[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 104 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4313-S4336]
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.

                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this week, we have been considering a 
regular appropriations package and voting on amendments.
  Many of us have wanted this return to regular order in appropriations 
for quite some time. It didn't happen overnight. We owe thanks to 
Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy for the transparent, 
bipartisan process that has produced this bill. Thanks to the 
leadership of our colleagues at the subcommittee level, more bills will 
be on their way to the floor for prompt consideration.
  The package before us today will cross three important items off the 
Senate's appropriations to-do list: funding for Energy and Water, for 
Military Construction and the VA, and for the Legislative Branch.
  As I have discussed on the floor this week, the first set of funding 
measures attend to a number of major national priorities. The Energy 
and Water title allocates critical resources for the safety, security, 
and readiness of our Nation's nuclear arsenal. It delivers record 
funding for cutting-edge scientific research, and it directs support 
for mitigating flood damage, protecting shorelines, and upkeep for 
America's inland waterways, like those that support 13,000 jobs in my 
home State alone.
  The Military Construction and VA title offers targeted resources to 
causes that are near and dear to servicemembers and their families: 
upgrades to military housing and school systems, improvements to 
training facilities, reinforcement of overseas partnerships and 
alliances, and maintenance of veterans' healthcare facilities.
  There is so much important work contained in this package, and it is 
just the first step in this year's regular appropriations process.
  With additional cooperation today, we will be able to continue 
processing amendments on both sides of the aisle and complete work on 
these bills.


                               Tax Reform

  Now, Madam President, on another matter, yesterday marked 6 months 
since Congress passed our overhaul of America's Tax Code. Tomorrow is 6 
months since the President signed it into law.

[[Page S4314]]

  I remember debating the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in December. There 
were two different philosophies on display. Republicans believed 
working families should keep more of what they earn and send less to 
the IRS. We believe you don't build a healthy society or a growing 
economy by piling up money and power here in Washington, DC. We need to 
leave more money and power in the hands of individuals, families, and 
small businesses.
  Our Democratic friends put forward a different view. They seem to 
think government knows best, so higher taxes, more regulations, and 
more restrictions on free enterprise are the way to go. As a result, 
they stood in lockstep opposition to these historic tax cuts, and I 
mean opposition.
  The Democratic leader in the House said it was--and this is a direct 
quote--``the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress.'' 
So Republican majorities in the House and Senate passed the tax cuts 
with zero Democratic votes--not one.
  Six months later, who was right? What has happened in America since 
this major policy shift began taking effect?
  Just ask the men and women this law is affecting.
  Mark Guilbeau in Louisiana says this of his tax cuts:

       It's bigger than crumbs like the politicians were saying. I 
     plan to pay down some credit card debt.

  Try Brett Lancy in Ohio who has a 1-year-old son, Grayson. Brett 
said:

       Due to the extra takehome pay in my paycheck--it's about 
     $125 a month--we've been able to move him into one of the 
     better daycares in our area. And it's just fabulous.

  In addition to the tax cuts themselves, the business side of tax 
reform has helped employers raise pay and benefits for employees.
  Chelsee Hatfield works at First Farmers Bank & Trust in Indiana. She 
has been taking college courses online and says the raise and bonus she 
received will help her pay tuition now and save for her kids to go to 
college. She said: ``These steps taken as a result of tax reform are 
specifically affecting me and small communities like my hometown.''
  Bonnie Brazzeal from Missouri received a bonus too. She works in the 
cafeteria at the College of the Ozarks and got to share the news with 
President Trump when he visited the State earlier this year: ``I put 
mine in savings for my retirement.''
  Families are immediately benefiting from this law, but what about the 
long-term impact?
  We designed tax reform to lay the foundation for more investment, 
business growth, job creation, and higher wages for decades to come.
  It is already doing just that. In my home State of Kentucky, Novelis 
is pushing ahead with a $300 million factory in Guthrie. They say their 
decision was caused by this ``favorable economic environment,'' 
reinforced by ``the significant positive impact of tax reform.''
  It is a national trend. Just yesterday, the National Association of 
Manufacturers released data showing that optimism among many American 
manufacturers is above 95 percent--the highest level ever recorded.
  Small business owners agree. An industry survey shows that more of 
them are looking to hire than at any time since the year 2000.
  No wonder the job market is already better than it has been in 
years. Unemployment is at an 18-year low. More than two-thirds of 
Americans are saying it is a good time to find a quality job--the 
highest in 17 years.

  Here is a remarkable fact: There are now more job openings all across 
this country than there are Americans looking for work. It is the first 
time that has ever happened since we started tracking the relevant 
data, and the optimism and prosperity unleashed by tax reform are part 
of the reason why.
  The worst legislation in history? Armageddon? Our friends across the 
aisle should get their crystal balls checked.
  Historically, tax reform had been a bipartisan priority. In 1986, the 
last major tax reform passed the House by a 100-vote margin. It sailed 
through the Senate. How times have changed.
  Unlike in 1986, this time our historic proposal to let Americans keep 
more of their own money faced complete partisan opposition--not one 
Democratic vote, not one. Republicans had to go it alone.
  But the people's Republican Senate, Republican House, and Republican 
President got the job done for the families who were counting on us.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, as the Senate continues to 
process appropriations bills on the floor, I thank Chairman Shelby and 
Ranking Member Leahy for their hard work on the appropriations process.
  The Republican leader and I have both committed to work through 
appropriations in a bipartisan way, through regular order, which is 
something the Senate hasn't achieved in some time. Chairman Shelby and 
Ranking Member Leahy are leading the way. We want to continue along 
this road in a bipartisan, cooperative way, wherein what we bring to 
the floor basically has approval from both sides of the aisle.


                        Family Separation Policy

  Madam President, on immigration, let me address the humanitarian 
crisis at our southern border.
  For a little over a month, President Trump's family separation policy 
has resulted in more than 2,300 children being separated from their 
families. Young children, toddlers, babies are being held alone. I have 
seen the pictures of these tiny, little girls with forlorn looks on 
their faces--it breaks your heart--and they are being placed into what 
are being called tender age facilities. That is an Orwellian term if 
there ever were one. Other minors have been flown, scattershot, to 
different parts of the country to live in foster homes that are 
hundreds of miles away from their parents. A 5-year-old is sent 
hundreds of miles away from his or her parents? What kind of country 
are we?
  Yesterday the President signed an Executive order that made it 100-
percent clear that what the Democrats have been saying--that the 
President can fix this problem on his own--has been correct. The 
President vindicated everything we had been saying and undid everything 
he had been saying when he said only Congress could fix this problem. 
Of course, he made it partisan.
  It is a relief that the President has reversed himself and recognized 
the cruelty of his policy of separating children from their parents. I 
would like to believe he found it in the goodness of his heart. We 
certainly know there was a ton of pressure on him to do this and that 
he didn't do it when he first looked at the problem.
  After weeks of acting like his administration bore no responsibility 
for this policy--contravening all fact and all reality--I hope this 
represents a turning point with the President. I hope it means this 
President will stop blaming others for problems he creates and will 
start fixing them himself. I hope it means the President realizes, just 
because he says something, it doesn't make it so. So often, more than 
any other President many times over, what he says is just outright 
false, made up. It pops into his head, and he says it. Yet this 
Executive order raises several questions. That means the President must 
continue to deal with these problems, which, again, he can do on his 
own.
  First, the way the Executive order was drafted means it will not go 
into effect until a court rules on its legality. What is the 
President's policy on family separation in the meantime? Will he 
continue to insist that these heartbreaking separations continue?
  Second, the Executive order allows for the indefinite detention of 
families who are apprehended at the border. The U.S. Government cannot 
be in the business of indefinitely detaining minors.
  Third, the Executive order is silent on the more than 2,300 families 
who have already been split apart. Will the President and his 
administration work to reunite those families? We believe he must do 
that immediately. What exactly is the President's plan to accomplish 
this? Leader Pelosi and I are sending a letter to the President this

[[Page S4315]]

morning that will demand he use all the necessary resources to reunite 
the separated families.
  At his rally in Minnesota last night, which is the kind of red meat 
thing the President likes--gathering 10,000 people together in a State 
of 5, 6, 7, or 8 million so he is a hero with everyone, which is the 
way he thinks--the President acted as if he had taken care of the 
border crisis, as if all of the problems were in the rearview mirror.
  He said: ``I signed an executive order keeping families together 
because I think that's probably a very important thing to be doing.''
  The only thing is, we in Congress and the American people have a 
whole bunch of questions the President hasn't answered, questions which 
are listed above that I will repeat. How many kids are in these 
facilities now? What are their conditions? Why hasn't the media been 
allowed to go in, see, and verify that the conditions are humane? The 
Department of Defense has been asked whether it can house 20,000 
unaccompanied children from now until the end of the year. How will 
that work? Is it even feasible? How is the administration keeping track 
of the families who have already been separated? What are the plans and 
timetable for their being reunited?
  President Trump hasn't taken care of the problem, not by any stretch 
of the imagination, but he has certainly admitted that his 
administration does have the power to take action. He, in a sense, by 
what he did yesterday, increases the burden on himself to solve these 
other problems. I urge him to continue to use his power to address 
these serious, unresolved issues. Legislation in Congress remains 
unlikely and far more difficult to achieve than the simple corrective 
actions the President can take immediately and administratively.
  Let us not forget that immigration has been the graveyard of 
legislation for years in this Congress. Saying Congress can act and 
getting Congress to act are two different things, particularly when, on 
the House side, we have a group of Congress Members in the Freedom 
Caucus--way out of the mainstream by any polling standard, by any real 
standard on immigration--that insists that poison pills be added to 
anything we do on immigration. Speaker Ryan, thus far, has shown no 
ability or desire to resist them. So having Congress get it done is not 
going to solve the problem, unfortunately, because immigration is such 
a contentious and divisive issue. The President has to do it himself, 
and let us hope he does.


                            Trade with China

  Madam President, on 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 market, stolen the intellectual 
property of startup and blue-chip American companies, and denied our 
companies access to its markets. When companies have good products that 
China wants to copy, it has denied our companies access to its markets 
so China can steal the know-how of how to do it and then compete with 
us. China alone, by its rapacious, unfair trade policies, has accounted 
for the loss of millions of American jobs and the decline in pay of 
millions of other American jobs.
  So I am heartened that President Trump, after making a debacle of the 
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. As I said 
before, on China, my views are closer to President Trump's than they 
were to President Obama's or President Bush's, both of whose 
administrations, anyway, let China get away with economic murder.
  Now President Trump needs to stay strong. If he backs off at the 
first sign of trouble, after the first company calls to complain or 
after President Xi calls to complain, then China will know we are weak 
and unserious. I am worried China already thinks that because of what 
the President has done on ZTE. China is waiting to see if we are tough 
enough to ride this out. We need to show China that America means 
business because the stakes are too high. Business relocations to China 
have cost too many American jobs. The theft of our intellectual 
property has been called the greatest transfer of wealth in history by 
former four-star general and Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command GEN 
Keith Alexander.
  The lifeblood of the American economy is on the line, so I urge 
President Trump to stay strong on China. At the first sign of 
complaint, if we turn, China will know it can push us over, and the 
number of jobs we will lose--the amount of wealth we will lose--will 
far exceed the kind of damage these tariffs might do.
  Please don't mistake my support on this issue as a license for the 
President to be reckless or as an endorsement of what the President is 
doing to our allies. The tariffs leveled against Canada and our 
European allies are misguided and poorly timed. We should be rallying 
our allies to work with us against China, which is what they want to 
do. Instead, we are poking them. China is our No. 1 economic trade 
enemy, and I use the word ``enemy'' advisedly. We have to have the 
whole world on our side, and these other actions are poorly timed at 
best.


                          Republican Tax Bill

  Madam President, 6 months ago, in the dead of night, the Republican 
majority jammed through a partisan tax bill that lavished tax cuts on 
big corporations and the wealthiest few--the old theory of trickle-down 
that the Republican Party embraced. My friend from Pennsylvania is one 
of the few who will actually say that is what he believes, which I 
appreciate, even though I strongly disagree.
  It is an appropriate time now to look back on how the tax bill is 
faring. While the Republican leader, on a daily basis, celebrates vague 
statistics about business confidence, here are some hard, cold facts.
  Since the beginning of 2018, corporations have announced plans to 
repurchase more than $475 billion in stock buybacks--a record pace. In 
the past week, the Washington Post has reported ``wages aren't just 
flat, they are falling'' for a strong majority of American workers. 
According to a recent analysis by JUST Capital, only 7 percent of the 
capital allocated by companies from the tax bill's savings has gone to 
employees while 57 percent has gone to shareholders--just what we 
Democrats predicted.
  When the vast majority of the tax cuts goes to the very wealthy and 
to the largest and most powerful corporations, the average worker sees 
very little gain--trickle-down--certainly, a smaller proportion of the 
gain than the cut. The kind of plan we would have advocated, which 
would have helped the middle class predominantly, not the wealthy, 
would have been far better for average workers.
  Remember what President Trump promised the American people? He said 
the Republican tax bill would give a $4,000 raise to 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 that the tax law has failed to deliver for American 
workers and American families, and the American people are realizing 
it. The polling data shows it is becoming more unpopular. It started 
out being very unpopular with all of those little publicity bonuses 
that many of them arranged. In January, it was at about 50-50, but now 
it is declining again. American families know they are getting the 
short end of the stick in this tax bill. Corporations are reaping 
record profits as a result of the tax bill, and they refuse to pass 
much of those savings on to their workers.
  Whatever benefits American families are getting from the tax bill, if 
they are getting benefits at all, are starting to get wiped out by the 
skyrocketing healthcare costs--the result of Republican sabotage, some 
of which was in the tax bill itself. There are millions of American 
families now whose tax breaks are far exceeded by the increases in 
premiums they are paying for healthcare.
  All in all, that is why today, just 6 months since its passage, the 
Republicans' signature legislative accomplishment is so deeply 
unpopular with the American people and why Republican pundits are 
saying we had better go over to the area of immigration because this 
tax bill thing isn't working for us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Pennsylvania.

[[Page S4316]]

  



                               Tax Reform

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the minority leader's teeing 
up my comments today and introducing what I am going to be speaking 
about, which is a topic he addressed briefly, and that is the 6-month 
period of time since we passed tax reform. It was this week, 6 months 
ago, that we had a historic vote--the biggest tax reform in over 30 
years. We are beginning to get some data that is really worth 
discussing and analyzing, and I would strongly disagree with the 
characterization by the minority leader.
  I was home in Pennsylvania recently, traveling around the State, as 
we all do when we are not in this town. On one recent occasion, I was 
talking to small business owners in Lock Haven, PA, and Bloomsburg, PA. 
At one of the companies, the small business owner was there, and he was 
really enthusiastic about how this tax reform is helping his small 
business. It is actually a very typical story that I am hearing across 
Pennsylvania. I mention him because, as it happens, his company is in 
the carpet business, and they happen to make the very carpet that I am 
standing on right now. They provide the carpeting for the floor of the 
U.S. Senate.

  He talked about the fact that, because our tax reform really totally 
redid the rules--especially on the business side, but on the individual 
side as well--it allows him to access new capital and purchase new 
equipment. The equipment that he needs to expand his business is more 
affordable under our tax rules now. So that is exactly what he is 
doing. He is expanding his business, and he is very enthusiastic about 
it.
  This, of course, is not an anomaly and it is not specific to 
Pennsylvania. It is across the country. Already we have had companies--
over 600 businesses employing over 4 million American workers--announce 
that they will immediately start paying bonuses, increasing wages, 
making larger pension contributions, but directly sharing their tax 
savings with their workers. This started within days of passage of the 
bill, and it has continued.
  By the way, I am only counting the companies that specifically cited 
tax reform as the reason they are able to do this and only companies 
that are so big that they are picked up by the press when they make 
these announcements. There are thousands and thousands of companies 
that have done the same thing, but we will never hear about it because 
the Washington Post and the New York Times doesn't report when Sal's 
Pizza Shop makes a change in its compensation policy but, the fact is 
that it is happening.
  By the way, there is also another not very widely reported benefit 
that Pennsylvania families are enjoying, and that is, again, directly 
as a result of our tax reform and the lower tax burden that we now have 
on our utilities. Electric and gas company rates have declined. There 
has been a very significant rate reduction. In fact, it is $320 million 
at an annual pace in Pennsylvania. That means that every family who has 
to buy electricity as a way to heat their homes is experiencing this 
savings as well.
  Those are kind of anecdotal facts. But what is the big picture result 
so far? The facts and the data are overwhelming. The economy is on 
fire. That is what is going on right now. This economy is growing at a 
tremendous pace, and it is really on fire by any meaningful measure. 
One of the most important measures is with jobs. That is the whole 
point of a booming economy--isn't it?--to really create opportunities 
for individuals and families to earn a living and support themselves 
and improve their standard of living.
  The most recent jobs report that came out in May posted a 3.8-percent 
unemployment rate. Unemployment is just 3.8 percent. That is the lowest 
level we have had since April of 2000. It remains a mystery to me how 
our Democratic colleagues and the Senate minority leader can somehow 
think it is a bad thing when the unemployment rate is the lowest it has 
been in more than 18 years.
  It is not just the overall unemployment rate. The African-American 
unemployment rate in May was 5.9 percent. That is the lowest rate ever 
recorded since we started breaking out different ethnic groups in the 
unemployment numbers. The Hispanic unemployment rate is very close to 
an all-time low at 4.9 percent. Another amazing statistic that came out 
in this May's jobs report is that we now have more job openings in 
America--6.7 million--than all of the unemployed people. I am not sure 
that this has ever happened before, and certainly not in decades, but 
there are more job openings, more ``help wanted'' signs, and there are 
more job possibilities than there are people seeking jobs. That is just 
a fact of our economy right now.
  What does that mean? That means there are a lot of opportunities for 
people. If you are unemployed right now, there is a chance to go to 
work today, because that is the amount of demand for workers that is 
exactly what we said would happen if we would encourage the kind of 
economic growth that we are seeing.
  I must say, I don't know where our colleague from New York, the 
minority leader, gets his data from. That is completely contrary to 
what he said. All of the data consistently show that there are 
increases in hourly earnings and wages. Wages are going up.
  We have waited way too long for this to happen, but it is happening 
now. There was a 2.7-percent increase in hourly earnings in May. This 
is a wage increase of 2.8 percent for people who are in nonsupervisory 
work. So wage earners who are working on an hourly basis in a 
nonsupervisory capacity are seeing an even somewhat faster acceleration 
in their wage growth. That means workers are going to have a better 
standard of living. That is what it means.
  When we passed our tax reform, we had two big goals. One was to lower 
the tax burden on individual Americans. How well did we do on that? 
Well, 93 percent of all the individuals and families filing owe less in 
taxes this year than they would have if we hadn't reformed the Tax 
Code--93 percent. For most of the 7 percent who don't have a savings, 
it is because they are higher income people who live in jurisdictions 
where they pay high State and local taxes, and we diminished the 
ability to deduct that. So there are wealthy individuals--a handful--
who are paying a little bit more.

