Floor Statements

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress

has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to support the nomination of Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield as U.S. Representative to the United Nations, the Security Council, and the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield's impressive career in public service makes her uniquely and eminently qualified for this role. For over 35 years, she has served this country faithfully and ably, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, in senior Senate-confirmed positions such as Ambassador to Liberia, Director General of the Foreign Service, and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield understands at her core that foreign policy is about forging connections and building relationships. So I have no doubt that what she calls her personal brand of ``gumbo diplomacy,'' which emphasizes connecting with others to solve problems, will be of tremendous service to the United States at an institution like the United Nations, where personal relationships matter a great deal.

Our country is truly fortunate that the Ambassador has agreed to return to public service, especially at this critical moment. We face an array of formidable challenges, both around the world and at the U.N., that demand someone with her skills and commitment to democracy, good governance, human rights, and anti-corruption.

Over the last 4 years, the United States has accrued more than $1 billion in peacekeeping arrears, tried to pull out of the World Health Organization in the middle of a pandemic, undermined international protections for women, girls, and LGBTI individuals, defunded or cut funding to key agencies like the U.N. Population Fund and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and pulled out of the Paris climate agreement.

Meanwhile, China and other authoritarian countries have filled the vacuum left by our absence. We must regain U.S. leverage and influence at the Security Council, where Russia and China

have used their veto powers and ability to bully nonpermanent members to stymie the Council's work.

They have shielded abusive regimes, like the criminal dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, and the government of Burma, which committed genocide against the Rohingya.

Our loss of influence at the Security Council under the Trump administration was on full display in the disastrous attempt to extend the U.N. arms embargo on Iran, where the United States could muster only one other vote of support on the Council--one other vote-- including some of our most longtime allies: Germany, France, Great Britain, to mention a few. It was an embarrassment, an embarrassment.

Meanwhile, China has increased its role and activities at the United Nations and in other international organizations and has worked to pervert and distort the core values that make the U.N.'s work so important, especially the U.N.'s long-held commitment to human rights.

Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield has a long history of expressed opposition to China's use of debt-trap tactics and its increasingly malign presence in world governance bodies.

She has spoken plainly about China's authoritarian ambitions, its open hostility to universal human rights and democratic values, and has committed to confronting them every step of the way at the United Nations.

What the United States desperately needs right now at the U.N. is renewal and reengagement with key alliances and institutions. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield has the expertise, the strength, and the character to deliver on these priorities, to stand up for the challenges that we face from China, to regain U.S. leverage and influence in the Security Council, to reengage our allies and hold Iran accountable, and to stand firm when Israel is subject to biased attacks.

Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield has my full support, and I urge my colleagues to support the nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the vote be held immediately.

Mr. President, I have 2 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

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

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 22, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Rules and Administration

The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 22, 2021, at 5:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to make the case that we should invest $10 billion in the prevention and defeat of COVID-19 in the foreign assistance portion of this budget resolution.

For so long as COVID-19 is anywhere, it can spread everywhere, directly threatening our national security, our economy, and the health and safety of the American people.

COVID-19 has devastated the world. To date, there have been nearly 103 million confirmed cases worldwide. More than 2 million people have died, including over 450,000 in the United States.

The lockdowns necessitated by the pandemic have triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression. We must join with our partners and allies around the globe to end this scourge once and for all.

Now, with so many Americans shattered by the death, disruption, and economic devastation unleashed by the coronavirus, I am sure more than a few would question why we should bother spending any resources in the global fight against COVID-19, let alone $10 billion.

The simple answer is: COVID-19 knows no borders.

The pandemic didn't start here, but it came here. The world is in a race against COVID-19, and we cannot lose, for the longer we allow this virus to spread, the more it will mutate into new strains, and the more that it mutates into new strains, the greater the threat to the efficacy of our vaccines and our ability to rebuild our economy and restore our way of life.

This $10 billion investment will ramp up American efforts to fight COVID-19 and stop new variants before they reach our shores and cost more American lives.

It will fund humanitarian assistance to respond to the suffering inflicted by COVID-19 and channel resources to international organizations charged with responding to these challenges and preventing further spread. And it will support the global race to develop new vaccines.

As Dr. Anthony Fauci publicly stated last month, we have to start work now preparing additional vaccines to deal with new and virulent strains of COVID-19.

This will require investment both at home and abroad.

In addition to our own efforts, we must invest in international research and development and support technology transfers so that vaccines capable of protecting us from future variants are produced and made available quickly around the world.

The package also includes funding for global health programs that strengthen health systems in developing countries. As we have learned firsthand, COVID-19 can overwhelm even the most robust of healthcare systems. For countries with poorer public health infrastructure, the challenge is exponentially harder. And the longer we allow COVID-19 to ravage health systems around the globe, the longer it will remain a threat to the United States.

