[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 102 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4249-S4251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--Continued
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume consideration of H.R. 5895.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2943, as Modified, and 2985 to Amendment No. 2910
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be called up en bloc: Crapo No. 2943, as modified,
and Baldwin No. 2985. I further ask consent that at 10 a.m. on
Wednesday, June 20, the Senate vote in relation to the Crapo and
Baldwin amendments in the order listed; finally, that there be no
second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for others,
proposes amendments numbered 2943, as modified, and 2985 to
amendment No. 2910.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2943, as modified
(Purpose: To increase funds for a nuclear demonstration program)
On page 24, line 2, strike the period at the end and insert
the following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $15,000,000 shall be for a
material recovery demonstration project to provide high assay
enriched low uranium to support advanced reactors.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2985
(Purpose: To set aside funds for cooperative agreements and laboratory
support to accelerate the domestic production of Molybdenum-99)
On page 32, line 16, strike the period at the end and
insert the following: ``: Provided, That of the amounts
appropriated under this heading, $20,000,000 shall be for
cooperative agreements and laboratory support to accelerate
the domestic production of Molybdenum-99.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Forced Family Separation
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, this past April, Attorney General Sessions
announced a new zero tolerance policy--those were his words--for the
southern border. Last month, the Chief of Staff to the President said
that this new zero tolerance policy ``could be a tough deterrent. . . .
The children will be taken care of--put into foster care or whatever.''
That is what he said. To justify his zero tolerance policy, Attorney
General Sessions cited Romans 8, a Bible passage that was used
throughout our history to justify human slavery.
The administration knew precisely what the effect of this action
would be; yet they did it anyway. The result is that over 2,300
children have been separated by the U.S. Government in the name of the
American people since May.
The results are the images we see of children caged in chain-link
enclosures. We hear it in the young boys and girls crying for their
parents--all done in the name of America. That is an image that has
ricocheted all across the world, just as the image of Bull Connor's
dogs tearing at Birmingham's children ricocheted across the world. It
said to the world that we actually weren't upholding the high ideals
that our Founders set out to create.
Well, that is terrible, but what is also terrible is that President
Trump will take no responsibility for what he has done and instead
takes on a cheap political tactic, which I think he thinks he can get
away with. There is a lot of evidence he will get away with it because
of the repetition on cable news that somehow Democrats are responsible
for this. The President said:
I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to
change their law. That's their law.
That statement is false. It has no basis in reality. And I will
presume that he is not using the children as a negotiating tool. I am
not going to come to the floor and make that accusation. There are
people who have said that because they are searching for some logic to
explain how he could say something that is so false.
He tweeted: ``The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at
the Border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda.'' That is
what he wrote. That is ridiculous, and we know it is false because
until they created this zero tolerance policy, which they thought would
deter other immigrants, the United States of America handled this
matter in a way that managed to enforce our laws without doing hideous
violence to our bedrock values as a nation.
When migrants with children cross the border unlawfully, the
government has broad discretion about whether to charge the violation
as a criminal offense or a civil offense, and every American
administration--every American administration, including the Trump
administration until 6 weeks ago, dealt with it as a civil matter and
avoided the trauma of family separation by charging them for illegal
entry and deporting them.
During the first 15 months of this administration, until Attorney
General Sessions started this zero tolerance policy, the Trump
administration--not the Obama administration--did this with nearly
100,000 immigrants who were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border.
In terms of the law, nothing has changed in 6 months. The only thing
which has changed is the administration's policy and their decision to
file criminal charges for every unlawful crossing, including cases that
involved families with young children. I think that is the wrong
policy.
By the way, the Attorney General doesn't make up stories about it is
the Democrats' fault. He said this is what will happen because of their
policy, but the President will not admit it. American citizens, thank
goodness, don't want this done in their name. They don't want our
history besmirched by
[[Page S4250]]
this action and the coverup of whose responsibility it is. That is why
a bipartisan group--a bipartisan group--of 75 former U.S. attorneys
called for an end to the policy of family separation. It is making
their exercise of prosecutorial discretion more difficult.
More than two dozen of the largest religious groups in America have
asked the President to please relent, knowing he has the power to do
so--Rev. Franklin Graham and nearly a dozen evangelical leaders,
Republican Governors, Republican colleagues of mine who have not only
said they detest the policy but that the President can change it
anytime he wants.
