[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4477-S4487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1790, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1790) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2020 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Inhofe) Modified Amendment No. 764, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       A motion was entered to close further debate on McConnell 
     (for Inhofe) Modified Amendment No. 764 (listed above), and, 
     in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur on 
     Wednesday, June 26, 2019.
       McConnell (for Romney) Amendment No. 861 (to Amendment No. 
     764), to provide that funds authorized by the Act are 
     available for the defense of the Armed Forces and United 
     States citizens against attack by foreign hostile forces.
       McConnell Amendment No. 862 (to Amendment No. 861), to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell Amendment No. 863 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by Amendment No. 764), to change the enactment date.
       McConnell Amendment No. 864 (to Amendment No. 863), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       A motion was entered to close further debate on the bill, 
     and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur 
     upon disposition of McConnell (for Inhofe) Modified Amendment 
     No. 764.
       McConnell motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Armed Services, with instructions, McConnell Amendment No. 
     865, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell Amendment No. 866 (to (the instructions) 
     Amendment No. 865), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell Amendment No. 867 (to Amendment No. 866), of a 
     perfecting nature.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                     9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I begin, I just heard the leader 
conclude his remarks. He didn't mention the fact today that he is 
meeting with several constituents of mine from New York, including John 
Feal and other 9/11 first responders, to discuss a solution to the 
shortfall in the Victim Compensation Fund.
  I am glad the leader has agreed to meet with them. It is a good 
thing, but it is not enough to have just a meeting. These brave men and 
women who selflessly rushed to the towers in the midst of danger, when 
no one knew what would come next, deserve a commitment that their bill 
will be considered in a timely manner here on the floor.
  So, again, I urge Leader McConnell to listen to the 9/11 first 
responders. Then give them your commitment, Leader McConnell, that you 
will put their bill on the Senate floor as soon as it passes the House 
as a standalone bill. It will pass the House; it will certainly pass 
the Senate, given the cosponsorship; and the President will sign it. 
The families of those who, just like our soldiers, rushed to danger to 
protect our safety can breathe a sigh of relief.
  Leader McConnell is the one person--this is not a dual 
responsibility--I wish it were, at least when we are in the minority, 
but Leader McConnell is the one person who controls the calendar on the 
Senate floor. He can stand in the way, as he has done before, or he can 
do the right thing and commit to give this bill the attention it 
deserves. I will be eagerly waiting to hear what the leader says after 
he meets with the first responders this afternoon.


                                  Iran

  Madam President, on Iran and the NDAA, ever since President Trump 
unilaterally decided to abandon the Iran nuclear agreement, our two 
countries have been on a path toward greater conflict. In the past 
month, Iran has heightened its aggressive actions in the region, 
prompting responses from the U.S. Government. No one looks at Iran 
through rose-colored glasses. That is why Americans, myself included, 
are worried about the current course of events. Escalation happens 
quickly in the Middle East. Without a steady hand at the helm, without 
a coherent plan or strategy--things this President has lacked since the 
moment he took office--the danger of bumbling into war is acute.
  Democrats have been urging Leader McConnell to allow us a vote on an 
amendment to the NDAA concerning a possible conflict with Iran. We have 
an amendment, led by Senators Udall, Merkley, Murphy, and Kaine--
cosponsored by Republican Senators Paul and Lee--that would prohibit 
any funds authorized by the current NDAA to be used to conduct 
hostilities against the Government of Iran.
  Again, this is a dangerous situation. Even if the President doesn't 
intend war, his erratic, inconsistent, and off-the-cuff policies could 
lead us to bumble into war. When we are at war, it doesn't matter how 
we got there. The loss of life and the loss of treasure, when we need 
so much attention here in America, is very real.
  So we have an amendment, and we are urging Leader McConnell to allow 
us a simple vote on an amendment to the NDAA concerning a possible 
conflict with Iran.

[[Page S4478]]

  Let me repeat. The amendment is led by Udall, Merkley, Murphy, and 
Kaine, cosponsored by Paul and Lee. So it is bipartisan. It prohibits 
any funds authorized by the current NDAA to be used to conduct 
hostilities against the Government of Iran.
  Contrary to what the leader just said, the Udall amendment would 
not--would not--diminish our military's ability to respond to a 
provocation or act in self-defense. The way the leader characterized 
the amendment is just not true. He deliberately distorted the 
amendment. He knows better. The Udall amendment preserves absolutely 
our military's ability to act in self-defense, and it would make it 
perfectly clear that if President Trump wants to send our Nation to 
war, he would need Congress to authorize it first, as stipulated by our 
Constitution.
  There is no greater power that the Founding Fathers gave to Congress 
than the ability to go to war. They were worried about an Executive who 
might be overreaching, who might be erratic, who might be 
inconsistent--and we have never had an Executive who fits those 
categories more than this current President--and they wanted Congress 
to be a check. If the President had to explain why he wishes to go to 
war, he might be more consistent and certainly less opaque. We should 
have this amendment on the merits, but we also should have it because 
this is how the Senate should work.


                                S. 1790

  Leader McConnell said he would have an open amendment process. Here 
is what he said:

       [We'll] be turning to the NDAA shortly, that's one of the 
     most important bills we do every year. It will be open for 
     amendment.

  Leader McConnell's words, not mine.

       We expect to have a lot of member participation.

  Leader McConnell's words, not mine.
  It will be open for amendment, said Leader McConnell. That meaning is 
pretty plain, but I must have misheard, and so must have America, 
because the NDAA, let me repeat, is not open for amendment--not even 
for a serious and timely and relevant debate on our policy with respect 
to Iran, not even for a matter of war and peace and the constitutional 
prerogative of this body to authorize it or not.
  It is not just this amendment that is being excluded. My friend, the 
senior Senator from Minnesota, will offer an amendment on election 
security important to our national security. My Republican colleague 
will block it--no amendments.

  There are so many clamoring on both sides of the aisle that the 
Senate go back to amending. If we are not going to do it on this bill, 
we are not going to do it at all this year. This is too common--no 
amendments, no bills, a graveyard in Leader McConnell's Senate.
  No Senator has been allowed to vote on their amendments for months. 
This is simply not how the Senate is supposed to be. So I urge Leader 
McConnell, for the sake of the Senate and for the sake of war and peace 
and for the sake of the Constitution, to allow us a vote on our 
amendment. The leader should not run the NDAA like he has run the 
Senate for much of this year, like a legislative graveyard, where 
issues of consequence are buried so the callous political interests of 
the President and the leader can march forward atop their graves.


                            Border Security

  Madam President, on the border, as the Senate moves to consider a 
supplemental appropriations bill on the border, I want to turn my 
colleagues' attention to what is transpiring there at the border.
  Over the past few months, we have read reports and seen images of 
deplorable conditions. At the Homestead facility in Florida, the Trump 
administration has allowed a for-profit detention company to operate 
what amounts to a modern-day internment camp: children ripped away from 
their parents, kept in cages, denied nutrition and hygiene, diapers, 
toothbrushes. How can our country do this? All because some in the 
President's purview think that might deter immigrants: use these poor 
little children--2 years old, 4 years old, we read about one 4 months 
old--as hostages and cruelly treat them. It is a black mark on our 
country. It is a black mark on those who allow it to happen at the 
Homestead facility in Florida and in other places.
  Think of what law enforcement would do if a parent denied their child 
this kind of basic care, toothbrushes and diapers, and put them in 
cages. Why on Earth would it be acceptable for our government to do the 
same? Along with millions of Americans, I am appalled--appalled--by 
these conditions, and I am appalled by the thought that some in the 
Trump administration may actually want these deplorable conditions to 
continue because they think it will deter future migrants--migrants who 
are running away not because they are drug dealers, not because they 
are MS-13 members but because their children have been threatened by 
gangs: I am going to murder your son unless you do what I want; I am 
going to rape your daughter unless you do what I want. Who wouldn't 
flee? These are not evil people. To rip kids away from their parents, 
to separate families as a policy, to discourage immigrants fleeing 
violence, lawlessness, and degradation is sick and twisted. It is 
inhumane. The people who are in charge of this mess should be ashamed 
of themselves, and I can think of no other President--Democratic, 
Republican, liberal, conservative--who would allow this to continue.
  Now we are working on a compromise appropriations bill here in the 
Senate to try to provide more resources and better conditions for these 
kids and their families, but we also have to grapple with the real 
challenges at the border and do more to reduce the number of migrants 
who feel they need to flee their countries in the first place. That is 
why Democrats have proposed to hire more immigration judges at the 
border to reduce the backlog of cases and reduce the number of 
immigrants who are held in limbo. That is why we have proposed allowing 
asylum seekers to apply for asylum within their own countries, not at 
our border. It makes sense. That is why we have also proposed 
additional security assistance to Central American countries to crack 
down on drug cartels, gangs, and human trafficking, to stem the 
violence that impels so many to make the journey north that is so 
perilous.
  These are the kinds of policies we should be talking about. They are 
not controversial. They are not partisan. They are simply commonsense--
commonsense solutions to the problems both parties have witnessed. The 
President--this President needs to end the inhumanity of his 
administration's border management and work instead with us on real 
solutions.