The resolution will also help us protect two decades' worth of investments to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria through the Global Fund. Specifically, the resolution ensures that lifesaving treatments for those three deadly diseases continues.

It also provides resources to support the Global Fund's newly developed COVID-19 response mechanism, allowing countries to better prevent, care for, and treat this disease.

It is hard to recapture the scale of the suffering unleashed by this pandemic, but here is what we know: The number of people facing faminelike conditions around the world has doubled, and child malnutrition and death rates are on the rise. Through this resolution, we will be able to address the pandemic's toll on the most vulnerable, including children and refugees, by funding organizations such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF.

It will also enable us to help confront dramatically increased rates of violence against women and girls, what the United Nations has called the ``shadow pandemic'' of gender-based violence. And it will provide urgently needed funding for the World Health Organization, which the Biden administration rejoined on the President's first day in office.

We cannot forfeit our seat at the table to other countries that do not share our values or our interests. We must engage, and we must lead.

Finally, the resolution will support ongoing State Department and USAID operations that protect Americans overseas and advance our diplomatic and economic interests around the globe. We must begin to undo the damage to the State Department and USAID wrought by the Trump administration and ensure that both agencies have the resources to deal with the effects of COVID-19, including the impacts on our foreign service officers and their families, Embassy operations, and lost revenue due to disruption of services, even as we look to replenish and revive these critical instruments for our national security.

So I will end where I began: We cannot hermetically seal ourselves and believe that we can avoid any consequences from anyplace across the globe. Disease, including this one, knows no boundaries, knows no borders.

Unless and until COVID-19 is stamped out globally, American lives and livelihoods remain at risk. Simply put, our international efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 abroad are directly linked to our national and economic security at home.

So I urge all of my colleagues to support continued relief, recovery, and prevention efforts by voting in support of the budget resolution

I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because my distinguished colleague and friend put it in a very narrow context.

The reality is that this amendment suggests that all agreements, proclamations, or declarations entered into between the United States and Mexico will be preserved. The problem is Congress does not have a clear picture of the international agreements, arrangements, and supporting documents that the Trump administration negotiated with Mexico. I requested those documents for almost 2 years as the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Yet the Trump administration was afraid to put them up for congressional and public scrutiny.

Without knowing what they say or how low they may have stooped, I don't see how any Member can take an educated vote on this amendment to consent to that which Members don't even know exists.

I, therefore, oppose the amendment for those and other reasons.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not

germane to the underlying resolution and, therefore, violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I just remark how quickly you have risen in the Senate. So we welcome you here.

I rise today in support of Tony Blinken's nomination to be Secretary

of State. I want to thank Senator Risch for working with me expeditiously to get this nomination to the floor, and I appreciate his work and common cause to achieve it.

We all know Mr. Blinken has impressive credentials. He was confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Secretary of State, and before that, he served as the Deputy National Security Advisor and as the staff director at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But apart from his extensive experience, he showed in almost 5 hours of hearing testimony that he is thoughtful, willing, able to grapple with the most complex challenging issues facing our country, and committed to engaging Congress, and he did so on both sides of the aisle.

Not surprisingly, the Foreign Relations Committee reported him out by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Now, some in this body may not be aware of Mr. Blinken's family tradition, which reflects the best of this country in two ways: our history of welcoming those in need of refuge and the contributions that immigrants and refugees have made in the service of our Nation.

Mr. Blinken's family came here fleeing persecution. His grandfather, Maurice Blinken, fled Russian pogroms. His father's wife, Vera Blinken, fled communist Hungary, and his late stepfather, Samuel Pisar, survived Nazi concentration camps and met the first U.S. soldiers he saw with the only English words he knew: God bless America. And from that family, our country has benefitted from the service of two Ambassadors, an Assistant Secretary, and a Deputy Secretary of State--what a testament to the power of the American Dream.

Mr. Blinken must be confirmed so we can start addressing the challenges we face abroad. Every day there is an event or calamity across the globe, and whether it is a massacre in Ethiopia or democratic protests in Russia, we need U.S. leadership and engagement to chart our foreign policy through these troubling times.

We now have a COVID vaccine, but troubling new variants and strains are appearing in the United Kingdom and South Africa. We need a confirmed Secretary of State and a robust State Department to revitalize the traditional U.S. role as a leader on global health issues. This is just one of the many things we have to do to bring this pandemic to an end both in this country and abroad.

It is also important that Mr. Blinken be confirmed to help address the challenges we face closer to home. The State Department is suffering from a historic crisis stemming from low morale, the departure over the past 4 years of many of our most experienced diplomats, and the lack of accountability for the political leadership at the top during the last 4 years. Mr. Blinken's experience and expertise is necessary to begin to repair the damage and rebuild the State Department.

