Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, as well as those who were on the floor earlier. The remarks we are delivering today address the future of our relationship with the NATO alliance, particularly in light of the visit that President Trump is now making to meet with Vladimir Putin of Russia.

I am glad many of my colleagues came here today to speak on the threats posed by President Trump to America's core national security alliance--something that would have once

been unimaginable. In fact, there was a time when a Republican President named Ronald Reagan really inspired the United States and the world by noting how important the NATO alliance is to the world and to the United States. In a speech that he gave to the Parliament of Great Britain in 1982, Ronald Reagan said:

We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a

terrible political invention: totalitarianism. Optimism comes

less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous,

but because democracy's enemies have refined their

instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order, because

day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not-at-all

fragile flower.

Reagan went on to say:

Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let

it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will

never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle

that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and

rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual

resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the

ideals to which we are dedicated.

President Reagan then went on to say to the British Parliament:

I've often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the

West about standing for these ideals that have done so much

to ease the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect

world.

Contrast what President Reagan said about the partnership of the Atlantic alliance nations in NATO with what has happened with this current White House and President regarding some of these same key Western allies at the G7 summit last month.

First, President Trump stunned the Western world by saying even before arriving at the summit that Russia should be welcomed back into the group of G7 nations, even though Russia was expelled after invading and seizing sovereign Ukrainian territory, which it still holds. President Trump made this plea to try to win over this effort of support for Putin to a Western world that is skeptical of Putin and his tactics.

Putin launched an aggressive cyber act of war right here in the United States in an attempt to void and change a national election and to favor his candidate over another. That, in many respects, is a cyber act of war, which President Trump refuses to acknowledge.

At the summit itself, President Trump arrived late and left early after letting it be known that he didn't even want to attend the G7 summit with our traditional allies. The President, sad to say, was utterly disrespectful to our Nation's oldest and most reliable allies.

In fact, a White House trade adviser, Peter Navarro, said that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ``stabbed us in the back,'' and then Mr. Navarro went on to say, ``There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad-faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door.'' Navarro's comments echoed a series of tweets from the President withdrawing from a joint G7 statement after initially agreeing to it.

Then the President went on in this tweet, personally attacking Prime Minister Trudeau in the coarsest terms and criticizing and disparaging America's oldest Western allies simply for imploring him not to end decades of shared Western-led international order and cooperation.

One senses that President Trump's sense of history extends to the day before yesterday. Has he forgotten that since the attack on the United States of 9/11, the Canadians have stood by us, as so many other countries have as well? One hundred fifty-nine Canadians have given their lives standing by our troops in Afghanistan in a NATO effort since operations began there in 2002. Could we ask anything more of a trusted ally than to sacrifice the lives of its young soldiers? Canada has, and continues to, despite this language from President Trump.

Then, to add insult to injury, President Trump showered one of the world's most brutal nuclear-armed dictators with glowing warmth, pats on the back, flattery, and even a White House-made propaganda video showing North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as a great statesman.

Can anyone here imagine what would have happened if President Obama had constructed a propaganda video before beginning his negotiations with Iran or if the President had saluted an Iranian general? FOX TV, the Republicans, and many other leaders would have had a field day with that image.

I am all for talking to one's adversaries in the pursuit of diplomacy. I have met with my share of autocrats around the world, trying, in my small way, to advance America's interests and values, but I don't check America's values or reality at the door at those meetings. I do not know of any modern President who let normal disagreements between key allies turn into a personal spat that alienates our friends and undermines our security.

In fact, I am increasingly convinced that President Trump is so enamored by validation-seeking autocrats and offended by our traditional allies expressing disagreements that he is incapable of distinguishing friends from enemies. This is truly problematic and dangerous. Now, our allies have just cause to worry that President Trump will give away concessions to Vladimir Putin, just as he did with the North Korean dictator.

Against all reason and international norms, Trump is considering recognizing Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea because, sadly, President Trump has no sense of history and little knowledge of Vladimir Putin's true agenda.

He is making threats and belittling NATO, the strongest alliance on the face of the Earth, while at the same time craving time with Vladimir Putin, whom he describes as a fine man. That is something which I am sure the people in our NATO alliance find incredible.

Quite simply, the first and long overdue statement from Trump to Putin ought to be: Do not interfere in America's elections ever again. I don't want your help, which was an attack on our democracy, and I do not believe your denials.

That ought to be the opening remark with Vladimir Putin. My guess is that it will not even be close.

I can think of few times in history that the party of Ronald Reagan has sat so quietly on its hands while an American President's actions threatened our Western security alliance and our place in the world. I don't understand why the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not held a full committee hearing on Russia in more than 1 year, not to mention ever conducted an investigation into Russia's attack on our last election--something clearly within the jurisdiction of this committee and which it did in the past amid allegations of foreign election interference.

What of the Republicans' stunning silence about President Trump's undermining of NATO? There are some national needs and congressional responsibilities that ought to call on all of us in both political parties to rise to the occasion. Think about what Russia's President Putin would most like to see happen in the West and compare it to what is happening under President Trump. President Trump has called NATO obsolete and questioned the centrality of the collective security guarantee of article 5. He has questioned whether NATO should come to the aid of NATO's Baltic States--NATO members. In fact, President Trump reportedly asked NATO at the recent G7: Why do we need it?

Is that now the official position, not just of President Trump but of his Republican Party? I would implore those Members of the Senate of both parties who have visited the Baltic nations and understand the vulnerability of those states and their bloody history over the last century and a half to speak up on behalf of the need for NATO to stand in concert and in alliance with those Baltic States.

This week the Canadians sent their forces and representatives to Latvia, where they are providing special help on the ground. Similar NATO forces are in Lithuania and Estonia. They are doing their best to convince Putin not to engage in acts of aggression against these small nations, while at the same time the President of the United States questions the purpose of this effort.

President Trump has withdrawn the United States from key international agreements on trade, climate, and even the expansion of nuclear weapons in Iran. In doing so, the President has estranged the United States from its allies. While I hope we do reach a diplomatic agreement with North Korea, I

want to note that what little was agreed to in Singapore doesn't even come close to the terms and inspections that were in the Iran nuclear agreement from which President Trump simply walked away.