                            Shelby v. Holder

  Madam President, I appreciate my colleagues waiting, but there is a 
lot going on here this morning.
  Finally, today marks the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court's 
disastrous decision in Shelby v. Holder, where a conservative majority 
undercut decades of progress by gutting key provisions of the Voting 
Rights Act. It will go down as one of the lowest moments of the Roberts 
Court. When Justice Roberts says he is not political and he calls the 
balls and strikes, the Shelby decision is an overwhelming and 
persuasive argument that that is not the case with this Chief Justice.
  Few pieces of legislation have reshaped America for the better quite 
like the Voting Rights Act. But 6 years ago, in a narrow 5-to-4 
decision, the Court eliminated important safeguards in the law. By the 
majority's reckoning, such provisions were no longer needed because 
discrimination was no longer a problem. Discrimination was no longer a 
problem? Hello. Hello. The Court said it. Justice Roberts signed the 
decision. ``Mr. Balls and Strikes'' was saying there is no 
discrimination in America anymore. It wasn't a problem.
  Well, in the 6 years since Shelby, 19 States have instituted voting 
restrictions, including laws in North Carolina that the Fourth Circuit 
said ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' No 
more discrimination? Prior to the Court's decision in Shelby, North 
Carolina would have been required to seek approval from the Department 
of Justice's Civil Rights Division before enacting these pernicious 
laws. This is one of many examples of how State and local officials 
have been freed up to implement discriminatory laws while the courts 
struggle to keep up.

[[Page S4479]]

  Now, in ordinary times, the Senate would debate ways to reinstate the 
safeguards that the Court abolished in Shelby. We would debate policies 
like automatic voter registration and restrictions on discriminatory 
voter ID laws and efforts that we would make to make it easier, safer, 
and more reliable for Americans to vote. That is what Senate Democrats 
have proposed.
  But, of course, once again, Leader McConnell has transformed the 
Senate into a legislative graveyard, where inaction is the order of the 
day. What a shame that the leader believes something as crucial as 
ensuring that Americans can exercise the franchise is unworthy of the 
Senate's time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1540

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I share our leader's outrage over 
what is going on right now at the border over these private facilities 
where these children are being housed and about the lack of an ability 
to bring amendments on the National Defense Authorization Act. As for 
the one that the leader mentioned, it is imperative that we go forward 
with this right now.
  We have a situation where the President tweets us closer to war each 
day, 10 minutes short. He got us out of an agreement that, while 
imperfect, would have prevented us from being in the situation that we 
are in. Congress must be a check and balance on this administration, 
and under the Constitution, we should have the ability to do this. I 
cannot stress how important this amendment is.
  Today, I am here to talk about another amendment that is also 
necessary to protect our democracy and protect our country, and that is 
about our elections--our very elections, a fundamental foundation of 
our democracy.
  We know one thing, and whom do we know it from? We know it from the 
President's own Director of National Intelligence. We know it from his 
FBI Director. We know it from all of his security leaders, and that is 
that Russia invaded our democracy. They didn't use bombs, jets, or 
tanks. Instead, they planned a sophisticated cyber mission to undermine 
our democratic system. Special Counsel Mueller also concluded that 
Russian interference in our democracy was ``sweeping and systematic.''
  Our elections are less than 500 days away. We know that Russia is 
actively working to attack our democracy again, and our intelligence 
officials are again sounding alarms. President Trump's FBI Director 
said Russia's efforts to interfere in our 2018 election were just a 
``dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.''
  Has the administration worked with Congress to help craft legislation 
to make sure our election systems are fortified against future attacks? 
No, they actually stopped the bipartisan bill that was moving ahead at 
the end of last year.
  I see my colleague from Oklahoma here, Senator Lankford. He and I led 
that bill, and the cosponsors, including the head of the Intelligence 
Committee, as well as the ranking member. It was a bill that had 
significant support and still has significant support. But just as we 
are about to mark up that bill in the Rules Committee, the White House 
made some calls to Republican Senators. Leader McConnell made some 
calls to Republican Senators, and that bipartisan effort was stopped in 
its tracks, which would have paved the way to making sure that the 
Federal election money was given out to the States and that we would 
have had to have backup paper ballots. It would have paved the way for 
audits. Instead, it was stopped in its tracks, blocked by the White 
House.
  Earlier this month, the President invited more election interference 
when he said he would accept help from a foreign adversary once again. 
That happened. It is unprecedented, and it is wrong. At a time when the 
President is failing to do his job to protect our democracy, Congress 
must do its job.
  In fact, there is bipartisan legislation that has been introduced in 
the House right now that includes many of the things that I will be 
talking about today that includes additional funding. I do thank the 
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford. He and I led the way, in addition 
to our colleagues in the Appropriations Committee--Senator Shelby, 
Senator Leahy, Senator Coons, and others--to make sure that we got $380 
million out to the States over a year ago. It is time to step up again.
  Everyone remembers what happened back in the 2000 election. We all 
saw those hanging chads displayed on TVs across the country. That 
experience taught America that we needed to update our election 
equipment. When we couldn't figure out who won for President of the 
United States, yes, maybe you need to update your election equipment.

  So what happened back then? Well, we passed the Help America Vote 
Act. I wasn't here then, but that is what they did. It was landmark 
legislation that provided more than $3 billion to States to help them 
update their election infrastructure. That was 17 years ago, before the 
iPhone even existed, and the Federal Government has not made a big 
major investment to update our election technology since.
  Russia knew that. What better way to upend our democracy than to try 
to break into our election equipment and to try to spread propaganda 
against campaigns and candidates in our election. That is what they 
did. They conducted sophisticated influence operations in 2016.
  Where do I learn this? I learn this from the Trump intelligence 
advisers.
  They hacked political committees and campaigns. They targeted 
election administrators and even private technology firms responsible 
for manufacturing and administering election systems. In Illinois, the 
names, addresses, birth dates, and partial Social Security numbers of 
thousands of registered voters were exposed.
  Just recently, we learned that the election systems in two Florida 
counties were hacked by the Russians, and the Department of Homeland 
Security is conducting forensic analysis on computers used in North 
Carolina after it was revealed in the Mueller report that a voting 
software company was hacked by Russia.
  How much more do we need to know as we go into these 2020 elections? 
I don't think much more. We have a common set of facts about what 
happened, and we know that there is a continued threat against our 
democracy. What we need to do now is address these facts with a common 
purpose--to protect our democracy and to make sure that our election 
systems are resilient against future attacks.
  We have a long way to go when it comes to making sure our election 
systems are resilient. Right now, 40 States rely on electronic voting 
systems that are at least 10 years old. Do you think I am telling a 
surprise to Russia? No, they know this. Twelve States have no or 
partial paper ballot backups--12 states--and 16 States have no 
statewide audit requirement to figure out, after the fact, what 
happened and if their elections were secure. These statistics are 
alarming because experts agree that paper ballots and audits are the 
baseline of what we need to secure our election systems.
  Many election officials continue to sound the alarm that they lack 
the funding necessary to replace outdated equipment, hire cyber 
security experts, and make other much needed improvements to their 
election system. So maybe, as a country, we can just say: Well, States, 
if you are not doing this, it is not our problem. That is yours.
  No, this is a Presidential election before us, and if a few counties 
in one swing State or an entire State get hacked into and there is no 
backup paper ballot and we can't figure out what happened, the entire 
election will be called into question. No Democrat, no Republican, and 
no Independent can want that to happen, especially when we can prevent 
it from happening.
  The House bill includes the same amount of money as we did last time, 
and that is about 3 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier. The 
bill that I am proposing now that we move forward to is about 8 percent 
of the cost of one aircraft carrier, and that is to protect our entire 
democracy from the kind of modern warfare--not old-fashioned warfare 
but modern warfare--that we are seeing today, which is cyber warfare.
  Protecting our democracy from future attacks will require modernizing 
our election systems and building new safeguards to prevent cyber 
attacks,

