Floor Statements

Madam President, on a much less happy note, this week, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was indicted in New York on Federal sex trafficking charges. The newly released evidence of Epstein's behavior involving dozens of children is sickening, is appalling, is despicable.

Epstein should have been behind bars years ago, but, unfortunately, the Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, cut Epstein a sweetheart deal while Acosta was a U.S. attorney in Florida in 2008. While a Federal prosecutor, Acosta signed a nonprosecution agreement that allowed Epstein and his coconspirators to remain free and evade justice, despite overwhelming evidence.

Mr. Acosta hid this agreement from Epstein's victims. No one can figure out why Mr. Epstein was able to persuade U.S. Attorney Acosta not to prosecute, other than that Epstein could afford high-powered, high-priced attorneys. As the Miami Herald editorial board wrote this morning, it was not just that Acosta failed to get it right in 2008; the evidence suggests ``he didn't care to.''

Accordingly, I am asking three things. First, I am calling on Secretary Acosta to resign. It is now impossible for anyone to have confidence in Secretary Acosta's ability to lead the Department of Labor. If he refuses to resign, President Trump should fire him. Instead of prosecuting a predator and serial sex trafficker of children, Acosta chose to let him off easy.

This is not acceptable. We cannot have as one of the leading appointed officials in America someone who has done this--plain and simple.

Second, I am calling on the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility to make public the results of its review of Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. Senators Murray and Kaine have called for these findings, but the Justice Department so far has stonewalled, has refused to make them public. This rebuke cannot be kept in the dark, and there should be hearings.

Third, the President needs to answer for the statements he has made about his relationship with Mr. Epstein. In 2002, he said he had known Epstein for 15 years and that he was a ``terrific guy'' who enjoyed women ``on the younger side.'' Epstein was also reportedly a regular at the Mar-a-Lago Club for years. The President needs to answer for this, and ``I don't recall'' is not an acceptable answer in this case, particularly since President Trump appointed Mr. Acosta to such a powerful position.

Madam President, on healthcare, today oral arguments begin in Texas v. United States, and the fate of our entire healthcare system hangs in the balance due to this nasty, cruel lawsuit led by President Trump's Department of Justice. If the courts ultimately strike down the law, the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans would be gone--gone. Prescription drug costs, high enough as they are, would go up even further. Protections for preexisting conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans would be eliminated. A mother or father whose child had cancer would have to watch them suffer because the insurance company could cut them off and say: We are not paying for this anymore.

We cannot tolerate that. Yet President Trump and his administration and 19 Republican attorneys general filed a suit that would do just that.

The case reveals the depth of the hypocrisy and cruelty of the Republican position on healthcare. Senate Republicans, come campaign season, express unequivocal support for protections for preexisting conditions, but they have repeatedly blocked our attempts to have the Senate intervene in this lawsuit and fight back against the Trump administration's position, which threatens to eliminate these very same protections.

I say to my Republican friends: You can't have it both ways. You can't say ``Oh, I want to protect people with preexisting conditions,'' and then prevent

us from doing something to actually protect them. Instead, they are going along, knees shaking, with President Trump's cruel lawsuit, and that is what every Republican in this Chamber--just about every Republican--has done.

President Trump has himself issued--also totally hypocritical--a laundry list of quotes in support of protections for preexisting conditions. He talks all the time about bringing down prescription drug costs while his administration actively pursues this lawsuit, which would raise the cost of drugs and eliminate protections for preexisting conditions.

How much hypocrisy can America tolerate? It is mind-bending. The hypocrisy is patently obvious. I don't care if you love President Trump. You should be calling him out for this hypocrisy, which will affect the vitality--God's most precious gift to us--the ability to live long and healthy and well. President Trump is trying to take it away, despite what he says to you, Trump supporters.

Senate Democrats will head to the steps of the Capitol to highlight what this lawsuit could mean to average Americans. My Republican friends should take note. The American people are keenly aware of which party is trying to take away their healthcare. Even if it happens through the courts in this Trump-supported lawsuit, they will know that congressional Republicans, by their silence--their meek, supine acquiescence--are complicit in the unraveling of our healthcare system. I believe the American people will hold them accountable at the ballot box if they don't change.

Madam President, on election security, tomorrow the Senate will gather for a briefing by senior officials of the defense, law enforcement, and intelligence community on the threats facing our elections in 2020.

Russia has interfered in our elections. Everyone agrees with that. Our administration is doing nothing to stop it from occurring again in 2020, so we need a briefing by law enforcement on how serious the threat is--they have said ``serious'' in public statements--and what we are doing to stop it.