President Trump has insulted and strained relations with America's closest European and Western allies, so much so that European Council President Donald Tusk recently dismissed the United States by saying: ``With friends like that, who needs enemies.''

It has reached the point that just ahead of the NATO summit, we lost another senior career diplomat when James Melville, our Ambassador to Estonia, resigned over frustration with the controversial comments being made by President Trump. Ambassador Melville served under 6 different Presidents and 11 Secretaries of State, and he never thought the day would come when he couldn't support a President's policies-- until now.

President Trump has tried to discredit key democratic institutions and processes in the United States, sowing mistrust in our political system and government. He has insulted poor nations, made immigrants a manufactured enemy, separated children from parents forcibly, and declared that America must come first in this world, isolating the United States day by day and more and more from the nations and countries that have been our traditional allies.

Why in the world is this President pursuing the agenda of one of our adversaries, who attacked our election process, militarily seized sovereign territory of our allies, murdered and attempted to murder dissidents on our allies' soil, provided weapons to Ukrainian separatists that shot down a Malaysian commercial airliner, killing hundreds of innocent people, repeatedly buzzes and tests NATO defenses, and jails and represses its own people when they advocate for basic democratic rights?

Before departing this morning for Brussels, instead of setting a positive tone for the NATO meeting to follow, President Trump, incredibly, decided to take to Twitter to criticize our allies again.

My friend and American patriot, Senator John McCain, was one of the few Republicans--one of the few--to recently speak up on behalf of our alliance. Here is what he said:

To our allies: bipartisan majorities of Americans remain

pro-free trade, pro-globalization & supportive of alliances

based on 70 years of shared values. Americans stand with you,

even if our president doesn't.

I couldn't agree more. I wish John McCain were on the floor of the Senate today to deliver those remarks in person, but his spirit is here among those on both sides of the aisle who value our NATO alliance and cannot understand the relationship between President Trump and Vladimir Putin.

The cause of democracy and freedom in this world requires a strong alliance that stands together for values the Americans believe in, share, fight for, and die for in war after war. We need that spirit to return again to the United States.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, last night, in the San Diego Federal District Court, U.S. district court judge Dana Sabraw made a critical ruling that will affect the lives of thousands of people who have been the focal point of America's attention over the last several weeks.

Judge Sabraw was appointed to the Federal bench by President George W. Bush. In reading about him online, he is a Japanese American whose background was in private practice law before he assumed the Federal bench.

He was given the responsibility of ruling on the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy. You will remember that policy. It started in April. It was a decision by the Trump administration and Attorney General Sessions to separate children from their mothers and parents if they attempted to enter the United States without having legal authorization. The net result of that policy was the separation of thousands of children from their parents.

It has been on the news almost every day for weeks now. A firestorm of opposition has come about on both political sides of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans have said this is unfair; that it is not right. Even the First Ladies--Democrats and Republicans--have come together in an unusual show of unanimity in their opposition to President Trump and Attorney General Sessions' zero tolerance policy.

Attorney General Sessions defended the policy and said he had a Biblical defense for what they were doing. President Trump made it clear he was behind the policy as well. Yet the opposition grew and grew in its intensity to the point at which there were statements made by the Pope, as well as by an evangelical supporter of the President, Franklin Graham, when they called the administration's decision immoral.

Late last week, President Trump issued an Executive order that said he was ending this family separation, but that order didn't contain one word about what was going to happen to these children. There was no resolution of the whole question of reuniting these children with their parents.

I learned about this matter months ago--well, several weeks ago, at least--when we learned that a mother from the Congo had made it through South America and Central America to our border in California. She presented herself with her 6-year-old daughter and asked for asylum because she feared persecution and death back in her home country. That happened over 6 months ago. They removed her 6-year-old daughter from her custody and flew the girl 2,000 miles to Chicago. So the mother remained in San Diego, and the daughter was in Chicago. That was when we learned about it in my office.

We started pursuing it. After we brought it to the attention of those at the Department of Homeland Security, they said that was not the policy, and they were going to work on it. They did reunite the mother and child, but the separation of this family led to this lawsuit, the lawsuit Judge Sabraw ruled on last night.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the opinion of the court be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me read some of the words Judge Sabraw wrote last night in his order, in his conclusion, about the zero tolerance policy of separating children from their parents.

The unfolding events--the zero tolerance policy [the judge

writes] serve to corroborate Plaintiffs' allegations. The

facts set forth before the Court portray reactive

governance--responses to address a chaotic circumstance of

the Government's own making. They belie measured and ordered

governance, which is central to the concept of due process

enshrined in our Constitution. This is particularly so in the

treatment of migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers and

small children. The extraordinary remedy of classwide

preliminary injunction is warranted based on the evidence

before the Court. For the reasons set out above, the Court

hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for classwide preliminary

injunction, and finds and orders as follows.

It goes into detail, and I will not read it in its entirety since it is now going to be printed in the Record, but it reads, clearly, that the court is enjoining the government--the Trump administration--from separating minor children from their parents.

It goes on to read that it also orders the Trump administration to reunify all class members with their minor children who are under the age of 5 within 14 days of the entry of this order, and defendants must reunify all class members with their minor children who are aged 5 and older within 30 days of the entry of the order. Defendants must immediately--and this is the government--take all steps necessary to facilitate the regular communication between class members and their children.

The court went on to say that within 10 days, the government--the defendants--must provide parents telephonic contact with their children if the parent is not already in contact with his or her child.

Last Saturday, the Department of Health and Human Services issued

what I consider to be a rosy and misleading press release about how much information they had about the parents and their children and how much telephone communication was taking place. I will tell you, in having contacted various people who are well aware of the situation, they have really overstated the contact information as well as the context between parents and children. Now they are being tested. The court has told them to return these children to their parents.

