, journey in search of a better life? These people are not coming here to sell drugs or to commit crimes. They are coming here to escape brutality, starvation, threats of rape, and murder in their home countries. Any normal person would flee.

The sad fact is, we can do something about this if the President would stop playing all the political games of blame, blame, blame.

If Oscar and Valeria had been allowed to petition for asylum in the United States within El Salvador, if they asked for asylum to come here but did it at the El Salvadoran Embassy, as Democrats have proposed, they wouldn't have had to make this perilous journey. If the administration had followed through on foreign aid to stabilize their home country's government, they would not have had to make this perilous journey. If our ports of entry were adequately staffed, if we had enough asylum judges and our asylum laws were respected, they might not have perished. That is what is at stake.

There is a rational solution. It has had bipartisan support in the past, but the President only wants not to solve the problem--he jumps from proposed solution to proposed solution and then abandons them, and instead he says: Let's blame the Democrats. That is a disgrace by now.

Mr. President, you are President of the United States. You are head of the executive branch. You control what is happening at the border. Much of what is happening at the border, President Trump, stems from the chaos and mismanagement in your administration.

Just yesterday, the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, John Sanders, abruptly resigned after just a few weeks on the job, throwing an agency already in turmoil into another round of chaos. The man who will replace him, Mark Morgan, was only installed as Acting Director of ICE this month. The Department of Homeland Security still lacks a Senate-confirmed leader.

I saw a report this morning, based on reporting in the New Yorker magazine, that even rank-and-file ICE agents who are not particularly sympathetic to the plight of these migrants are fed up with the chaos in the administration and the erratic nature--one plan one week, another plan the next week, another plan the next week, and none of them implemented. They shouldn't have been implemented because they wouldn't do the job.

The President's actions at the border are a whirlwind of incompetence leading to pictures like this. We have to change our policies.

President Trump, if you want to know the real reason there is chaos at the border, look in the mirror.

The President continues to blame Democrats, but the real problem is the President.

Democrats believe we have a moral responsibility to act. Right now, we are

working to pass a supplemental appropriations bill to help improve the conditions for children at the border. The House passed its version last night. It is a much better bill than the Senate version. We should take up the House bill in the Senate and send something to the President as soon as possible and then make sure the administration uses funds to improve the conditions at the border immediately. The proposal that was done by the Senate Appropriations Committee, a compromise bill between Senator Shelby and Leahy, got 30 votes. So there is room for compromise to get something done. There was only one dissenting vote.

Once we pass legislation to help solve the immediate humanitarian crisis at the border, we should talk about what else we can do to alleviate the situation, including allowing folks to apply for asylum in their home countries, including more security assistance to Central American countries to crack down on the drug dealers and the violence and the degradation, including more judges at the border to reduce the backlog in cases and reduce the strain on temporary housing.

We all--Democrats, Republicans, and Americans--have a responsibility to act. The Senate, the House, and especially the President need to act, and the President needs to end the chaos, end the fearmongering, and get a grip on his administration.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to offer an amendment about the opioid addiction crisis that is devastating our Nation.

The origins of this epidemic are no doubt complicated, but there is a simple fact within this complicated problem; that is, the introduction of the synthetic opioid fentanyl has made this the deadliest drug epidemic in American history.

Fentanyl is 30 to 50 times more powerful than heroin, which is obviously lethal. Just 2 milligrams of this substance--that is equivalent to a few grains of salt--is enough to kill most people. This synthetic opioid has contributed to or caused 30,000 of the 50,000 opioid overdose deaths in the United States since 2017, and it is killing Pennsylvanians at an even higher percentage.

As is the case with most illicit drugs, the vast majority of this is not actually coming from within the borders of the United States; the vast majority originates outside our borders. So cooperation with the governments of other countries is essential if we are going to make progress in ending this scourge.

There are some countries that are extremely helpful. Canada and Mexico are, unfortunately, important transit points for drugs into the United States. Their governments work closely with ours and, I think it is fair to say, are doing all they reasonably can and continue to strive to do more to end this devastating influx. But fentanyl is particularly difficult because such tiny quantities are so lethal, and the fact is that not all foreign governments are as cooperative as they could be and they should be.

