Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Arkansas in commending those who are involved in law enforcement, risking their lives for the safety of this Nation at all levels--Federal, State, and local. They put their badges on every single day and risk their lives for us, and that is a fact.

Within the Department of Homeland Security, there are men and women who are conscientiously trying to keep America safe. I commend them as well. I believe they are doing their job as they understand it, and they are risking their lives many times to achieve it, not only to stop the illegal flow of drugs into our country but to deter crime and to ferret out criminals where possible. They risk their lives to achieve that goal.

I have not joined in a call for the abolition of ICE, but I will not join in a call for the adoration of ICE because of one specific issue. The zero tolerance policy of the Trump administration resulted in our agents of the Department of Homeland Security forcibly separating children from their parents--forcibly separating up to 3,000 children from their parents.

I saw some of those kids separated by that agency. They were toddlers and infants. Some were being held by the care workers whom I happened to visit in Chicago. They were little babies taken from their mothers-- toddlers, children 5 and 6 years old, separated by this agency under the President's zero tolerance policy. There were up to 3,000 of them, according to the administration's own estimates.

Had that happened before? Only rarely, but it became the policy of this administration until there was such an uproar in the United States and around the world that President Trump reversed his position on zero tolerance.

Reversing the position did not return the children to their parents. It took Federal courts to do that--one in particular, in San Diego, where the judge called the representatives of ICE, Health and Human Services, and all the other agencies involved in these children being removed forcibly from their parents and gave them deadlines to return the children to their parents. It was then that we discovered something about this agency. It was then that we discovered that they didn't keep a record of the parents and kids.

If you place an order online to Amazon or some other source and the next day you want to check on the status of your order, you use your tracking number, and they will tell you where your package is. There was no tracking number when it came to these kids. If you decide that you are going to order a pizza and it seems to take a little too long and you call the pizza parlor, they can generally tell you where the delivery person is. The same thing is true in so many other areas.

Why, then, did this agency, which my colleagues are now coming to the floor claiming such great praise for, ignore the obvious? This agency, the Department of Homeland Security, ended up setting free 3,000 children into care facilities around the United States of America and didn't keep records of the parents.

We asked them several weeks ago, downstairs--all of the agencies, including ICE, referred to by the Senator from Arkansas: OK, let's get down to basics. How many kids are we talking about?

They wouldn't give us a number.

How many kids are under the age of 5? Those are the ones whom you have a deadline to reunite under the Federal court order in San Diego.

They couldn't give us a number.

Then, how many parents can you identify who actually had their kids taken away?

ICE said: We can identify 10.

Ten parents, 3,000 kids--I am not making this up. This is exactly what they said.

They said: We have 10 parents in custody. Those are the ones we can identify.

Two weeks passed, and we had another briefing this week. The numbers are now more complete. There are some 2,500 kids separated from their parents, spread around the United States.

What happened to the parents who lost their children?

The explanation from ICE was that they abandoned their kids and left.

Does that sound reasonable? Does that sound honest? You take the child away from the arms of a parent and then the parent says: I am leaving the country.

That might have happened in some cases, for reasons I don't know, but it is an outrageous suggestion. What it reflects is incompetency. How in the world can you take a child away from a parent, forcibly take them away, and not keep an adequate record for their reunification? How can you do that? Common sense and common decency suggests that you would do it.

I am not going to join in any resolution applauding that action by any Federal agency--the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, or other agencies. To me, it is a stain on the reputation of this Nation, one that we need to quickly resolve by reuniting these children with their families as quickly as possible.

You see, it isn't just a question of a holiday for these kids. Pediatricians have come forward from the American Academy of Pediatrics and have said that what we have done is institutional abuse of children.

This separation is not just another day in the life of this 2-year- old, 5-year-old, or 8-year-old. This separation is something that is causing trauma within their own minds.

Have you read the stories about the reunifications, where some of the parents come back, finally get their children, and the children will not even come to the parents? They don't quite understand what just happened to them. They think the parent might have just decided to give them up.

There they were alone and by themselves at that tender age. Can you imagine that for your children or your grandchildren? I can't.

We did it as part of the official government policy of the Trump administration under zero tolerance.

When some of us come to the floor to question the actions, the conduct, the management of ICE, we have good reason to do it. I hope for the people within that agency who are doing their jobs conscientiously that we can at least be honest in saying that this policy is one which doesn't deserve praise and doesn't deserve our adoration on the floor of the Senate or the House.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Ryan Bounds to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Bounds, who, if confirmed, would serve on a Ninth Circuit seat in the State of Oregon, has received zero blue slips. He is opposed by both Senators from the State in which he would sit if confirmed.

Never before in the 100-year history of blue slips has a nominee been confirmed over the opposition of both home-State Senators. The Republican majority is setting a precedent here, and all of our home States are at risk of being impacted by this.

By moving this nominee without blue slips, Republicans are diminishing the voice that home-State constituents have through their Senators in the process of selecting judges in their States.

Let me make it clear to my Republican colleagues: If you vote to confirm Ryan Bounds, you are consenting to a precedent that is likely to affect your state someday. Consider your vote carefully.

