[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 26, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4531-S4557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE AND
SECURITY AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER ACT, 2019
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3401, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3401) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
S. 1790
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise to address two very important
bills that are before the Senate this week--the National Defense
Authorization Act and the border supplemental appropriations bill.
First, on the NDAA, I am pleased that this bill meets the needs of
our all-volunteer force by providing the brave men and women with one
of the largest raises in a decade, that of 3.1 percent. With the rising
threat of countries such as China, Russia, and Iran, this NDAA
authorizes funding for crucial defense efforts to make certain that our
military is well prepared and equipped to defend this Nation from the
threats and challenges we face.
The NDAA substitute actually includes an amendment I offered, joined
by my Senate Environment and Public Works chairman, John Barrasso, of
Wyoming, by Ranking Member Carper, and by several other bipartisan
cosponsors. This amendment will formally address the PFAS contamination
about which I have spoken on the floor. It directly mirrors my
legislation, the PFAS Release Disclosure and Protection Act, which the
committee approved last week.
PFAS pollution is a nationwide problem, but its effects are
concentrated locally, often in rural and disadvantaged communities,
especially those near military installations where large volumes of
certain firefighting foams have been deployed. Significant exposure to
the legacy compounds of PFOA and PFOS have been linked to rare cancers
and developmental issues.
I got involved with this issue because it is important but also
because two communities in West Virginia were all too familiar with the
PFAS contamination and its effects--Parkersburg, WV, which has endured
a history of industrial PFAS contamination, and Martinsburg, which has
been impacted by the use of firefighting foams.
My amendment will provide certainty to our citizens that the water
coming out of their taps is safe--in my opinion, that is really not
much to ask--by requiring that the EPA set a safe drinking water
standard for PFOS and PFOA within 2 years and that it look at
regulating other types of PFAS chemicals as the science would merit.
It also provides funding and technical assistance to ensure that
small and rural water systems can monitor and address this
contamination. That is a big issue for our rural State. We have a lot
of small water systems, and we want them to have the same access to the
science but also to the remediation that large systems have.
My legislation will also improve transparency by requiring emitters
to report to the EPA the release of any of one of hundreds of PFAS
compounds into the environment. Sure, we want to know that. Sure, we
do. This information is essential for citizens, their local
governments, and Federal agencies to be able to quickly and adequately
respond to this pollution before it pervades the water or the soil. I
think this increased accountability will contribute to there being
fewer PFAS emissions in the first place.
Several other bipartisan provisions will accelerate research into
PFAS and their effects on human health and the environment. It will
ensure collaboration between Federal agencies and municipalities in
addressing the challenges posed by contamination, and it will support
the research and development into cleaning up these persistent
compounds.
Crucially, this approach is rooted in science and a formal rulemaking
process. We have put the Federal Government on a shot clock to act to
end agencies' endless delays in addressing these challenges without
short-circuiting the regulatory procedures.
Make no mistake--PFAS are essential to commerce, but some have been
shown to carry substantial risks. This balanced regulatory strategy
should provide the confidence to Americans that we are serious about
protecting them from this pollution while also not upending the
economy.
Another important environmental provision that is included in the
NDAA substitute is the USE IT Act, which I introduced with Senator
Whitehouse, Ranking Member Carper, and its lead
[[Page S4532]]
sponsor, Chairman Barrasso. The USE IT Act follows up on the bipartisan
expansion of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture, utilization, and
storage, which was passed last Congress.
CCUS is key to eliminating CO2 emissions while protecting
West Virginia's coal and natural gas jobs. Trying to weave that balance
is difficult sometimes, but the USE IT Act would provide CCUS project
sponsors with a regulatory playbook so that they would know what
Federal agencies' expectations are at the start of the process. This is
essential for capital-intensive projects in their drawing private
investment without having the fear of getting trapped in a regulatory
purgatory.
Our decades-old environmental statutes never predicted a situation in
which emissions would be captured and then actually used for an
economic benefit. Carbon provides that opportunity, but regulatory
standards that do not reflect this new reality, like New Source Review,
sometimes get in the way. The USE IT Act addresses these issues, and it
will also fund studies into the pollution reduction benefits of these
technologies.
This is the sort of bipartisan and consensus-driven approach that
will have a meaningful impact on emissions while it will protect jobs
and drive innovation in the American economy, and I am glad that we are
taking a significant step toward enacting this bill.
I thank Chairman Inhofe and the Armed Services Committee for their
excellent work on the NDAA. It is important that we pass this bill this
week.
H.R. 3401
Mr. President, I am also pleased that the Senate will soon vote to
pass bipartisan legislation to provide resources that will address the
humanitarian crisis at our southern border. I am the chairman of the
Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, and I have spoken
many times about the need to pass a supplemental funding bill.
Last night, the House of Representatives passed its version of the
emergency border supplemental.
Actually, to be more accurate, I would say the Democrats in the House
passed their partisan version of a Homeland Security bill. I think the
top-line numbers in the House bill may be similar, but the policy
implications of that bill are vast.
Time is of the essence here. I spoke about this last week on the
floor. Time is moving quickly to meet this crisis that everyone agrees
is occurring at our southern border.
The partisan House bill would be vetoed by President Trump. What is
needed is not more partisanship; what is needed is a bill that will
become law so that we can get those resources to the southern border.
That is why I am encouraged and proud that a bipartisan compromise was
reached in the Senate Appropriations Committee. We passed it out of
that committee 30 to 1 last week.
We may not agree on how we got here or how best to move forward, but
we agree that there is a crisis--a major crisis--and that these
resources are needed now. The metrics, the images, and the stories we
all see and hear point to the urgency of this dire situation, so our
committee worked in a serious and bipartisan way, under the leadership
of Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy, to address the pressing
issues as they are right now.
We can and we must work toward a long-term solution to address the
immigration system, but right now, today, we all agree that a problem
exists, and our committee has provided a bipartisan solution, which the
leader just said we will be voting on later this afternoon. Let us move
forward in that spirit on behalf of the families and the men and women
in law enforcement who need our support. It is tough down there. I
visited; it is tough.
It is crucial that the Senate pass the bipartisan border supplemental
funding bill that we passed in the Appropriations Committee last week,
and I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting it today. We
have waited long enough. We can't afford to wait any longer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
S. 1790
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about a bill we
should pass this week--I believe we will pass this week--for the 59th
straight year.
There are very few things we authorize every year--frankly, there are
very few things we need to authorize every year--but the authorizing
bill in defense is the opportunity for the country and the Congress to
look at what we need to do now that is more appropriate than what we
needed to do a year ago to defend the country.
Certainly the men and women who serve in the military do that job in
a selfless way, and they deserve the best we can do to be sure they are
never involved in an unfair fight. We want to be sure they are always
involved in a fight in which they have every possible advantage. They
put their lives on the line to keep us safe, and it is up to us to be
sure they have the equipment, the training, and the authorization they
need and the authorities they need to carry out their work.
Every year about this time, we move toward the authorizing of what
the Congress thinks the military needs. That is followed later by an
appropriations bill that is directed in substantial ways by what this
bill says should happen. In fact, the only thing the appropriations
bill normally does is determine whether it can all be funded and in
what segments it is to be funded.
We are debating this bill. I hope both Chambers--the House and the
Senate--can pass this authorization bill as we move on to our next step
in this process of defending the country.
I think you can argue about almost anything else the Federal
Government does, but the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government is to
defend the country--the No. 1 thing that we clearly cannot do by
ourselves; the No. 1 thing that State and local government can be a
partner in on some occasions, but it is not their responsibility, and
they do not have the capacity to do what we need to do to defend the
country. So we are here to take this important step in that.
This version, the Senate's version for this year, authorizes $750
billion to support the Department of Defense and the nuclear and other
defense responsibilities of the Department of Energy. Our adversaries
are clearly increasing their military capabilities and their military
commitments, and we need to be prepared to do just the same.
The burden of defending the country is an important one, and,
frankly, it falls on a very small percentage of our population. About
one-half of 1 percent of the American people serve in the military. We
owe an obligation to that one-half of 1 percent to do our best for
them.
This bill supports an across-the-board pay increase of 3.1 percent--a
little more than inflation. It is the largest increase in nearly a
decade at a time when the people who serve see challenges in more areas
than we have seen in a while and coming from different directions than
we have seen in a while.
This bill reforms military housing. Leader after leader in the
military will tell us and make the point that the strength of the
military is military families. So in military housing, particularly the
family housing, there was thought to be a great idea a couple of
decades ago to privatize family housing. For a couple of years, it
looked like a great idea, but I think it is time we look again at our
housing obligations and how they are being met.
We need to look at what we can do to be sure that the spouses of
those serving have an opportunity, when they are transferred to a new
location, to be able to get to work as quickly as possible in the field
they are prepared to work in. In Missouri, in January of this year, the
first spouse of someone who had been transferred to our State was sworn
in immediately to the bar so she could immediately begin practicing
law. Like any attorney, there are probably some future legal training
requirements during the course of the following months. But to be able
to go to work--whether as a medical technician or a doctor or a lawyer
or an electrician or a welder--should be a priority of the country.
I asked Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, when she testified
before the committee: What is the best thing we can do for military
families? I sponsored some legislation a few years ago so that military
families can move earlier or stay longer for a job, for work, or for
school. That makes a
[[Page S4533]]
difference to their families. If you need to go 2 months earlier than
your serving spouse to get started in the school year at the right time
or if you need to stay 2 months later or need up to 6 months of
transition time, that is available now. Of course, that is beginning to
have an impact on people's decision to stay in the military, if their
family is considered as a priority and flexibility is part of that
priority.
I asked Secretary Wilson for two things that we still need
improvement on. One was to be sure to have the best schools possible
near those military bases, and two was to be sure that spouses can go
to work and that they can go to work, if they want to go to work, in
the area they are trained for. So this allows for more effort to be
made, to be sure that we are working with the Council of State
Governments on a certification program where you could move to a State
and quickly be doing that. Reciprocal opportunities for that quick
transition is important.
There are changes in this bill that support families with special
needs and support how you deal with a childcare provider on a military
base, and there are things here to enhance suicide prevention and
family advocacy programs. These are all critical, not only for people
serving but for people wanting to continue to serve.
As I said before, the military family is one of our Nation's greatest
assets, and the serving spouse is not the only one serving. The serving
spouse is not the only one transferred to a new military location. The
serving spouse is not the only one who has to be happy with the
commitment to decide that you are going to go ahead and reenlist, and
we need to be aware of that.
This legislation supports military construction projects, including
the Army National Guard Readiness Center in Springfield, MO, where I
live; the vehicle maintenance facility at Whiteman Air Force Base in
our State; and the C-130 flight simulator facility at Rosecrans in St.
Joe. They are all included in this authorization project. Projects like
these are necessary to ensure that our military is ready to fight and
also to support their needs when they are at home.
America's defense posture includes what is known as the nuclear
triad. This means that we have three ways we can deliver a nuclear
warhead. We hope to never have to have that happen. But if our
adversaries have this capacity, our capacity has to exceed theirs, and
this bill ensures that that continues to be the case.
The 509th and the 131st Bomb Wings at Whiteman Air Force Base host
one of the legs of that triad. Earlier this year, the Air Force
announced that Missouri will host the B-2's replacement. The principal
B-2 location at Whiteman Air Force Base will host the B-21 Raider as it
becomes available to replace that plane that has served the country for
so long. I am proud to support what we need to do to make that
transition.
There are other aircraft that we need to be sure have a viable part
in the country's future. The NDAA bill we are talking about provides an
additional 24 F-18 Super Hornets to the Navy and begins the purchase of
8 F-15s for the Air Force. All those planes are made in St. Louis.
The bill also includes critical mission support for the A-10 Warthog,
a plane that our colleague Senator McSally is pleased to have flown and
flown well. By the way, I had a chance to introduce her the other day,
and I almost ran out of firsts. She was the first woman to fly in
combat and the first woman to command a combat unit in combat. She has
356 combat hours that she herself flew. She is the first person, of 260
senior military officers, to graduate No. 1 in that advanced training
class.
The Missouri National Guard also flies the A-10. I have been with
them when they were flying in Eastern Europe. That A-10 capacity
continues to be critical.
The NDAA authorizes missile programs between the United States and
Israel, where we have actually learned that you can target an incoming
missile. Things like the Iron Dome, Arrow 3, David's Sling, have all--
fortunately for Israel, fortunately for our military capacity--been
proven to work against incoming missiles. These programs help Israel
defend itself. They also increase our capability to do what they need
to do.
Finally, Senator Hawley from Missouri, Senator Manchin from West
Virginia, and I have proposed an amendment to the NDAA to make May 1
Silver Star Service Banner Day. Along with Senator McCaskill, my
colleague who just left, I have been doing this annually for some time.
We think this would be a great year to make this a permanent
recognition of the Silver Star families.
I would particularly like to recognize Diana Lynn Newton, the
cofounder of Silver Star Families of America, who passed away earlier
this year. She and her husband Steve were the driving force behind the
organization, and they helped thousands of veterans who were otherwise
getting very little recognition for their Silver Star service. We are
saddened by that loss. Hopefully, one of the things we will do in this
bill to recognize her great commitment is to make the Silver Star
recognition day an annual event.