[[Page S4480]]

important steps that will require meaningful Federal assistance. Do you 
really think that the State of Arkansas or the State of Maine is 
supposed to be fully responsible for protecting us from a foreign 
power's cyber attack? I don't actually think so. If we could come 
together to quickly help States address things like those hanging chads 
back in 2000, which were in fact just a function of bad election 
equipment, we certainly must come together to protect ourselves from a 
cyber attack from a foreign power. By the way, the last time it was one 
foreign power. Maybe this time it will be another one.
  We must do the right thing for our country. That is why I have worked 
with my colleagues in the House and Senate, including Senator Lankford, 
on legislation that would provide critical election funding in the 
coming years.
  The bill before us today, our legislation, the Election Security Act, 
would also require States to use paper ballots, and it would provide 
funding for States to implement post-election audits. It would 
strengthen the Federal response to attacks on our election systems by 
requiring the President to issue a national security strategy to 
protect U.S. democratic institutions from cyber attacks and influence 
operations, and it would establish a bipartisan commission to develop 
recommendations--drawing upon lessons learned from our European allies, 
who have also been repeatedly subject to attacks from Russia--to 
counter election interference. This is the kind of legislation that the 
American people elected us to pass.
  As I noted, the House is taking action. It will consider similar 
legislation this week. The Senate must take strong action on election 
security as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 1540 and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). Is there objection?
  Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I started working on election security 
with Senator Klobuchar in 2017. At the time, I served on the Senate 
Intelligence Committee. We have worked together, from the beginning, to 
make this a bipartisan--in fact, nonpartisan--issue. Elections are an 
American event. They have partisan results, but the act of voting is an 
American event, not a partisan event.
  We had a hearing in the Rules Committee. We worked through the 
process. We continue to get feedback. In fact, she and I worked 
incredibly hard to be able to reach out to and have multiple meetings 
with secretaries of State from all over the country to be able to hear 
as much feedback as we could from the States, because elections are run 
by States. Elections are not run by the Federal Government. Each State 
runs their own election. Each county or precinct or parish has its own 
structure for doing elections. In fact, one of the strengths of our 
system is the diversity of how elections are actually done. So we had 
to do a lot of work behind the scenes with all of these different 
States, to meet with their leadership, to meet with Governors, and to 
meet with as many groups as we possibly could to get it.

  The basic goal from the beginning was to achieve a piece of 
legislation that had a couple of features in it.
  First, ensure timely information sharing between the Federal 
Government, State, and local officials because we learned in 2016 it 
was not timely information that was shared. The Federal Government had 
visibility on what Russia was doing; the States and the precincts did 
not. It took up to 14 months for the States to find out what the 
Russians were doing. That can never happen again.
  Second, we must expedite security clearances for the State and local 
election officials. Again, we had this issue in 2016 when Federal 
officials saw what was going on by the Russians but said that the State 
individuals didn't have enough security clearance. So, instead, they 
got a nebulous memo that said to watch out for these IP addresses, with 
no explanation as to why. That can never happen again.
  Third is a way to verify the results of our elections. That should be 
straightforward. Every State, every precinct should be able to verify 
that--to go back to the people in the area and say: This is how you 
voted, and this is how we verified that the number is accurate, that 
there aren't additional ballots showing up later that the machines 
didn't count, that suddenly pop up from nowhere. There are no hanging 
chads. There are no inconsistencies. So people can look and say: That 
was done efficiently and professionally.
  The administration is taking steps on the first two of these. In 
fact, we had multiple hearings with DHS to talk about what they are 
doing to get security clearances. Now every single State has 
individuals within their State who have security clearances. Every 
State has greater cooperation now with the Federal Government. Multiple 
layers of cyber security have been offered to every single State so 
that each State can use their own cyber protection or add an additional 
layer from the Federal Government. It is up to that State to choose. It 
is not a mandated piece that has come down on them. Almost every State 
has taken that, though, and has said that they want those additional 
layers of cyber protection because it is not just about the voting 
machine or the piece of paper; it is how it is counted, how it is 
presented, how the unofficial results go out in the States the night of 
the election. All of those things matter.
  DHS has leaned in, and they have done aggressive work on this in the 
last several years. That is why the 2018 election went so smoothly. DHS 
has done a tremendous amount of work already on this.
  I have been clear, though, through this process that this cannot be a 
way of federalizing elections and trying to run the elections or saying 
that every piece of election equipment has to be run through some 
bureaucracy here in DC, whatever it may be. This is a State 
responsibility that the State has to take on. Right now, there is not a 
way for the States that do not have an election system--pieces of 
hardware for their elections--to change that hardware before 2020. The 
first of our elections is not in November 2020; it is 8 months from 
now, when our primaries begin. States cannot purchase the equipment, 
put it into place, train the volunteers, and make that transition 
before the 2020 election. So the emphasis is, what can we do to assist 
States in cyber protection? What can we do to get information to them? 
How can we run this?
  In the days ahead, Senator Klobuchar and I completely agree that 
every State should have a system with backup paper ballots--every State 
and every precinct. Right now that is not so, but no matter how much 
money we throw at the States right now, they could not make it so by 
the 2020 Presidential election. It is not possible to get there.
  In the 2018 omnibus, we added $380 million to go to the States. Not 
all of that $380 million has even been spent yet. There is still quite 
a bit of it that is banked. But that has all been allocated to the 
States, and the States are deciding the best way to use that. In States 
like mine--Oklahoma--we use optical scanners and paper ballots. That 
money was used in my State to assist in cyber protection of the system, 
the transition of the information, and how the unofficial results get 
out to the public. It is a good way to use those funds to make sure any 
threats are being mitigated.
  My State, like 21 other States, was one of the States that the 
Russians tried to engage in our election systems. They came to the 
State election board in my State, tried to get into it, found out the 
door was locked, and moved on to another State. They did not get into 
our system. But there are other areas where we could protect it.
  Of the $380 million we allocated just last year, much of it has not 
even been spent. So I object to another $380 million on top of that 
when the first part of it hasn't been spent yet, and it will not make a 
difference in this year's election because the $380 million for last 
year was really preparing for the 2020 elections.

[[Page S4481]]

  Here is my concern long term. I don't want election security to 
become a partisan issue. It would be easy for it to become that. H.R. 
1, when it came out of the House, was clearly a very partisan bill.
  I find myself at odds today with a partner in this, Senator 
Klobuchar. We have worked together in a very nonpartisan way to resolve 
this issue. I think we still can resolve this and we can actually get a 
result, but a partisan proposal will not get us an end result in which 
both parties come together and resolve this.
  I reiterate again that election security should never be a partisan 
issue. This is about the preservation of our democracy, and it is 
something that all parties--Independents, Republicans, Democrats, and 
all parties--agree should be a central issue.
  Having stated all of that, begrudgingly, in this proposal because it 
is not a bipartisan proposal--I look forward to working through it and 
getting a bipartisan proposal done in the days ahead--I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the work my colleague has 
done with me and others on this issue, but I do want to point out a few 
things.
  No. 1, I agree that this should not be a partisan issue, and, in 
fact, our bill was as bipartisan as it gets with the two of us leading 
the bill, with Senators Warner and Burr, the leaders of the 
Intelligence Committee, as cosponsors, and with Senator Graham and 
Senator Harris from the Judiciary Committee. It was a strong bill, and 
I would be glad to call that up with an amendment if he would be 
willing to do that.
  But one wonders, why wouldn't we be able to advance this bipartisan 
bill? It is because the White House made it decidedly partisan. They 
objected to its moving forward--our own bipartisan bill. Leader 
McConnell did not want that bill to move forward. He made it very 
clear.

