Floor Statements

Mr. President, on another note, I listened with great interest as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Rhode Island, spoke about Iran and the challenges we face there. I agree with some and maybe even most of what he had to say.

The American people were appalled when, last week, Iran took down an unmanned American aircraft over international waters. As the Senator said, ordinarily, Iran operates by proxies or by third parties, whether it is the Shia militia in Iraq or Hezbollah or one of their other terrorist proxies like those operating in Yemen, the Houthis. But Iran escalated its attack against the United States by shooting an unmanned drone flying over international waters, so it was quite a shocking move from that standpoint, even from a nation as untethered as Iran.

Iran has been engaged in a 30-year conflict with the United States, one that has resulted in the death of U.S. servicemembers in Iraq and elsewhere--victims of explosively formed penetrators and other training that the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, their Quds Force, their Special Operations force--the training they gave to terrorists operating in Iraq to kill Americans.

Then there is the periodic harassment of American and other international vessels operating in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow strait through which a huge portion of the world's energy supplies flow. So this is, in some ways, an escalation of what has been a 30- year conflict between Iran and the United States.

Tehran has waged acts of aggression against the United States and our allies. It has exported terrorism around the globe. It is the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism, and it has engaged in gross human rights violations against its own people.

As I indicated, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, is the loyal henchman responsible for leading these acts. It is a branch of Iran's Armed Forces which tries to squash democracy movements at home and abroad by pushing its extreme ideology beyond Iran's borders.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps wields vast power and influence and uses its capabilities to encourage turmoil and conflict and violence throughout the Middle East. It funds arms, training, and foot soldiers to the terrorist groups that spread their radical ideology.

While the terrorist activities alone are enough to cause concern, the IRGC is also in control of Iran's ballistic missile program, which unfortunately has only accelerated under the previous administration's deeply flawed nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA. Once

we saw the details of that deal in 2015, it quickly became clear that it was not much of a deal at all. If the goal is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon--well, it obviously failed in that goal.

As the majority leader said at the time, it ``appears to fall well short of the goal we all thought was trying to be achieved, which was that Iran would not be a nuclear state.''

Despite the restrictions it would impose, the deal would leave Iran with a vast nuclear program and allow it to continue to conduct research and development on advanced centrifuges and building intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Perhaps worse, the nuclear deal would lift those restrictions in a decade. In other words, it was 2015 when the JCPOA was signed by the relevant parties. So by postponing Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon, we are already half of the way there almost. It is no wonder that then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an address to Congress in March of 2015 and said the JCPOA ``doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.'' That certainly seems to be the case. We have seen Iran violate the nuclear deal and U.N. resolutions time after time, and it is clear that their resolve to create nuclear weapons remains their highest priority.

Just a year ago, President Trump announced the United States would pull out of the nuclear deal, a decision I strongly supported. Even at the time Secretary Kerry, the Secretary of State, admitted that the tens of billions of dollars the United States released to go to Iran would be used to fund their terrorist activities, he supported it nonetheless. He supported it even though it paved the way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon 10 years after the JCPOA was signed.

Since the Trump administration has withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has taken resolute action against Iran, including stronger sanctions on entities and individuals and the designation of the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, which it clearly is. Somehow, though, despite the unprovoked attacks, flagrant violations of international agreements, and human rights violations, some of our friends on the left and the mainstream media have grossly mischaracterized the situation and have somehow managed to point the finger at the Trump administration for starting the fight in the first place. They want to blame America, and they want to blame this administration.

Let me be clear. Iran is the aggressor. Their history as the chief mischief-maker in the Middle East began long before President Trump took office, so don't lay this at his feet. From the Iran hostage crisis to their outright support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, to this latest strike at a U.S. aircraft, something they admitted--they said: We did it--their actions at every turn have demonstrated a desire not only to escalate the conflict with the United States and our interests and allies but to spread their violent extremism without regard for anyone else.

I have to say it has been 74 years since a nuclear weapon was exploded during World War II, and I hope and pray there is never again a nuclear weapon exploded on our planet, but can you imagine Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism, getting a nuclear weapon? We can never ever allow that to happen.

This last week marked the 23rd anniversary of a notable episode in Iran's sad history of terrorism. That was the 23rd anniversary of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In 1996, a truck bomb was detonated adjacent to a building housing members of the U.S. Air Force's 4404th Wing, killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel and a Saudi local and wounding 498 others.

If Tehran expects to continue exporting terrorism and violence around the world without a response from the United States and our allies, they are sorely mistaken.

If Iran can continue to escalate with no response from the United States or our allies, they are going to continue to escalate as much as they can, which I think is more dangerous than a proportional U.S. response to what happened in the Strait of Hormuz.

The President has opted for hard-hitting sanctions, which I think are a good start. Those sanctions announced by the administration earlier this week represent an appropriate response to the Iranian escalation consistent with President Trump's maximum pressure strategy on Iran. These sanctions will deny the Supreme Leader, the Supreme Leader's office, and close affiliates access to resources they need to finance their rogue regime. There is no benefit--in the interest of peace--to applying anything less than maximum pressure on Iran to change their behavior. The tentacles of the IRGC run deep into their economy, and these sanctions will prevent them from amassing even greater power to develop sophisticated weapons.

We have seen reports that the economic challenges they are encountering as a result of the sanctions already in place are making it harder for them to finance their terrorist operations through their proxy.

The actions taken by Iran show that they are feeling the squeeze of these sanctions, and they know exactly what they need to do before they can get relief. As Secretary of State Pompeo said, ``When the Iranian regime decides to forgo violence and meet our diplomacy with diplomacy, it knows how to reach us.''

I sincerely hope to see the day when the Iranian people can live without fear, when their government respects its own citizens and international allies and lives by international norms and finally decides to forgo its nuclear weapons. Until that day comes, I hope our allies will stand with us in confronting the tyrants in Iran and doing everything in our power to push back against the world's largest state sponsor of terror.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last night the House of Representatives passed a funding bill that would provide $4.5 billion in emergency funding to Departments and Agencies working to manage the humanitarian crisis on the southern border. I would note it has been 2 months--2 months since President Trump requested that emergency appropriations bill. In the meantime, there have been many who have talked about the overwhelmed capacity at the border and the unhygienic conditions in which some of the migrants were being held, but frankly they seem to ignore the cause of that problem, pointing mainly to the symptoms-- actually, symptoms of their own inaction.

If we had simply acted more promptly, I think many of the problems we have seen along the border, where families and unaccompanied children are being detained and processed according to U.S. law--we could have avoided that. But, instead, the politics seemed to overcome good sense here in Washington once again, and rather than appropriate the money, as the President requested 2 months ago, to provide the resources they need in order to deal with this crisis, it just got worse and worse.

Of course these terrible pictures of people that we have seen, which are really hard to look at, showed the hardships being borne by some of these migrants. Indeed, some have lost their lives. People seem to have forgotten why people make the dangerous trip across Central America, across Mexico, and into the United States, and that is simply because they are taking advantage of congressional inaction when it comes to fixing loopholes in our asylum laws, which, if corrected, would provide an opportunity for people to claim asylum in a safer, more orderly way. It would also make sure they would not have to die in the process of making that terrible trip from Central America, across Mexico, and into the United States.

