that at the time little people the air was fine. lot of folks who might have stayed away especially folks who had the means to went back and went back to work went back to the places where they lived. there are probably many more who suffered longer exposure than might have otherwise that is another part of why there are more people coming forward now at this late date. >> host: michael out of brooklyn, good morning. >> caller: good morning. you for taking my call -- >> we leave the segment of the washington journal here at the u.s. senate which is about to dabble in. associated press and other news outlets reporting the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has agreed to meet with 9111th responders so they continue to put pressure on congress to personally fund the government 911 victim compensation fund. continue to watch this and will bring you updates as needed. senate about to gavel in to start work on 2020 defense programs and policy.

both for the legislation coming up at 5:30 p.m. eastern. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. . the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who rules the raging of the sea, we thank you for these moments when we are more aware of your presence. we're grateful that we can seize

these opportunities to lift our hearts in praise. use our lawmakers today to live with such excellence that they will illuminate the darkness of our world. lord, give them the grace and mercy that will inspire them to live for your glory. remind them that the earnest and fervent prayers of the righteous avail much. cleanse the inner fountains of their hearts from all defilement and pretense, as they strive to please and honor you. we pray in your great name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, june 24 , 2019. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable josh hawley, a senator from the state of missouri, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: chuck grassley, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to

s. 1790 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 1790, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes.

mr. cornyn: they are all familiar with the high-profile hacking, trusting request data information and personal information. to be sure, it's scary, but nowhere is the threat of this hyperinnovation more terrifying than on the national security front. the challenges we confront today look a lot different from those 150 or even five years ago. we see new technologies being used in the battlefield like drones, and the race to develop next-generation weapons like hypersonic missiles. top military officials, including admiral gair

roughhead, cochair of the mission on national defense strategy, have voiced their concerns about our ability as a nation to confront these rapidly evolving threats. admiral roughhead told congress, we're operating a force today that was last modernized in the 1980's. that is unacceptable. we cannot send our men and women in uniform into battle to defend our freedoms at a disadvantage or allow these rapidly changing threats to outpace our ability to respond. our military should never be fighting next-generation wars with last generation's weapons and equipment. and, of course, the goal is not to have to fight any wars but to maintain the peace through superior military over any of our potential adversaries. we must continue to invest in military modernization, which is why we need to pass the national defense authorization act, the bill that's presently before the

senate. this bill invests in cutting-edge technology to protect our military's combat advantage, to protect and promote 5g networks, the hypersonic weapons that we need to develop to maintain parity at least with our adversaries and artificial intelligence. it also invests in nuclear weapons modification and moderations -- modernization, something i spoke about on the floor just this last week. as our adversaries continue to develop the use of their nuclear arsenal, maintaining a safe and strong nuclear deterrent is the key to preventing nuclear war and keeping our adversaries in check. this year's defense authorization bill also takes major steps to improve the quality of life for our troops and their families. america's 2.1 million service members have made a commitment that few are willing to make and

have joined the ranks of america's heroes who have defended our great country throughout our history. this bill would provide a modest 3.1% pay raise for our troops. the largest increase in a decade. i hope it will also include a provision i've introduced to support our service members during life after the military. occasionally when veterans fall on hard times, their disability benefits can be counted as income in bankruptcy court. that's not the case for their civilian counterparts with their social security disability, and it's unacceptable to me that a civilian with disability benefits would get better treatment in bankruptcy court than a veteran. to fix this issue, i have introduced a bill with senator baldwin from wisconsin called the helping america's veterans in extreme need or haven act. this bill would shield v.a. and department of defense disability

benefits in the same way that social security disability is currently exempted. veterans should not be penalized for receiving the disability compensation they have earned, and i hope this provision will be included in the defense authorization bill which we should soon be able to vote on. passing this bill is not only important to the safety of our nation, it's important for global security as well. it supports programs and policies that will strengthen existing alliances and promote new ones. i'm hopeful that the final version of this bill will include a provision i introduced to enhance our relationship with india. in 2016, the united states designated india as a major defense partner which seeks to elevate our defense partnership with india to the same level as that of our closest allies. since then, we have taken a number of steps to strengthen our defense relationship such as

establishing ministerial dialogue, increasing arm sales, and the first u.s.-india tri-service exercise later this year. as cochair of the senate india caucus, i continue to advocate for policies that strengthen our ties with india both militarily and otherwise. i introduced legislation that requires the secretary of defense to submit a report to congress on u.s.-india defense cooperation in the western indian ocean within 180 days of enactment. this will allow us to get a clearer picture of current military activities and will enable the secretary to enter into military cooperation agreements and conduct regular joint military training and operations with india in the western indian ocean. including this provision in the defense authorization bill would be a major step to bolster u.s.-india ties and strengthen our alliance, which is only fitting for the world's oldest democracy and the world's

largest democracy to continue to work more and more closely together. as we work to counter increasingly sophisticated adversaries around the world, passing the defense authorization bill this week could not be more important. this legislation is integral to ensuring that our military's resourced and trained and ready for action when called upon. that's why for more than 50 years, congress has made passing the defense authorization bill an annual priority. funding our men and women in uniform who are fighting and facing unprecedented threats around the world on our behalf is a no-brainer. i look forward to voting to support the ndaa later this week, and i want to thank chairman inhofe and the ranking member, senator reed, for working to get this bill passed with broad bipartisan support, as well as thank the senate armed services committee for working to get this bill to this point and bring it to the floor in a broad bipartisan way. this bill provides our military

men and women the resources and equipment they need to defend our country and later transition back into civilian life. it restores our combat advantage by promoting military modern ization. it strengthens and builds alliances around the globe. above all, it sends a message to the entire world that our country is and will remain the global military leader. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, tomorrow my friend john theil and fellow responders who were first responders on september is 1, will -- 11, will meet with senator mcconnell. this is the fund that awards compensation to the families of 9/11 responders who died from 9/11-related illnesses, often cancers and fatal respiratory illnesses. it makes me sick to my stomach