Moreover, the Office of Secretary of State is fourth in the Presidential line of succession and is one of the most important national security positions in the government. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, if we do not support diplomacy, our Armed Forces will ultimately need more ammunition. He was right. Robust diplomacy means that we are less likely to have to send our sons and daughters to fight wars, and it means more opportunities for Americans and American businesses abroad.

I strongly support Mr. Blinken's nomination today because he is the right person for the job and because we cannot afford to leave this post vacant any longer. I hope my colleagues will all join me.

With that, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have 2 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business,

with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to urge the swift confirmation for Tony Blinken to be the Secretary of State.

Like we saw with Avril Haines yesterday and moving toward Lloyd Austin today, we need to hold a floor vote on Mr. Blinken's nomination urgently.

Mr. Blinken is well known to the Senate, having previously been confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, having served as the Deputy National Security Advisor and, of course, as the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before that.

He is superbly qualified to be the Secretary of State, and his knowledge and thoughtfulness were on display during 5 hours of testimony earlier this week. And since then, he has been asked to respond to hundreds of questions. As a matter of fact, he has had an inordinate number of questions that have been put to him for the record. He had nearly over half a hundred before his hearing. He has had from a couple of our colleagues nearly 600 questions, including multiple parts to those questions. And to my knowledge, he has largely answered them all, notwithstanding the size, the magnitude of it.

Now, I have been, since I arrived in this institution, one of the big advocates of the prerogatives of each and every individual Senator and of the institution. So I take a back step to no one, but there is a difference between prerogatives and prerogatives that are abused, which, in essence, are for the purpose of not seeking information but for the purpose of delaying a nomination.

Now, I appreciate that Senator Risch, the present chairman of the committee, has been working with me to try to accelerate Mr. Blinken's nomination to the floor, but I would ask my colleagues, particularly those on the committee, to join him and I in an effort to bring one of the important national security positions in our government to the floor for a vote.

I don't think we should be leaving this weekend without a vote for the Secretary of State.

He is the right person to repair and restore our alliances, to rebuild and renew the State Department, to reinvigorate the relationship between the Department and Congress--something

that I think Republicans and Democrats alike have agreed have soured dramatically.

His testimony, his opening statement, his answers to questions show that he will be a working partner with this institution.

But, obviously, confirming Mr. Blinken is not just about the nominee himself. It is about doing what the American people expect and the Constitution requires--providing advice and consent to ensure that national security officials are in office in a timely manner.

We are facing challenges in every corner of the world. The world is on fire--from Iran to Russia, to Venezuela, to global challenges that define our times and defy borders, like COVID, migration, and climate change. We can't afford delaying to put Mr. Blinken in office. We can't allow the State Department to be rudderless.

If we don't have leadership, we can't be sure that China or Russia and others won't fill the vacuum as they have for the last several years or do something that is adverse to our national and economic security.

Imagine that there is a hostage deal to be had, as I believe there is, and you can't have another country call the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State doesn't exist.

Imagine if there are tensions between two countries that affect our national interests. You don't have a Secretary of State to call as counterpart in those countries to seek to ease the tension, to remove the threat.

Imagine if President Biden needs to have a Secretary of State engage in some part of the world to stop a conflict, to open an opportunity, to prevent an unintended consequence. We don't have that person, and we cannot expect the President to pick up the phone in each and every instance in the world as he is trying to deal with COVID at home and an economic crisis that follows on from that. That is what the Secretary of State does.

So Mr. Blinken also, finally, is not just critical to addressing challenges abroad, we have to acknowledge what the role of Secretary of State is here at home.

If we remember what just happened back on the 6th, three of the first four officials in the line of succession--the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate--were in the Capitol when domestic terrorists breached the building. Every day we learn more details about this heinous attack, including that the terrorists, some of whom were chanting ``Hang Mike Pence!'' came within a minute or so of a potential face-to-face encounter with Vice President Pence. Thank God, through the quick thinking and heroics of our Capitol Police and other law enforcement, those three remained unscathed, but if something had happened, it is the Secretary of State who is fourth in line of succession to the President of the United States. Leaving the office vacant is irresponsible. It is irresponsible in that regard. It is irresponsible in terms of something happening in the world and not having a Secretary of State who could work to deal with it so that we could preserve our national security, promote our national interests, and stop something, an unintended consequence, from happening.

Mr. Blinken has the qualifications. The challenges facing our country call for him to be confirmed, and I hope the Senate does not leave here tomorrow until he is confirmed.

With that, I yield the floor.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased, at long last, to speak on the floor today in support of four protocols amending the tax conventions between the United States and Spain, Switzerland, Japan, and Luxembourg.

I have long been a strong supporter and proponent of these tax protocols and worked to advance them across multiple Congresses. In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I voted to advance Japan and Spain protocols three times and voted four times to advance the protocols with Luxembourg and the Swiss Confederation. I am pleased that, after too many years of waiting, the majority leader has finally decided to take up these protocols.

