Floor Statements

Madam President, on an entirely different matter, like many of my colleagues, I watched images from Hong Kong this weekend and could not help but be moved by the residents of that metropolis. They are mounting a bold stand to preserve Hong Kong's autonomy from China and, by extension, defend their liberties.

Over the weekend, more than 1 million residents, a staggering proportion of the population--about one in seven--took to the streets to protest a draft law that would allow the people of Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China. Hong Kong residents rightly view this measure as another erosion of the rule of law and tightening of Beijing's grip on their imperiled autonomy.

These are not just students or lawyers or intellectuals who have taken to the streets but a broad cross-section of Hong Kong's diverse society--all age groups, all professions, all walks of life--all committed to preserving the personal freedoms and judicial independence that have made Hong Kong such a special and prosperous city.

The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, which I sponsored, has, for nearly three decades, enshrined America's commitment to preserving Hong Kong's special status and its freedoms. This draft law is inconsistent with the Hong Kong Policy Act and puts Hong Kong on the path of becoming just another one of China's cities subject to Beijing's whims.

As the Vice President stated last autumn, ``For a time, Beijing inched toward greater liberty and respect for human rights. But in recent years, China has taken a sharp U-turn toward control and oppression of its own people.''

I regret that reports from Guangdong to Xinjiang continue to prove him right as Beijing's grip on its own people grows tighter, even as the rest of the world marks its 30th anniversary of the violence in Tiananmen Square.

I encourage the administration to stay engaged and express our concerns with the authorities in Hong Kong before this proposal becomes law and the Chinese Communist Party further extends its control over the people of Hong Kong.

Madam President, on one final matter, last week's announcement of progress in negotiations with Mexico was a welcome development. It staved off the threat that tariffs would disrupt an important trading relationship and secured a promise that Mexican authorities will take more responsibility for their own borders, but, as I said yesterday, while this was a critical step, it does not absolve Congress of our duty to finally act--not even close.

It was May 1 when the administration first transmitted to Congress its urgent request for supplemental border funding. That will be 6 weeks ago tomorrow that the administration set up a request for supplemental funding for the crisis at the border--6 weeks--and this emergency request is essentially falling on deaf ears among our Democratic colleagues.

In the meantime, we should note that the month of May marks a third straight month with more than 100,000 individuals apprehended at the southern border. In fact, last month's total of more than 140,000 was the largest in the last 13 years of CBP data.

By the way, that includes more than 84,000 family units and more than 11,000 unaccompanied children. These are enormous numbers of people showing up at our border. The American personnel who are charged with securing our Nation and looking after these individuals are simply overwhelmed. The agencies are overwhelmed. The facilities are overwhelmed. It is a true humanitarian crisis, totally unsustainable for these individuals for whom our national security and rule of law dictate that we need to detain.

At overcrowded facilities, beds are in short supply, medical care is wearing thin, money and personnel from across the Department of Homeland Security are being diverted from other important missions on an emergency basis to cover shortfalls, but even that cannot go on much longer.

This is from John Sanders, the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Control. He said: ``We are at a full-blown emergency . . . the system is broken.'' The system is broken--that from the head of Customs and Border Patrol.

The professionals whom our Nation has entrusted to keep America safe and care for these people have been begging--literally begging--for more resources for 6 weeks. Their calls have solidified a national consensus that spans the entire political spectrum.

More than 1 month ago, the editorial board of the New York Times--not what you call devoted admirers of the Trump administration--wrote an editorial they titled--listen to this headline: ``Congress, Give Trump His Border Money.''

That is the New York Times. They wrote:

Something needs to be done. Soon. [But] unfortunately,

political gamesmanship once again threatens to hold up

desperately needed resources.

That was the New York Times in early May, at the time both Houses of Congress were negotiating the supplemental funding bill for recent natural disasters, but Democrats chose to come down to the left of the New York Times' editorial pages--that is pretty hard to do--and decided to deny the White House this border money.

One Member of the House Democratic conference complained that the need for border money was ``political.'' Political.

Another House Democrat admitted to reporters that his own side was the problem. This is what he said: ``In my opinion, we do have to come up with some money. But we've got to convince our more progressive friends.''

Again, these are not resources for any remotely controversial cause. We are talking about humanitarian funding for caring for families and children who show up at the border in need of help. That is what we are talking about. This is not a subject where the political left should need week after week of convincing, but apparently our liberal colleagues just could not get past their animosity for the President, even on something like this.

During these last 6 weeks, the House has found plenty of time and energy for purely partisan things. There has been plenty of histrionics and political theater. We have seen hearing room melodrama. We have seen some partisan messaging votes. We have seen plenty of political theater, opposing the President for the sake of opposing him. They have had time for all of that but nothing--nothing--for the urgent border crisis.