  So let's be very precise about why we are having this discussion 
today, and that is that we could have done this bill with the backup 
paper ballots attached to the funding 1 year ago, but it was blocked by 
the Republicans. So now we are where we are. There is this idea that we 
just wait and every year say: It won't help the next election, and it 
won't help that next election. I believe in the importance and urgency 
of getting this done.
  Secondly, I am not trying to federalize our elections. In fact, this 
model, while there is more money attached to it, is very similar to the 
model that we have discussed and that is included in our bill. It is 
this idea that if the States are willing to do what they are supposed 
to do, then they get Federal money. It does not federalize elections.
  Third, the North Carolina example that I just brought up didn't just 
happen in 2016; it happened much more recently. So our concerns are 
based on the assessments that we have been given by the Trump security 
advisers based on what Trump's FBI Director said just last month. He 
didn't say it last year; he said last month that this is happening now 
and that Congress must do more to help defend our elections.
  I will repeat that election security is national security. We must 
remember this. Last week, 22 State attorneys general sent Congress a 
letter asking us to take action to protect the integrity of our 
election infrastructure. We have received similar letters from State 
election officials, and leading law enforcement officials in nearly 
half the country are begging us to take action. Think about that.
  While I have no doubt that there has been some progress and there is 
better communication, I tend to believe the people on the ground, the 
chief law enforcement officers in nearly half the States in this 
country. I tend to believe the FBI Director for President Trump 
himself, the National Intelligence Director for President Trump 
himself.
  The integrity of our election system is a cornerstone of our 
democracy. The freedom to choose our leaders and know with full 
confidence that those leaders were chosen in free and fair elections is 
something Americans have fought and died for since our country was 
founded.
  Going back to 1923, Stalin said to the Communist Party: Who votes? 
That may not matter. What matters is who counts the votes.
  History is repeating itself, and obstructing efforts to improve 
election security is an insult to those who have fought for our freedom 
and those who work every day to protect our democracy. This is not 
about one election or one party. That is why we worked so hard to have 
a bipartisan bill and I was willing to make compromises on that bill.
  We were gut punched by the White House. Senator Blunt had sent that 
Rules Committee markup. It was ready to go. I think if that bill were 
called up right now, 75 percent of the Senators right here in this 
Chamber would vote for it, but we were gut punched by the White House. 
They didn't want the backup paper ballots. They didn't want to have 
those options. They didn't want to have additional money for election 
security.
  So I don't want to hear about how this is a partisan effort to try to 
push this right now. This is not about one election or one party; it is 
about our democracy.
  We need to be a united front in fighting against those who interfere 
with our democracy, and we must do everything in our power to prevent 
foreign interference from ever happening again. This is a bill we 
should be on because it is the Defense Authorization Act, and it is 
about the security of our country and free and fair elections. That is 
the fundamental basis for the security of America.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues. I hope we will find 
some way to overcome these objections from the White House.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do we have a schedule this morning in 
terms of debate on the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no consent agreement.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will, of course, defer to the chairman and ranking 
member if they want to move forward on their legislation, but I would 
like to ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if we can amend that--after a period of 10 
minutes, the two leaders and the ranking member be allowed to speak for 
such time as they shall consume. That would work.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to accept that as a friendly amendment.


                            Border Security

  Mr. President, it pains me to say this on the floor of the United 
States Senate, but there is no other way to describe what America is 
facing today. By every objective and measurable standard, the policies 
of our government constitute child abuse when it comes to the treatment 
of these children on our border. Hardly a day goes by that we don't 
hear another horror story involving these migrants and particularly 
their children and babies.
  Having been there and seen it and read the numbers, I will concede 
that we are being overwhelmed, and for that, there should be some 
understanding and perhaps even forgiveness if we don't respond as 
quickly as possible. But this has dragged on and on for months. There 
are children who are being held in detention under circumstances and 
conditions which are an embarrassment to this country and unacceptable 
in any civilized nation on Earth, period. It led me to join with 23 
other Senators to write to the International Red Cross several weeks 
ago.
  The International Red Cross is called in to countries around the 
world when jails and detention facilities have reached such a point 
that you need an international arbiter to come in and declare to that 
government and to the world how deplorable the conditions are.
  I never dreamed there would be a moment when I would need to ask the 
International Red Cross to review our own detention facilities in the 
United States. What brings me to this point? Well, it is well 
publicized in the press.

[[Page S4482]]

There is a New York Times story of June 21. Let me read it.

       A chaotic scene of sickness and filth is unfolding in an 
     overcrowded border station in Clint, Tex., where hundreds of 
     young people who have recently crossed the border are being 
     held, according to lawyers who visited the facility this 
     week. Some of the children have been there for nearly a 
     month.
       Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes 
     caked with snot and tears, are caring for infants they've 
     just met, the lawyer said. Toddlers without diapers are 
     relieving themselves in their pants. Teenage mothers are 
     wearing clothes stained with breast milk.
       Most of the young detainees have not been able to shower or 
     wash their clothes since they arrived at facility. They have 
     no access to toothbrushes, toothpaste or soap.

  ``There is a stench,'' said Elora Mukherjee, director of the 
Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. . . . ``The 
overwhelming majority of children have not bathed since they crossed 
the border.''
  I might find that hard to believe had I not seen for myself, at the 
El Paso border crossing, what is happening. Albeit, it was several 
weeks ago, but the circumstances described in this article on June 21 
mirror what I saw in El Paso.
  Let me say at the outset and very clearly say that many of the men 
and women in the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, are 
good, caring people who come from families themselves and privately 
have told me how heartbreaking these circumstances are. I am not going 
to make excuses for any wrongdoing by any of them or any Federal 
agency. I wouldn't try. But I do want to concede the point that there 
are many who want to do better but don't have the resources to do it.
  So why aren't we doing more here? Why, in this empty Chamber, isn't 
the Senate coming together and working on a solution? We came up with 
over $400 million in February--a special appropriation for humanitarian 
purposes at the border supported on a bipartisan basis.
  Last week, we reported a bill out of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee 31 to 1 to appropriate $4.6 billion to come down and do 
something about the circumstance at the border, a humanitarian response 
and more. I supported it. Most have supported it on both sides of the 
aisle. It is time to enact it and do it as quickly as possible. I stand 
ready for that to happen as quickly as we can schedule it.
  In the meantime, we need to ask the basic question: How have we 
reached this point in this country? How have we reached the point when 
it comes to immigration that it is such a national embarrassment?
  Take a look at the record of this administration in 2\1/2\ years. As 
you tick off the items of major policy decisions, you can find how we 
reached this point today.
  Remember the first one, the Muslim travel ban? We were banning people 
from Muslim countries from coming into the United States.
  Not too long after, this President decided he was going to eliminate 
DACA--a program that allowed 800,000 young people in this country a 
chance to live here without fear of deportation.
  Then he turned around and eliminated the status of several hundred 
thousand in the United States who were in temporary protected status 
because they were escaping emergencies, crises in their own countries 
and natural disasters.
  He followed that up with the notion of zero tolerance. Remember zero 
tolerance? Remember when Attorney General Sessions quoted the Bible, 
for goodness' sake, as his justification for separating infants, 
toddlers, and children from their mothers and fathers at the border? 
Zero tolerance.
  Finally, a Federal court judge in San Diego said: Enough. I want to 
know who those children are, and I want to know where they are and 
where their parents are.
  It was a common thing to ask. It sounds like an easy request, doesn't 
it? It turns out we didn't keep records. These kids were separated from 
their parents without a record of where they were going or where the 
parents were going. It took weeks, if not months, and still we can't 
resolve the whereabouts of some of those families who were separated.
  Then came the President's decision that he announced by tweet a week 
ago that he was going to engage in mass arrests and mass deportations 
in the United States. Do you know what that means? It means children 
will be coming home from school to empty homes and wondering where Mom 
and Dad are. They are gone, you know. They have been deported. The fact 
that they have lived here for a number of years, had no problems with 
the law, and are part of the community, and the fact that those 
children and others in the household may be citizens doesn't seem to be 
important to this administration.