I am a strong believer in the benefits these treaties provide our country. They play a critical role in relieving U.S. citizens and companies of double taxation, encouraging foreign investment in the United States, and enforcing U.S. tax law on those who seek to evade it. There are no downsides to these treaties.

As I conveyed directly to Secretary Mnuchin, the Treasury Department's initial interaction on these treaties without consulting the Foreign Relations Committee was completely inadequate. This botched effort resulted in a completely avoidable delay in taking up these four protocols. However, I am pleased that Treasury responded quickly to my concerns, including providing a written commitment on behalf of the administration that the Foreign Relations Committee chair and ranking member would be consulted on any changes to the model tax treaty prior to negotiations based on a new model or new model provisions. Therefore, I support moving the tax treaties as expeditiously as possible and urge my colleagues to support them.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Peter Wright as Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Land and Emergency Management.

This position is of enormous consequence to the people of New Jersey, and I refuse to stay silent as the Trump administration stacks Federal agencies charged with protecting our health and our environmental safety with industry insiders and corporate hacks.

Mr. Wright is a former chemical industry lawyer. If confirmed, he will be charged with overseeing the cleanup of the most toxic waste sites in America through what is known as the Superfund Program.

New Jersey is home to more Superfund sites than any other State in the Nation.

For many years, a lack of strong environmental protections and oversight left our communities vulnerable to unsafe, unchecked, unregulated pollution. I am talking about the days before we had an Environmental Protection Agency, before we passed landmark environmental laws, and before we had regulations to protect public health. Back then, big polluters had a blank check to contaminate our air, soil, and water with toxic chemicals. People across America were exposed to pesticides, lead, asbestos, and other toxins through the air they breathed, the rivers they fished, the soil they farmed, and the land they built. It was unhealthy, it was unsustainable, and in many cases, it was downright dangerous.

Indeed, it was 1980--the same year a chemical waste facility in Elizabeth, NJ, burst into flames and forced an entire community to stay indoors--that Congress passed a law creating the Superfund Program. Today, Superfund is our primary tool for cleaning up the hazardous waste across America. It requires polluters to pay to clean up the sites they have contaminated, and it also funds the cleanup of orphan sites for which the polluters responsible no longer exist.

The Superfund Program is a promise to our communities--a promise to hold polluters accountable for the damage they have done; a promise to rid our soil and water of toxic chemicals; a promise to transform toxic brownfields into safe, livable, usable land; and a promise to protect the health of today's families and of future generations.

That promise cannot be kept on its own. We the people must keep that promise. The one way we can do so is by ensuring that leaders who oversee the Superfund Program are willing to stand up to polluters, listen to the best science, and hold big corporations accountable. Nothing in Peter Wright's records suggest he will be that kind of leader. He spent nearly two decades as a lawyer for Dow Chemical--one of the primary polluters for many Superfund sites across the Nation.

For all the President's talk of draining the swamp, it is just that-- talk.

Mr. Wright could have been a force for good at Dow. He could have stood up for science and raised standards. He could have pushed for more efficient, thorough cleanups of toxic waste. Instead, he did just the opposite.

Consider Dow's Midland site in Michigan, where more than a century of producing things like Styrofoam, Agent Orange, and mustard gas left rivers contaminated for more than 50 miles. As Dow's self-styled ``Dioxin Lawyer,'' Mr. Wright points to the Midland site as one of his greatest achievements. But a New York Times investigation from last year tells us a different story. It found that under Mr. Wright's watch, Dow was accused of ``submitting disputed data, misrepresenting scientific evidence and delaying cleanup.''

These accusations were leveled by Federal regulators and whistleblowers alike. One independent lab found Dow used incomplete contamination data, leaving the risk of toxins going undetected. An internal whistleblower revealed Dow intentionally designed its data so that it couldn't be properly vetted by independent third parties.

In 2007, an EPA memo concluded that Dow had ``documented history of impeding the efforts of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality'' at the Midland site. It wasn't only regulators that Mr. Wright misled; the EPA also found that Dow ``frequently provided information to the public that contradicts agency positions and generally accepted scientific information.'' That included mailing out a newsletter to local residents downplaying the risks of dioxin to human health, which, according to the EPA, is highly toxic, can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and damage the immune system. The newsletter even included the false claim that dioxin- contaminated wild game was safe to eat. That is appalling.

Mr. Wright also participated in Dow's funding of a study claiming that people living on dioxin-contaminated soil were not at risk for personal exposure.

Simply put, Peter Wright made his mark at Dow Chemical by misrepresenting science, downplaying threats to public health, and undermining cleanups. These practices run counter to the very mission of the EPA. Yet Wright's past indicates that, if confirmed, he will continue to mislead communities, continue to delay cleanups, and continue to sacrifice the health of our people for the bottom line of corporate polluters.