The House bill number matches our bill here in the Senate, but the contents of the bills are quite different. The Speaker of the House has been working furiously this week to get Members on board, taking the bill further and further to the left with each revision.

House Democrats have now rammed through a bill that withholds desperately needed funds from detention centers that are nearly bursting at the seams and creates overly burdensome and prohibitive regulations.

The House bill excludes funding for the Department of Defense as requested by the President, underfunds the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, and doesn't provide funding for new immigration judge teams to address the significant court backlog.

Just as an example of how far the bill goes, there is a section that requires a specific type of exercise for unaccompanied children in custody. That is the kind of micromanaging that the House of Representatives has included in their bill. It is inadequate by any measure. It ignores the most pressing funding needs and instead opts for federally mandated exercise. You literally can't make this stuff up.

This isn't an effort to solve the problem or the result of conversations that folks are having with the Agencies that are crumbling under the weight of this humanitarian crisis. It is simply a partisan messaging document worth no more than the paper that it is written on.

I would add that it stands in stark contrast to the bipartisan bill we are considering here in the Senate. It enjoys broad support. Indeed, it came out of the Senate Appropriations Committee 30 to 1. It represents a compromise and a good-faith effort to bring relief to those working to manage the crisis. Even the Speaker herself described the bill to her caucus as a good bill. So the House has wasted valuable time passing a bill that stands no chance of passing in the Senate and the President has already made clear that he would veto it if it did.

I hope we will be able to move quickly to pass the bipartisan Senate bill. I urge our House Members to come to the negotiating table with reasonable goals in mind.

Mr. President, I might add in closing some remarks about the Defense authorization bill, which we will be voting on today or tomorrow.

This is one of the most important functions that Congress has to support our men and women in uniform. If you look at the list of Federal priorities, certainly national security and defense ought to be at the very top. That is why, for the last 58 years running, Congress has passed a Defense authorization bill.

Yet our colleague from New Mexico has now introduced an extraneous matter that involves a recent aggressive contact by Iran and is insisting on a vote on that. Actually, they want to delay the vote until Friday when the Presidential candidates who are running and debating in Miami tonight and tomorrow night can get back to vote. I see no reason for us to delay the vote on the Defense authorization bill for those folks who have chosen instead not to do their job here but rather to run for President.

We have an important job to do here. I see no reason for the delay. The majority leader has made it clear that he is happy to give the Senator from New Mexico a vote on this authorization for use of military force, that, frankly, I don't believe is necessary, but nevertheless, the majority leader has generously offered a vote on that. We ought to be voting on that today or tomorrow and not unnecessarily delay our work until Friday just to accommodate the Presidential candidates.

I would say that the Senator from New Mexico's amendment would attempt to put handcuffs on this President unlike any previous President, and, indeed, I believe it is probably unconstitutional. It would impair our ability to respond to further attacks by Tehran and in a way that would make them think that we were weak or irresolute in responding to their aggression. The most important thing we can do is to make clear to the Iranian regime that their aggression will not be unilateral but that we will meet it with proportional and devastating response.

No one wants to go to war in Iran, including the President of the United States. I don't believe Iran actually wants to go to war, but they are continuing their 30-year conflict with the United States, which has cost American lives and American treasury and now threatens to block the Strait of Hormuz, which would cause a huge disruption to the world economy.

I hope we can vote on the National Defense Authorization Act. I am happy to vote on the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. I do not believe it will pass, and I do believe it is unconstitutional if it did. But in order to get our work done, we need to continue to vote and vote on the Defense authorization bill and the border supplemental without further delay.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.

Madam President, yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to proceed to the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 86 to 6. That is about as overwhelming a bipartisan vote as we have had lately, and it is for good reason. This bill represents one of our most fundamental duties as the U.S. Congress, which is to authorize military expenditures and to provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need in order to protect the American people.

The Defense authorization bill would authorize funding for the Department of Defense to carry out its most vital missions, as well as support our alliances around the world and improve the quality of life for our servicemembers, including the largest pay raise in a decade. All of us have long understood the importance of passing this legislation each year, which is why for the past 58 years we have passed the Defense authorization bill each of those years without delay. The bill, of course, has gained broad bipartisan support in the Armed Services Committee and in the first procedural vote yesterday evening, but that doesn't mean that our colleagues across the aisle aren't eyeing it as the latest target for their obstructionist tactics.

We are hearing that our Democratic friends are actually threatening to filibuster this legislation in an attempt to force a vote on Iran, but this is really just a subterfuge. I don't buy it. In reality, the Democratic leader has urged the majority leader not to hold a vote on the Defense authorization bill this week because so many of his Members are running for President and need to be at the debate in Miami. He said the Senate should wait to have the vote until the full body is present. He said there is no rush to complete the National Defense Authorization Act. Just to translate, the minority leader wants the rest of us to stop working so that the Democrat Senators who are running for President can prepare for the debate in Miami instead of being here in Washington and doing their job. Instead of doing that, they want to audition for their next job--or so they hope. Well, the minority leader thinks we should delay giving our military families a pay raise so his Members can campaign for President. That is one of the more galling things I have ever heard proposed across the aisle.

The demand for a vote in relation to Iran is a smokescreen. It is a tactic being used to cover up for their colleagues who don't want to miss yet another vote. In the first 6 months of this year alone, Senate Democrats have played politics with nominees for important positions throughout the Federal Government and with border security funding in the midst of a humanitarian and security crisis that is occurring at the border. They dragged their feet on Middle East policy bills and now, apparently, on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Our constituents sent us here to Washington to cast votes--yes or no--on bills that shape our country and, in this case, strengthen our Nation's military. We should not tolerate the political ambitions of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take precedence over the men and women who serve us in the military. Their priorities may be elsewhere, but the rest of us are not buying it. It is appalling, and we will not let it happen.

Prescription Drug Costs

Madam President, on another matter, I recently heard from one of my constituents in San Antonio about her growing concern with rising drug prices. She wrote to me:

I personally haven't had to make the choice yet between

making my mortgage or getting a drug I need or my family

needs, but I know the day is coming. It's not a matter of if

it will happen, but when for all of us in America.

She is certainly not alone. Countless Texans have conveyed to me their concerns about rising drug costs, and one man even told me that he and his wife feel like their health is being held ransom. Across the country more and more people are struggling to pay their out-of-pocket costs for their prescription drugs and are weighing financial decisions that no family should be forced to make.

Now, the good news is there is bipartisan agreement here in Congress--somewhat of a rarity these days--that something must be done to reel in these skyrocketing costs and to protect patients who are being taken advantage of by some pharmaceutical companies. We have spent a lot of time looking at this issue on both the Judiciary Committee and the Finance Committee, on which I sit, as well as the HELP Committee, which is also working on legislation to lower out-of- pocket healthcare costs.

When it comes to drug prices, we know that the high cost frequently is not the result of the necessary sunk cost for research and development of an innovative drug or a labor-intensive production process or scarce supply. The high cost frequently is because major players in the healthcare industry are driving up prices to increase their bottom line.

Later this week, the Judiciary Committee will hold a markup to consider some of the proposals by members of the committee to address this kind of behavior. One of the bills we will consider was introduced by Senators Grassley and Cantwell. It would require the Federal Trade Commission to look at the role of pharmacy benefit managers, which play an important--albeit an elusive part--in the pharmaceutical supply chain.

