[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 103 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4253-S4257]
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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5895, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5895) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Shelby amendment No. 2910, in the nature of a substitute.
       Alexander amendment No. 2911 (to amendment No. 2910), to 
     make a technical correction.
       McConnell (for Crapo) modified amendment No. 2943 (to 
     amendment No. 2910), to increase funds for a nuclear 
     demonstration program.
       McConnell (for Baldwin/Portman) amendment No. 2985 (to 
     amendment No. 2910), to set aside funds for cooperative 
     agreements and laboratory support to accelerate the domestic 
     production of Molybdenum-99.


                   recognition of the majority leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I discussed on the floor yesterday, 
returning to regular order in the appropriations process is at the 
forefront of the Senate's agenda.
  Thanks to the bipartisan work of the Appropriations Committee, led by 
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Leahy, and the subcommittee chairmen, 
it is actually becoming a reality. Their efforts have already produced 
thoughtful legislation for the full Senate to consider, beginning this 
week with the combined measures for the Legislative Branch, for Energy 
and Water, and for Military Construction and the Veterans 
Administration. It is those last components I would like to discuss 
this morning.
  This year, 2018, has already brought significant legislative progress 
for America's men and women in uniform. Earlier this year, Congress and 
the President did away with arbitrary funding limits that had eroded 
our forces' comparative advantage. We delivered the largest year-on-
year increase in funding for our troops in 15 years. Now, with the 
Military Construction-VA funding bill before us this week, the Senate 
can keep the ball rolling.
  The committee's package would deliver mission-critical maintenance 
and improvements that are needed on installations both at home and 
abroad. It would support Active-Duty personnel, as well as National 
Guard and Reserve units. It would allocate significant resources for 
projects that reinforce key alliances and extend our influence around 
the world.
  In my home State of Kentucky, it would mean major improvements to 
training facilities at both Fort Knox--home of the Army Cadet, Human 
Resources, and Recruiting Commands--and at Fort Campbell, where the 
101st Airborne Division and Special Operations forces prepare for 
evolving missions.

[[Page S4254]]

  But while underpinning the ongoing missions of our Active Forces, the 
legislation before us would also take critical steps to meet the 
individual needs of America's warfighters and their families here at 
home. It would allocate over $1.5 billion to operate and maintain 
military family housing facilities. It would provide for vital safety 
updates at overseas American military schools, part of a system that 
serves more than 66,000 children. Hundreds of millions in additional 
funding would go to build and improve the network of military medical 
facilities, which provide care to nearly 10 million servicemembers and 
military families.
  Finally, within the Military Construction legislation is important 
funding to support our veterans. In addition to funding the maintenance 
and upkeep of VA health facilities, it goes further in allocating 
targeted resources to address the system's shortcomings.
  Especially when we talk about access to prompt, quality care, the 
status quo is simply not good enough for America's veterans. For the 
more than 300,000 Kentucky veterans and for the millions of veterans 
nationwide, we can and we must do better. That is why this bill 
includes billions of dollars to improve claims processing and to cut 
down on backlogs. There is funding for treatment, mental health 
services, and preventing opioid misuse.
  There are plenty of good reasons to support this appropriations 
package, but one of the most compelling is the support it will deliver 
to our all-volunteer military and those who have served our country in 
uniform. So let's keep this legislation moving this week.


                            Rescissions Bill

  On another matter, Mr. President, speaking of government spending, we 
will soon have an opportunity to save some of the money taxpayers 
entrust to us. Thanks to the hard work of Members, including Senator 
Lee and Chairman Enzi, we will soon turn to a House-passed bill that 
acts on the President's request to rescind nearly $15 billion in 
previously appropriated money that has gone unspent. This modest belt-
tightening would in no way infringe on the bipartisan spending deal 
that Senators on both sides agreed to earlier this year. This savings 
package is 100 percent unrelated to that agreement.
  Let me say that again. This savings package is 100 percent unrelated 
to the bipartisan agreement we reached earlier this year. It is totally 
separate. It simply pulls back a small amount of unspent funds from a 
variety of government accounts. If we, the people's elected 
representatives, want to speak seriously about stewarding taxpayer 
money, surely we can vote to recapture these unspent funds that are not 
even currently in use.
  The President's modest rescissions request is entirely reasonable. It 
should be without controversy. I look forward to voting for it myself, 
and I urge my fellow Members to do the same.