Finally, as if it weren't enough to mislead the public, we now know that Mr. Wright misled Congress when he lied to the Environment and Public Works Committee about continuing to own stock in Dow after his nomination.

When I hear that Mr. Wright proudly called himself the ``Dioxin Lawyer,'' when I hear that he misled families about threats to their health, and when I hear that he sought to distort scientific evidence and get his company off the hook for their toxic legacy, I worry about the damage he could do across the Nation, including in New Jersey.

New Jersey is home to 114 Superfund sites. That is more than California--a State with 4\1/2\ times our population. That is more than double the total sites in Texas--a State with 30 times our land mass. Millions of people live within a few miles of these sites, in North Jersey and South Jersey, in bustling cities and rural towns, in every corner of our State. Among them is one of the largest Superfund cleanups in the country. Like the site in Michigan, New Jersey's Diamond Alkali Superfund site is contaminated with dioxin from the making of Agent Orange. Like the site in Michigan, we have warnings about dioxin-contaminated food, such as seafood from the Passaic River.

Like those in Michigan, the New Jerseyans who reside by the Passaic are depending on the Superfund Program to clean up the river and limit their exposure to toxic chemicals. These families and millions of Americans nationwide are depending on the EPA to protect the water they drink, the air they breathe, and the soil on which they farm and build. They are depending on their government to put their health ahead of corporate polluter profits. Today they are depending on us to reject the nomination of Peter Wright.

The EPA has a simple mission: to protect human health and the environment. The American people deserve an Assistant Administrator who believes in that mission, not someone who has spent decades fighting it. I urge my colleagues to vote no on Mr. Wright's nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to explain the context in which I will vote for the Romney amendment.

First, I am grateful for Senator Romney's substantive contributions and his collegiality as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

The plain text of the amendment states the obvious--that funds authorized by the NDAA may be used to ensure the ability of our Armed Forces to defend themselves and U.S. citizens.

I believe every Member of this body certainly shares the fundamental understanding that our Armed Forces must have the ability to defend themselves and our citizens against foreign enemies. Indeed, the purpose of the NDAA is to provide the authorizations that are necessary to ensure the Department of Defense is in a position to defend the United States and our citizens.

In my opinion, in that respect, this amendment is not necessary. For anyone who argues that the Romney language is somehow necessary because of the Udall amendment that we will be voting on tomorrow, I say reread the Udall amendment. It includes an explicit exception for self- defense.

I am concerned that this administration will seek to twist the Romney amendment into something that is completely unrecognizable, something that we are not voting on today, and something that has no basis in law. As a legal matter, the amendment does nothing more than to explicitly provide the authority to use funds under the act to ensure this ability.

Let me be clear. This amendment does nothing more than that. Either implicitly or explicitly, it does not authorize the use of military force. Let me repeat. It is not an AUMF. An explicit authorization would have to come to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee following serious and substantive engagement by the executive branch.

It is no secret that there are some in this administration who are eager to engage militarily with Iran. This week, the President himself argued that he does not have to go to Congress to seek authorization. But those who don't want to completely bypass our congressional prerogative will be grasping at any purported source of authority that could justify, in their minds, that Congress has authorized these actions.

Look no further than the Secretary of State, who is purportedly pushing the bogus legal theory that the 2001 AUMF, which Congress passed in the wake of 9/11, somehow provides authority to use force against Iran. Apparently, Secretary Pompeo is not dissuaded by the facts. The plain language of the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran. Congress did not intend for the 2001 AUMF to cover Iran, and neither Republican nor Democratic Presidents who have operated pursuant to this AUMF have claimed such authority.

Against this backdrop and a President who has evaded Congress in unprecedented and unlawful ways, we must make crystal clear that the Romney amendment cannot be abused by those in this administration who appear to be desperate to build a case that the President has all of the authority he needs to take us into war with Iran.

We cannot leave anything up to chance when it comes to the choice of whether we send our sons and daughters into war. I believe we should be having a serious conversation about our use of military force and about what constitutes self-defense and attacks on our allies.

I am pleased that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has previously committed to holding these hearings, and I believe we should commence with hearings with multiple stakeholders, including the administration itself. Previous administrations have sent up representatives to explain to Congress their rationale for war or to explain the type of authorizations they are seeking. We should demand nothing less from this administration.

I support the amendment, and I look forward to continuing appropriate oversight over the executive branch's pursuit of military action around the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to speak about a humanitarian crisis that is not taking place in Yemen or in Syria or in any foreign country but, rather, right here at the southern border of the United States.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words, but I think it is even more than that. Photographs have the power to cut through noise, speak the truth, and invoke action.