It is hard to understand why my Republican colleagues would abandon the blue slip for the sake of this particular nominee. Mr. Bounds has written and published articles that should disqualify him from consideration for a Federal judgeship.

Consider how the Multnomah Bar Association in Oregon--a bar association that Mr. Bounds has belonged to for 12 years--described Mr. Bounds' articles in a statement after the writings were revealed.

The association said Bounds' writings ``express insensitive, intolerant, and disdaining views toward racial and ethnic minorities, campus sexual assault victims, and the LGBTQ community.''

The statement went on to say that the bar association ``strongly disavows the views expressed in those articles as racist, misogynistic, homophobic and disparaging of survivors of sexual assault and abuse.''

Mr. Bounds' writings, which he published in college, included his discussions about the ``more strident racial factions of the student body.''

His writings mocked LGBTQ students for being sensitive when a group of drunk athletes vandalized a statue celebrating gay pride.

He mocked Latino students for being overly sensitive when they complained about the termination of a Latino administrator.

Then he wrote this, in an article about sexual assault on campus: ``There is really nothing inherently wrong with the University failing to punish an alleged rapist--regardless his guilt--in the absence of adequate certainty; there is nothing that the University can do to objectively ensure that the rapist does not strike again. Only the legal system can do that, and if it lacks the certainty to do so, it is not necessarily up to the University to stick it to the suspect, anyway, just in case. Expelling students is probably not going to contribute a great deal toward a rape victim's recovery; there is no moral imperative to risk egregious error in doing so.''

Not only did Mr. Bounds publish these writings, but he chose not to share his writings with Oregon's judicial selection committee even though the committee had asked him to disclose any potentially controversial materials.

Mr. Bounds said he didn't think he needed to disclose any information to the committee that preceded his time at law school.

As Senators Wyden and Merkley pointed out in a letter to Chairman Grassley, Mr. Bounds did share with the Oregon committee information about his high school days. He just conveniently left out his intolerant publications from college.

As Senators Wyden and Merkley said in their letter, ``Mr. Bounds' failure to disclose these writings, and the nature of these writings themselves, demonstrate a substantial lack of judgment that is unsuitable for a nominee for a lifetime appointment.''

This is not a close call. The Senate should not be moving forward with Mr. Bounds' nomination on process or substance.

Republicans are failing to be responsible stewards of nominations. The fact that Senate Republicans are moving forward with this nomination is a troubling sign for how Republicans will handle the Supreme Court vacancy.

All too often, Senate Republicans are failing to serve as a meaningful check and balance on President Trump when it comes to nominations.

Last week, 50 Senate Republicans voted to confirm an unqualified lawyer who had represented a suspicious Russian bank as the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.

This week Republicans already voted to confirm Andrew Oldham, a 39- year-old circuit court nominee who refused to say whether he thought Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided and who has described the Supreme Court as ``the most dangerous branch.''

Now, Senate Republicans are looking to confirm Mr. Bounds, who has shown terrible judgment with his published writings and with his failure to be forthcoming about them.

Senators have a constitutional obligation to scrutinize these nominees and to vote no if the nominees lack the experience, temperament, or judgment to be a fair and impartial judge. The Senate should not be a rubberstamp, but under President Trump, all too often, it has been.

I know Senate Republicans like to say it is unfair to nominees if we hold them accountable for their records. My Republican colleagues have been coming to the floor, day after day, complaining about what they see as unfair scrutiny of the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination.

Do they have amnesia? I would remind them that no Supreme Court nominee in history has ever has been treated worse than Merrick Garland was treated by Senate Republicans in 2016. Senator McConnell wouldn't even allow Judge Garland a hearing or the courtesy of a meeting.

The treatment of Merrick Garland was unprecedented, and it was disrespectful. His record and reputation were torn apart by Republicans who never gave him a chance to respond in an open hearing. Even Judge Bork got a hearing and a vote.

I hope my Republican colleagues are not going to simply rubberstamp President Trump's nominees. So many of these nominees are extreme. We need to review their full records and consider them carefully before voting to confirm them for life.

I have carefully considered Mr. Bounds' nomination, and I will vote no. I urge my colleagues in both parties to join me.

Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Andrew Oldham to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Oldham is only 39 years old. He checks the Federalist Society box, having been a member since law school of that rightwing legal group that vets all of President Trump's nominees. Mr. Oldham has spent much of his career litigating on behalf of Republican elected officials in Texas State government, where he worked on challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the DACA and DAPA programs, the Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act regulations, ``Ban the Box'' regulations on job applications, and Clean Air Act regulations, among many others.

Mr. Oldham's extreme ideology is apparent from statements he has made in his personal capacity. At his nomination hearing, he refused to say that the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided. That was an astonishing moment. Every Supreme Court nominee who has been asked this question has said he or she believed Brown v. Board was correctly decided. In recent hearings before the Judiciary Committee, nominees have answered yes to this question without hesitation; yet Mr. Oldham wouldn't answer.

If a nominee refuses to say that Brown v. Board was correctly decided, it certainly raises questions in my mind about the nominee's judgment, but that is not all Mr. Oldham has said.