that every time we have these debates, these suffering first responders are forced to travel to washington to shame politicians into supporting their health care. i'm sick of all of these delays. i'm tired of temporary reauthorizations, and i've had enough of watching our first responders endure the indignity of waiting for last-minute must-pass bill to hide their issue so members won't vote against it. it shouldn't be this way and it shouldn't be this hard to pass aid for our 9/11 responders and everyone who worked on the pile the weeks and months thereafter. now, who's been standing in the way? at the top of the list, unfortunately, is my colleague, the republican leader. leader mcconnell has got do the right thing here. he's meeting with these brave responders, and that's a good

thing, but it's not enough. by the end of the meeting, he should promise them and promise all of us that he will put the victim compensation fund fix on the floor as soon as it passes the house as a stand alone bill. no more delays for these brave people. no more people like ray fifer, my dear friend who passed away having to come to washington five or six times to washington begging and pleading, not for himself, he knew that the cancer was fatal for him, but for his colleagues and allies. let's do the right thing here. let's do the right thing, leader mcconnell. on another matter, amid escalating tensions with iran, the president today announced a new round of sanctions. it remains unclear what, if any, strategy this latest round of sanctions fits into and whether this latest round of sanctions will compel iran's leaders to

alter their current course. i worry that the president continues down a path of escalation. besides a small group of hawkish advisors and republican cheerleaders in congress, no one wants a war with iran. the american people are weary of endless wars in the middle east, the trillions of dollars wasted, the thousands of american lives lost. americans want the money spent here at home on things like our crumbling infrastructure. americans don't want to see their sons and daughters dying of -- die in a war. that seems to go on forever without a conclusion. while i'm not convinced the president is eager to go to war, i am very concerned he could bumble us into war. his strategy seems erratic, changing from day to day and week to week. it seems opaque. there is no real discussion

outside of his own little clique of advisors, and it seems to sometimes contradict itself. exchanges of aggression can escalate and cascade quickly in the middle east, provocations can spin out of control, and the president's lack of a steady land -- lack of transparency and above all, his lack of strategy make the danger of escalation even more distinct and more recent. it's also worrisome that pompeo, advocate for -- appears to be leading the charge. it's interesting that it seems to be the department of defense that are the reins on the president. they know the limits of what we can do without escalation and the kind of endless war that our soldiers and our military leaders have always fought for this country no matter what the

consequences. so let me be clear. if the president is going to engage the united states in another war in the middle east, he's going to have to convince the american people and he's going to have to come to congress for authorization. one of the best ways to avoid bumbling into a war is to have a robust, open debate and for congress to have some say. we've learned that lesson in the run-up to iraq. democrats have an amendment to the ndaa led by senators udall, merkley, murphy, and kaine that would prohibit any funds authorized by the ndaa to be used to conduct hostilities against the government of iran. it makes eminent sense to consider this amendment on our annual defense bill. it's germane.

it's timely. considering the gravity of the situation with iran, democrats believe the full senate should be present to vote on the udall amendment. leader mcconnell is no doubt aware that several members of this body will be absent this week for the democratic presidential debates. we should wait to have the vote until the full body is present. there is no rush to complete the ndaa. we have passed it very frequently later in the year with no harmful consequences to our military. we should have the vote on the udall amendment which is an urgency before we bumble into war. and it should occur when every senator is able to cast their vote. last week the republican leader promised the senate would hold an open amendment process on the ndaa. we have critical national security issues to debate, including iran, including

election security. will the republican leader keep his word and allow this debate to go forward? for much of this year leader mcconnell unfortunately and now becoming known from one end of america to the other has turned the senate into a legislative graveyard where we hardly if ever vote on the prevailing issue of the day. will the majority leader let the senate have this important vote or is this another issue, another debate, the ability to fund a war that will be buried in his legislative graveyard? i hope he will not continue his shameful record of ducking the issues of the day when it comes to something as important as congress' role in the matter of war and peace. finally, mr. president, on the border, after a week of making the chilling, nasty, obnoxious

threats about mass arrests and deportation of millions of immigrants, president trump backed off on sunday and demanded concessions from democrats in exchange. in doing so, the president reminded the american people that he might be incapable of having a rational discussion about challenges at the border. look at the things he's gone through. tariffs, close the border, issue after issue he makes threats action backs off because none of them make any sense. none of them have been thought through. the president seems far more comfortable terrorizing immigrant families than actually coming up with real solutions. i mean, my god, to threaten separating children from their parents as a bargaining chip? that's the very definition of callousness. that's something that the vast majority of americans would abhor. and he goes right ahead and does

it. unfortunately, however, this is typical of the president's approach to the border. for two years the president said he wants to fix the problems at the border. but just about every action he's taken has made things worse. he shut down the government in a failed attempt to fund an ineffective wall. he threatened to close the border entirely until the business community rebelled and said it would really hurt our economy and our workers. he threatened destructive tariffs with mexico and he's cut off security assistance to central american countries that help curb violence and lawlessness that contributes to the flow of migrants in the first place. his administration has separated children from their parents abhorrently, kept them in cages, let them suffer in horrible conditions in for-profit detention centers that are little better than modern day internment camps.