Last Friday, I was in Chicago at one of the agencies that was the custodian for 66 of these children who have been the victims of President Trump's zero tolerance policy. It was an experience I still remember and will not ever forget--of seeing six little children walk into a conference room, where I was sitting--little kids--and learning that two of them, who I thought might be twins because they had similar hairdos, were, in fact, as one of them said to me, ``just amigas,'' friends. One was 5 years old, and one was 6 years old.

As a father, it is hard for me to remember my kids at that age, but I can sure visualize my grandkids for a moment, who are now 6, 7, and 8, if they were to be separated from their parents by thousands of miles for weeks at a time. That was the policy of zero tolerance--to put pressure on those who consider seeking protection or asylum in this country.

I just left a meeting downstairs with a person whom I admire greatly. His name is King Abdullah of Jordan. I admire him for so many things-- his efforts to find peace in the Middle East--but especially because that tiny Kingdom of Jordan, in the Middle East, has done something which should be a lesson to the world. That nation of 7 million Jordanians has accepted 3 million refugees. It is at their political peril for them to have that large of a population within their borders. Yet, time and time again, refugees have presented themselves to Jordan and have been given not only humane treatment but good treatment under the circumstances.

The United States and many other nations have helped, and I am glad we have, for it is the right thing to do. Compare what we have done in the United States when it comes to refugees. Historically, we have accepted 75,000 to 100,000 refugees a year after careful screening, inspection, and vetting. In some cases, we have gone way beyond that.

When the Cubans came over and said they wanted to escape Castro's communism, we opened our doors. Thank goodness, we did, as they have made a great addition to America. Three Members of the U.S. Senate are Cuban Americans, and I am sure they are very proud of their family heritage. We opened our doors to Cuban refugees. We opened our doors to refugees as well from the Soviet Union and to people who wanted to practice their Jewish religion and felt they were being discriminated against. We opened our doors for them. We opened our doors for the Vietnamese to come here after the war and to become part of America because they had been on our side and had fought for freedom in their country and had run the risk of being killed. Time and again, the United States has opened its doors.

What has happened under this administration? First, the President announced last year that he was reducing the number of refugees to 45,000 a year who would be allowed in America--a dramatic cutback. How many have been accepted so far this year as we are well over the halfway point of this fiscal year? There have been less than 16,000 refugees. After careful screening, there have been less than 16,000.

I believe we can do better. I believe there are those who are in need of help. I believe this is the definition of who we are as Americans-- the way we treat the people at our borders. If we are humane, if we are civilized, if we are caring, it is a message to the world. If we are the opposite, it is also a message to the world. Right now, we have to look at the scoreboard. The kids have won, and zero tolerance has lost.

I hope now we can sit down and come up with a rational, reasonable approach. America cannot accept every person who wants to live here. I wish we could, but we can't. We have to have an orderly process, and we must have border security, but we need to do it with clarity and with humanity. We need to follow our Constitution, which the President, I hope, is reminded of after this decision last night.

This decision reads that due process is a part of the Constitution and that the chaotic governance of this administration is not consistent with the Constitution and its principles. It is time now for the President to understand that and to reunite these children under the age of 5 within 14 days. Within 30 days, those under the age of 18 need to be reunited as well. Then we can move forward and put this sad chapter in American history behind us.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

Mr. President, I would like to make one point and then ask a question.

When President Obama, who was my friend and colleague in the Senate, came up with family detention policies under his administration, I objected, as well, and I can show the Senator from Texas the objection.

The question I have for the Senator from Texas is this: If our goal is to make sure that the person presenting himself or herself actually appears as scheduled for the required hearings to be considered for eligibility under American law, if that is our goal, I would like to suggest to the Senator from Texas--and I think he can find in his own State evidence of this--over 90 percent of those in that circumstance appear at a hearing, as required, if they have one of three things: legal counsel; second, case management, which is the counsel of groups like Catholic Charities or Lutheran family services; or in some circumstances, ankle bracelets, where the government can monitor where they are. Over 90 percent show up, as required, for a hearing. It costs as little as $4 or $5 a day. It costs over $300 a day to detain a family. It is certainly not in the best interests of taxpayers to spend an amount that is unnecessary. Wouldn't the Senator agree that we ought to look for alternatives to detention that would also guarantee the appearance of individuals?

Mr. President, 27 years ago this week, one of the towering giants of American justice announced that he was retiring. Thurgood Marshall was a pillar of America's civil rights revolution, architect of the legal strategy that ended the shameful era of official segregation in this Nation, and the first African-American Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. His name will be forever linked with such civil rights icons as Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hamer, and John Lewis.

But the moral arc of the universe is never bent by just a few hands. We know that. The foot soldiers for justice in America's civil rights revolution also includes millions of people whose names are not recorded in history books--people like the men and women of Montgomery, AL, who walked to work and church and every other place for more than a year in 1955 and '56 rather than ride on the back of segregated city buses. The moral arc of the universe was bent by thousands of ordinary men and women who risked their livelihoods and sometimes even their lives by daring to try to register to vote in some states in the Deep South before the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The city of Chicago was honored to be the adopted home for more than 70 years of a men who bent the moral arc of the universe more than most. George Leighton's name may not be as well known as that of his old friend, Thurgood Marshall, but his contribution to the civil rights movement and to American justice was profound. Judge Leighton died earlier this month at the age of 105. If you think that is remarkable, consider this: He only retired 6 years ago, at the age of 99, still strong and sharp as a tack.

As a pioneering civil rights lawyer, George Leighton took on entrenched racism and injustice in Chicago and far beyond. He fought for fair housing and integrated public schools in Illinois and for voting rights and equal access to jury service in the Deep South, and he won. Several of his legal victories took him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

George Leighton was also a distinguished law professor and a judge. In 1969, he made history as the first African American ever to sit on the Illinois Appellate Court. Six years later, President Gerald Ford nominated him to serve on the Federal bench as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. As a fellow judge and admirer and recently, Judge Leighton defined for generations of Chicagoans what it meant to be a lawyer.