                               Tax Reform

  Now, on one final matter, Mr. President, today marks 6 months since 
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed Congress. On Friday, it will be 6 
months since the President signed it into law. What a 6 months it has 
been.
  Already, Americans have seen their paychecks grow as the IRS 
withholds less of what they earned. Already, families are reaping the 
fruits of a new business tax code that gives American employers more 
ability to increase pay and create jobs. Six months in, these tax cuts 
have already led employers to issue tax reform bonuses, raises, and new 
benefits to 4 million workers and counting. That is welcome relief for 
middle-class families. But what about the long term?
  Republicans know that enduring prosperity needs thriving businesses 
competing to hire American workers. So we designed tax reform to flip 
the Obama-era script and make America a more attractive place to 
invest, expand, and create jobs.
  For large companies, capital investment might mean breaking ground on 
new locations or purchasing state-of-the-art technology. If you are a 
midsized employer, it might mean filling your factory floor with new 
equipment. If you are a Main Street family business, it could mean 
expanding into the vacant storefront next door or buying new tools that 
will transform your day-to-day operations.
  In every case, you are placing a bet on your community and on your 
country. You are betting on American land, American equipment, and, 
most importantly, the future of the American workforce. You are putting 
down roots here instead of shipping jobs overseas. This is precisely 
what we have seen in the past 6 months.
  Earlier this year, Apple announced plans to make $30 billion in 
capital investments over the next 5 years--new facilities, new data 
centers, and more than 20,000 new jobs.
  Chipotle Mexican Grill announced a $50 million investment in 
upgrading and refurbishing their restaurants.
  Carpenter Technology is using tax reform to speed up a new $100 
million facility in Redding, PA. Their new state-of-the-art mill will 
allow them to compete in precision electronics manufacturing. New 
equipment can't be easily outsourced; neither can the jobs it will 
create. Sure enough, Carpenter is partnering with a local community 
college to train a 21st century workforce.
  Remember, these businesses aren't just creating new opportunities 
themselves. These projects also mean prosperity for American 
contractors and construction crews, and it is not just the big guys.
  In West Palm Beach, FL, tax reform means new kitchen appliances for 
the Don Ramon Restaurant. In my home State of Kentucky, at Glier's 
Meats, tax reform meant a new quarter-million-dollar machine to speed 
up production of their famous sausages. For a small business with fewer 
than 30 employees, that is a noteworthy opportunity. Everywhere you 
turn, businesses large and small are going all in on the future of the 
United States.
  There is one more interesting thing the last 6 months have revealed: 
just how impossible it is for our Democratic colleagues to set aside 
their outdated, tax-and-spend ideology. Every Democrat in the House and 
in the Senate voted on party lines to block tax reform. They insisted 
the law wouldn't help American workers one bit. They said that it would 
be a disaster. Of course, the facts have debunked those predictions. 
But are our Democratic friends admitting they were wrong? No. They are 
doubling down on this silliness.
  By now, we are all familiar with the House Democratic leader's 
comments from January. She laughed at the four-figure bonuses that 
working families were celebrating and called them ``crumbs.'' Earlier 
this month, she doubled down:

       Hip, hip hooray, unemployment is down. But what does that 
     mean for me?

  Well, my Democratic friends seem hopeful they can convince Americans 
that tax cuts, bonuses, and a stellar job market are nothing to 
celebrate. Talk about a tall order.
  But while those rhetorical gymnastics keep them busy, Republicans 
will keep up the fight for middle-class families.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in whatever 
order you choose, Senators Crapo, Baldwin, and Whitehouse each be given 
a minute, then I be allowed to speak in leader time, and the vote come 
immediately after that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.