Another bill we will be reviewing has been introduced by Senators Klobuchar and Grassley and would combat branded pharmaceutical companies' ability to interfere with the regulatory approval of generic competitors.

I am glad we will also have a chance to consider a bill I introduced with my colleague Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. That bill takes aim at two practices often deployed by pharmaceutical companies to crowd out competition and protect their bottom line. Now, this bill, importantly, will not stymie innovation, and it will not punish those who rightfully gained exclusive production rights for a drug. That is what our patent system is designed to do. Those are two false arguments being pushed by opponents to my bill, though, and, believe me, there are many. The bill is designed, rather, to stop the bad actors who abuse our laws and effectively create a monopoly. Most drug companies don't fall into that category, but some definitely do.

First, the bill targets a practice called product hopping. When a company is about to lose exclusivity of a drug because their patent is going to expire, they often develop some sort of minor reformulation and then yank the original product off the market. That prevents generic competitors from entering the market. One example was the drug Namenda, which is used by patients with Alzheimer's. Near the end of the exclusivity period, the manufacturer switched from a twice daily drug to a once daily drug. That move prevented pharmacists from being able to switch patients to a lower cost generic and gave the company an unprecedented 14 additional years of exclusivity. Now, don't get me wrong. There are often legitimate changes that warrant a new patent, but too frequently we are seeing this deployed as a strategy to box out generic competition.

By defining product hopping as anticompetitive behavior, the Federal Trade Commission would be able to take action against those who engage in this practice. It is an important way to prevent companies from gaming the patent system and patients from carrying the cost of that corporate greed.

Our country thankfully is the leader in pharmaceutical innovation. None of us wants to change that, and that is partly because we offer robust protections for intellectual property. Sadly, though, some companies are taking advantage of those innovation protections in order to maintain their monopoly as long as possible. Our bill would target this practice, known as patent thicketing, by limiting patents companies can use to keep their competitors away. One famous example is the drug HUMIRA, which, as I understand, is the most commonly prescribed drug in the world. It is used to treat arthritis and a number of other conditions. AbbVie, the manufacturer of HUMIRA, has 136 patents on the

drug and 247 patent applications. This drug has been available now for more than 15 years. This type of behavior makes it difficult for biosimilar manufacturers to bring a new product to market to compete with that drug and thus bring down the price for consumers.

In the case of HUMIRA, multiple biosimilars have been FDA-approved and available since last year, but the vast array of patents obtained by AbbVie prevent any competition from entering the market until 2023. This artificial structuring delays market entry years past the exclusivity period the law originally intended to grant. While the patent on the actual drug formula may have expired, there are still, in this case, hundreds of other patents that have to be sorted through.

Our legislation would seek to end patent gaming that leads to high cost for consumers. Companies use these patents to extend litigation against would-be competitors. That process is lengthy, complex, and expensive. So by limiting the number of patents these companies can use and preventing this sort of gamesmanship, our bill would simplify the litigation process so companies are spending less time in the courtroom and, hopefully, more time in the laboratories, innovating new disease- curing, life-extending drugs. Competitors would be able to resolve patent issues faster and bring their drugs to market sooner. Better competition, which is our goal, creates a better product at a lower price for patients.

What my bill and those that we will be considering in the Judiciary Committee this week have in common is that they seek to prevent bad actors from gaming the system to exploit patients for profit. Since Senator Blumenthal and I introduced this bill, we have received valuable feedback from our colleagues in the Senate, as well as from folks at the Federal Trade Commission, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Food and Drug Administration, and many stakeholders. Their input has helped us make adjustments to ensure our bill will effectively carry out our goal, which is to reduce drug prices without hampering innovation or creating overly burdensome regulations. We are finalizing our revised bill, and we will introduce it soon.

The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act will stop pharmaceutical companies from deploying defensive strategies to monopolize prescription drug patents and ensure that our healthcare system works for, not against, the American people.

I appreciate our colleagues in the Senate, especially Chairman Alexander of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; Chairman Grassley, who is chairman of the Finance Committee; and Chairman Graham, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who continue to work with us to increase competition and bring down healthcare costs for patients across the country. I look forward to our markup on these bills later this week.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in virtually every aspect of our lives, technology and innovation have made jobs simpler and made us much more efficient. You can easily track your appointments, hail a ride, or even change the temperature of your house from your smartphone. You can broaden the reach of your small business, use fundraising platforms to raise money for a cause you care about, and easily stay connected with friends and family around the globe. But for all the ways these innovations have made our daily life easier, they have also created an array of security challenges.

We are all familiar with the high-profile hacking targeting customer financial data and personal information. To be sure, it is scary, but nowhere is the threat of this hyperinnovation more terrifying than on the national security front.

The challenges we confront today look different from those 100, 50, or even 5 years ago. We are seeing new technologies used in the battlefield, like drones, and the race to develop next-generation hypersonic missiles. Top military officials, including ADM Gary Roughead, cochair of the Commission on National Defense Strategy, have voiced their concerns about our ability as a nation to confront these rapidly evolving threats. Admiral Roughead told Congress: ``We are operating a force today that was last modernized in the 1980s.''

That is unacceptable. We cannot send our men and women in uniform into battle to defend our freedom at a disadvantage or allow these rapidly changing threats to outpace our ability to respond. Our military should never be fighting next-generation wars with last- generation weapons and equipment.

Of course, the goal is not to have to fight any wars but to maintain the peace through a superior military over any of our potential adversaries. We must continue to invest in military modernization, which is why we need to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that is presently before the Senate.

This bill invests in cutting-edge technology to protect our military's combat advantage, including to promote 5G networks, the hypersonic weapons that we need to develop to maintain parity--at least, with our adversaries--and artificial intelligence.

It also invests in nuclear weapons modernization, something I spoke about on the floor just this last week. As our adversaries continue to develop the use of their nuclear arsenal, maintaining a safe and strong nuclear deterrent is the key to preventing nuclear war and keeping our adversaries in check.

This year's Defense authorization bill also takes major steps to improve the quality of life for our troops and their families. America's 2.1 million servicemembers have made a commitment that few are willing to make and have joined the ranks of America's heroes who have defended our great country throughout our history.

This bill will provide a modest 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops--the largest increase in a decade. I hope it will also include a provision that I have introduced to support our servicemembers during life after the military.

Occasionally, when veterans fall on hard times, their disability benefits can be counted as income in bankruptcy court. That is not the case for their civilian counterparts with their Social Security disability, and it is unacceptable to me that a civilian with disability benefits would get better treatment in bankruptcy court than a veteran. To fix this issue, I have introduced a bill with Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, called the Honoring American Veterans in Extreme Need Act, or the HAVEN Act. This bill would shield VA and Department of Defense disability benefits in the same way that Social Security disability is currently exempted.

Veterans should not be penalized fo receiving the disability compensation they have earned, and I hope this provision will be included in the Defense authorization bill, which we should soon be able to vote on.

Passing this bill is not only important to the safety of our Nation, but it is important for global security as well. It supports programs and policies that will strengthen existing alliances and promote new ones.

