Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me thank my dear friend, the senior Senator from Illinois, for the passion, persistence, and intelligence he shows on behalf of the Dreamers, who simply want to be Americans, who have shown their part of the American dream, and whom we are truly blocking from achieving their dream--which is the American dream.

Thank you.

Now, on another matter, Mr. President, just now Members of the House

Judiciary Committee unanimously passed a bill to address the shortfall in the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, which provides aid to the heroes and the families of the heroes who rushed to the towers selflessly on September 11, 2001.

Even in a divided Congress, even in a divided country, this issue is an absolute issue of moral clarity. On that fateful day, the men and women of the New York Fire Department, the New York Police Department, the EMS, and the construction labor unions who rushed to Ground Zero were like our soldiers. Like our soldiers, they rushed to danger for our safety without thinking of their own, and just as we don't leave soldiers on the battlefield behind, we must not leave the brave first responders behind when it comes to their healthcare. Yet, shamefully, it has always been a struggle here in this Congress to abide by that principle.

I have lived through the years when everyone said the first responders are getting respiratory illnesses and cancers they hadn't seen in such young people. They said they were crazy for thinking that it came from the pile. I lived through the years when, even though the science eventually confirmed that 9/11 was the cause, some in Congress complained that it was too expensive to provide these heroes with the healthcare they so very needed. Then, some said: This is a New York issue, and we are not going to help--as if we care about where our soldiers come from when they die on the battlefield.

After years of struggle, we eventually passed a healthcare program, but, initially, it wasn't even permanent. We have to fight every time when there is a problem, every time we need an extension, and every time it needs more funding. It is a painful and slow process, a difficult process, one that should never have been the way it has been. Every single one of the times, those brave first responders have had to come here to testify, wheeling through the halls of Congress, their bodies riddled with cancer, to beg Senators and Congressmen to help them get their healthcare.

My good friend, my dear friend Ray Pfeiffer--God bless his memory-- who knew he was dying, would come down here again and again and again, not for himself--he knew it was too late for him--but to make sure his friends and their families got the help they needed.

It is shameful--there is no other word for it; shameful--that our great first responders have had to suffer the indignity of delay after delay after delay, of searching for some must-pass bill to tuck their issue into because this Congress, this Senate, did not think it was important enough to pass it on its own.

Let me tell you something. We are done with that. We are not doing this again--not this time. The House Judiciary Committee just passed the fix to the Victim's Compensation Fund. The full House will follow suit soon.

As soon as the House passes this bill, it should be on the floor of the Senate immediately as a stand-alone bill.

Once this bill passes the House, there will be only one person who stands between the brave first responders now suffering from cancer and illness and the money they need to save or extend their lives, and that one person is Leader McConnell.

So I say to Leader McConnell: This is not politics. This is not a game. These are our heroes--American heroes who are suffering and need our help. Your help, Leader McConnell, is needed now. I am imploring, pleading, even begging to Leader McConnell to put this bill on the floor immediately after it passes the House. I am imploring, I am pleading, I am begging Leader McConnell to give us a commitment today that, as soon as the House passes this bill, he will put it on the floor of the Senate as a stand-alone bill.

Once he puts it on the floor of the Senate, it will pass the Senate with strong bipartisan support. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. The President will sign it. The brave heroes who have come down here time and again will breathe a sigh of relief, knowing they and their families, even if they are gone, will get the help they deserve.

We will reach the point soon--most likely this year--when more will have died from 9/11 related illnesses than on 9/11 itself. It has been over 17 years since 9/11, but, unfortunately, brave Americans are still dying. Brave Americans are still finding the cancers that were caused by their rushing to the pile, but only discovering them now. Let's do our job. Let's take care of them now.

Mr. President, today marks the 3-year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, FL. On that horrible night, 49 people were killed, 53 wounded and many more forever changed in an unspeakable act of terror.

The shooting was traumatic not only as an act of brutal violence, but as a hate crime against the LGBTQ community. The shooter chose the Pulse nightclub; drove a long way specifically to Pulse. And he did it in order to target innocent people for the simple reason of being who they were.

Today, our hearts are with the victims' families, with the first responders, and with the city of Orlando. We also cannot help but remember that we are the only nation in the developed world where mass shootings happen with such regularity, many of them driven by hate. We will never be able to root out all the evil, malice, and hate in our society, but I also know that we will never see a great reduction in gun violence or in hate crimes if we do nothing. So as we remember the victims of Pulse, let us also act. Let us consider legislation to improve common sense gun safety.

We have a bill ready, sent to us by the House months ago, to fix loopholes in our federal background check system. But Leader McConnell has not allowed it to reach the floor. Why not?

Why is it one of the many forgotten bills of his legislative graveyard? Are Republicans so unwilling to buck the gun lobby that they will ignore a bill supported of 90 percent of Americans, the majority of Republicans, the majority of gun owners? Something needs to change. My Republicans friends need to break out of the vise grip of the NRA.

I urge Leader McConnell to get this Chamber working again for the good of the American people. Commonsense background checks would be a great place to start--today of all days.

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

Mr. President, later this afternoon, the U.S. women's soccer team will begin its quest for another World Cup title with its opening match against Thailand. As the entire Nation cheers them on as they take the field, I want to shine a light today on an issue the women's national team has been fighting for off the field: pay equity. The women make just as much of a sacrifice, put in just as much mental and physical energy, absorb just as much risk of injury as the men who play for the national team. Yet when you break it down, a women's national soccer team player earns a base salary of $3,600 per game while a men's player earns $5,000. Over the course of a season, if both the men's and women's teams have the same record, a male player could earn $30,000 more than his female counterpart.