He was a man of enormous intelligent, integrity, and courage who dedicate his first to seeing that the law was applied equally to all. He had a heroic imagination. Board and raised in the era of Jim Crow, he had the vision to imaging a more just America and the courage to help bring that America into existence. His work and his sacrifices broke barriers and changed the meaning of equality in this country.

Judge Leighton was eloquent, with a rich baritone voice. He dressed impeccably, elegantly, and stood ramrod straight well into his 90s. He was a champion chess player. Despite all of that, he was a remarkably humble man.

He was born in 1912 in New Bedford, MA, one of seven children of immigrant parents from the Cape Verde Islands off the western coast of Africa. His family's name was Leitao--a Creole name--but a fourth-grade teacher changed his name to Leighton, reasoning that he would go further in life with a name that sounded more American.

He and his siblings worked with his parents in cranberry bogs and picked strawberries and blueberries from March until late November every year. His early education was hit-or-miss, since education had to fit in around the demands of farm work. He had reached only the seventh grade by age 17, when he left home to work on an oil tanker sailing from Fall River, MA, to Aruba, off the northern coast of South America. That job ended when the ship's crew mutinied.

George Leighton returned to New Bedford, working in restaurant kitchens and playing percussion in a dance band.

Always a voracious reader, he borrowed books wherever he could and took classes through the Works Project Administration. In 1936, he tied for first place in a local essay contest. With his $200 prize money, he talked Howard University into admitting him on a conditional basis, without a high school diploma. He made the dean's list that first semester and every semester and graduated from Howard 2 years later, Phi Beta Kappa.

It was during his Howard years that he met Virginia Quivers, the woman who would become his wife and the love of his life.

After Howard, George Leighton attended Harvard Law School on scholarship--one of the few African Americans of his generation to attend that prestigious school--working odd jobs to support himself.

His law studies were interrupted after 1 year by World War II. For 3 years, he served as an officer in the U.S. Army's fabled 93rd Infantry Division, an all-Black division, in places such as Guadalcanal.

He returned to Harvard after the war's end and graduated a year later.

He moved to Chicago to start his legal career. He had never been to Chicago before, but he knew two things about the city: It was a cauldron of racial tension, and Chicago voters had just elected the only African-American Member of Congress. There was important work to do in Chicago, and there was a glimmer of hope that change was possible.

The Chicago that greeted George Leighton was a hard place. Even with a Harvard law degree, George Leighton couldn't rent office space or dine in many of the restaurants or stay at a hotel in the Loop. He was not allowed to join the segregated Chicago Bar Association or the American Bar Association.

For 18 years, he practiced law with other African American attorneys, from an office in the shadow of Comiskey Park on Chicago's South Side. When his clients couldn't afford to pay him, which was not uncommon, he worked for free.

He built a national reputation for criminal and civil rights cases and several times won cases before the U.S.

Supreme Court. He helped integrate the Chicago Housing Authority and the public schools of Harrisburg, IL. In the South, he successfully challenged an amendment to the Alabama State constitution that used a ``constitutional knowledge'' test to deny African Americans the right to vote. He also helped to end the exclusion of African Americans from jury duty in Mississippi.

In 1951, 5 years after arriving in Chicago, George Leighton was indicted by a Cook County grand jury. His ``crime''? Telling his clients, an African-American family, that they had a legal right to rent an apartment in the then all-White Chicago suburb of Cicero. Enraged neighbors rioted, nearly burning the apartment building nearly to the ground.

The county grand jury indicted George Leighton on charges of conspiracy to incite riot and lower property values. Judge Leighton was represented by his friend, Thurgood Marshall, and the indictment was quickly dismissed.

Not long after that, with the support of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, George Leighton was elected as a Cook County judge. He was later elevated to the State appellate court, the first African American to sit on that bench.

He served as a Federal judge from 1976 until 1989. He would have preferred to stay on the bench, but his beloved wife, Virginia, had suffered several strokes some time before. Judge Leighton's insistence to provide her with round-the-clock medical care had depleted the family's savings, and he needed to make more money.

He returned to private law practice, joining the Chicago firm of Neal & Leroy. His new partner, Langdon Neal, was the son of Judge Leighton's old friend. Judge Leighton could have joined any law firm in Chicago, but he chose once again to go with a small, minority-owned firm. That was important to him.

Langdon Neal tells the story about walking into the office early one morning to find the lights already on. He looked into Judge Leighton's office, saw him sprawled out on the floor, and feared the worst. Before his law partner could say a word, Judge Leighton pushed himself up and did 10 more push-ups. He was taking a rest during his morning exercises.

At 77, he still had a lot of fight still in him. For the next 22 years, he would practice law, looking and sounding like a man decades younger. At 97, his hearing, vision, and cholesterol were all still perfect, and he was only 3 pounds heavier than when he was released from Active military duty.

As a Cook County judge in 1965, Judge Leighton acquitted two Latino men accused of beating and slashing a Chicago police officer. Judge Leighton believed that the officers who testified against the men were lying, and he told them so.

The decision touched off a public furor and angry calls to remove Judge Leighton from the bench. A Chicago Tribune reporter asked the judge if he feared for his safety. No, Judge Leighton quipped, ``I'm making careful plans to die of old age in office.''

Six years ago this month, June 2012, the Cook County courthouse where Judge Leighton acquitted those men, the courthouse where he first made his name as a civil rights lawyer in the 1940s and '50s and where he began his career as a judge, was renamed in his honor. ``26th and Cal'' is now the Judge George N. Leighton Criminal Court Building. It is one of many tributes in his honor.

In 2005, the main post office in his boyhood home of New Bedford, MA, was renamed in his honor. In 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission established the Honorable George N. Leighton Justice Award. Judge Leighton accepted these and other honors with grace, humility, and a bit of puzzlement. He was always genuinely surprised that people found his life worth celebrating in such ways.

There was only one honor that Judge Leighton wanted for himself at the end of his life. His final wish was to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Judge Leighton died in New Bedford on June 6, the 74th anniversary of D-Day. In a reflection of Judge Leighton's distinguished military service, his place in American history, and the esteem in which he was held by so many, Arlington National Cemetery has approved his burial in those hallowed grounds.