                    Amendment No. 2943, as Modified

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in a few minutes we are going to vote on 
the Crapo-Whitehouse amendment. I stand to support that amendment and 
encourage my colleagues all to vote in favor of it.
  I first want to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse. He and I have 
worked together on a number of issues, building bipartisan support to 
advance our ability to utilize nuclear energy in the United States.
  I also thank Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein for their work 
to complete this Omnibus appropriations bill and to continue to push to 
bring our appropriations process to regular order.
  Our amendment focuses on the development of fuel sources for our 
advanced nuclear reactors. The United States currently lacks both the 
supply of high assay low-enriched uranium, called HALEU, and a process 
to make HALEU for advanced reactor designs.

[[Page S4255]]

  Advanced reactor startup cores require a high assay low-enriched 
uranium containing less than 20 percent fissile content. At the end of 
naval fuel's life, it contains highly enriched uranium with an average 
enrichment of 80 percent. Current operating naval reactors have the 
potential to create a total of 100,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, and 
the Department of Energy estimates disposal of this spent nuclear fuel 
will cost about $100 billion.
  However, advanced nuclear reactors have the potential to reuse this 
spent nuclear fuel and to reduce the overall disposal cost. HEU 
repurposing, from materials like spent naval fuel, can be done using 
hybrid processes that use advanced dry head-end technologies followed 
by material recovery, which creates the fuel for our new advanced 
reactors. Repurposing this spent fuel has the potential of reducing 
waste that would otherwise be disposed of at taxpayer expense, and 
approximately 1 metric ton of HEU can create 4 useable tons for our new 
reactors.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, let me say what a pleasure it 
has been to work with Senator Crapo on these issues.
  Our situation is pretty simple. We have a U.S. Navy that generates 
spent nuclear fuel through its operations; we have a U.S. industry of 
next-generation nuclear technology that needs that spent fuel in order 
to test those innovative technologies; and we have extraordinary 
National Labs with world-class expertise in handling that nuclear 
material and supporting that innovation.
  This amendment brings those three together. It allows the U.S. Navy's 
spent fuel to be delivered to National Labs so that pursuant to a law 
we just passed in the Senate recently, the cooperation between the 
National Labs and the nuclear innovation community can move forward. We 
have already passed that bill. I hope we will pass this bill.
  I will close by saying there is something else in this that I think 
is worth our consideration. We have an enormous national liability with 
respect to our existing stockpiles of nuclear waste. Presently, we have 
no realistic plan for dealing with that. There is a prospect--it is 
definitely a maybe; I don't want to overpromise anything--there is 
definitely a prospect and it is the intention of some of these next-
generation technologies that we will be able to develop nuclear 
technologies that will go through our nuclear waste stockpile and turn 
that into productive electricity generation. If we can get there, that 
would be a terrific Holy Grail. In the meantime, this is a smart and 
efficient way to support American innovation in these technologies.

  I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes. I, again, appreciate Senator 
Crapo's leadership on this and the extraordinary National Lab that he 
has in his home State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 2985

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support my bipartisan amendment regarding an essential medical isotope. 
This amendment that I have introduced, along with Senator Portman, 
would achieve three simple goals: It would safeguard and improve 
patient access to critical health screenings, it would promote medical 
innovations needed for cutting-edge diagnostics and new treatments, and 
it would move us away from our dependence on foreign sources of medical 
isotopes, while supporting America's medical innovation industry.
  Let me explain quickly why my amendment is needed. The United States 
does not currently produce the medical isotope our healthcare system 
uses the most. This isotope is used in medical screenings and helps 
50,000 patients per day in the United States by providing early 
detection and enabling treatment of cancer and heart disease.
  U.S. patients are currently relying on supplies of this key isotope 
that come from Canada, the Netherlands, and South Africa. This raises 
costs and risks supply disruptions. Mind you, this isotope only lasts 
for 3 days.
  For security in the healthcare system and certainty in patient access 
to essential medical tests, which are often needed in urgent 
situations, we must develop a domestic supply of these isotopes. The 
Department of Energy has been working diligently with the private 
sector to develop sources that are made in America, and this amendment 
would dedicate $20 million to ensure that work continues so we can 
secure domestic production as soon as possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important and bipartisan 
amendment.
  I yield back.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am on leader time.