  It is also a fact that the wealthier people pay a larger percentage 
of the tax bill now as a result of our tax reform, because we made sure 
that the folks at the low and medium end of the wage spectrum would get 
the biggest percentage benefits, and they have. We also wanted to make 
sure that we are making business competitive and encouraging investment 
in the United States instead of somewhere else in the world.
  One of the standard measures in how that is working is how our 
economy is growing overall, what our GDP number looks like. Well, it 
has been amazing. Year after year, we were happy if we could get to 2 
percent growth, and our friends on the other side were suggesting: 
Well, we may just have to accept the fact that America can't grow very 
fast any more. The boom years are behind us, and now we just have to 
accept that we have this secular stagnation.
  There was this whole theory about how it was inevitable that America 
would have slower and meager growth and few opportunities in the 
future. Some of us said: That is nonsense. The reason we have slow 
growth is because we don't have the policies that will allow the 
natural entrepreneurial energy and spirit of Americans who invest in us 
and encourage excellent growth. That was the debate. We said tax reform 
will encourage that growth.
  What has been happening? We are on track to have over 3 percent 
growth this year. It will be more than 50 percent above the kind of 
growth we have been getting. The Atlanta Fed GDP Tracker is projecting 
that for this quarter, growth could be as high as 4.7 percent, which 
would be absolutely stunning. The CBO is projecting that for the full 
year, growth will be 3.3 percent. This is an economy that we were told 
could never really manage to eke out better than 2 percent. We are 
proving that wrong. The American people are proving that wrong.
  Another aspect of our reform was that we said it didn't make sense to 
create the dynamic where a company's overseas subsidiary, after they 
earn a profit and pay taxes on that profit in the local jurisdiction in 
which they are operating, if they return that money home, pay another 
tax on it. We said

[[Page S4317]]

we have to get away from that system because nobody else in the world 
punishes multinationals that way, and it discourages investment in the 
United States. Companies will try to avoid that second layer of taxes 
by leaving the money overseas. Well, the money sitting and piling up 
overseas doesn't help to create American jobs. So we made new reforms 
that we thought we should and, lo and behold, what is happening? The 
foreign earnings that had been retained abroad are coming home.
  It is already happening. There is now more money being shifted from 
overseas subsidiaries of American-based multinational companies, coming 
back into this country, than the money they are earning. It is because 
not only are they shifting back home their profits, but they are taking 
their past profits and they are sending that back home as well.
  Dividends received from abroad, money taken from overseas and 
invested back in America is $340 billion in the first quarter of this 
year alone. That is an all-time record--a huge amount of money being 
invested back into the United States.
  Why is this happening? Why are we getting all of this economic growth 
and this return of money? I would state that I can think of two big 
categories that are contributing. One is just the overall optimism 
about the business environment, the economy's strength. Why are 
businesses making the decision now, today, in 2018 to invest more than 
they did before, to hire more, to increase wages, and to bring back 
this money? Well, it is because we lowered the cost of investing, 
hiring, and bringing back this money. We have created an environment 
that is just more conducive. There is optimism about our economy and 
the belief that this is a good time to invest in America and to grow a 
business. The numbers are off the charts.
  In fact, the National Federation of Independent Business, a small 
business organization across the country representing probably hundreds 
of thousands, maybe millions, of businesses, including really small 
mom-and-pop operations, but also more substantial businesses, measured 
the confidence in our economy and our ability to continue to grow and 
thrive. It is off the charts. The index of overall confidence in May 
was 107.8. That is the second highest reading in 45 years. That is what 
we are talking about. That is unprecedented optimism. We have an 18-
month streak now of what the NFIB, the National Federation of 
Independent Business calls ``unprecedented optimism.''
  We are at an all-time high of small business owners reporting 
increasing wages for the people that work for them. There has never 
been a time when there has been a higher number of small business 
owners actually raising the wages of their workers.
  As to sales trends, the growth in sales for small businesses is at 
the highest level since 1995, 23 years ago.
  The expansion plans--plans to build new factories, to open up new 
facilities, and to increase the capacity that they have now--are the 
most robust in the history of the survey. Never before have we seen 
stronger numbers than this.
  The top concern or the top worry that small business owners have used 
to be the burden of taxes and regulation. It isn't anymore. Now it is 
whether they will be able to find the workers they need to fill the 
openings they have in their companies. Fifty-eight percent of firms are 
actively trying to add workers right now. Right now, they are out 
looking to employ more people--58 percent. It is really amazing.
  By the way, this optimism isn't just from small businesses, it is 
also consumers. Retail sales in May were up 5.9 percent above 1 year 
ago. That is almost a 6-percent growth from a year to the next in 
retail sales. That is consumer confidence. That is all of us going to 
the store and buying whatever we buy.
  The University of Michigan consumer confidence index was the highest 
it has been in years in May, and March of this year was the only recent 
time that it was even near this level. That is because workers are 
seeing an increase in their paychecks. They are seeing less money 
withheld, and they are seeing wage increases. They are feeling good 
about their economic future, and that is really important.
  So optimism is an important part of it, as well as an attitude that 
government isn't hostile to business and that the regulatory 
environment isn't in the ``gotcha'' mode but in a cooperative mode, 
with a tax code that encourages investment. All of this clearly 
contributes to optimism.
  Let's drill down a little bit into one of the biggest drivers of this 
economic growth, and that is business investment. When we decided to 
make the reforms to our Tax Code on the business side, we said one of 
the things we have to acknowledge is business investment--the 
investment in new equipment, in capital. That had really dropped off 
badly. Without new equipment and capital, workers don't become more 
productive. If workers aren't more productive, they can't get higher 
wages over time. We felt like that was the heart of what was holding 
back our economy back in the Obama era and, to some degree, before. We 
stated that we can lower the cost of investing more in your business, 
investing more in equipment, and spending and deploying capital. We can 
lower costs by treating it more rationally from a tax point of view, 
specifically, by allowing full expensing in the year in which the 
capital is deployed. Cap-ex spending has responded even better than I 
actually had hoped. To be honest, I can't express how really thrilling 
it is to see the kind of growth we are having.
  Let's start with the broader measure of this. The broader measure of 
this is business investment. This is a broader category that includes 
things like equipment, but it also includes things like structures, 
like a new building. It is really amazing.
  CBO said that the first quarter of this year--they said that for the 
first quarter of 2018--before tax reform, they said: Maybe you can get 
to 4 percent. I think their estimate was 4.4 percent. After tax reform, 
they said: Maybe you can get that up to 5.6 percent. The actual number 
was 6.8 percent.
  What is really amazing is the acceleration we have seen. These were 
the quarter-over-quarter changes in business investment during the 
latter part of the Obama years. That last year of the Obama 
administration, 2016, is negative. That means that every quarter, 
businesses were actually investing less than they were investing the 
same quarter the previous year. Our capital pool was shrinking. The 
amount of investment was going in the absolute wrong direction.
  Look what happened. The tax reform wasn't passed in these first two 
quarters. You might say: Well, why did it improve then? I think that 
was because of confidence. I think that was because people realized 
that we had a new government, a new administration, and that we were 
going to work hard on trying to get tax reform done and that we were 
going to begin lowering the regulatory burden. Look what happened. We 
had a total turnaround from a lack of investment, a decline in capital 
spending, to an increase. Then when we passed tax reform, look how much 
higher it surged still. These are huge numbers. That is overall 
business investment.
  The second chart--we can drill down into what I think is the subset 
of business investment, the category of business investment that is 
probably most responsive to our changes in tax policy, and that is 
equipment. That is where a small business owner or a big business can 
really turn the dial. They can decide to buy a new piece of equipment, 
buy another machine, buy another truck, buy the equipment that they 
need to grow. That is an easier decision to make than building an 
entirely new plant.
  Let's look at this subset. These are tools, machines, technology, 
trucks, computers. That is the on-the-ground spending of capital that 
goes right into the hands of workers so that workers can become more 
productive. What has happened to this?
  Again, look at what was happening. The spending from one year to the 
next in the latter part of the Obama administration was going down. 
These are negative numbers because the capital being spent on business 
equipment was actually declining.
  Look at what has happened since. We changed the environment, changed 
the regulatory environment, changed the mood, and it turned positive. 
Then when the tax reform kicked in--and it is true that we didn't pass 
the tax reform until the end of December, but we

[[Page S4318]]

wrote in from the beginning and we made it clear that we would make the 
expensing provisions retroactive to earlier in the quarter. People saw 
that, and this has taken off.
  I think the picture illustrates extremely well the tremendous change, 
the tremendous acceleration, the growth in equipment investment.
  The reason I want to underscore this is because this is a very strong 
indicator of future growth. This isn't some sugar high--that the 
economy just got a lot of cash thrown on it, and so there is a little, 
temporary blip. This is the kind of stuff that allows an economy to 
continue to grow and create more because what we are doing is we are 
expanding the productive capacity of our economy. We are building new 
plants. We are deploying new equipment, new tools, new machines, new 
software, new computers, new vehicles. All of those things allow us to 
produce more goods and services. So not only do you get the surge from 
when you actually build and put those items to work, but those items 
continue to be used by workers for years. A new piece of equipment at a 
factory is going to be there for many years to come. A new truck lasts 
for a number of years before it has to be replaced.
  This kind of growth is exactly the growth we were hoping for, and it 
is really the powerful driver and the reason we can be optimistic. I 
think this is the reason businesses and consumers are increasingly 
optimistic about the future. They see a strong economy, and intuitively 
they understand that this strength is real and that it is likely to be 
enduring.
  The important thing about this--and I can't stress this enough--is 
that when a business decides to invest more in its business, to buy 
more modern equipment, to buy new equipment, what happens is the 
workforce becomes more productive. A company doesn't go out and invest 
capital to make its workers less productive. That never happens. It 
invests capital so that its workers can produce more.
  It is the more productive workers who get higher wages. The example I 
like to use is, if you ever go to a construction site and they are 
digging the foundation for a building, you might very typically see 
somebody who is operating a backhoe, and you might very typically see a 
guy with a shovel. He is doing some of the work too. They are both 
digging a hole in the ground. Who is getting paid more? It is always 
the guy operating the backhoe because he is much more productive than 
any human being can ever be swinging a shovel and he has a set of 
skills that allow him to be productive. So when we are encouraging this 
kind of investment, we are creating more opportunities for people to 
earn more.
  This is very encouraging news about the first 6 months of this year, 
the first 6 months after the tax reform. I think it is going to 
continue to get better.
  By the way, there is good news on the Federal revenue side as well. 
We have numbers through the end of May. June is not finished yet. For 
the first 5 months of 2018, the tax revenue collected by the Federal 
Government in the environment of our tax reform was $26 billion more 
than the same period last year. So we lowered rates, we reformed the 
Tax Code, and we are collecting more revenue than we were collecting 
before we did the tax reform.
  By the way, April was off the charts. April's numbers came in for the 
actual tax revenue, and it was $30 to $40 billion more than what CBO 
was projecting. It was the biggest surplus month in the history of the 
country.
  It is only June. We have to see how the rest of the year plays out. 
But the fact is, we have wages growing, we have employment growing, we 
have businesses growing, and that means that all of the above are 
paying taxes, and they are going to be paying more. This is exactly 
what we said to our colleagues. We said: If we can create the 
incentives for stronger economic growth, we are going to have a bigger 
economy. When there is a bigger economy, you can tax it at slightly 
lower rates and still get more revenue because of the added size of the 
economy. This, folks, looks to be exactly what is happening, and this 
is what is so exciting.
  For my constituents, it means that if you are out of work, you have 
choices. There are more job openings today in America than there are 
unemployed Americans. There are opportunities. If you have a job, wages 
are probably moving up. That is what the data shows. Overall, wages are 
rising at an accelerated pace. Businesses are as confident as they has 
ever been. That means they are likely to continue to invest and 
continue to create more opportunities.
  I would just say that 6 months into this, our tax reform is working. 
It is working for our constituents. It is working for our economy. 
American business is more competitive. American workers are more 
competitive. The benefits are widely shared. I am very enthusiastic 
about this, and I am looking forward to the data that is continuing to 
come in response to the most dramatic tax reform in over 31 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Alaska.


                         Tribute to Greg Brown

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday, and it is one of the 
best times of the week for me. I know the Parliamentarians and others 
who work in the Senate know, and now the pages are going to learn this, 
too, because it is the time every week when I get to talk about what I 
call the Alaskan of the Week. I am referring to someone who has made a 
difference in my State, someone who is doing a great job, and someone 
who is oftentimes an unsung hero and doesn't get a lot of attention but 
deserves it. That is what I do here.
  As I like to say, Alaska is a very beautiful State. I think it is the 
most beautiful State in the country, probably the most beautiful place 
in the world. Now summer has arrived, and the Sun hardly ever sets. The 
fish are running. The air is drenched in the energy of summer, so now 
is the time to visit. Everybody who is watching or watching on TV, you 
have to come visit. The Presiding Officer came a couple summers ago. We 
had a great time. Her father was out there during World War II, which 
was a great honor. So you will have the trip of a lifetime.

  By the way, you will also have the best food in the world. 
Interestingly enough, in the Senate on Thursdays, one Senator typically 
hosts a lunch. Today, I am hosting. I think my colleagues will like 
this. You can almost smell the aroma. Right now, we are making it in 
the kitchen here--salmon, halibut, reindeer sausage. We are all going 
to be treated to that in a little bit.
  What is truly amazing about my State is the people who call it home--
smart, creative, energetic, caring people, folks helping each other.
  Today, I want to talk about our Alaskan of the Week, Mr. Greg Brown. 
He comes at the suggestion of quite a few members of my staff, who call 
him Mr. Brown. The lobbying campaign in my office for Mr. Brown to be 
the Alaskan of the Week has been intense.
  Mr. Brown, as he is known far and wide among those who went to 
Anchorage's Dimond High School, is a legend among his former students 
at Dimond, where for 25 years he taught European and U.S. history, art 
history, philosophy, and student government.
  Many of us are fortunate enough to have had that teacher or person--
usually, it is a teacher--who really changed our lives and showed us 
the pure joy of learning; as my director of constituent relations, 
Rachel Bylsma, put it, that person ``that made history come alive,'' 
that person who made an ``indelible impact'' on someone's life or many 
lives. For Rachel, Andrew--one of my interns, who is here with me on 
the floor--and five members of my staff in DC and back home in Alaska, 
that person is Mr. Brown. So let's talk a little bit about Mr. Brown.
  Originally from Texas, when he was 15 years old, his family moved to 
Alaska when his father, who was in the oil business, got transferred to 
Alaska. A lot of Texans up in Alaska fall in love with it, as he did. 
He moved back to Texas as a teenager, but Alaska stilled beckoned, and 
it was never really out of his mind, so in 1989, when his father moved 
back again, he went back--now with a master's degree and a few years of 
teaching--and he never left. He was a substitute teacher for a while 
and in 1993 got a full-time position at Dimond High, where he has 
stayed, learned, taught, and where he has inspired thousands of 
students--think about it: 25 years.
  What makes a good teacher? According to Mr. Brown, it is vital that 
you, the teacher, fall in love with the subject and also, just as 
importantly, that

[[Page S4319]]

you listen sympathetically, and you should know how to reach your 
students. Sometimes that is through books, Mr. Brown said, and 
sometimes the most important thing you can do is just play a game of 
chess with a student. I think that is what Andrew and Mr. Brown did. 
According to his students, Mr. Brown did these kinds of things.
  Mr. Brown was a demanding and exacting teacher. The papers they wrote 
for him were graded hard--graduate school-quality. He demanded 
excellence, which is another great attribute of a teacher. Because of 
his passion for the subjects he taught and the way he treated the 
students--he treated them like adults who were ready to learn and 
deliver--he made a huge impact. And learn they did. They read the 
classics--John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Socrates, Plato, Machiavelli, 
Marx. Martin Luther, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and on and on. They 
learned about the profound impact the Reformation had on Europe. They 
learned about the ramifications of governmental authority. They learned 
about how art can be a language that reflects the present. They learned 
about how alliances are formed, how leaders are born, and how the 
clashing of events can lead to devastating wars and world-altering 
peace treaties. They learned about the roots of all different forms of 
government. They learned to love--or at least appreciate and 
understand--our own government and the importance of institutions like 
the U.S. Senate.
  This year was Mr. Brown's last year as a teacher. He is, 
unfortunately, retiring. He bought a plot of land in Willow, AK, the 
part of the Alaska we call the Mat-Su Valley. He is going to garden, he 
is going to fish, he is going to read, and he is going to travel, but 
he is still going to be with us, and he can do that in part because of 
a gift he received from his students at his retirement party.
  This is quite unusual. This party, which was thrown for him by his 
students at his retirement, was quite amazing. Hundreds of his past 
students showed up to pay tribute to Mr. Brown. Some of them gave 
speeches. Many of them cried. At the end, they handed him a picture 
that one of his students painted. It was a reinterpretation of the 
School of Athens by the 16th-century artist Raphael, but it substituted 
Mr. Brown for Plato in that very famous painting.
  Then something really amazing happened at that party. The students 
also handed Mr. Brown a voucher. They had individually raised $16,500 
for him to travel the world. Think about that. Motivated and inspired 
students, over 25 years, came together, threw a party, and raised money 
for their beloved teacher just to show him their deep admiration and 
abiding appreciation. That is very special for a special teacher.
  What was his reaction to the gift? Mr. Brown said:

       I wanted to go somewhere and gently weep. My students have 
     always given me more than I have given them.