Those are the facts. I don't know how to solve the problem of
newscasters who are willing to repeat things that aren't true. That is
hard to do, and it is difficult to separate fact from fiction when we
have a President who is allergic to the truth.
For my own sake, at times like this, I think it is important to
listen to voices like First Lady Laura Bush, who wrote an op-ed in the
Washington Post last week that was so moving. It amazes me that, in
2017, any American citizen would have to write it, but thank goodness
she did.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Bush's op-ed piece
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Jun. 17, 2018]
Laura Bush: Separating Children From Their Parents at the Border
`Breaks My Heart'
(By Laura Bush)
Laura Bush is a former first lady of the United States.
On Sunday, a day we as a nation set aside to honor fathers
and the bonds of family, I was among the millions of
Americans who watched images of children who have been torn
from their parents. In the six weeks between April 19 and May
31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000
children to mass detention centers or foster care. More than
100 of these children are younger than 4 years old. The
reason for these separations is a zero-tolerance policy for
their parents, who are accused of illegally crossing our
borders.
I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce
and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-
tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my
heart.
Our government should not be in the business of warehousing
children in converted box stores or making plans to place
them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These
images are eerily reminiscent of the internment camps for
U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during
World War II, now considered to have been one of the most
shameful episodes in U.S. history. We also know that this
treatment inflicts trauma; those who have been interned have
been twice as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease or die
prematurely than those who were not interned.
Americans pride ourselves on being a moral nation, on being
the nation that sends humanitarian relief to places
devastated by natural disasters or famine or war. We pride
ourselves on believing that people should be seen for the
content of their character, not the color of their skin. We
pride ourselves on acceptance. If we are truly that country,
then it is our obligation to reunite these detained children
with their parents--and to stop separating parents and
children in the first place.
People on all sides agree that our immigration system isn't
working, but the injustice of zero tolerance is not the
answer. I moved away from Washington almost a decade ago, but
I know there are good people at all levels of government who
can do better to fix this.
Recently, Colleen Kraft, who heads the American Academy of
Pediatrics, visited a shelter run by the U.S. Office of
Refugee Resettlement. She reported that while there were
beds, toys, crayons, a playground and diaper changes, the
people working at the shelter had been instructed not to pick
up or touch the children to comfort them. Imagine not being
able to pick up a child who is not yet out of diapers.
Twenty-nine years ago, my mother-in-law, Barbara Bush,
visited Grandma's House, a home for children with HIV/AIDS in
Washington. Back then, at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis,
the disease was a death sentence, and most babies born with
it were considered ``untouchables.'' During her visit,
Barbara--who was the first lady at the time--picked up a
fussy, dying baby named Donovan and snuggled him against her
shoulder to soothe him. My mother-in-law never viewed her
embrace of that fragile child as courageous. She simply saw
it as the right thing to do in a world that can be arbitrary,
unkind and even cruel. She, who after the death of her 3-
year-old daughter knew what it was to lose a child, believed
that every child is deserving of human kindness, compassion
and love.
In 2018, can we not as a nation find a kinder, more
compassionate and more moral answer to this current crisis?
I, for one, believe we can.
Mr. BENNET. This is what she wrote:
I live in a border state.
She lives in Texas.
I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our
international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is
cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.
Our government should not be in the business of warehousing
children in converted box stores or making plans to place
them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso.
I am going to read that again. Mrs. Bush wrote: ``Our government
should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box
stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert
outside of El Paso.'' No, it shouldn't. She wrote:
These images are eerily reminiscent of the [Japanese
American] internment camps . . . of World War II, now
considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in
U.S. history.
We now have another one confronting us right now. That episode was
shameful. At the time, America was in the midst of a great world war,
the second in a generation. The country had just emerged from the
largest economic depression in our country's history. There was deep
anxiety about jobs and national security, and that anxiety manifested
in what became a terrible injustice perpetrated by the U.S. Government
against Japanese Americans.
President Roosevelt's order called for the relocation of Japanese
Americans into prison-like camps. Many Governors throughout the West
opposed the camps at the time not because they were unjust but because
it was out of bigotry of Japanese Americans. They didn't want them in
their State, even if they were locked up in a prison.
Kansas Governor Payne Ratner declared that they ``are not wanted and
not welcome.'' Wyoming Governor Nels Smith threatened that Japanese who
come to his State would be found ``hanging from every pine tree.''
An exception to that was Colorado Governor Ralph Carr, a Republican.