Female soccer players who earn the privilege of representing their country on the world stage get a much smaller bonus, $15,000, than male soccer players who earn the same privilege, $55,000. When a woman's national team wins a World Cup, something the U.S. women have done three times--with some New York State players helping--it wins a percentage of what a men's team gets if it wins at all, something the U.S. men have never done.

For the sake of comparison, U.S. soccer awarded the men's national team a $5.4 million performance bonus for losing in the round of 16 in the 2014 World Cup. It awarded the women $1.7 million for winning the World Cup.

Let me repeat that so you get the contrast. The women won the Cup and were given $1.7 million. The men got into the final 16 and got $5.4 million. That is discrimination staring us all in the face.

This is an issue of basic fairness. Performances aside--and the women have been excellent and often dominant over the past two decades--we shouldn't reward women less for doing the same work as men. We shouldn't say to generations of girls and boys who look up to these talented stars that women's

sports is in any way ``less than'' because it is not. These women, who inspire our country with their poise, tenacity, skill, and excellence every time they take the field, deserve to be fairly compensated.

Right now, the Senate could take a meaningful step to support the women's international team by passing legislation that aims to end gender-based wage discrimination. The House passed a paycheck fairness bill months ago, which languished here in the Senate in Leader McConnell's legislative graveyard. Bill after bill comes from the House, has the support of large percentages of Americans, gets Republican support in the House, and Leader McConnell just lets them lie there--another tombstone in the graveyard.

As the women of Team USA take the field today, I call on Leader McConnell to bring up the House legislation already passed that would aid in their fight for equal pay.

I will be rooting for Team USA women to kick off their campaign with a win against Thailand.

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

First, Madam President, on my way coming down to Washington, I heard that a helicopter crashed onto the roof of a building on Seventh Avenue in my hometown of New York City. We are still learning the circumstances of the crash and the extent of the damage, the injuries and casualty it may have caused. But, as all of America saw after 9/11, the Fire Department of New York and the Police Department of New York are truly some of the very, very best we have. They are strong, they are brave, they are smart, and I have every faith they will do their duty to protect New Yorkers and make sure everyone is safe.

Border Security

Madam President, on another subject--the border--the President ultimately, of course, backed off his threat of tariffs against Mexico, but really, anyone who has observed the President's foreign policy efforts could have predicted how this would play out. It is a pretty simple pattern. The President stakes out a maximalist position but never clearly defines his objectives. That way, after he backs himself into a corner, he can use a deal of any kind, even if it is merely a fig leaf, to justify retreating from whatever misguided policy he has threatened. Then he declares victory, having done little or nothing to solve the underlying problem.

Well, that is exactly what happened right here. According to public reports, the agreement President Trump reached with Mexico contains policies negotiated months ago--nothing more than warmed-up leftovers-- and then today, after the President tweeted that we have ``a fully signed and documented . . . Immigration and Security deal with Mexico,'' the Mexican Foreign Minister said that no secret deal exists. He clarified that the only agreement reached was to revisit the issue in the future. This is the headline of the New York Times: ``No Secret Immigration Deal Exists With U.S., Mexico's Foreign Minister Says.'' It is amazing how this President will just make stuff up--there is an ``L'' word here--he just makes it up, and then it is refuted.

So, to recap, in February, the President declared a bogus emergency to build a wall he said would solve the problem. Then he made a bogus threat to shut down the border completely, which, of course, never materialized. Then he made a bogus threat to impose tariffs, which the business community and Republicans in Congress rejected. And now the President claims a bogus agreement with Mexico, which contains policies Mexico volunteered to do months ago. Bogus, bogus, bogus.

It is no wonder our problems don't go away in this country because of the way the President does things both on the domestic front and the foreign policy front. What he did here is typical of the President's game-show foreign policy: a big production without very much progress. He generates a lot of coverage and attention around big summits, photo- ops, scare tactics, and belligerent threats, but because the President doesn't set clear goals, because the President doesn't have a defined strategy about how to achieve them, and because he is impatient to always declare victory prematurely even when it doesn't occur, his negotiations with foreign countries are ineffective.

We saw this play out in North Korea last June. The President returned from his meeting with Chairman Kim and tweeted: ``There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' One year later, North Korea continues to conduct weapons tests. We are seeing it play out now with Mexico, which has not agreed to anything new. And I am deeply concerned the same pattern may play out with China--perhaps the most serious of them all.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform China's economic relations with the world. But despite the President's success in getting China to the table--and he has with the tariffs--the President has never clearly defined what an effective agreement with China looks like. So I am afraid that, in the end, just like he did with Mexico, the President could retreat from his position on China in exchange for a face-saving deal that doesn't accomplish much of anything. I hope and pray that is not the case. I hope and pray he stands strong because the state of the future of jobs in America, of businesses in America, and of wealth in America is at stake.

For the sake of all of those things, I hope that, unlike this charade with Mexico, President Trump is willing to stay the course on China and not come up with another bogus solution that doesn't solve any problem.

One final point on this matter, and a very important point, and I hope everyone will listen because we have talked about this in the last week or two, but so far, the media hasn't written much about it. I hope they will today.