  Now, Mr. Brown, I am not sure that is true. You have given so much. 
In fact, at the party, one of my staffers--I already mentioned Rachel--
in her speech about Mr. Brown said, ``Each student you taught . . . 
carries a piece of the precious gift you gave, learning the contours of 
history and the trends that have defined the course of humankind.'' 
Powerful stuff.
  So, Mr. Brown, thank you for all you have done for our young people, 
for our State--really, for the country--producing great Alaskans with a 
sense of civic duty and history. Thank you for being such a great 
teacher--and we have so many in our great State--and thank you, on your 
retirement, for being our Alaskan of the Week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


          Measures Placed on the Calendar--S. 3093 and S. 3100

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the 
desk due for a second reading en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The clerk will read the bills by title for the second time.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3093) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to address the protective custody of alien children 
     accompanied by parents, and for other purposes.
       A bill (S. 3100) to establish the Mountains to Sound 
     Greenway National Heritage Area in the State of Washington.

  Mr. CORNYN. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the 
provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bills will be 
placed on the calendar.


                            Rescissions Bill

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to first address the vote we held 
yesterday--one that unfortunately failed but I believe was important 
nonetheless. It would have set in motion a series of spending 
reductions--not on bills where we had appropriated money for programs 
and we knew where it was going to be used, but these were essentially 
surplus funds which were not being used for the intended purpose and 
which I believe should have been used to reduce our annual deficits and 
ultimately our national debt.
  I want to express my gratitude to Senator Lee, the Senator from Utah, 
who spearheaded the effort to take up a bill that the House had already 
passed.
  What we were attempting to do was rescind nearly $15 billion in 
previously appropriated money that has gone unspent, as I said a moment 
ago. This was just one small way to show the American people that we 
are serious--as the majority leader put it yesterday--about tightening 
our belts financially and taking small steps that hopefully would add 
up to big steps to live within our collective means.
  I voted for the rescissions package because I believe strongly that 
the government should prioritize keeping its fiscal house in order, one 
that constantly works to improve and implement fiscal discipline.
  I am concerned now that as interest rates are starting to rise, we 
are going to see more and more Federal spending go to pay debt service 
or interest payments on bonds that have been issued to secure our 
national debt.
  So I hope we can come back to the table soon with new ideas, and I am 
disappointed in the outcome of that particular vote.


             Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act

  Madam President, I have also been speaking this week about the 
ongoing situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. Of course, this is my 
backyard. I come from Texas, and Texas has a 1,200-mile common border 
with Mexico. We know, because we have all seen in the news and been 
moved by these scenes of people illegally crossing the border with 
children or individuals they claim to be their children and being 
separated as they have been processed, consistent with current law, 
including laws Congress had passed, signed by the President--not 
necessarily this President, in fact--consent decrees, and other court 
judgments that necessitated that children be treated differently than 
people who illegally enter the country as adults.
  I will be traveling to the Rio Grande Valley tomorrow. Senator Cruz 
and I both will be in Brownsville and McAllen so we can learn from the 
people who are working on behalf of all of us to make sure everybody is 
treated with dignity and compassion. But we also enforce our laws 
against illegal immigration.
  President Trump yesterday issued an Executive order, which I viewed 
as an emergency measure, that does not substitute for congressional 
action. In fact, I am confident that the Executive order will be the 
target of lawsuits. I think the only thing that could really settle the 
matter once and for all is legislation, which I know the Presiding 
Officer and I and others have cosponsored, to keep families together 
and to maintain enforcement of our laws.
  Executive orders, of course, as I said, are always subject to legal 
challenge, and I think we ought to view this as more of a belt-and-
suspenders. The President decided he wanted to do what he could on a 
temporary basis, but it is just a temporary basis, and we need to make 
sure, as I said, that this is finally settled so that no parent will be 
separated from their child even if they enter the country illegally. 
They will be treated both humanely and with compassion while they are 
presented to a judge who will make a decision on whether they qualify 
for a legal immigration benefit like asylum, for example.

[[Page S4320]]

  The legislation I am referring to is led by the junior Senator from 
North Carolina and is called the Keep Families Together and Enforce the 
Law Act. As the title of the bill suggests, there are two parts: 
treating families with compassion while allowing them to remain 
together and enforcing the laws on the books. They don't have to be 
mutually exclusive, and our bill would ensure that they are not. It 
will allow children to stay with their families in a safe facility 
while they await their court proceedings.
  It will also set mandatory standards of care for family residential 
centers where immigrant families are placed and keep children safe by 
requiring that they are removed from the care of any individual who 
poses a danger to them. Just as importantly, it will require more than 
200 new immigration judges and require the Department of Homeland 
Security to expedite the court proceedings for these children and 
families.
  Some have rightfully asked questions about the families who have 
already been separated: What happens now to the children who have 
already been separated from their parents?
  I can tell you our bill requires the administration to take steps to 
reunify as many families as possible who remain in the custody of 
Immigration Customs Enforcement or Health and Human Services.
  I have to tell you, this is an old movie in many respects. We have 
seen this movie before, particularly in 2014, when we saw a flood of 
unaccompanied children coming across the southwestern border. President 
Obama, at the time, called it a humanitarian crisis, and I agree. We 
simply weren't prepared for this flood of children from Central America 
coming to our border and seeking refuge or asylum. We worked hard to 
try to make sure they were treated compassionately and humanely, but 
the law, similar to the law in effect now before the President's 
Executive order and the law that would be modified by the new bill I 
mentioned a moment ago--the current law requires those children to be 
processed by the Border Patrol, to then be handed over to Health and 
Human Services, and ultimately placed with a sponsor in the United 
States pending their hearing on their immigration case. Because of the 
huge backlog of cases, it could be literally months or years before 
those cases are heard.
  It shouldn't surprise anybody that the overwhelming majority of 
individuals don't show up for their court hearing. That is why it is 
important for us to move these cases to the head of the line, to 
maintain a humane detention while they are awaiting their court 
hearing--hopefully, in a matter of days or weeks, at most.
  This is a huge problem that frankly was exposed, in part, by the New 
York Times. It recently reported that based on the tens of thousands of 
children who came across the border as unaccompanied minors who had 
been placed with sponsors, in a check of where those children are now, 
at least 1,500 of them are unaccounted for.
  That should surprise no one because the sponsors were not required to 
be citizens. They weren't required to be relatives. They weren't even 
required to have a criminal background check. When the U.S. Government 
places these children with sponsors in the United States with such 
inadequate supervision and review, it should not surprise anyone that, 
unfortunately, some of them will be unaccounted for; hopefully not 
recruited into gangs, hopefully not trafficked for sex, hopefully still 
alive. This is a huge humanitarian crisis, and the latest episode 
having to do with separation of families is just the latest version of 
that story.
  Who benefits from status quo when we fail to correct our laws to make 
sure that both individuals coming across the border are treated 
humanely and that we enforce our immigration laws? Who benefits the 
most? It is the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, 
which make money off the status quo. As one person called it the other 
day, when they were referring to the situation, these organizations are 
commodity agnostic. As long as they can make money, they will traffic 
in people, drugs, weapons, and other contraband. They don't really care 
as long as they make money.
  Until Congress acts, as we must, these cartels, these criminal 
organizations, will continue to exploit these gaps in American law, and 
the people who will be hurt the most are these children and immigrants 
who do have a case to make before the immigration courts.
  I hope we will act. Frankly, our track record is not good when it 
comes to fixing our broken immigration system, but I know Mrs. 
Feinstein, the Senator from California, and Senator Tillis have been 
talking, and a lot of us have been putting our heads together to figure 
out how we can come up with a narrow bill that will keep families 
together and allow us to enforce the laws of the land. I hope we keep 
trying until we get it done and get it done right.
  Other proposals have been made, including one by our friend the 
senior Senator from California. She and I have worked together on many 
issues, but on this one, I think her bill has a lot of problems. In 
fact, there is a huge question about what sort of enforcement, if any, 
would ever be permitted under her bill. In effect, her bill would make 
it impossible to enforce the law against an adult illegally crossing 
the border unless the child is able to go to jail with that adult. I 
don't want a child to have to go to jail and be exposed to hard and 
potentially violent criminals. This is a big problem with our friend's 
bill, Senator Feinstein.
  By the way, every single Democrat on that side of the aisle has 
signed on to that bill. Did they intend this result? No, I don't think 
they intended it, but it is a big problem with their bill. Children 
should not go to a jail run by the Bureau of Prisons. No one, I would 
think, would think that is a good idea. So that is essentially what the 
bill results in.
  Again, I am not saying this was their intention, but the result is to 
reinstate this catch-and-release program, which has been a failure of 
our immigration system for a long time. When there is nowhere for the 
families to be detained and when they can't go to Department of Justice 
facilities, basically, the authorities simply have to let them go and 
say: Come on back in a few months, maybe a couple of years, when your 
case comes up on the immigration court docket.
  That is the result. As I said earlier, in the vast majority of cases, 
people do not reappear because they understand, if they made it that 
far, they are basically off scot-free. The cartels and the 
transnational criminal organizations that traffic in people and 
facilitate this sort of illegal immigration are the ones cashing in on 
these vulnerabilities and on these gaps in American law. We need to fix 
it.
  Let me correct one other misconception from all of the emotional news 
we have seen recently. Sometimes the facts get lost. If an immigrant 
family crosses the border outside of a designated port of entry, they 
have broken the law, unless they are authorized. If you release these 
individuals without any consequences, you send a clear message that it 
is acceptable to cross our borders illegally. Once you have sent the 
message to the criminal organizations--to people in Central America and 
elsewhere--that it is OK to break the law and you will be released 
without any consequence, it should come as no surprise that a huge 
percentage of illegal immigrants fail to show up at immigration court 
hearings and that it is a magnet attracting more illegal immigration if 
there are no consequences associated with it.
  With all due respect to my friend, the senior Senator from 
California, her bill has these unintended effects, and I think simply 
will not do. I want to be clear, we want to work together to try to 
address what she wants to accomplish and what we want to accomplish. 
Let's keep families together, but let's not inadvertently or 
unintentionally reinstate the broken catch-and-release policies, which 
simply serve as a magnet for more illegal immigration.
  Some commentators have pointed out the problem I have identified. It 
is not just me. They have said Senator Feinstein's bill would present 
law enforcement with a terrible choice of either keeping children with 
parents or criminals in the middle of being prosecuted or not 
prosecuting those violations of the law at all. That is not really a 
choice. We know what the decision would be. Those cases would not be 
prosecuted. There would not be enforcement. Then, again, the

[[Page S4321]]

transnational criminal organizations, the people who try to take 
advantage of our laws, will have won.
  With these and other shortcomings, I think the much better option 
would be the bill introduced by Senator Tillis, which I, the Presiding 
Officer, and others have cosponsored. It would achieve two important 
goals: continued enforcement of our immigration laws and the 
unification of families. Some of our friends on the left seem to want 
one but not the other. They want to unify families, but they don't want 
to enforce our immigration laws. They say they want to see zero 
tolerance ended--zero tolerance for violating immigration laws, and, of 
course, they cast a lot of aspersions on the President and the Attorney 
General for implementing this policy, along with the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Let's think about their criticism for a second. What does that really 
mean? If you aren't happy with zero tolerance of violating our 
immigration laws, that means you are happy with tolerating exemptions 
for lawbreakers. You tolerate not enforcing immigration laws under 
some, perhaps many, circumstances. We can all see where that leads us. 
It encourages illegal immigration by sending a message by saying we 
will not enforce our laws. We should not stand for that and neither 
should the American people. It would be a big mistake.
  Tomorrow Senator Cruz, my colleague from Texas, and I will be 
traveling to Brownsville and Weslaco, once again, so we can get eyes on 
the situation there and learn from the people who are charged with 
making sure our policies are carried out.
  As I mentioned, Texas has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, 
and we are ground zero when it comes to the border security challenge. 
I look forward to talking with our Federal and local officials about 
the situation, along with faith-based organizations and other groups 
who are trying to help out. We need their help and welcome their help.
  Ultimately, I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue 
talking urgently and to support the bill Senator Tillis and others have 
introduced. We can come together, we can fix this problem swiftly, and 
ensure these children are kept together with their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                              Immigration

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, few issues have bedeviled our country and 
our political process more than immigration. It is well known by now 
how difficult it is to get anything done on the topic. Later today, the 
House will have a vote. I don't know how that will turn out, but we 
have seen how difficult it is to even get to that point.
  The reason it is a difficult issue is multifaceted. The first is, it 
involves people. It is easy to throw around numbers--100,000, 1.1 
million a year, 2,000, but these are human beings who, by and large, 
want to come to America because it is the best country in the world. 
That is one of the things that makes it difficult; we are talking about 
human beings. It is not trade. It is not dollars. It is people. The 
other reason it is difficult is because we are a nation in which few, 
if any of us, are but a few generations removed at most from someone 
who came here from somewhere else. The closer you are to that reality, 
the more you identify with those who want to come here. I was blessed 
to be born in the United States, but I didn't do anything to earn that. 
I happen to have benefited from the fact that my parents lived 90 miles 
away from the greatest Nation on Earth. They could have been born 
somewhere else. They could have made a different decision in their 
lives. I am not sure what would have happened, quite frankly, since my 
parents had me in their forties, and I am not even sure I would have 
been born. I am a beneficiary of that incredible blessing.
  The flip side of it is, I am also a lawmaker, and I understand that 
every Nation on this planet has immigration laws. Mexico has 
immigration laws. Canada has immigration laws. Canada, earlier this 
week, sent out a statement to TPS recipients in America that if your 
TPS expires, don't come to Canada because we are not going to let you 
in.
  I have personally witnessed the immigration laws in places like 
Honduras--one of the source countries of some of our migration. I was 
there 2 years ago, and I visited a migration place. Basically, 
Honduras's policy is this: We detain you, we feed you, and we give you 
48 hours to get out of the country.
  Every country in the world has immigration laws, and anytime those 
laws are challenged by large numbers of people who want to enter 
outside of those laws, it creates friction and problems. It has 
throughout the history of this country, and it is doing it all over the 
world right now. The governing coalition in Germany could collapse over 
the issue. Multiple elections in Europe have been decided. In fact, the 
very future of the EU itself is under duress over the issue of 
migration and a common border.
  So this is not just a difficult issue in America. It is a difficult 
issue around the world. One of the reasons that it is so difficult here 
is that we have long prided ourselves on being a nation of immigrants, 
and we remain that. One of the things that isn't repeated enough--and 
you will never get this if you listen to some of the ways this issue is 
covered on either side of this debate--is that every single year, over 
1 million human beings enter the United States legally, and many of 
them, within 3 to 5 years, swear an oath to become American citizens. I 
believe, with all of my heart, that that strengthens our country. With 
all of this noise that you are hearing, just remember the baseline, 
which is that every single year over 1 million people come to this 
country legally. That has happened, and it will happen again this year. 
I will tell you that no other nation on Earth even comes close to 
extending that level of generosity.
  The problem we have is that in our region there are countries of 
incredible instability. This ebbs and flows. I live in South Florida, a 
majority minority community that is deeply influenced by migration 
waves of Cubans who have come in multiple waves to flee communism; of 
Haitians who have come through during different periods of instability; 
of people who fled instability in Nicaragua, for example, in the 1980s 
and called this home; of Colombians who fled in the 1990s because of 
violence there; or of Venezuelans who seek asylum now because of the 
situation there. Every time there is a hemispheric problem, people in 
these countries seek to go to the greatest Nation on Earth, which is 
the closest to them, by the way. That is the United States.
  So this is not new for us. Our challenge is how we can accommodate 
that and accommodate our legacy as a nation of immigrants but also do 
it through a system of law. There is nothing wrong with having ordered 
compassion. We have safety net programs in America that provide people 
who come upon tough times with healthcare and housing and money for 
food, but there is a process by which to get it. There are 
qualifications that you have to meet, there is an application that you 
have to fill out, and there is a limit as to how long you can use it. 
That is true with most charities as well. So you can be generous, and 
you can be ordered. Yet every time there is any sort of instability in 
a region, it places migratory pressure on the United States.
  One of the ones that has arisen lately over the last few years is the 
instability in Honduras, in Guatemala, and in El Salvador. You can 
watch the documentaries. You can read the books and the articles. You 
can interview the people.
  I can tell you that I know people personally. I don't know them like 
I met them at an event. I know them. I know their families, and I know 
their stories because they live in South Florida. I know.
  I know people who have left because some local gang, thug, or 
organized crime group went to them and said: Unless you pay us 10 
percent of what you make this month, we are going to kill your 
daughter; we are going to kill your wife; and we are going to burn your 
store. When people are told that, they leave. I know people who have 
left because they can't feed their families. So they come because they 
are going to work and send back money so that their kids can eat.
  I ask everyone: If you are a parent and your children are hungry and 
if you are fearful that your children or your wife or your family could 
be