these are not the actions of an administration that is trying to solve a problem. it seems the president is incapable of saying it's a real problem. he thinks it is and people agree we have to do something at the border. we all do. but instead of actually getting experts in and solving the problem, he is emotional, appeals to the dark side of human nature, and then is totally inconsistent i and is on to doing the next thing. any objective observer would say the president doesn't want to solve this problem. he's rather trying to exploit it for what he thinks will be his political benefit, although it sure didn't work in the month before the 2018 election. to exploit an issue like this because he thinks it will benefit him politically even if it means mistreating children and striking fear into the hearts of millions of people living in the u.s., that's

disgraceful. the thing is we can have a rational conversation about this. this week the senate will consider a bipartisan agreement to supplemental appropriations for the border. that's a good thing. i salute senator shelby, a republican, senator leahy, democrat, for coming together on a proposal that got 30 of the 31 votes on the appropriations committee. it shows we can be rational and compromise and get something done on the border, even if it doesn't meet everybody's needs a hundred percent of the way. beyond that, we democrats continue to propose commonsense changes that would address what's happening at the border, to deal with the root causes of the problem. america, doesn't it make sense to tell these people from nicaragua and el salvador and honduras that they can claim

asylum in their home countries and not go through a thousand-mile trek, often expensive because they have to pay kyotos to the northern border of mexico with the united states? of course it does. doesn't it make sense to have more immigration judges to reduce the backlog in cases? and doesn't it make sense to provide security assistance and help to those three central american countries to combat the scourge of drug cartels, violent gang, lawlessness that has pushed migrants to journey north because they don't want their child murdered or rape as the gangs always threaten? both parties can support these policies. president trump can support these policies. but so far the president has shown a shameful lack of willingness to engage with the real problems at the border preferring demagoguery and fearmongerring to progress. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the

senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. manchin: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i rise today to call for immediate, on the american miners act. we have an obligation to the coal miners by providing us with energy through our greatest advancements. they deserve to know their pensions which they rightfully work for will be funded fully and they deserve to have acceptable health care which was guaranteed to them all and they paid for it. as the senate fails to act, we continue to put our retired miners health care and pension benefits in jeopardy yet again. i've been working with everyone and from every angle in order to prevent our miners from losing their health care and retirement benefits. but once again they are facing a deadline that puts their whole livelihood at risk. this has been a long fight and it is far from over. everyone and i mean everyone who has joined me in this journey understands the fighting -- what they're fighting for, the working people and that's what we were sent here to do.

these retired miners are walking the halls and fighting for what is rightfully theirs. i'm doing this for them. i promised them that this body will not abandon them. i refuse to let them down. the 1974 pension plan will be insolvent by 2022 if we do not act now. miners, miners who received their health care through companies who went bankrupt in 2018 are at risk of losing their coverage in coming months if we fail to act soon. unlike many other public-private pension plans, the 1974 pension plan was well managed and 94% funded prior to the crash of 2008. however, the 2008 financial crisis hit at a time when the plan had its highest payment obligations because of retirees. if the plan becomes insolvent, these beneficiaries face benefit cuts and the pension benefit guarantee corporation will assume billions of dollars of liabilities. to shore up the 1974 pension plan which is headed for

insolvency due to cocompany bankrupts and the 2008 financial crisis, to ensure the miners who are at risk are due to 2018 cocompany bankruptcies will not lose their health care, extend the disability trust fund tax to a dollar ten cents of underground mine and coal and 5 cents surface mine coal for ten years, west virginia has more retired union miners than any other state, more than 27,000 retirees that live in west virginia alone. most of these now who are receiving these pensioning are widowers. these widows basically -- it's a family affair when mining and when somebody in the family mines. their average pension is less than $600 a month. less than $600. they've worked for it. their husbands worked for it. they've been counting on that. it's basically a lifeline for them. and because of -- because of the bankruptcies that have allowed

companies to walk away from their legacy costs and lerve them with nothing after they negotiated and did not take home the pay to -- to take care of this themselves leaves them in a very vulnerable position which we should never let happen. i have a letter from a retired coal miner to read to you today. i think it kind of puts things in perspective. this is delbert from west virginia who was a miner for 35 years. he said to the members of the senate and house, months ago i walked the corridors of washington, d.c. asking many members of congress for your help. i spoke with mitch mcconnell and bled my heart out to him how this was not either the right thing to do but was also a matter of life and death to many thousands of coal miners. if this letter is read on the senate and house floor as i plead with each and every one of you to search your hearts and souls today, close your eyes and imagine giving your youth and your entire working life to the coal mining industry and the

only promises you were given was a small retirement check and medical insurance. i know a favorable ruling for these miners will cost the taxpayers nothing. it will not lead to an increase the deficit. i realize all we are asking for is the interest earned off the unused reclamation fund. most coal companies are even on board with this. these miners have black lung, many have to use oxygen 24 hours a day. many have to use wheelchairs, walkers and canes. their bodies are broken. don't break their hearts and spirits also. please save their lives and pass this bill today. he's a proud veteran of the vietnam war, a proud coal miner and a proud american. please don't say no to these deserving miners and their spouses. let me give it to you in a nutshell what they're asking for. in 1946 hairy truman, the act which was john l. lewis, they signed and said that the miners

had to work for our industry and our economy to keep moving forward. with that it was -- up until that time they had no pensions, no retirement. from that day forward they said that every -- every top of coal that will be mined there would be a certain set aside from the price of that coal that would go into their pension and retirement because it's such an important industry and such an important commodity to the economy of our great country. and after the world war ii, they could not let our economy fail and have miners on strike and they couldn't take care of themselves. so this is how we got this bill, guaranteeing by the federal government that they would be taken care of. it's not that the federal taxpayers or the government was going to pay for t. it's that basically through what they were working, the product they were mining, and the product that was being sold gave them basically the resources to take care of their retirement pension. somebody got this money when there was a bankruptcy and it

wasn't the people that worked for it. the bankruptcies in this country is so messed up that it doesn't give the human being, doesn't give the worker who basically worked for this and didn't take money home to their families because it was based in their retirement and pension plan and then all of a sudden it's gone and all the financial institutions line up first. it's not the working person that's in the front line. they're on the back of the line and get nothing. that's what we're trying to change here. we're trying to make sure that the people that have given everything they have for this great country, their participate -- they're patriotic, fought in the war, mined the coal that basically built america and now we're about ready to let them go down. and we had this bill fixed three years ago. if i could have gotten majority leader mcconnell to let both the pension and the health care but they separated it. we got the health care done for a certain portion of those people and not the pension plan. and if there's one bankruptcy between now and 2022, this whole

thing collapses immediately. and on the other hand, they guaranteed -- the guaranteed fund that the federal government does pay for will be taxed -- will be hit hard and it could break it. so we're looming -- we have a crisis looming. we can avoid it or allow it to happen as we do so many things around here. why is this a political fight? it shouldn't blawz we had bipartisan support. we had almost every member on the finance committee and both parties, democrats and republicans, supported it. and then it never made it past the person who was responsible for putting it on the floor. we had to make a deal there. so i would hope that all my colleagues will consider the people, consider the widows, consider the $600 pension that means the difference between having a life and basically worrying from day to day whether they're going to have food or have their medical cares or whatever they need.