President Trump tweeted this morning that Democrats have no plan to deal with the surge of migrants at the border. That is another bogus claim. Democrats do have a plan. We proposed it, actually, last year. I have talked about it here on the floor of the Senate two or three times in the last 2 weeks, and it would be far more effective at dealing with the actual problem than what President Trump announced on Friday. Let me outline the three things in our plan.

First, we would allow asylum seekers to apply for asylum within their own countries.

If you are a Guatemalan, a Honduran, or an El Salvadoran, your child is threatened with being beat up, brutalized, or killed by gangs, and your daughter is threatened with rape, you want to leave the country. But it is a long, dangerous trek to go across Mexico. You have to pay the coyotes a lot of money.

Let them apply for asylum in their home countries, not at the border with the United States.

Second, we would provide security assistance to Central American countries to crack down on the violent gangs and the drug cartels and the human trafficking. That is what most of these people are fleeing. If you look at their pictures, most all of them are not criminals. They are not gang members. They are average people seeking desperate relief.

What we could do to stem the tide--and it wouldn't cost that much--is crack down on violent gangs, drug cartels, and trafficking. President Obama began to do this, and President Trump has rescinded it. It is logical, and it could work. These countries don't have our knowledge, our ability, or our resources to go after these horrible gangs and these horrible drug dealers, but we can help them. We should.

Third, here at our border, we could increase the number of immigration judges to process the cases faster so people wouldn't have to wait so long. Their case could be adjudicated. If they meet the asylum requirements, fine, and if they don't, they don't get in.

Those are three commonsense solutions to the problem that President Trump has talked about. As the President's illusory deal with Mexico continues to unravel, as the situation doesn't get better, please-- there are Republicans on the other side of the aisle who agree with this solution. Please, Mr. President, look at this solution. It can work. It can be bipartisan. No, you don't get to pound the table and make a lot of demands that won't ever affect anything, but it might get the job done. Let's give it a shot in a bipartisan way.

Election Security

Madam President, finally, on election security and my friend the Republican leader's graveyard, which continues to grow, ever since the Democrats won the majority in the House of Representatives, Leader McConnell has hardly considered legislation on the floor of the Senate. Instead of bringing up bills passed by the House, Leader McConnell has turned the Senate, as now widely quoted and known, into a legislative graveyard where pretty much the only thing we debate around here is nominations. It is frustrating not just to Democrats but to Americans. They say: Can't we get something done for the country? And it is frustrating, I am sure, for my Republican friends who didn't come here just to rubberstamp nominees.

One of my biggest frustrations about Leader McConnell's legislative graveyard is that even on the nonpartisan issues, there is virtually no movement. Take election security. We all know--on a good day, even President Trump agrees--the Russians interfered in our elections in 2016. That is uncontroverted. Senior intelligence officials and Director Wray, the head of the FBI--well-regarded and appointed by the President--issued multiple warnings that foreign powers will try to interfere in our elections again in 2020.

We have to make sure our election systems are resilient and our cyber defenses are up to date. There is nothing partisan about that. When a foreign country can twist an American election one way or the other, that eats at the wellspring of our democracy. We shouldn't allow it. So why, when there is bipartisan legislation, is Leader McConnell just sitting on his hands and refusing to bring it up? He is not moving any legislation having to do with election security--Democrat, Republican, or, best of all, bipartisan. We have multiple bipartisan bills that would harden our election infrastructure and punish any adversary that tries to interfere in our elections. Why will Leader McConnell not bring them to the floor?

Now, I am certainly glad that he has agreed to my request to at least hold a secure briefing on the risks we face in the next election. I am looking forward to a date soon. I hope the leader will update us all on when it might be scheduled. It should be ASAP. This is serious stuff. The Founding Fathers were worried about foreign interference in our elections, and in our modern digital world it has taken a new, new dangerous turn.

But a briefing alone isn't enough. We have to take legislative action. Democrats and Republicans, we all know, disagree on a whole lot of issues, but surely we can all agree that nothing matters more in our democracy than defending the integrity of our elections, and I hope that we as a body can take bipartisan action soon.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, yesterday on the floor I said I don't believe President Trump will follow through on his threat to impose tariffs on Mexico. Why? First, because the President has a tendency for bluster. There are many examples of the President taking a maximalist position before eventually backing off and announcing some different solution. Nine times out of ten, after a few months, everyone realizes that the so-called solution isn't real and doesn't work, but the President needs a way out of his bluster. That may well be true with the tariff issue.

Second, most Senate Republicans oppose the President's idea of slapping tariffs on Mexico. They know how that could destabilize our economy and Mexico's and that it could actually make the migration problem worse.

Publicly, the President has continued the tough talk on tariffs with Mexico--he responded to my statement on the floor with a tweet last night--but ultimately I continue to believe he will back off. That has been his MO. When he does, I would urge him to consider a real solution to the border problem, not some fake solution that he and the Mexicans announce, and then it does nothing--they don't follow through, it doesn't have effect, whatever.

Here is a commonsense policy that will actually reduce the problems at the border: Many of the migrants that arrive at our southern border are fleeing untenable situations--gang violence, drug cartels, corruption, domestic abuse, economic depravity. If you are starving, if you are worried that your child will be mugged, if you are worried that your daughter will be raped, you ain't staying there. The governments of those countries have failed to provide safety or security for people living within their borders in Nicaragua, in Honduras, and in El Salvador. Their citizens--or some of them--feel compelled to embark on a dangerous 1,000-mile journey on foot rather than stay put because staying put is even worse for them.