[[Page S4322]]

killed by a gang, would you not do almost anything to help them?
  We understand that part. Yet that has to be balanced with the reality 
that America is a country that is proud of its heritage of being a 
nation of immigrants that continues to be generous in welcoming them 
but that it also has to have a system. It can't be disordered because, 
otherwise, it strains our capacity. It also overlooks another 
obligation we have, and that is the obligation to our own people.
  No nation on Earth, not even one as wealthy and as great as America, 
can welcome every single human being on the planet who wants to come 
here. That is not harsh. That is true. What other country does? Canada 
doesn't do that. Mexico doesn't do that. No other nation on Earth, 
including the ones that are criticizing us, has a policy like that, and 
many are much more restrictive than the United States. In most of the 
nations in Europe, you can go there, but they don't ever let you become 
a citizen. Every country has its own set of rules, and our rules have 
fluctuated. There have been times in our history when we have been much 
more restrictive than now in terms of immigration.
  So we have this situation. We have this incredible instability in 
places like Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. One of the responses 
to it, which I strongly support--we will fund it again this year--is 
something called the Alliance for Prosperity. In the long term, it is 
probably the best thing we can do to deal with the problem we have 
right now. What that does is to build the capacities of the governments 
in those countries to deal with those gangs that are threatening 
people. It creates economic opportunities so people don't have to 
leave.
  By the way, this migration isn't good for those countries. If you are 
the country of Honduras and your youngest, hardest working people are 
leaving, how are you going to build your economy in the future? It 
doesn't like it either. We need to help Honduras. We are trying to, and 
we are doing that, but it takes time for it to work.
  If you don't think that will work, then, I ask you: Why don't we have 
migratory crises from Peru or Chile or Uruguay or Colombia or Brazil or 
Argentina or Costa Rica or Panama? We don't have migratory crises from 
those countries because, while they don't have America's wealth, you 
can find a job and you are not being threatened every day by a gang. 
The more we can do to help countries reach that point, the less 
migratory pressure we will have. That is, by far, the most effective 
border security measure we could take, if it works. We have to make 
sure that it works.
  So now we have this situation, and it is a difficult one. I hear 
these people on television, and I have to tell you that I don't know 
where some people get their information or even care about how they get 
their information, but they just say things that aren't true, and they 
make it sound like it is so simple.
  Here is the bottom line. Imagine, for a moment, that a family arrives 
unlawfully at the U.S. border, meaning that the family doesn't have a 
permit to enter and it doesn't have a visa. The family just unlawfully 
crosses the border. You are now apprehended. You have children with 
you, and you are an adult.
  The law says--something called the Flores settlement, which is 
binding, which the White House is challenging with this Executive 
order--that you can hold the children for 20 days. You can detain the 
adults. They violated the law. It could be a misdemeanor. If it is a 
repeated offense, it is a felony. It could even be a civil offense, 
potentially. You can detain the adults if you need to, but you can't 
detain the children.
  This is the dilemma because, if you don't detain people, we know that 
a substantial percentage--and I mean a very high percentage of people--
once apprehended and released, never shows up for the hearing. People 
are scheduled for hearings before immigration judges, but it could take 
a couple of years. When the hearings come, we don't even know where 
they are to even notify them of the hearings. They just don't show up. 
They don't show up at all. If you let them go, you will never see them 
again. You are basically passing them through.
  Yet you can't detain the kids they came with. So you are left with 
this choice: I can't detain the kids; therefore, I can't detain the 
family together. So either I let them all go and never hear from them 
again or I detain the adults and separate them from their children. 
That is the decision the administration made along with saying: We are 
going to enforce every single one of these cases. Yet I already told 
you that if you let them go, your chances of ever having them show up 
again are virtually nil in many cases. That has led to the problem 
because, even though we are a nation of laws, we are also a nation with 
deep Judeo-Christian principles.
  You are watching it on television, and you are seeing kids who are 
crying. Forget about being a Senator now. You are a parent, and you are 
thinking to yourself: This is horrifying that this is happening in 
America. It has to end.
  So the administration says: We are going to end it, and we are going 
to detain them together, and someone is going to sue us under the 
Flores settlement, which is why Congress must act.
  I watched some of the speeches on the floor last night by some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and the best way I can 
describe the argument is that I understood it, and, if I am wrong, then 
somebody should tell me. I listened to the arguments carefully because 
I was thinking that there has to be a way to deal with this because it 
is a tough issue.
  This was their argument: No. 1, do not detain the children at all. 
Keep the Flores settlement in place, and don't detain the children.
  No. 2, don't separate the families. That means, not only can you not 
detain the children, but don't detain the parents. Let them go.
  No. 3, if they don't show up for their hearings and you eventually 
run into them, don't deport them either.
  If we are not going to detain children and if we are not going to 
detain parents and if they don't show up for the hearings and we are 
not going to deport them unless they are violent criminals, then, the 
de facto policy is this: If you come to the United States alone, you 
will be detained and returned, but if you come to the United States 
with children, you will be released and, potentially, never be 
deported.
  Now, this is not conjecture. I already told you that I know people. I 
want to tell you the perception that that creates. People can argue 
about whether dividing families is a deterrent or not. I don't even 
want to make that argument because I don't think that is a deterrent 
that we should use as a nation. It is not who we are. We should never 
say that we are going to punish your kids in order to keep you from 
doing something. Yet I can tell you that, whether or not it is a 
deterrent, it is most definitely an incentive to have a policy that 
says: If you come alone, you will be apprehended, detained, and 
returned, but if you come with kids, we are going to let you in.
  It is true that I find it cruel to separate these kids from their 
parents. I want to tell you what else is cruel, and that is the journey 
that people have to undertake in the hands of some of the most horrible 
human beings on this planet who traffic human beings through Mexico and 
across our border. Let me tell you how horrible it is. It is so 
horrible that many of the young women who actually make that journey 
ensure that they get on birth control before they go on the journey 
because they expect to be sexually assaulted. That is how cruel it is. 
It is cruel because children disappear on that journey. We don't know 
what happens, but they vanish. It is cruel because families are often 
robbed and beaten on that journey. It is one of the nastiest, most 
cruel journeys anyone could imagine.
  I will never forget being in Honduras a couple of years ago when we 
were at a migrant center. Our U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
people, who were embedded there alongside our Honduran partners, were 
talking to this young man who happened to be from Cuba and who was on 
his way to the United States. They warned him. They showed him. They 
talked him through it. They said: Once you cross this border, you are 
about to be in the hands of some of the worst human beings on the 
planet, who make a habit of killing people, assaulting people,

[[Page S4323]]

trafficking people. This young man was determined.
  To be honest with you, I don't know what happened to him. I gave him 
my number. I told him that if he were to make it to the States, we 
could be helpful, whatever it might be. We never heard from him again. 
I imagine he made it or something else happened. I, personally, tried 
to discourage him from making the journey.
  So, yes, it is cruel to divide families. It is also cruel to have an 
incentive for people to bring children on this journey, and that is 
what this is.
  To go back to the point, unless I am wrong, as I understand it, the 
policy that we are being asked to support by some is this: Don't detain 
the kids. Don't detain the parents in order not to separate the 
families. When they don't show up for the hearings, don't deport them.
  Well then, basically, your de facto law is that if you come to the 
United States alone, you will be detained and returned. Yet if you come 
with kids, you will get to stay. That is irresponsible. If that is, in 
fact, the policy, then you should admit that this is our policy and 
that this is what we think the law should be. You can't go around 
saying you are for border security but then never say what you are for. 
You can't go around saying that we should only enforce our immigration 
laws on dangerous criminals. Everyone agrees with that one.
  The bottom line is, if we want to continue to be a nation of 
immigrants and of immigration, then we have to have an ordered system 
of immigration. Otherwise, you have what we have now. You have what we 
have now in America, and you have what we have now all over the world, 
which is many people--a nation of immigrants--turning on immigration, 
not because they don't believe in it but because they think what we 
have now is unsustainable and wrong.
  You will never hear me say that these people are animals or terrible 
people. They are not. Look, any time you take thousands of people and 
put them together, and, of course, there are going to be bad people 
among them, but it is my experience and my deep belief that the 
overwhelming majority of people are just looking for a better life. 
People are looking to send money back to their families, to live in 
safer places, and to reunite with loved ones who are already 
here. Their motives are not wrong, but there has to be a process by 
which to do it, and our laws put us in this position every single day.

  I will never forget this. A handful of years ago, the home across the 
street from ours was occupied by a family. I don't know what happened--
well, I know what happened, obviously. At some point, they didn't pay 
their rent long enough, and the landlord evicted them, which requires 
you to go to the courthouse and get a court ruling. The sheriff's 
office comes and opens the door and takes out all your furniture and 
puts it on the curb.
  We drove by and saw that family sitting there on their couch. There 
were three kids. The mom was on the cell phone calling somebody. All 
their possessions were sitting in plastic bags on the curb because they 
didn't pay their rent. They were evicted, and it was painful to watch. 
We did what we could. We tried to talk and see whether there was 
anything we could provide to make sure they had a place to stay that 
evening. But no one suggested that what we should do is just not allow 
landlords to evict people for not paying the rent. No one suggested 
that because we realize that if we ever have a law like that, no one 
will ever rent their property to people again. If we stopped enforcing 
the right of a landlord to evict people from their homes, if we were to 
stop enforcing that, then there would be no more landlords. Nobody 
would ever put anything up for rent. We would have a housing crisis. 
But that doesn't mean that it doesn't break our hearts to see the 
images of what that means when we see that applied.
  I know people who lost their homes in foreclosure. Their homes are 
their dream. They came across difficult times and couldn't pay the 
mortgage, and they were out of their homes. It breaks your heart, but I 
haven't heard anyone suggest that we should make mortgages 
unenforceable.
  It is not the same thing, but my point is that our laws always put us 
in this situation, but the answer can't be to not enforce the law. 
Every single day, even as I speak to you now, somewhere in this 
country, some adult is going to be arrested, and this adult is going to 
go to jail--perhaps for many years--and their children are not going to 
be able to see them.
  I am not claiming that someone who commits a horrible crime in 
America is the same as someone who crosses our border. My point is that 
it happens every day, and no one should diminish it, but no one 
suggests that we should no longer arrest anyone or apply the law to 
people if it divides them from their families, because jails are full 
of people who have been divided from their families.
  I make these points not as comparison. I am not saying that being 
evicted from your home and crossing the border are the same thing. I am 
not saying that being convicted of a serious crime and spending years 
in jail and crossing the border are the same thing. What I am saying is 
that oftentimes the application of our law leads to results that 
trouble our hearts, but we recognize that if we don't apply the law, 
the alternative is as bad, if not worse. That is where we are.
  The reason why a nation of immigrants has a significant percentage of 
Americans who frankly want to see immigration significantly slashed is 
not because they have forgotten where they came from but because they 
think this thing is out of control. They are OK with 1 million people 
or 800,000 people a year coming into the country legally; what they are 
not OK with is anyone who wants to come, coming anytime they want, from 
anywhere they want, and they react against it.
  It is easy to hear these people on television say: Well, that is 
something horrible that is going on in America. It is the President's 
fault. It is this one's or that one's fault.
  It is happening all over the world. It is happening in every country 
in Europe. It is increasingly now putting pressure on Canada. It is 
happening in Mexico, which a few years ago began to crack down on their 
southern border.
  So the best way forward is a bill that Senator Tillis and others 
filed yesterday, and that is one that would allow us to house families 
together while their hearing is pending. Some will qualify for asylum 
and get to stay. Others will have to return together. Is it perfect? 
No. The U.S. Government is not in the business of housing families. We 
do have an obligation to ensure that we can expedite their hearings so 
they are not there for a long time. We do have an obligation to say: If 
you legitimately qualify for asylum, you should be given the 
opportunity to apply for it. We do have an obligation to say that while 
we retain families, we are going to provide them safe, sanitary 
conditions, because that is who we are as a people, and that is who we 
should be. We do have an obligation to do all of that, and that is why 
this bill adds 200 new judges to help expedite and why it calls for 
expediting cases that involve families with children.
  I know this is a tough issue, but our law cannot be that if you come 
here unlawfully with children, you get to stay and we are not going to 
enforce it, because that creates a cruel incentive for more people to 
do that. If we are basically saying: We have laws, but we refuse to 
enforce them, then we don't have an immigration system, and people will 
turn on immigration, and then we can't solve the problem.
  I say to you in closing, as someone who is by no means an immigration 
restrictionist--by no means--in fact, I support doing something 
reasonable with the people who have been here for a long time and are 
not dangerous criminals and are now part of our country. I support 
extending TPS for the Haitian community, many of whom are now business 
owners in Miami-Dade County, where I live. I support extending TPS for 
the Honduran community who are here legally. TPS makes you legal. Some 
of them own businesses, and some have graduated and are going to 
medical school. I support all of that. I support doing something 
responsible with people who were brought here as children through no 
fault of their own and who have grown up here. Some of them don't speak 
any language but English. I support their finding some permanency in 
this country and a path to citizenship. I support all of that stuff.
  I also support enforcing our immigration laws so that we can welcome 
more

[[Page S4324]]

people in the future. But there has to be a process. Every sovereign 
country in the world has laws and a process, and most of them enforce 
their laws in ways that are much more stringent--in many cases, much 
more barbaric--than anything that you will ever be accused of having 
done in the United States. That is not what I am advocating, and I 
don't know anyone who is.
  So it has been a tough week on a tough issue. I hope we will act. I 
know how appealing this is as a political issue. I know how much cable 
news time people get on both sides talking about it. I hope we can make 
progress at least on this one little piece and then move forward and do 
the rest of it. But this one little piece--I hope we will deal with it. 
I think we have a proposal before the Senate that doesn't make the 
situation perfect, but it sure makes it a lot better than it is right 
now; it sure is preferable to dividing families; and it sure is 
preferable to a law that tells people: Bring your children on this very 
dangerous journey because if you do, you will get to stay. It is my 
hope that we will act and get something done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss H.R. 5895, the 
Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019.
  I couldn't help but listen to my colleague Senator Rubio and the very 
fine way in which he has expressed the same thing that many Americans 
feel, and that is a compassion for those individuals who find 
themselves at our border and who simply want a better way of life for 
their families, while at the same time expressing the frustration that 
our laws are very, very clear that if you want to come into our 
country, you have to follow the law. At the same time, there is the 
compassion that has been shown by people across this entire country 
with regard to these children who, through no fault of their own, find 
themselves in this serious predicament in many communities along the 
border.
  I also want to express my appreciation to the President for the 
Executive order he has put in place in an effort to at least in a very 
short period of time address the situation for these young people and 
try to unite--as many of us want--those families once again. The 
compassion of the American people continues to shine through with 
regard to assisting and recognizing those who simply are not in a 
position to take care of themselves, regardless of which country they 
are a citizen of today.
  Madam President, I would like to refer to and discuss the 
appropriations bill that is in front of us today. This appropriations 
minibus combines three separate appropriations bills, each of which was 
voted nearly unanimously out of the Senate Appropriations Committee 
earlier this year. It expends about $147 billion, or they propose to 
spend about $147 billion. This is significant because since coming to 
the Senate 3\1/2\ years ago, this is only the second time we are 
actually bringing smaller, separate appropriations bills to the floor 
months before the deadline and also having a healthy, robust debate on 
amendments to this legislation. It is a long-overdue step that is 
getting us back to what we call regular order, which is the traditional 
way of working appropriations bills through the Senate. It lets 
everybody see what is in the bill. It is truly long overdue.
  Let me go over some highlights of this particular appropriations 
package of three bills, starting with the Energy and Water Development 
section.
  This section authorizes funding for the Department of the Interior, 
the Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers, just to name 
a few. It appropriates $42.8 billion to these agencies to improve our 
water infrastructure and invests in critical national security needs 
concerning nuclear energy.
  It also provides additional resources to invest in science and 
energy, including providing full funding for the Long-Baseline Neutrino 
Facility and the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, which, at $145 
million, is up from $95 million last year. This funding will allow the 
scientists at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, SD--a 
world-renown research facility in my home State--to continue their 
important research on neutrinos and dark matter.
  The report language of this section also encourages the Army Corps of 
Engineers to finally implement the snowpack monitoring program in the 
Upper Missouri River Basin. It does this by recommending that the 
snowpack monitoring equipment be eligible for funding under the 
operation and maintenance account. This is significant because the 
implementation of the Upper Missouri River Basin snowpack monitoring 
system will help mitigate the possibility of a major flood event for 
those living or working along the Missouri River and the Mississippi 
River.
  It is time for the Army Corps to step up and finally implement this 
much needed program, which was originally authorized under the 2014 
water resources bill 4 years ago. This was in direct response to the 
flood that occurred on the Missouri River and the Mississippi River in 
2011. It is time to implement this monitoring process now.
  The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs section of this bill, 
which was supported unanimously when it was reported out of committee, 
supports infrastructure investments to help ensure maximum readiness 
for our troops, providing a total of $10.3 billion in funding for 
military construction. This includes report language that appropriates 
$15 million for a new National Guard readiness center in Rapid City, 
SD.
  This section will also provide funding for needed improvements and 
renovations at the VA, including funding to prevent veteran suicide, 
increase rural veterans' access to healthcare, and support mental 
health care programs for our veterans.
  In total, this bill provides $78.3 billion for the VA to help them 
care for the approximately 9.3 million veterans enrolled for fiscal 
year 2019.
  Finally, the Legislative Branch and related agencies portion of this 
omnibus includes funding and policy provisions to improve operations 
and address heightened security requirements for those working in 
Congress and those visiting the U.S. Capitol Complex.
  It is important to point out that this is just 3 of basically 12 
appropriations bills. This was also approved--this particular portion 
of this legislation, this three-appropriations-bills package--
unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this year. 
By tackling our appropriations bills in this fashion and by allowing 
Members to offer and actually vote on these amendments to make these 
bills better, we are taking a monumental step toward getting our 
appropriations process back on track.
  Staying committed to a regular appropriations process allows the 
American people, through their elected representatives, to have a true, 
meaningful voice in how their tax dollars are spent. It also prevents 
us from having to rely on a series of continuing resolutions that have 
a significant, harmful impact on our military readiness. Military 
leaders have repeatedly warned of the dangers of these short-term, 
stopgap spending bills and what they do to our ability to adequately 
train, equip, and maintain a force. In particular, under continuing 
resolutions, the Defense Department is restricted from starting new 
programs, which is deeply concerning in today's rapidly changing threat 
environment.
  Since coming to the Senate, I have expressed my frustration with our 
broken appropriations system, which really hasn't worked in 40 of the 
last 44 years that the current budget process has been in place. While 
our appropriations process is still in need of significant reforms to 
truly get a handle on our budget crisis and begin to tackle our $21 
trillion debt, taking accountability and actually managing the 31-
percent of the budget that we can vote on is a significant step toward 
becoming more accountable to American taxpayers. Let me say that again. 
We are talking about 3 of approximately 12 appropriations bills. We are 
talking in this particular case about 11 percent of what we are 
actually going to be talking about spending.
  As an example, if you take the total amount of dollars in defense and 
nondefense discretionary spending, we will propose to spend for this 
coming year about $1.3 trillion. Of that $1.3 trillion, this group of 
bills amounts to about

[[Page S4325]]

$147 billion. It is about 11 percent. But at the same time, if you look 
at the $1.3 trillion that we are going to be voting on--if we do this 
all successfully under the existing appropriations plan, the way the 
laws are set out--we will be voting on $1.3 trillion, but the Federal 
Government will actually spend about $4.2 trillion. The rest of it is 
mandatory spending: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and $316 
billion in interest on our Federal debt. We don't vote on that. That is 
simply on autopilot.
  But in order to get to that part of the budget, we have to show that 
we can actually manage and vote on the smaller part of the budget, the 
$1.3 trillion that is before us in the next series of appropriations 
bills.
  Today we take up three of them, for $147 billion in spending. We are 
spending this entire week doing it. Hopefully, as all of our colleagues 
have the opportunity to look at, review, and make modifications by 
amendments to them, we begin to have the confidence to understand that 
we really should take responsibility for and, on the longer term, 
actually start managing and voting on the entire Federal budget, which 
today is, as I say, about $4.2 trillion.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank Senate Appropriations 
Chairman Richard Shelby, Ranking Member Leahy, Leader McConnell, and 
all the others who worked to get this legislation to the full Senate 
floor.
  Responsible spending starts with a responsible appropriations 
process. We owe it to every American to be responsible stewards of 
their hard-earned dollars. I believe this is best achieved through a 
regular appropriations process that brings about serious, thoughtful 
debate as to how and where the money is spent.
  This bill allows that debate to happen. It is a good bill that 
invests in energy and infrastructure, provides our troops with 
additional tools for maximum readiness, and funds the VA so they can do 
a better job of taking care of our veterans.
  I urge my colleagues not only to support these appropriations but 
future appropriations bills that may come to the floor later this 
summer, avoiding the last-minute continuing resolution or the usual 
2,000-page omnibus bill in September or, unfortunately, even later.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators on both sides 
of the aisle and staff members for working together to have a good 
process this week on our first appropriations bills.
  We have three of them that we made progress on. We had six recorded 
votes in the last couple of days. We have about 20 other amendments--
most of them bipartisan--which we believe we could adopt by a voice 
vote, but we have one or two recorded votes that we are going to need 
to take this afternoon unless we have agreements otherwise.