There are bipartisan priorities here in this bill that deal with the
needs of the military and their families. The pay raise is a
significant part of this bill. But being sure that the No. 1 job of the
Federal Government--defending the country--continues to be recognized
as the No. 1 job makes this unique annual reauthorization of the
Defense bill so important. I look forward to seeing this Congress pass
this bill this week in the Senate and, hopefully, soon after that, in
both the Senate and the House.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Mississippi.
S. 1790
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I hope we will vote later on today to
advance the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. Members who
have been around here a long time realize what a bipartisan tradition
this has been for the Senate. Those listening to us should appreciate
that and I think take note of basically a half-a-century tradition of
passing this national defense bill on a bipartisan--overwhelmingly
bipartisan--basis each year. We don't let a year pass. We have been
able to successfully do that for approximately half a century. We will
see later on today whether that tradition will continue, and I believe
it will.
I think we will be able to work something out with the House of
Representatives. There are some differences that have emerged over
there that we did not have in the Armed Services Committee when we
reported overwhelmingly just a few weeks ago.
I am very hopeful that we will continue this tradition. I hope we
will do so particularly this year to build on the great progress we
have made the last couple of years. I think we should admit on both
sides of the aisle that we had perhaps let our national security slip a
little in terms of a priority over the last several years. We rectified
that a couple of years ago. What we have done not only at the
authorization level but also at the appropriations level is send a
strong signal to our allies around the world that we are back to
emphasizing strength and back to emphasizing protection of Americans
and American interests but also a signal to those who would wish us
ill.
We know how dangerous the world is now. I think if any of the 100 of
us or those within the sound of my voice were asked the question ``Is
the world safer today than it was 2 years ago when we started on this
quest to rebuild our defense?'' I think the answer would be no. The
world still needs the strength of the United States of America to keep
those trade lines open and to maintain the peace to which we have
become so accustomed.
We will pass this bill, and then we will have the task--and I want
everybody to understand this--we will have the task of getting the
bills done to actually pay for what we authorize. That is where, quite
frankly, I am worried--with some of the talk I hear around town about
perhaps negotiations going on between Democrats and Republicans over
here, between House and Senate Members, and even in the executive
branch--about just not quite getting to a comprehensive appropriations
bill this year.
Perhaps some people say that we can save a little money on the margin
simply by having what we call a continuing resolution--what they call,
at the Pentagon, a CR--to just fund the
[[Page S4534]]
government without directives in the appropriations bill for another
year at the same level that we have, both domestically and militarily.
We know that of that discretionary budget, 50 percent is national
security. Everything else in the Federal Government is called domestic
spending, and that is another 50 percent, approximately.
I am here to tell you that if you ask the experts who are charged
with defending this great United States of America, they will tell you
that a continuing resolution is not only a mistake for the United
States of America, it is a disaster for national defense. We need to
raise this issue and to point out what the people are saying that we
rely on.
The Pentagon has made progress the last couple of years. We have
committed to a 355-ship Navy. We are rebuilding the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marines, and the Coast Guard. I can tell you that a continuing
resolution, according to the experts--the uniformed people we put in
office to make us safe--would reverse this progress. It would stop new
programs, it would curtail production ramp-ups, and it would inhibit
the flexibility necessary to make good resource allocations.
A weeklong CR would be a mistake. A yearlong CR would be a
catastrophe for the defense of the United States of America.
With regard to the Navy and Marine Corps, it would delay heavy
maintenance for the Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier. It would prevent
the new guided missile frigate program from even starting. We have
authorized this. We have already spent money getting ready for it. It
would prevent the new guided missile program from beginning. It would
cut the planned operations and maintenance budget by nearly $6 billion.
It would cut O&M funds that are critical for readiness. It would
prevent 18 critical research and development efforts from starting,
including large, unmanned surface vessel maritime drones and artificial
intelligence development. This would be part of the result of a 1-year
continuing resolution. It would prohibit funding for 33 critical
military construction projects. A 1-year CR or even a shorter CR would
prevent, during its existence, procurement of one Virginia class
submarine, one fleet ocean tug, and two landing craft utility vessels
to support our marines during this time when the world is more
dangerous than it has been in quite a while.
With regard to the Air Force, a 1-year CR would constrain Air Force
spending at fiscal year 2019 levels, decreasing buying power by $11.8
billion. It would halt 88 new investment programs. It would delay
awarding 40 MILCON projects across 18 States and limit the planned
4,400 total force end-strength growth. These are things we already
voted for, but a 1-year CR would stop them. You can't do the extra
4,400 end-strength personnel we need.
With regard to the Army, it would negatively impact recent readiness
gains and hamper modernization.
But don't take my word for it. Every chance I have gotten at
committee level, we have asked the people in charge how a CR would
affect our ability to defend the United States of America.
Here is what Gen. Joe Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, said earlier this year. And he wasn't on some soapbox; he was
just answering questions from a Member of the U.S. Senate. He said:
``[Past CRs have] delayed new starts and it's been incredibly
inefficient in how we prioritize and allocate resources.''
Former Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan said: ``A Continuing
Resolution would hamstring the Department . . . we cannot start new
initiatives . . . our funding would be in the wrong accounts . . . and
we would lose buying power.''
Is that what we want, rather than do our jobs, rather than do hard
negotiations between Democrats and Republicans and the administration
and agree on a figure for domestic and national security that we don't
love but that gets us where we need to be in terms of defending the
country?
Gen. David Goldfein, the top Air Force four star in the land, said:
``[A] CR would have a significantly negative impact.'' Is that what we
want to have for the Air Force, a significantly negative impact? He
said: ``[I]t would put our end strength growth at risk because we would
not be able to bring on the additional Airmen we need.''
GEN James McConville, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, said: ``A
continuing resolution would be devastating to the United States Army.''
This is not a politician; this is somebody who has given his career--
given his professional adult life to being an officer in the U.S. Army.
He said that a continuing resolution ``would be devastating to the
United States Army.''
Surely the elected representatives in the House and Senate can heed
the words of these patriots and come to an agreement.
According to Lt. Gen. David Berger, Deputy Commandant of the Marine
Corps for Combat Development, ``Procurements are going to be delayed.
New starts you cannot do.'' These are new starts that we voted for and
are expecting that the Department wants to do. If we pass a CR, they
will not be able to do a new start.
The worst part about it for us is the unpredictability.
Jim Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, said:
``Budget uncertainty associated with the continuing resolution adds
instability, inefficiency, delays contracting, and delays fielding of
critical capabilities.''
We need to stifle any talk either in this building or the Pentagon or
down the street at the other end of Pennsylvania about a 1-year
continuing resolution as being beneficial to the United States of
America. It would have an impact on every single State that does
military manufacturing.
Those are just a few of the answers that have been given to us by the
professionals we put in charge. Let's give our team what they need.
Let's pass this bill this week, send it to the House, negotiate the
differences that we have at the NDAA level, and patriotically do what
we have done now for 58 straight years, but then, when we get back from
this Independence Day break with our patriotic citizens and our
families, let's get serious about arriving at a compromise number that
gets us where we need to be in terms of continuing to make sure we have
the resources to protect the United States of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Border Security
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this administration is in crisis when it
comes to border security. John Sanders, the acting head of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, resigned yesterday as a result of the growing
scandal and mistreatment of migrants, including children.
According to the Associated Press and NBC News reports, almost 300
migrant children have been removed from a Border Patrol facility in
Texas after media reports of lawyers describing ``appalling'' and
potentially dangerous conditions, DHS officials told NBC News. Lawyers
who recently visited two Texas facilities holding migrant children
described seeing young children and teenagers not being able to take
showers for days or even weeks, inadequate food, flu outbreaks, and
prolonged periods of detention. The facility in question has a capacity
of about 100 people. Yet 300 migrant children were there.
The children who were removed were being held at a border station in
Clint, TX. Some were wearing dirty clothes covered with mucous and even
urine, said one advocacy organization. Teenage mothers wore clothing
stained with breast milk. None of the children had access to soap or
toothpaste, according to officials at the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at
Columbia Law School. Some migrants were sleeping on concrete benches or
even outside at Border Patrol stations. This happened in the United
States of America, not some Third World nation.
One lawyer representing the immigrant children said:
Almost every child I spoke with had not showered or bathed
since they crossed the border--some of them more than three
weeks ago. There is a stench that emanates from some of the
children because they haven't had the opportunity to put on
clean clothes or to take a shower. . . . I have never seen
conditions as appalling as what we witnessed last week. The
children are hungry, dirty and sick and being detained for
long periods of time. . . . Children who are young themselves
are being told by guards they must take care of even younger
children. . . .
[[Page S4535]]
They don't know where their loved ones are who they crossed
the border with.
According to news reports, the children have now been taken to a
detention camp also in El Paso, TX, where they will remain under the
custody of Border Patrol until they can be placed with the Department
of Health and Human Services.
This is outrageous and unacceptable in the United States of America
or in any other country. We can and we must do better. What is
occurring in Texas may very well be a violation of our laws.
Federal law generally requires unaccompanied or separated migrant
children be transferred to HHS within 72 hours, but according to news
reports, some children at the Clint facility had been in Border Patrol
custody for weeks. That is in violation of Federal law. Now news
reports are saying these conditions have been replicated in other
border facilities, such as the Central Processing Center in McAllen,
TX.
Federal law also requires that children and families be held in
``safe and sanitary'' facilities under the Flores settlement. The
public should be shocked that administration lawyers seem to argue that
these horrific conditions do not violate the Flores agreement or
Federal law. One government attorney recently argued that specific
amenities, such as soap, toothbrushes, and even half a night's sleep,
should not be required under the terms of the original settlement. The
argument drew criticism from the panel of judges at the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals.
One panel judge replied during the argument:
To me it's more like it's within everybody's common
understanding: If you don't have a toothbrush, if you don't
have soap, if you don't have a blanket, it's not safe and
sanitary. Wouldn't everybody agree to that? Would you agree
to that?
I certainly hope every Senator agrees with that, and I hope every
American does as well.
We have received conflicting media reports about children being moved
back and forth between different facilities that can only be described
as filthy and not fit for human habitation, particularly for children.
This is not what America should stand for.
President Trump's erratic actions on immigration and border security
have directly contributed to the crisis. Recall that President Trump
had literally shut down the entire U.S. Government in the failed effort
to fund an ineffective border wall. He has threatened to close down
borders entirely. He has cut off security assistance to the very
Central American countries that are trying to address the root causes
of migration, which is contributing to the migrant crisis at our
southern border.
This is an administration that instituted a policy of separating
children from their parents at the border. This is an administration
that proposed a Muslim travel ban. This is an administration that is
deliberately stoking fear by now threatening to tear apart families in
the United States with longstanding ties to the community.
Instead, President Trump should work with Democrats and Republicans
on comprehensive immigration reform. He could start by supporting
legislation I cosponsored entitled the Central America Reform and
Enforcement Act. This legislation would address many of the root causes
of migration and alleviate, not exacerbate, the suffering at our
southern border. This legislation would provide conditional security
assistance to Central American countries to combat the scourge of drug
cartels, violent gangs, and lawlessness that has pushed migrants to
journey north. It would enhance monitoring of unaccompanied children
after they are processed at the border and would ensure fair, orderly,
and efficient processing of those who reach our border seeking
protection.
I am pleased that at 2 o'clock today we will have the opportunity to
act.
Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $4.6 billion
in emergency relief on an overwhelmingly, bipartisan vote--30 to 1.
I am pleased that this legislation will help better protect
vulnerable children in the custody of the Department of Health and
Human Services. The bill seeks to improve inhumane conditions for
migrants in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security. The
legislation improves due process protection for migrants.
The largest portion of this funding measure, $2.88 billion, goes to
the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is in charge of housing
unaccompanied children who are the most vulnerable group of migrants.
This office has advised Congress that it will run out of funds in July
and has already stopped making payments for education, legal, and
refugee support services.
The appropriations measure provides additional funds to assure the
safety and well-being of these children through social services and
case management to place children in appropriate homes, ideally with
family members who are already here in the United States.
The bill requires ORR facilities that house children to comply with
State-based licensure requirements, including minimum standards of
humane care, oversight and transparency, with an exception made for
influx facilities in emergencies.
The bill provides $1.3 billion to address increasingly inhumane
conditions for migrants apprehended and detained at DHS facilities. The
DHS inspector general found dangerous overcrowding at these facilities,
leading to sickness and even death in custody. The measure provides
additional funds for migrant food, clothing, medical, and baby
supplies, as well as funding to nonprofits and local jurisdictions
providing critical social services and shelter to migrants ultimately
released from DHS custody.
The legislation improves due process for migrants and reduces the
court backlog by nearly doubling the Legal Orientation Program, which
will significantly expand the number of migrants who have access to
their services. The bill provides additional funds to hire more
immigration judge teams to reduce backlog of pending immigration cases.
Now let me point out what this legislation does not permit in terms
of reining in some of the worst excesses of President Trump's
disastrous immigration policies. The legislation prohibits funding from
going to the President's border wall or new detention beds and
prohibits DHS from transferring funds for any other purpose. It
prohibits information obtained from potential sponsors of unaccompanied
children from being used in immigration enforcement actions.
I am pleased that last night the House of Representatives passed
their version of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill by a
vote of 230 to 195. The Senate will have an opportunity to vote on this
legislation at 2 o'clock, and I will support it. The House legislation
goes even further than the Senate legislation in enhancing protection
for migrant children in government custody.