These are not evil people. The President would like to make them all out to be drug dealers or criminals. Most of them are poor people who are trying to escape the dangers created by the problems of gang violence, economic hardship, social oligarchy.

We Democrats have crafted legislation that would help address the problems in those three Central American countries that are causing the migrants to flee in the first place.

First, we would allow asylum seekers to apply for asylum within their own countries. That thousand-mile trek across Mexico is dangerous. It is often expensive. You have to pay a coyote or buy off drug dealers or other criminals. Let them apply in Honduras, in El Salvador, in Guatemala and not amass at the border. Second, we provide significant security assistance to Central American countries to build their capacity, crack down on the gangs and drug cartels and human trafficking that is endemic in those countries, and we would increase the number of immigration judges and personnel to reduce the current backlog of cases at the border.

These policies make eminent sense, and unlike the President's plan to impose tariffs on Mexico, our proposals do not threaten the U.S. economy. We would urge our Republican colleagues to join us in this commonsense solution.

When the President inevitably retreats from his tariff threat--which may be as soon as this afternoon--we should proceed on these commonsense policies, not some fake thing that sounds good in an announcement and then goes away like we have seen over and over again when the President conducts foreign policy--North Korea being one of the most notorious examples.

Over the past year, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, despite some positive domestic reforms, has too often acted like a brute in the Middle East rather than a stabilizing force.

I understand that Saudi Arabia worries about Iran. I share those concerns about the Iranian Government, but the Saudis have all too often reacted in the wrong way. In Yemen, the Saudis are fighting a proxy war that has resulted in untold human suffering and the slaughter of innocents of many children. Internally, the Saudi Government has conducted a widespread campaign of political repression, including the imprisonment of women's rights campaigners. We all know how the Saudis were responsible for the vicious torture and chilling murder of a journalist and American resident Jamal Khashoggi.

Despite these gross violations of international norms and values, the Trump administration has just cozied up with Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and offered almost no criticism.

We have just learned, according to reports, that the Trump administration approved seven transfers of American nuclear technology to the Saudis, including two after Khashoggi's murder. Now the administration is using its favorite tool, claiming emergency powers to justify another 22 arms sales to the Saudis and others, including precision-guided munitions for Saudi's operations in Yemen.

Has the Trump administration lost all perspective when it comes to Saudi Arabia--providing excuses and cover for the brutal murder of a journalist and American resident, aiding and arming the Saudis in a human rights tragedy in Yemen, which will only come back to hurt him in the long run. What are we doing here?

Congress has already voted, in bipartisan majorities, to unwind America's involvement in Yemen, which, of course, the President vetoed, and now we ought to vote to disapprove these arms sales.

The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Senator Graham, urged by our ranking member of Foreign Relations and our leader on this issue, Senator Menendez, has thankfully announced the bipartisan effort to do just that. I strongly support that effort.

Let me say, my Republican friends, over the last years of the Obama administration, bitterly complained about the way President Obama used Executive authority. The amount of Executive authority used by President Obama could fit in a thimble compared to the abuse of Executive authority by President Trump. Yet it seems, in the past, our Republican colleagues who so criticized Obama for much less have been totally silent when President Trump abuses Executive authority, but now maybe there are some green shoots.

Maybe some of our Republican colleagues in the Senate are waking up to the idea that in America we have a three-branch government, not a one-branch government, and maybe some of our Republican colleagues are recognizing that and beginning to act--the possible green shoots. Two instances; one is tariffs. Our Republicans don't like these tariffs. Will they have the guts, if the President implements them, to oppose the President? We will see.

Now, on Saudi arms sales, a number of Senate Republicans are beginning to

say we need to constrain the President the way the Congress has traditionally constrained the executive branch. I am hopeful, but I am also skeptical.

If the past is prologue, my Republican friends will ultimately back down. Leader McConnell, his MO, will let a few of them off the hook so they can go home and say they supported it but never enough to make sure Congress provides an effective check on the President. It is sort of a wink and a nod. Well, let's hope this time it is different. Let's hope that these murmurings among Republicans about the Saudi arms sales and about the tariffs are real, and they will actually stand up to him, which is what a Congress should do even when they are of the same party as the President.

Mr. President, on the climate, as I have said so many times, no threat poses a greater danger to our planet than that of climate change. The last 5 years have been the warmest on record. There is more carbon dioxide in the air than any point in human history. Our children and grandchildren will live with the consequences of the decisions we make today. We need all hands on deck--the Federal Government, local governments, municipalities, corporate leaders, global efforts--if we are to meet the challenges of climate change head-on, but for years our government has been too slow to act and more often than not we have done nothing or very little.

Just yesterday, President Trump once again--not based on fact, based on whim, as he so often acts--voiced a dangerous skepticism about climate change while meeting with Prince Charles.

Now, one of the biggest reasons for the slow progress on climate policy has been the oppressive grip of Big Oil, Big Gas, and Big Coal, on our political system. They spent untold millions to debunk climate science and torpedo climate legislation. One of the largest perpetrators has been the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which never reveals its donors and has acted all too often as a front for Big Oil.