We all remember the heartbreaking image of a little boy who was covered in ash while he sat in an ambulance in Syria. It told us all we needed to know about acts of mass murder committed by Bashar al-Assad. Likewise, we remember the look in the eyes of the malnourished girl who was on the brink of death in Yemen--one of more than 85,000 children to have succumbed to hunger during Saudi Arabia's disastrous bombing campaign. Yet the photo I have brought to the floor today has shaken me to the core as a father, as a grandfather, as a son of immigrants, and above all else, as an America.

Like the other photographs I mentioned, this one tells a story too. This one speaks an ugly truth, and that truth is that President Trump's cruel, inhumane, and un-American border policies have failed. They have failed to make us safer. They have failed to reduce migration to our border. They have also failed to live up to the American values that define our leadership around the world.

We will never forget this heartbreaking photo. More importantly, we will not forget the names of Oscar Alberto Martinez and his 23-month- old daughter, Valeria. They drowned in a desperate attempt to claim asylum in the United States.

Oscar, Valeria, and Tania, her mother, fled El Salvador in the hopes of seeking asylum in the United States.

The Washington Post reported:

They traveled more than 1,000 miles seeking it. . . . But

the farthest the family got was an international bridge in

Matamoros, Mexico. On Sunday, they were told the bridge was

closed and that they should return Monday. Aid workers told

The Post the line to get across the bridge was hundreds long.

The young family was desperate. Standing on the Mexican

side of the Rio Grande, America looked within reach. Martinez

and Valeria waded in. But before they all made it to the

other side, the river waters pulled the 25-year-old and his

daughter under and swept them away.

Later, when Mexican authorities recovered their bodies, Oscar and Valeria were still clinging to each other.

Here in the United States, it is hard to imagine what kind of desperate conditions would propel you to flee your home and embark on a perilous journey in search of protection from a foreign nation.

Most of these families who arrive at our border come from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras--three countries that are collectively known as the Northern Triangle. It is a region that is plagued by transnational gang violence, weak institutions, and poverty. Young boys are forced into servitude by gangs. Young girls are beaten and raped if they refuse to become their girlfriends. Parents who try to protect their children end up getting killed. These countries are among the most dangerous in the world. In El Salvador, a woman is murdered every 19 hours, and in Honduras--the country with the highest homicide rate in the world for women--a woman is killed every 16 hours.

To be blunt, these families face an impossible choice. It is either stay and die or flee for a chance to live.

Well, if this horrific and tragic photograph does anything, I hope it dispels us of the ludicrous notion that you can deter desperate families from fleeing their homes in search of safety. That is how the Trump administration describes its cruel policies at the border-- deterrence.

In the name of deterrence, it is tearing children and babies away from their mothers and fathers. In the name of deterrence, it is shutting down legitimate ports of entry, effectively encouraging migrant families to seek more dangerous methods of getting into the United States, like crossing the Rio Grande. In the name of deterrence, children are being housed in unsanitary conditions, which leaves infants in dirty diapers and children without soap or toothpaste.

Let me share with our colleagues just a few of the statements that the children who have been kept in these abhorrent conditions have made.

Said one 8-year-old boy:

They took us away from our grandmother, and now we are all

alone. They have not

given us to our mother. We have been here for a long time. I

have to take care of my little sister. She is very sad

because she misses our mother and grandmother very much. . .

. We sleep on a cement bench. There are two mats in the room,

but the big kids sleep on the mats, so we have to sleep on

the cement bench.

Consider the words of a 16-year-old girl:

We slept on mats on the floor, and they gave us aluminum

blankets. They took our baby's diapers, baby formula, and all

of our belongings. Our clothes were still wet, and we were

very cold, so we got sick. . . . I have been in the U.S. for

6 days, and I have never been offered a shower or been able

to brush my teeth. There is no soap, and our clothes are

dirty. They have never been washed.

Finally, here are the words of a 17-year-old mother:

I was given a blanket and a mattress, but then, at 3 a.m.,

the guards took the blanket and mattress. My baby was left

sleeping on the floor. In fact, almost every night, the

guards wake us at 3 a.m. and take away our sleeping

mattresses and blankets. . . . They leave babies, even little

babies of 2 or 3 months, sleeping on the cold floor. For me,

because I am so pregnant, sleeping on the floor is very

painful for my back and hips. I think the guards act this way

to punish us.

This is not the America I know. Yet this administration wants us to forget who we are. This administration wants us to believe that if the Government of the United States is cruel enough, that if it denies those who seek asylum all semblances of humanity, that if we ignore basic standards of child welfare, and that if we abandon fundamental American values like respect for human rights, then desperate families who flee Central America will stop coming here.

It is not true. The entire doctrine of deterrence is grounded in hideous lies, beginning with the lie the President has fed the people from the moment he launched his campaign in 2015--the lie that immigrants are a threat to our security. President Trump has cast immigrants as criminals and rapists and drug dealers when the truth is that these migrants are the ones who are fleeing the criminals, the rapists, and the drug dealers.