At his hearing, he refused to say whether he agreed that voter discrimination still exists in the United States.

He gave an interview in 2016 where he described the Supreme Court as ``the most dangerous branch'' and said ``they often fail to enforce our sacred rights that are in the Constitution, while creating rights that are not.'' Keep in mind, this is a Supreme Court where the majority of justices were appointed by Republican Presidents.

He gave a speech to the Federalist Society in 2016 where he said, ``I have particular things that I think are illegitimate in the way that we conduct modern American law.'' He went on to say, ``It's not that I disagree with a particular Department of Labor regulation or a particular IRS regulation; it is the entire existence of this edifice of administrative law that is constitutionally suspect.''

He also wrote in a law review article that ``the Sherman Act, as it is currently understood, is unconstitutional.'' The Sherman Act is one of our foundational antitrust laws; it prohibits monopolies and restraints of trade.

Mr. Oldham's views are clearly outside the judicial mainstream. His own words and writings show an extreme ideological agenda.

Of course, like all of President Trump's nominees, he has promised he would cast all his views aside if confirmed and simply follow the law. But time after time, we have seen these nominees get confirmed to the bench and then start interpreting the law to produce outcomes that align with their preexisting, Federalist Society-approved views and side with corporations and wealthy elites over working Americans.

Mr. Oldham is ideologically extreme, he has shown instances of terrible judgment, and he has said things that would make litigants question whether he could be a fair and impartial judge. I oppose his nomination.

Will the Senator from Hawaii yield?

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Hawaii for joining in this statement about the agency of ICE, which is in the Department of Homeland Security.

There are certain things that I think Democrats and Republicans can come together to agree on. Let me tell you what I think they are. Border security--the United States needs security at its borders. There is no question about that, whoever the President may be.

The second thing we agree on is, nobody who is dangerous should be allowed to come to this country. Anyone

here who is undocumented and dangerous should leave, should be removed. We all agree on that, do we not?

The third thing, which 68 Senators agreed on, is comprehensive immigration reform. Our immigration laws are a mess--an absolute mess. That is why we continue to debate the topic, and 68 of us came to vote on a bipartisan measure 5 years ago to fix the whole system. It passed the Senate and died in the House.

Where are we today? We are here today debating on the floor the future of ICE. There are parts of the function and responsibility of this agency of ICE that all of us would agree on. ICE has important responsibilities combating serious criminal activities, like smuggling, bulk cash, drugs, weapons, human trafficking, violent criminals and others who would do us harm, and enforcing immigration laws against terrorists. There is no argument about that. But what has become controversial is the Trump administration's new immigration policy.

You see, we don't have the resources to deport 11 million undocumented people nor do we have the resources to arrest all who present themselves at the border. What this administration has done, though, is say that they are going to criminalize--charge as criminals--everyone who shows up at the border. By doing that, they take limited resources and focus them on a mass of people, most of whom are no threat at all to the United States, instead of focusing their resources on the drug smugglers, the traffickers, the would-be terrorists. Those are our priorities for the safety of our homes, our families, and our communities, are they not?

Here we have this resolution that was brought to the floor to commend ICE in all its functions. I can just tell you, I don't join in that resolution. I specifically don't join in it when it comes to the President's zero tolerance policy.

It became the policy of the Trump administration and the U.S. Government to forcibly remove 3,000 children from their parents. That is bad enough, is it not? The notion that you take a baby out of the arms of a mother--a toddler, an infant--separate a young child--we did it under President Trump's zero tolerance policy.

Now let me state what added insult to that injury. At that point, there was no effort made to make certain we could reunite the parents with the children. Time and again, we would meet downstairs for a briefing from ICE and other agencies, and they would tell us: We don't know where the parents are. We really don't know where the kids are. We are going to have to go looking.

Imagine separating up to 3,000 children from their parents, and the U.S. Government did not keep a record of what happened to those kids. Ship something by UPS--they give you a tracking number. Go online, and you can track that package wherever it may be. Order a pizza from Domino's. Call them after 15 minutes and ask: Where is the pizza? They will tell you. Check your coat at a restaurant before you go to the table. When you come back and hand them that little piece of paper, they give you your coat. It is pretty simple, is it not? But when it came to children and families, this agency, ICE, along with other agencies of this government, lost them. In one agency in Chicago, they told me that the search for the parents of the little kids they had was like a scavenger hunt. They just started calling right and left to try to figure out where the parent might be.

Yesterday, we had a briefing, and finally these agencies came up with some numbers. There are 2,550 children still in our custody who are not reunited with their families; 1,800 parents we haven't linked up with their children. And we want to put a resolution on the floor to commend this activity--to praise them for their great work? Not me.

They do good work in a lot of important areas, and I will be happy to join in that chorus. But we stand here and ignore the obvious--that this zero tolerance policy has given our Nation a black eye, has raised questions about our values as Americans, has created situations we cannot morally defend, such as separating children from their mothers.

Do you know what the American Academy of Pediatrics tells us? The doctors tell us it is an institutional form of child abuse to remove these children.