I am glad that Leader McConnell agreed to my request and has worked with us to schedule a briefing. It should dispel all doubt in this Chamber about the need to take action ahead of next year's Presidential elections.

I would say this: A briefing is important; a briefing is necessary, but it is by no means sufficient. We must then debate and adopt measures to protect our democracy and preserve the sanctity of our elections. Even though Leader McConnell has finally agreed to have this hearing, he has so far been content--once again, a legislative graveyard--to have the Senate do nothing--do nothing--when it comes to one of the greatest threats to our democracy, that a foreign power will reach in and interfere for its own purposes, not to help Americans.

Bipartisan bills exist. We could put them on the floor right now. This is not a partisan issue. Senators Rubio and Van Hollen have the DETER Act. Senators Menendez and Graham have the Russia sanctions bill. But all of these bills have languished, victims of Leader McConnell's legislative graveyard. We have many more options when it comes to election security--legislation from Senators Klobuchar and Warner, Feinstein and Wyden, Blumenthal and many others. It is time we move on these bills. As we continue to negotiate appropriations bills, we should include significant resources for election security. Nothing less than the vitality of and faith in our democracy is at stake.

There are not two sides to this issue. A foreign adversary attacked our democracy. I expect that Special Counsel Mueller's testimony next week will highlight once again that Russia's efforts to interfere in our democracy were sweeping and systematic.

What are we waiting for? What are we waiting for--for them to interfere again and for more Americans, whether they be Republican or Democrat or Independent, left, right, or center, to no longer believe this democracy is legit? For 243 years, since the Declaration of Independence and certainly since the signing of the Constitution a few years later, we have had faith in this democracy, even when the outcome isn't what we want. But that faith is already eroding in good part because foreign powers can interfere in our elections. We cannot--we cannot--let that happen, no matter who you are, what your politics are. But Leader McConnell is standing in the way of what could eat at the roots of our democracy and eventually make this mighty oak, the American experiment, fall. We don't want that to happen.

The briefing tomorrow is a good step, but it is only one step. We need to take more. We need to act, to prepare our democracy for the challenges ahead.

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

Madam President, let me congratulate the U.S. Women's National Team on winning the World Cup yesterday. It is the second title in a row and fourth overall, the most for any nation. Boy, did they make us proud.

The team's sustained level of excellence is something for all of us to exult in, to be proud of, as are the heart, skill, and sheer joy the U.S. women bring to the pitch. As they make their way home, I send them my congratulations, my thanks, and a formal invitation for the team to come to the Upper Chamber for a celebration as they visit our Nation's Capital. It would be my honor to host America's winning team.

I want to send a special congratulations to the New Yorkers on the team, Allie Long and Crystal Dunn, the latter of whom made a crucial tackle in the final, leading to our second and decisive goal in the final period. New York is proud of them both, as well as the entire roster.

While today we celebrate their victory, we also recognize that these women athletes have challenges and they make us really think about the future of women's sports. They make us grapple with the deep unfairness in how female athletes are treated and paid compared to their male counterparts. Similarly, it is an unfortunate reality that women in the workforce see their male colleagues paid significantly more for the same work.

We have come a long way in terms of the prominence of and support for women's sports over the past decade, but we have not come nearly far enough. Every young girl who has had to play on weeknights instead of weekends because that is when the boys play, who has had to accept older equipment because the boys got the new stuff, who has had to play on the other field or rink or court because the boys were using the main one--every girl who has gone through that knows this to be true. As a parent of two girls who played soccer, basketball, baseball, and lacrosse, I know this to be true.

I think when it comes to U.S. women, it is absolutely right to be talking about their pay right now. They have shone a light on the fact that, in our society, women are simply not treated fairly because of their gender. Something needs to change here. What the U.S. women did was extraordinary, and they deserve to be compensated fairly. All women need to be compensated fairly, period. We ought to pay attention to this not just once every 4 years during the World Cup, but year in and year out.

How about the equal payment amendment that the House has passed? Why don't we put it on the floor of the Senate in honor of the women who won the World Cup? Why don't we do that, Leader McConnell?

I am sure there will be lots of encomia from the other side about these women. Let's act so we can help all women achieve equality--equal work, equal pay.

Madam President, now on healthcare, tomorrow the Fifth Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case of Texas v. United States. The fate of our entire healthcare system hangs in the balance. This challenge to the Affordable Care Act, brought by Republican State attorneys general and regrettably supported by President Trump and his administration, represents the latest efforts by Republicans to dismantle healthcare as we know it in America.