I am sick and tired of these lies, like when the President repeatedly says he inherited the policy of family separation from the Obama administration. That is a lie. The Trump administration masterminded this despicable policy, pure and simple.

These cruel policies are not working. They have done nothing to stem the tide of families who seek asylum in the United States. They have done nothing to stabilize Central America and to alleviate the conditions that force families to seek refuge here.

It is time to turn the page. There are so many alternatives to detention that are available to the DHS that are far more humane and far less costly to the taxpayers.

Consider the Obama administration's pilot program known as the family case management system. It established procedures to treat migrant families humanely as their cases moved forward. Pregnant women, nursing mothers, or mothers with young children were given caseworkers who helped to educate them on their rights and their responsibilities. They were connected to community resources or to family in the country who could help them.

According to an inspector general's report, the program was an enormous success. It had a compliance rate of 99 percent. That means that 99 percent of the time, families in the program showed up for their ICE check-ins and appointments. Likewise, they showed up 100 percent of the time for their immigration court hearings. Tell me--how many government programs work 100 percent of the time? It is very rare. This one did, but that didn't stop President Trump from terminating it. Even though it had a 99-percent compliance and check-in rate and had 100 percent who showed up for their hearings, oh, no. Evidently, that was not good enough for the Trump administration, for it was far more humane and far less costly to the taxpayers.

Beyond embracing alternatives to mass detention, we must ramp up humanitarian assistance at the border. That is why I voted yesterday for the House's emergency supplemental bill, which would provide desperately needed support to on-the-ground organizations and would better ensure the humane treatment of children who are in CBP custody.

The House bill included strong guardrails to prevent this White House from using these funds to pursue its draconian detention practices and mass deportation agenda. While the Senate bill fell short in these areas, I hope the administration uses whatever money it receives to ensure that the children are properly cared for--in a way that respects basic human rights.

Solving this crisis will take more than humanitarian funding. If President Trump were serious about reducing migration, he would be working day and night to improve the conditions that are driving families to flee Central America in the first place. Instead, he has cut off aid to the Northern Triangle and has undermined critical U.S. efforts to work with Central American governments to crack down on gang violence, strengthen the rule of law, and alleviate poverty.

These programs were working, and the Trump administration knows it. Why do I say that? In recent years, Congress has not only increased funding for foreign assistance to Central America, but it has required these governments to meet clear benchmarks in order to demonstrate their progress in areas like combating drug trafficking and strengthening their legal systems.

The Trump administration has acknowledged the effectiveness of these programs on several occasions. In fact, it has sent Congress not one, not two, but nine different reports that have certified these benchmarks have been met.

Here is just one of them that has been signed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo:

I hereby certify that the central government of El Salvador

is informing its citizens of the dangers of the journey to

the southwest border of the United States; combating human

smuggling and trafficking; improving border security,

including preventing illegal migration, human smuggling and

trafficking, and trafficking of illicit drugs and other

contraband; and cooperating with the United States Government

agencies and other governments in the region to facilitate

the return, repatriation, and reintegration of illegal

migrants arriving at the southwest border of the United

States who do not qualify for asylum consistent with

international law.

This one is dated August 11, 2018. There are nine certifications by the Secretary of State saying that the programs we had going on and working in Central America were, in fact, working.

But we all know this President has no respect for facts or evidence- based reality. His decision to punish Central American governments for the migration crisis by slashing aid is only making the crisis worse. It absolutely makes no sense.

If we want to reduce migration from Central America, we need a bold strategy to address the root causes driving families in fear from their home. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced the Central America Reform and Enforcement Act. Our bill would dramatically expand U.S. engagement in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala through proven programs that help strengthen the rule of law, combat violence, and build prosperity. Our bill would also minimize border crossings by expanding refugee processing centers in the region in an effort to reduce demand at the border, and, finally, it includes several measures to protect the welfare of children and ensure efficient, fair, and timely processing of asylum seekers.

Now, this administration may wish the Northern Triangle's serious problems would just go away, but the longer we let these conditions fester, the greater this migration crisis will become.

There is a very real possibility that President Trump views a growing crisis at the border as an asset in his path to reelection in 2020. The President believes his best shot at winning elections is to stoke fear of migrant children who pose no threat but desperately need the safe embrace of Lady Liberty.

After all, President Trump cannot campaign on solving the student loan debt crisis or providing Americans with better, cheaper healthcare, or making sure that big corporations pay their fair share. He has failed on all these fronts and more. The only play left in the Trump playbook is to blame immigrants for America's problems instead of solving America's problems.

That is what I call the politics of hate. The politics of hate is what led

President Trump to attempt to ban Muslims from traveling to the United States. The politics of hate is what led President Trump to end DACA and threaten 800,000 Dreamers with deportation to countries they have never called home--young people who through no choice of their own were brought to the United States, the only country they have ever pledged allegiance to is the United States and to the flag of the United States. The only national anthem they know is the Star Spangled Banner. The only place they have ever called home is America.