I have seen them, these poor kids, 5 and 6 years old in these settings. The place I visited in Chicago was doing its best to help the children, but two little girls walked into the room where I was sitting. They were holding hands--cute little kids. It was my opportunity to meet about 10 or 12 kids who were separated from their parents under the zero tolerance policy.

These two little girls were holding hands, and I thought they were sisters. We asked in Spanish. ``No, amigas,'' she said. They had become friends to one another.

It turns out that the one who was 5 years old was from Guatemala and the one who was 6 years old was from Chiapas, Mexico. They were holding on to one another. All they had was one another because our government had separated them from their mothers.

Now this agency is struggling to find these mothers. In some circumstances, they cannot even link up the children with their parents.

No, I am not going to join in a resolution of congratulations for the work they have done. Many of the things they have done have been courageous and important for the security of this country, but when it comes to the zero tolerance policy, it is not.

I do want to make one last point. Listen to what the top agents at ICE's Homeland Security Investigations agency, which focuses on serious transnational criminal activity, had to say. Last month, a majority of the agents focusing on transnational criminal activity wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, asking that Homeland Security Investigations be removed from ICE because of ``the political nature of civil immigration enforcement.''

These are men and women who are focusing on serious crimes, and they asked to be removed from ICE. They are tired of the politics. I am weary of it as well.

We need to start solving these problems--border security, dangerous people kept out of this country and removed, comprehensive immigration reform. And for goodness' sake, reunite these children with their parents.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I am at a loss for words to describe what happened yesterday in Helsinki, Finland. I am disappointed, as well, by the stunning silence of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in response to it.

When each of us is elected to serve in Congress--the House and the Senate--we are asked to take an oath, a very serious oath. In it, we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The President of the United States similarly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Yesterday in Helsinki, Finland, the President of the United States was engaged in an appalling display. What we saw at that press conference--standing just several feet away from Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia--was the President's decision to turn his back on the organizations and agencies of the U.S. Government, to question their credibility, and to affirm, incredibly, that Mr. Putin had given a powerful denial to what they have found when it comes to the Russian interference in our last election.

Just days after bullying our key NATO allies and failing to publicly accept that Russia attacked our country, attacked our democracy, this administration and its enablers here in Congress are failing that oath.

President Trump refuses to accept the findings of American intelligence professionals, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and virtually every agency of our government that is tasked with keeping us safe and instead accepts Vladimir Putin's absurd, self- serving denials. Many of my colleagues here in Congress refuse to even speak up to denounce the President's actions.

Consider what happened months before the 2016 election when our Nation's top intelligence officials came and told key congressional leaders about the Russian cyber attack on the United States. The administration at that time, under President Obama, was deeply concerned. President Obama was looking for a bipartisan response condemning Putin's efforts in the closing days of the elections so as to avoid any hint of partisanship in the public announcement and to present a unified deterrent.

What was the response of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell after hearing this alarming revelation that Vladimir Putin was actively interfering in our elections and trying to undermine our democracy? Senator McConnell's response: No thanks. We are not going to help. And incredibly, neither the Senator nor his party did.

Is there anyone in the Senate--anyone who took the oath to protect our Nation against enemies, foreign and domestic--who thinks any of us, regardless of political party, should receive help from a foreign adversary to get elected? I hope we all agree that country must come before party. So then why do so many of my Republican colleagues remain silent in light of President Trump's open denial of the reality of Russia's involvement in our election?

Yesterday, we watched in disbelief as the President not only refused to even acknowledge the act of cyber war against the United States but, incredibly, blamed America first for our poor relationship with Russia. We watched our American President refuse to stand up to Vladimir Putin, a former KGB official, who executed one of the most breathtaking cyber attacks in history aimed at the United States and aimed at undermining the Western security alliance and our country's democracy. An American President stood on the world stage next to a tyrant--a tyrant who denies that he attacked us--and then the President of the United States repeatedly agreed with that adversary and dismissed criminal indictments of Russian Government officials responsible for the attack. The President closed with a rambling preening about his great election victory.

We have an American President who seems to be utterly incapable of saying

the obvious to Vladimir Putin. The President should say: Don't ever interfere in U.S. elections again. I don't want your help, and I don't believe your absurd denials. He refused to say that.

Compare his bizarre and dangerous comments in Helsinki with what President Ronald Reagan said before the 1988 NATO summit. Instead of bullying our closest allies, Ronald Reagan said:

Our first priority is to maintain a strong and healthy

partnership between North America and Europe, for this is the

foundation on which the cause of freedom so crucially

depends.

Again, Ronald Reagan said:

Our first priority is to maintain a strong and healthy

partnership between North America and Europe, for this is the

foundation on which the cause of freedom so crucially

depends.

There is at least one Republican Senator who is not silent. My friend and a great American patriot, John McCain, said this yesterday about the Helsinki press conference:

Today's press conference in Helsinki was one of the most

disgraceful performances by an American President in memory.

The damage inflicted by President Trump's naivete, egotism,

false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to

calculate. . . . President Trump proved not only unable, but

unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be

speaking from the same script as the President made a

conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair

questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested

platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.

I could not agree more. It is obvious. We, all of us, Democrats and Republicans, should agree with what John McCain said.