I urge the Senate to pass the emergency supplemental appropriations
legislation later today, which provides desperately needed assistance
to the most vulnerable migrants, the children. Let us take steps to end
this humanitarian crisis on our own soil.
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. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthcare
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, on July 9, the Trump administration will
be in court defending the Texas v. United States lawsuit. Let me
rephrase that. They will not be defending the lawsuit. They will be
arguing on the side of the plaintiff in that lawsuit.
This is a virtually unprecedented move. Administrations traditionally
defend the statutes of the United States, no matter what they feel
about the politics of the underlying statute. But the Trump
administration has made the decision to join with 22 Republican
attorneys general to argue that the entirety of the Affordable Care Act
should be dismantled, with nothing to replace it.
There are those of us who believe that it would not be wise policy to
kick 20 million people off of insurance and get rid of all of the
insurance protections in the Affordable Care Act, with no idea as to
what comes next. We have begged our Republican colleagues to join us in
telling the Trump administration--demanding that the Trump
[[Page S4536]]
administration argue against the attorneys general in this case.
I have listened to my Republican friends, and I have listened to the
President himself over and over again say that they don't like the
Affordable Care Act. They want to replace it with something else,
something that insures more people, and something that continues to
protect people with preexisting conditions. If that is your position,
it stands to reason that you would oppose a lawsuit that seeks to
invalidate the entirety of the Affordable Care Act with nothing to
replace it.
The bewitching hour is upon us. The oral arguments are the week after
next. This lawsuit was successful at the district court level, so there
is no reason not to believe there is a substantial possibility that it
could be successful at the appellate court level as well.
I wanted to come to the floor, as we head into this week while we
will be back in our districts, just to make sure that everybody
understands what the stakes are on July 9 when the Trump administration
will argue in court to get rid of insurance for 20 to 30 million
Americans and what the stakes are for this Senate--in particular,
Senate Republicans refusing to stand up to the President in his
perpetuation of this lawsuit.
If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, there are 130 million
Americans with preexisting conditions who could see insurance rates
increase by up to 50 to 60 percent. Others will have their insurance
withdrawn when they go through open enrollment next because no insurer
will cover someone with serious, very expensive preexisting conditions.
That was the way things worked before the Affordable Care Act was
passed.
Gone is Medicaid expansion, which today covers 17 million people
across the country--and I have been happy to see more and more States
with Republican Governors or Republican State legislators adopt the
Medicaid expansions and become a source of bipartisan agreement that
more people should have access to Medicaid--but those 17 million people
will lose their coverage.
There are 12 million seniors who will immediately pay more for
prescription drugs because the Affordable Care Act gets rid of, over
time, essentially the entirety of the Medicare part D doughnut hole.
There are 2.3 million adult children who are on their parents'
insurance until they become 26, who would potentially lose access to
that insurance. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to
cover those kids. Many insurers, without that requirement, would no
longer cover those children.
Then many of the other protections in the marketplace, like bans on
lifetime caps or annual caps, can be lost. Insurers would once again be
back in the practice of saying to a very sick child, a patient with
cancer: You only get x amount of insurance coverage from us, and once
you go beyond that number, then it is on your dime.
Again, remember, before the Affordable Care Act was passed, there
were 1.5 million families every single year in this country who
declared bankruptcy. Today, there are half as many families who declare
bankruptcy in this country. It is not coincidence that studies have
shown us that of those 1.5 million, half of them were declaring
bankruptcy because of medical costs. When you don't go bankrupt any
longer because of medical costs because you have access to affordable
insurance and your insurance company can't kick you off because you get
sick, you don't face the kind of destitution that families faced
before.
So I think it does make sense to run through the lineup of who has
weighed in in favor of this court case to invalidate the entirety of
the Affordable Care Act and knock 20 to 30 million people off of
insurance to jack up rates for millions more and who has weighed in
against it.
Well, the President wants this lawsuit to succeed. Attorneys general
want this lawsuit to succeed. And by the silence of my Republican
colleagues, you would infer that many Republicans may want this lawsuit
to succeed.
But here is who hates this lawsuit. I am not going to run through the
whole list here, but this is essentially anybody who knows anything
about healthcare. This is essentially every organization that
represents people who have serious diseases, every association that
represents doctors, and every association that represents hospitals.
You don't really find all of those groups aligned on much at all
because when you are moving around pieces in the healthcare system,
often you will do something that benefits patients that insurers will
not like or you benefit something at hospitals that single-practice
offices will not like. This is pretty much everybody who says: If you
kick 20 million people off insurance like that and you have no plan to
replace it, that is a humanitarian catastrophe.
Here is what the AARP says in their filing opposing this lawsuit:
If this Court finds that the ACA is invalid, millions of
older adults will lose the healthcare coverage and consumer
protections they have relied on for years. They will also
throw the Medicare and Medicaid programs into fiscal and
administrative chaos, which will disrupt the nation's
healthcare system and economy. It will plunge the more than
100 million people with preexisting conditions into an abyss
of uncertainty about whether they can obtain coverage.
That is the AARP.
Here is what the American Medical Association says: ``The decision
below, if affirmed, would have devastating effects on the quality,
cost, and availability of such care.''
Families USA says: ``Among those whose coverage rates increased due
to Medicaid expansion are young adults, people with HIV, veterans,
rural residents, and racial and ethnic minorities.''
For many of our most vulnerable citizens who are covered by Medicaid,
eliminating the expansion would leave them without healthcare.
I mentioned the insurance companies are against this lawsuit. They
say this: ``Invalidation of the ACA--irrespective of the continued
operation of the so-called individual mandate--would wreak havoc on the
healthcare system.''
Finally, Americans with disabilities say:
The result is a cruel irony: the population that needs
healthcare the most has the hardest time obtaining it. For
the last nine years, the ACA has helped change that.
Stripping away its protections now will reverse the positive
gains that people with disabilities have realized and will
return this community to the same grim reality as before the
ACA, if not place people with disabilities in an even worse
position.
So let's not forget where we were before the Affordable Care Act was
passed. I am not saying that it is perfect. I am not saying that we
shouldn't work together to try to improve it. We just finished a debate
in the Health Committee in which we passed a whole bunch of reforms to
our healthcare system that Republicans and Democrats agree on.
But the American Cancer Society, in their filing, reminds the court:
``A 2009 Harvard Medical School study found approximately 45,000 deaths
annually could be attributed to lack of health insurance among working-
age Americans.''
The Heart Association said this: ``Even during a heart attack,
uninsured patients were more likely to delay seeking medical care
because of the financial implications.''
I could go on and on, reading from these filings or reading from the
testimony that all of these groups have submitted. Again, that is not
to say that these groups don't want changes in our healthcare system.
Nobody on this list, as far as I know, is arguing for the status quo,
just as no one in this body is arguing for the status quo. But to rip
away Medicaid expansion, to rip out from the roots of the healthcare
system the exchanges and the tax credits, to get rid of all of the
insurance protections, to reverse the gains we have made on lowering
prescription drug costs for seniors--to do all of that with nothing to
replace it is to invite misery, destitution, and chaos.
Let's just be honest. We are not ready to ride to the rescue. I
offered an amendment in the Health Committee today just asking for the
Department of Health and Human Services to provide us with a report
about what the landscape would look like in the healthcare system if
Texas v. United States were successful. I didn't get a single
Republican vote for that one. All I was asking was that we just get a
report on how bad it is going to be so
[[Page S4537]]
that we can start doing a little bit of advance planning, and not a
single Republican was willing to vote for that in committee today.
So we are deliberately boxing our eyes and ears about what the
effects on our constituents could be if this lawsuit is successful. We
are not in a position to ride to the rescue. There is no chance that
this Congress is going to pass a new healthcare reform proposal that
will restore healthcare to everybody who lost it. That is not
happening, and I know that is not a surprise to anyone here.
You also shouldn't delude yourself into thinking this lawsuit will
not be successful. There are lots of very smart legal scholars who
suggest that this argument that the plaintiffs are making, which the
Trump administration has endorsed, is nonsense. I tend to agree with
them. The argument is that because you got rid of one section of the
Affordable Care Act, then the court needs to invalidate the rest.
Well, Congress made its intent pretty clear. Republicans decided to
get rid of the individual mandate for the penalty that is assessed if
you don't have insurance and deliberately did not choose to get rid of
the rest of it. I think that is not a smart decision, but the intent of
Congress is pretty clear.
It is my belief that this argument doesn't hold water, and that is
the belief of many smart legal scholars, but the district court ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs. So you already have a Federal judge who
invalidated the entire Affordable Care Act.
Since then, the Trump administration has upped the ante. The district
court finding in favor of the plaintiffs, which invalidates the entire
Affordable Care Act, didn't convince the President to say: Let's pull
back the reins a little bit here. Let's maybe change our position. This
feels too real. Let's hedge our bets. No; after the district court
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the administration changed their
position to go all in on the plaintiffs' side. Their initial lawsuit
only backed up some of the plaintiffs' claims.
So the district court ruled that the Affordable Care Act has to
disappear overnight. The Trump administration has changed their
position to weigh in and to support the entirety of the lawsuit, and we
are not having a serious conversation about what happens if the fate
that all of these groups are deeply fearful of comes to pass.
Finally, this is not about numbers. This isn't about statistics. This
is about real people. Michael from New Fairfield, CT, says:
This is . . . personal to me, the ACA literally saved my
life in 2016. I have pre-existing, recurrent skull base
disease for most of my adult life. I underwent an 11-hour
skull base neurosurgery to remove a benign tumor that
involved my brain arteries, nasal passages, jaw and a total
reconstruction of my middle and outer ear canals. My surgeon
said I was a month away from a much more debilitating
surgical outcome. As it is, my recovery and rehabilitation
period has been a full two years with resulting partial
physical impairment.
My spouse and I both run our own businesses and the ACA is
still our family's only option for healthcare. Without the
operations and the ACA coverage, the disease would have
continued to progress--I would have eventually died and my
family would have had to sell the house and/or go bankrupt to
manage the medical expenses.
David from Southport said:
In July of 2011 I was diagnosed with Colon Cancer. At the
time, I was covered under an individual policy with Blue
Cross Blue Shield. It was a very comprehensive policy and,
after my deductible was satisfied, it covered all my doctor
and hospital expenses, surgeries, chemotherapy, medications,
etc.
However, a couple of years later I was advised that due to
my preexisting condition I would not be able to renew my
policy. . . .
At that time I enrolled in [the Affordable Care Act] Access
Health CT and without this policy . . . [through Access
Health CT] I would not be able to be insured and would face
prohibitive costs for even basic care.
David's story can be told thousands of times over: a diagnosis
followed by denial of coverage from an insurance company because of a
preexisting condition.
There is no free market response when it comes to very sick people
who want insurance. The free market tells the insurance company: Do not
insure somebody who is going to cost you a lot of money. The free
market would tell the insurance company to keep that person on the
outside of insurance. So there has to be a public sector response. We
provided that response with the Affordable Care Act and now, in a
matter of weeks or months, it could all be gone.
So I come down to the floor this afternoon to once again engage my
colleagues and ask them to work together. Let's try to find a common
ground here, at least behind the premise that you shouldn't rip out the
foundation of the modern healthcare system without a plan for what
comes next.
I assume we will continue to offer unanimous consent requests to try
to withhold funding for the Trump administration's perpetuation of this
lawsuit. I would hope we can get Republican support for that motion,
not because Republicans support the Affordable Care Act--I get it; I am
not going to get Republicans to support the Affordable Care Act--but
because my Republican friends need to make good on what they have said
for years; that they want the Affordable Care Act to go, but they
really want something else to replace it that will insure the same
number of people and protect folks who are sick. That cannot happen if
this lawsuit succeeds.
As we head back to our districts for this recess period, I wanted to
make sure everybody knows how many groups that know something or
anything about healthcare are standing against Texas v. The United
States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am here to address the specific topic
about energy laws, but hearing my friend and colleague from Connecticut
talk about the healthcare law, I would just point out that as 20
Democratic candidates for President assemble tonight and tomorrow night
in Miami, they are going to be there calling for a repeal and
replacement of the Obama healthcare law.
The leading candidate, the Senator from Vermont, is going to say,
under this healthcare law that we have now in this country, this
healthcare system is the most bureaucratic, inefficient system in the
world, and he is going to propose a one-size-fits-all healthcare system
that repeals and replaces the ObamaCare healthcare law with a system
where people will pay more to wait longer for worse care. As a result,
180 million people who get their insurance through their jobs will lose
their insurance. Also, as a result, the 20 million Americans who are on
Medicare Advantage will lose that coverage as well.
Energy Policy
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss my continued
efforts to modernize our Nation's energy laws.
Since my arrival in 2007 in the Senate, I have worked in the Senate
on pro-growth energy policies. My goal has always been to protect
workers, to promote American energy, and to provide for innovation.
The Presiding Officer is from an energy State. He knows that today
the United States is the world's top energy producer. We are the global
leaders in oil as well as natural gas. Still, the energy sector is
evolving at a fast clip. We need to stay ahead of the curve to stay on
top, so our laws should reflect this changing reality.