Sometime in the not-too-distant future, Judge George Leighton, the son of immigrants who bent the moral arc of history, will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. He will rest there in honor among such other American heroes as his old friend, Thurgood Marshall, General Benjamin O. Davis, the commander of the Tuskegee Airmen and the first African-American general in the U.S. Air Force, and other members of the Army's 93rd Infantry Division, with whom Judge Leighton fought with in World War II. It is a fitting final tribute to a great man who fought so long and in so many ways to preserve and defend freedom and liberty for all.

I am honored to have known him, and Loretta and I want to offer our condolences to his family, especially to his daughters, Virginia and Barbara, and their husbands, to Judge Leighton's five grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren, and to his friends and colleagues.

Mr. President, last Friday, I visited Heartland Alliance, a nonprofit organization in the city of Chicago, which, for more than two decades, has provided care for immigrant children who are classified as unaccompanied children.

The day I visited last Friday was my second visit to one of their nine facilities in the city of Chicago. Very few, if any, people in that city--a great city, and I am proud to represent it--even know that Heartland Alliance exists. The children are kept in residential neighborhoods, in places that look like ordinary homes. The only giveaway is the security fence around the building is a little higher than most of the

fences in the neighborhood. That is the only difference. In the busy neighborhood, there is a house with dozens of children inside.

On the day I was there, Heartland Alliance of Chicago had 66 children under their care who had been separated from their parents by our Federal Government over the last several weeks. They were separated under President Trump's zero tolerance policy. Two-thirds of these 66 zero tolerance children were under the age of 13. Twenty-two of the children--zero tolerance children, separated from their parents--were under the age of 5.

I went into the facility's nursery, where the infants and toddlers were being held, and I couldn't imagine for a moment what it must have been like when someone reached over and took that infant out of the arms of that mother and decided to transport that baby thousands of miles away. That is what has happened.

I met two little girls. I will not use their names, but their ages are 5 and 6. When these tiny, little girls walked into the room together, holding hands, I thought immediately they were twins. They had a Bamm-Bamm hairstyle--maybe somebody will remember what I am referring to from the old television show--and they were as cute as can be. They were holding hands as they walked into the room. I thought, at first, they were twins, and then I realized one was a little bit older than the other. So I started asking them questions: their names and their ages and where they were from. They were answering for one another.

At the end of it, we asked: Are you sisters?

They said: No, ``amigas''--friends.

They, like so many other kids in this situation, were clinging to anything that created a connection in their desperate little lives.

I brought with me some handmade cards that kids from my staff and friends had made to give to them. They were just pieces of construction paper with stickers inside, the kind kids love to make and love to receive. I went around, and I asked each of them if they would like to take one. They took them like they were Christmas toys, and they hung on to them--another connection in a life that, sadly, has become disconnected from the reality of their family.

I asked the staff at Heartland Alliance about these zero tolerance kids. I said: Could you find the parents of these kids if you needed to for a medical emergency?

They replied: Well, we could try. In some cases, we could, but in many cases, it is like a scavenger hunt.

You see, their parents may be moved from place to place, and if something happened, a medical emergency, it would be difficult to find that parent. I thought about that.

My little granddaughters and grandson are 6, 7, 8 years old. If they were brought into a hospital with some serious medical condition, the first thing the doctor wants to know is, what is the history? Has this child had a problem before?

These people don't know. There are no files that are coming with the children that have their medical history, and, in many cases, there is no way to contact their parents in an emergency situation.

This was a gut-wrenching visit. It is still with me today. It is just hard to imagine that the Government of the United States of America would forcibly take children away from their parents--parents who are seeking a chance at asylum and safety from violence and persecution.

I am angry too. I am infuriated that not only have these families not been reunited, but there doesn't seem to be an effective plan in place to bring these kids back to their parents.

How did we reach this point? How, in the history of this country, did we reach the point, where, on April 6, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Trump administration had created a new zero tolerance policy for prosecuting border cases?

There is no requirement in law to prosecute every border case criminally--none. These cases could be handled under civil law and families can be kept together under the law, but this administration chose to call every person at the border a criminal, even those who are fleeing violence and death threats and seeking a chance at asylum. As soon as they allege that the adult at the border is a criminal, then they can rationalize separating the children from these possible criminals, but, in most cases, the overwhelming majority of cases, the only possible crime was the fact that they showed up at the border.

As far as we know, more than 2,300 children have been taken away from their parents by the U.S. Government as a result of the zero tolerance policy. They have been transferred to facilities in places far away, sometimes thousands of miles away, like Chicago.

If the Federal Government separates children from parents while the family is in custody, I believe the government has the solemn obligation to ensure that each child can be located and properly reunited with their parents. Isn't this basic? But what we hear from advocates and the media is that the administration's handling of the reunification process is a mess.

We are at a real risk of lost children, lost in a bureaucratic system, adrift in a bureaucratic sea, who are delayed for who knows how long from seeing their parents again. That is because this was done so quickly, without any real thought to the impact it would have on the children, the impact it would have on the mothers and dads, and the impact it would have on the image of the United States around the world.

The Trump administration needs to make it an immediate priority to ensure that children who are separated from parents are brought back together again quickly.

Over the weekend, the Department of Homeland Security said the Federal Government ``knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families.'' I question that, but I accept it. If it is true, there is no excuse for delay.

No law required the administration to separate these families, and we don't need any new laws to be passed in this Chamber to reunite them. We just need this administration to act, and we need Congress to exert its oversight to verify that the administration is doing what it promised.

I have worked for most of my Senate career to pass bipartisan legislation to fix our broken immigration system. Time and again, bipartisan efforts, supported by a majority of Americans, have been blocked by a minority of vocal Republicans.

I worked for 6 months with John McCain and six other colleagues to write a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which we brought to the floor of the Senate and passed with an overwhelming vote. It would have cured this problem and many others, but the House of Representatives refused to even consider it.