Despite President Trump's shameful denials of Russian interference at yesterday's farce of a press conference, the evidence is clear: Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. Our intelligence agencies and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee have concluded that not only did Russia interfere in our elections through cyber attacks, but they did so to harm Hillary Clinton, help elect Donald Trump, and undermine our democratic process.

When Donald Trump hears those words, it sends him into a rage. He denies any Russian interference for fear that it might reflect on his victory in the election. There is no evidence that has been produced to date that shows that Russian interference changed the outcome of that election. I am not questioning whether Donald Trump won the Electoral College and became President, but I don't think he should question whether the Russians were trying to undermine that process.

During his ongoing investigation into Russian meddling, Special Counsel Mueller has so far indicted 32 individuals and 3 companies on a total of 191 criminal charges. This includes the February indictment of 13 Russian trolls who engaged in a multiyear effort to influence our election, to support the election of Donald Trump by sowing discord and inflaming social tensions online.

The Mueller investigation includes 12 members of the Russian military intelligence, specifically named, who were indicted last Friday for engaging in a sustained operation to hack into the emails, accounts, and computer networks of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign.

These Russians also created online personas and worked with WikiLeaks to publish the stolen documents. To cover their tracks, they committed identity theft, engaged in money laundering, and at one point leased a computer in my home State of Illinois to store and move the stolen documents through encrypted channels.

Additionally, the Russians hacked into the computer networks of election officials and vendors in order to steal voter data and other information. The indictment, produced by Special Counsel Mueller, mentions that the Russians ``hacked the website of a state board of elections . . . and stole information related to approximately 500,000 voters, including names, addresses, partial social security numbers, dates of birth, and driver's license numbers.'' This was, presumably, in reference to the Illinois State Board of Elections, which we already knew was one of the first victims of a successful Russian cyber attack--a Russian cyber attack that President Donald Trump refuses to believe ever happened.

We know that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, and we know that we should be gearing up for Russia to interfere with the 2018 midterm election as well. Just this past weekend, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, my former Republican Senate colleague from the State of Indiana and a man for whom I voted for this position and whom I respect very much, reiterated the ongoing threat that Russia presents, saying: ``In regard to state actions, Russia has been the most aggressive foreign actor--no question--and they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy.''

What a departure from what President Trump said in Helsinki yesterday. His own Director of National Intelligence has refuted the statement he made to the world yesterday, agreeing with the ``powerful statement'' of Vladimir Putin's that he had nothing to do with an attack on our election. Our President is cozying up to Vladimir Putin at the expense of the credibility of his own Director of National Intelligence. Why is this happening?

Instead of condemning President Trump and supporting the Special Counsel's efforts of getting to the bottom of this, sadly, the vast majority of congressional Republicans are actively working to undermine the investigation.

Just last week, Senate Republicans confirmed the nomination of Brian Benczkowski to serve as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. They voted for Mr. Benczkowski to be in charge of 600 Federal prosecutors despite the fact that Mr. Benczkowski, as a lawyer, has never been in a trial--never. He has never been in a courtroom and has never been in a trial. He was named by President Trump to head up the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. That may not be the worst part.

Mr. Benczkowski, in his private law practice in Washington, also chose to represent a Russian bank, the Alfa-Bank, which has deep ties to Vladimir Putin. This is despite the fact that when he was called on it, he said he would not commit to recusing himself from this Russia investigation.

Furthermore, this vote occurred as President Trump and House Republicans had been looking for an excuse to fire Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who is overseeing the Mueller investigation. Should Rosenstein be fired, Mr. Benczkowski could be easily tasked by the President to oversee the Russia investigation. That would be an unmitigated legal disaster.

Enough is enough. Today is the day that, I hope, my colleagues-- Democrat and Republican alike--will step forward and speak up.

The world is still reeling from the comments that were made yesterday in Helsinki by the President of the United States of America. There are serious questions from our longtime NATO allies--those who count on the United States for the safety and security of their republics. There are serious questions in their minds about who we are, what we stand for, the relationship between this President and Vladimir Putin--a relationship which is absolutely inexplicable in that President Trump would refuse to concede the obvious--that Vladimir Putin is setting out to undermine our values in the world.

President Trump should stand with the brave men and women of law enforcement, intelligence, and the Department of Defense who have warned him about Vladimir Putin, and he should not be so easily swept away with these meetings he has.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, back in the day when I was a trial lawyer and we had had a witness come to the stand who had made a big mistake-- who had said something that would hurt your case or, maybe, even decide it the wrong way or who had misrepresented someone--you went through a period of rehabilitating the witness, which meant, basically, asking friendly questions and trying to get that witness back into a credible position. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

This afternoon, President Trump attempted to rehabilitate himself for his performance in Helsinki, Finland.

The President said:

While I had a great meeting with NATO, raising vast amounts

of money, I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of

Russia. Sadly, it is not being reported that way--the Fake

News is going Crazy!