The key, of course, is innovation. That is why I am constantly
talking with folks in the industry, people back home in Wyoming, and
taking the pulse. I listen to the workers in coal mines and oilfields
of Campbell County, to the researchers at the labs at the University of
Wyoming. What we discuss are best practices and issues such as: How can
we streamline energy permitting? How can we speed research? How can we
ensure safety and protect the environment?
My point is, we need to know the situation on the ground. I know the
Presiding Officer hears that in North Dakota on a regular basis. That
is how we need to make sure energy laws make sense--knowing what is
happening on the ground.
I proposed practical reforms that reflect that reality. I recently
offered legislation to modernize the Federal electricity law. It is
called the UPDATE PURPA Act. PURPA refers to the 1978 Public Utility
Regulatory Policy Act. Senators Risch, Cramer, and Daines are original
cosponsors of this UPDATE PURPA law. Principally, we want to protect
families from inflated electric bills.
People in Wyoming and North Dakota and other States are overpaying.
[[Page S4538]]
That is because PURPA requires State utilities to purchase renewable
power and then pay above-market rates to do it. They have to buy it
even when their customers do not need it, and that is the problem.
Forty years after that law was passed in 1978--fast forward, here we
are 41 years later, and clearly it has outlived its purpose. The law's
original intent was to diversify power sources, and it certainly
succeeded. Wind and solar power now provide about 9 percent of the
electricity in this country--9 percent wind and solar.
The fact is, renewable power technology has improved rapidly so we no
longer need to micromanage these purchases. Consumers should not
continue to overpay for electricity due to outdated rules, regulations,
and laws. UPDATE PURPA would solve this problem. It protects utility
customers from added costs; it frees State utilities from unnecessary
mandates to buy power; and it helps develop all energy sources,
including renewable energy.
I am also working to pass a bill called the USE IT Act. It stands for
Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies. This
bipartisan bill would help researchers find uses for captured carbon
dioxide emissions.
The research is already happening in Wyoming. It is taking place
outside Gillette in the Integrated Test Center. The USE IT Act will
further this effort. It will apply our Nation's brightest minds to take
carbon from the air, to capture it from the air, to trap it, and to
transform it into valuable products.
Captured carbon can be used to extract oil from wells that otherwise
would not be profitable. It can also be used to make building materials
and carbon fiber. It can be used for medical purposes.
In addition, I am working to promote nuclear energy. Nuclear power is
safe, reliable, and carbon-free. Today it provides 60 percent of
America's carbon-free electricity. It is by far our largest carbon-free
source, and it is doubling the wind and solar in terms of the total
that we get from wind and solar. We have already made progress on
advanced nuclear technology because earlier this year we passed a
bipartisan nuclear bill called the Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act, and that became law--signed into law.
This bill, now law, will ensure that we remain a leader in nuclear
innovation. It will simplify the process for licensing and developing
advanced reactors. This progress will help increase our use of carbon-
free energy. We need all the energy. We need the renewable energy. We
need the nuclear energy. We need the oil, gas, and coal. We need all of
it, and we must address our nuclear waste problem.
That is why I fought to complete the licensing of the storage
facility at Yucca Mountain. I recently chaired a committee hearing on
this draft proposal.
As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``The lack of progress on
Yucca Mountain has become a roadblock for nuclear power in America.''
Both parties want Americans to use more carbon-free energy, so both
parties should embrace sensible, scientific solutions.
Another energy issue I am addressing is reform in the process that we
use to get permits to get permission to explore for energy, to use our
resources. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill called the ONSHORE
Act. It stands for Opportunities for the Nation and States to Harness
Onshore Resources for Energy.
We have a very talented staff that comes up with these creative
names. It is onshore energy--Opportunities for Nations and States to
Harness Resources for Energy. The ONSHORE Act will simplify the Federal
onshore oil and gas permitting process. So whether we are talking about
oil and gas permitting or utilities or carbon capture or nuclear power,
we must engineer our way to American energy solutions.
Commonsense reforms will help the United States stay on top and stay
safe at the same time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, Democrats and Republicans on the
Senate Appropriations Committee came together and we approved by a vote
of 30 to 1 an emergency supplemental to address the most urgent
humanitarian needs at our southern border. Some would say that the way
the Senate has been led lately, you couldn't get a 30-to-1 vote to say
the Sun rises in the east.
The bill reflects weeks of good-faith negotiations between
Republicans and Democrats to forge a bipartisan agreement to mitigate
what has been an escalating humanitarian crisis--one where infants and
toddlers are sleeping on cold cement floors in wire cages and under
bridges. Inaction is simply not an option for those who care about
alleviating the suffering of desperate children and families seeking
refuge in the United States.
Action in the Senate requires compromise. That is the reality in a
body where 60 votes are required to move a bill forward. No one,
Republican or Democrat, is going to get everything they want--including
me, and I am the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee--but
that is the nature of compromise. One thing I am not willing to
compromise on is our American values, and this bill reflects that.
The Senate supplemental protects unaccompanied children, some of our
most vulnerable migrants, by securing funds for their safety and their
well-being in HHS custody. It includes $109 million to ensure the
safety and well-being of those children through post-release wraparound
services, legal services, and case management to get children out of
cages and put them in loving homes. It puts restrictions on the use of
influx facilities. It establishes standards of care to ensure that
children are kept in safe, sanitary facilities where they are properly
cared for--not cages.
Our bill will mitigate inhumane conditions faced by migrant families
in DHS custody by providing funds to improve conditions in grossly
overcrowded facilities and buy food, clothing, and medical services for
the people in our care. It provides money to ensure that we have
diapers, formula, baby wipes, and other essential supplies for infants
and toddlers.
Like the rest of the country, I read in horror the reports from a
border facility in Clint, TX, where the children were unbathed, where
sickness was spreading, and where infants were being cared for by other
young children in custody barely old enough to care for themselves. No
child, no matter where they are from, deserves to live in such
conditions.
Our bill improves due process for migrants by expanding access to
legal services and our immigration courts. It provides grants to
nonprofit organizations and local jurisdictions that provide critical
services in shelters to migrants released from DHS custody. Bolstering
border security and treating migrants with humanity are not mutually
exclusive goals. Indeed, accomplishing both together is the American
way. We are America. We can do two things at once.
Apparently, President Trump never got the memo about our American
values. Since the day he took office, he has demonized and vilified
immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees at every opportunity. Through
false and inflammatory tweets and cruel policies, he has worked to
instill widespread fear among immigrant communities, targeting asylum
seekers as if they were hardened violent criminals.
In just this past week, he threatened widespread arrests of thousands
of immigrant families, seemingly without concern for the many families
that would be torn apart and the separated children who happen to be
American citizens who would be left behind. Now he has backed away from
that threat temporarily, but he has promised to revisit it.
Just last week, the Trump administration went to Federal court to
argue that it should not be required to give detained migrant children
toothbrushes and toothpaste, soap, towels, showers, or proper sleeping
conditions when in U.S. custody--that such amenities are not part of
the definition of ``safe and sanitary'' conditions.
What would we say if another country were holding Americans like
that?
It has become painfully obvious: President Trump views immigrant
families, asylum seekers, and refugees not as human beings but as
political ammunition intended solely to rile his base. When asked about
the horrendous conditions at DHS and ORR facilities
[[Page S4539]]
and the separation of families, he said it is not true and he repeated
his threat of mass deportations--even though many of us here in the
Congress in both parties have seen it. He is either willfully ignorant
about what has been widely documented or he has no qualms about lying
about it.
Not a single one of the President's anti-immigrant, fearmongering
tactics would address the very real humanitarian crisis overwhelming
our southern border. This is exactly why the bipartisan Senate
supplemental does not provide a single dollar for President Trump's
request for hundreds of millions in additional dollars for the
incarceration of immigrants in ICE facilities.
It is why we did not provide any of his requested funds to pursue
misguided policies like ``Remain in Mexico,'' which law enforcement
officials have stated actually encourages, not discourages, illegal
crossings. It is why, in a bipartisan way, we included a strict
prohibition on the transfer of supplemental funds for any purposes
other than addressing the humanitarian crisis at the border. And
finally, it is why we refused to include any of the deeply harmful,
unprecedented changes to our immigration and asylum laws that the
President has advocated for.
I am under no illusion that this supplemental bill will address all
of the problems with our immigration system--far from it. It is a
temporary solution to address some of the most urgent issues. We need
to have a broader debate about comprehensively addressing those
problems, just as we did years ago.
Years ago, a bipartisan group of Senators put forward a thoughtful,
bipartisan immigration bill. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, I held three hearings on the bill. We had five days of
markups. We considered 212 amendments, 141 of which were adopted,
including nearly 50 from Republicans. And then 68 Senators supported
the legislation on the floor.
Unfortunately, the Republican Speaker of the House would not bring up
the bill, even though it would have passed overwhelmingly, because he
thought it might violate the Dennis Hastert rule. I think, if we were
to have that same process here again today, I would bet we would also
have 68 Senators--Republicans and Democrats--vote for it.
Yet this is a conversation and a debate we will have to have on
another day. I will be happy to work with those Republican and
Democratic Senators who worked together to get an immigration bill
before, but we are not going to do it in the context of an emergency
supplemental, which is meant to address the most urgent humanitarian
needs at the border. It is why Senator Shelby and I and others--
Republicans and Democrats--have worked for weeks, quietly behind the
scenes, in order to put this together and get our 31 votes. It is
because we know we have to first act to provide safe, humane care for
the migrant children and families who seek mercy and safety.
It was yesterday that the House passed its own version of an
emergency supplemental for the southern border. It is also a very good
bill, and it goes further in offering protections to immigrants in our
care than we are able to do in this Chamber, because there have been
objections from the Republican side of the aisle. It provides important
additional protections for children who are under the care of the
Office of Refugee Resettlement and for those being held at CBP
processing facilities, and I support that. We should be taking care of
the children in our custody as if they were our own. Taking care of
children is not a partisan issue. We should all agree on that.
I am also pleased that the House bill includes a provision to protect
the funding that Republicans and Democrats have already appropriated to
address the causes of migration in Central America. I am upset the
President has threatened to take that money and reprogram it elsewhere.
We were not able to reach agreement on that issue in the Senate, but
in a few moments, we will have an opportunity to vote on the House
bill. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will be able to support
it.
Neither the House nor the Senate bill has any funding for additional
ICE detention beds. This is no mistake. The President's predisposition
to turn to mass detention above all else is cruel, irresponsible, and
also a horrible waste of taxpayers' money. There are alternatives to
detention that exist that are safe and less expensive.
The administration needs to use the resources it has for ICE
detention services to house those people who truly present a danger to
our communities and not lock up every man, woman, and child simply for
being here. Lock up those who really do present a danger. Most 5-year-
old children do not. It makes no sense to lump them all in together. We
carefully negotiated ICE's bed levels in the fiscal year 2019 Homeland
Security Appropriations bill just a few months ago, which was passed by
both Republicans and Democrats, and there is no reason to revisit it
now.
We have heard that the administration plans to set up a request to
fund more ICE detention beds through reprogramming the money that we
need. I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in opposing any such
request. The administration should not do administratively what both
Republicans and Democrats have rejected.
Unfortunately, this is a pattern with this administration. It just
wants to ignore bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate. It
ignores the will of Congress. It uses loopholes and ignores traditional
norms in the appropriations process. It uses suspect readings of the
law to accomplish its agenda. When Congress rejected the
administration's request, it acted as though it was above the law,
above the Constitution. Nobody is above the law in this country. None
of us in the Senate are, and neither is the President of the United
States.
Let's not forget the President's declaration of a national emergency
to fund his wall when Congress debated it and refused to provide him
the money he had requested. We have to stand up for ourselves as an
institution. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
join me--not as Democrats or Republicans but as U.S. Senators--in
saying no to this President when he blatantly ignores the will of the
Congress.
I thank Chairman Shelby for working with me on this bipartisan
humanitarian assistance bill.
We need to work quickly to resolve the differences between the House
and the Senate bills so we can get a bill to the President's desk. I
hope President Trump will have the good sense to sign the supplemental
bill into law. Then let's turn to the much needed debate on
comprehensive immigration reform. We showed we could do it when I was
the chairman of the Judiciary. We showed we could get a 2-to-1 vote in
this body. Let's do it again.
Of course, I urge Members to oppose the Paul amendment.
Four months ago, Republicans and Democrats came together and
appropriated funds in the State and Foreign Operations Act that would
help counter terrorism and human trafficking, promote democracy, combat
poverty, provide humanitarian aid, and support global health programs.
A bipartisan majority of Congress supported this funding and the
President signed it into law. The Paul amendment proposes to rescind
$4.6 billion, clawing back programs with a wide range of consequences.
Counterterrorism programs would be cut. These funds support programs
that target vulnerable youth to prevent radicalization. These programs
provide governments with the tools to counter the influence of violent
extremist organizations, including by countering terrorism financing.
Programs to combat human trafficking would be cut by the Paul
amendment. These programs support nongovernmental organizations that
promote stronger government policies and programs to combat human
slavery and trafficking. They help hold perpetrators accountable and
support governments that are combatting human trafficking, and they
help to protect victims of trafficking.
Programs that strengthen civil society, independent media, and
promote democracy in Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Hungary, Egypt, and many
other countries would be cut. These funds support efforts to hold
governments accountable for repression, promote freedom of expression
and religious freedom, and provide services to victims of persecution.