these are not extravagant. they're not high, these pensions. these pensions are necessities. it's something that's needed. i would implore all my colleagues to look at this very hard and try to get this on the ndaa. i think it's something we all should be fighting for. and these are for the people that fought for us and gave us the quality of life we have and the great country we have. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. th.the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today with my colleague from alabama,

senator jones, to urge our colleagues' support for our amendment amendment to the national defense authorization act. it would expand the offset more commonly known as the military widows' tax. this unfair offset is currently preventing as many as 65,000 surviving military spouses, more than 260 of them in the state of maine, from receiving the full benefits they deserve. mr. president, the defense department survivors benefit plan, or s.b.p., is primarily an insurance benefit that military

families purchase in their retirement. it provides cash benefits towards -- to a surviving spouse or other eligible recipients when a retiree passes away. opened, the department -- on the other hand, the department of veterans affairs, known as d. icy, is a monthly tax-free payment to survivors and dependents of service members who pass away from service-related conditions. for example, if a military retiree pays premiums into the s.b.p. insurance program, then his or her spouse ought to be able to receive those benefits when the retiree passes away. what we find instead, however, is that surviving spouses

receiving these insurance payments have a dollar-for-dollar offset for the separate payments that they are receiving from the v.a. in some cases, this leads to the total elimination of the survivors benefits plan benefit. in other cases, the offset greatly reduces the benefit. in either case, mr. president, it is out-and-out unfair and harms the survivors of our service members and military retirees. the average offset amounts to about $925 per month, which is often a significant amount of money that a widow or a widower needs to help support their families or themselves in the absence of their spouses.

mr. president, military commanders often the say that you recruit the soldier, but you retain the family. we have an obligation to make sure that we are taking care of our military families who sacrifice so much for our country. our amendment has the support of numerous military and veterans advocacy groups, including the gold star wives of america, the military officers association of america, the national military family association, the tragedy assistance program for survivors, and the v.f.w., among others. more than 75 senators -- three-quarters of the members of this chamber -- and 340 members

of the house of representatives support the effort that senator jones and i have led by cosponsoring our stand-alone bill. in fact, this legislation has been adopted by the senate in the past numerous times, always by an overwhelming margin or by a voice vote, only to be later stripped out in the conference process. this problem goes back decades, but this year we can finally solve it once and for all. it is time for us to do our duty, not only to support the brave men and women who serve in our military but also to support our -- their families. i encourage each of our colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort and support the repeal of the military widows tax as part of the ndaa.

thank you, mr. president. mr. jones: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. i am eight sorry. -- i'm sorry. mr. jones: i'm over here, on the right side. you're not used to looking this way. mr. president, i want to echo what my colleague and friend, the senator from maine, has said about the elimination of the widows tax and rise today to urge this body to bring the military widows tax elimination act of 2019 to the senate floor for a vote this week as an amendment to the ndaa. i introduced this bipartisan legislation with my friend and colleague, senator collins, this year. it has been introduced numerous times, legislation which is designed to trite a terrible wrong -- to right a terrible wrong has been introduced numerous times over the last 18

years, but without success. today we are at an all-time high for cosponsorship. 75 member of this body -- republicans and democrats -- all support this legislation and have signed on as cosponsors. the only other major bill with support in this congress like that was the one that we radiosly passed by unanimous consent -- that we recently passed by unanimous consent to crack down on robocalls, which i know is something we can all agree needed to be done. but just like that, this legislation is needed as well. our military widows tax bill has earn the overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle, as senator collins talked about, from the tragedy assistance program for survivors, the military officers association of america, the v.f.w. support out there is overwhelming because it is simply the right thing to do. this law currently prohibits

military widows from receiving their full survivor benefits from both the v.a. and the additional department of defense survivor benefits plan that they paid into voluntarily. these gold star families and as many as i think 65,000 across the country and as many as 2,000 in my home state of alabama are being ripped off. it's just that plain and simple. to add insult to injury, they are being ripped off by the very united states government that their loved ones swore to protect. that is absolutely shameful, mr. president, that we would treat our military families in such a way. we obviously -- obviously -- can never repay these families for their loss and the sacrifices that they have made, but it is our duty, i submit -- our duty -- to try and to do all that we can. and we can dang sure stop the

government from robbing them of the benefits that they have paid for and earned. at the end of the day, this is a cost of war. it's a cost of freedom, more importantly. it's a cost of freedom, mr. president. so for folks to say this fix is too expensive or that there's not on obvious pay-for in our budgets that we have today, i would remind my completion that this bill has made it into the ndaa several times before, and we've waived -- this body has waived the paygo rules several times because members of this body have recognized that there are more important issues at play here. many of my completion have supported this bill -- many of my colleagues have supported this bill without a paygo in the past. this week we will be considering the ndaa and i am very grateful to senator inhofe and the chairman of the armed services committee, who is responsible for shepherding this defense authorization on the floor this week, that work that the -- the

work that the committee of which i am a member has done, just incredible, bipartisan work, to get this ndaa to the floor this week. senator inhofe is a cosponsor of this bill, and in 2008 when the bill came to the floor of the senate as an ndaa amendment earlier, also without a pay-for, he noted that an effort to eliminate the widows tax had been in the works for eight years at that point. since 2000. he urged his colleagues to right this wrong. he spoke on the floor stating it is time we give back these benefits to those families of those who have served bravely in defense of our nation. i think it is an insult to their honor and their memory to do anything else. i couldn't agree more, and i hope that our colleagues today will too and will continue their support for our veterans and widows and work with our leaders to ensure that this amendment

gets a vote during the ndaa deliberations. this is our chance to right this wrong once and for all. this is not a partisan issue. it is an issue of common ground and significantly of common purpose. that is precisely why 75 members of this body have signed on as cosponsors to say that it is their fundamental belief that we should honor our promise to the families of the best and bravest among us who have given their lives in service to our nation. i want to thank my republican colleagues, senator collins of maine, for her leadership on this important issue and for being a great partner in the fight to finally get this legislation passed once and for all. and like she did a few moments ago, i want to urge all the rest of my colleagues in this body to call for this amendment to be brought to the floor for a vote this week as an amendment to the ndaa.