So, May 5, the New York Times: ``Congress, Give Trump His Border Money.''

May 23, ``Democrats balked at allocating billions of dollars more toward border security.''

June 9, very recently: ``When Will Congress Get Serious About the Suffering at the Border?'' Two New York Times editorials say: Give Trump the money for the border crisis. This is breathtaking--the alliance between the New York Times editorial board and the Trump administration being ignored by our Democratic colleagues.

So look, the question we have been asking ourselves every day as the House continues to ignore this crisis is, What is the problem here?

I suspect it is the question men and women we ask to secure the border are asking one another every day. When will our Democratic colleagues get serious about this?

Believe me, we know that our Democratic counterparts are not charter members of Donald Trump's personal fan club. We get that. They have made that abundantly clear over and over again. Their entire political agenda these days seems to be repeating that fact nice and loud, over and over again in case we hadn't already heard it.

We are all plenty familiar with ``the resistance.'' We have seen that here in the Senate. That is why we have had so many nominations clogged up. But, look, ``the resistance'' doesn't pay the bills. ``The resistance'' doesn't produce the funding that the border facilities desperately need. ``The resistance'' doesn't plug the holes in our Nation's border security or improve humanitarian conditions down on the border.

There is only one way to fix this--bipartisan legislation with supplemental border funding. That is what we need to do.

So for everyone's sake, I think the entire country is hoping that Democrats remember their job is governing, not resisting. It is far past time to get serious about this and solve this problem.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 p.m., Wednesday, June 12, the Senate vote on the confirmation of the Barker, Maze, Smith, Barber, and Boulee nominations in the order listed.

Madam President, for the information of all Senators, following the disposition of the Boulee nomination, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Stilwell nomination. This means that we will have six votes starting at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, my privilege to pay tribute to Dr. Mary Pauline Fox, a pioneer of public health in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, who passed away earlier this year at the age of 87. Mary's remarkable life included more than four decades of service to eastern Kentucky communities, and the full effect of her legacy will continue to be felt throughout the region for years to come.

Mary began her exceptional career at the age of 19, graduating from Union College in Barbourville, KY. A trailblazer in her time, she then attended the University of Louisville's medical school as one of only five women in a class of 100. Mary also holds the distinction as one of the early women to participate in the Reserve Officers Training Corps.

Soon after beginning her career as a doctor, the Kentucky Department of Health appointed Mary as a regional director, and for the next 7 years she oversaw healthcare delivery in 20 eastern Kentucky counties. Afterward, she served as the director of the Pike County Health Department for more than two decades. Mary only agreed to retire from her position after funding was secured to build the current health department facility located in Pikeville. To this day, that facility continues to operate in the same building, which now bears her name.

Even at the end of her career, Mary refused to slow down. In coordination with the U.S. Department of State, she was part of the first public health group in our country invited to China. She remained committed to her community, giving sought-after lectures on public health issues throughout the Commonwealth.

As a healer and a teacher, Mary made our Commonwealth a better place. Elaine and I commend her for her lifetime of service to others, and we send our condolences to her family and friends.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 45, S. 395.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 504 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Tillis-Sinema amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 245, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 12; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Barker nomination, under the previous order.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

Madam President, on Friday, the entire country got some really good news: President Trump and his administration secured an agreement with the Government of Mexico. Our neighbors to the south will be doing more to secure their own borders and to control the flow of people through Mexico. These stepped-up efforts should help relieve some of the extraordinary pressure on the U.S.-Mexico border.

This was an important step in tackling the unacceptable and unsustainable crisis--the crisis that continues to roil our southern border. Mexico has an important role to play in solving the ongoing security and humanitarian nightmare.

Americans were also happy to hear the President's announcement that, as a result of this progress, our own families and businesses will not need to absorb the cost of higher tariffs on imports from Mexico. This would have been a step backward for the U.S. economy generally, a new obstacle for many of our manufacturers and small businesses, and a pain that families back home tell me often would hurt them directly.

At its best, the U.S.-Mexico friendship should combine strong mutual efforts on security with a strong and prosperous trading relationship. I am glad that is the direction we seem to be headed.

So this was an important step, but as my Republican colleagues and I have been sounding the alarm for months, the magnitude of this border crisis means that more will obviously be necessary.

Our U.S. processing facilities are badly strained beyond capacity as record numbers of individuals and families continue to pour through.

The men and women of Customs and Border Protection and our other agencies on the border are juggling too much, making do with too little and having to triage resources away from other important priorities so they can keep up even the most basic security functions and provide even the bare minimum humanitarian assistance.