[[Page S4540]]
The Paul amendment would claw back humanitarian aid. There are more
people forcibly displaced in the world today than at any time since
World War II. It is a global humanitarian crisis that is contributing
to instability and insecurity, including in our own hemisphere. The
amendment would rescind funding for U.S. refugee aid and aid to victims
of famine, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.
And funding for PEPFAR, programs to combat malaria and TB, and other
global health programs would be cut by the Paul Amendment. This
includes programs to respond to deadly pandemics like Ebola.
There are countless other examples, since the Paul amendment uses a
meat cleaver approach to demolish most of our international development
and humanitarian programs that reduce poverty, respond to crises, build
free markets, and strengthen democratic institutions.
Why are there unobligated balances in these programs? These funds
were appropriated only 4 months ago and are available for obligation
through the next fiscal year for multiyear projects. That is how
foreign assistance works.
In the last two foreign aid appropriations laws, Senator Graham and I
included targeted rescissions of funds that could no longer be spent
effectively, or that were about to expire. That is the responsible
approach, and one that preserves the integrity of the appropriations
process. That is not the approach in this amendment.
I urge members to vote no on this amendment and pass the bipartisan
bill reported by the committee 30 to 1 so that we can sit down with the
House tonight to work out the differences with the House bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today we will consider funding to address
the humanitarian crisis on the border. The spending bill will be $4
billion. While there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, we also
have in our country a debt crisis. We are adding debt at about $1
trillion every year. The overall debt is $22 trillion, and the interest
on the debt that we have to pay every year is exploding such that it is
crowding out other spending.
While I do agree that there is a humanitarian crisis at the border,
we must not ignore the debt crisis that faces our country. We should
not borrow the money and pull out the credit card, yet again, every
time a crisis occurs. Congress has an obligation to find lower
priorities to cut to pay for higher priorities. I thought that is what
legislating was about. You are supposed to say that right now we have a
crisis at the border. So maybe we are not going to send welfare to
foreign countries. Every American family has to make these decisions.
Why doesn't Congress? What Congress does is simply add it to the bill
your kids and your grandkids will be paying.
I am proposing to actually pay for this by taking the money from a
part of the budget that is being wasted and put it into the
humanitarian crisis on the border. Should we provide care and shelter
to immigrants at the border or should we be paying for clown shows and
a traveling circus? Should we provide food for the children that remain
at the border or should we pay to support the businesses of deported
immigrants?
Listen carefully. When we catch people coming across the border
illegally, we send them back to the country and say: Don't worry. We
will send you money to help you start a business.
They break our law, and we give them money to start a business back
in their home country. If you ask politicians here, the answer is: Fund
it all. Just put it on the credit card. We will just keep borrowing.
Your kids and grandkids will pay for it.
I mentioned some of these examples that I would cut, but let's hear
about some more. Where is your money going? Where is the money coming
from so that we could actually pay for this crisis at the border? My
amendment rescinds the remainder of this year's funds for the Inter-
American Foundation. You may not have heard of this, but last time this
bill was authorized was in 1985. For over 24 years, we haven't done
anything. We haven't even looked at the program. We just keep feeding
it money.
What do they fund in the Inter-American Foundation? Let's see. They
spend money to support small businesses of deported immigrants. One
time we asked them: Do you at least exclude criminal deportees? They
had a blank look on their face, and they didn't have an answer. They
aren't excluding people we deport because they have committed a crime
in our country from receiving American welfare.
This group spent $1.2 million helping people in Mexico, Guatemala,
and El Salvador to improve their ``spending strategies.'' Does that
sound like a good use of money? If we need money at the border, let's
quit sending it south of the border to improve the spending habits of
those in Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
These funds also subsidized guinea pig farmers in Peru, a llama fair
in Bolivia, and advertisements to buy carbon credits in Mexico. If we
have a crisis at the border--both sides of the aisle have now finally
woken up to there being a crisis--let's spend it on the crisis and not
be supporting a llama fair in Bolivia or a guinea pig farm in Peru.
This same group that I would like to take the money from to spend it
on the border spent half a million dollars to ``jump start'' the
Haitian film industry. Does that sound like a national priority to
anybody? If we want to treat people in a more humanitarian fashion on
the border and we need to spend some money down there, maybe we could
not be supporting the Haitian film community.
This group spent $300,000 to help Brazilians get off Brazilian
welfare. That might be better spent talking to Americans about American
welfare. Yet we had no business in sending that money to Brazil.
Is any of this a higher priority than what we are doing at the
border? I would say not.
Is it more important to pay for the cost of the situation on the
border or should we also be sending foreign welfare abroad?
The United States spent $223 million to fund a highway in
Afghanistan. We found out afterward that the security that our
government hired to protect the people while they were building the
road at $1 million a year were actually funneling the money to a
terrorist group, called the Haqqani network, our sworn enemy. The
Haqqani network is known for killing our soldiers, but we were paying
those in the Haqqani network for being security guards while we wasted
millions of dollars in building a highway in Afghanistan. I would say
let's spend that money at home. The road we have now built for the
Afghanis is in such disrepair after only a few years that they can't
afford to maintain it, so we are asking you to cough up a little more
money. They need $22 million to keep the highway in good repair.
We spent $273 million on a development grant program that didn't
actually do anything. It taught foreign people how to fill out grants
to get more money from us. It is not enough that they are fleecing you
and sending your money to all of these boondoggle projects around the
world; we have a program to teach foreigners how to get more welfare
from us.
This amendment takes $4 billion that they want to spend on the border
and says: That is fine. Let's do it. Yet let's take it from foreign
aid. Let's take it from foreign welfare. Let's take it from llama fairs
and guinea pig shows in Peru. It is utterly ridiculous. This program
has not been looked at since 1985. If we eliminate the program, we can
pay for the money they want to spend at the border.
That is what it would mean to be responsible legislators--to make
priorities, decide where to spend the money, and not just simply run up
the tab and say: Your kids and grandkids can pay for it.
I recommend a ``yea'' vote on offsetting the spending for this
supplemental spending bill, and I hope Americans will watch to see who
votes to offset this by cutting wasteful foreign welfare.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I believe there is no longer any question
that the situation along our southern border has become a full-blown
humanitarian and security crisis. I think that is a given. Leader
McConnell has firmly established that fact right here on the Senate
floor, and charges from the
[[Page S4541]]
other side of a manufactured crisis have fallen silent. At this
juncture, there is little need to recapitulate the case for action.
We know what our professionals on the frontlines need in order to get
a handle on the situation. The only question is, Will the Congress come
together and act or fall prey to partisanship while the crisis
escalates further?
I am pleased to say, last week, the Appropriations Committee charted
a course for strong bipartisan action. By a vote of 30 to 1, the
committee approved an emergency appropriations bill to address the
crisis at the border--30 to 1. Such an overwhelming bipartisan vote
would not have been possible without the cooperation of my colleague
and good friend, Vice Chairman Leahy. I thank Senator Leahy for working
with us to find a path forward.
This bipartisan committee product, which it is and which I will soon
offer as a substitute amendment to the House bill, provides $4.59
billion in emergency supplemental appropriations to address the
humanitarian and security crisis at the border.
It does not contain everything that Senator Leahy wanted, and it does
not contain everything that I wanted. More importantly, it does not
contain any poison pills from either side, which is remarkable. That is
why it passed the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to 1, and
that is what gives us the best chance today, in the U.S. Senate--
without further delay--of passing a bill that is badly needed.
I will take just a few minutes to briefly outline for my colleagues
the particulars of the package reported by the Appropriations
Committee.
Of the total funding provided, the lion's share--$2.88 billion--will
help the Department of Health and Human Services to provide safe and
appropriate shelter and care for children in its custody.
An additional $1.1 billion is included for Customs and Border
Protection to establish migrant care and processing facilities; to
provide medical care and consumables; and to pay travel and overtime
costs for personnel.
There is $209 million provided for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to fund the transportation costs and medical care for
detainees; to conduct human trafficking operations; and, again, to pay
travel and overtime costs for our personnel there.
There is $30 million for FEMA in order to reimburse States and
localities for expenses that they have incurred related to the massive
influx of migrants in their communities.
There is $220 million included for the Department of Justice to help
process immigration cases and provide badly needed resources to the
U.S. Marshals Service for the care and detention of Federal prisoners.
Finally, $145 million is provided for the various branches of the
U.S. military that have incurred operating expenses in support of
multiple missions along the border.
I believe, overall, this is a solid bill. It provides the resources
that are needed to address the crisis that we face at the border. As I
say again, it contains no poison pills, and it is poised to pass the
Senate with strong bipartisan support, unlike the version that came out
of the House last night.
So I say to my colleagues in the House, now that there is a
bipartisan acknowledgment that the crisis on our southern border is
real, do not derail the one bipartisan vehicle with a real chance of
becoming law soon.
Those who want to alleviate the suffering--and I think it is most of
us--on the southern border will soon have a bipartisan path forward in
the Senate bill that we have here.
Those who choose to obstruct over partisan demands will soon have a
lot of questions, I think, to answer when the crisis escalates further,
and it will.
I believe there is no excuse for leaving town at the end of this week
without getting this job done. I hope we will be coming together soon
and do our job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
is expired.
The question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Menendez
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--55
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--8
Bennet
Booker
Gillibrand
Harris
Klobuchar
Rounds
Sanders
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 37, the nays are
55.
Under the previous order, the 60-vote threshold having not been
achieved, the bill was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate briefly on leader time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the bill that was before us has failed.
Most of us on this side of the aisle would have much preferred that
bill, but it has failed.
The bill that Senators Shelby and Leahy have worked on diligently is
now before us. I am going to vote for it. I think most of us on this
side are going to vote for it so that we can quickly move to
conference.
Speaker Pelosi has called the President and suggested a few changes.
I think there are four changes to this bill. We could quickly have a
conference, talk about those four changes, try to get them in the bill,
and finish this quickly. I hope that is what will happen.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Amendment No. 901
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 901.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes an amendment
numbered 901.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. SHELBY. I 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 Kentucky.
Amendment No. 902 to Amendment No. 901
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 902.
[[Page S4542]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 902 to amendment No. 901.
Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To rescind $4,586,000,000 from foreign assistance and
exchange programs)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. OF THE UNOBLIGATED BALANCES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019,
THERE ARE HEREBY RESCINDED--
(1) all of the amounts for the East-West Center;
(2) all of the amounts for the Inter-American Foundation;
and
(3) from the amounts appropriated under title III of the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2019 (division F of Public Law 116-6), an
amount equal to the difference between $4,586,000,000 and the
sum of the amounts rescinded under paragraphs (1) and (2).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are going to spend over $4 billion today,
and I just propose that we pay for it. There is a humanitarian crisis
at the border, but there is also a debt crisis.
We spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, on wasteful projects.
Let's take it from foreign aid welfare and spend it on our southern
border. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars subsidizing guinea
pig farmers in Peru, a llama fair in Bolivia, and advertisements to buy
carbon credits in Mexico. There was $273 million spent trying to teach
foreigners how to fill out grant applications to get more welfare from
the United States, $300,000 to help Brazilians get off of Brazilian
welfare, and half a million dollars spent jump-starting the Haitian
film industry. There are billions of dollars that we can spend on the
southern border, but we should take it from somewhere and not add it to
the debt of our kids and our grandkids.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Motion to Table
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to move to table this
amendment. Being the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee,
this is taking one disaster and creating 100 in its place. This $4.6
billion will destroy all the humanitarian assistance we have passed to
deal with an unprecedented wave of refugees. The global health programs
are all impacted severely, including PEPFAR and the child survival and
maternal health programs. This money comes out of those accounts. Can
you imagine how it is going to be to deal with Ebola after cutting the
Global Health Program?
Programs to counter the influence of Russia and China will be zeroed
out. Counter-human trafficking programs will be dramatically reduced.
Counterterrorism programs are all affected by this amendment.
You are taking one problem at the border, and if you enact the Paul
amendment, you will create 100 in its place.
So I move to table the Paul amendment No. 902.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining
votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll on the motion to table.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]
YEAS--77
Alexander
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--15
Barrasso
Blackburn
Braun
Cruz
Enzi
Ernst
Grassley
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Paul
Perdue
Scott (SC)
Tillis
Toomey
NOT VOTING--8
Bennet
Booker
Gillibrand
Harris
Klobuchar
Rounds
Sanders
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 77, and the nays
are 15.
The motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
901.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--8
Hirono
Lee
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Paul
Van Hollen
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Bennet
Booker
Gillibrand
Harris
Klobuchar
Rounds
Sanders
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, and the nays
are 8.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption, the
amendment (No. 901) is agreed to.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. LEAHY. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
[[Page S4543]]
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or to change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--8
Hirono
Lee
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Paul
Van Hollen
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Bennet
Booker
Gillibrand
Harris
Klobuchar
Rounds
Sanders
Warren
The bill (H.R. 3401), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order of Business
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed on Senate
amendment No. 764 and S. 1790 occur at a time to be determined by the
majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 3401
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am glad that the bipartisan Senate
border supplemental has passed with an overwhelming vote. I commend
Chairman Shelby, Senator Leahy, and the members of the Appropriations
Committee for breaking the logjam.