I don't think that comment is going to rehabilitate President Trump from his performance in Helsinki. It was sad, heartbreaking, and, in many ways, infuriating to think that he stood within a few feet of this Russian tyrant and said he believed that man, Vladimir Putin, more than he believed the intelligence agencies--the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice--of the United States of America. That was what he said, and it was a moment that will not easily be forgotten. It is not something he can talk his way out of.

He made similarly incoherent and jarring comments moments ago in an apparent damage control event. He went so far as to say that our NATO allies ``were thrilled'' with his recent visit during which he bullied and belittled them.

In some moments, the President loses touch with reality. He believes that we are suffering from national amnesia and that we can't remember what happened yesterday or last week. We remember. The reason we remember is that it is such a dramatic departure from the conduct of previous Presidents and that it is such a dramatic departure from the history of the United States. I think our President's sense of history reaches back to the day before yesterday and not far beyond.

He does not realize, as President Reagan said so often, that our NATO alliance is critical to the security of the United States and to our European friends and to the world. He just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand why that alliance is so critical. He belittles it. He bullies the members. He picks some of our strongest allies and decides to make them spectacles of his performance. That doesn't make it any easier for them to continue to stand by our side, and it, certainly, doesn't put them in a position of trusting us in the future if they desperately need us.

My mother was born in Lithuania, in the Baltics. I have been there many, many times. They are great little countries--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--and next-door, Poland. They have seen a lot over the years. They have been overrun by Nazis and Communists, and they have seen their freedoms be eliminated under autocratic rule. They believed, when they finally restored democracy about 25 or 30 years ago, that their only chance--their only guarantee of any future--was going to be with the NATO alliance, with becoming part of Europe--with becoming part of this great alliance with the United States.

Last night, I was with Gordon Smith, a former Senator from Oregon. We both

remembered a visit to Lithuania in 1999 where there was this rally, this small rally, in one of the public streets in Lithuania. It was a NATO rally or, as they called it, ``GNAT-OH.'' They were chanting in Lithuanian how much they wanted to be part of NATO. They understood then and they understand today that the NATO alliance is Lithuania's ticket to freedom, that the NATO alliance is its insurance policy. The NATO alliance gives it hope that there will not be another generation of Lithuanians who will live in suppression and chains.

When the President belittles this and suggests that, perhaps, the Baltics are on the table when he talks of Vladimir Putin, it strikes fear in the hearts of God-fearing people who basically can still remember what it means to be under the heel of the Communist leadership of Moscow. The President just doesn't get it. He does not understand the importance of it. He, certainly, doesn't understand Vladimir Putin. To think that he would allow Putin to use what he called ``powerful words'' and deny what we already know to be true says that the President is very gullible.

What is it about this relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin? How can you explain this? Why would a President of the United States be bowing and scraping to this Russian tyrant--to a man who has a dismal record when it comes to human rights, to a man who led his troops in the invasion of the nation of Georgia and who invaded Ukraine and who took over Crimea, to a man who set up a situation in Syria in which innocent people would die and in which their own tyrant would succeed, to a man who invaded our election process as he did?

I guess what we are looking for now, as our minority leader, Senator Schumer, said earlier, is an accounting of what actually happened in Helsinki. This disastrous meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin needs to be fully explained to the American people. I join with Senator Schumer in calling for hearings with the President's Helsinki team--with Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, and with Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence and a man I greatly respect, who showed a steel spine this last week as he witnessed the President's turning on him and the intelligence community, and with Mr. Huntsman, our Ambassador to Moscow. They should all be coming to Washington quickly to explain what happened and how to repair the damage created by President Trump.

We need to see a transcript of the one-on-one meeting with President Trump and Vladimir Putin. If he were so deferential in his public press conference with Vladimir Putin, what did our President say to Putin behind closed doors? It is not too much for the American people to ask for an accounting.

We need to make sure that the Republicans will join us in protecting the Office of Special Counsel. So far, Robert Mueller's investigation has led to the indictments of 32 individuals, and 5 have already pled guilty. The latest included 12 Russian intelligence agents who were specified by name as being involved in the efforts to undo our election.

We also need something that is very basic and, I think, that all of us have now come to realize is essential. President Donald Trump can no longer refuse to disclose his income tax returns. He did it throughout the campaign. He has refused to make a disclosure since. We need to know his financial relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin's oligarchs. There has to be more to the story than we know today, and it is time for this President to come clean.

Finally, we need to press for election security legislation. We live in a dangerous moment. I also agree with former Senator Dan Coats. It is a moment at which the Russians will try to take advantage of us.

My last plea will be to my colleagues who have not spoken out clearly on this subject--not to the Presiding Officer, because he has spoken out, and I respect him so much. We need them to come forward and make it clear on a bipartisan basis that we stand together when it comes to foreign policy, the values of this Nation, and the security of the United States. We understand that Vladimir Putin has been a tyrant who has really made life miserable and who has killed many innocent people in his rage against the West and against the United States.

Most of all, we need more Republican Senators who will join with those in the past who have stepped forward and put country first over party. I remember reading the history of the Nixon years and the breaking point. The breaking point finally occurred when people like Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, of Arizona, stood up and said: ``There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has been one too many.'' He joined with several other Republican Senators and went down to the White House and sat face-to-face with President Richard Nixon. They sat directly in front of him and explained that enough was enough.