Recently, as public support for action upon climate change has grown even more overwhelming, the chamber is starting to sing a different tune. They have launched a campaign for cleaner energy sources. They have added a new section to their website, ``Addressing Climate Change.'' They now even say that, on this issue, ``inaction is not an option.'' Well, I could not agree more; inaction is not an option, but color me skeptical about the chamber.

I hope to see the chamber follow its public stance with real action, but until I do, I fear this change is merely cosmetic. All too often, the big oil and big coal companies don't act themselves, although some do, but they let the chamber do their dirty work for them. So today Sheldon Whitehouse and I, along with a number of our colleagues, will be sending a letter to the chamber, calling on them to speak out against the administration's effort to undermine the ``National Climate Assessment.'' It is not enough to simply say: Oh, well, it is a problem.

Inaction is not an option. They must do something concrete. This is a concrete action we are proposing that will make a difference. I read in today's New York Times that companies are now beginning to plan for how climate change will cost them more money in the next 5 years. They don't think it is no problem. They don't think it is a 30-year problem. These companies and their interest in their profits--that is how they should be interested, although I would like to see them a little more interested in workers and communities and climate. These companies, for their own bottom lines, are saying climate change is real, and we better do something.

Well, one way the chamber can move things along is to speak out against this administration in its efforts to undermine the ``National Climate Assessment.'' For years, this study has been the gold standard for climate research within our government. It is not partisan. It is factual; it is based on science; and it assesses the long-term threats to climate change.

The President is sort of, on climate, a member of the Flat Earth Society, just denying the facts. It would be as if Columbus sailed, and the President still said the earth is flat. That is how he is acting on climate. Well, the Chamber ought to break with that. They ought to let science and facts determine how we act.

This is a moment when the Chamber could actually use its influence to convince the administration to reverse course. If the business community said this, it would make a big difference. So this is a moment. Let's see if the chamber really wants to prove that they are for climate change. Let's see. Let's see. If they don't, we ask their members who say they believe in climate--and who are even planning for the problems we face--to put pressure on them to do it. Let's hope. Let's hope.

Now, before I yield the floor, I just want to send a kudos--he reminded me that the word ``kudos'' is singular, not plural, which I did not know for all of my years here. Mr. President, I see by your reaction, you did not know either. It is a kudos. So let me gave a kudos to Sheldon Whitehouse's leadership on this issue. One of his many positive traits is he knows grammar and all of that much better than most of us, but one of his greater traits is how he has been relentless in pushing forward on climate and on pushing corporate America to do more.

I look forward to continuing to work with him to shed light on the role that Big Money plays in undermining climate policy, and I look forward to hearing from the chamber of commerce on what they have to say about the administration's latest attacks on climate science.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, too much of our conversation about migrants seeking to enter at the southern border has to do with what happens when they get here. Not enough of our conversation concerns how we deal with the problems in the countries from which the migrants are coming. Many of these migrants are fleeing vicious gang violence, corruption, domestic abuse, drug cartels, and economic hardships that are so severe that they would risk a journey of 1,000 miles on foot rather than to stay where they are.

We simply have to do more to help the countries from which these folks are coming to fix the problems that are causing their people to flee. That is getting at the root causes here, not at just putting on a bandaid after they get to the border, and that may be the most effective way to deal with the overall issue. Unfortunately and as usual, the Trump administration has done the opposite. Its policies are exacerbating the vicious conditions in these Central American countries.

President Trump has cut $450 million in security assistance to Central American countries and has provided no information about why the cuts have taken place and where the money will go. As usual, it seems it is sort of on a whim. He gets this idea in his head and spews it out without checking it and without explaining it even when it has the consequence he doesn't want, which is more people coming to our southern border.

Now what the President has proposed are tariffs on Mexico that would be massively destabilizing to our economy and theirs--a policy that will only lead to more migration. These whimsical and erratic proposals by the President that seem to pop into his head and with which he goes forward without

checking are making a mess of what is going on at the southern border.

So I would say to the President: There is a much better way to address the migration issue than with tariffs. Deal with the problems in the Central American countries that are causing the migration in the first place.

The Democrats have proposed legislation that would do just that--stem the tide of migrants and help to reduce the backlog of cases. How?

First, allow asylum seekers to apply for asylum in their home countries. If the people under all of this gang violence and viciousness and economic hardship would be able to apply for asylum in Honduras or in Guatemala or in El Salvador instead of having to take a dangerous and often expensive 1,000-mile trek, they would do it. Why don't we do that? Let's increase the number of immigration judges so there could be adjudication rather quickly, and let's build the capacity of Central American countries to crack down on the violent gangs and vicious drug cartels.

Our bill would provide $1.5 billion in security assistance to these countries, which is far more than the Trump administration has cut, but it is still nonsensical to have cut this money. This administration gets in its own way almost every day, but the solutions we proposed are the types we should debate.

So we are going to push forward with these proposals. Democrats will seek to add these policies to any package of border legislation that comes here before the Senate. If no legislation dealing with the border comes up, Democrats will seek to add security assistance for Central American countries to an appropriations bill and push for language that requires the administration to use it. This is so important that we will push hard in whatever vehicle we can find to move this proposal.

Again, all of these policies would have a far greater impact, with far less disruption, than slapping tariffs on one of our Nation's largest trading partners.

Now, frankly, I don't believe President Trump will actually go through with the tariffs. When he doesn't, we should be ready to proceed to these commonsense policies instead.