S. 1790
Mr. President, on the NDAA, the Democratic leader and I have had
extensive discussions on the path forward on the Defense bill. For the
information of all of our colleagues, we intend to stay in session this
week to finish the NDAA bill and allow for a vote in relation to the
Udall amendment. Senators should plan to vote on Friday on the Udall
amendment. Yet the vote--here is the good news--will start first thing
in the morning and be held open into the afternoon to accommodate as
many Senators as possible.
To be clear, obviously, I believe that the Udall amendment can and
should be defeated--I hope with a resounding vote in the Senate--and
that we should put this issue to rest before we break for the Fourth of
July recess. Holding up the Defense authorization bill is not an
acceptable outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank the majority leader for
understanding how strongly we feel on the Democratic side and how many
Americans feel that the constitutional right of Congress to examine
foreign conflict and potential war should be upheld. The fact that we
will get a vote on the Udall amendment, which is something we have
asked for, is only fair and only right. There may be differences of
viewpoint on both sides, but the fact that it will be on the floor and
be debated is exactly the right thing to do. It is something we want
and have asked for, and I thank the majority leader for understanding
that and allowing it to happen.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 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.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Iran
Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, Donald Trump and the hawks in his
administration are fueling a dangerous escalation with Iran, and
instead of taking responsibility for this escalation, the President is
once again blaming others for a crisis of his own making.
Adding to the confusion and concern is the President's penchant for
using his Twitter account or an outburst from the Oval Office to jump
between calling for restraint and embracing a potential war.
Instead of listening to the President's latest outbursts or
dissecting his latest tweet, let's take a hard look at what he has done
to bring us to this dangerous moment.
In May 2018, Trump followed the lead of the hawks in his
administration and unilaterally--unilaterally--pulled out of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA, breaking the agreement and
leaving its other signatories, especially our allies in Europe, holding
the bag.
Only a few weeks earlier, Jim Mattis, the President's own Secretary
of Defense, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I sit,
that the agreement was working as intended and had been written with an
assumption that Iran would try to cheat. He went on to note that while
the deal was imperfect, it established a strong verification and
inspection regime that Iran was complying with the agreement.
I continue to agree with Secretary Mattis's conclusions. The purpose
of the JCPOA was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon
within a 2- to 3-month timeframe. That is the kind of timeframe we were
looking at. The JCPOA was not intended to cover Iran's ballistic
missile program or its malign activities throughout the region.
What the JCPOA did accomplish, however, was lengthening Iran's
nuclear breakout capacity from 3 months to 1 year. It included strong
limitations on enrichment, redesigned and rebuilt the Arak heavy water
reactor so it can only be used for peaceful-use research purposes and
not for the enrichment of weapons-grade plutonium, and required Iran to
ship all spent nuclear fuel out of the country.
The agreement also included a binding commitment from Iran to never
pursue a nuclear weapons program. That is in the very beginning part of
the JCPOA document. This commitment necessitated a continuous
inspection regime by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
Further, the agreement included provisions that would see the
international community reimpose sanctions automatically--the
snapback--if Iran was violating the deal.
Instead of building upon the JCPOA to address Iran's other malign
activities, Donald Trump threw out all the benefits of the deal, took
on an enormous risk, and isolated the United States in the process.
In early April, the President took the unprecedented step of
designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, a foreign
terrorist organization. He designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist
organization. That was an unprecedented step, overruling the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, in the process. General
Dunford argued that this first-of-its-kind step would put American
troops in the region at risk for retaliation. He was right.
Later that month, Donald Trump rescinded waivers granted to key
American allies, such as Japan and India, to purchase Iranian oil,
effectively strangling the Iranian economy in the process. Over the
past few months, the administration has sent thousands of additional
troops and a carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf.
These actions, taken unilaterally, have isolated the United States
from our allies, encouraged Iran to stop complying with elements of the
nuclear deal and to step up their aggressive actions in the region, and
brought us to the dangerous precipice of war.
[[Page S4544]]
Although the President made the eleventh-hour decision--actually, 10
minutes before a strike--to call off a military response to Iran's
downing of an Air Force drone, the fact that we got so close to a
military strike is chilling, given the implications of igniting an open
war with Iran.
We have learned to our peril over the past few years that Donald
Trump does not keep his word or the word of our country. He says
something one day, only to reverse himself at a moment's notice. We
cannot rely on his restraint to avoid blundering into a war with Iran.
That is why I am continuing to call on my colleagues to join in
supporting a vote on Senator Udall's amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act.
This amendment makes clear that only Congress can authorize the use
of military force against Iran and would provide a clear check on
Donald Trump, John Bolton, and other hawks in the administration.
We cannot allow this administration and this President a free hand to
stack the deck toward military action and away from meaningful
diplomacy. Otherwise, we risk committing another generation of American
soldiers to a protracted, disastrous war in the Middle East.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Tribute to Bill Sweeney
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to my
longtime staff member and friend, Bill Sweeney, who will be moving on
to a new challenge in his career after nearly 20 years of service on my
team.
Bill actually started working on the campaign November 1, 1999, and
we were sharing stories of his being up in a crowded little space
changing my ``Stabenow for U.S. Congress'' signs to ``Stabenow for U.S.
Senate'' signs with little stickers that we used because we didn't have
very much money at the time.
Bill has been with me a long, long time, and after so many years, it
is tough to know what to say because there is so much to say.
Bill Sweeney has worn more hats on my team than anyone ever has. He
started working on my campaign, as I mentioned, for the U.S. Senate as
a fundraiser. After the campaign, I hired him as my systems
administrator, and he played an integral role in setting up my new
Senate office. By the way, we are still today using the systems he set
up, and I truly believe they are the best the Senate has.
After a short time, I promoted him to director of information
technology. Then, Bill's gift for messaging and writing led to more
promotions as my director of outreach, speechwriter, and then senior
communications adviser.
Eventually, he took on a broader role on my team as deputy chief of
staff, chief of staff, and his position now as staff director of the
Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. But these are just
Bill's official titles.
He has been a key strategist, writer, crisis manager, event planner,
grammarian, computer programmer, and graphic designer. From directing
key communications initiatives to designing floor charts, no job has
been too big or too small for Bill, and I will be forever grateful.
He has drafted and edited countless speeches, columns, releases,
constituent letters, statements, and talking points over the years.
Born and raised in Michigan, he has always been able to capture the
values and the heart of Michigan in his writings. His attention to
detail is impeccable. He is an expert on proofreading and has
impressively planned and organized our annual caucus retreats and has
provided us with extraordinary experiences and speakers.
Bill is also one of the most creative people I know, from designing
logos to inventing the Velcro ``countdown'' floor chart, like the one
you see here, which shows how many days Bill has worked for me in the
U.S. Senate. It is actually very cool. I have to show you: They come
off. That is pretty inventive. Whenever you see these on the floor of
the U.S. Senate, you can think of Bill Sweeney. So we had to make sure
Bill had his own chart before leaving.
He is someone who has always been able to make something look good
and function well at the same time. He has a passion for organization.
He designed many of the systems that my office relies on to run
efficiently today. As I said earlier, we literally are using integrated
systems that Bill has designed over the years.
Bill is also one of the smartest people I know. I will miss his sharp
wit and his sense of humor. With all of the hats Bill has worn, he is
leaving very big shoes to fill. I will always be incredibly grateful
for his loyalty, his work ethic, his friendship, and his passion for
service.
Bill will be joining the team at AARP and continuing to work on so
many issues we have championed together over the years. I wish him
incredible success and happiness in his new chapter in his career. I
apologize, but I am so happy he is moving on to a big challenge and yet
so sorry to lose him.
Thank you, Bill.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Merkley pertaining to the introduction of S. 1987
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. MERKLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
S. 1790
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I would like to speak about the
legislation that is before us right now on the floor. It is the annual
National Defense Authorization Act, incredibly important legislation
that the Senate, pretty much every year, is able to pass on a
bipartisan basis.
It is really an exception. There is so much else that we are locked
up on here with partisan gridlock. With regard to our troops, we tend
to come together, Republicans and Democrats, and make commitments to
them that we are going to give our men and women serving in the Armed
Forces the resources and support they need to carry out their critical
mission.
We have now proceeded to that legislation. I want to talk a little
about it. It has a lot of incredibly important things in it. It is
really important to Ohio.
In my State of Ohio, we have a lot of defense installations. They are
very important to our national security because they do important work.
They are also important to our Ohio economy. Ohio's defense spending
now accounts for more than 66,000 direct jobs, more than $4 billion in
salaries, and more than a $14 billion economic impact. Forty-three of
our 88 counties in Ohio are impacted by these facilities. So they are
critical to our State, to our economy, to our soldiers and their
families, and to tens of thousands of civilian employees as well.
Again, because of the good work being done in Ohio, including at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is our largest single employer
in Ohio, it is really important to our military readiness and to our
national security. This bill has proceeded through the Armed Services
Committee in the bipartisan manner in which it usually is done. I love
seeing that. It is legislation that every Member of this body, I hope,
will be able to support at the end.
It has a lot of important initiatives and some much needed reforms--
including, by the way, this year, a 3.1-percent pay raise for our
troops. I think that is necessary. They are in harm's way around the
world. They are ensuring our safety, and we should ensure that they are
fairly compensated for their hard work and their sacrifices.
One of the bill's other important initiatives that has a big impact
on my State is authorizing $1.7 billion to increase the rate of
production for both our M1 Abrams tanks and also for upgrades to 165
tanks that are already in service. That is an increase from last year's
figure. It also authorizes about $249 million to upgrade the Stryker
armored fighting vehicles.
This is great news for the men and women who are out in the field in
our Armed Forces. They love these vehicles, and they need them. The
Abrams
[[Page S4545]]
and the Stryker are the most advanced and lethal tanks and armored
vehicles on the battlefield today. One of our priorities in Congress
should be to ensure that we are providing our troops with what they
need to be able to do their duty and to protect themselves. We want to
be sure they have the highest quality equipment to be able to do that.
Only by ensuring that these funds are allocated to such key vehicles
like this can we be sure our Armed Forces are able to maintain their
advantage--their qualitative advantage on the battlefield.
This isn't just a big win for our military, however. It is also a big
win for a plant called the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, or JSMC,
which is the tank plant in Lima, OH. The best tanks and armored
vehicles in the world are made at this plant. It has the best workforce
in the world to do it. I have seen them in action many times. It is the
only facility in the United States that has the capacity to produce
tanks like the Abrams tank and the Stryker armored vehicle. It is a
really important strategic asset for our country in Lima, OH.
Having been out there a lot, visiting with the workers, watching them
work, seeing what they can make, and having talked to the soldiers in
the field who use these products, I can tell you how important they
are. Most recently, I was at the Lima tank plant in March where I was
able to speak directly with the workers there about the long-term
health of the Lima plant, which the Obama administration, about 8 years
ago, attempted to shutter.
The President sent a budget to Congress--President Obama--saying we
would like to close down the tank plant because in the future we won't
need these tanks, at least not immediately, and some day we will have a
new generation of tanks, and meanwhile, let's just shut down this
plant. Some of us stood up, and I fought against that. We were able to
convince the U.S. Congress to overturn what the President wanted to do
and instead to provide funding for the tank plant to keep it open. Even
though production was down at that time, we were able to keep the plant
open and not have it be mothballed, as the administration wanted to do.
Thank goodness we did that because now we know--particularly with the
Russian influence in Europe and what our allies are telling us they
need--that we have to have these armored vehicles and these tanks, and
we need to continually upgrade them.
If we had shut down that plant, we would have lost this incredible
workforce that is there building something that is unique. There is
nothing quite like the welding, as an example, and the cutting that
goes into our tanks. We also would have lost the supply chain. That
would have been detrimental. It would have cost taxpayers so much more
to try to take that plant out of mothballs and recreate it again than
to keep it open as we did.
Now, frankly, we kept it open mostly through foreign sales. Other
countries around the world, including our allies, were still buying
Abrams tanks and Stryker vehicles. And Israel was buying the Nemera
vehicle, which is an armored vehicle that is much like our Abrams tank
without the turret. That kept us going, plus a little bit of upgrade to
our tanks.
Now, today, again, and since 8 years ago, when there was a proposal
to shutter this plant, we have been able to increase production slowly
but surely to the point that today we have the ability to really have
that plant humming. We have a lot of people who are working. It is on
its way up, and that is really exciting.
The funding allocated under this legislation we talked about today is
really important because it will allow this JSMC--the Lima tank plant--
to hire, train, and retain more workers dedicated to making the best
equipment possible to protect our troops.
I will tell you that the workers at the tank plant are very proud of
what they do. A lot of them are veterans. They know that what they are
doing every day by providing these armored vehicles has the potential
to save the lives of the American men and women in uniform across the
world who are relying on these vehicles to keep them safe and to be
able to have that qualitative advantage on the battlefield by having
the best equipment possible.
Last year, I had the opportunity to be the first Member of Congress
to see the latest models of the Stryker Dragoon vehicles, up-armored at
Lima. This was a real fight also. The Army came to us and said: We need
to have some additional capability with regard to our Stryker vehicles
to be able to push back against potential threats on the European
continent. At that time we had no tanks in Europe, and we needed to
upgrade what the Strykers could do by providing for additional
lethality, particularly to provide a turret on top of the Stryker
vehicle. We did that.