I am hopeful that the final version of this bill will include a provision I have introduced to enhance our relationship with India. In 2016 the United States designated India as a major defense partner, which seeks to elevate our defense partnership with India to the same level as that of our closest allies.

Since then, we have taken a number of steps to strengthen our defense relationship, such as establishing ministerial dialogue, increasing arms sales to India, and the first U.S.-India tri-service exercise later this year.

As cochair of the Senate India Caucus, I continue to advocate for policies that strengthen our ties with India, both militarily and otherwise. I introduced legislation that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on U.S.-India defense cooperation in the Western Indian Ocean within 180 days of enactment. This will allow us to get a clearer picture of current military activities and will enable the Secretary to enter into military cooperation agreements and conduct regular joint military training and operations with India in the Western Indian Ocean.

Including this provision in the National Defense Authorization Act would be a major step to bolster U.S.-India ties and strengthen our alliance. It is only fitting for the world's oldest democracy and the world's largest democracy to continue to work more and more closely together.

As we work to counter increasingly sophisticated adversaries around the world, passing the Defense authorization bill this week could not be more important. This legislation is integral to ensuring that our military is resourced and trained and ready for action when called upon.

That is why for more than 50 years, Congress has made passing the Defense authorization bill an annual priority. Funding our men and women in uniform who are fighting and facing unprecedented threats around the world on our behalf is a no-brainer. I look forward to voting to support the NDAA later this week, and I want to thank Chairman Inhofe and the ranking member, Senator Reed, for working to get this bill passed with broad bipartisan support, as well as thank the Senate Armed Services Committee for working to get this bill to this point and bringing it to the floor in a broad, bipartisan way.

This bill provides our military men and women the resources and equipment they need to defend our country and later transition back into civilian life. It restores our combat advantage by promoting military modernization. It strengthens and builds alliances around the globe. Above all, it sends a message to the entire world that our country is and will remain the global military leader.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 p.m. today the Senate vote on the confirmation of the Baranwal nomination, with all other provisions under the previous order remaining in effect.

Madam President, yesterday I had a chance to sit down with a group of my constituents visiting DC from the Rio Grande Valley. For those who have never been to the Rio Grande Valley, I highly recommend a visit. It is a beautiful region, a unique part of our country, rich in culture and history and full of hard-working people and businesses that fuel our State's and the Nation's thriving economy. As record numbers of people continue to mass migrate across our southern border, it has become one of the most heavily impacted areas in our country, and it is working hard to manage the growing humanitarian crisis.

Last month alone, 144,000 people were detained coming across our border. It was the largest monthly total since 2006. It only begins to paint the picture of how challenging this mass migration has become. The vast majority of the people who crossed last month were either unaccompanied children or families, putting a strain on resources across the border, particularly when it comes to detention facilities.

It is no mistake that the human smugglers, whom we call coyotes back home, have figured out that if you can smuggle an unaccompanied child or family across the border, you vastly improve the chances of successfully placing them in the United States. That is because they understand our laws better than many Members of Congress do, and they know how to exploit them for their financial gain.

The detention facilities I referred to a moment ago have been around a long time--long before the current surge of families and children began arriving at our borders. They were built as short-term detention facilities for single adults. As trends have changed, the men and women of Customs and Border Protection have done everything in their power to make these facilities workable on an increasingly thin and inadequate budget.

I want to pause for a moment to say thank you to the men and women in uniform who are providing around-the-clock enforcement of our laws and providing quality and compassionate care to the migrants in their custody. It is a tough job. When you train to be a Customs and Border Patrol agent, you are not trained in child care, but that is what many of them find themselves doing--handing out juice boxes and diapers and providing assistance to those families as they seek to have their claims for asylum adjudicated.

This is a tough job, and it is getting tougher every day, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley and along the border. Of the 144,000 crossings last month, nearly 50,000 were apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley, making it the most heavily impacted of the entire border.

In fact, it should come as no surprise that Texas is impacted more than any other State because, of course, we share a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico. Two-thirds of the apprehensions so far this fiscal year have occurred in the Rio Grande Valley, El Paso, or Del Rio sectors. As Federal resources have rapidly depleted, Customs and Border Protection officers and agents have struggled to manage the processing, care, and transportation of these migrants, and local communities, it should be no surprise, have stepped in.

The Humanitarian Respite Center in McAllen is one of several locations working to care for the migrants and has had its doors open for 5 years now. In the summer of 2014, we saw then-unprecedented numbers of Central Americans, particularly children, arriving at the border. This was back when President Obama called this a ``humanitarian and security crisis.'' The scenes were heartbreaking and spurred many folks to action to try to offer their help.

Sister Norma Pimentel is the executive director of Catholic Charities in the Rio Grande Valley and led the creation of this respite center. Migrants who are released by CBP or ICE and are awaiting a court date are often dropped off at the center by officers or agents themselves. There they can get food, a hot shower, a good night's sleep, and travel to wherever they are going to await their court date.

There is certainly a need for this type of assistance under the circumstances, and it has been in existence only 5 years. The respite center has helped more than 150,000 people and continues its work as more people cross the border each day.

The number of unaccompanied children who illegally entered the United States last month is higher than in any other month since the 2014 surge that I mentioned a moment ago. The weight felt by those trying to provide assistance is getting heavier and heavier. As Federal resources dwindle, local communities in the Rio Grande Valley and along the entire Texas-Mexico border have been filling the gaps, despite the fact that, obviously, immigration and the sovereignty of our borders are Federal responsibilities. In the absence of Federal response, it is the State and local communities that have had to step up to help.

Like the respite center in McAllen, these communities regularly provide care, transportation, food, and shelter for migrants in need. I believe this generosity shows the true Texas spirit and helps illustrate how serious the problem has become and how desperately additional Federal resources are needed.

Thankfully, yesterday the Appropriations Committee took action. The committee announced an agreement on a border supplemental package that will include humanitarian assistance needed at the border. The nearly $4.6 billion includes funding to support the missions of the Department of Health and Human Services, which is providing care for the record number of unaccompanied children who are arriving in the United States. It also provides funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which is working to enforce our laws and properly care for the adults and families in their custody, as well as the Departments of Justice and Defense. The hard-working men and women in these Departments are working tirelessly to care for the migrants in their custody, and I want to thank each of them for working day in and day out to enforce our laws. But, as I mentioned, these are not the only folks trying to provide support with minimal support from the U.S. Government.

Earlier this month I sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Homeland Security Subcommittee, requesting that the funding package include reimbursement for local communities that helped carry the weight of the humanitarian crisis. NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, like the respite center in McAllen are trying to do more and more with less and less. Cities and counties are diverting hard-to-come-by taxpayer dollars from their intended purposes, such as public safety, power, and clean drinking water, to do the job that is the responsibility of the Federal Government. It is unfair for these folks to pay for a humanitarian crisis that is not of their making. I am glad to see the Appropriations Committee taking some action to right this wrong.

The funding agreement yesterday includes $30 million available nationwide for direct reimbursement for local governments, States, and NGOs that have spent millions of dollars to respond to this crisis. Communities, both along the border and throughout the State of Texas, will be able to request reimbursement directly through local and national boards of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program at the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help lessen the financial burden they have incurred over the past few months.