President Trump has a habit of talking tough and then retreating because his tough talk can't be implemented or doesn't make sense. President Trump has a habit of proposing asinine and dangerous policies before backing off, and President Trump has a habit of pretending that the very act of not following through on a misguided policy is somehow a victory. I wouldn't be surprised at all if President Trump didn't follow through on these tariffs either.

We Democrats have proposed a much better solution to the problems the President is talking about, and when the President backs off on tariffs, as I believe he will, this is a solution ready to go that can get bipartisan support that can actually stem the problems we have at our southern border.

100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment

Madam President, next, on the 19th Amendment anniversary, today we observe the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment by the U.S. Senate--a critical step in the long march for equality that began at the very founding of our country, when Abigail Adams importuned her husband to ``remember the ladies'' when drafting the Constitution, a reminder that fell on deaf ears. It was a march that gathered numbers and force at Seneca Falls, under the leadership of brave New Yorkers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and found expression in the abolitionist movement.

While that march for equality under the law achieved a great and long-overdue victory 100 years ago, it is still not over. We have a lot to do. Wearing the yellow rose is wonderful, but it is not enough.

When women in the workplace do 100 percent of the work but only earn 80 percent of the pay as a man in the same position, the march is not over.

When good legislation like the House-passed Violence Against Women Act to provide justice to survivors of domestic violence and stalking languishes in this Chamber in a legislative graveyard because the NRA is opposed to it, that march is not over.

When the States are passing laws making it harder for minorities to vote, when State parties gerrymander districts to limit minority representation, and when the Supreme Court pretends that discrimination no longer exists in this country and guts the Voting Rights Act, the march to equality and universal suffrage is not over.

Without universal suffrage, democracy is incomplete. That was the lesson of the women who organized, protested, and compelled their government to pass the 19th Amendment by the slimmest of margins. So let us not consider June 4 a day to look back with complacency and remark on our historical progress, but rather as a day to look forward and recognize what we still must achieve.

There is no shortage of good work we could take up here in the Senate--paycheck fairness, Violence Against Women Act, the Equality Act, voting rights, election reform--to make sure all Americans can enjoy the full blessings of liberty. These pieces of legislation have passed the House and ended up in the legislative graveyard of the Senate. I can think of no better way to honor the legacy of the suffragists than to continue their work on breaking down barriers and strengthening our democracy.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that last week we learned of the death of our friend and former colleague, Thad Cochran from Mississippi.

In nearly 40 years in office, Thad served with a fierceness and loyalty to Mississippi matched only by his sense of dignity and respect for his colleagues.

When his issues were on the line, Senator Cochran fought for Mississippi as hard as any Senator. He nurtured Mississippi's universities, schools, farms, hospitals, ports, and fishing industry. He was a champion of the poor and gave a voice to rural communities by expanding assistance for southern farmers. Perhaps it is fitting that he was first bitten by the political bug in his run for head cheerleader at Ole Miss because throughout his career and throughout his life, Thad never stopped being a cheerleader for Mississippi.

One thing I will never forget was Senator Cochran's graciousness after my State was hit by Hurricane Sandy. He knew, from his experience after Hurricane Katrina, just how devastating the damage can be and how difficult the recovery process can seem in the aftermath of a disaster. At a time when many of his colleagues who always voted for their regions but opposed Sandy because it was New York, Senator Cochran not only supported it but even made sure his team was available to give us guidance. I will never forget that. That is the kind of gentleman and fair-minded individual he was--something missing a lot around here.

In many ways, Thad Cochran was a model Senator. He understood this body's preference for cooperation, compromise, and congeniality almost intuitively. Even as the Senate has gone further away from those values, Senator Cochran held them close. That is just who he was. It made him a better Senator and a better man. We will miss him. I think all of us will. Our prayers go out today to his wife, Kay, his children, his loved ones, and his many friends.

Background Checks

Mr. President, on background checks, last Friday, another horrible mass shooting transformed a peaceful community in America into a place of tragedy. In Virginia Beach, a dozen people were killed, several others critically wounded, and thousands of Virginians left to mourn and pick up the pieces.

Today we grieve with the people of Virginia Beach, and we send our thanks to the brave police men and women who risked their lives to protect their neighbors. These tragedies leave scars that never go away on community after community that has suffered from it.

It has been less than a month since I spoke on the Senate floor after a shooting. That is the tragedy. It is less than 1 month that I had to come to the floor and speak on the tragedy of one shooting, and now we have another. The list of national tragedies is already too long. The names and places of mass

shootings and the victims of everyday gun violence are already too many--far too many to count.

So it is time, long past time to bring a bill to improve gun safety to the floor of the Senate. The House has already passed a bill to close loopholes in our background check system. It is common sense. It is bipartisan. More than 90 percent of Americans support closing these loopholes, including a majority of Republicans and a majority of gun owners. It is hard to defend the desire of felons, spousal abusers, and those adjudicated mentally ill to get firearms. In fact, those who oppose this kind of legislation don't defend it. They sort of slink away and hide figuratively, if not literally, under their desks on the Senate floor.

Why will Leader McConnell not allow background checks to get a vote or even a debate in the Senate? Why has Leader McConnell added this bipartisan legislation, that has already passed the House, to his legislative graveyard?

For too long, the gun lobby has reflexively opposed any gun safety reforms--the most benign and commonsense reforms like closing loopholes in our background checks--and for too long the Republican majority has marched in lockstep with them against the will of the American people and against the safety of the American people.