Now, as I saw with the 2nd Calvary Regiment in Germany, they are
using these vehicles, and those drivers of those vehicles, those other
troops who are using those vehicles, love them. It feels like, again,
it gives them the ability to be effective on the battlefield. They are
also training with a coalition of our allies, including Poland, the
United Kingdom, and Denmark. The work our men and women in uniform are
doing with our allies in Europe is vitally important because it forms a
framework of defense to protect our NATO allies from aggression.
The importance of an American military presence in Europe has never
been in doubt, but perhaps now, more than at any time since the end of
the Cold War, the security of Europe is uncertain. We have seen
repeatedly, these past few years, instances of military aggression,
electoral interference, and diplomatic provocation by Russia toward its
western neighbors.
Nowhere is Russia's continued maligned behavior on display more than
in the country of Ukraine. For the past 5 years, we have seen Ukraine
work to break free of Russia's orbit and seek greater integration with
the democratic framework of the West, with the EU, with the United
States, and with our NATO allies. Most vividly during the 2014 Maidan
protest in Kiev, Russia responded to these appeals for democracy by
illegally invading and annexing Crimea, which remains occupied in
violation of international law to this day.
In the eastern region of Donbass, more than 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers
have been killed fighting Russian-backed separatists. I have been to
the frontlines, the so-called line of contact in the Donbass, and let
me tell you that it is very much a hot war. Just last November, the
Russian Navy attacked three Ukrainian naval vessels and captured two
dozen Ukrainian sailors in international waters near the Kerch Strait.
These individuals remain unlawfully detained by the Russian Government
to this day. I urge my Senate colleagues and the entire international
community to join me in calling for the release of those sailors.
I know here, on this side of the Atlantic, what is happening in
Ukraine can sometimes seem like it is half a world away, but it is not.
It is very relevant. In a sense, it is where the modern battle is
taking place between two different ideologies--between whether a
country wants to go toward freedom and democracy in the West or
whether, again, to stay under the orbit of the Russian influence.
Here, in Ohio, we have a large and vibrant Ukrainian-American
community, particularly in Northeast Ohio, who have a vested interest
in seeing that their ancestral homeland can defend itself from Russian
aggression as it works to align itself more with NATO and the West
while promoting a platform of democracy, freedom, transparency, and
free markets.
Frankly, we should all be supportive of Ukraine's efforts to reshape
itself as a beacon of liberty in the region. As cochair of the Senate
Ukraine Caucus, which I cofounded with my colleague Dick Durbin, I have
been an advocate of the Ukraine as it works to break free from Russia's
influence. I traveled to Kyiv to meet with their newly elected
President, Volodymyr Zelensky. I am encouraged from my meetings that
they will stay on the right path toward reform, but to properly do so,
they also have to defend themselves from Russian aggression.
For the past 3 years, I have successfully introduced and passed
amendments to the legislation before us today, the National Defense
Authorization Act, to expand U.S. military aid to the Ukraine. These
provisions built and expanded the primary statutory framework for U.S.
security assistance to Ukraine, the Ukraine Security Assistance
Initiative.
This year, I was pleased to see a further $300 million authorized in
lethal
[[Page S4546]]
and nonlethal aid to Ukraine in the NDAA. This security assistance
package is good news and sends a strong signal that America stands with
the Ukrainian people, and we will make sure their military has the
capabilities it needs to defend its sovereign territory on land and in
the sea and air.
But our commitment to Ukraine security should extend to other forms
of support as well. I have offered an amendment that I hope will be
included in the final bill to pressure Russia to release the Ukrainian
sailors kidnapped in the Kerch Strait. It would do so by adding the
release of the 24 Ukrainian sailors as a condition for any U.S.
military cooperation with Russia. We need to take a firm stance against
Russia's blatant disregard for international law in this matter, and
passing this amendment will help us do so.
I am glad to see that the National Defense Authorization Act will
keep the lines of production running, from the factory floors in Lima
to the frontlines all around the world. I am glad we will be continuing
to help Ukraine defend itself from unlawful Russian aggression. I hope
we can also push for the release of the Ukrainian sailors who have been
detained illegally in the Kerch Strait.
I look forward to voting on the bill's final passage in the Senate in
the next week so the men and women who give so much of themselves to
keep us safe have the resources they need to fulfill their important
mission.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Tribute to Cal Williams
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Wednesday. Now, normally it is
Thursday when I come down here to talk about somebody who is making a
huge difference in my State, somebody we refer to as the Alaskan of the
Week, someone who is doing something for the community or the State or
the country or maybe all of the above. I know we have a new set of
pages, but I think it is commonly known that this is the most
anticipated speech of the week by the pages. I see the heads nodding,
so that is great.
You guys are learning well, early, so that is wonderful, and I know
that the Presiding Officer really enjoys it as well.
I am going to talk today about Calvin Williams, whom everybody in
Alaska knows as Cal, who is our Alaskan of the Week, who lives in
Anchorage via Louisiana. I am going to talk a lot about Cal here and
why he certainly deserves this great honor, but also when I give these
remarks, I like to talk just a little bit about what is going on in
Alaska at the time.
We have just celebrated the summer solstice, which in a lot of States
isn't a big deal, but in Alaska, it is actually a huge deal. It is the
longest day of the year, which was last week, and that really means
something. You get the 12 midnight Sun energy, and everybody is out.
There are celebrations throughout the State. Friends and neighbors
gather at parties and community events well past 12 midnight. I had the
opportunity to spend last weekend in Fairbanks, AK, where there was a
12 midnight Sun baseball game and a 12 midnight Sun 10K run. I got to
participate in some of that. There was just great energy and a great
feeling and a lot of sunlight all night.
Across the country and in Alaska, we also just celebrated Juneteenth,
which marks the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Anchorage
celebrated the weekend before last, and Cal Williams, our Alaskan of
the Week, was there, as he has been there nearly every year since the
first celebration in the 1980s. Cal is a staple at that event and has
been at so many other events in Alaska over the decades where people
get together, where he has been a community leader and has tried to do
good things for our communities throughout the State. So let me tell
you a little bit about Cal and how lucky we are to have him in the
great State of Alaska.
He was born in 1941 in Monroe, LA. I know we have some Louisianans as
pages here. That was the segregated South, and he was born 7 days
before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He is from a very patriotic
family. His parents immediately joined the cause of fighting and
supporting our Nation during World War II. His mother worked in the
factories to help out the war effort, and his father joined the Army
and was sent to the Pacific theater to defend America.
Basically, Cal was raised by his grandmother, who happened to live
across the street from church and a K-12 Catholic school, built and run
by the Franciscans to serve the African-American Catholic community in
the area. Nobody in his family was Catholic, but it was the best school
in the area, so that was where he went. The lessons he was taught at
this school, the Little Flower Academy--to serve the less fortunate, to
feed the hungry, to help all in need--have stayed with Cal forever and
have really driven his sense of service.
The much beloved Sister Consuela, who was the longtime principal and
homeroom teacher, made sure that he learned all this.
Sister Consuela was feared and respected. If you did
anything bad, if the Sister didn't see you [do something
bad], you knew that God did. I carry that with me today.
After high school, he attended Grambling State University--another
all-Black school--where he pursued theater and singing. Anybody who
knows Cal knows this is another thing that has stayed with him
throughout his life.
Then, like his patriotic mom and dad, he decided to enlist in the Air
Force. He was stationed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, where he worked
on the Titan II Missile System--an elite position, something that he
credits to the schooling he received at Little Flower.
When he got out of the Air Force, he made it back to Louisiana to
take care of his father, who had gotten sick. This was during the
height of the movement for civil rights--one of the greatest movements,
of course, in our Nation's history, a lot of which took place here on
this Senate floor. As he often does, Cal jumped in. He jumped in with
both feet. He began working with CORE, the Congress of Racial
Equality--one of the leading civil rights organizations in the early
years of the civil rights movement. He and six other students were the
first Black students to proudly integrate what was then called
Northeast Louisiana State College.
Eventually, a friend who had moved to Alaska talked him into coming
up to our great State. This was in 1965. Cal brought all of his
intelligence, his theatrical and musical talents, his abiding deep
faith, his fun, and his deep commitment to civil rights and community
service to our State in 1965.
In some ways, it was a good time to be an activist in Alaska. Our
State certainly isn't perfect. It is a State, though, that is very
committed to equal rights and justice for all. Yet, just like
everywhere in the country, we had our problems, and we had our
challenges. As I mentioned, we certainly were not perfect in that
realm, so Cal had work to do.
Initially, he was a dishwasher in the hospital by day and was a
community activist by night. He helped to lobby the mayor's office in
Anchorage to get paved roads and to bring electricity to predominantly
African-American neighborhoods. He also helped bring people into the
voting booths, which was so important.
The same friend who brought him to Alaska, Charles LeViege, started a
newspaper that focused on the African-American community. He joined
with the Alaska Native leadership to lobby for the landmark legislation
that, again, took place on the Senate floor, here, in 1971--the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act. He became the president of the Anchorage
chapter of the NAACP, of which he is still a vice president to this
very day.
I have only gotten to 1971, and you can see how much he has done.
In the 1970s, he had a little sojourn in Hollywood to fulfill a
lifelong dream of being in the movies. He was. He got some gigs--a spot
in a film with Angie Dickinson. The pages don't know who she is, but
she was a great actress.
But like some people who leave Alaska, he missed it too much, so he
decided to come back, and he did.
[[Page S4547]]
So over the years since he has been back, he has helped raise funds
for an African-American economic development venture. The group built a
building in the Fairview community of Anchorage, which is still there
today. They had a social club on the top sponsored by the Alaska Black
Caucus--a place to meet with executives and bank officers in a nice
setting, community leaders.
He worked in television. He worked for the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation, which has been key to helping people get home ownership.
All through these years, he clung to his roots and his faith. He is a
member of the Knights of Columbus and a faithful parishioner at St.
Anthony's Catholic Church in Anchorage, where he is the director of the
church's Filipino gospel choir, which sounds like angels. ``When we
sing,'' he said, ``we sing for the Lord.'' And no doubt, when they
sing, the Lord is listening.
He visits prisons to read the Bible with inmates, sings every week to
the patients at Providence Extended Care and every other week to our
senior home, which we call the Pioneer Home in Alaska. The residents
there love Cal's Elvis impersonations.
If you are in Alaska and happen to be there for Christmas, you should
stop by Bean's Cafe, a place where the hungry go for a meal, and Cal
will be there every Christmas wearing a Santa cap, singing for hours
for everybody who comes in the door.
This is a gentleman who has done so much for his community and my
State, and what is he most proud of? When asked, ``My greatest
achievement was in 2017 when I received the St. Francis Stewardship
Award from the Archdiocese of Anchorage,'' Cal said.
St. Francis was the patron saint of the Little Flower Academy. ``I
have come full circle,'' he said. ``Sister Consuela would be proud of
me.'' Then he adds: ``But nothing was ever enough for her.''
It is enough for all of us, though, Cal. I thank him for all he has
done for Anchorage, for so many different communities, for Alaska, and
as an example for our country--for his generosity, kindness,
enthusiasm, faith, and faith-filled service throughout his life.
Congratulations to Cal for being our Alaskan of the Week.
Tribute to Thomas Mansour
Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that my office is saying
goodbye to my very first Coast Guard fellow, recently promoted--
actually, promoted yesterday--to lieutenant commander, Thomas Mansour.
Thomas happens to be sitting right next to me here on the Senate
floor. Tom is from Montgomery County, MD. He graduated from Eckerd
College in St. Petersburg, FL. We were lucky to have him join my office
as a Coast Guard fellow for the last 2 years, and he has done great
work.
I am going to brag about him a little bit here on the floor. I will
probably embarrass him.
Among other things, he was instrumental in the 2018 Coast Guard
Authorization Act. The subcommittee that I chair on the Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee is in charge of the Coast Guard.
We were the ones drafting that. It had many provisions in it for the
whole Coast Guard, certainly many for Alaska and other parts of the
country.
He also brought his expertise to the 2017 and 2018 Homeland Security
budgets. His efforts helped secure landmark appropriations for the
first Polar Security Cutter, an icebreaker for the Coast Guard, the
first one in 40 years, and for critical infrastructure projects for the
Coast Guard around Alaska and around the rest of the country.
Probably his signature initiative--and very, very hard work--was on a
bill that we affectionately know in my office as the Save Our Seas Act,
both the first one, which our offices worked closely on with Senator
Whitehouse from Rhode Island and was signed by the President last fall
to much fanfare in the Oval Office, and our Save Our Seas Act 2.0,
which Senator Whitehouse and Senator Menendez and I rolled out in a
press conference just this morning.
SOS 2.0, as we call it, is an innovative piece of legislation that
really sets us on a promising path as a nation to tackle the serious
problem of plastics, ocean debris, and trash that enter our oceans and
harm fisheries, marine life, and possibly human life. This litter ends
up on the shores of Alaska, all around America, and threatens the
livelihoods of coastal communities throughout America.
Tom did yeoman's work to ensure that we introduced in the Senate
today a comprehensive, substantive bill that all stakeholders--
Democrats, Republicans, the Trump administration, environmental groups,
industry--are all working on together. Literally, all of the key
stakeholders on this critical issue are pulling on the same oar.
He did incredible work on this bill. He is a great team player,
someone I am proud of and we are going to miss.