The administration is working overtime on this. Now our Mexican friends are stepping up as well. In short, about the only important players who are still refusing to take action are my

Democratic friends right here in Congress.

Democrats in the House and the Senate have had no shortage of rhetoric on the subject. They are very focused on sounding concerned about this but thus far have stood in the way of any action.

It is not rocket science. The agencies on the border that are confronting this unprecedented crush of people need more resources. They have explained that to Congress as clearly as possible.

There is nothing remotely partisan about this. A few weeks ago, even the New York Times editorial board wrote:

As resources are strained and the system buckles, the

misery grows. Something needs to be done. Soon.

That is the New York Times. Just yesterday, they followed up with another piece: ``When Will Congress Get Serious About the Suffering at the Border?''

So for those scoring at home, President Trump and the New York Times editorial board are actually on the same side. It seems like everyone across the country understands that we should provide this funding-- everyone except Democrats here in Washington who have become so addicted to picking political fights with the Trump administration that they are letting even their most basic responsibilities slip.

Well, I will have a lot more to say on this subject in the days ahead. I think everyone understands quite well that my friends across the aisle are not personal fans of the President. We got that.

I would suggest it is time to get over it. The security of the United States and the humanitarian conditions on our border cannot afford to go underfunded any longer just because Democrats cannot bring themselves to give this White House anything it asks for.

Madam President, examples continue to pour in about the big difference that well-qualified individuals the Senate has been confirming are making in government service.

Last autumn, the Senate got the Securities and Exchange Commission up and running at full steam when we confirmed the fifth member. Just last week, we saw the Commission take a major step forward thanks to those Commissioners and to the leadership of Jay Clayton, its Chairman.

In the area of investor protections, as with many other subjects, the legacy of the Obama administration was messy and ineffective.

President Obama's Department of Labor decided to unilaterally go even further than Dodd-Frank in regulating the advisers and broker-dealers who sell to investors. The regulation they put in place was a confusing, garbled attempt at imposing a single, one-size-fits-all standard on all kinds of businesses where it was not necessarily the best approach. It was wrong on the merits and, even apart from that, it was implemented in a half-baked and ineffective way.

Now Chairman Clayton and his colleagues are getting back on track. The SEC has carefully crafted a tailored new rule to make sure brokers really act in the best interests of their clients. There are new standards for disclosing conflicts of interest, new standards for transparency in fees, and new prohibitions against shady sales tactics.

In short, the new rule seems to be a case study in regulation done the right way, a careful, prudent step that will actually protect the American people.

This will not necessarily make front-page news across the Nation but just another example of the way we are literally turning the page on the Obama administration's failed policies and taking a smarter, better direction for the good of the country with outstanding nominees and sound decision making.

Madam President, on one final matter, last week, the Senate learned of the passing of our longtime friend and counselor, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, who was the 61st Chaplain of the U.S. Senate.

Dr. Ogilvie served as Chaplain for 8 years, beginning in 1995. His career in ministry, teaching, and writing had already spanned four decades when Lloyd agreed to come serve here.

He brought with him unceasing patience, an attentive ear, and genuine concern for the thousands of Members, staff, and families who made up his Senate flock.

The Senate and the Nation saw tragedy during Lloyd's tenure. We mourned the death of three colleagues in office; we endured an attack on this building that left two Capitol Police officers dead; we faced September 11 and its aftermath; we weathered the anthrax scare; and, of course, those to whom he ministered also faced their own private, personal challenges during that time.

On all of these matters, so many people sought guidance, comfort, and counsel from Lloyd, and every single day, he provided it--a joyful, consistent, straightforward messenger and example of God's love.

He delivered daily prayers with kindly wisdom. He offered common ground in Bible study. He checked in on spouses, children, and staff, and he did it all while immaculately dressed with that deep, ringing voice. He was the complete package--a Scot, a Midwesterner, and briefly a Washingtonian, all in one.

After Dr. Ogilvie moved on in 2003, he moved to Fuller Seminary and established a center for preaching which bears his name. I am glad his legacy will continue to ripple out into new generations of spiritual leaders who will learn from his singular example.

So today the prayers of the Senate are with Lloyd's family. We are grateful for his lifelong ministry and especially for the fact that it brought him here.

One day early in his tenure, Dr. Ogilvie convened the Senate by asking God ``to hope through us today.'' He prayed: ``Make us people who are a lift and not a load, a blessing and not a burden.'' Today the many people whose lives he lifted up are remembering just how blessed we were by his friendship and how blessed we are by his example.

Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 240, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.