  When we come down to it, we have reached a point when it comes to 
immigration--a stage I have not seen in modern times--where we are 
being inundated at the border and are in complete chaos here in the 
United States under the Trump administration. Oh, this President 
promised us when he was elected that he was going to get tough. Boy, he 
sure knows how to get tough. He doesn't know how to get effective. He 
doesn't know how to cope with something as terrible as the 
disintegration of the economies and social justice system in three 
Central American countries that leads people to cash in everything they 
own on Earth to give it to a transporter or smuggler to take them and 
their kids to the border. That is where we are. That is why we need to 
act.
  First, we need humanitarian assistance--yes, count me in; the sooner 
the better--to put diapers on these babies, to give them basic 
foodstuffs, perhaps clean clothes. That is not too much to ask this 
great United States of America.
  Secondly, let's come up with an approach on Central America that 
makes sense. Swearing at them, tweeting at them, saying you are going 
to cut off all assistance to them hasn't worked very well, has it, Mr. 
President?
  I found out at the border that smugglers use the President's tough 
talk to sell their case: You better get moving. He is going to get 
tougher. He is going to build a wall. You better get moving. And in 
panic, they do. This approach is not working. It is clear that it is 
not working.
  Finally, haven't we reached a point in the United States of America 
where we know we need comprehensive immigration reform? I was part of 
that effort 6 or 7 years ago. There were four Democrats and four 
Republican Senators. We sat for months--myself, John McCain, Chuck 
Schumer, Bob Menendez, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, and 
Michael Bennet. We sat for months every night working on another aspect 
of immigration reform. We put together not a good bill--I think it was 
a great bill. There was a lot of compromise in it that I didn't like, 
but that is what happens when you sit down across the table and in good 
faith try to resolve your differences.
  We brought it to the floor of the Senate and got 68 votes in the 
Senate. Democrats and Republicans said they are for comprehensive 
immigration reform. As Senator Alexander of Tennessee, a Republican, 
said a few weeks ago, if we had passed that bill and made it the law, 
we wouldn't be facing the mess we are facing today. He is right to a 
great degree. I don't think it would have solved all the problems, but 
it sure would have solved a lot of them.
  What happened to that bill after it passed the Senate with 68 votes? 
It died in the House. The Republican House refused to even consider it. 
So here we sit with this mess on our hands, with a President who tweets 
at people and threatens mass arrests and mass deportation. And the 
situation goes from bad to worse, to even worse, to embarrassing when 
it comes to the treatment of children.
  We can do better as a nation, this Nation of immigrants which I am 
proud to be part of. This Nation of immigrants has absorbed people from 
around the world in a systematic, orderly way in the past, and we can 
do it again.
  We need border security. No one should come in this country if we 
don't know who they are and what they are bringing in.
  Secondly, we cannot accept everyone who wants to come to America. It 
has to be done in an orderly, thoughtful way.
  Third, we should never accept anyone coming into this country who is 
a danger, period. If they are here undocumented and dangerous, they 
should leave, period.

[[Page S4483]]

  Having said that, don't we all agree on that? Can't we move forward 
in a constructive, bipartisan way to solve this problem, to end this 
embarrassment? Once and for all, we have to say to the President that 
tweets are not enough.
  What this reporter saw, what she reported as stench on the border, is 
something that should be an embarrassment to all of us. We are better 
than that. We need to prove it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday we got down to work on 
amendments for the national defense authorization legislation. We filed 
a substitute amendment that included 93 bipartisan amendments. When I 
say 93, there are 44 Democratic, 44 Republican, and I think 5 more that 
we have from both sides. This is what we have been trying to do. Both 
Senator Reed and I have been encouraging people to bring amendments to 
the floor for a long period of time. In fact, the majority leader, 
Senator McConnell, has made several appeals that in the event this gets 
bogged down, go ahead and bring your amendments down so we can work 
with you. That is what we did. The substitute that we used yesterday 
incorporated 93 amendments, and they were actually brought to us for 
fear that what happened a year ago would happen again.
  I am not sure that the system is wrong when it does this, but any one 
Member of the Democrats or Republicans can stop an amendment from 
coming forward.
  It takes unanimous consent. People don't understand that. Right now, 
we are in a position where one individual--last year, one individual, 
and at one point, two individuals said they were stopping all 
amendments unless they got certain consideration for their own 
amendment. That seems to be happening again now. Nonetheless, that is 
why we have all of these amendments, and that is what we have done.
  I heard a couple of my colleagues say that Republicans are blocking 
consideration of an amendment on Iran, the Senator Udall amendment. 
That is holding up the bill.
  Members of both parties are raising objections to not just one single 
amendment but to all amendments. We are following a process that allows 
all Senators to have their say. That is a good thing, but it means that 
anyone can hold up this bill.
  What do we do to preclude damage--irreparable damage--to the most 
important bill of the year, the NDAA? We have taken the initiative to 
bring up amendments and discuss amendments. I have a list with me of 
all of the amendments that are in the bill that we are talking about, 
the substitute bill--the Cotton amendment; the open source fusion 
centers; the Pacific Island states; the Perdue amendment--I can go 
through all 93 of them. The DOD Financial Improvement and Audit 
Remediation Plan, which Senator Perdue has been talking about for a 
long period of time--we have it now. It is in the bill. Cornyn's bill 
on overseas absentee balloting--voting for members of the Armed 
Forces--that is in the bill. All these amendments are there, and that 
is what we have been doing.
  That is why I found the whole idea of Senator Schumer's objecting to 
finishing this bill, as we had planned to do it, this week because of 
the political debates, the Presidential debates that are going on--I 
was pretty shocked yesterday to hear that my colleague from New York, 
the minority leader, said that we should delay votes on the NDAA so 
that seven Democratic Senators can participate in primary debates. That 
is clearly saying that politics is more important than the national 
security.
  Whether it is seven or just one Democratic Senator who wants to 
participate, my answer would be the same: We need to get this bill done 
to protect the Nation. I say without apology that the national security 
preempts politics. This is the tradition of the Armed Services 
Committee. It is our tradition for a reason.
  I repeat: Senator Schumer said we should delay votes on the most 
important bill of the year--a bill which has a quickly approaching 
deadline and which has wide bipartisan support--for political purposes. 
He said: ``There is no rush to complete the NDAA.'' He said that there 
will be ``no harmful consequences to our military.''
  I disagree. We have to enact the NDAA by September 30, the start of 
the new fiscal year. We don't have that much time to spare. Think about 
all the things we have to do between now and September 30.
  If we don't pass the NDAA on time, we will delay needed reforms to 
the privatized housing scandal. I would call it a scandal. We have had 
two hearings on that. Up until February, no one had said anything about 
it. No one said there is a problem. They talked about back in the days 
when we did privatize housing. I thought it was a good idea. I was here 
at the time. I am partially responsible. It worked for a while, a 
couple of years. And then I think a lot of the contractors got greedy, 
and they found shortcuts. I think we in the uniforms were somewhat 
responsible, too, because they did some things that--they didn't have 
the oversight they had before, and therefore they didn't have the 
responsibility. So that is a big deal, and that is something that needs 
to be corrected, and that is in the bill. That is going to be a part of 
the bill. If we don't pass the NDAA, it is not going to be.
  If we don't pass the NDAA on time, we will delay $11.2 billion in 
military construction projects in 44 States. Yes, some of those are in 
my State of Oklahoma. We would handicap mission-critical infrastructure 
for combatant commands protecting America and U.S. interests across the 
globe. These are MILCON projects that need to be done.
  If we don't pass the NDAA on time, we will delay disaster relief for 
military installations still recovering from the devastating storms and 
disasters in Florida, North Carolina, and Nebraska.
  If we don't pass the NDAA on time, we will lose authorities for 
ongoing security cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq, reducing pressure 
on terrorist threats, encouraging our enemies, and undermining our 
partners.
  If we don't pass this NDAA on time, we will be slowing enactment of 
the Fentanyl Sanctions Act, which Senator Schumer is very much 
concerned about and has been critical to getting this done. I think it 
is very important to inhibit the flow of these deadly drugs across our 
borders.
  If we don't get the NDAA done on time, we will let the EPA continue 
kicking the can down the road on the PFAS crisis and providing 
Americans safe drinking water.
  All of these things are going to happen if we start delaying it. You 
might say we are only delaying it for a week, maybe 2 weeks; still, 
that delays everything else, and that also puts it into the timeframe 
where we are going to be busy doing all these other things we are going 
to have to do. We have a lot to do before September 30 and only a 
number of legislative days to do it. We have to pass the NDAA. We have 
to get a budget deal. We have to bring the appropriations bills to the 
floor. These are all vital to getting our troops the resources they 
need on time and with predictability.
  This is a simple request that our military leaders have made. In 
fact, they said it is the best thing we can do for our national 
security. This is what is going on right now.
  I also listened to a lot of the discussion on the floor. They are 
talking about the concentration camps, all these--the treatment of our 
kids. Let me say, even though that is not in the purview of the 
committee that has the bill, the NDAA--that is Health and Human 
Services--I have done some looking into that. And Don Archer in my 
office has spent time with HHS, and they found out these kids are being 
kept well. Fourteen hundred of these kids are going to go to my State 
of Oklahoma, and I am going to be sure that they are healthy when they 
get there and that they are fed properly. Everyone is going to have 
their own bed, their own resources. The staff servicing these kids is 
at a 2-to-1 ratio.
  I know it sounds great. It sounds popular. If you want to demean this 
President and make it look like he is abusing kids, that rings high, 
but it is just not true. We are going to have to do something to 
correct the misuse. It is doing a great disservice not just to the kids 
but to the bill.
  Our responsibility to provide for the common defense is so important, 
it is in the opening lines of the Constitution. I know a lot of people 
don't read

[[Page S4484]]

the old document anymore, but I think it is pretty important. I would 
hope that my colleagues agree--especially those on the campaign trail--
that a candidate for a higher office in this country who truly 
understands the importance of defending this Nation and our ideas 
should understand the need to pass this bill on time. We have to pass 
the bill. We have to pass the bill as soon as possible.
  I want to again commend the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Reed, for his unwavering commitment to our men and 
women in uniform. He understands, as I understand, that this isn't the 
only important thing we have to do.
  I would like for everyone to be aware that there is an effort to 
delay this bill for what I have to say would be purely political 
reasons. It is so that people who are on the committee can participate 
in a Presidential debate. Well, they have a daytime job, and they need 
to be doing their daytime job, which is defending America and passing 
the NDAA. That is what we intend to do.