I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and all of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for supporting this effort to help alleviate this strain on Texas communities. The funding bill received broad bipartisan support in the committee and passed by a vote of 30 to 1. I hope we will soon have the opportunity to pass this important funding bill here in the Senate. I encourage our friends in the House to put politics aside and do the same.

As happy as I am that the appropriations committee has come up with this additional money, this is still a matter of treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause. President Trump, in his frustrations with congressional inaction, threatened to impose additional tariffs on the nation of Mexico. Fortunately, the negotiations that ensued came up with a plan for Mexico to work with the United States to begin to slow down or stop the flow of people from Central America across Mexico into the United States.

I have never seen anything quite like that before in terms of our relationship with Mexico. They have historically tended to view immigration as our problem, not theirs, as well as the drug problem, because the demand in America is our problem and not theirs. This really represents a change of attitude on behalf of President Lopez Obrador's administration, and I want to congratulate President Lopez Obrador and his administration for working with the United States to address a joint problem. This is not just Mexico's problem. This is not just the problem of the United States. This is our shared challenge. Working together, I am confident we can begin to address it.

Finally, I want to say that Congress has largely been AWOL when it comes to dealing with this humanitarian crisis up to this point. A couple of months ago, my colleague from the House of Representatives, Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, TX, and I introduced a bill we called the HUMANE Act, which would fix some of the gaps in our laws that are being exploited by the human smugglers and are causing this humanitarian crisis in this huge flood of humanity coming into the United States.

If Congress would accept its responsibility and do its job, it would never have been necessary for the President to threaten additional tariffs on Mexico, forcing this diplomatic negotiation. I am glad it resulted in a good and positive outcome, that negotiation, but the fault ultimately lies with Congress for not taking up and debating and voting on bipartisan legislation like the HUMANE Act that has been introduced in the Senate and in the House.

I will say that Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee has been focused like a laser on this issue. We were scheduled to mark up a bill today in the Judiciary Committee that I believe would incorporate many provisions of the HUMANE Act as part of a bill which would, I believe, address this humanitarian pull factor because of exploitation of those gaps in our asylum laws. That now has been postponed, but I hope the discussions will continue because, ultimately, this is a matter of congressional responsibility. We can be glad that the Appropriations Committee stepped up and provided additional resources, including this $30 million in reimbursement for local communities. We can be glad that Mexico and the United States are finally now working together on this shared challenge, but ultimately, if we are going to address not just the symptoms but the causes of this humanitarian crisis, it is up to Congress. I believe the American people will ultimately hold us accountable, as they should.

Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Robert Wallace, of Wyoming, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Andrew P. Bremberg, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, with the rank of Ambassador, Philip S. Goldberg, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Colombia, Doug Manchester, of California, to be Ambassador to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, Adrian Zuckerman, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to Romania, Richard B. Norland, of Iowa, to be Ambassador to Libya, Jonathan R. Cohen, of California, to be Ambassador to the Arab Republic of Egypt, and John Rakolta, Jr., of Michigan, to be Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, all of the Department of State, and other pending nominations.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Daniel Aaron Bress, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Peter Joseph Phipps, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit

Judge for the Third Circuit, Mary S. McElroy, to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island, Gary Richard Brown, Diane Gujarati, Eric Ross Komitee, and Rachel P. Kovner, each to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Stephanie Dawkins Davis, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Stephanie A. Gallagher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, Charles R. Eskridge Ill, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Lewis J. Liman, and Mary Kay Vyskocil, both to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, Martha Maria Pacold, Mary M. Rowland, and Steven C. Seeger, each to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, Jason K. Pulliam, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, John L. Sinatra, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of New York, William Shaw Stickman IV, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Frank William Volk, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, Jennifer Philpott Wilson, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, David Austin Tapp, of Kentucky, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and Edward W. Felten, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection

The Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 05, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John-Rex Spivey, a Navy fellow in Senator Collins's office, be granted floor privileges through January 31, 2020.

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

Mr. President, today we will take the first step in the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act when we hold the cloture vote this afternoon. For the last 58 years, consecutively, Congress has passed this important legislation to fund our Nation's military and support the men and women who wear our uniform and defend our freedoms, both at home and around the world.

Last month the Senate Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly by a vote of 25 to 2 to advance this legislation to the Senate floor. So it goes without saying, perhaps, that this enjoys broad bipartisan support, but in this political environment, I will go ahead and say that anyway.

This bill received that kind of support because it includes the ideas and feedback from Members of both parties and places our national security where it should be, above all other considerations when it comes to the Federal Congress.

I wish I could say the same thing about the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act. After extensive debate and a largely party-line vote in the House, the House Armed Services Committee voted last week to ban the deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which is a dangerous step that could prevent us from being able to respond to attacks from our adversaries.

I realize the seriousness of this topic, and really the purpose of my speaking today is to raise the visibility of this issue so that Members can begin to understand and grapple with the subject matter and reach informed decisions, which I believe would be in favor of the Senate version, which would allow the deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons on submarines.

Significantly, I believe the House provisions, although well- intended, would make the potential for the use of these weapons more likely rather than less. To state the obvious, I hope that no nuclear weapon in our arsenal or in the arsenal of an adversary of ours will ever see the light of day. Nuclear weapons should always be a last resort.

If you think about it, it is really almost a miracle that 74 years ago at Hiroshima was the last time a nuclear weapon was used, and I hope that record continues unbroken indefinitely. Why has it been 74 years? Well, it is because the countries, by and large, that possess nuclear weapons realize the gravity of their use and that, once started, a nuclear war would result in devastation for everyone-- everyone, literally--on the planet.

Yet we would be foolish to ignore the clear posture of our adversaries when it comes to nuclear weapons and play into their hands and, I think, actually make the use of these weapons more likely through miscalculation and mistake. Let's take Russia, for example. Back when General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at his confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee, he was asked his assessment of the threat that Russia poses to the United States. He said: My assessment today, Senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security. If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I would have to point to Russia, and if you look at their behavior, it is nothing short of alarming.

That was in 2015, and I would say, in terms of the existential threat, nothing has changed in terms of Russia's bad behavior. They have continued their bad behavior to this day in Syria, Ukraine, and Crimea. Basically, if they feel they can make America's job tougher anywhere around the world, they try to do so.

Looking at Russia and its nuclear arsenal--their nuclear deterrent strategy is one of the world's worst-kept secrets. It is known by most as ``escalate to deescalate.'' The Russians are aware that the United States possesses far greater conventional military capabilities and developed a strategy that uses their lesser capabilities as an advantage. But Russia's nuclear doctrine allows them to attack conventional forces--say, NATO forces in Europe--with a nuclear weapon under the pretext that the United States would have no way to respond to that attack--in other words, use of a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon in Europe--and they would essentially dare the United States to respond, and the only option the United States has is a strategic weapon on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Well, you can see why a President would be reluctant to use that sort of devastating power to respond to the use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Europe-- attacking one of our NATO partners. That is the disparity I think all of our Members need to be aware of and need to think about.

The foundation of the Russian nuclear doctrine is this: They believe the United States would be hesitant to retaliate against a low-yield first strike by Russia with a high-yield weapon. Through their actions, those who are opposing the deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons in the Defense authorization bill are confirming the belief of the Russians that absent a low-yield tactical weapon that could be used in response without using strategic weapons and risking a nuclear holocaust--actually, it counterintuitively makes it more likely that the Russians would take that step through miscalculation.