                        Forced Family Separation

  Mr. President, as the purposeful, cynical, and shameful humanitarian 
crisis of family separation at the border continues to unfold, the vast 
majority of Americans are looking to President Trump's administration, 
which started this practice, to end it.
  The Associated Press recently reported that the Trump administration 
has been sending babies and young children to what they call tender age 
facilities. It is unconscionable--unconscionable--that the Government 
of the United States is warehousing babies and toddlers alone in an 
institutional setting.
  The crisis was willfully and purposefully created by this President 
through his zero tolerance policy at the border. It can and should be 
ended by the same mechanism. With the simple flick of a pen, the 
President can end this policy. If the President wants to borrow my pen, 
he can have it. He can do it quickly and easily if he wants to. It is 
on his back.
  The administration must end this gratuitously cruel and 
counterproductive policy that has brought such pain to innocent 
children and so much shame on this Nation. No law requires the 
separation of children from their families, no law says you must send 
babies to detention facilities, and no law is required to end it.
  Nineteen Republicans in the Senate have already called on the Trump 
administration to reverse or suspend this policy administratively, 
without any congressional action. If our Republican colleagues and the 
Republican leadership in particular want to solve this problem, they 
ought to be directing their attention to the other side of Pennsylvania 
Avenue, to the White House, because that is where it can get done, done 
well, and get done quickly. This is at the administration's doorstep to 
stop or sustain. This is President Trump's responsibility. He could fix 
it this morning if he actually wanted to fix it. Instead, he points 
fingers of blame, he prevaricates, and he makes things up because he 
doesn't even want to own this policy. He knows how unpopular it is with 
the American people, but at the same time, he sort of wants to tell his 
base: I am with you. I am with you.
  It is awful.
  There is this idea that Congress could step in and pass legislation 
to deal with family separation. That is highly, highly dubious and 
unlikely. When has this Congress ever successfully passed immigration 
legislation in the last few years? Never. It is an illusion. Color us 
dubious that Congress--the House and Senate, with Republican majorities 
and strong rightwing elements who hate any change in immigration--could 
successfully pass legislation. Here are the problems:
  First, would Speaker Ryan agree to pass and put on the floor a narrow 
bill that just deals with this issue? Has he ever done that before? 
Never. Never. Even if the Senate passed something, in the House, it 
would be dragged into a morass.
  Second, would the President sign something that--it was reported in 
the newspaper that Sarah Huckabee Sanders said he would not sign the 
bill that Senator Cruz is talking about. So what is the point? We want 
to solve this problem.
  Third, will both Republican leaders, House and Senate, guarantee that 
a narrow bill will not have poison pill riders that are unacceptable to 
large percentages of this body added to any legislation?
  Let's get those guarantees--no poison pill riders, Senate leadership 
and House leadership agree, and Speaker

[[Page S4256]]

Ryan has the votes to pass something before we move on a legislative 
path, when there is such an easy alternative path available, which is 
the President taking his pen and undoing what he has done.
  The bottom line, my colleagues, is that there is only one real 
solution, as much as we would dream for another; that is, for the 
President to solve this problem. The odds of any legislation being able 
to pass--without poison pill riders--the House and Senate and be signed 
by the President is just about zero, while the percentage that the 
President could solve this problem if he wants to is just about 100 
percent.
  I have to say one other thing. Ted Cruz--a leading anti-immigration 
advocate--must be feeling the heat. He has never been for modifying our 
immigration laws in any way that helps immigrants. Read some of his 
past statements.
  I ask the question, Is something cynical going on with some people? 
They want to get this off their backs because they feel the heat, but 
they really don't want to solve the problem, because if they did, 
Senator Cruz and the others would do what 19 Republicans have correctly 
done: Ask the President to solve the problem himself.