                Amendment No. 2983 to Amendment No. 2910

  Mr. President, based on that, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
Bennet-Gardner amendment No. 2983. I further ask consent that at 2 
p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the Bennet amendment, and that no 
second-degree amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for Mr. Bennet, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2983 to amendment No. 2910.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase employment for members of the Armed Forces in 
                          emerging industries)

       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:
       Sec. 3__. (a) The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Defense, shall evaluate the military 
     installations at which it would be cost-effective to 
     establish a partnership with community colleges, institutions 
     of higher education, and the private sector to train veterans 
     and members of the Armed Forces transitioning to civilian 
     life to enter the cybersecurity, energy, and artificial 
     intelligence workforces.
       (b) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the congressional 
     defense and energy committees and make publicly available a 
     report describing the results of the evaluation conducted 
     under subsection (a).

  Mr. ALEXANDER. What that means in plain English is that we will have 
a vote at 2 p.m. If we secure agreement, we could quickly wrap up this 
afternoon. If we don't, we will have further votes this afternoon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Forced Family Separation

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, this morning, the hot Sun rose on a tent 
city 20 miles outside El Paso, TX. That tent city stands as a makeshift 
detention facility to house children who have crossed our border and 
have been separated from their parents. This tent city, I would 
suggest, is hopefully a temporary monument to modern-day American 
cruelty.
  Across South Texas, so-called tender age shelters have sprung up to 
house very young children, even infants, who have been taken from their 
parents in an act that pediatricians, psychologists, and frankly anyone 
who has raised a child themselves know is the most traumatizing and 
upsetting thing you can do to a young child, which is to take them away 
from their parents by force, with no understanding of what is happening 
or expectation of when they will be reunited.
  This morning, thousands of children woke up to the voices of 
strangers in strange places and started another day in 
institutionalized, fenced-in confinement. This is happening in our 
Nation.
  I have heard from dozens--hundreds of Delawareans by every means they 
could communicate with me, and I am sure my colleagues have also heard 
from hundreds or thousands of their constituents, as we, as a nation, 
have been haunted by the sounds and images of vulnerable children 
crying out for help.
  On one hand, I think this is a simple issue of right and wrong, but 
on the other, this issue, like so many others that affect us in the 
Senate, has been complicated by politics and by rhetoric and by 
statements, frankly, meant to mislead.
  The American people, though, I think deserve clarity about what has 
been happening along our southern border in recent weeks and what its 
impacts have been and may be to families, to children, and to parents 
who have crossed our border. So let's be clear about what is happening.
  President Trump and his administration created--created--a 
humanitarian crisis by adopting a so-called zero tolerance policy to 
compel prosecution of all who cross our southern border, many of whom 
are people fleeing unspeakable violence in their home countries in 
Central America. Then the President and leaders in his administration 
excused or even misled people about this policy--this cruel policy--in 
a variety of different, conflicting, and, frankly, at times, even 
absurd ways in the past week.
  Administration officials claim they didn't actually have this policy 
or claimed they were compelled to do this by a nonexistent law or 
claimed their policy was a deterrent to prevent people from seeking 
asylum in the United States.
  Regardless of the explanations given, the American people spoke 
clearly and forcefully over the past week and said the President's 
policy was unacceptable. They said this treatment of children was an 
un-American tragedy that should not continue.

[[Page S4326]]

  Under that sustained pressure from the American people, our President 
relented and yesterday signed an Executive order, but even then he has 
only created new problems with the Executive order he just issued.
  As a Senator and as a person of faith, my own public service is 
closely tied to the values taught to me by my Christian faith and by my 
parents. I know many of my colleagues with whom I have spoken, on both 
sides of the aisle, feel the same way. We have to ask ourselves as 
parents, as people of faith: How can we stomach the human suffering of 
a child being ripped from his mother's arms and that intentional, 
willful child abuse being imposed to make that child a hostage or a 
bargaining chip in our long-running and unresolved conflicts here about 
immigration policy? How can we tolerate even one father being left in 
torment, searching for his baby or child, not knowing where they are or 
even if he will ever see them again, and having that torment imposed as 
a tool of policy, and how can we stomach multiplying those individual 
tragedies by 2,342?
  By my count, since May, 2,342 children have been forcibly separated 
from their parents after crossing our border. In just 6 weeks, 2,342 
lives have been changed in ways that will have lasting consequences.
  Now, the President has issued the Executive order that he claims will 
end this separation of families, but that Executive order is seriously 
flawed and will create as many problems and questions as it seeks to 
address. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that this policy, this 
zero tolerance policy, has already inflicted trauma and suffering for 
thousands of families and children. I think it creates a new 
humanitarian challenge, a new humanitarian crisis, because the 
consequences of this new Executive order will be to detain entire 
families in what may well prove to be ill-equipped tent cities.
  This policy does nothing to clarify what will become of the more than 
2,300 children already separated from their families, some of whom have 
been lost track of by the agencies responsible for them.
  We live in the world's most powerful and prosperous Nation, but I am 
afraid we are watching, day after day, the way in which the 
administration has chosen to treat children, through their indefinite 
detention or separation from their parents, in a way that will have 
lasting and negative consequences for our human rights record.

  As a nation, we were founded as an idea, a place to which people came 
fleeing persecution, fleeing countries in collapse or authoritarian 
regimes, and seeking a brighter, newer future in this country. I think 
we are being dishonest or shortsighted about our own family's history 
if any one of us stands and says that none of our ancestors came here--
none of our ancestors came here seeking relief from oppression or 
outside the legal mechanisms of the time. I think we are forgetting our 
family's history if we say: Today we must close our border absolutely 
and prevent anyone seeking asylum from coming to our country.
  Frankly, I have struggled as leaders in this administration have 
chosen to cite Scripture and to use their faith as an explanation or 
justification for why this zero tolerance policy was required.
  Our Attorney General, a former colleague of mine, someone whose 
knowledge of Scripture I know to be thorough, cited Paul's Epistle to 
the Romans to justify this policy. In fact, I think it is specifically 
Romans 13:1 through 5.
  He said Romans 13 requires us ``to obey the laws of the government 
because God has ordained the government for His purposes.''
  I, too, am somewhat familiar--in a passing way--with Scripture. I try 
to read my Bible daily, and, with all due respect, I disagree with 
Attorney General Sessions's reading.
  In Paul's letter to the Romans, he says, just before Romans 13--in 
Romans 12, and then just a little later in Romans 13--so if you just 
read a few verses on either side, I think the message is clear: We are 
urged to share with the Lord's people in need; we are urged to live in 
harmony with one another, and we are reminded most pointedly later on 
in Romans 13 that love is the fulfillment of the law and that ``love 
thy neighbor'' is the greatest Commandment of all.
  If there is one common theme, not just in this epistle but in the 
Gospel, it is that Jesus radically opened His heart and His preaching 
to those considered outcasts and ordinary and marginalized in His 
society in His time. With whom did He spend His time? Outstanding 
citizens? Respected leaders? No, with prostitutes, with tax collectors, 
with lepers, with Samaritans, with the others, and with the outcasts.
  I just ask those who heard what Attorney General Sessions had to say 
and who thought it was the right answer to rethink whether this 
strained and cramped reading of Paul's letter is truly a faithful 
reading.
  Romans 13 does, indeed, instruct us to follow the law and to respect 
those in authority, but I will say this particular passage--and it is 
being misquoted in order to support oppression--has a long and storied 
history.
  It was cited by Tories in this country who opposed those who stood up 
for freedom in the American Revolution. It was cited by slaveholders 
who opposed abolition in the runup to the Civil War. I heard it cited 
by those who defended the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
  Yes, it does teach us to obey the law and respect the law. It does 
teach us that God ordains those in authority, but it does not mean we 
should simply accept unjust and inhumane laws and the abuses that flow 
from them. As a person of faith, I simply cannot accept the current 
policies for the treatment of those who cross our borders seeking 
asylum and refuge in our Nation.

  In the last few days, as I have heard on my television and social 
media, the sounds of crying children and the images of children being 
kept in what certainly looked to me to be little more than cages, I 
have been thinking about something written by one of America's most 
famous former slaves, Frederick Douglass--a man who spent much of his 
life in this very city and who wrote about the consequences on the 
oppressor of cruelty.
  In his book, ``My Bondage and My Freedom,'' he recounted his life as 
a slave, and he wrote about the brutalizing impact of slavery on the 
people of faith who tolerated it. I think his words bear briefly 
repeating today. He said at one point in that book:

       The mistress of the house was a model of affection and 
     tenderness. Her fervent piety and watchful uprightness made 
     it impossible to see her without thinking and feeling--``that 
     woman is a Christian.'' There was no sorrow nor suffering for 
     which she had not a tear, and there was no innocent joy for 
     which she had not a smile. She had bread for the hungry, 
     clothes for the naked, and comfort for every mourner that 
     came within her reach.

  Frederick Douglass goes on to say:

       Slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of these 
     excellent qualities, and [slavery soon proved its ability to 
     divest] her home of its early happiness. Conscience cannot 
     stand much violence. Once thoroughly broken down, who is he 
     that can repair the damage?

  I think we should reflect, as people of conscience motivated to 
public service, in many cases by a shared faith, about our 
responsibility to speak up for the values upon which our Republic was 
founded and through which it has been improved.
  When we promote humanity, kindness, love, tolerance, and openness, we 
advance our Nation. I have been heartened by the calls I have heard 
from across my State and country by people of many different 
backgrounds, many different faith traditions, many different political 
views. I am reminded of that passage of Frederick Douglass of the harm 
it causes us to be a part of a nation that imposes such a cruel and 
thoughtless policy and turns away and fails to look at it and fails to 
step forward and fails to change it. I am encouraged by what change 
there has been so far, but I will remind those listening that we must 
redouble our efforts.
  Let me quote just a few. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 
called forceful family separation ``immoral'' and ``contrary to our 
Catholic values.'' The Holy Father, Pope Francis himself, expressed his 
agreement with that opinion, saying he is on the side of the bishops 
conference in this debate.
  Rev. Franklin Graham, one of President Trump's most ardent defenders, 
called this policy ``disgraceful'' and said: ``It's terrible to see 
families ripped apart and I don't support that one bit.''

[[Page S4327]]

  A personal friend of mine, Rev. Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, has worked 
with a broad group from across faith leadership, from the evangelical 
community to the Protestant community, to put together a group that 
goes by reclaiming Jesus and to post online an important statement that 
speaks to how across so many different faith traditions this practice, 
this policy of forcibly separating children--and now a subsequent 
policy of family detention--speaks ill of all of us.
  Christians, Jews, Muslims, humanists, people of all traditions have 
been calling on our President to end this treatment of fellow human 
beings. I have heard from colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, from 
all over this country, their voices of concern. So it is my hope that 
we will refuse to tolerate this; that we as a body will take a stand; 
and that we as a nation will urge our President and this administration 
to adopt new, more humane policies for people crossing our border and 
seeking refuge in this country; and that we will support bipartisan 
legislation to fix our broken immigration laws. It is only by the 
action and leadership of this administration that we have gotten into 
this space; it is only by their action and leadership that we can get 
out of it.
  I pray it is not too late for us to restore this Nation's reputation 
as a country that welcomes those seeking refuge from around the world. 
I will continue to pray every day for our President, for our Senators, 
for our Nation, for its values, and for our ability to stand up for the 
treatment of children in distress.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Mark Prater

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who 
was a loyal and diligent staffer on the Senate Finance Committee for 
nearly three decades--Mark Prater.
  Mark began as a tax counsel with the committee in January of 1990. 
During his 28-year tenure with the committee, Mark has been a shining 
example of a bipartisan policy staffer. He is a proud Portlander, where 
he graduated with his accounting degree from Portland State University. 
He went on to receive his law degree from Willamette University and 
then his LLM in taxation from the University of Florida.
  After practicing law for a few years in Portland, Mark thought he 
would take a 2-year break from practice to work in public service, but 
after he started working for his home State Senator, Bob Packwood, Mark 
became consumed by the work on the Finance Committee, which was easy to 
do but especially for somebody like Mark.
  This was a time when America had a Republican President and both the 
Senate and House were controlled by Democrats. Yet the tax staff, 
including a fresh-faced counsel from Oregon, found ways to get bills 
across the finish line. Some of those bills included significant budget 
and energy deals that helped jump-start the economy in the early 1990s.
  After a few years, Mark was promoted to chief tax counsel in October 
of 1993--a post that became synonymous with Mark Prater for nearly 25 
years. In 2007, Mark was named deputy staff director of the Senate 
Finance Committee.
  For the next decade, Mark's legislative management and institutional 
knowledge were crucial in virtually every bill that was passed out of 
the Senate Finance Committee--and there have been a lot of them--but 
Mark's impact in Congress did not end there. In 2011, Mark was 
appointed as the staff director of the Joint Select Committee on 
Deficit Reduction, or the Super Committee, as it was more commonly 
known.
  As many of us remember, September of 2011 was a trying time for 
America and Washington. Just about any stray statement or suggestion 
seemed to throw spark on the dry kindling of political frustrations. 
The Super Committee was created to find a solution to America's debt 
crisis but also to act as an example of bipartisan and bicameral 
cooperation. The first step was selecting a director who would be able 
to handle an immense workload while also dealing with unknown forces 
and Members of Congress who were unfamiliar with those forces. Mark was 
the man for the job and shepherded the committee through a process that 
resulted in many work products that would be used over the next several 
years.
  But my personal work with Mark is when I really learned to trust and 
appreciate him the most, although I trusted and appreciated him before. 
From the moment I became the ranking member on the Senate Finance 
Committee and even more so after I became chairman in 2015, I leaned on 
Mark to help develop and negotiate a reform to our long outdated and 
broken Tax Code. The result was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--the largest 
and most comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. Tax Code in 36 years. In 
the end, I think we can safely say this is one of the greatest 
legislative achievements in recent memory, and it all happened in large 
part due to Mark's efforts, influence, and expertise. I relied on him, 
and I have to say my reliance was well-placed.
  Perhaps more than anyone else, Mark can testify that the process for 
tax reform was years in the making. Contrary to what Democrats may 
tout, this was not a 6-month, 1 year, or even 2-year effort; tax reform 
had been debated and individual pieces had been negotiated and proposed 
in some form or another for years, with the Senate Finance Committee 
producing bipartisan working papers and holding hearings on dozens of 
occasions throughout the last decade.
  Rather than a last-second rush job, I think the facts and history 
indicate that the process actually began in earnest thanks to Mark's 
work at the Super Committee. That was when several of the major 
bipartisan conversations about improving innovation, returning to 
normal GDP growth, and improving fairness while broadening the base 
became earnest bipartisan conversations.
  As we continued to develop tax reform, much of the work between 
Senators, their staff, the Big 6, Treasury, constituents, and 
stakeholders was at least in part facilitated by Mark Prater, who was 
always there to listen and politely make suggestions and answer 
questions. He did not always like what he heard, but he was willing to 
negotiate and try to find common ground just to get the football 
another inch down the field.
  Tax reform had many bipartisan ideas: Provide relief for middle-class 
families, broaden the base, bring the corporate rate down, and fix the 
broken international tax regime. As anyone who has worked in tax before 
knows, there are 1,000 levers to pull and knobs to twist to get to an 
end result. But all of this has to happen while walking a difficult 
political tightrope--a tightrope I am not sure we would have balanced 
upon without Mark. His absolute mastery of the Tax Code, his 
compassion, his patience, his sense of humor, and his creative 
solutions to difficult problems were a key part of the process and the 
substance of the final product. I am and will be forever grateful to 
Mark for his sacrifices and commitments to making tax reform a reality.
  I would be remiss not to also thank his wife Lori and his son James 
for their support and sacrifice as well. He loves both of them, and 
really, they are lucky to have him and his love. I am glad to see them 
all here today, especially so that we can finally celebrate the Stanley 
Cup coming to Washington. As most of us know, Mark is an avid hockey 
fan, and his diligent support in that sphere has paid off as well.
  In sum, losing Mark has been a terribly sad day for all of us here in 
the Senate, but I am confident that his legacy, the tax reform that 
owes much to him, and the example Mark set for all of us will be 
remembered and cherished for years to come.
  I have had hundreds of staff people work with me over the years, all 
of whom I have regard for, revere our friendships, have learned from, 
and have pushed and shoved as hard as I could. I have had some really 
wonderful people with me, and they have all been dedicated. They have 
all given of