let our votes speak louder than our words. let's finally right this wrong. mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: avant vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are any senators in the chamber who wish to change their vote? any senators here who wish to vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 86. the nays are 6. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar 114, s. 1790, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities for the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i call up the inhofe amendment number 764 as modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell for

mr. inhofe proposes an amendment numbered 764 as modified. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for the substitute amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment number 764 as modified to s. 1790, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 and so forth and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment at the desk and i ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky for mr. romney proposes an amendment numbered 861 to amend 764. mr. mcconnell: i ask the

reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 862 to amendment numbered 861. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the text of the underlying bill. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 863 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment 764. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment? the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes 864 to amendment numbered 863. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk with the underlying bill. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 1790 a bill to authorize appropriations -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to recommit the bill to the armed services committee with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell moves to recommit s. 1790 to the comple on appropriations with instructions to report back for drgt with. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit with instructions. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second ?f

there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the instructions? the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment number the 8666 do 865. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the read be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky proposes an amendment numbered 867 to 866. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes

each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, june 25. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed and the senate resume consideration of s. 1790. finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senators inhofe, merkley, and wyden. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized.

mr. wyden: thank you very much. i would ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak after the chairman, senator inhofe and after the ranking minority member senator reed. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reed: i was just asking to speak after senator inhofe and as the ranking member and comanager of the legislation. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. chairman. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: first of all, i thank my colleagues for voting yes on the motion to proceed so we can start our work on what i consider to be the most significant bill of the year and we can do these things in earnest. this will be the 59th ndaa for 59 consecutive years. we're pretty sure it's going to go ahead and pass and we start the process of considering amendments. i hope we can have an open amendment process. i know i speak on behalf of

myself and senator reed. we've been wanting to do this for a long period of time. and while we're debate this bill, i encourage my colleagues to come to the floor and share why the ndaa is important to their states and to national security. the -- here's one reason why. we're at a really crucial juncture in our military. our world keeps growing more unstable and less safe. and our military is frankly in a crisis. i think we all are aware of that. the ndaa is going to set the tone for our defense strategy not just this year but well into the future. it's a message to our service members and their families. and to the world. are we going to show russia and china that we mean business? are we going to help our military continue to rebuild? are we going to give our all-volunteer force the equipment, training and the housing that they need to do their job? and that's why this bill

provides a total of $750 billion in defense spending. this is what we call the defense top line. this is the minimum we need to restore the long-standing military supremacy that we have seemingly lost. and that's why this bill provides for -- that's why the bottom line is the top line is the same thing. we've got to have real growth in our defense budget each year. you know, we have decided on -- in fact, we did this from two sources. one from all the military before our committees and then, of course, the commission report that says in order to get our military back where it's supposed to be, we're going to have to have an increase and that increase of 3% to 5%, that's what this $750 billion does. this is also the recommendation from our military leadership, $750 billion is really the bare minimum we need to get to that goal. our committee has heard the same refrain from every service leader at posture hearings this

year that stable, on time, adequate funding is their number one priority. so it's -- the best thing we can do for our troops so it seems pretty clear to me that this should be our priority too. an important part of the whole equation is that we're spending this money responsibly. this is an across-the-board increase. the ndaa makes tough decisions to put funding where it's most needed and makes cuts in other places. so we direct this funding to critical bipartisan priorities, the pay increase for our troops is the largest we've had in a decade. rebuilding the right size force with the newest and most capable aircraft, ships and equipment in the world and modernizing our nuclear arsenal so it's safe and strong. during the last five years of the obama administration, the amount of money we had to run our military was reduced by almost 25%.

that was extremely harmful to our readiness and our troop morale. but thanks to the trump administration, that trajectory is changing. the fiscal year 2018 we increased funding back up to $700 billion. that was the largest year-over-year increase since the beginning of the war on terror. in 2018 we increased it again, $716 billion, and that got the funding out the door on time. this was really meaningful for our military and i hope that we can do it again this year. i commend the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: and my colleagues who are -- mr. inhofe: i commend majority leader mcconnell and my colleagues. we have to raise the caps to give our military what they need to fight and win. we are on a path to recover in our readiness rates. we're helping in the military

keep up with china and russia. this is a different situation than we've ever been in before where we have peer competitors out there. we're on our way right now. it is a major step we just took and i want to also say, in working with senator reed, we have been together much more than we've been apart. we have been staying on top of this thing and our combined tenacity is going to resolve in getting a bill done. so i -- with that, i will yield the floor. reed. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i want to commend the chairman for the thoughtful way with how he's approached the national defense authorization act for this year. we had a very successful markup. we had a vote of 25-2 in the committee. subsequently with our staff, who have done an extraordinary job, we've been able to include an

additional 100 amendments on a bipartisan basis to the substitute. so we've been acres i think, to respond to all of the concerns of our colleagues, very, very many of these concerns. the chairman has indicated some of the constraints of the bill. we've increased our operations and maintenance funding so our posture is increasing. one area that i think is important is the fundamental reform of the private housing that was a real problem that we discovered -- and again the chairman led two very, very thorough hearings in which we had not only the operators bus also the families who live there, the legislation before us contains significant improvements in the privatized family housing of the department of defense. that's something critly important. and i, too, like the chairman, would like to see a very