                                 Trade

  Mr. President, on a different subject entirely, our trade 
relationship with China. For too long, China has taken advantage of 
America's unwillingness to strongly confront its rapacious trade 
policies. For too long, China has dumped artificially cheap products 
into our markets, stolen the intellectual property of blue-chip 
American companies, and denied our most profitable companies access to 
its markets.
  I am heartened that President Trump, after making a debacle of a deal 
on ZTE, has taken a tougher approach to China in recent days. His 
instincts to be tough on China are right on the money.
  President Trump needs to stay strong. If he backs off at the first 
sign of trouble, after the first company calls to complain, after 
President Xi calls to complain, then China will know we are weak and 
unserious.
  China is waiting to see if it can ride this out. We need to show 
China that America means business because the stakes are too high.
  Business relocations to China have costs too many American jobs. The 
theft of our intellectual property has been called ``the greatest 
transfer of wealth in history'' by a four-star general and commander of 
U.S. Cyber Command. The lifeblood of the American economy is on the 
line. I urge President Trump to stay strong on China.
  Don't mistake my support on this issue for what the President is 
doing with our allies. The tariffs leveled against Canada and our 
European allies are misguided and counterproductive. China is the real 
threat. And China should be the President's focus.


                          Republican Tax Bill

  Mr. President, 6 months ago today, the Republican majority jammed 
through a partisan tax bill that lavished tax cuts on big corporations 
and the wealthiest few. It is an appropriate time to look back on how 
the tax bill is fairing.
  While the Republican leader, on a daily basis, celebrates vague 
statistics about business confidence, here are some cold, hard facts.
  Since the beginning of 2018, corporations have announced plans to 
repurchase more than $475 billion in stock buybacks--a record pace. 
Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor statistics report that real average 
hourly earnings have dropped by 0.1 percent.
  According to a recent analysis by Just Capital, only 6 percent of the 
capital allocated by companies from the tax bill's savings has gone to 
employees, while nearly 60 percent has gone to shareholders.
  Remember, President Trump promised that the Republican tax bill would 
give a $4,000 raise for the average American family. In reality, 
American families are not seeing close to that figure. A recent 
Washington Post headline sums it up best: ``The Republican tax bill's 
promises of higher wages and more jobs haven't materialized.''
  The truth is, the tax law has failed to deliver for American workers 
and American families. Corporations are reaping record profits as a 
result of the tax bill and are refusing to pass much of those savings 
onto their workers. And whatever benefits American families are getting 
from the tax bill--if they are getting benefits at all--are starting to 
get wiped out by skyrocketing health care costs, the result of 
Republican sabotage.
  All in all, that is why that today, 6 months since it passed, the 
Republicans' signature legislative accomplishment remains deeply 
unpopular.
  I yield the floor.


                Vote on Amendment No. 2943, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to Crapo amendment No. 2943, as modified.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. 
Duckworth), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--9

     Feinstein
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Markey
     Merkley
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cardin
     Duckworth
     McCain
     Shaheen
  The amendment (No. 2943), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2985

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the Baldwin amendment No. 2985.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 
seconds on the Baldwin-Portman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, Senator Baldwin spoke a moment ago about 
this amendment we are about to vote on.
  It is $20 million to the National Nuclear Security Administration's 
domestic isotope program. This is something this body voted for back in 
2012. CBO says it has no budget authority impact. It is really 
important because we are getting this all from overseas. We have no 
domestic source. We want to get away from using highly enriched uranium 
for national security reasons.
  I encourage you to all vote for this.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth)