The politics of hate is what led President Trump to attack TPS holders and jeopardize thousands of parents to American-born children. The politics of hate is what led the administration to forcibly separate nearly 2,800 children from their parents--and maybe thousands more, because they don't even have a recordkeeping system of where all of these children are. That is a policy that will forever be a stain on our history.

The politics of hate is what led President Trump to tweet out his plan to send ICE agents into our communities to terrorize our towns and cities with mass arrests and mass deportations. It is a plan that would leave millions of U.S.-born American citizen children wondering: Why mom never came to pick me up at school or why dad never made it home for dinner. It is a plan that would inflict traumatic and irreparable harm on American children who would not only have to reckon with the loss of a parent but the loss of the income provided by that parent. The politics of hate led to the remain-in-Mexico policy, which forces asylum seekers to remain in Mexico amid dangerous conditions.

Indeed, just yesterday, U.S. asylum officers requested that the courts block the Trump administration from requiring migrants to stay in Mexico, stating it is ``fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our Nation and our international domestic legal obligations.''

Now, in the latest action, I fear it is the politics of hate that explain the awful press reports we heard today suggesting that President Trump plans to end a program that protects undocumented members of U.S. military families from deportation. Imagine that-- someone who wears the uniform of the United States, who may serve halfway around the world in service to the Nation, who risks their lives, and now you are going to take the one program that put their mind at ease--that their spouse or child, who may be undocumented in the country and had the ability to stay because of that servicemember's service, and now you are going to say you are going to deport their children, their spouse.

Well, if someone is willing to wear the uniform of the United States, pledge allegiance to our flag, and risk their life to defend this Nation in battle, the last thing we ought to do is to deport their loved ones.

The Trump administration's policies at our border have brought us nothing but chaos, despair, and shame. We cannot let the politics of fear and hate degrade the values that make America great.

We cannot wall off our country from the strife gripping Central America. We cannot tweet our way out of this problem. We must lead our way out of this problem with real solutions and strategies that bring sanity, dignity, and order back to our border and prevent the kind of tragic loss of human life we saw earlier this week on the banks of the Rio Grande. We are just better than this. We are just better than this.

If my colleagues do not raise their voices, then, they are complicit to this. History will judge us poorly.

I hope we will have bipartisan voices who say: This is not who we are; this is not what we stand for. And we can work toward making sure this tragic photograph never ever happens again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania that we need to fight the opioid epidemic from every angle.

The trafficking of this drug fentanyl coming into the United States has to stop. Many lives are at stake. In my State of New Jersey, over 3,100 New Jerseyans died in 2018 alone as a result of prescription pain killers, heroin, and fentanyl.

While I support the Senator from Pennsylvania's desire to use all of the leverage we have at our disposal to pressure China to do a better job at regulating illicit fentanyl, as is exemplified by the amendment I cosponsored with Senator Schumer and others that is in the underlying legislation we are considering as of now, the Senator from Pennsylvania's amendment could potentially have far more wide-reaching implications.

I believe every Member of the body should be concerned about the potential collateral damage should this become law.

The Trump administration's State Department, when we asked them for an assessment of the original version of this amendment, concluded that it would lead to the suspension of U.S. foreign assistance to every country on the planet. That is not something I can support.

When we talk about China, our aid to China isn't to China as a nation. China doesn't need our aid. It is giving out aid all over the world. Our aid to China is to individuals, entities, and organizations that actually promote our national interests and our national security by creating opportunities for different parts of Chinese society to be independent from the Chinese state. So it is not China that gets our foreign assistance, but, in large part, that ultimately would be denied, and that is a type of loss that the Chinese would be only too happy to see happen.

My office worked extensively through the weekend with the Senator from Pennsylvania's office. We offered numerous different compromise agreements, but none of them were acceptable. So while I agree with the spirit of this amendment, I cannot support it as it is currently drafted, and therefore I must object.

Mr. President, as I said, we worked all weekend long with the Senator from Pennsylvania's office, and we are happy to continue to work with him to see if we can come to a common ground. His original amendment that we were discussing did include the elimination of democracy promotion, and that is something that China would only be too happy to achieve.

I understand that in this amendment--which I have not had the full opportunity, nor my staff, to fully analyze--he may have excluded that. That is another step forward. So we are happy to engage with the Senator and see if we can come to common ground beyond today.

My goal, however, is to join the Senator in punishing countries that are ultimately allowing this to happen, but not to do it in a way that doesn't punish the country but actually denies those whom we are trying to help inside of those countries in the pursuit of our own interests. So if we come to that point, I hope we can ultimately come to an agreement.

With that, I yield the floor.