important amendment process so we could bring to the floor amendments that are important and linked to the national defense bill, have votes on these amendments and then move forward. but let me just conclude my brief remarks by thanking the chairman for his leadership. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, tonight i'm going to speak about saudi arabia's brutal murder of u.s. resident and journalist jamal khashoggi. this despicable act has been condemned by the congress, by the american people, and by governments and citizens around the world. but donald trump and members of his administration won't talk about it. they seem to think it's just fine to sweep this atrocity

under the rug. i'm here to describe why the congress must not let this happen and how i intend to do everything in my power to make sure that it does not happen. the senate is now debating the defense authorization act, which this year includes the intelligence authorization act. i serve on the senate select committee on intelligence, and the intelligence bill that is part of the defense legislation contains an amendment that i offered with my colleague, senator heinrich, senator harris, feinstein, and bennet. and that amendment requires that the director of national intelligence provide a public report identifying those who

carried out, participated in, ordered, or were otherwise responsible for the killing of mr. khashoggi. last wednesday, the united nations released a detailed report on the khashoggi murder. the report described how even before mr. khashoggi entered the saudi consulate in istanbul, saudi officials had meticulously planned his killing. a team of more than a dozen saudi agents were organized. their travel accommodations were designed to mask the purpose of their trip to turkey. the consulate office where the killing took place was cleared of staff. in the moments before mr. khashoggi's arrival at the consulate, the saudi agents were

recorded discussing how to kill and dismember him and dispose of his body. they referred to mr. khashoggi -- and i quote here -- as the sacrificial animal. the report even describes the recorded sounds of the killing and the dismemberment. who bears ultimate responsibility for this brutal, horrendous, despicable crime? u.n. reports stated that every expert, every expert who was consulted found it inconceivable that an operation of this scale could be implemented without the crown prince. and they found that at the very least being aware that some kind

of criminal act was to be conducted against mr. khashoggi was, in their view, clearly something that the crown prince knew about. the u.n. then concluded that there was -- and i quote here -- credible evidence warranting further investigation of high-level saudi officials' individual liability, including the crown prince's. and i have read that directly from the u.n. report. the senate has also spoken on this. in a resolution passed unanimously, the senate stated that it believes the crown prince is responsible for the murder of jamal khashoggi. but donald trump and his administration refuse to discuss this publicly. last november donald trump said

that the intelligence community was continuing to assess information about the killing. but as for the question of whether the crown prince had knowledge, the president said only, maybe he did and maybe he didn't. then he said, we may never know all the facts. so, mr. president, we have at the intelligence committee something at the beginning of the year called an open threats hearing, and it is a public hearing. at that open threats hearing, i asked the c.i.a. director whether the senate's unanimous belief that the crown prince was responsible was correct. she acknowledged that the khashoggi murder was premeditated. in terms of who was responsible,

she referred, though, to what the saudis had said publicly. but director haspel said that she would not disclose to the public what the intelligence community thought with respect to who was involved in the brutal murder of mr. khashoggi. that's why, mr. president, there is a provision in the intelligence authorization act that we are considering as part of this defense bill, requiring a public report on the khashoggi killing. the provision is there so that finally more than eight months after the murder there will be finally some real accountability. now, those who may be following these remarks or this discussion

may ask, why does this matter? why is this important? it matters because the trump administration has bent over backwards to please the dictator running saudi arabia. the u.n. report recommended an f.b.i. investigation of the khashoggi murder. donald trump has made it clear he is not interest in that either. part of a pattern. in one of the most dismal and disappointing responses i've seen any national security concern, this administration refuses to look into whether saudi officials helped saudi criminal suspects flee the united states to escape justice. the administration continues to

turn a blind eye to the saudi government's grotesque human rights abuses. donald trump vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have ended legislation for a devastating and seemingly endless war in yemen. the president recently invoked what i consider to be a phony emergency to go around congress and to sell arms to the saudis. example after example, whether it's within our borders, in a consulate office in istanbul or elsewhere, this administration's record is the same. they will help cover up the saudi government's brutality. mr. president, jamal khashoggi, besides being a u.s. resident, was a journalist who wrote for a u.s. newspaper. the absence of accountability for his murder sends a

horrendous message that as far as the trump administration is concerned, it is open season on journalists. donald trump is making this clear when he cozies up to dictators cracking down on journalists in russia, in hungary, and the philippines. and that doesn't even include his affection for the dictator of north korea, where as we all know there's no press at all. donald trump's contempt for a free press here in the united states is as apparent as it is dangerous. his white house and the pentagon have simply stopped all press briefings. donald trump has threatened to use the taxation and antitrust powers of the government to punish the media when they dare to criticize him.

at his rallies, he whips up support against the media to the point where people are threatening journalists in attendance. almost every day he dismisses any media outlet that accurately describes what he disagrees with with respect to their comments, the corruption in his administration, as fake news. recently, he accused the journalists at the "new york times" of treason after they dared to publish a story that displeased him. the trump administration created a secret list of journalists it targeted for tracking and questioning, journalists who were reporting on the administration's cruel treatment of migrants at the southern border. border agents have even detained journalists, american citizens, and subjected them to prying,

detailed questions about their travel and their work. and most ominously, over and over he calls journalists enemies of the people. that is language that is designed to justify state repression or vigilante violence against journalists. it's also language that comes, unfortunately, directly from the worst dictators in history. but that is based on the record -- based on the public statements that i'm walking through tonight, mr. president. that's what donald trump thinks of the press. which is why the saudis told him that jamal khashoggi was an enemy of the state. as far as i can tell, the