Yesterday I sat down with several of my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to discuss whether we can find a way to pass a law or state of policy to stop the administration from separating families in the future. I am always happy to sit down, on a bipartisan basis, roll up my sleeves, and try to write a law that might serve the purpose of making this a better country, curing the problems we face, and doing it with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but Pennsylvania Avenue is a two-way street, and over the past few days, President Trump has made statements about immigration reform that do not help at all and I believe are contrary not only to the law and the Constitution but the values of our country.

Last Friday, President Trump said Republicans should stop ``wasting their time on immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November.''

Also, on Friday, he said the stories of children separated from their parents were ``phony''--``phony.'' I have seen these kids. These aren't phony kids, and they aren't phony stories.

On Sunday, the President tweeted:

We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country.

When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no judges

or court cases, bring them back from where they came.

That was the President's tweet. Statements like that and the President's tweet make a mockery of our Constitution and its solemn guarantee of due process of law.

The due process clause of the Constitution doesn't just apply to citizens; it applies to all people in the United States. The idea of abandoning due process when people seek asylum at

our borders and having, as the President said, ``no judges or court cases,'' is antithetical to the Constitution and its principles.

I will continue to work in good faith with my colleagues to see what Congress can do, but as long as President Trump is listening to advisers like Stephen Miller and making statements like these, it is hard to see how any bipartisan agreement can be reached on immigration.

While Congress works on this issue, the administration has a moral obligation to immediately reunite all families they have separated under that zero tolerance policy. They also have to make it clear that the President's Executive order last week will continue to be followed, and they will not separate any more families.

The third thing that we clearly need to do is to find a way for those who present themselves at the border to be brought to their hearings in a timely fashion to determine whether they are eligible for asylum. It is that basic. We don't have to detain them for long periods of time to achieve that.

We know there are three ways to get over 90 percent of these people to the hearings as scheduled: No. 1, provide them with the advice of legal counsel; No. 2, provide them with case management, such as those provided by Lutheran services, Catholic services, and others, which are willing to counsel them and work with them and tell them what the legal system in America requires; No. 3, in extreme cases, ankle monitors. Over 90 percent of the people show up for hearings with those three basic things. We don't need to build multimillion dollar detention facilities and internment camps for these families. For goodness' sake, we can do this in a humane and constitutional way.

Then, we need to address some root causes of this issue. On Friday, in Chicago, the regional head of the Drug Enforcement Agency came by to sit down with me, and we talked about the flow of opioids, the flow of heroin, and the flow of fentanyl into my State of Illinois. I am sure it is as true in Ohio as it is in Illinois. There is no town too small and no suburb too wealthy not to be hit by this drug epidemic that we are currently facing.

I was shocked to learn that in any given month, 2,000 pounds of fentanyl come into the city of Chicago--2,000 pounds--and the Drug Enforcement Agency is lucky to intercept 20 or 30 pounds. The rest of it is going to be consumed and distributed from that city.

Where is a lot of it coming from? It is coming from the cartels in Mexico. It isn't the people from Honduras at the border that pose the threat to America's security--not nearly as much as this drug epidemic.

Keep in mind that it is a two-way street in this drug epidemic. Not only are these Mexican cartels sending these drugs to the United States, killing our kids and killing our neighbors and friends, but we are sending back to them laundered drug money and guns so these cartels can take control in Mexico, in Honduras, in El Salvador, and in Guatemala. When these gangs take control and threaten the lives of people, they flee to the United States looking for protection. It is an endless circle that should be broken by breaking the supply of drugs coming into this country.

Any other President would be sitting down with the leaders of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, addressing this drug issue head- on. We have seen the tweets about kids who he calls ``phony'' coming to our border. We need to truly have a meeting of Central American and North American leaders to discuss this drug problem and all of the problems it is creating not only in their countries but in ours.

We also need to move forward and pass the Dream Act. I have been trying for a long time here--almost 17 or 18 years now--to pass the law that will allow those who were brought to this country as children a chance to earn their way into legal status. Almost 90 percent of Americans support it. We need to pass it here.

Finally, I haven't given up on comprehensive immigration reform. For goodness' sake, we see these problems every day--piecemeal problems, one at a time, trying to address one here and one there. Isn't it time that we take a look at the whole immigration system and concede that we cannot accept everyone from all over the world who wants to come. We just can't open our borders for everyone. We need security on our borders. We also need a clear and humane system when it comes to dealing with the current border crisis.

I hope this is a goal that even some Republicans can agree on, and it doesn't take a new law to first reunite these kids with their parents and to take a positive step forward.

Let's get this done before the Fourth of July. Let's reunite all 2,300 of these children with their parents so we can have the peace of mind that we are dealing with this in an American way.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to thank Jorge Ramirez for his extraordinary service to the city of Chicago. Earlier this year, Jorge announced that after 12 years at the Chicago Federation of Labor--8 as president--that he will be retiring at the end of the month.

Jorge's story is the story of the American Dream. The son of Mexican immigrants, Jorge Ramirez attended high school in Texas and was a 4- year letterman in football at the University of Texas El Paso, where he earned a double major in marketing and computer information systems. In 2006, Jorge joined the Chicago Federation of Labor as its secretary- treasurer and, four years later, became its first Latino president.

Jorge Ramirez is a trailblazer, but anyone who knows his father, Ruben, a Chicagoland legend, wouldn't be surprised. Ruben was the Ramirez's family original Labor leader, spending four decades as a member, officer, and in 1993 becoming the first and only Latino president for United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 100A, Chicago's meatpacking union. You could say organized Labor is in Jorge's blood.

Jorge watched his father closely and learned important values and principles that would serve him well throughout his career. As president, Ruben made sure the leadership of Local 100A mirrored the members they served by including women and men of all backgrounds on the Union's executive board. Inclusivity and respect for

all people became an ideal Ruben and his wife, Sarah, later instilled in their children. Just ask Jorge's fellow Labor leaders, the people who know him best: ``For Jorge, every day is a another chance for him to fight for dignity and respect for workers and nothing will ever stop him from doing what is right and just.'' That is a legacy I know Ruben and Sarah are proud of.