  I plan to be on the floor all day today, and I want to make sure this 
idea that somehow we are not getting amendments through, anticipating 
we might not be able to get them through--yesterday, we actually passed 
93 amendments--93 amendments. It has taken several weeks to get all 
these amendments in. I am going to be reading off some of these 
amendments and making sure that the authors come down to the floor and 
talk about their amendment.
  Senator Boozman from Arkansas has an amendment that would modify 
authorized strength in the Armed Force Reserve. It is a very important 
amendment, and I am sure he is going to be coming down and talking 
about his amendment, as are the other Members. Some 44 Members actually 
have amendments they need to talk about. We will have that opportunity. 
I think we have all day long today to get that done and get this done 
and get back on track and pass the NDAA, the most important bill of the 
year.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Inhofe for his 
leadership and his cooperation, which has gotten us to this point in 
the consideration of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense 
Authorization Act. The chairman has been thoughtful. He has been very 
reasonable.
  We had a record hearing in our committee in terms of the number of 
amendments we dealt with and how we did it in a very collegial fashion. 
As a result, we were able to once again, as he has indicated, include 
93 additional amendments in the substitute package that has been 
submitted. That is testimony to the good work of the chairman and the 
outstanding work of our staff, who have been working very diligently, 
and I appreciate it.
  This is a very good bill. It passed out of committee by a vote of 25 
to 2--totally bipartisan vote. It contains many needed authorities, 
funding authorizations, and reforms that will help the men and women of 
our Armed Services.
  As both of us have indicated, it also contains numerous amendments 
from many of my colleagues on other issues of great importance, such 
as, for example, the intelligence authorization. We have included in 
this legislation the work of the Intelligence Committee not just for 
this year but the past 3 years. So we will now have up-to-date 
authorities for the intelligence community. We will authorize the 
Maritime Administration. We have provisions that range far and wide. We 
have an amendment dealing with the fentanyl crisis. We have an 
amendment dealing with the PFOS/PFAS in our water around military 
bases. This is a significant crisis we are beginning to recognize more 
and more each day.
  This legislation is extremely supportive of the men and women in 
uniform and, indeed, touches on many other important aspects that are 
necessary as we move forward.
  As we both said in our opening statements last week, we would like to 
have a robust debate on this bill and vote on amendments. It was the 
process for many years. We need to get back to the process where we 
have amendments--some of them contentious, some of them not so 
contentious, but there would be an agreed-upon path, a reasonable time 
for debate, and then a vote.
  In fact, the Chairman and I try to work together. When we have 
differences, we say: Well, that will be resolved by a vote. If you 
can't agree to a consensus compromise, then in this Chamber you 
ultimately hope you can get a vote, and that will be the deciding 
factor.
  I understand there are differences about the proceedings, 
particularly with respect to the issue of potential military action 
against Iran. I do not think anyone will argue with the fact that it is 
a very pressing issue and the Senate has a role we are obligated to 
fulfill. Last week, the chairman and I were both at the White House, 
and the President very graciously listened to our thoughts and ideas 
about the response to the drone strike.
  We are in a situation where potential conflict or interaction with 
Iran is not hypothetical. Just 4, 5 days ago, we were confronted with a 
very serious situation. The President made a decision not to use a 
kinetic strike on Iran. I think that was an appropriate decision. But 
we are at a point now where the Senate as an institution--not as 
individuals accommodating the President but as an institution--has to 
take a position, I feel.
  We understand, too, that as the administration applies more and more 
pressure on the Iranian regime, there will be several likelihoods. One 
will be that these reactions to our pressure will take place. As the 
President indicated in his televised comments, his first sense was this 
was probably not officially authorized, that it may have been a 
subordinate who had taken the action, which had minimized, to a degree, 
the severity. Of course, the most significant factor of all was that we 
had lost an expensive piece of equipment, but, thank goodness, we 
didn't lose any American personnel. Nevertheless, this pressure 
campaign is producing a counterreaction, and that counterreaction could 
be more and more dangerous to our interests. It could escalate. It 
would create a situation in which the question of armed conflict with 
Iran will not be, as I said, theoretical, but something we will have to 
confront.
  The dangers of miscalculation and escalation on both sides are acute 
at the moment. So we have to, I think, as a Senate take a position with 
respect to this issue. That is why I think the amendment is extremely 
important.
  What I would hope we would all like to see is that we are able to 
accomplish two things--one, to have an adequate debate and a vote on 
this amendment. There may be other amendments people will propose on 
which they will feel strongly about having votes, and we could consider 
those also; two, our ability to conclude our debate on the Defense 
authorization bill and move forward. I don't think we have given up on 
that pathway yet.
  I think we are still trying to find a pathway to address these 
critical issues of national security, with respect to there being a 
potential conflict with Iran as well as our finishing this bill in a 
timely fashion. I don't think it will be months from now but really 
days from now or a week or more from now that we will finish this bill. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues to find this path forward.
  Again, the chairman has been extremely responsive and thoughtful 
about this, and his views and participation will be critical to these 
efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, the past week has lain bare just how 
dangerous it can be to have a President who approaches foreign policy 
as if it were a reality show, when the worst thing that can happen is 
to get kicked off before the next episode airs--a President who doesn't 
seem to recognize that his words and his decisions can have life-and-
death consequences for the brave Americans who wear our Nation's 
uniform. No matter your political party, what we have seen from the 
White House of late should worry every single one of us.
  In one breath, Trump is beating the drums of war, thumping his chest, 
and pushing for a conflict that would kill an unimaginable number of 
people--servicemembers and civilians alike. In the next breath, he 
tries to act like a peacemaker who wouldn't even think

[[Page S4485]]

of starting a new war. It is gaslighting, plain and simple. Yet it is 
the closest thing to a Trump foreign policy doctrine since his 
inauguration.
  So, while I am glad he called off a military strike last week, it 
hasn't made me forget that he and aides like John Bolton are the ones 
who brought us to the brink of war in the first place. Trump will not 
get any points from me for taking a small step to avert a disaster he 
himself created, and I have no confidence whatsoever that his 
carelessness will not lead us right back to that same brink today, 
tomorrow, or a week from now because, when it comes to Iran, Trump's 
erratic, incoherent strategy isn't just worrisome, it is potentially 
deadly for the men and women who are willing to sacrifice everything to 
keep the rest of us safe.
  Look, I ran for Congress so that when the drums of war were sounded, 
I would be in a position to make sure our elected officials would fully 
consider the true costs of war not just in dollars and cents but in 
human lives. That was the vow I made to the troops with whom I deployed 
and to all those who have served since I hung up my uniform. I am 
standing here today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, to keep that 
promise.
  Right now, more and more Americans are preparing to head to a war 
zone that is 6,000 miles east in order to protect this Nation. They are 
ready to do their jobs no matter what, just as they have done time 
after time, even as their President and, yes, the Representatives in 
this very Chamber have neglected theirs.
  Again and again, this administration has laid out two scenarios it 
says would justify war with Iran. Then it has taken actions to make 
sure those circumstances become a reality, which sets us on a collision 
course that has life-and-death stakes and no easy off-ramp.
  The first scenario is if Iran edges closer to making a nuclear 
weapon. Well, you don't need to be a physicist to understand that Trump 
himself made that possibility more likely by unilaterally pulling the 
United States out of the nuclear agreement. In doing so, he freed Iran 
from having to abide by the deal that limited its nuclear production. 
Now he is raging about Iran's doing the very things his actions 
encouraged Iran to do. It is circular logic with potentially fatal 
consequences.
  The second scenario it has laid out is an attack on U.S. troops in 
the region--another possibility that has been made more likely by a 
series of Trump's recent moves, as he has made clear through his 
bombastic statements and tweets that he is looking for excuses to send 
more troops to the area. Now we are dealing with the entirely 
predictable fallout from those actions--the raised stakes, the stoked 
tensions, and the louder calls for war from some on the far right.
  Iran is no friend of ours. We were adversaries long before Trump took 
office. Yet what we are facing today is, in part, a manufactured crisis 
by this President. The Trump administration seems to be making foreign 
policy decisions not based on our Nation's interests but to serve some 
ideological or political purpose. In that effort, it is using our 
troops as bait, as if it is trying to manufacture its own 21st century 
``Gulf of Tonkin'' crisis that it can use to justify war.