president seems to believe that first amendment freedom of the press basically should only apply to people who say nice things about him. i don't know of any provision in the first amendment which the founding fathers felt so strongly about. they thought freedom of the press was almost as important as anything else people can imagine. the founding fathers didn't in any way suggest the fifth amendment applied only to saying nice things about someone who is a public official. reporting facts to the public on corruption in the administration, the president's cheating on the administration's policy of locking up migrant children in cages without beds,

soap, or toothbrushes, all this evidently donald trump considers to be a treasonous act. the brutal premeditated murder of jamal khashoggi is, in my view, the canary in the coal mine for press freedom around the world. mr. president, these are dangerous times for journalists. it's already a dangerous career in many countries. its dictators see the killing of jamal khashoggi as the signal that they, too, can get away with cold-blooded murder. then the question is how many more journalists and dissidents are going to die? so that's why the member of the intelligence committee -- as a member of the intelligence committee, i'm tonight drawing

the line at right here. and for me, the events of the last week have only highlighted the urgency of this issue. in a nationally televised interview aired just yesterday, donald trump was asked repeatedly about the murder of jamal khashoggi. each time he kept coming back to saudi money. he said, and i quote, take their money. and he repeated it, take their money. now, i disagree that u.s. arm sales to saudi arabia somehow mean that they have all the leverage and that the united states has helped them, but even more important, the message that

impunity for a brutal murder can be bought is both repulsive and dangerous. right now, donald trump is telling the saudis that every other dictator -- and every other dictator in the world that for the right price, you can murder a u.s.-based journalist you don't like, you can dismember his body, and you can make it disappear. as far as donald trump is concerned, what we have seen recently is the lives of journalists are for sale. in the same interview, donald trump was also asked about the u.n.'s call for an investigation into the khashoggi murder. he made it clear that, again, he would resist any public accountability. he said the murder had already been heavily investigated and that he had seen so many

different reports. it was time for the american people, the congress, and everyone around the world fighting for press freedom to see the report. something else happened last week that i thought was also very important for the senate to reflect on. jamal khashoggi's fiancee wrote an extremely important essay in "the new york times." she wrote, and i quote, washington has chosen not to use its strong ties and leverage with riyadh to get the saudis to reveal the truth about jamal's murder and to ensure those responsible are held accountable. that's her direct quote. she described jamal khashoggi's fiancee, her meetings with members of congress who were sympathetic but were embarrassed that nothing had been done, and

this is what she concluded, and i quote -- i began to feel that jamal had not only died in istanbul but also in washington. mr. president, this must not be the last chapter. the u.s. congress must demonstrate that the fight for press freedom does not die in the nation's capital. so to cry how i intend to proceed here, you have to get a little bit of a sense of how the intelligence committee works. the intelligence committee accepts as boilerplate that we always keep classified what are called sources and methods, and it is automatic in the

consideration of any business before us and before the congress, and that is because we so admire -- i know my colleague, the president of the senate, feels this way. we so admire those who work in the intelligence field and the national security field and should sources and methods be exposed, we could have people who are helping to keep us safe die. so we put it in every bill, and in order to get my amendment to make sure we would actually have the american people get the information that the intelligence community has about how mr. khashoggi died, i accepted boilerplate language about protecting sources and methods. but i want to be clear because

the intelligence community has in effect bobbed and weaved around this issue for some time. if the intelligence community attempts to use that boilerplate language to avoid real accountability and real transparency, i am going to fight them tooth and nail. and that includes, which i will describe tonight, using the procedure that is available to members of the intelligence committee to get information to the american people. so i'm going to be specific here just for a moment. and what i'm going to describe is section 8 of senate resolution 400 which allows members of the intelligence

committee to initiate a process that ultimately would permit the senate to release information over the objection of the president of the united states. now, mr. president, i don't make this statement lightly. i don't make threats lightly. and i hope that it doesn't come to this. i hope that the intelligence community finally adheres to the intent of the provision in this legislation and tells the american people and the world what it knows about the death of mr. khashoggi. but if the intelligence community stone walls again, once again blocks the truth from

the american people, i am not going to rest. the stakes are too high. press freedoms here and around the world must survive. intimidation and murder must not be allowed to stand. i state tonight i will use s. res. 400 and every tool at my disposal to finally get this long overdue information about the death of jamal khashoggi to the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note my colleague from oregon who is doing important work is not here.

mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, this chamber has a responsibility to debate tough issues that face our nation. it has been the void of such tough debates now for a very long time. essentially failing to perform its responsibilities to the american people under the vision of our constitution.

but i am more troubled at this moment about this failure than any previous moment because at this moment the drums of war are beating, and this chamber stays silent. at this moment, we have a bill before us to address security issues, and yet we are being denied the chance to debate the most important security issue of all, whether or not the united states goes to war. the question before us in the amendment put forward by tom udall of new mexico and tim kaine of virginia is has there already been an authorization by this body for the president to go to war against iran? and their amendment answers this question and says with great

clarity the answer is no. the president does not have authority to go to war. that power to make that decision is vested with congress. and no bending and twisting and contorting of any previous authority can be used in this situation. that's what their amendment says. so it says to mr. president if you want to go to war, you have to come to congress to get authority, authority voted on after the date of their amendment. it's just a fundamental question. are we going to follow the constitution or not? when our framers were working on the constitution, many feared that a president would become a king, and many feared that kings

take countries to war to the benefit of their treasure and their power while to the disadvantage of the people. but we're supposed to be a country with a different vision, not government by and for a king or by and for the powerful, but by and for the people. so they debated this at great length and decided with clarity and authority that presidents in the u.s. would not have that power. hamilton wrote about this in his federalist paper 69 in 1788. the president is to be the commander in chief of the army and navy. in this respect, his authority would be nominally the same as a king of great britain, but in substance much inferior to it. it would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and

direction of the land and naval forces while that of the british king extends to the declaring of war. declaring this huge difference between a kingship that can decide on war, but here in america that it is the power vested in this body, congress. at another point, hamilton wrote the president of the united states will be an officer elected by the people for four years. again, describing the difference between a president and a king. the king of britain is the perpetual and hereditary prince. the one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation, the one being america. the other, in addition to this, the other being the king of britain, possesses that of declaring war. very much emphasizing how