Our friend and colleague Senator Inhofe, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on the floor last summer when we were having a debate on this topic that Russia ``may perceive that limited nuclear first use, including low-yield weapons, would present the United States with two bad choices: escalate or do nothing.'' He is exactly right.

We are dissuaded from using conventional forces out of fear that the conflict would quickly escalate into a catastrophic world war, but we cannot accept inaction as an appropriate response. In order to honor our NATO and global security commitments, our military needs to have the capacity to respond appropriately and proportionately to any attack, and to do that, we must develop our own low-yield nuclear weapons and bolster the deterrence value of the U.S. nuclear triad.

The point here is to make nuclear war--to take it off the table so that no one will even dare travel down that path. That is the way we will keep that 74-year record since Hiroshima unbroken into the indefinite future, hopefully permanently.

The importance of replacing high-yield warheads with low-yield ones was underscored in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The administration called for the employment of low-yield nuclear warheads to remove Russia's perceived advantage, which former Secretary Defense James Mattis once called ``bellicose and cavalier.'' It specifically argues that expanding these options will ``help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.'' That is the point; that is the objective--to make nuclear employment less likely.

This is what the strategy refers to as credible deterrence. By reducing the disparity between their potential strike and our potential response, the initial attack is less likely. This is of huge importance to our country and our national security, as well as that of our allies. NATO and non-NATO allies depend on the U.S. nuclear deterrent for their own security, and we must take every step possible to be prepared.

I note, parenthetically, that this is another reason why only rational actors should have nuclear weapons, because when Kim Jong Un in North Korea or when the ayatollahs in Tehran get ahold of nuclear weapons, they may or may not be subject to the same sort of deterrence that a Russia is when it comes to the use of possible employment of nuclear weapons.

I find it perplexing that some of our Democratic colleagues are trying to take this step, which would place us in a strategic disadvantage against Russia, when they have made a platform of confronting Russian aggression. As a matter of fact, I think we all, on a bipartisan basis, have supported opposing Russian aggression. So why is it that we are hesitant to do so on this topic?

When it comes to Russia's most blatant form of aggression--nuclear weapons--we can't afford to unilaterally disarm our military and leave the United States without a credible deterrent. We have already seen Russia's flagrant violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and it continues to modernize its nuclear weapons. The more it feels like it has gained some advantage over the United States, the more they may be tempted to actually use them.

Why should we allow that to continue without preparing for a possible response or, at minimum, reducing the likelihood they will ever be employed in the first place?

House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith said: ``We do not think it is the proper approach to start talking about a proportional response, because it plants in peoples' minds that there is somehow an acceptable nuclear war.''

That is just not true. No one accepts as inevitable a nuclear war. What we are trying to do is to reduce the potential that that might actually happen because of its devastating consequences to everyone on the planet, literally.

While there is no doubt we would all prefer to live in a world with no nuclear weapons, indulging in utopian dreams is not what our constituents sent us here to do--wishful thinking. We can't reduce or stifle our nuclear capabilities while allowing our adversaries to increase their arsenals and their capability. We must operate in the world we live in, not the one we wish for. America's adversaries possess this low-yield nuclear weapon capability. At least from their rhetoric and their doctrine, it seems like they are prepared to use it.

I fundamentally disagree with House Democrats' attempts to block the Pentagon from deploying low-yield nuclear warheads on submarine- launched ballistic missiles, which was the recommendation of that Nuclear Posture Review I mentioned earlier. They would place our country at a strategic disadvantage and reinforce our adversaries' belief that they can escalate to deescalate and make the world a far more dangerous place.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it doesn't matter whether you are watching FOX News or reading the editorial page of the New York Times, the media--indeed the Nation--is in broad agreement that there is a crisis on our southern border, and the responsibility lies squarely with Congress to fix it.

Month after month, the number of people crossing our border has ticked up and up and up, and the only people who seem unfazed by these mind-boggling numbers--144,000 last month alone--are House Democrats.

Despite continued pleading from officials at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and some of our Democratic friends in the House, the leadership in the House of Representatives is still trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility to act. Well, it is getting harder and harder for them to ignore this crisis that continues to get worse on our border. The recordbreaking number of migrants who cross our border make a difficult and dangerous journey to get here. They travel in the company of human smugglers, appropriately known by most as coyotes. These criminal entrepreneurs do not view the migrants in their custody as human beings. They view them as cargo. It is really their meal ticket.

Coyotes get their customers to the United States, but a safe journey is not part of the deal. Migrants, especially children, often arrive at our border in poor health, suffering from dehydration, exposure, any one of a number of infectious diseases, and, unfortunately, sadly, many are left for dead by their smugglers.

Last week, Border Patrol found a young girl believed to be about 7 years old from India, dead and alone along the border in Arizona. The area where she was found is a rugged desert, and the temperature that day was 108 degrees.

Stories like this are heartbreaking and more common than many want to believe. Those who survive the torturous journey from Central America up through Mexico and into the United States often arrive in critical health. The national Border Patrol Council vice president, Jon Anfinsen, has been an agent for 12 years and is based in Del Rio, TX. He said the number of people in custody and the high rate of illnesses is ``unprecedented.''

He has seen cases of scabies, chickenpox, mumps, measles, flu, body lice, and countless common colds. Overcrowded facilities make these illnesses spread like wildfire, and even the Border Patrol agents and people offering assistance to these migrants are getting sick too. That is because Congress has not appropriated the money for the facilities, funding, and for the personnel to manage these record-breaking numbers. They are obviously in dire need of our assistance.

Last month, the administration requested $4.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice to address this growing crisis.

Two weeks after this request, the situation had grown so much worse than expected that the Secretary of Health and Human Services notified Congress that the Department would soon be running out of funding and that another $1.4 billion could be needed for humanitarian assistance alone. That brings the total to almost $6 billion. Since the funding request was submitted, more than 144,000 individuals have illegally crossed our border, adding to the growing weight these folks are feeling.

Without providing the necessary funding, we are sending these dedicated law enforcement officials out on a losing mission. We are asking them to carry the weight of hundreds of thousands of migrants without giving them the tools they need to do so.

Enough is enough. It is high time Congress steps up and come to an agreement to get much needed and long overdue funding to the men and women struggling to manage this humanitarian crisis not of their making. This critical funding is needed along the entire southern border but particularly in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso sectors, which have been disproportionately affected by the dramatic increase in crossings.

For months, communities in Texas have requested help in feeding, transporting, and sheltering these migrants. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty, diverting millions of dollars in local taxpayer funds that are traditionally intended for things like clean water and power for their own residents.

Today I am sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee and asking them to include assistance to these communities. The Appropriations Committee is holding a markup tomorrow, and I hope they can come to an agreement to provide the Departments, Agencies, and local communities in Texas struggling to manage this crisis with the resources they need to be successful. To borrow a saying from Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost, the current situation is akin to holding a bucket under a faucet. It doesn't matter how many buckets you have if you can't turn the water off. The emergency funding is a bucket, and hopefully it will be a sufficient bucket, but we still have to get to the source of the problem.