[[Page S4257]]

and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Flake
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Duckworth
     McCain
     Shaheen
  The amendment (No. 2985) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                        Forced Family Separation

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I have just returned from South Florida 
where I went to a detention facility in Homestead, FL. There are 1,000 
children in this detention facility, and 94 of 1,000 are children who 
have been separated from their families.
  Despite being the senior Senator of Florida, despite having oversight 
responsibility of the Department of HHS, despite the fact that in that 
oversight capacity, we have the funding responsibility for the 
Department of HHS and one of its components, the Office of Refugee 
Resettlement--these children separated from their families are handled 
by that office--despite all of that, the Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of HHS refused to allow me to enter this facility and said 
that it was the Department's policy that you have to fill out a form, 
which we had done, but you have to wait 2 weeks before being allowed to 
enter the facility.
  The question is, Why do they not want the Senator from Florida to get 
into this detention facility where there are children who have been 
separated from their parents? It must be that not only is this 
Department policy, but this is being directed by the President in the 
White House. They don't want me to see it because they don't want us to 
know what is going on in there.
  I have subsequently found out that in addition to those 94 children, 
there are 174 children being held in my State of Florida who have been 
separated from their families. This is the current debate: Children 
have been ripped apart from their moms and dads, and it has always been 
an American value to keep families together, even when you are 
adjudicating the lawful or unlawful status of the parents. You always 
keep those children together on an immigration question, yet President 
Trump has now altered that policy.
  Despite all the finger-pointing and the deflection, President Trump 
and his administration know this is their policy; he doubled down on it 
last night. But there is nothing in the law that requires them to tear 
parents away from their children. There is nothing in the law that 
requires the administration to rip an infant from a parent's arms, some 
young enough still to be nursing.
  The decision to enact this quite horrendous and shameful policy was a 
decision by this administration--and this administration alone. That is 
why this Senator went to Miami yesterday. I wanted to see it for 
myself. I wanted to see: Is the facility clean? Are the children 
sleeping in beds? Are they sleeping on the floor? Do they have adequate 
care? If they were, I could report that it was a good news story.
  I also wanted to be able to talk to the young children, the ones who 
had been separated. I had already gotten word from Senator Van Hollen, 
who had been in Texas on Saturday and met a mom who said that her child 
had been separated from her and that child was in a detention facility 
in Florida. I wanted to see that child.
  I am very proud of all of our colleagues who have come together to 
support legislation to keep these families together, and 49 of us on 
this side of the aisle have signed on as cosponsors. The policy of this 
legislation is simply this: Don't separate families in this question of 
immigration. It would prohibit the separation of those families. That 
has been the policy, and all the President would have to do is to say 
it, but in taking the position he has, maybe the only recourse is for 
us to pass this law.
  I am proud of our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have 
rightfully stood up and publicly condemned this practice because every 
American knows that taking children from their parents is just not 
right. If a family is legitimately fleeing violence, repression, and 
conditions that most of us cannot imagine, they have a right under 
American law to present themselves at the border and ask for asylum. 
Past administrations of both parties have recognized this, which is why 
they acted with compassion and refused to do what the Trump 
administration is doing now. It is certainly time that we return to our 
true American value of keeping families together.
  Because the passage of a statute is a long shot, it is really not up 
to us. It is up to the President. He could say it, and it would be 
done. No matter what we do here in this Chamber, the power to end this 
shameful chapter in our Nation's history lies with the President and 
his pen. He can sign an Executive order today, just as easily as he can 
sign a law that we pass here in Congress. Either way, it is up to him. 
He doesn't need Congress to act. He and he alone is allowing this 
shameful practice to continue, and he alone can stop it right now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I first want to respond to something that 
was said a moment ago. It is not he and he alone who can solve it. 
Congress is, in fact, the policymaking body within the Federal 
Government. We are the lawmaking body within the Federal Government. We 
can make changes to the law, and we can't lose sight of that fact.

                          ____________________