important this distinction is. president lincoln addressed this when he was in office. allow the president to invade a neighboring nation and you allow him to do so whatever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure if today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade canada to prevent the british from invading us. how could you stop him? you may say, i see no probability of the british invading us, but he will say to you, be silent. i see it if you don't. and then lincoln brings to bear that our constitution doesn't allow this. the provision of the constitution giving the

war-making power to congress was dictated, as i understand it, by the following reasons. kings had always been involving an impoverishing their people in wars. this, our convention understood to be the most impressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the constitution of the united states that no man should hold the power of bringing this suppression upon us. powerful words from president lincoln describing the founder's vision to make sure that no one man, including the president, holds the power to bring that oppression, the oppression of war upon us. james madison's notes of the debate of the constitutional convention in 1787 revealed when pierce butler of south carolina

urged the president be given the power to delegate war, the delegates opposed it. one said he never expected to hear from the public a motion to declare war. george mason of virginia remarked that he was, quote, against giving the power of war to the executive because the president, quote, is not safely to be trusted with it. leader after leader after leader said this power must reside in congress, not in the president. this list of the founders' vision goes on and on all to this fundamental point, no one

man, and certainly not the president, is given the power to declare war. so while we're here on the defense authorization act, shouldn't we debate this issue? we have a president who claims he has complete power to declare war regardless. we've asked members of his cabinet, do you respect the constitution? will you come to congress and ask for authority if you want to wage war against iran? and they have refused to answer that question time and time and time again. so we demand here on this floor that we hold a debate on tom udall and tim kaine's amendment that states very clearly we have not authorized war. you cannot take any prior authorization and bend and twist and contort it to somehow say

congress has provided you this authority. i expect that under debate if we were here listening to each other, this would have broad bipartisan support. all of us took an oath to the constitution. it does nothing but restate the fundamental principle written into the constitution. the drumbeat of war against iran has been steady. a continuous demeaning of their every move, and for sure they do many things that bother us a great deal. but it's more than just being concerned about their current activities that i'm speaking of when i speak of the drumbeat of war. i'm talking about the fact that we exited an agreement that we made with iran, the jcpoa

agreement, which had them dismantling all of their nuclear programs in exchange for some loosening of economic restrictions. we exited it. and when we did that -- when president trump pulled us out of this, he did exactly what the right wing, what the hard liners in iran said, america is not to be trusted. they won't stand by the agreement. and president trump showed them they were right. and then in this tiesening of the economic restrictions that has -- and then in this this economic restrictions, we have created more support for the right wing, the hardliners, the islamic revolution airry guard n iran, those least likely to negotiate with the united states of america, the folks most

interested in pursuing a nuclear program. we strengthened them in their country with this action, and then we've deployed a carrier strike force, an abraham lincoln strike force to the persian gulf. it is immensely powerful. able to rain down bombs on a vast number of cities in short order. massive destruction that symbolizes and embodies that power. but not just that, we deployed a b-52 squadron to the region and they have immense, heavy-lift bombing capability as well. and not just that, but the iranian economy, while suffering under quotas still has some ability to sell some oil, and therefore, alleviate some suffering within their country economically, and we cut off

those waivers. so now they are really hard pressed. so we empower the right wing. we strengthen the citizens of iran in supporting the hardliners and the hardliners then do something like shoot down an american drone. and we came this close to going to war. the president's -- our president, president trump's inner cabinet recommended bombing iran in retaliation. it was at the last moment that president trump apparently recognized that they had shot down an unmanned drone and we were going to conduct a bombing campaign that might kill 150 people and so that's not proportional and so his observation was right. where were his advisors in talking about proportionatey,

those looking for a trigger, an opportunity to unlease the -- unleash the forces in the gulf by the united states. shouldn't we demand the president follow the constitution? so we must debate this amendment, the udall-kaine amendment on this floor. let people vote no or yes, according to their opinions, but let us listen to each other. let us argue about one of the most important issues a nation can argue about, the power to go to war. colleagues here in the senate, i hope you will read the commentary by the founders and by those who came later. you know, i was struck that jefferson -- jefferson was very involved in the structuring of the constitution. he talked about putting a leash

on the dogs of war by transferring the power from the executive to the legislative. but he didn't just talk the talk. he walked the walk. he wrote a message to congress in 1805, and he wrote considering that congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, i have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force. jefferson talked the talk and he walked the walk. are we going to walk the walk? are we going to stand by and not even debate the issue? let us have the senate be the senate and put amendments before this body on issues important to this nation. we are on a bill about the

security of the nation. there is no better time in the future than now. are we to come together after war has been unleashed and then hold a debate on whether it's authorized? can we not send clarity now or at least to debate whether to sent clarity now that, indeed, it is not authorized and the president must come to the senate, shouldn't we have that debate now, not after a conflict has started. the answer is, yes, we should have the debate now. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until >> finishing up work in the sentence on this fourth monday

in june, lawmakers continuing their deliberations on the 2020 defense authorization bill which sets programs and policies. more work on that expected this week. wash the senate live when the gavel comes down next right here on c-span2. >> the complete guide to congress is now available. it has details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. compact and bio information about every senator and representative plus information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinet. the 2019 congressional is a handy spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store for $18.95. >> tonight on the communicators, we continue our visitor to cs on the hill about sulfur tomorrow which challenges kids to use

stem to improve community. >> we created a door lock that would lock the outside of the doors and to help put that -- there be one on the door and one on the door frame. so if the doors closed and an intruder is in the building that lock will slide in. >> tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> senate minority leader, schumer spoke on the floor today about the 9/11 victim compensation fund. he also talked about the situation with iran in immigration and border security. >> now, mr. president tomorrow, my friend john and fellow survivors who were first responders on september the 11th will visit with leader