  In some sort of nightmare deja vu, it is as if it is drawing from the 
same script that led us into Iraq--sowing chaos, shrouding 
intelligence, putting troops in harm's way--for no clear reason and 
with no clear end state in mind. On some days, it almost seems like it 
is provoking--even promoting--war just for war's sake, repeating those 
mistakes of years past that have cost us so many heroic lives.
  It is as if Trump and the extremists in his administration don't 
remember the sacrifices our troops have made in the war we are still 
waging just west of Iran. It is as if it has forgotten all those 
flagged-draped coffins that have returned home from Iraq and the many 
veterans who have come home with scars, both visible and otherwise, 
most of whom will never be the same.
  Look, I am no dove. I understand that war is sometimes necessary, and 
our troops certainly do as well. While Trump and Bolton may have never 
deigned to put on the uniform, I volunteered and served in the military 
for 23 years. I chose to fight in a war I did not support on the orders 
of a President I did not vote for. Why? I did it because, while I may 
not have believed in the war, I believed--and still believe--in the 
Constitution, and my Commander in Chief gave a lawful order after his 
having been authorized to do so by Congress. So, while I may not have 
supported the war or that President, I am proud to have deployed to 
Iraq in order to have served my country.
  I know what is at stake for the thousands of troops this 
administration is sending into harm's way, and I can tell you it is a 
whole lot easier to cover your eyes and order other Americans to 
sacrifice if you don't have to sacrifice anything yourself. Trump may 
have responded ``no'' all five times to his Nation's calling him to 
duty, but our troops respond with a salute, and time after time, they 
report for duty every single time. One, two, three, four--I know of 
troops who have done eight deployments. It is much easier to ignore the 
everyday realities of war from inside the security of the White House, 
but it is nearly impossible if you have been outside the wire yourself.
  So, with the drums of war beating loudly again, I am standing here, 
under the great Capitol dome, trying to keep my promise to hold the 
Members of this body accountable--trying to make sure we do our jobs. 
Our troops do their jobs every single day. Because the costs of war in 
both dollars and cents and human lives will no longer just be 
theoretical if we keep to the path aides like Bolton are pursuing, our 
homeland will be in more danger; more wounded warriors will be sent to 
Walter Reed; and more fallen heroes will be laid to rest at Arlington.
  Even if you are OK with that, the fact is, the President does not 
have the authority to declare war; only Congress has that power. We are 
the ones tasked with deciding when and how we send Americans into 
combat. We are the ones the Constitution has charged with that most 
solemn duty, not Donald Trump and certainly not unelected warmongers 
like Bolton. Lately, though, the White House has acted as if article I 
simply doesn't exist. Trump has acted as if he can just usurp his power 
from the legislative branch as though obeying the Constitution is 
optional. Well, it is not.
  This should not be a partisan issue. No matter if you are a factory 
worker who pulls double shifts or the President of the United States, 
no one is above the law. No matter if you struggle to pay rent or your 
name is plastered in gold on the front of a building on Fifth Avenue, 
no one can overrule the Constitution. Our troops should never ever be 
chess pieces in some reckless ideological game. Now, in the midst of 
the very week that is dedicated to Congress's evading next year's 
defense funding, it is past time for Congress to reclaim that solemn 
responsibility--that sacred responsibility--of declaring war.
  For too long, too many on the Hill have shrugged off that most solemn 
duty. Scared of the political risks in staring down election days, 
Congress has shirked its constitutional responsibility to our troops in 
its refusal to take up any new authorizations for use of military 
force. For decades, Congress has ceded its authority to the White House 
by failing to act. It has handed Presidents from both parties the 
ability to command our military without having clear authorization, 
effectively cutting the people's elected Representatives out of the 
war-making process entirely.
  Enough. Enough of being so worried about political consequences that 
we fail to do our own jobs even as we expect our troops to do theirs 
every damned day without complaint. We need to do better by our 
servicemembers. We owe it to them to honor their sacrifices. Part of 
that means ensuring that no American sheds blood in a war that Congress 
has not authorized. Despite what some in the administration say, there 
is just no way that the AUMF that passed in order to go after the 
perpetrators of 9/11 can justify military action against Iran nearly 
two decades later and send our troops overseas who may not have even 
been alive when that AUMF was voted on.
  If Trump and company want to go to war, they must bring their case to 
Congress and give the American people a say through their elected 
Representatives. They must respect our servicemembers enough to provide 
and prove

[[Page S4486]]

why war with Iran is worth turning more moms and dads into Gold Star 
parents, and they must testify about what the end state in Iran 
actually needs to look like. Then, when their case has been made and 
when Congress's debate is done, we in this body should vote. It is our 
duty. It is the least we can do for those who are willing to safeguard 
our democracy--our way of life, our Constitution--even if it means 
laying down their lives.
  In the days ahead, vigilance is key. We can't simply believe the 
people who try to convince us that, in order to support our troops, we 
need to pass the NDAA as soon as possible. As a former unit commander, 
I know this is not true. The best thing we can do for our 
servicemembers is to make sure they know their actions are legally 
justified by their government. If that takes a week or two or three, 
then it is worth the discussion.
  If the vote to authorize military force then passes, whenever that 
is, I will be the first person to volunteer to deploy. I will be ready 
to pack my ruck and dust off my uniform. I may no longer have legs, but 
I can man a truck. I can take on the grunt work or do whatever else it 
takes to uphold that oath to which all servicemembers and veterans have 
sworn--to, no matter what, protect and defend this Nation we love.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I just want to make one comment. I know 
that somehow it is popular to say demeaning things about our President 
and John Bolton.
  I can remember the years that John Bolton was with the United 
Nations, representing the United States, and he did just such an 
incredible job. He is one that really has all the talent you could have 
in the background. He certainly knows more about defense than anyone 
else I know in this administration.
  One of the proudest moments I had of this President was when he did 
away with that thing that John Kerry had during the last 
administration. They are always referring to our coddling the Iranians 
in the media.
  I happened to be with Netanyahu when the President got us out of the 
arrangement with Iran, where we gave them--what--$1.7 billion to do 
anything they want to with, and they had to admit they would be 
promoting terrorism with the money we gave back to them. It was an 
absolute disaster.
  Anyway, there is something about this President--in spite of the fact 
that right now we have the best economy we have had in my lifetime, and 
right now we have a type of full employment nationwide, and minority 
employment, we have never had anything at all like we are having right 
now. It is the result of two things this President did, and he did them 
with the help of the Republicans. We all lined up and helped him with 
this. It was reducing the marginal rate.
  Reducing the marginal rate to increase the revenue coming into the 
United States is something we have known for a long time. It is not a 
Republican idea. That was John Kennedy. John Kennedy came up with the 
idea that we want to go ahead and increase revenue. At that time, he 
said, and his words were: We need more revenue for the Great Society 
programs, and the best way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal 
rates, and it worked.
  Unfortunately, John Kennedy died right after that and couldn't see 
the product of his efforts. Then, after that, of course, Ronald Reagan 
did the same thing, and it had the same effect on the economy.
  Then, when this President did it, we knew it would have that effect, 
but he did one more thing that they didn't, and that was he 
recommended, yes, you could increase the economy by reducing marginal 
rates, but the other way to do it is to reduce the onerous regulations 
that we got during the Obama administration.
  During that administration, that is the biggest problem we had. 
People were leaving the country to go to places they could find energy. 
There was a war on fossil fuels--fossil fuels: oil, gas, and coal--and 
he ended that war. As a result of that, just in my State of Oklahoma, 
for example, our exports on crude have gone up 251 percent since that 
time.
  Anyway, he also is rebuilding the military. Look what happened to the 
military back during the Obama administration. If you look at just the 
last 5 years of the Obama administration, he knocked down the amount of 
money that went into our military by 25 percent just in 5 years. That 
has never happened before.
  Of course, all of that is over with now. We have a President who is a 
strong supporter. I will be talking about that later. It is just that 
the American people know better when they hear all the name-calling of 
this President. They don't like his style. Sure, I shudder a little bit 
when I hear a tweet coming, but when you stop and think about what he 
has been able to accomplish with his tweets, at least now people know 
there is another side. There is a truth out there that you can have 
access to instead of depending on just the liberal media.
  The main thing I want to encourage is--we have people scheduled 
starting right after lunchtime--that Members come down and talk about 
their amendments. It is true we knew we were going to have some 
problems. We suspected we were going to have some problems getting to 
amendments because our rules provide that one Senator can stop the 
amendment process. An amendment can't come to the floor except by 
unanimous consent, and so they objected to unanimous consent until 
certain things can happen. Well, I don't criticize anyone, but we knew, 
because of that, that we were not going to be able to really get a lot 
of amendments on the floor for debate, and so we did it--in fact, we 
did it yesterday: ninety-three amendments yesterday.
  Now, those 93 were from--equally divided--Democrats and Republicans. 
I have a list here, and they are going to be coming down to the floor, 
but I want to encourage our Members to come down because people have to 
know this is a good bill--this Defense authorization bill. We know it 
is going to pass. It has passed for 53 years, and so we know it is 
going to pass, but we also know it is the most important bill of the 
year. It is the one that takes care of our military that is fighting 
for our country.
  So we have all of these amendments, and I encourage any of the 
Members, Democrats or Republicans, who are not scheduled to come down 
and talk this afternoon, to call up. We have lots of time open. We want 
to encourage them to do it. We want to make sure that not just the 
Members of this body and the other body across the Capitol but also the 
American people know we are doing something really great in terms of 
the Defense authorization bill. So I encourage you to call and come 
down to the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first-
degree filling deadline for the cloture motions filed during 
yesterday's session of the Senate be at 2:30 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today we will hopefully be taking up 
legislation to address the humanitarian crisis along our southern 
border. This year, 2019, has seen an overwhelming flood of migrants. So 
far this fiscal year, roughly 600,000 individuals have been apprehended 
at our southern border--600,000. That is approximately 200,000 more 
people than were apprehended during fiscal year 2018, and we still have 
more than 3 months to go.
  Agencies that deal with the situation on the border are stretched to 
the breaking point. Shelters are overloaded, and providing adequate 
medical care is becoming more and more difficult. The Department of 
Homeland Security has been forced to pull nearly 1,000 Border Patrol 
officers from other