[[Page S4328]]

themselves to help this country. But I have never had anybody any more 
dedicated or giving than Mark Prater.
  Mark Prater deserves the recognition that I am trying to give him 
here today and much more. I have such a regard for him, such a regard 
for what he stands for, what a decent, honorable, kind, and hard-
working young man he is. We have been very lucky to have him in the 
Senate, on the Senate staff, and on the Finance Committee staff. His 
efforts and his work are going to be around and understood by many of 
us for many years to come.
  I want to thank him personally for the work he has done, the 
friendship he has given, and the hard work he has performed for all of 
us here. I wish him and his family the very, very best. On top of all 
that, I just want him to know that we love him and appreciate him.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 2 minutes and that my colleague from Colorado, Senator 
Gardner, also have 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2983

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 2983.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, each year, 230,000 men and women leave 
military service. Many enter the civilian workforce. I know everyone in 
this Chamber believes we can do a better job connecting our veterans 
and transitioning servicemembers with rewarding and high-paying jobs.
  I also know people in this Chamber agree that these men and women are 
ideal employees for American businesses. They are highly trained, many 
in advanced technologies. They are experienced leaders. They are driven 
and mission-oriented. As someone who used to work in the private 
sector, these are all qualities I have looked for in employees.
  As a Colorado Senator, I know our State has one of the highest 
percentages of veterans in the country, and we have military bases with 
transitioning servicemembers. Many veterans from all over the country 
choose to live in Colorado and make it their home.
  We also have top science and engineering programs in emerging energy 
industries hungry for a highly skilled workforce. There is a natural 
opportunity to connect these groups and strengthen the bridge between 
our men and women in uniform and rewarding, high-paying jobs. That is 
what this amendment seeks to achieve.
  It directs our government to identify opportunities with the military 
to partner with colleges, universities, and the private sector to train 
our veterans and transition servicemembers for jobs in the growing 
energy, cyber security, and artificial intelligence sectors.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting the amendment and especially 
Senators Gardner and Duckworth for joining me as cosponsors.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Bennet for 
his work on this and the opportunity to work with him to make sure we 
continue to honor our veterans and armed servicemembers.
  Our veterans have served and our armed servicemembers proudly serve 
this country in Active Duty. When they come home, though, one of the 
obligations we have as a society and country to thank them for this 
incredible service is to make sure they have the skills, education, and 
training to integrate back into the civilian workforce. They obviously 
have incredible skills which they have acquired during their military 
service, and we can put them to use here at home.
  This amendment simply says the Department of Defense and the 
Secretary of Energy will evaluate military installations to determine 
which ones are ripe for opportunities to work with community colleges, 
institutions of higher education, and others so they can enter into 
agreements to help train veterans--armed servicemembers, members of the 
Armed Forces, to transition them into civilian life--to help work in 
the cyber security fields, energy fields, artificial intelligence 
workforce.
  In Colorado alone, we have 13,000 job openings in cyber security--
13,000 job openings in cyber security alone. This gives us a chance to 
continue our service in thanking our veterans for the work they have 
done in service to our country.
  I thank my colleague from Colorado, Senator Bennet.
  I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes to inform Senators where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank Senators on both sides of the aisle for 
working well this week on the appropriations process. We are off to a 
very good start.
  We have voted on six amendments in the last couple of days. We have 
about 20 others that we are close to agreement on and probably can 
adopt by voice vote.
  We have one amendment we are going to have to deal with. If it were 
not offered, then this would be the last vote for the day. If it needs 
to be dealt with, then we are going to have to deal with it following 
this vote. So I wanted Members to know, unless we get agreement, we 
will be having at least one more vote following this vote.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2983

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 2983.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     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
     Paul
     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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Corker
     Duckworth
     McCain
     Shaheen
  The amendment (No. 2983) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, for the information of the Senators, we 
are about to move to the consideration of the amendment by the Senator 
from Utah. I want to take about 1 minute to talk about it. The leader 
will speak, and then I will move to table the amendment. Depending on 
the outcome of the amendment, there may be other votes this afternoon.
  I thank Senators for working well together. We have had six votes. We 
have had 20 that we think we can work out, more or less, in a managers' 
package. The Senator from Utah, by the way, has been very helpful in 
getting us to that point. Yet I am going to move to table his 
amendment, and I want to explain why.

[[Page S4329]]

  This is an authorizing amendment. It belongs on the authorizing bill. 
This is an appropriations bill. We have worked very hard over the last 
few weeks, under Chairman Shelby's leadership and Senator Leahy's 
leadership, to try to keep such amendments off of our appropriations 
bill so that we can get to a result.
  It has been a long time since this body has done what it is supposed 
to do under the appropriations process. This is the first week of that 
process. If we table the amendment that is about to come up, we will be 
able to complete our work, I believe, today or Monday and be off to a 
good start with about two dozen amendments in a process that is of the 
kind that we have been saying for weeks we want to see.
  So, while I totally agree with the Senator's amendment and have voted 
for it many, many times, this is not the place for it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Let me finish, if I may, because we are trying to get 
to the vote. Well, yes, I yields.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was simply going to add to what the 
Senator from Tennessee was saying.
  Senator Shelby and I have tried to keep things that are inappropriate 
out of the appropriations bill so that we may actually pass some 
appropriations bills. So I will join the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator for his support.
  Mr. President, in addition to this, for those on this side of the 
aisle who oppose the waters of the United States, remember that the 
courts have enjoined it, and President Trump has rescinded it. 
President Trump's EPA rewrote the rule and sent it to the OMB last 
week. So there will be a new rule, but it is not now in effect.
  Finally, a small part of the bill is dealt with in the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  I thank the Members for being here. I respect the Senator from Utah, 
but following the leader's remarks, I am going to move to table his 
amendment. I urge all Senators to do that. We want an appropriations 
process. We do not want an Omnibus appropriations bill, and that is 
what we will get if we offer amendments like this during the 
appropriations process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, look, this is a big test for the 
Senate. There is broad bipartisan agreement that we need to quit doing 
Omnibus appropriations bills. Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy have 
gotten not only the committee in a good place, but Senator Alexander 
has handled this bill in such a way that we have had broad cooperation 
in getting it across the floor so as to get it into conference and 
actually make a law--the three appropriations bills.
  There is no doubt about it--I can't find many people on this side of 
the aisle who approve of the previous administration's waters of the 
United States regulation. It is on its way to the ash heap of history 
right now under this administration.
  This is not about waters of the United States or about whether we are 
for it or against it; this is about whether we want to get away from 
annual Omnibus appropriations bills, and this is the first test here. 
We have a minibus consisting of three bills, and we have had widespread 
cooperation to get it across the floor. This amendment needs to be 
tabled because this is not the right place to offer it.
  I will be joining the senior Senator from Tennessee, the chairman of 
the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, in tabling this 
amendment. Make no mistake about it--it is not because I support the 
waters of the United States but because that is being taken care of, 
and we want to have regular order and the passage of appropriations 
bills this year.


         Amendment No. 3021, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2911

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up Lee amendment No. 3021, as 
modified, to Alexander amendment No. 2911.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Lee, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3021, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 2911.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows

(Purpose: To terminate a rule relating to the definition of ``waters of 
                          the United States'')

       At the end, add the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) The final rule issued by the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the 
     Army entitled ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of 
     the United States' '' (80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015)) is 
     void.
       (b) Until such time as the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the Army 
     issue a final rule after the date of enactment of this Act 
     defining the scope of waters protected under the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and that 
     final rule goes into effect, any regulation or policy revised 
     under, or otherwise affected as a result of, the rule voided 
     by this section shall be applied as if the voided rule had 
     not been issued.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  I thank the Republican leader and the senior Senator from Tennessee--
the chair of one of the relevant subcommittees--for their comments.
  We want to make this process work. It is going to take a little work 
to bring it back to the way it used to be on both sides. This is an 
outstanding start, and I appreciate that very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I move to table Lee amendment No. 3021, 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is not entirely unusual to have policy in 
an appropriations bill. It happens with some regularity. In fact, it 
happened in the corresponding House appropriations measure.
  What we are talking about here is some of the worst kind of lawmaking 
that occurs here in the swamp, in Washington, DC. Congress sets forth a 
broad, vague standard, and an executive branch agency figures out the 
rest, sometimes with disastrous consequences.
  In 2015, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came up with a 
clean water rule, also known as the waters of the United States rule, 
one that effectively dramatically expanded the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Government over land in the United States, in some instances 
saying that if a plot of land is wet some of the time, some of the 
year, during any particular year, you can be subject to massive fines 
totalling millions of dollars if you do anything on that land, subject 
to the arbitrary determinations of Federal bureaucrats.
  This is something that garnered bipartisan support in the 114th 
Congress. We had 49 cosponsors and ended up having 53 people vote to 
undo this under a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval. 
That was Republicans and Democrats. Tragically, President Obama vetoed 
that measure, and we were unable to secure the votes to override that 
veto.
  This particular measure is in the House appropriations bill that 
corresponds to this one. I urge my colleagues to support it and to 
oppose the motion to table.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
3021, as modified.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S4330]]

  

  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Cassidy). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Sullivan
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Corker
     Duckworth
     McCain
     Shaheen
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Calling for the Release of Pastor Andrew Brunson

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have, sadly, had to do this speech once 
a week for the past couple of months. So I am back again to draw 
attention to what I think is one of the saddest moments in the great 
relationship and history that we have had with the country of Turkey.
  For 622 days, counting today, we have had an American who spent 20 
years as a missionary--a Presbyterian minister--in Turkey in prison. 
For about 19 of the months he was in prison, he was held without 
charges. A couple of months ago, he was finally charged and indicted, 
and he was indicted on some of the most absurd charges you could 
possibly hear. He was indicted with evidence that wouldn't keep 
somebody in jail overnight in the United States.
  The person I am talking about is Andrew Brunson. Andrew Brunson is a 
little over 50 years old. He was imprisoned in October of 2016. Since 
then, he has spent nearly 17 months in a prison cell that was designed 
for 8 people and had 21 people in it. He has lost 50 pounds. He is 
keeping good spirits, but you can tell his mental state has diminished. 
The reason I know that is because I went to visit him.
  After the indictment was laid out back in April, I heard through his 
family that he thought the American people and the Congress were going 
to read the indictment and believe it and turn their backs on him, so I 
thought it was personally important for me to go to that prison in 
Turkey and look him straight in the eye and tell him that he has the 
U.S. Congress behind him. In fact, some 70 Senators signed on to a 
letter expressing their concern, and I appreciate their support, 
including almost 150 Members of the House.
  I wanted to tell him that as long as I am a U.S. Senator, we will 
never forget him, and we will never stop until he gets released.
  Now, some people say: Well, what on Earth was Pastor Brunson doing in 
Turkey? Well, he was providing missionary work. He was actually 
providing aid and comfort to Syrian refugees who had to flee Syria into 
Turkey. He has actually provided food.
  He has a very small church in Izmir that some of the charges of the 
Turkish court--and, by the way, after the prison visit, I went back to 
Turkey, and I spent 12 hours in a Turkish courtroom hearing the 
allegations myself.
  They charged that this was a hotbed for terrorist plotting; that this 
was where Pastor Brunson tried to conspire with others to facilitate 
the coup--an illegal coup I completely disagree with--a couple of years 
ago.
  We actually even had one witness say he had to have been involved in 
some nefarious activity because one night, in the middle of the night, 
they saw a light on for 4 hours--that was the charge--and, therefore, 
there must have been something bad going on. Well, No. 1, just because 
somebody's light is on doesn't necessarily mean they are doing 
something bad, but what makes it even more remarkable is the room they 
are talking about is a room I visited when I was in Izmir. It doesn't 
have a window. There was no way anybody could have possibly observed 
it. So this witness, who is in prison himself, testifies to the fact 
that a light was on, and therefore Pastor Brunson is a potential 
terrorist or a coup plotter. I am not exaggerating that charge. As a 
matter of fact, there is another charge that because his daughter 
posted a picture of a meal she was enjoying on social media, and it 
turns out that meal had been identified--a very common meal in Turkey--
at some bust of a suspected terrorist organization, the fact that she 
ate the same food, a common dish in the Middle East and in Turkey, they 
must also somehow be associated with plotting terrorist actions. These 
are the nature of charges that have kept this man in jail for, as I 
said earlier, 822 days.
  Now, when I talk to the Turkish officials, some of the senior leaders 
there--and I worked with the State Department--particularly when I talk 
to the Turkish officials, they say: Well, we have a judicial process 
that we must run through, so justice must take its course. Well, how do 
you square that with the President of Turkey who suggests that if we 
are prepared to trade a pastor who has been in Turkey for 20 years for 
a religious leader in the United States who is legally present--that we 
have told the Turkish Government, the Turkish authorities, that if they 
can produce a valid extradition case that lives up to the standards of 
the U.S. extradition system, then we will extradite him, but they are 
not willing to do that.
  So on the one hand they say we have to have the legal process take 
its course, but on the other hand, the President of Turkey, President 
Erdogan, says, well, we will do a trade. So which one is it? The day 
that the Turkish President made this comment, I believe Pastor Brunson 
can be legally classified as a political hostage.

  What makes this all the more frustrating for me is that Turkey is a 
NATO ally. Most people know about NATO, but let me tell you the 
profound nature of the alliance once you are a member of NATO. When you 
are a member of NATO, you as a country agree that you will come 
together and deploy your men and women on foreign soil to protect the 
sovereignty of that nation. So if Turkey were to be attacked by an 
aggressor, the United States has a treaty obligation to deploy, put our 
men and women in harm's way to defend the Turkish people and the 
Turkish regime.
  Yet, I have, for the first time in the history of the alliance--and 
Turkey has been in the alliance since 1952--I have a political hostage, 
someone being held unlawfully in a country where I have an obligation 
to put American men and women in uniform at risk.
  What is wrong with that picture? Well, there is a lot wrong with it, 
not the least of which, it has never happened in the history of the 
alliance. No NATO partner has ever treated another NATO ally this way. 
That is why we have to continue to cast light on this unlawful 
detention, this kangaroo court, and we have to take every step 
necessary to make Turkey understand that we are not going to give up.
  One of the things we are doing to make sure of that is we put a 
provision in the national defense authorization that asks some serious 
questions about the nature of our relationship with Turkey and whether 
we should really continue that commitment that we make to our NATO 
alliance.

[[Page S4331]]

  Acquiring Russian missile defense systems. For the first time ever in 
the history of the NATO alliance, we are going to have an ally that has 
a potential missile defense system that comes from a would-be 
adversary? A Joint Strike Fighter manufacturing supply chain that 
relies heavily on Turkey for our F-35? If Turkey is going to behave 
this way and they are not going to treat us with the respect I think 
you should treat another NATO ally, then we have to really rethink the 
relationship with Turkey.
  So I hope next week is the first week I don't have to do this speech. 
I hope next week is the week that we announce Pastor Brunson is going 
to be released. But as long as Pastor Brunson is in prison, I guarantee 
you I will be here and I will find everything I can do as a U.S. 
Senator to make Turkey accountable for the unlawful detention of Pastor 
Brunson.
  I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--70 of them--
who agree with me, who agree that Pastor Brunson should be set free.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today, I want to talk about an issue that 
has gotten a lot of attention in Washington and around the country over 
the past week or so, and that is the issue of children who cross our 
border, both those who cross the border illegally with their parents 
and those who come alone. Those who come alone are known as 
unaccompanied children, or UACs.
  First, I want to reiterate something I have said a number of times 
over the past few weeks, and that is that I oppose the policy of 
separating children from their parents. I think it is counter to our 
American values. As we will talk about this afternoon, though, it is 
also inconsistent with the infrastructure we have in place to be able 
to deal with it.
  I was pleased to see the administration agree that we should keep 
families apprehended at the border together, and I was pleased to see 
the Executive order the President issued to that effect yesterday.
  I cosponsored legislation on this issue, which has now been 
cosponsored by 32 of my Senate colleagues, I am told. It has the 
support of almost one-third of this Chamber, which would, in effect, 
take the Executive order and put that into law but also make some other 
changes that are necessary to ensure that we can have a sustainable 
policy with regard to children coming across the border.
  I believe we can have strong border security without separating 
families at the border. I believe we can enforce our Nation's laws, and 
we should, while remaining true to our values. Children should be kept 
in a safe, caring environment with their parents while immigration 
officials quickly assess each family's individual immigration case. 
That is the best solution.
  Beyond the moral argument for holding this policy, by the way, the 
logistics of separating families is just not practical. Let me talk 
about what currently happens with unaccompanied children.
  We talked earlier about two categories. One is children who come with 
their parents, which has been the issue we have been discussing the 
last week. But there is a bigger issue with regard to those children--
in the sense of the number of children who are in the system--and that 
is those children who come on their own.
  As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, or PSI, 
I have been investigating over the past couple of years the handling of 
UACs. Again, these are kids who come unaccompanied. I have done this, 
therefore, both during the Obama administration and during the Trump 
administration. From the work we have done over the past 2 years, I can 
tell you that the Department of Health and Human Services and the 
Department of Homeland Security are not prepared to effectively deal 
with even more children, unaccompanied minors or those who come in with 
their parents.
  There are two key issues that we need to address with unaccompanied 
children who enter the United States. First, we need to ensure that if 
our government takes charge of these children, they are not trafficked 
or abused. These are children. They need to be treated as such.
  Second, we need to uphold our rule of law and make sure that our 
immigration system actually works. To do that, we need to make sure 
that these children appear for their immigration court proceedings. I 
am afraid we are failing on both counts now, and that is unacceptable.
  Let me explain what I mean. I first got involved in this issue--very 
deeply involved--in 2015, a few years ago, when reports came out that 
there were eight unaccompanied minors from Guatemala who had come up to 
our southern border and crossed over. A ring of human traffickers lured 
them to the United States, by the way. The traffickers had gone to 
Guatemala, talked to these kids' parents, and told them they would 
provide these kids with an education in America. They actually got the 
mortgages for some of the homes as payment to pay for the trafficking 
and the smuggling debt. Also, the traffickers retained not just the 
mortgages for these homes but, when they got the kids in their control, 
they said they weren't going to let the kids go until these debts were 
totally paid off.
  They weren't interested in giving them an education. It turns out 
they were just interested in trafficking these kids. Anyway, when the 
kids crossed the border, they were apprehended. Their status, as 
defined by Federal immigration law, was that of ``unaccompanied 
child,'' or UAC. They were considered UACs. This means the Department 
of Homeland Security was picking them up--Customs and Border 
Protection. Following protocol, they were then transferred to the 
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS.
  One Federal Department picks them up. They take them to another 
Federal Department, called the Department of Health and Human Services. 
HHS, or Health and Human Services, is then supposed to keep these kids 
for a short period of time, until they can be placed with sponsors.
  That is how the system works. The sponsors are then supposed to 
ensure that these kids stay safe and get them to their appropriate 
immigration legal proceeding. Unfortunately, based on our 
investigation, often that does not happen. It certainly didn't happen 
in this case. What happened in this case is that our investigation was 
able to reveal that these kids--who were brought in from Guatemala by 
these traffickers--were taken into custody, had gone to HHS for a 
short-term detention facility, and then they were sent to sponsors.
  Guess who the sponsors were, who these kids were given to? The 
traffickers. They were given to traffickers, not to family members or 
friends or someone who could be trusted when you think of a surrogate 
family or a foster family. They were put in the custody of the human 
traffickers. They didn't vet these people. As a result, the traffickers 
took these kids north, took them to my State of Ohio, which is again 
how I got involved in this. They took them to an egg farm in Marion, 
OH, where these kids lived in squalor conditions. They were required to 
work 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. Their paychecks were often 
confiscated by the traffickers. So they were basically getting room and 
board. The traffickers threatened these kids and their families with 
physical harm if the kids didn't perform these long hours and work 
under these terrible conditions.