It will take that. It will take that again for Republican Senators to have the courage to meet with this President and tell him he has to stop giving away the heritage, the values, and the legacy of the United States of America.

Those courageous Americans back in that day were, of course, talking about lies, corruption, obstruction of justice, and dangers to our democratic system. They took the oath of office. It is the same one we have taken to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to, certainly, put party second to our obligations to our Nation.

For their courage, we and history owe them a debt of gratitude. Since yesterday's fiasco with Putin, only one Republican has spoken specifically on the Senate floor about this crisis. He was joined by the most eloquent statement by John McCain, who, because of illness, could not be physically present. That is it. It is not enough.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Ms. Gillibrand), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

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

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

Mr. President, the world breathed a sigh of relief. For almost 2 weeks now, we have had our attention focused on 12 children, Thai soccer team players who were lured into a cave with their coach and were thought to be lost for days. They couldn't be found in that flooded cave.

Then came the good news that they were discovered. They were still alive. It was a miracle.

Then came an extraordinary challenge: how to safely bring these 12 children out of this trap they were in and bring them to safety. I cannot imagine the effort that was undertaken. It included countries from around the world and the United States coming together to provide extraordinary levels of assistance at great cost to save the lives of these 12 children, to bring them out of this trap they were in and reunite them with their families.

All the prayers and all the hard work, all the bravery and all the investment paid off. These children are safe, as is their coach. They are currently being tended to for medical care, but the day will soon come when they will be back in the warm embrace of their families.

It was a great illustration of the caring heart of people around the world for children they had never seen; children who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in a deadly circumstance; children separated from their families with no hope when it came to their future. People responded. It was a great moment for the world to reflect on those children.

Mr. President, I wish to reflect on some other children. I wish to reflect on the 3,000 children forcibly removed from their parents' arms at the borders of the United States of America over the last several months. These children were victims of the zero tolerance policy of the Trump administration--a policy which Attorney General Sessions announced that resulted in those who appeared at the border, whether or not they were there for legitimate claims of asylum, being treated as criminals, and, treated as criminals, their children were removed from them.

I met with some of those children. It was 2 weeks ago in Chicago. It was at one of the agencies that the Department of Health and Human Services has used for decades to provide safe care for children who are unaccompanied at our border. Historically, those children came to the borders of United States without an adult, but in this circumstance, there were 66 children in Chicago who fit a different definition. While at the border, they were actually removed by the U.S. Government from the arms of their parents. Of the 66 children in the Chicago facility, 22--one-third of them--were under the age of 5. It is an important fact to keep in mind as we consider what has happened.

I come to the floor to speak about the Trump administration's shameful policy of forcibly removing innocent children from their parents. Since our Nation's tragic failure during World War II to rescue Jewish refugees who fled Hitler, generations of Americans and leaders of both political parties--Republicans and Democrats--have tried to set an example for the world by providing safe haven to the world's most vulnerable people.

Ask the Cuban Americans which country opened its doors for them when they tried to escape the communism of Fidel Castro. It was the United States of America, and we are better for it. Three Members of the U.S. Senate are Cuban Americans who can trace their lineages to that refugee flow from the island to our shores.

Ask the Soviet Jews, who were persecuted under Soviet rule and who finally found freedom of religion and opportunity here in the United States, whether the U.S. refugee policy was good for them. Of course, it was, and it was good for America.

Ask those who came out of Vietnam, who stood by our side during that bloody war and came to this country as refugees to escape persecution, whether that was the right choice for them. It was, and it was the right choice for America, most certainly.

Now we face the worst refugee crisis in history, and what is the United States of America's official policy? The Trump administration is doing everything in its power to prevent innocent victims of war and terrorism from even seeking safe haven in our country.

The Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are the sources of the vast majority of migrants who arrive at our southern border. These people are driven to our borders by horrific gang and sexual violence. What is at the root cause of that violence? It is the appetite for narcotics in the United States. It is the drug money that flows south from our border into Mexico and Central America. It is the firearms that flow by the thousands into South and Central America from the United States of America. This creates these gangs and creates these cartels that bring such violence on local people.

These countries have among the highest homicide rates in the world. Girls face a constant threat of sexual violence and rape and have little protection from local authorities. Is it any wonder that in desperation so many of them seek our shores and seek our country for the safety of their kids? This is why families are taking extraordinary risks to flee to our border. Any parent would do the same to save a child.

What has been the Trump administration's response to these families

who flee for their lives and to the mothers and fathers who try to protect their girls from sexual violence and rape?

On April 6, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration had adopted a new zero tolerance approach in prosecuting border cases, making family separation the official policy of the United States of America. It declares that all who present themselves at our borders, even those who legitimately seek asylum, are to be treated as criminals.

The goal is clear. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said that separating families is a ``tough deterrent'' to parents who flee persecution. Kelly also dismissed any concerns because ``the children will be taken care of--put into foster care or whatever.''

Under this harsh and harmful policy, thousands of children have been forcibly removed from their parents by our government. They have been transferred to facilities all over the country, often thousands of miles away from their parents. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association have condemned this Trump policy. In the starkest terms, the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics has called it ``government-sanctioned child abuse.''