It is time for that to change. Leader McConnell should call a vote on universal background checks now. Nobody pretends it will stop every shooting, but if it could prevent even one more from happening, it deserves our consideration. Let's not delay any longer. Let's not cower before the NRA. Let's do the right thing that 90 percent of Americans want us to do.

Election Security

Mr. President, there is no principle more essential to democracy than the principle of free and fair elections. It is the very wellspring of our democracy. It is what the people at Bunker Hill, the farmers, put down their plows and took up muskets for--no taxation without representation, voting. Over the past 3 years, we have been reminded again and again how that very sacred wellspring of democracy, voting and fair elections, were attacked by a foreign power.

Mr. Mueller's press conference last week was only the latest reminder of the concerted campaign by Moscow to influence our elections in 2016. It was also a reminder of how much we have yet to do to secure our elections in the future. We included some--some only--but some funding for election security in last year's budget, but we have been blocked so far from providing much needed additional support in this year's budget.

We have bipartisan legislation to harden election infrastructure and sanction any foreign power that tries to interfere in our elections. That legislation is ready to go, but, once again, Mitch McConnell, self-described Grim Reaper, has refused to take it up--another tombstone in his legislative graveyard.

At the very least, the Senate should be briefed by our intelligence and law enforcement chiefs about the threat of election interference in the 2020 election so we can all be aware of the danger that FBI Director Wray already has pointed out.

On that front, I have some positive news. I have spoken to the Republican leader about that request. He has assured me we will have a briefing. We are still trying to sort out the timing of the briefing, but I urge that it take place as soon as possible during this work period so we can prepare new legislation that will go into effect at least a year before election day of 2020. By no means does a briefing replace all the other things we must do to protect our elections. It is necessary but not nearly sufficient. I hope when people go to this briefing, Members, Democrats and Republicans, they will see the danger and act.

How can we sit by? We are a great power. To sit by with our arms folded, while Russia or China or Iran or some other country, North Korea, tries to interfere in our elections--that is not what a great power does. It protects itself and its people, especially when it comes to something so vital as elections.

I hope we have this briefing quickly. I hope it reignites a desire on both sides of the aisle to move legislation, increase funding, and do what is necessary to protect our democracy.

Border Security

Mr. President, on the border, since the outset, the Trump administration's policy at our southern border has been chaotic, ineffective and, in many cases, inhumane. One of the most fundamentally misguided elements of the Trump administration's policy is how it has approached the root causes of the migration because, while the President complains loudly about the number of refugees and migrants at our border, his administration has made a few of the root causes of this migration more severe.

One of the principal ways we could address the surge on migrants is by helping improve conditions in their own countries. Most of them are fleeing violence or a huge economic hardship, so they feel it is better to travel thousands of miles of dangers, maybe in the hands of coyotes, than stay home. By cracking down on gang violence and drug trafficking back in their home countries, we could reduce the flow of immigrants at our southern border.

No one can understand--so confounded--why, in late March, the President announced he would be cutting off security assistance to Central American countries to address these very issues. The President cut his nose to spite his face. He made the problem worse by cutting off these dollars.

The administration has provided virtually no information about the rationale for these cuts--$450 million. It is a completely self- inflicted wound to our national security that makes the problem the President complains about worse, not better. It is almost as if the President is intentionally trying to add fuel to the fire, to fabricate a crisis, and to create, post hoc, a justification for a baseless emergency declaration he made months ago.

I don't think many Americans would say cutting funding to help Central American countries stop migration is a responsible policy, and that is why we Democrats have proposed just the opposite. We propose to actually get at the root cause of migration by allowing asylum seekers to apply for asylum in their home countries, not at our southern border, by increasing the number of judges to process the cases at the border, and by helping Central American countries crack down on gang violence in the city's drug cartels. In fact, our bill authorizes $1.5 billion in security assistance to the Northern Triangle to do just that, far and above what the administration has just cut.

The policies the administration pursues make no sense whatsoever. They seem vindictive, they seem done at the moment, and they seem totally not thought through. We are proposing policies that will address the real issues here, and Democrats will push for them in any legislation that deals with border policy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, there is a lot of partisan squabbling that goes on around here. We all know that. Some of it is to be expected. After all, our parties have real disagreements about policy and the direction in which we think the country should go.

But there are a few issues that are too important to get caught up in the typical partisan back-and-forth--a few fundamental responsibilities that we must fulfill as a governing body.

One of those responsibilities where there has always been bipartisan agreement has been disaster relief. Hurricanes, fires, and floods don't hit only Republicans or only Democrats. They hit Americans of all stripes. We must come together to provide relief for everybody.

After holding up disaster relief on behalf of the President, who demanded we shortchange Puerto Rico, Republicans finally came around a few weeks ago and agreed with a disaster relief bill that would provide relief to everyone.

Let me repeat. We have an agreement right now on where and how to provide relief for Americans in the Midwest, in the South, in the West, and in the Territories. Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy have worked in good faith to reach that compromise. The House will accept it. Chairman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger also have agreed to this disaster relief package. So there is a package of disaster relief that is ready to go.

Unfortunately, that agreement has become entangled with extraneous issues. However important these other issues may be, we have an obligation to get this disaster relief package over the finish line before the congressional Memorial Day work period.

Ranking Member Leahy and I would like to make it clear to my friend the

Republican leader that Senate Democrats are ready to pass the bipartisan disaster relief package that has already been agreed to and written.