Speaking to a crowd of farmers, Carr said:
If you harm them, you must first harm me. I was brought up
in small towns where I knew the shame and dishonor of race
hatred.
``I grew to despise it,'' Carr said, pointing to the crowd, ``because
it threatened the happiness of you and you and you.'' Carr spoke out
about that injustice. He gave voice to vulnerable people when it was
politically unpopular. In fact, he lost his political career as a
result of what he said. His courage may not have won him much notice or
applause at the time, but he is in the honor roll of history, and we
hold him up as an example of our responsibility to stand for justice
and to stand against cruelty. His example should inspire us, but it
also should make us wonder what would have happened had he not been
there.
Like Governor Carr, all of us have to choose whether we are going to
stand against a policy of locking up children. We shouldn't do it. We
didn't do it. The Bush administration didn't do it. The Obama
administration didn't do it. The Trump administration didn't do it,
until this so-called zero tolerance policy was put in place. Now, the
U.S. Government has essentially jailed a bunch of children who can't
see their parents. This isn't helping the national security of the
United States.
Our immigration system is broken. Sitting in that chair before the
President was the Senator from Florida. He and I worked together in the
Gang of 8 to write an immigration bill that passed the Senate with
almost 70 votes in 2013. It spent $40 billion on border security. It
had internal security. It created a visa system so we could see who was
here lawfully and who had overstayed their visa and kick out the people
who were causing trouble. I sometimes think he doesn't actually want a
wall; he just wants the issue of a wall.
We could be working with countries in our hemisphere to try to
resolve the issues they face--violence, corruption, absence of rule of
law, very limited economic opportunities for people--so people could
stay there instead of trying to come to the United States just so their
kids can survive. That would be a useful thing for us to engage in.
A couple years ago when we had the kids coming to the border, I asked
myself--I am the parent of three daughters: What would it take for me
to send one of my daughters, when they are 13 years old, with a drug
smuggler 1,500
[[Page S4251]]
miles to the U.S. border? What fear would I have had to do that?
I went down there. I think the President should go down there. I went
to Mexico and El Salvador and Honduras, and I met in the backyard of
our Embassy with a bunch of young people who had either tried to get
into this country and failed or tried to get into this country and
succeeded. It was very clear they are absolutely terrorized by the gang
violence down there, by the insistence on the part of gangs that these
kids join gangs, and by the complete abject lack of economic
opportunity. There is none. That could affect the national security of
the United States, and we should have an interest in trying to make it
better.
I would put my record on immigration and border security up against
any single person in this Chamber because I helped write and pass a
bill that spent $40 billion on border security for the United States.
Our dysfunction in the House of Representatives caused us not to pass
the bill there. Now, we have reached a level of even more dysfunction
because the President is making up what is actually causing the problem
at the border and enjoys the political theater of going over to the
House of Representatives and having a conversation with people about
how we are going to solve a problem he created and that his
administration created and that Republicans and Democrats in this
Chamber alike know he created.
Let me close just by saying that we live in a democratic republic--I
have said that on the floor--and a democracy will not last very long if
the government is separated from the people. We are a self-governing
enterprise. In order to do that well, in order to put America's
children in the position they deserve to be put in, in order to honor
the heritage our parents and grandparents passed on to us, in order to
assure America's leadership role in the world, we have to seek the
truth as citizens. It is a fundamental responsibility that each of us
has.
We don't have to agree with each other about much, but we have to
find a way to ascertain the truth and then govern toward that and
figure out ways of moving the country forward. With an episode like
this, I get more and more worried we are reaching a point where it is
going to be hard to pull back from the brink.
When we are living in a time when our President tells us that our
allies threaten our national security, we need to ascertain the truth
of that statement. When we are told trade wars are easy to win, and we
end up paying more for steel than the people we are fighting a trade
war with, we need to figure out what the truth actually is. When
somebody runs for office saying they are going to have a beautiful
healthcare plan that is going to cover everybody in America at a really
low price, we ought to check and see whether that is happening. When
somebody tells you--even though it is repeated over and over and over
again on one cable TV station in America--that he is going to pay off
the debt in 7 years and then comes to Washington and gives us the
largest deficit we have seen outside of wartime or recession, we owe it
to our children to ascertain the truth of the matter.
We owe it to our children to do that, and we owe it to the world to
treat the children on our southern border with some dignity--the
dignity any human being would deserve.
I yield the floor.
____________________