Two weeks ago, on June 26, a Federal court in California mercifully stepped in. Judge Dana Sabraw was appointed to the Federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush. Judge Sabraw held that these family separations result in ``irreparable harm.'' He ordered the children who were separated by the Trump administration under the zero tolerance policy be returned to their parents within 30 days and within 14 days for those kids who were under the age of 5.

The Trump administration has tried to paint a rosy picture of the situation. On June 26, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar testified to the Senate Committee on Finance: ``Every parent has access to know where their child is.'' Secretary Azar said: ``There is no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located.'' He also claimed that HHS had 2,047 separated children in custody. Last Thursday, Secretary Azar admitted that, actually, ``up to 3,000`` separated kids are still in its custody. As has been documented in numerous heartbreaking reports, many parents of the separated kids still do not know where their children are, and their attempts to contact them have been unsuccessful.

Yesterday was the deadline imposed by Judge Sabraw for reuniting children under the age of 5. What did we learn? The Trump administration notified the court that it had identified 102 separated children under the age of 5 and that only 4 of those 102 children would be reunited before the deadline. The administration only has concrete plans to reunite about half of these 100 children. It has made no effort to contact 12 parents whom the government deported, and it can't even identify the parents of one toddler. We still don't know the fate of thousands of other children who are supposed to be reunited in just a few days.

This is an outrage. This is a toxic mix of cruelty and incompetence. The Trump administration continues to try to shift the blame for this humanitarian crisis to Congress and the courts, but Judge Sabraw said that this is a ``chaotic circumstance of the government's own making.'' He went on to say yesterday, as reported in the New York Times, that these are firm deadlines and not aspirational goals--admonishing the government.

In another Federal courtroom, the administration's real plan was made clear. Because of the backlash from the courts and the public, it is no longer separating families. Instead, this administration wants to jail these families indefinitely. Experts tell us that separation is child abuse, that jail is no place for children, and that even short-term detention can do permanent damage to a child's health and well-being.

The administration asked the Federal district court to set aside the Flores settlement--a legally binding agreement to protect the best interests of kids that has been in place for over two decades. On Monday, the Federal court rejected the Trump administration's request, saying it was ``wholly without merit.'' According to media reports, the Trump administration plans to appeal, and it is asking Congress to pass legislation to overturn the Flores agreement. Instead of putting social workers to work in reuniting families and children, the Trump administration wants to lawyer up so that it can be spared from the standards that Democratic and Republican administrations have faced in the humane treatment of children.

The Trump administration's goal is clear. In the midst of the world's worst refugee crisis, it wants to make the situation for families who flee persecution as painful as possible in order to deter them from seeking safe haven.

Let me be clear. This Senator will do everything in his power to stop legislation that would authorize the Trump administration to put migrant children in jail. It is immoral. It is shameful. It is un- American. I call on my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to join me in opposing the Trump administration's cruel immigration policy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. Certainly I am happy he is bringing to the attention of the Senate this critical issue of the future of the Supreme Court and the impact it will have on families across America. Certainly, when it comes to something as basic as our health insurance, we understand this.

There are forces at work in Washington in the Trump administration that are trying to put an end to the Affordable Care Act, and in Congress, many Members of Congress--the House and the Senate--have voted 60 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We barely saw it survive just a few months ago when Senator John McCain, in the middle of the night, came and stood in that well and voted no, along with two other Republican Senators. They saved the Affordable Care Act.

Most Americans had their own questions about the Affordable Care Act and how important it was, but they couldn't understand how the Republicans would come to us and say ``Get rid of it'' and have no replacement.

We realize, as the Senator from Connecticut just explained, that under the old rules with insurance companies, under the old rules, many of us were victims. If you had someone with a preexisting condition in your family--perhaps you had diabetes, perhaps your child was a cancer survivor, had asthma, or so many different things--health insurance was very expensive, if you could get it. We changed the law. We said: You can't discriminate against an American because someone in their family has had a preexisting condition. Everybody is in the same pool in America. We are going to join together.

Well, now the Trump administration has said they are going to fight that in court. They are going to try to declare it unconstitutional to protect people with preexisting conditions, so they filed a brief in a lawsuit--a lawsuit that is wending its way to the Supreme Court. When the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, came before us and talked about the new nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, it is important that he focused on the impact it could have on ordinary people.

Most Americans, put to the test, couldn't name the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Well, they know it is a big Court, an important Court, the highest Court in the land, but they don't know who is there until we get into this kind of debate. As we do, people tend to learn a lot more about the Justices and what their core beliefs are.

When it comes to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, he has a lengthy record--12 years of opinions as a judge, not to mention all the years before that when he was active politically in Washington, DC. Senator Murphy of Connecticut is correct to note that his approach to the law and his approach to the Constitution do not give us great hope in preserving the protections on health insurance that are part of the Affordable Care Act. One decision by that Supreme Court could undo years of legislative work and literally remove protections from families. We are talking about that today. We should be talking about that today. But it isn't what we are voting on today, and that is why I have come to the floor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.