It is well known that the primary source of the fentanyl that is on the streets in Pennsylvania and across America--the source is ultimately China. China has been cooperating in some important ways. China shares advance electronic data on mail parcels, and that is helpful. As of May 1 of this year--a few weeks ago--China agreed to schedule fentanyl as a class that is prohibited in China, and that forgoes the need to schedule every conceivable variant of the chemical. That is a good development. But we can't be sure that China is going to follow through on its commitment--the one I just mentioned is very recent--and they still don't do all they should on pill presses. They also have a history of breaking agreements with the United States.

Maybe even more importantly, we don't know what other countries might decide to tolerate fentanyl production within their borders and look the other way when it arrives in the United States.

Simply, there have to be consequences for countries that knowingly allow the production of fentanyl in their own land, to then be exported to the United States, and that do not--I am referring to the governments--cooperate with us as fully as they could and should be.

That brings me to the bill I introduced. It is called the Blocking Deadly Fentanyl Imports Act. It is a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Doug Jones. I want to offer that as an amendment, to get a vote on this bill we are considering right now.

I should point out that since 1983, Congress has utilized the Foreign Assistance Act as a way to deal with this kind of problem. Specifically, this legislation--the Foreign Assistance Act, the existing law--forbids certain categories of U.S. foreign aid from going to countries that don't assist us sufficiently in our effort to control illicit substances.

There is a finite number of illicit drugs that are on the list. They include heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals. Congress has periodically updated the list and expanded the list as times have changed. In 2005, the House and Senate voted to add methamphetamine and its precursors. Senator Jones and I and a number of our colleagues believe it is past time that we add fentanyl to this list, especially since it is arguably the most lethal drug in the world today.

Our bill would do a couple of things. It would add fentanyl to this list on the Foreign Assistance Act, the illicit substance list. That would then require the State Department to identify those countries--at the moment, China--that are the most significant sources of illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.

Then we would toughen the requirements in determining whether or not another country is, in fact, sufficiently cooperating with the United States. We only toughen the requirements for those countries that are found to be significant sources of fentanyl, not the other drugs already on the list but those countries determined by our State Department to be significant sources of fentanyl. For that small set of countries, if the President finds that one or more of the following three criteria are not being met, then, those countries would face the risk of having these forms of financial aid withheld.

These are the three criteria we want them to meet: No. 1, whether they have in fact scheduled fentanyl and analogues as a controlled substance in their country; No. 2, whether steps are being taken to actually prosecute people who are illegally trafficking in fentanyl; and the final criteria we would add is whether or not they require the registration of pill presses, because we know that unregulated pill presses have been found to be used for production of counterfeit pills that actually contain fentanyl.

That is the criteria that would get a country crosswise with us as a consequence of this legislation. What would the consequences be? The legislation contemplates that if a country is not doing enough with respect to the existing list of illicit narcotics, then, they would stand to lose various forms of foreign aid from the United States, specifically, economic development grants, development finance aid, health aid, agricultural aid, and military aid.

It is important to note there are other categories of aid that we provide to foreign countries and more precisely to entities within those countries that would not be affected by this. They are not affected under current law, and they would not be affected under our bill--aid such as products-related assistance, disaster relief, food aid, medical aid, and aid to refugees. Existing law doesn't interrupt those forms of aid even with bad-acting governments, and our bill wouldn't either. In addition, even the categories of foreign aid that could be shut off and that would be shut off are subject to a Presidential waiver. If, for whatever reason, the President believes it is more important that we continue even those forms of aid, then, under our amendment, the President could do so.

Again, to just sum up, the simple thing here is that a country that knowingly tolerates the production and export of fentanyl and is not as cooperative with our government as they could be in stopping it shouldn't be getting all kinds of U.S. foreign aid. That is all.

That is what our amendment would do. The majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee supports this. The State Department made some suggestions that we accepted. Some of the suggestions included that we drop the reference to precursor chemicals because that might capture too many countries that shouldn't be captured because they are not the precursor chemicals used for the purpose of producing illicit fentanyl. We acknowledged that, and we changed it.

I would again stress that the waivers are available to the President in the event the country ought to get those waivers.

So let me remind my colleagues that this is the worst drug crisis in American history. Fentanyl is at the heart of it. We should hold accountable countries that are not doing enough to stop this poison from leaving their country and coming into ours.

I am not asking for passage here and now, but I am asking for a vote. Let's have an up-or-down vote. I would be happy to set the vote at a 60-vote threshold. Let's send a message to any country in the world that there will be consequences for them if they choose to go down this road.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside amendment No. 862 and call up my amendment No. 900.

Mr. President, very briefly, I hope the Senator from New Jersey will continue to engage with us. There is a possibility that we are not as far apart as it may appear.