After failing to repeal our healthcare through Federal legislation, Republicans have now turned to the courts. If Republicans get their way in this case, the impact on Americans would be catastrophic; that is not an exaggeration--catastrophic. It would result in the elimination of protections for people with preexisting conditions, possibly increasing costs for 133 million Americans under 65.

If you have a son or daughter with cancer and the insurance company cuts you off, that is catastrophic, nothing less. How many people will go through that if our Republican friends have their way? It would result in skyrocketing prescription drug costs for seniors or Medicare. Let's say there is a lifesaving drug, but it is too expensive, and you can't afford it, that is catastrophic to most Americans.

Millions of people would be kicked off Medicaid, leaving the most vulnerable out to fend for themselves. Again, you desperately need care, but no one will give it to you. That is catastrophic.

Bring it all together, and what our Republican friends want to do is make Americans pay higher prices for inferior care. That is cruelty on a massive scale.

Of course, we have been here before. For nearly 2 years, the administration pushed Congress to repeal the ACA--a crusade that failed on the Senate floor multiple times. President Trump's budget calls for trillions in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. He has opened up the floodgates for junk plans that don't cover the things that really count, like cancer treatment, maternity care, addiction services, and he has deliberately worked to make it harder for people to sign up for healthcare.

On that court case, 47 Democrats wished that we would join the lawsuit. We asked Republicans to join us in that. I think it was only one who was. Where are our Republican friends? They talk about wanting to preserve preexisting conditions, but they are mum when the administration they support tries to repeal them. It is hypocrisy-- hypocrisy. If you believe in supporting people's protections for preexisting conditions, you oppose the lawsuit and join us in saying that lawsuit should not be filed. Our Republican friends know where the people are, but they are afraid. They are quivering that Donald Trump will be angry with them if they oppose his lawsuit. Shame on them.

Our Republican friends can never argue that they are the party of healthcare. When President Trump argues that Republicans are the party of

healthcare, God help the middle class. They are the party of no healthcare; the party of repeal with no plan to replace.

This lawsuit is just the latest salvo against the American people, and it shows that so long as Republicans are in power, the healthcare of the American people will not be safe. If they are successful in striking down the Affordable Care Act, Republicans--all of them--will own the consequences.

Madam President, last week, the DHS inspector general released a report detailing horrid conditions at border facilities. This is the President's own DHS inspector general saying how bad conditions were. Then we found reports of a secret Border Patrol workers' Facebook group that revealed a toxic culture at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Everything we had heard anecdotally, everything we feared about the mindset of CBP proved to be true in that Facebook group.

Over the weekend, the New York Times and then the El Paso Times released the latest account of conditions at the Border Patrol station in Clint, TX. A facility built for 100 adults has become a modern-day internment camp for up to 700 children at a time, many locked up for weeks on end. Some children go without beds to sleep on. There are food shortages and insufficient sanitation. For heaven's sake, we read reports of children suffering from outbreaks of scabies, lice, and even chicken pox. This is cruelty--cruelty--once again.

These awful conditions show that for too long, the CBP has operated as an agency out of control. It must be reined in immediately, beginning with its leadership. Internal investigations will not suffice because CBP leadership--particularly Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan-- is far too callous in their treatment of children and their families. Too many of the CBP leaders have had this attitude for too long, and it has infested itself down to too many who are the rank and file in that agency. We need untainted professionals to be brought in from outside the CBP structure immediately.

President Trump turns to his typical tactics of denial, distortion, and distraction. President Trump should be focused on fixing the problems that exist instead of blaming others. The truth, of course, is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place. The suffering imposed on migrant children is the result of the administration's own mishandling of family arrivals through Central America.

While Donald Trump says he is serious about fixing our immigration challenges, he has done just about everything to make matters worse.

President Trump, you want to fix the border? Then do what Democrats have been asking you to do for a long time--let the asylum seekers apply for asylum in their home countries, increase the number of judges to process the cases, and, for heaven's sake, restore aid to those Central American countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua to help them crack down on gang violence and cartels so people will not flee for fear of their lives from the gangs.

President Trump, stop finger-pointing at Democrats for this mess of your own making. You are the President. As this problem festers and gets worse, the American people realize you are the Chief Executive. It is your problem to solve.

We will join you, if you have anything reasonable to propose, but just finger-pointing at Democrats for this mess of your own making, President Trump, is like poking holes in your own umbrella and then blaming the clouds when you get wet.