Last week, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan testified before the Judiciary Committee and said: ``I want to make clear that this crisis is unlike anything we've ever seen at our border and it, in large part, is due to the gaps in our immigration laws that are driving it, causing a dramatic demographic shift in the flow of illegal immigration into the United States that is placing children at unique and critical risk.''

Of the more than 144,000 people who illegally crossed the border in May, 69 percent were either unaccompanied children or families. The number of unaccompanied children apprehended last month is larger than any monthly total from the surge in 2014, back when President Obama called it ``a humanitarian and security crisis.'' It is an understatement to say we lack the resources to properly care for these children.

In addition to providing more resources and better care, we need to get to the ``why'' of these rising numbers. I have no doubt this surge in humanity is being driven by the pull factors in the immigration system, most notably the Flores settlement agreement. By ``pull factors,'' I mean the thing that attracts the migrants to attempt to make this dangerous journey from their homes into the United States.

The Flores settlement agreement is one of them. In the beginning, the Flores settlement agreement provided additional standards of care for children, including a limit on the time they could remain in DHS custody, but a subsequent, flawed court ruling expanded this agreement, in effect applying it to families as well. That essentially turned children into a ``get out of jail free'' card for migrants, something which is now openly advertised by the coyotes in Central America.

In other words, the coyotes--the smugglers who earn money off of each person they bring into the United States--are letting these people know that if you just come as a child or if you come as a family, you are going to be able to make it successfully into the United States, and it is a money-making proposition, obviously, for them.

A recent Washington Post article quoted a man as saying the following:

That is the thing that everyone knows now. If you go, you

need to bring a child.

This has gotten so bad that Acting Secretary McAleenan said the Border Patrol is now running DNA tests and is discovering significant numbers of adults who are claiming a biological connection to a child that is not theirs. This is the ultimate ``get out of jail free'' card: Bring a child--anybody's child.

This loophole has turned into a major pull factor, and single adults are using it to their advantage. Rather than arriving at the border alone, they are bringing kids with them so they can pose as a family unit and be released in 20 days. These aren't all legitimate families, as I said. It is no exaggeration to say that children are literally being kidnapped to serve as a

free ticket into the United States. That is a sad truth.

If we want to stop this abuse of our system and of these children and bring down the skyrocketing numbers that are flooding across our border, we have to fix this expansion of the Flores agreement when it comes to family units.

Last month, Congressman Henry Cuellar of Laredo, TX, a Democrat, and I introduced a bill called the HUMANE Act, which, among other things, would close this dangerous loophole--something Congress never enacted and never intended and which is being exploited by the coyotes.

Our bill would clarify that the Flores agreement only applies to children, not to families, and would remove that pull factor and prevent single adults from exploiting them in order to gain entry into the United States. The HUMANE Act would make additional, targeted reforms to make our immigration system more fair and efficient and provide better protection for the children who are brought here.

Perhaps the most important thing to note is that this bill already has bipartisan support--something that is tough to find when it comes to immigration reform these days. As our friend the majority leader said on the floor last week, ``The crisis at the border hasn't gone anywhere and neither has our resolve to address it.''

I appreciate my friend and colleague Congressman Henry Cuellar for working with me on this bill. I hope the border communities in Texas and along the entire U.S.-Mexico border will call and write or go see their Congressman and say: Get on board with Congressman Cuellar in the House of Representatives.

Let's vote on the HUMANE Act so the Senate can pass it and send it to President Trump for signature. I can't imagine how people can be at peace with their own conscience knowing what is happening right now and simply sitting on their hands and doing nothing to address this humanitarian and security crisis. We owe it to the dedicated law men and women who work to manage this crisis along the border who now are being overwhelmed by this influx of humanity. Our resolve to help them remains as strong as ever. Now what we need is a strong bipartisan vote to get it done.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me express my appreciation to the majority leader for highlighting this crisis at the border. There is no State more directly impacted in our United States than the State of Texas.

We, obviously, share 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and this is a humanitarian crisis. As the majority leader said, not only the New York Times editorial page, but Barack Obama in 2014 called far fewer numbers than are coming across today a humanitarian and security crisis then, and it has gotten nothing but worse.

I appreciate the leader's bringing this to a head and holding Members accountable. We know that people talk a good game sometimes, but there is nowhere to hide when it comes to an up-or-down vote on this emergency appropriations bill.

I would add that there are other measures taking place. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as the Presiding Officer knows, is working on a bill that would address the underlying asylum laws, which are being exploited by the human smugglers who are getting rich moving people across Mexico from Central America into the United States and charging them between $5,000 and $10,000 a head--sometimes more. It has been the unwillingness of the Democrats to engage on that underlying asylum law and a fix there that has precipitated or contributed to this humanitarian crisis.

I will.

We hope to see. And we will see one way or the other when we vote on this legislation next week.

I am happy to say that my Democratic colleague Henry Cuellar from Laredo, TX, which is more directly impacted probably than any place on the border, joined me in one proposal we call the HUMANE Act, which would deal with this underlying asylum issue.

We have been working with the chairman, Senator Graham, to come up with a consensus piece of legislation that will really plug the dike that has been breached now, which has caused this humanitarian crisis.

There are a number of ways we can deal with this.

Mr. President, I agree with the majority leader. We do need to do both.

I would also add, for those who were disturbed by the President's invocation of his tariff authority to try to bring the Mexican Government to the table to negotiate some changes in the way the Mexican Government deals with this flow of Central Americans coming across its country, none of that would have been necessary if our Democratic colleagues had simply worked with us both on the underlying legislation and on this appropriations bill.

Frankly, the President was put in a corner, and there was not much else he could do. I am grateful he was able to get a result. Only time will tell whether those numbers actually go down from the 144,000 last month.

But while the Democrats are sitting on their hands and maybe talking a good game, I am glad to know we at least have leadership in the White House and here in the Senate.

Mr. President, that is a sad but true statement. It is unbelievable to me that the Mexican Government, under President Lopez Obrador, is doing more than congressional Democrats to try to solve this humanitarian and security crisis, but that is where we are.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader again for his leadership and for his comments today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last week, we commemorated the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and in just a few weeks, we will celebrate America's independence on the Fourth of July.

It is important for us to pause and remember the contributions made by the men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military who fight every day to protect our freedoms.

The Senate Armed Services Committee just completed its markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and voted overwhelmingly to send this legislation to the Senate floor. This is an annual event for us in the Senate. We pass the Defense authorization bill to ensure that crucial Department of Defense programs are continued, that America's servicemembers are paid, and that our national defense is modernized to keep pace with the rapidly evolving threat landscape.

One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to ensure that America's military men and women have what

they need to keep our Nation safe from threats both at home and abroad, and this bill, the national defense authorization bill, fulfills part of our commitment to do just that.

There are more than 200,000 military men and women stationed in Texas at places like Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, Lackland Air Force Base, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, and Ellington Field. We in Congress have a duty to provide these men and women with the training, the tools, and the resources they need to achieve the most difficult missions they face today and embark on those that will inevitably arise tomorrow.

I have no doubt that these talented servicemembers could have chosen any career--certainly one that involved fewer sacrifices and more time spent at home with their families--but, instead, they have chosen to serve their country. That decision should never stand in the way of their ability to exercise one of the most fundamental rights we have as American citizens, and that is the right to vote.