Let me be very clear. It is an absolute fact that every country in the world would not be affected by this legislation at all. Whoever at the State Department suggested that chose not to read the language or chose not to understand it. Our legislation would affect a very narrow category of countries that are determined by our State Department to be major sources of fentanyl. At the moment, there is a grand total of one that I am aware of that would qualify for that designation. Nothing else flows from this. There are no consequences unless you first meet that criteria. So that alone makes it obvious that it couldn't possibly apply to every country in the world.

I would also underscore the categories of aid that would be subject to being withheld in the event that a country is, in fact, a source of fentanyl and is not cooperating with us--our economic development grants, development finance aid, health aid, agricultural aid and military aid are all forms of aid that I think are entirely reasonable to withhold. The categories that I think the Senator from New Jersey is concerned about we exclude from the risk of being withheld, because I acknowledged the Senator's point. There are categories of foreign aid that don't go to foreign governments. They go to NGOs. They go to folks on the ground who are actually advancing a cause we believe in. For instance, there is the democracy development fund. We wouldn't affect that even if a country is a major source of illicit fentanyl and not cooperating with us fully. We recognize that this category of funding doesn't help that government. It helps us with the hope that we could change that government. I am not convinced that we are as far apart as it may appear to be.

I would remind everyone that I am only seeking a vote. I am not asking for unanimous consent for the amendment itself. I hope we can get back to the business of actually debating substance and voting in this body. Sometimes the minority leader has suggested that we have become a graveyard of legislation. Well, I am just proposing that we have a debate and have a vote. I hope we can get to that.

Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about a bill we should pass this week--I believe we will pass this week--for the 59th straight year.

There are very few things we authorize every year--frankly, there are very few things we need to authorize every year--but the authorizing bill in defense is the opportunity for the country and the Congress to look at what we need to do now that is more appropriate than what we needed to do a year ago to defend the country.

Certainly the men and women who serve in the military do that job in a selfless way, and they deserve the best we can do to be sure they are never involved in an unfair fight. We want to be sure they are always involved in a fight in which they have every possible advantage. They put their lives on the line to keep us safe, and it is up to us to be sure they have the equipment, the training, and the authorization they need and the authorities they need to carry out their work.

Every year about this time, we move toward the authorizing of what the Congress thinks the military needs. That is followed later by an appropriations bill that is directed in substantial ways by what this bill says should happen. In fact, the only thing the appropriations bill normally does is determine whether it can all be funded and in what segments it is to be funded.

We are debating this bill. I hope both Chambers--the House and the Senate--can pass this authorization bill as we move on to our next step in this process of defending the country.

I think you can argue about almost anything else the Federal Government does, but the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government is to defend the country--the No. 1 thing that we clearly cannot do by ourselves; the No. 1 thing that State and local government can be a partner in on some occasions, but it is not their responsibility, and they do not have the capacity to do what we need to do to defend the country. So we are here to take this important step in that.

This version, the Senate's version for this year, authorizes $750 billion to support the Department of Defense and the nuclear and other defense responsibilities of the Department of Energy. Our adversaries are clearly increasing their military capabilities and their military commitments, and we need to be prepared to do just the same.

The burden of defending the country is an important one, and, frankly, it falls on a very small percentage of our population. About one-half of 1 percent of the American people serve in the military. We owe an obligation to that one-half of 1 percent to do our best for them.

This bill supports an across-the-board pay increase of 3.1 percent--a little more than inflation. It is the largest increase in nearly a decade at a time when the people who serve see challenges in more areas than we have seen in a while and coming from different directions than we have seen in a while.

This bill reforms military housing. Leader after leader in the military will tell us and make the point that the strength of the military is military families. So in military housing, particularly the family housing, there was thought to be a great idea a couple of decades ago to privatize family housing. For a couple of years, it looked like a great idea, but I think it is time we look again at our housing obligations and how they are being met.

We need to look at what we can do to be sure that the spouses of those serving have an opportunity, when they are transferred to a new location, to be able to get to work as quickly as possible in the field they are prepared to work in. In Missouri, in January of this year, the first spouse of someone who had been transferred to our State was sworn in immediately to the bar so she could immediately begin practicing law. Like any attorney, there are probably some future legal training requirements during the course of the following months. But to be able to go to work--whether as a medical technician or a doctor or a lawyer or an electrician or a welder--should be a priority of the country.