  Fortunately, this trafficking ring was discovered, these kids were 
rescued, and they have now been prosecuted. What our investigation 
found out, when we tried to figure out how this could possibly have 
happened, is that HHS didn't do the background checks on those 
sponsors. They also didn't respond to a bunch of red flags that should 
have alerted them to problems with these kids and with the sponsors. 
For example, HHS missed that a group of sponsors were collecting 
multiple kids. That should have been a red flag right there--not just 
one child but multiple children. They missed a major red flag when a 
social

[[Page S4332]]

worker working with HHS showed up to help one of these kids--or tried 
to--and the sponsor turned the social worker away. This is somebody on 
contract with HHS. That didn't raise a red flag.
  We held a hearing in January 2016. At that hearing, HHS committed 
that they were going to do better. This is a Federal agency. To have 
this Federal agency give kids to traffickers and have this tragic 
situation unfold is unacceptable.
  That was during the Obama administration, by the way. Remember, this 
is not a partisan issue. During previous administrations and during 
this administration, this system has not worked. After that hearing, 
HHS and DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, under which we have 
the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection, committed to 
clarifying their respective responsibilities for protecting these kids.
  The one thing we found out is that nobody was accountable. So people 
were pointing fingers at each other, and the kids were falling between 
the cracks. HHS and DHS entered into a 3-page memorandum of agreement 
that said that the agencies recognize that they should ensure that 
these kids aren't abused or trafficked. The memorandum also said the 
agencies would enter into a joint concept of operations, spelling out 
their specific responsibilities within a year's time. That would be 
done by February of 2017.
  That is, of course, what I was looking for and what our committee was 
looking for. How are you going to handle these kids? Who is responsible 
for them? What is the handoff? Who is accountable?
  That was supposed to be due in February of 2017. Today is June 2018. 
That operations agreement between the agencies is still not completed. 
They missed their own deadline by about a year and a half. They have 
promised, by the way, based on a hearing we recently had with HHS, to 
complete this agreement and to get it to us--this joint concept of 
operations--by July 30. We are expecting it within 4 or 5 weeks. We are 
very much looking forward to that.
  This was based on a hearing we had in April of this year. We called 
DHS and HHS back again to explain what is going on and why we hadn't 
seen an agreement, despite virtually every couple of weeks telling us: 
It is coming. It is coming.
  We wanted to hear how they would work better together to ensure that 
these kids were placed in safe environments and be sure they were 
following up with these children to ensure that the kids actually went 
to their immigration court proceedings.
  It is not just about ensuring that they are not abused and 
trafficked. Everyone, of course, agrees with that. Everyone should also 
agree that they ought to go to their court hearing and make sure the 
system works.
  We made some progress since that 2016 hearing. For example, under the 
Trump administration, HHS started making telephone calls to follow up, 
which I think is a good idea. These were 30-day wellness check 
telephone calls after they placed an unaccompanied minor with a 
sponsor.
  HHS testified at our April hearing that from October to December of 
last year, they had the data now on the calls they had made. These are 
the 30-day calls they were making after these kids go out with their 
sponsors. Those calls revealed that about 1,500 children were 
unaccounted for. In other words, they placed a call, talked to the 
sponsor, and said: How is this child doing?
  The sponsor wasn't responsive. They either said: We don't know how 
the child is doing; or they couldn't find the sponsor, or they couldn't 
find the child.
  In some cases, the child had actually run away.
  There were 1,500 kids unaccounted for. It doesn't mean they are not 
with a family somewhere. It doesn't mean they are going to their court 
case, but they couldn't find these kids. That is unacceptable. They are 
now working on a bipartisan basis--Republicans and Democrats alike--
with new legislation that will be informed by this concept of 
operations, which we hope to have in the next several weeks. That will 
lay out how we ought to treat unaccompanied minors and hold someone 
accountable--particularly, HHS, who has children in their custody, and 
prior to that, DHS, or the Department of Homeland Security--to ensure 
that these sorts of instances will not happen again and make sure that 
we know where these kids are.
  There are lots of experiences. Think about your home State and the 
foster care system, which is probably overburdened right now because of 
the opioid crisis, but you have a foster care system where foster 
parents are actually screened. Part of our legislation, by the way, is 
to tell the States where the kids are so the States can play a role in 
this as well.
  What this all highlights is the fact that the Federal Government is 
not doing nearly enough to protect unaccompanied minors from 
trafficking and other forms of abuse and not doing enough to ensure 
that they get to their court date. Right?
  We have a system, and we have these kids in the system. I don't care 
what your views are on immigration policy. It doesn't matter whether 
you believe that we should have a much more secure border and a wall or 
whether you believe that there ought to be more of an open border and a 
catch-and-release system. Nobody should want to have these kids treated 
like this. Everyone should want to ensure that these kids are cared for 
properly and get to their court date and ensure that we don't have the 
kinds of tragic instances we had in my home State of Ohio.
  I also think it is important not to conflate these two issues 
together--the unaccompanied kids and the 1,500 who were unaccounted for 
and what has happened over the last several weeks at the border with 
separating families from children. We are talking about kids who come 
unaccompanied.
  Unfortunately, a lot of people have conflated, too. There was a New 
York Times story about the fact that 1,500 kids have gone missing, and 
somehow that got conflated with a lot of folks online and some folks 
even in the Chamber, with this notion that this is about the separation 
policy and the zero tolerance policy. It is not. It is something 
different. What it says to me is, let's not add more children to a 
system that is not working.

  In other words, as I said earlier, at the start, we don't have the 
infrastructure in place to deal with it. It is one reason I felt 
strongly that separating kids from their families was not only the 
wrong thing to do in terms of a moral policy but also in terms of our 
government's ability to handle it. Even if there were a situation in 
which it was important to get this kid away from a family because maybe 
there was a sign of abuse or maybe the kid was being trafficked, we 
have to have a better system in place to deal with these children who 
are unaccompanied or with others who end up in the system.
  What had happened under the so-called zero tolerance policy over the 
last 6 weeks was that adults who had illegally crossed the border had 
been arrested and put in detention facilities. Under what is called the 
Flores settlement agreement, from a 1997 court decision, if the adults 
had been traveling with children, those children would have had to have 
been placed in what the court had said was the least restrictive 
setting possible, and it would not have allowed them to often stay with 
their moms or dads in detention.
  That has been one of the arguments the Trump administration has been 
making with the zero tolerance policy and the parents' having gone into 
the criminal justice system. With their having gone into that kind of 
detention, the kids could not have gone with them because of this court 
decision.
  It is an issue, there is no question about it. It is the primary 
reason, they are saying, they put about 2,000 children into the care of 
HHS and DHS and essentially turned them into unaccompanied minors. 
Again, they put them into a system that, in my view, isn't working. 
What we have seen over the past 2 years is that DHS and HHS have just 
not been adequately prepared to keep track of these kids and ensure 
that they are being placed in safe environments and getting to their 
court hearings.
  As soon as I understood what was going on with separating families, I 
spoke out and said that this is bad, that we cannot allow this to 
happen for both reasons--it is not the moral thing to do, and we don't 
have the infrastructure.
  On Tuesday, I sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and 
called on

[[Page S4333]]

him to stop this practice of separating kids from their families, to 
give it a pause, so that we can have the opportunity to look at this 
issue and develop the right legislation, which we have now introduced. 
This letter, by the way, was led by my colleague, Senator Orrin Hatch, 
and was signed by 11 of our colleagues.
  Again, I commend the administration for the Executive order yesterday 
that keeps families together who have been apprehended at the border. 
That is a positive first step, but we have to go even further. Because 
of this Flores decision we talked about earlier, which is, again, a 
settlement agreement that was made back in 1997, Congress is going to 
have to step in as well. I think it is likely that the Executive order 
will be in litigation immediately because of the Flores decision.
  The legislative solution that Congress enacts needs to address the 
Flores settlement agreement as it applies to children who arrive with 
their parents. In those cases, the settlement agreement currently 
requires that these children be separated from their families and be 
kept in the least restrictive setting possible instead of staying with 
their families if their families are in detention.
  The legislation we introduced yesterday, called Keep Families 
Together and Enforce the Law Act, has almost a third of the Senate 
signing on. It will provide that long-term solution to keep families 
together and expedite these immigration cases.
  Unlike other proposals which would, in my view, incentivize more 
illegal immigration by essentially codifying past practices by which 
people were apprehended but then released into the community, this 
legislation will actually solve the problem by keeping families 
together while ensuring the integrity of our immigration laws. Among 
other things, it will override the Flores settlement agreement to 
ensure that families will be kept together during their immigration 
enforcement proceedings. Importantly, to me, it will also expedite 
these proceedings. This is one of the problems that I have seen in the 
immigration system. We have so many cases--there is such a backlog and 
so much time required to get to a decision--that it creates a lot more 
problems in terms of, what do you do with folks who come across the 
border? This will expedite and prioritize these family cases.
  It will also provide lots more immigration judges. To get a decision 
on these people, you need to have more immigration judges and a better 
process. More money, frankly, is going to be needed--increased 
resources--to be sure that infrastructure is in place to deal with this 
issue as quickly as possible and to get an appropriate decision as to 
whether the person stays or leaves.
  I hope more of my colleagues will sign on to this legislation. I hope 
they will do it on a bipartisan basis. I think the Keep Families 
Together and Enforce the Law Act is the right position that finds that 
common ground between all of us here on the floor who believe we ought 
to uphold our immigration laws but also think that families need to 
stay together, that we need to have a compassionate approach to this.
  There is a consensus now on not separating families--that is good--
but there is also a consensus that we need an immigration system that 
works. So let's come together in both Chambers. Let's do the hard work. 
Let's get this done. Of course, we need to do broader immigration 
reform, as well, but this issue is staring us in the face. Let's keep 
families together. Let's provide for an immigration system that works 
over the long term, that provides compassionate care for those kids, 
that is in line with our country's values and enforces the laws of our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions on the substitute 
amendment No. 2910 and the bill be withdrawn. I further ask that the 
managers' package, which is at the desk and has been cleared by both 
sides, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table, amendment No. 2911 be agreed to, the substitute 
amendment No. 2910, as amended, be agreed to; finally, that at 5:30 
p.m. on Monday, June 25, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate 
vote on passage of H.R. 5895, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2915, 2986, 3048, 2999, 3054, 2978, 3059, 2980, 
2996, 3042, 2961, 2963, 2997, 2939, 3068, 2953, 3053, 3051, 3057, 3056, 
2949, 2960, 2924, 2925, 2934, 3013, 3050, 2992, 2955, 3032, 3066, 2957, 
and 3038) were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2915

               (Purpose: To make a technical correction)

       On page 38, line 10, strike ``$89,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$89,372,000''.


                           amendment no. 2986

  (Purpose: To clarify coal to carbon fiber research and development 
                             expenditures)

       On page 24, line 16, insert ``That using funds made 
     available under this heading, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     continue to carry out external Department of Energy 
     activities for advanced coal processing research and 
     development, including by advancing early stage research for 
     converting coal pitch and coal to carbon fiber and other 
     value-added products for alternative uses of coal: Provided 
     further,'' before ``That of such amount''.


                           amendment no. 3048

     (Purpose: To reauthorize Colorado River System pilot projects)

       At the end of title II of division A, add the following:
       Sec. 2__. (a) Section 206(c)(2) of the Energy and Water 
     Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (43 
     U.S.C. 620 note; Public Law 113-235) is amended by striking 
     ``2018.'' and inserting the following: ``2022: Provided, That 
     the Secretary shall not fund pilot projects in the Upper 
     Colorado River Basin without the participation of the Upper 
     Colorado River Division States, acting through the Upper 
     Colorado River Commission.''.
       (b) Section 9504(e) of the Secure Water Act of 2009 (42 
     U.S.C. 10364(e)) is amended by striking ``$450,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$480,000,000''.


                           amendment no. 2999

    (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for certain releases or 
discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee Estuary 
                      or the Indian River Lagoon)

       At the end of title I of division A, add the following:
       Sec. 106.  None of the funds made available by this title 
     may be used by the Corps of Engineers to conduct a release or 
     discharge of water from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee 
     Estuary or the Indian River Lagoon unless the discharge or 
     release--
       (1) is conducted in pulses to minimize downstream impacts 
     from reduced water quality and harmful algal blooms to local 
     communities and wildlife habitat; or
       (2) is necessary--
       (A) to protect the integrity of the Herbert Hoover Dike; 
     and
       (B) to minimize threats to lives and human health in the 
     communities surrounding Lake Okeechobee.


                           amendment no. 3054

 (Purpose: To ensure the use of certain funds for projects relating to 
                         deep-draft navigation)

       On page 2, line 12, of the amendment, strike the period at 
     the end and insert ``of which not less than $100,000,000 
     shall be used for projects relating to deep-draft 
     navigation.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2978

       (Purpose: To provide funding for water infrastructure 
     projects.)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of June 19, 2018, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3059

       (Purpose: To include certain provisions relating to Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric projects.)

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 2980

 (Purpose: To clarify certain cost-sharing requirements applicable to 
       awards from the Energy Technology Commercialization Fund)

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. 3____.  In making awards from the Energy Technology 
     Commercialization Fund established under section 1001(e) of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16391(e)), the 
     requirements for matching funds shall be determined by the 
     Secretary of Energy in accordance with section 988 of that 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 16352).

[[Page S4334]]

  



                           amendment no. 2996

 (Purpose: To provide that funds made available for the Office of the 
 Inspector General of the Department of Energy shall be used to fully 
              meet certain data transparency requirements)

       On page 31, line 16, insert ``: Provided, That of such 
     amount, such amounts as are necessary shall be available to 
     ensure that the Office of the Inspector General fully meets 
     the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and 
     Transparency Act of 2006 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note; Public Law 
     109-292)'' before the period.


                           amendment no. 3042

 (Purpose: To include a provision relating to transfers from the Upper 
                       Colorado River Basin Fund)

       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:
       Sec. 30___.  Pursuant to section 1807 of the Grand Canyon 
     Protection Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4672), 
     section 3(d)(1) of Public Law 106-392 (114 Stat. 1604), 
     section 601(b) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1551(b)), and section 15 of the Act of April 11, 1956 
     (commonly known as the ``Colorado River Storage Project 
     Act'') (43 U.S.C. 620n) of the offsetting collections in the 
     Upper Colorado River Basin Fund of the Western Area Power 
     Administration for repayment of capital costs, $23,000,000 
     may be transferred to the Upper Colorado Basin Fund.


                           amendment no. 2961

  (Purpose: To extend the authorization for the Fort Peck Rural Water 
                                System)

       At the appropriate place in division A, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  Section 9 of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural 
     Water System Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-382; 114 Stat. 1457, 
     123 Stat. 2856, 128 Stat. 164) is amended by striking 
     ``2020'' each place it appears in subsections (a)(1) and (b) 
     and inserting ``2026''.


                           amendment no. 2963

 (Purpose: To set aside funds for the Regional Test Centers for Solar 
               Technologies of the Department of Energy)

       On page 22, line 25, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated under this heading, $4,050,000 shall be made 
     available for the Photovoltaic Regional Test Centers for 
     Solar Technologies of the Department of Energy to ensure the 
     continued operation of each Regional Test Center for Solar 
     Technologies of the Department of Energy, as in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.''.