I urge President Trump and Senate Republicans to seriously consider these measures because unless we make structural reforms to our immigration system, we have done nothing to reverse what is happening at the southern border.

Madam President, President Trump's hypocrisy and his diving into mistruths over and over again reared its ugly head once again. We can't become used to it because it is such a bad thing for a President to be so abjectly dishonest about so much of what is happening and so much of what he does. It happened again.

Today, amazingly enough, President Trump tried to claim credit as a leader on environmental protection, of all things. This is laughable. The same President who pulled us out of the Paris Agreement, who has filled his administration with oil and coal cronies, who has slashed protections for clean air, clean water, and protections for public lands, and who has denied basic science now wants to call himself a leader on the environment. Give me a break.

Try as he might say otherwise, President Trump has proved himself probably the staunchest ally of the worst polluters of any President we have ever had.

On climate change, the President's record is particularly egregious. In 2 years, his government has gutted oil, coal, and pollution standards, has erased climate data from government websites, and even censored words like ``climate change'' from appearing in official government documents. This is somebody who is a leader of environmental protection? How gullible does he think the American people are? Even Trump supporters may agree with him on this issue, but to say he is protecting the environment is ludicrous.

Some of these things are just the tip of the iceberg. Would someone who is a leader on environmental protection hire oil and coal lobbyists to run the EPA and Department of Interior and cripple the National Climate Assessment? He completely caves to the oil and gas industry. Every time they say jump, he says how high. Now he has the temerity-- the gall--to say he is the leader of environmental protection. Again, give me a break.

To be fair, President Trump's speech does have one silver lining. The mere fact that he even spoke today on the environment forces us to an unavoidable conclusion: Climate change is real. It is a serious problem that deserves action, including action in this Chamber.

The Republican majority, Leader McConnell, could take action on this issue at a moment's notice, but, for now, they are happy keeping their heads in the sand. They have not brought a single measure to the floor that would deal with the issue of climate, even as their views grow increasingly out of step with most Americans.

They cannot continue to keep their heads in the sand as our planet faces serious problems today and even far more serious problems for our children. It is an issue that can't wait a day longer, and yet the masters of this legislative graveyard refuse to act. I fear the majority in this body will refuse to act until either they are no longer the majority or, even worse, it is too late.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as the leader and I announced yesterday, we have an agreement in place to vote on passage of the Defense authorization bill today and then on an amendment to the bill tomorrow, led by Senators Udall, Kaine, Merkley, Murphy, Paul, and Lee, to accommodate all Senators who wish to vote. That is why we are doing it tomorrow. If the Udall amendment is passed, it would be adopted to the Defense authorization bill even though the vote occurs afterward.

I want to thank the leader for understanding our position that the Senate ought to vote on this important amendment, which in essence would prohibit funds for hostilities with Iran without an affirmative authorization from Congress. Congress gets to approve or disapprove wars, period. It is crucial for the Senate and Congress as a whole to examine potential conflicts and to exercise our authority in matters of war and peace.

Let's start with the facts. Ever since President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, our two countries have been on a path toward conflict. For the past month, we have been locked in a cycle of escalating tensions with Iran. Iran attacked a tanker in the Gulf region and shot down a U.S. surveillance drone. The U.S. Government has responded to both provocations, and the President reportedly considered and then pulled back on a military strike.

The American people are worried--and rightly so--that even if the President isn't eager for war, he may bumble us into one. Small provocations in the Middle East can often spin out of control. Our country has learned that the hard way. When the President is surrounded by hawkish advisers like John Bolton and Secretary Pompeo, the danger is even more acute.

So while the majority leader says that ``no one is talking about war,'' that is only true until the folks do start talking about war, and by then, the chance to clarify that this President requires congressional authorization before engaging in major hostilities may have passed us by.

And this not talking about war? Well, the President said he was 10 minutes away from major provocation, if the reports are correct. It would have been on Iranian soil, three missile bases. And the President at one point said, in effect: We will smash Iran, blow it to smithereens--or something to that effect. People are talking about war. This President is.

Even though it is plainly written in the Constitution that the legislature alone, not the Executive, has the power to declare war, the Trump administration is already signaling that it doesn't need Congress. The President and his team are playing up links between al- Qaida and Iran, potentially setting the stage for them to claim legal authority under the sweeping 2001 authorization of military force to strike Iran without congressional approval.

The President himself, asked if he believes he has the authority to initiate military action against Iran without first going to Congress, replied, ``I do.'' He continued, ``I do like keeping Congress abreast, but I don't have to do it legally.''