In 2016, only 46 percent of Active-Duty military voted by absentee ballot--46 percent. What concerns me is the fact that one-third of those who did not vote said that the absentee voting process was too complicated. We have to change that, so I have introduced a bipartisan bill called the Military Voter Protection Act that simplifies the absentee voter registration process for servicemembers stationed abroad. It would ensure that within 30 days of arriving in theater during a deployment, servicemembers are provided with a briefing on absentee voting registration and an opportunity to fill out the registration form or application.

Currently, 28 States allow the Federal write-in absentee ballot to serve as both the registration form and the actual ballot itself. My bill encourages the remaining States to follow suit, reducing the amount of paperwork military members have to fill out in order to exercise their right to vote.

This is an important step to simplify that process for our men and women in uniform and ensure that arduous and cumbersome paperwork does not deter them or dissuade them from casting their ballot. I have been working with the chairman and the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee to ensure that this provision will be included in the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2020 to make it easier for our servicemembers to make sure their voices are heard at the ballot box.

As we prepare to consider the Defense authorization bill here in the Senate, I want to thank the men and women who serve our country and assure them that we will continue to do everything we can to support them and ensure they are empowered and mission-ready and, yes, that they can also cast their ballot.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 13, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 05, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing pending legislation and the following nominations: Ada E. Brown, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Jason K. Pulliam, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, Steven D. Grimberg, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, David John Novak, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Matthew H. Solomson, of Maryland, and David Austin Tapp, of Kentucky, both to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, Daniel Aaron Bress, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Mary S. McElroy, to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island, Gary Richard Brown, Diane Gujarati, Eric Ross Komitee, and Rachel P. Kovner, all to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Lewis J. Liman, and Mary Kay Vyskocil, both to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, John L. Sinatra, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of New York, Stephanie Dawkins Davis, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Stephanie A. Gallagher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, Martha Maria Pacold, Mary M. Rowland, and Steven C. Seeger, all to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, Frank William Volk, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, William D. Hyslop, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, Gary B. Burman, to be United States Marshal for the Western District of Kentucky, Randall P. Huff, to be United States Marshal for the District of Wyoming, and Edward W. Felten, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 13, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I confess that my fascination--or maybe ``obsession'' is another word to describe it--with what some people proclaim to be their newfound belief in socialism is really a mystery to me. It is something

I have thought and read quite a bit about just so I could try to understand what they could possibly be thinking.

A recent poll found that 4 in 10 Americans say they prefer living in a socialist country to a capitalist country--40 percent. For those of us who have witnessed the rise and fall of socialism over the course of our lives or who have even read about it in the history books, that is a major cause for concern. Yet today's socialists try to distinguish themselves from those countries that have actually implemented socialism--Venezuela, the Soviet Union, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and other failed socialist nations. They are saying that they are democratic socialists.

As a matter of fact, one of our Senate colleagues who is running for President--the junior Senator from Vermont, not the distinguished Senator on the floor--is speaking today at an event in defense of democratic socialism. I have to say, if you ask me, that is an oxymoron. You can't support democracy and socialism at the same time. Those two ideals are completely at odds with one another. Yet what we see happening is people who use labels to confuse the American people and who claim to be what they are not--literally being Trojan horses for ideas that have been demonstrated to have failed throughout the world's history.

Many of these so-called democratic socialists have gotten into the habit of suggesting that Scandinavian countries are successful models for their ideology. They will point to the economic successes of these countries, combined with their expansive government-run programs--free higher education, universal healthcare, subsidized childcare. They will say: ``Look, it works.'' Robust welfare programs are not the cornerstones of socialism, although many seem to think that this is the case.

The poll I mentioned earlier found that there is a broad disagreement about what exactly constitutes socialism. To me, one of the most interesting findings of some of the polling is when you ask some people what ``socialism'' is, they say, ``Well, that is being social.'' They also say, ``Well, it is universal healthcare, tuition-free education, and a living wage.'' Only two-thirds of the people say it involves a state-controlled economy, and fewer still believe socialism involves the state control and the regulation of private property, the media, and communications.

Let me be clear. The most fundamental aspect of socialism isn't the social benefits it provides; it is having the government in control. It is the surrendering of your individual freedom and choices to government coercion and brute force. That is the only way people can be forced into limiting their freedom, their activity, and their incomes is by brute government force. That is the single most important, distinguishing feature of socialism.

So those who claim that these Scandinavian countries with social security programs are shining examples of socialism could not be more wrong. These countries largely operate free markets, and they are the first to correct us and say they are not socialists. Nevertheless, so- called democratic socialists continue to name these countries as successful examples because the only true examples of socialism don't poll quite nearly as high. The prime example is Venezuela.

Venezuela's troubled story began in the late nineties when then- Presidential candidate Hugo Chavez delivered an impassioned speech that promised to lead Venezuela into a socialist paradise. He talked about the country's wealth being stolen by evil capitalists and greedy corporations, and he promised hope and change if he were elected. That sounds pretty similar to what we hear from the so-called democratic socialists today.

For any Americans who wonder if that hope and change being promised by these candidates might actually work, let me reassure you that there would be a lot of change but that it would not be the type of change you would want. Again, look at Venezuela. The government took over businesses, shut down free markets, and suppressed free speech. As a result, one of the richest countries in the world is now among the poorest. Basic commodities like food, medicine, and water are in short supply. About 6 months ago, I myself was at the border between Colombia and Venezuela, and I witnessed Venezuelans going across the border into Colombia in order to pick up some of the basics of life--medicine, food, and the like.

Of course, with regard to freedom of the press, well, you can throw that out the window in Venezuela, and, of course, crime rates have skyrocketed. That is why you don't see caravans of people attempting to immigrate to countries like Venezuela--it is just the opposite. The United Nations announced last week that more than 4 million people have escaped Venezuela--4 million refugees from Venezuela--and that a quarter of those have left in the last 7 months. The UN Refugee Agency referred to this mass exodus as the ``largest in the recent history of Latin America and the Caribbean.''

That is what happens under socialism. Citizens flee poverty, government control, and corruption in search of opportunities to build better lives for themselves. The trouble is, no matter what word you put in front of the word ``socialism,'' it doesn't really matter because it is still socialism.

I think Winston Churchill summed it up best, as he frequently did, when he said:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of

blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal

sharing of miseries.

I can assure you that if these democratic socialists get their way, there will be no shortage of miseries to share.

I urge all of our colleagues and all Americans to learn, to share the lessons of history, and to remind our fellow citizens that so-called democratic socialism is nothing more than a Trojan horse that would destroy our country and destroy our way of life. Most fundamentally of all, it would destroy the American dream.

We can look around America and find good examples, but, of course, I am partial to the example of the State of Texas as to how free market ideals and less government can produce more prosperity, more freedom, and a better quality of life. Yet, if our Democratic friends-- particularly those who are running for President--get their way with Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and a host of other disastrous policies, the sort of prosperity and opportunity and freedom of choice that you see now in places like Texas will be out the window.

When our friend the minority leader, the Senator from New York, calls the Senate a legislative graveyard, in one respect, he is entirely right, because we are going to do everything we can to make sure the U.S. Senate is a firewall against these disastrous socialist policies.