                           amendment no. 2997

(Purpose: To support the development and deployment of high-efficiency 
                linear generator power plant technology)

       On page 22, line 25, strike ``direction.'' and insert 
     ``direction: Provided further, That of such amount, not less 
     than $1,000,000 shall be used to support the development and 
     deployment of high-efficiency linear generator power plant 
     technology, which, for purposes of stationary electric power 
     production, is equivalent to fuel cell power plant 
     technology.''.


                           amendment no. 2939

(Purpose: To require a report on Corps of Engineers activities relating 
                    to inland and coastal projects)

       At the end of title I of division A, add the following:
       Sec. 1__.  Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit 
     to Congress a report that--
       (1) describes the history of Corps of Engineers funding 
     requests and actual appropriations for the last 10 fiscal 
     years preceding the date of enactment of this Act for the 
     flood and coastal storm damage reduction business line, 
     including a list of all requests for coastal and inland 
     investigations, construction, and operation and maintenance;
       (2) provides a definition for the terms ``coastal project'' 
     and ``inland project'' that the Corps of Engineers uses with 
     respect to those projects under the flood and coastal storm 
     damage reduction business line;
       (3) provides an analysis of the changes in the comparative 
     funding for coastal projects and inland projects under that 
     business line;
       (4) provides an explanation for the discrepancy in funding 
     between coastal projects and inland projects under that 
     business line; and
       (5) includes recommendations on ways to correct the 
     discrepancy described in paragraph (4).


                           amendment no. 3068

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that certain Corps of 
Engineers projects should receive consideration for additional funding)

       At the end of title I of division A, add the following:
       Sec. 1__.  It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) ongoing construction of projects that principally 
     benefit urban areas, including rainfall drainage systems that 
     address flood damages, should receive consideration for 
     additional funding;
       (2) any additional funding described in paragraph (1) is in 
     addition to the budget request submitted to Congress by the 
     President; and
       (3) the projects described in paragraph (1) should not be 
     excluded from consideration for being inconsistent with the 
     policy of the administration.


                           amendment no. 2953

 (Purpose: To provide adequate funds for the Surplus Books Program of 
                        the Library of Congress)

       On page 85, line 18, insert ``: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, $250,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for the Surplus Books Program to 
     promote the program and facilitate a greater number of 
     donations to eligible entities across the United States'' 
     before the period.


                           amendment no. 3053

 (Purpose: To provide funds to reduce or eliminate the use of plastic 
  straws in facilities under the care of the Architect of the Capitol)

       On page 79, line 22, insert ``, and not more than $5,000 
     that shall be used by the Architect of the Capitol to work 
     with contractors to eliminate or reduce the use of plastic 
     straws in facilities of the legislative branch that are under 
     the care of the Architect of the Capitol'' before ``; for''.

                           amendment no. 3051

    (Purpose: To appropriate funds for the Veterans History Project)

       On page 85, line 18, insert ``: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, $2,383,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for the Veterans History Project to 
     continue digitization efforts of already collected materials, 
     reach a greater number of veterans to record their stories, 
     and promote public access to the Project'' before the period 
     at the end.


                           amendment no. 3057

 (Purpose: To require that funds made available for the Congressional 
  Budget Office be used to improve the tranparency of scoring and the 
  availability and replicability of models, economic assumptions, and 
                      data to Members of Congress)

       On page 79, line 7, insert ``: Provided, that the Director 
     shall use not less than $500,000 of the amount made available 
     under this heading for (1) improving technical systems, 
     processes, and models for the purpose of improving the 
     transparency of estimates of budgetary effects to Members of 
     Congress, employees of Members of Congress, and the public, 
     and (2) to increase the availability of models, economic 
     assumptions, and data for Members of Congress, employees of 
     Members of Congress, and the public'' before the period.


                           amendment no. 3056

          (Purpose: To protect programs for homeless veterans)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to transfer 
     funds made available for the following programs:
       (1) The Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem program.
       (2) The Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans program.
       (3) The Supportive Services for Veteran Families program.
       (4) The Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     Department of Veterans Affairs Supported Housing (HUD-VASH) 
     programs.
       (5) The Health Care for Homeless Veterans program.


                           amendment no. 2949

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to 
Congress a report on the program of support services for caregivers of 
            veterans of the Department of Veterans Affairs)

       At the end of title II of division C, add the following:

     SEC. 2__. REPORT ON CAREGIVER SUPPORT PROGRAM.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     House of Representatives a report that contains--
       (1) the number of coordinators of caregiver support 
     services under the program of support services for caregivers 
     of veterans under section 1720G(b) of title 38, United States 
     Code, at each medical center of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs;
       (2) the number of staff assigned to appeals for such 
     program at each such medical center; and
       (3) a determination by the Secretary of the appropriate 
     staff-to-participant ratio for such program.


                           amendment no. 2960

   (Purpose: To direct the Secretaryof Veterans Affairs to establish 
within the Department of Veterans Affairs a center of excellence in the 
  prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of 
          health conditiona relating to exposureto burn pits)

       At the end of title II of division C, add the following:

     SEC. 2__. ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN 
                   PREVENTION, DIAGNOSIS, MITIGATION, TREATMENT, 
                   AND REHABILITATION OF HEALTH CONDITIONS 
                   RELATING TO EXPOSURE TO BURN PITS AND OTHER 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

[[Page S4335]]

  


     ``Sec. 7330D. Center of excellence in prevention, diagnosis, 
       mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of health 
       conditions relating to exposure to burn pits and other 
       environmental exposures

       ``(a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary shall establish 
     within the Department a center of excellence in the 
     prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and 
     rehabilitation of health conditions relating to exposure to 
     burn pits and other environmental exposures to carry out the 
     responsibilities specified in subsection (d).
       ``(2) The Secretary shall establish the center of 
     excellence under paragraph (1) through the use of--
       ``(A) the directives and policies of the Department in 
     effect as of the date of the enactment of this section;
       ``(B) the recommendations of the Comptroller General of the 
     United States and Inspector General of the Department in 
     effect as of such date; and
       ``(C) guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense under 
     section 313 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note).
       ``(b) Selection of Site.--In selecting the site for the 
     center of excellence established under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consider entities that--
       ``(1) are equipped with the specialized equipment needed to 
     study, diagnose, and treat health conditions relating to 
     exposure to burn pits and other environmental exposures;
       ``(2) have a track record of publishing information 
     relating to post-deployment health exposures among veterans 
     who served in the Armed Forces in support of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom;
       ``(3) have access to animal models and in vitro models of 
     dust immunology and lung injury consistent with the injuries 
     of members of the Armed Forces who served in support of 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; and
       ``(4) have expertise in allergy, immunology, and pulmonary 
     diseases.
       ``(c) Collaboration.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     center of excellence collaborates, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, with the Secretary of Defense, institutions of 
     higher education, and other appropriate public and private 
     entities (including international entities) to carry out the 
     responsibilities specified in subsection (d).
       ``(d) Responsibilities.--The center of excellence shall 
     have the following responsibilities:
       ``(1) To provide for the development, testing, and 
     dissemination within the Department of best practices for the 
     treatment of health conditions relating to exposure to burn 
     pits and other environmental exposures.
       ``(2) To provide guidance for the health systems of the 
     Department and the Department of Defense in determining the 
     personnel required to provide quality health care for members 
     of the Armed Forces and veterans with health conditions 
     relating to exposure to burn pits and other environmental 
     exposures.
       ``(3) To establish, implement, and oversee a comprehensive 
     program to train health professionals of the Department and 
     the Department of Defense in the treatment of health 
     conditions relating to exposure to burn pits and other 
     environmental exposures.
       ``(4) To facilitate advancements in the study of the short-
     term and long-term effects of exposure to burn pits and other 
     environmental exposures.
       ``(5) To disseminate within medical facilities of the 
     Department best practices for training health professionals 
     with respect to health conditions relating to exposure to 
     burn pits and other environmental exposures.
       ``(6) To conduct basic science and translational research 
     on health conditions relating to exposure to burn pits and 
     other environmental exposures for the purposes of 
     understanding the etiology of such conditions and developing 
     preventive interventions and new treatments.
       ``(7) To provide medical treatment to veterans diagnosed 
     with medical conditions specific to exposure to burn pits and 
     other environmental exposures.
       ``(e) Use of Burn Pits Registry Data.--In carrying out its 
     responsibilities under subsection (d), the center of 
     excellence shall have access to and make use of the data 
     accumulated by the burn pits registry established under 
     section 201 of the Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' 
     Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-260; 38 
     U.S.C. 527 note).
       ``(f) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out this section 
     using amounts appropriated to the Department for such 
     purpose.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `burn pit' means an area of land located in 
     Afghanistan or Iraq that--
       ``(A) is designated by the Secretary of Defense to be used 
     for disposing solid waste by burning in the outdoor air; and
       ``(B) does not contain a commercially manufactured 
     incinerator or other equipment specifically designed and 
     manufactured for the burning of solid waste.
       ``(2) The term `other environmental exposures' means 
     exposure to environmental hazards, including burn pits, dust 
     or sand, hazardous materials, and waste at any site in 
     Afghanistan or Iraq that emits smoke containing pollutants 
     present in the environment or smoke from fires or 
     explosions.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 73 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 7330C the following new 
     item:

``7330D. Center of excellence in prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, 
              treatment, and rehabilitation of health conditions 
              relating to exposure to burn pits and other environmental 
              exposures.''.


                           amendment no. 2924

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to 
    Congress a plan to avoid clinicial mistakes by employees of the 
   Department of Veterans Affairs that result in adverse events that 
                      require certain disclosures)

       At the end of title II of division C, add the following:

     SEC. 2__. PLAN TO AVOID CLINICAL MISTAKES BY EMPLOYEES OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS THAT RESULT IN 
                   ADVERSE EVENTS THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN 
                   DISCLOSURES.

       (a) Plan Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a plan to reduce the chances that clinical mistakes 
     by employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs will 
     result in adverse events that require institutional or 
     clinical disclosures and to prevent any unnecessary hardship 
     for patients and families impacted by such adverse events.
       (b) Elements.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of a process for the timely 
     identification of individuals impacted by disclosures 
     described in subsection (a) and the process for contacting 
     those individuals or their next of kin.
       (2) A description of procedures for expediting any remedial 
     or follow-up care required for those individuals.
       (3) A detailed outline of proposed changes to the process 
     of the Department for clinical quality checks and oversight.
       (4) A communication plan to ensure all facilities of the 
     Department are made aware of any requirements updated 
     pursuant to the plan.
       (5) A timeline detailing the implementation of the plan.
       (6) An identification of the senior executive of the 
     Department responsible for ensuring compliance with the plan.
       (7) An identification of potential impacts of the plan on 
     timely diagnoses for patients.
       (8) An identification of the processes and procedures for 
     employees of the Department to make leadership at the 
     facility and the Department aware of adverse events that are 
     concerning and that result in disclosures and to ensure that 
     the medical impact on veterans of such disclosures is 
     minimized.
       (c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Subcommittee 
     on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 
     Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; 
     and
       (2) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Subcommittee 
     on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 
     Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.


                           amendment no. 2925

  (Purpose: To make a technical correction to title III of division C)

       On page 168, line 17, strike ``$15,000'' and insert 
     ``$42,000''.


                           amendment no. 2934

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a 
   means to track and monitor information on debts of persons to the 
  United States by virtue of the persons' participation in a benefits 
 program administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, including 
    because of an overpayment by the Department of Veterans Affairs)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. TRACKING AND MONITORING INFORMATION ABOUT DEBTS TO 
                   UNITED STATES INCURRED FROM OVERPAYMENT BY 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OR FOR OTHER 
                   REASONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall develop a means to track and monitor information on--
       (1) the age and amount of debts of persons to the United 
     States by virtue of the persons' participation in a benefits 
     program administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
       (2) whether such debts may be the result of delays in 
     Department of Veterans Affairs processing of changes to 
     beneficiary status or other actions of the Department; and
       (3) whether such debts are disputed by such persons.
       (b) Report.--The Department should also be required to 
     submit a report to congress no later than 90 days after 
     development of the tracking means (so, 270 days after 
     enactment).


                           amendment no. 3013

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to publish the 
   quality rating of each nursing home of the Department of Veterans 
                                Affairs)

       At the end of title II of division C, add the following:

[[Page S4336]]

  


     SEC. 2__. PUBLICATION OF QUALITY RATING OF NURSING HOMES OF 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress and publish 
     in the Federal Register and on a publicly available Internet 
     website of the Department of Veterans Affairs the rating 
     assigned by the Department to each nursing home of the 
     Department with respect to quality of care, including all 
     internal metrics and criteria used in determining such 
     rating.
       (b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.


                           amendment no. 3050

    (Purpose: To require the Inspector General of the Department of 
 Veterans Affairs to conduct an investigation of all nursing homes of 
 the Department of Veterans Affairs with an overall one-star rating as 
           determined by the rating system of the Department)

       At the end of title II of division C, add the following:
       Sec. 2__.  The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs shall conduct an investigation of all 
     nursing homes of the Department of Veterans Affairs that had 
     an overall one-star rating within the two full calendar years 
     prior to the year of enactment, as determined by the rating 
     system of the Department.


                           amendment no. 2992

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available under this Act in 
 a manner that would increase wait times for veterans who seek care at 
       medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs)

       At the end of title II of division C, add the following:
       Sec. 2__.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in a manner that would increase wait times for 
     veterans who seek care at medical facilities of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.


                           amendment no. 2955

  (Purpose: To prevent the use of funds made available by this Act to 
 modernize or realign facilities of the Veterans Health Administration 
   in States in which the Department does not operate a full-service 
medical facility unless the Secretary of Veterans Affairs certifies to 
 Congress that such modernization or realignment will not result in a 
           disruption or reduction of services for veterans)

       At the end of title II of division C, add the following:
       Sec. 2__.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 
     modernization or realignment of facilities of the Veterans 
     Health Administration in States in which the Department does 
     not operate a full-service medical facility pursuant to 
     recommendations by the Asset and Infrastructure Review 
     Commission under the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act 
     of 2018 (subtitle A of title II of Public Law 115-182) until 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Commission a 
     report certifying that such modernization or realignment will 
     not result in a disruption or reduction of services for 
     veterans residing in those States.


                           amendment no. 3032

   (Purpose: To limit the conversion of funds for the Department of 
 Veterans Affairs program to improve retention of housing by formerly 
      homeless veterans and veterans at risk of becoming homeless)

       At the appropriate place in title II of division C, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON CONVERSION OF FUNDS FOR PROGRAM TO 
                   IMPROVE RETENTION OF HOUSING BY FORMERLY 
                   HOMELESS VETERANS AND VETERANS AT RISK OF 
                   BECOMING HOMELESS.

       The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not convert any of 
     the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in a 
     fiscal year to carry out section 2013 of title 38, United 
     States Code, from a specific purpose program to a general 
     purpose program unless the Secretary included a proposal to 
     do so in the budget justification materials submitted to 
     Congress in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     budget for such fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of 
     the President for such fiscal year under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code).


                           amendment no. 3066

      (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress relating to the 
               Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan)

       At the end of title I of division A, add the following:
       Sec. 1__. (a) Congress finds that--
       (1) the restoration of the Everglades, as described in the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan authorized by title 
     VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 
     106-541; 114 Stat. 2680) (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Plan''), is the most ambitious environmental restoration 
     program in history;
       (2) the overarching objectives of the Plan are the 
     restoration, preservation, and protection of the south 
     Florida ecosystem, while providing for other water-related 
     needs of the region, including water supply and flood 
     protection;
       (3) the Plan should continue to be implemented as 
     authorized--
       (A) to ensure--
       (i) the protection of water quality in the south Florida 
     ecosystem;
       (ii) the reduction of the loss of fresh water from the 
     south Florida ecosystem; and
       (iii) the improvement of the environment of the south 
     Florida ecosystem; and
       (B) to achieve and maintain the benefits to the natural 
     system and human environment described in the Plan; and
       (4) the equal partnership between the Federal Government 
     and the State of Florida remains essential to accomplishing 
     the objectives of the Plan.
       (b) It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the discharge of excess water by the Corps of Engineers 
     from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee Estuary and the 
     Indian River Lagoon represents a significant loss of fresh 
     water from the South Florida ecosystem;
       (2) the diversion of those Lake Okeechobee discharges to 
     Plan projects or features like the Everglades Agricultural 
     Area Storage Reservoir, designed to store and treat water 
     prior to release into the Central Everglades, is an essential 
     source of fresh water for meeting the objectives of the Plan; 
     and
       (3) the Plan authorizes a 50/50 Federal-State cost share 
     for all aspects of congressionally authorized restoration 
     projects, including water quality project features or 
     components.


                           amendment no. 2957

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on the 
  potential for natural gas demand response across energy sectors and 
                          geographic regions)

       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:
       Sec. 3. (a) The Secretary of Energy (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a study on the 
     potential for natural gas demand response across energy 
     sectors and geographic regions.
       (b) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the results of study conducted under subsection (a), 
     including--
       (1) a description and quantification of--
       (A) potential natural gas and energy savings and load 
     shifting; and
       (B) the costs and benefits associated with those savings, 
     including avoided energy costs, reduced market price 
     volatility, improved electric and gas system reliability, 
     deferred or avoided pipeline or utility capital investment, 
     and air emissions reductions;
       (2) an identification of geographic areas that would 
     benefit most from implementing demand response measures for 
     natural gas infrastructure; and
       (3) a description of--
       (A) existing and emerging technologies that can be used for 
     demand response in the natural gas sector; and
       (B) best practices for developing a strategy for deployment 
     of those technologies in the natural gas sector.


                           amendment no. 3038

  (Purpose: To require a report on cell site simulators detected near 
                facilities of the Department of Defense)

       At the appropriate place in division C, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. REPORT ON CELL SITE SIMULATORS DETECTED NEAR 
                   FACILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a full accounting of cell site simulators 
     detected near facilities of the Department of Defense during 
     the three year period ending on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and the actions taken by the Secretary to protect 
     personnel of the Department, their families, and facilities 
     of the Department from foreign powers using such technology 
     to conduct surveillance.

  The amendment (No. 2911) was agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2910) in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.

                          ____________________