We should leave out extraneous issues. There are many. Everyone wants to put in their own thing. Leave them for another day.

Democrats are willing to work hard to expedite consideration of that agreement. We are ready to work with our Republican colleagues to pass it as quickly as possible.

I understand that there is some discussion going on in the House, but if we can't come to an agreement this morning on the extraneous issues that the House is discussing, we should set those issues to the side. We should pass the disaster agreement as is and return to those unrelated issues at a later date. The people of the Midwest, of the South, of the West, and of the Territories have waited long enough. They have waited long enough.

There are millions of Americans still recovering from having their homes destroyed, their crops devastated, their property burnt. They have waited for relief for too long already. They are clamoring for it. They have said to Congress: Put aside your differences and get something done. The plan that I outlined will do just that--put aside the differences and get something done.

Whether it is the President or Members of the House or Senate-- Democrat or Republican--who want to add extraneous issues, step aside at least for this time. Let's get it done. Let's not delay any longer.

Madam President, on infrastructure, yesterday, as everyone knows, Speaker Pelosi and I met with the President and a group of other Senators and Congress Members to discuss the prospects for a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

We went to the meeting with high hopes. The President, 3 weeks earlier, had said he would be willing to do a $2 trillion infrastructure bill and tell us how we would pay for it. Unfortunately, it was a very short meeting. The President walked out after a few minutes with the paltry excuse that he would not work to get things done for Americans unless Congress abdicated its constitutional duty to provide oversight of the executive branch.

His motives were transparent. He knows darn well that these investigations should and will go forward. He had nothing to say on infrastructure. It was typical of the President. He boasts that he wants to do something and then has no followthrough. This administration has become an erratic, helter-skelter, get-nothing-done administration. Even on infrastructure, where there is usually bipartisan agreement, he couldn't even come to the table and talk. He had to throw a temper tantrum and walk out.

Presidents throughout our history have worked with the other party while being investigated. They know--every President knows--it is a fact that Congress will do oversight. Some of it will not be pleasant for any President. President Obama didn't like oversight; President Bush didn't like oversight; President Clinton didn't like oversight; President H.W. Bush didn't like oversight; President Reagan didn't like oversight. But none of them, Democrat or Republican, said: I am going to stop the government from functioning. I am going to refuse to help hundreds of millions of Americans who need help in one way or another because I don't like Congress fulfilling its constitutional responsibility.

The bottom line is simple. The President was merely looking for any excuse, however inelegant, however transparent, to wriggle out of working with Democrats on a much needed infrastructure bill.

Nothing about yesterday's meeting at the White House changes the fact that we have serious infrastructure demands in our country. Nothing about yesterday's meeting changes the fact that a substantial investment in infrastructure can boost our economy, put millions of Americans to work, create green jobs and green energy sources, and meet the ever-growing demands of the new 21st century.

We came to the meeting with the President with serious intentions to work with him on a large bipartisan bill. He had asked the night before in his letter where we wanted to put the money. I brought to him a 35- page proposal with ideas on how to craft one. We talked about what needs to be done: repairing and rebuilding our old roads and bridges, water and sewer, building a power grid so that we can bring clean energy from the parts of the country blessed with wind and sun to other parts of the country in need of energy, dealing with infrastructure in a way that creates broadband for all of the rural and inner city homes that don't have it, creating green jobs, encouraging electric and other kinds of vehicles that will reduce the output of carbon into the air, and creating much more energy-efficient homes and schools.

There are many demands. It was a comprehensive proposal. The President might not agree with all of it, but we were there, prepared to roll up our sleeves, work, and come up with a plan.

Unfortunately, the President had no plan. Despite his promise 3 weeks earlier that he would have a plan, he had none. Two nights before, he had said: Well, let's not discuss infrastructure until we discuss USMCA and NAFTA. Then, that morning, he didn't even take a seat. He stood up, obviously agitated, and said that the investigations were wrong and stalked out.

We left the meeting disappointed in both the President's decision and demeanor. But America can be assured that Democrats will try to find ways to move the ball forward on this important issue of roads, bridges, broadband, and power--with or without the President.

Democrats believe in infrastructure, plain and simple. We believe that our infrastructure is an urgent priority of the country and this Congress. We believe we need to rebuild existing infrastructure--the roads, bridges, ports, and sewers. We need to build the infrastructure of tomorrow, such as wind, solar, a new power grid, and broadband for rural and inner city America.

We believe our next investment in infrastructure must be substantial. We believe we can pay for it without asking the middle class to shoulder the burden.

We believe a new 21st century infrastructure program is one of the very best ways to create millions of long-term, good-paying jobs, to boost our economy, and to help combat climate change.

So I say to my Republican colleagues in the Senate: Despite the President's unwillingness to work on anything that benefits the American people, according to him, let's move forward on an infrastructure bill. Let's put together a large, strong, well-funded, and clean infrastructure bill.

Members of both sides should want the opportunity to work on something that will benefit every constituency in every State in America. Members should want to tell the American people that they are working to bring jobs to their States, broadband to rural and underserved urban communities, to work together to improve the economy and the environment with a clean, green infrastructure bill. There is no reason why the Senate should not pursue a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Congress has taken the lead before. Congress can take the lead again, no matter what the President does. Just because President Trump doesn't want to lead doesn't mean that our work on infrastructure is over--not by a long shot.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.