Under Jorge Ramirez's leadership, the Chicago Federation of Labor helped the city avoid massive layoffs, pushed an $8.5 billion plan through, city council, expanding O'Hare Airport and creating 60,000 new jobs. He partnered with the mayor to guarantee O'Hare employees a living wage and paid sick leave. Jorge's efforts on behalf of Chicago's working women and men also resulted in raising the minimum wage to $13 an hour by 2019.

Last summer, Jorge led a labor investment group that bought the Chicago Sun-Times, breathing new life into the paper, returning it to its roots, and giving working families a voice. Jorge believes a paper for and by these families is fitting in Chicago, home of the American labor movement and the place that gave us the iconic Studs Terkel and Upton Sinclair's classic, ``The Jungle.'' Thank you, Jorge, for helping save the Sun-Times, one of Chicago's beloved institutions, and preserving one of the last two-newspaper cities in America.

Last month, after announcing his intention to step down, one of Chicago's union leaders gave what Jorge called the ultimate compliment, telling him he had left the Chicago Federation of Labor ``in a condition that's better than what [he] found it in.'' Jorge Ramirez will be missed, but his fellow Labor leaders are right. He is leaving the Chicago Federation of Labor stronger than ever and in the capable hands of its secretary-treasurer, Robert Reiter.

Fortunately for Chicago, Jorge isn't going far. He will remain as the Chicago Sun-Times board chairman and plans to stay for as long as they will have him. They would be wise to keep him at the helm for as long as he would like. Jorge Ramirez has earned it.

I want to close by congratulating Jorge Ramirez on his distinguished career and thank him for all he has done and all he will continue to do, but for all his professional accomplishments, Jorge's biggest achievement is his family. A father of four young boys--Marino, John Paul, Antonio, and Santino--Jorge has sacrificed time with them to make things better for countless men, women, and less fortunate children across our dear city. Lastly, I need to thank his wonderful wife, Catrina, for sharing so much of Jorge's time with the city of Chicago. Chicago is grateful for all of their service and sacrifice. Now, as they enter the next chapter in their life, I want to wish my friend Jorge and his beautiful family all the best.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth)

and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, first he came for the Dreamers. It was in September of last year when President Trump announced that he was going to abolish the DACA Program, an Executive order by President Obama that protected 790,000 young people who came forward, registered with the Federal Government, paid a $500 filing fee, went through an extensive criminal background check, proved that they had completed at least a level of education, and made clear that they were no threat to this country. For that, they were allowed, under the Executive DACA order, to live in the United States without fear of deportation for 2 years at a time, renewable, and to work in this country.

Last September, President Trump decided to abolish that protection. He challenged Congress. He said: Now it is up to you. Pass a law.

Many of us took him seriously. I worked on a bipartisan basis with many Senators, including Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet, and Senator Bob Menendez, and we put a lot of hours into it. We wrote a bill to answer the President's challenge. We produced the bill and presented it to him, and he rejected it. He was not going to allow us to come to a bipartisan conclusion to solve this problem without changing other parts of the law, which he demanded.

We couldn't find bipartisan consensus for the President's proposal. In fact, when President Trump's immigration proposal was called on the floor of this Senate Chamber, 39 of the 100 Senators voted for it--only 39. It was a clear illustration that the President's approach to immigration was not even acceptable to all of the Members of his own political party.

So, today, 790,000 young people across America, because of the action of President Trump last September, have only the protection of a court order that saves them from being deported, which allows them to continue to work, which allows them to renew

their DACA status. If that court decision changes in a matter of days, weeks, or months, their protection disappears. Clearly, this President could care less.

First he came for the Dreamers. Then, in April, with the zero tolerance policy, he came for the children--the infants, the toddlers, the little boys and girls who accompanied their parents to the border of the United States.

President Trump did something that most Americans--two out of three-- find not only objectionable but unimaginable. This President decided as a matter of policy--a get-tough policy toward immigration--that he would take children--babies, infants--away from their parents. So far, 2,400, we believe, have been taken this way. What has happened to them? We don't know.

You see, in this great country of America--this transparent and open democracy--the Trump administration will not allow any type of visits by Members of Congress, members of the press, to see exactly what is happening with these children. A few photos have made it out, showing these kids being held in cages--kids in cages. That is the Trump approach when it comes to immigration. The recording came out of the cries of these children when they were being separated from their mothers and their parents. There was the report of a father who had a son yanked out of his arms and in desperation went to his jail cell and committed suicide. That is the reality of this Trump policy.

He has been unapologetic. From where he is standing, with the inspiration of Stephen Miller, his adviser and expert on immigration, getting tough is the only answer, the deterrent, putting pressure on Congress to pass the law this President demands--this ridiculous $25 billion wall that he wants to build on our border with Mexico.

So what has happened? People have spoken out, and I want to thank those Republicans who had the courage to stand up and speak out. Forty- eight Democratic Senators joined Senator Feinstein in making it clear that we were prepared, if necessary, to pass legislation to solve this problem. Some Republican Senators have said the same, that this approach is unacceptable and reprehensible. And the First Ladies of the United States, including Laura Bush, who was quoted earlier by Senator Klobuchar, have just been amazing. They have come forward to let us know, on a bipartisan basis, that what President Donald Trump is doing at the border with children is not only un-American, it is inhumane by any standard.

Treating children this way is something that can have long-term trauma on individuals. We heard from our colleague, Senator Hirono. She experienced an emotional moment here in the Senate, and I have never seen that before from her. She talked about her family's separation and what it meant to her brother and mom. That is the reality of life. It is a reality this President has ignored.

Well, today, after days and weeks of objections from all across the United States, the President said that he would respond to the situation he created with an Executive order that I have in my hand. It is not that long; it is three pages. I read it closely. I read it carefully. I will tell my colleagues, this Executive order by this President does not solve the crisis that he created.

The order doubles down on the President Trump, Attorney General Sessions, Stephen Miller zero tolerance policy that started this whole crisis of punishing children and families.