I asked Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, when she testified before the committee: What is the best thing we can do for military families? I sponsored some legislation a few years ago so that military families can move earlier or stay longer for a job, for work, or for school. That makes a

difference to their families. If you need to go 2 months earlier than your serving spouse to get started in the school year at the right time or if you need to stay 2 months later or need up to 6 months of transition time, that is available now. Of course, that is beginning to have an impact on people's decision to stay in the military, if their family is considered as a priority and flexibility is part of that priority.

I asked Secretary Wilson for two things that we still need improvement on. One was to be sure to have the best schools possible near those military bases, and two was to be sure that spouses can go to work and that they can go to work, if they want to go to work, in the area they are trained for. So this allows for more effort to be made, to be sure that we are working with the Council of State Governments on a certification program where you could move to a State and quickly be doing that. Reciprocal opportunities for that quick transition is important.

There are changes in this bill that support families with special needs and support how you deal with a childcare provider on a military base, and there are things here to enhance suicide prevention and family advocacy programs. These are all critical, not only for people serving but for people wanting to continue to serve.

As I said before, the military family is one of our Nation's greatest assets, and the serving spouse is not the only one serving. The serving spouse is not the only one transferred to a new military location. The serving spouse is not the only one who has to be happy with the commitment to decide that you are going to go ahead and reenlist, and we need to be aware of that.

This legislation supports military construction projects, including the Army National Guard Readiness Center in Springfield, MO, where I live; the vehicle maintenance facility at Whiteman Air Force Base in our State; and the C-130 flight simulator facility at Rosecrans in St. Joe. They are all included in this authorization project. Projects like these are necessary to ensure that our military is ready to fight and also to support their needs when they are at home.

America's defense posture includes what is known as the nuclear triad. This means that we have three ways we can deliver a nuclear warhead. We hope to never have to have that happen. But if our adversaries have this capacity, our capacity has to exceed theirs, and this bill ensures that that continues to be the case.

The 509th and the 131st Bomb Wings at Whiteman Air Force Base host one of the legs of that triad. Earlier this year, the Air Force announced that Missouri will host the B-2's replacement. The principal B-2 location at Whiteman Air Force Base will host the B-21 Raider as it becomes available to replace that plane that has served the country for so long. I am proud to support what we need to do to make that transition.

There are other aircraft that we need to be sure have a viable part in the country's future. The NDAA bill we are talking about provides an additional 24 F-18 Super Hornets to the Navy and begins the purchase of 8 F-15s for the Air Force. All those planes are made in St. Louis.

The bill also includes critical mission support for the A-10 Warthog, a plane that our colleague Senator McSally is pleased to have flown and flown well. By the way, I had a chance to introduce her the other day, and I almost ran out of firsts. She was the first woman to fly in combat and the first woman to command a combat unit in combat. She has 356 combat hours that she herself flew. She is the first person, of 260 senior military officers, to graduate No. 1 in that advanced training class.

The Missouri National Guard also flies the A-10. I have been with them when they were flying in Eastern Europe. That A-10 capacity continues to be critical.

The NDAA authorizes missile programs between the United States and Israel, where we have actually learned that you can target an incoming missile. Things like the Iron Dome, Arrow 3, David's Sling, have all-- fortunately for Israel, fortunately for our military capacity--been proven to work against incoming missiles. These programs help Israel defend itself. They also increase our capability to do what they need to do.

Finally, Senator Hawley from Missouri, Senator Manchin from West Virginia, and I have proposed an amendment to the NDAA to make May 1 Silver Star Service Banner Day. Along with Senator McCaskill, my colleague who just left, I have been doing this annually for some time. We think this would be a great year to make this a permanent recognition of the Silver Star families.

I would particularly like to recognize Diana Lynn Newton, the cofounder of Silver Star Families of America, who passed away earlier this year. She and her husband Steve were the driving force behind the organization, and they helped thousands of veterans who were otherwise getting very little recognition for their Silver Star service. We are saddened by that loss. Hopefully, one of the things we will do in this bill to recognize her great commitment is to make the Silver Star recognition day an annual event.

There are bipartisan priorities here in this bill that deal with the needs of the military and their families. The pay raise is a significant part of this bill. But being sure that the No. 1 job of the Federal Government--defending the country--continues to be recognized as the No. 1 job makes this unique annual reauthorization of the Defense bill so important. I look forward to seeing this Congress pass this bill this week in the Senate and, hopefully, soon after that, in both the Senate and the House.

I yield the floor.