So when it comes to a potential war with Iran, Mr. President Trump, yes, you do. You do. You do.

The Founding Fathers--our greatest wisdom in this country--worried about housing war powers in the executive branch for precisely this reason.

As James Madison wrote to Jefferson, who was not there when they were writing the Constitution--he was plenipotentiary to France--here is what Madison wrote to Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all

Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has

accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war to

the Legislature.

That is Madison, who put more into this Constitution than anyone else.

Let me read it again. It is clear as a bell. Madison wrote to Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all

Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has

accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war to

the Legislature.

If there were ever a President who fits that description, it is Donald Trump.

The Framers worried about an overreaching Executive waging unilateral war. My colleagues know well that we haven't had an overreaching Executive like the one we have now for quite some time, if ever. So if it comes to it, we should expect the President to challenge Congress's war powers. He has basically already told us that he would.

So my colleagues should vote to strengthen our ability to oversee this President's strategy with Iran. That is what the bipartisan Udall amendment would do--nothing more. There has been some fearmongering about how the amendment might tie the hands of our military. It would not. It is explicitly written that in no way should it be construed to prevent the U.S. military from responding to an act of aggression or from acting in self-defense.

It is high time that Congress reestablish itself as this Nation's decider of war and peace. We have been content too long to let the Executive take all of the initiatives and responsibility for military action abroad. The American people are weary of the endless conflicts in the Middle East and the loss of American lives and American treasure.

The Udall amendment would mark the beginning of Congress reasserting its constitutional powers. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes tomorrow.

G20 Economic Summit

Mr. President, President Trump has arrived at the G20 economic summit in Japan before traveling for a state visit in South Korea. Already, the President has managed to insult our longstanding allies, including Germany and Japan, the host nation.

Rather than undermining our alliances, here are two important things the President should do at the G20:

First, Russia and Vladimir Putin. When President Trump sits down with the Russian President, he must send an unmistakable warning that the United States will not tolerate foreign interference in our elections in 2020. President Trump has no excuse. The Mueller report, FBI Director Wray, virtually our entire intelligence community concluded that Russia was guilty of interfering in our elections and that 2020 would be the next big show.

President Trump has a responsibility to defend the United States. By directly challenging Putin, he will send a signal not merely to Putin but to all of our adversaries that interfering with our election is unacceptable and that they will pay a price--a strong price--for trying.

Second, China and President Xi. Now that trade negotiations between our countries seemed to have stalled, there is a chance to put them back on track. For that to happen, the President must remain strong. He cannot go soft now and accept a bad deal that falls short of reforming China's rapacious economic policies--cyber espionage, forced technology transfers, state-sponsorship, and, worst of all, denial of market access.

President Trump, you know it. We have talked about it. You have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform China's economic relations with the world and put American businesses and American workers on a level playing field. Stay tough. Don't give in. Make sure Huawei cannot come to the United States and we cannot supply it. Enough with the criticism for our allies. Aim it at our adversaries, China and Russia, and you will have a much better chance of making the G20 a success for American interests.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. President, I am voting in favor of the Romney amendment, No. 861, because it does nothing more than restate the longstanding principle that the Armed Forces of the United States have the ability to defend themselves and citizens of the United States from foreign attack. The

amendment does not constitute an authorization to use military force, nor is there anything in the amendment that confers any new authority on the President.

As Senator Romney, the author of the amendment, stated on the floor a half-hour ago, ``[t]his [amendment] is not an authorization to use military force against Iran or anyone else. . . . Under the Constitution, only Congress may declare war.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 ask unanimous consent to address the Senate briefly on leader time.

Mr. President, the bill that was before us has failed. Most of us on this side of the aisle would have much preferred that bill, but it has failed.

The bill that Senators Shelby and Leahy have worked on diligently is now before us. I am going to vote for it. I think most of us on this side are going to vote for it so that we can quickly move to conference.

Speaker Pelosi has called the President and suggested a few changes. I think there are four changes to this bill. We could quickly have a conference, talk about those four changes, try to get them in the bill, and finish this quickly. I hope that is what will happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I thank the majority leader for understanding how strongly we feel on the Democratic side and how many Americans feel that the constitutional right of Congress to examine foreign conflict and potential war should be upheld. The fact that we will get a vote on the Udall amendment, which is something we have asked for, is only fair and only right. There may be differences of viewpoint on both sides, but the fact that it will be on the floor and be debated is exactly the right thing to do. It is something we want and have asked for, and I thank the majority leader for understanding that and allowing it to happen.