[[Page S4487]]

areas to assist with the surge of migrants. The Department of Health 
and Human Services, which is tasked with caring for unaccompanied 
children who cross the border, will be out of money to care for these 
children by early July. That means that caregivers for these children 
would have to work without pay, and private organizations with Federal 
grants to care for these children would go without their funding.
  The President sent over an emergency funding request to address this 
humanitarian crisis more than 7 weeks ago, and Republicans were ready 
to take it up immediately. But the Democrat-controlled House was not 
interested. Why? Because the President was the one doing the asking.
  House Democrats' No. 1 priority is obstructing the President. It 
doesn't matter if he is asking for desperately needed funds to address 
a humanitarian crisis. Democrats aren't interested.
  When it became clear the House was not serious about addressing this 
crisis, the Senate decided to move forward, and last week the Senate 
Appropriations Committee approved an overwhelmingly bipartisan measure 
to provide desperately needed resources for the southern border.
  Now the House is seeking to take up a supplemental of its own. This 
should be good news, but, unfortunately, the House bill is just another 
exercise in partisanship. The House is attempting to take up a bill 
that the President won't sign, as House leaders have known from the 
beginning. While I suppose we should be glad the House is at least 
acknowledging the situation at the border now, passing partisan 
legislation that will go nowhere in the Senate or with the President is 
no help.
  The Senate has come together and will pass a real bipartisan measure 
that the President is expected to sign. The House should drop the 
partisan posturing and obstruction and pass the Senate bill so that we 
can get these desperately needed funds to the southern border.


                              Agriculture

  Mr. President, I have been to the floor several times in recent weeks 
to talk about the challenges facing our agriculture producers.
  While the economy as a whole continues to thrive, our Nation's 
farmers and ranchers are struggling. Thanks to natural disasters, 
protracted trade disputes, and several years of low commodity prices, 
farmers and ranchers have had a tough few years.
  As the senior Senator from South Dakota, I am privileged to represent 
thousands of farmers and ranchers here in the Senate, and addressing 
their needs and getting the ag economy going again are big priorities 
of mine. That is why I spend a lot of time talking to the Department of 
Agriculture about ways we can support the agriculture community, and I 
am very pleased that we have one big victory to celebrate this week--
the Department of Agriculture's adjustment of the haying and grazing 
date for cover crops planted on prevent plant acres.
  Farmers and ranchers throughout the Midwest are currently facing the 
fallout from severe winter storms, heavy rainfall, bomb cyclones, and 
spring flooding. Planting is behind schedule, and some farmers' fields 
are so flooded that they won't be able to plant corn and soybeans at 
all this year. As a result, many farmers will be forced to plant quick-
growing cover crops on their prevent plant acres for feed and grazing 
once their fields finally dry out and to protect the soil from erosion.
  But before last week's Agriculture Department decision, farmers in 
Northern States like South Dakota faced a problem. The Department of 
Agriculture had set November 1 as the first date on which farmers could 
harvest cover crops planted on prevent plant acres for feed or use them 
for pasture without having their crop insurance indemnity reduced.
  Farmers who hayed or grazed before this date faced a reduction in 
their prevent plant indemnity payments--those crop insurance payments 
designed to help them cover their income loss when fields can't be 
planted due to flooding or other issues.
  November 1 is generally a pretty reasonable date for farmers in 
southern States. But for farmers in Northern States like South Dakota, 
November 1 is too late for harvesting, thanks to killing frost and the 
risk of late fall and early winter storms, and it is too late to 
maximize the use of cover crops for pasture, since a killing frost is 
liable to flatten cover crops before they are grazed.
  I heard from a lot of farmers about this November 1 date and the 
dilemma they were facing about whether to plant cover crops that they 
might not be able to harvest or graze. So beginning in early May, my 
office approached the Department of Agriculture about changing the 
November 1 date.
  I then led a bipartisan group of Senate Agriculture Committee members 
in sending a letter to the Department, making our case for farmers. 
Then, I followed the letter with a request for a face-to-face meeting 
with top Agriculture Department officials so that I could explain in 
person the challenges farmers were facing.
  A week and a half ago, USDA Deputy Secretary Steve Censky and USDA 
Under Secretary Bill Northey came to my office. During our meeting, I 
emphasized that not only did the date need to be changed, but it needed 
to be changed now so farmers could make plans to seed cover crops. The 
decision about whether to plant a cover crop is a time-sensitive 
decision, and farmers were rapidly running out of time to make that 
call.
  One week after our meeting, the Department of Agriculture announced 
that it would move up the November 1 date for this year by 2 months, to 
September 1--a significant amount of time that will enable a lot of 
South Dakota farmers to plant cover crops without worrying about 
whether they will be able to successfully harvest or graze them.
  I met with South Dakota farmers in Aberdeen, SD, on Friday, and they 
were very happy about the Department of Agriculture's decision. Cover 
crops are a win-win. They are good for the environment because they 
prevent soil erosion, which can pollute streams and rivers and worsen 
flooding, and they are good for farmers because they improve soil 
health, protect soil from erosion, and can provide an important source 
of feed. That second benefit is particularly important for farmers 
right now.

  Due to last year's severe and lengthy winter, feed supplies 
disappeared, leaving no reserves. Cornstalks, a source of grazing and 
bedding, will be in short supply this year, and so will the supply of 
alfalfa due to winterkill. Cover crops will be crucial to alleviating 
this feed shortage.
  I am currently working with the Department of Agriculture to ensure 
that farmers have flexibility to use existing supplies of available 
seed for cover crops, and I will be encouraging the Agriculture 
Department to release Conservation Reserve Program acres for emergency 
haying and grazing this year to further address the feed shortage.
  I am very pleased that the Department of Agriculture heard the 
concerns we were expressing and moved the November 1 haying and grazing 
date up to September 1 for this year.
  South Dakota farmers and ranchers can rest assured that I will 
continue to share the challenges they are facing with the Agriculture 
Department, and I will continue to do everything I can here in 
Washington to support our Nation's farmers and ranchers and to get our 
agriculture economy back on its feet.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________