The order provides no guarantee that families actually will be kept together. Here is what the language says: It just says the administration will try to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together ``where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.'' That is from the President's Executive order. That is no guarantee that these families will be kept together.

The order does nothing, speaks not a word to uniting the 2,400 children who have been separated from their families--not one word in there. For goodness' sakes, that is where the President should start with his Executive order: ordering his agencies to reunite these families as quickly as possible so the children who are going through the trauma of this separation will finally have a chance to see their parents again.

And the order provides for--this is the President's order issued today--the indefinite detention of mothers, fathers, and children who are fleeing violence and seeking asylum in the United States.

There is no law on the books that requires this government or allows this President to rip children away from their parents. The horrific scenes we have seen and heard on television are the result of a Trump administration policy that could have ended today if President Trump had simply issued an order to end it. He has it within his power to end the crisis he created. He chose not to.

Instead, on World Refugee Day, President Trump offered this remedy to the crisis he created: Lock up entire families together indefinitely.

To do this, he has to ignore a court order that applies to his administration and every administration for the last 20 years. The Flores settlement between the U.S. Government and the petitioners resulted in a binding 1997 court order that required that children be released from custody without unnecessary delay. The Government of the United States of America was a party to that agreement. That Flores case recognizes that children should not be treated like criminals, and it prohibits the prolonged detention of children because of harmful effects.

The Trump Executive order seeks to undo the Flores consent decree. Repealing Flores was actually a key component of President Trump's own immigration legislation. That was rejected, if my colleagues will remember, by 39 to 60 in the Senate in February.

Is throwing kids in indefinite detention what we want to do as a nation? Is it a loophole that a 5-year-old child cannot be detained beyond 20 days under Flores? Of course not.

Remember, the Flores settlement does not prohibit detention if it is necessary to ensure the safety of the child. The Flores settlement simply prohibits indefinite detention of children, even with their families, and any order to undermine this critical protection will almost certainly be challenged in court.

This Executive order from President Trump will be challenged on the very first day that it violates the Flores settlement. In this order he sends Attorney General Sessions into court to undo the Flores settlement, which has been the law of the land and the standard for Presidents of both political parties for almost 20 years.

Looking at the administration's policy of so-called zero tolerance, which Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in April and on which the President doubled down on today, here is what we find: The policy means they are criminally prosecuting everyone at the border, no matter what reason brought them to that border.

If someone is coming to the border to smuggle opioids or as part of a criminal gang, throw the book at them. But it makes no sense to throw the book at parents who come to the border with their kids because they are fleeing violence and death threats. There is no requirement--none-- to prosecute every border case as a criminal case. As with many laws, there can be criminal or civil penalties for crossing the border without authorization. Our Nation could criminally prosecute everyone who drives too fast, but we use discretion and prosecute selectively.

Asylum seekers do not need to be caged to remain united with their families. The government has the power to individually assess each person apprehended at the border and determine whether that person presents a flight risk or a safety risk. Those who do not present a risk can be released with their families to await immigration proceedings. We have found that if they are given the benefit of counsel, over 90 percent of those who have court proceedings show up for the proceedings. We should do that. We have effective and cost- efficient alternatives to detention available.

President Trump and his allies have taken thousands of children hostage to try to enact their anti-immigration agenda into law. We will not be fooled. This crisis doesn't need legislation to fix it. It requires Republican Members of Congress to join us, stand up, say no, and put an end to this ill-conceived Trump policy.

Instead, we face efforts like Senator Cruz's bill, which would not protect

children and could undermine the due process approach that we have used in this government. This bill, like the President's Executive order, would override the Flores settlement. That is not a good starting point to the humane treatment of children.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen claimed: ``We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.'' Like many of the President's tweets, that was just plain false. Attorney General Jeff Sessions established the zero tolerance policy that separated families--a policy that former First Lady Laura Bush called cruel and immoral. When asked to justify how we could take this immoral position, Attorney General Sessions appeared to find some quote in the Bible that gave him solace.

The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics was more plain- spoken. She called this Trump policy ``government-sanctioned child abuse.''

I urge my Republican colleagues. People are watching and asking across this country: Aren't we better than this? Can't we treat the Dreamers in a more humane way? Can't we save these children from being caged away from their parents?

Do we want this image in the world? Is this what America has come to? I don't believe so, and two out of three Americans happen to agree with what I just said. We are a better country than this. This President's Executive order does not solve this problem. It makes it worse.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I rise to highlight a number of important issues related to this year's defense authorization act.

Let me begin with a few words about the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. It is fitting that the bill is named after the senior Senator from Arizona, as the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. His imprint is clear and direct, all throughout this bill. The bill makes clear America's strong commitment to our allies-- from Europe to Asia. It also demonstrates our clear commitment to defend those allies from our enemies whenever and wherever the need arises.

Those are principles held by every Member of this Senate. But there are few who can defend those principles more vigorous to friend or foe than the senior Senator from Arizona. As he noted in a speech last fall, ``The international order we helped build from the ashes of world war, and that we defend

to this day, has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. This wondrous land has shared its treasures and ideals and shed the blood of its finest patriots to help make another, better world. And as we did so, we made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous. . . .''

Even though he cannot be here, he is here with us, and we are there with him. I would also like to thank the ranking member and the senior Senator from Oklahoma for their work to protect our national defense and provide for our servicemembers.

One area that I wish to highlight--and the defense authorization highlights this year--is the U.S. investment in maintaining our technological edge. We recently held a classified hearing in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on this subject. The short of it is that America cannot take its advantages for granted.

It is not clear to me that the Federal Government has its head in the game. In the 1960s, Federal investment in R&D reached as high as 2.23 percent of GDP. In 2016, that had plummeted to 0.77 percent. In 1995, the U.S. ranked fourth globally for R&D expenditures as a share of GDP. By 2015, it ranked tenth. Recent history is no better. Last year, the President proposed a 17-percent cut to Federal R&D, a greater annual cut than any in the postwar era, including a 5 percent cut to defense

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.