Tom is getting married this summer to his fiance Meg, and they will
be entering a whole new chapter in their lives. It will be an exciting
one, I am sure. We wish them all the best.
I can't thank Tom enough for all of the work he has done for my
State, for our country, and I ask that all of my colleagues in the
Senate recognize the great work that he did. Just here on the spot, I
might even make him an honorary Alaskan of the Week for the great job
he has done.
Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about Tom.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Immigration
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the issue of immigration is one that is
front and center in the minds of most Americans, as it should be.
For the last 2\1/2\ years, our country has been roiling with
immigration controversy. This new President, now 2\1/2\ years into his
term, came to office and immediately instituted a travel ban on a
majority of Muslim countries. It was controversial.
In the city of Chicago, people showed up spontaneously at the
airport, lawyers, to counsel travelers to try to find some volunteer
effort that might respond to their worry and concern about the travel
ban imposed by President Trump.
The case went to court. The court stayed this decision and, in a
later adjudication, allowed it to go forward.
It was the first of many actions taken by President Trump on the
issue of immigration--most of them very controversial.
I remember the repeal of DACA in September of 2017. This is a program
I had worked on for years. It started with the DREAM Act, which I
introduced with my fellow U.S. Senator Barack Obama as cosponsor. We
tried to pass it here in the Senate but were stopped time and again by
the rules of the Senate and the filibuster.
Regardless of that, time passed and President Obama became President,
and I appealed to him, with the assistance of Senator Lugar, a
Republican Senator of Indiana, asking if he could find some way as
President to provide relief to these young people brought to the United
States as children, who wanted a chance to earn their way to legal
status in America.
President Obama came up with a program called DACA, and that program
said that if you are one of those children, you could come forward, pay
a substantial filing fee, go through a criminal background check, and
if we established that you are no threat to this country, that you are
moving forward with your education and had plans for a job and a
career, we would allow you to stay legally in the United States and not
be deported for 2 years at a time, renewable--check in and make sure
that your status hasn't changed.
In the end, 790,000--790,000--young people across America took
advantage of DACA. Their lives were changed overnight. With DACA, there
was no longer a fear of a knock on a door. They could become students
and, as students, become teachers.
They can learn skills to be nurses, engineers, entrepreneurs, even
doctors. It was a liberation for these 790,000 given the chance,
finally, to be part of America and its future.
As I have said so many times on the floor, and Senator Menendez was
the first to ever say it, and I thought it was such an apt description
of these
[[Page S4548]]
young people: They had spent their entire lives pledging allegiance to
that flag every morning, believing it was their flag. They learned, at
some point, they were not legally here in America. President Obama gave
them a chance--790,000.
In September of 2017, President Donald Trump ended the DACA Program.
He challenged Congress: Pass a law. Don't rely on an Executive order;
pass a law. Well, we tried. We tried, on a bipartisan basis in the
Senate, and President Trump rejected our effort. It was unfortunate,
but it meant that these people--these 790,000 and hundreds of thousands
of others who could have been eligible--were stopped in their tracks.
Luckily--luckily--the courts came to their rescue and said for these
people, despite President Trump's decision, the 790,000 should be
protected from deportation. No new ones could apply, but it gave them
temporary relief, which could end any day, any week, or any month.
That, in my mind, was the second major move by President Trump to roil
up this immigration situation in America, to get tough on 790,000 young
men and women who simply wanted a chance to live in this country.
He then terminated temporary protected status. That was a category of
immigration given to people who were in dire circumstances--victims of
terrible extreme weather events or political and human disasters in
their country--who were allowed to come here and live in the United
States in a protected status, hundreds of thousands of them from all
over the world. This President, Donald Trump, said: The end of it. We
are going to put an end to it. It is over. That was the third strike as
far as I was concerned, but it wasn't the end, by far.
Last June 2018, with a great deal of pride and with biblical quotes,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions came forward and announced a zero-
tolerance policy: Anyone presenting himself at the border would be
considered suspect criminal, and if they had in their custody a young
child, they would be separated. In the end, at least--at least--2,880
infants, toddlers, and children were separated from their parents. It
was a dramatic move. It was an inhumane move, but it was done to create
what they call a deterrence to discourage people from coming to our
border. Within days, the public reaction against zero tolerance grew to
a point where even this President, who does not have ``sorry'' in his
vocabulary, came forward and said they were going to end that policy of
zero tolerance.
What about the children, though, the ones who actually were
separated? It took a Federal judge in Southern California to come
forward and say there had to be an accounting of the children and their
parents and a reuniting. It went on for weeks and months. Still, to
this day, there are children adrift in America. Their families can't be
found because zero tolerance--this inhumane policy--was such an abject
failure. Even ``ending it'' didn't end the struggle that many of these
young people are still going through to this day. That was the fourth
thing this President did by way of getting tough on immigration policy.
Then he announced several weeks ago in one of his infamous tweets
that he was going to initiate a policy of mass arrests and mass
deportations. There are some 11 million--that is the best estimate--
undocumented people in this country, and the President said millions
would be deported. We saw it in its earliest stages around the city of
Chicago.
Betty Rendon, a grandmother who had been in the United States for
more than 10 years, was deported. How dangerous was Betty Rendon to
this country? Not at all. In fact, she was a seminary student at a
Lutheran seminary near Chicago. She had deep family roots, children and
grandchildren in the community who were American citizens, but that was
not enough. ICE, the agency of enforcement of Department of Homeland
Security, issued deportation orders, and she was forced to leave this
country.
I have asked those in charge at the Department of Homeland Security:
What threat was this woman to America? After being here 10 years and
living a life that showed she was no threat to anyone, why was she a
priority to deport from this country? They couldn't answer.
Now we have an unprecedented humanitarian crisis at our border. I
thought long and hard about the statement I am about to make and the
photo which I am about to display. Even though it has been on the front
page of major newspapers like the New York Times, it is such a
heartbreaking photo that I at least warn in advance anyone following
this speech that if you would be troubled by the images in this photo,
please look away or turn away from what I am about to show you, but I
believe it has to be shown to the American people. It is a photo of a
shocking and horrifying image of Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his
23-month-old daughter Valeria. They died in their effort to try to
cross from Mexico into the United States. This is the photo which was
in the newspapers. It is a shocking portrayal of the desperation this
family faced.
We are told by his wife that they tried to come through the ordinary
port of entry, the usual place to present yourself to seek asylum in
the United States--this mother, father, and child--and they were told
that the ordinary port of entry was closed to them. So they attempted
to cross the Rio Grande River.
From what we were told, this father took his little daughter, less
than 2 years old, and swam across the river. He put her on the bank and
then went back to help his wife come across. His daughter panicked and
jumped in the river behind him. He tried to rescue her. They both
drowned.
This is an illustration of the crisis in real terms, a crisis we face
at this border that should never be taking place.
Valeria, this 23-month-old girl, according to her mother, loved to
dance, play with her stuffed animals, and brush the hair of her madre
and padre. Her father Oscar had sold his motorcycle and borrowed money
to flee from El Salvador to come to the United States. He and his wife,
Tania Vanessa Avalos, were simply looking for safety and opportunity
for their family. Vanessa's mother said: ``They wanted a better future
for their girl.'' They planned to cross into the United States and seek
asylum and try to find a safe place in the future.
That is the reality of what we are discussing on the floor of the
Senate this evening and have been for the last several days.
Unfortunately, President Trump responded to this tragedy with a
political statement. He tweeted: ``The Democrats should change the
Loopholes and Asylum Laws so lives will be saved at our Southern
Border.''
I might remind the President that the same laws he now deals with in
this border crisis were exactly the laws President Obama was faced with
when he was President. Something different has happened. It isn't just
the laws of this country; it is the way we are administering the laws
that currently exist.
I sincerely believe we are better than this situation depicted in
that photograph and what we have heard over and over. I believe America
can have a secure border and respect our international obligations to
provide safe haven to those fleeing persecution, as we have done as
Democrats and Republicans for decades before this administration.
Yesterday I met with Mark Morgan. Last month, President Trump named
him as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, ICE.
Mr. Morgan, a former marine and former FBI agent, had been asked to
carry out the mass arrests that President Trump talked about in his
tweet several weeks ago and the mass deportations of millions of
immigrants whom the President had threatened.
Shortly before I met with Mr. Morgan, he was named to a different
position, Acting Director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As of
yesterday, he moved from being in charge of interior enforcement within
the United States to be in charge of solving the humanitarian crisis we
now face at our border.
If that sounds like a rash move and hard to explain, it is not the
only one. In the 2\1/2\ years that President Trump has been President,
we have had four different people leading the Department of Homeland
Security--four--in 2\1/2\ years, and it is not the fault of the Senate
or Congress for holding up nominations. They just change that often.
Within the Department of Homeland Security, in every major department,
we have had repeated turnovers
[[Page S4549]]
and changeovers in the leaders there. Even those today who are
nominally in charge are in an acting capacity. They can't bring them
through the regular order of vetting and background checks to be given
these responsible positions. So as of yesterday, Mr. Morgan is in
charge of this crisis at the border.
There is a gaping leadership vacuum in the Trump administration's
Department of Homeland Security. To have four different heads of the
Department in 2\1/2\ years, to have every position of responsibility
for immigration or border security held by a temporary appointee is
unacceptable, and the White House has not submitted names to Congress
for permanent nominations to these positions.
The Trump administration can shuffle the deck chairs, but we know the
obvious: President Trump's immigration and border security policies are
failing. Their failures are found not only in the detention of children
and families in inhumane circumstances but also this tragic photograph
of a desperate couple turned away at the border who tried their best to
find another way to present themselves in the United States.
We have a responsibility in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to
deal with this crisis that has been created by this administration.
In February, after the President finally agreed to end the longest
government shutdown in the history of the United States, Congress
passed a bipartisan omnibus appropriations bill that included $414
million--in February, $414 million--for humanitarian assistance at the
border. I have asked what happened to this money. The explanations are
hard to follow. Some said: Well, more than half of this humanitarian
assistance has been invested in a building which will be ready for
occupancy in about a year and a half.
Here we have kids without diapers at the border, questionable food
sources, filthy clothes, separation of children from families, and they
are setting out to build a building that might be open in a year and a
half. It would seem to me that those who were in medical practice and
triage cases would certainly start with the immediate humanitarian
challenge before they start the long-term responsibility of building a
building. More needs to be done at our border.
In April, I visited El Paso, TX. What I saw in the Border Patrol's
overcrowded facilities was heartbreaking. I want to add here, as I do
every time I bring this up, that I believe the men and women--the
professional men and women at the border, the ones I met and spoke to--
are caring people. They are genuinely concerned by the humanitarian
crisis they see unfolding before them every single day. Some
undoubtedly have done improper things and mistreated these detainees,
but the ones I spoke to understood, as human beings, the need for us to
do more as a country.
Last month, I led 24 Senators in calling on the International
Committee of the Red Cross and the inspector general of the Department
of Homeland Security to investigate these Border Patrol facilities,
including the ones I visited in El Paso. The circumstances there were
unacceptable by any normal American standard. To think that we were
packing these people into detention cells far beyond the capacity--
``capacity 35'' written over the door. I counted 150 standing shoulder
to shoulder in that room with one toilet. It is just unacceptable and
impossible to explain that this is happening in America.
For me to call on the international Red Cross to look at this
circumstance is something I never thought I would do. I have done that
before but only in foreign countries, asking that some of the horrible
conditions in the detention of prisoners be investigated by the
International Red Cross. I never thought I would be asking the same of
the Red Cross, to look in America.
Earlier this month, the inspector general of the Department of
Homeland Security released a report detailing the inhumane and
dangerous overcrowding of migrants at the El Paso port of entry, which
I had visited. The office found the overcrowding was ``an immediate
risk to the health detainees and DHS employees.''
Earlier today, the Senate passed legislation with funding to
alleviate some overcrowding at the CPB facilities and to provide food
supplies and medical care to migrants. This bill we have passed also
includes critical funding for the Office of Refugee Resettlement to
care for migrant children.
The House of Representatives passed their own version of the bill
last night. The House legislation, which I also support, includes
critical oversight measures, particularly when it comes to these
children. Now it is time for us to reach an agreement--the House and
the Senate, Democrats and Republicans--and to do it in a timely
fashion.
I am willing to work with my colleagues to find a bipartisan answer,
as I did on the first version of this, which passed in the Senate. What
is happening at our border is unacceptable. The President has to come
to realize that just getting tough is not the answer; it takes more.
We need to commit ourselves to international assistance in these
three countries that are the sources of these people: El Salvador,
Honduras, and Guatemala. Overwhelmingly, those are the origins of these
migrants who come to the United States.
We have to realize, as well, that people are coming here in desperate
circumstances, as this photograph I showed on the floor depicts. Many
times they are prepared to risk their lives and even lose their lives
as they try to make it to the United States in desperation. We have to
find a way, an orderly way, to accept those who truly need our
protection and need to be brought to a place of safety. And we have to
have a timely process so that the determination of eligibility is not 1
year or 2 years in the future. It is time for us to work together on a
bipartisan basis to do that.
Mr. President, I see another Senator, my colleague from Oklahoma, on
the floor. I hope he can give me 10 minutes.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Iran
Mr. President, although I may not often say it, I want to make it
clear. I think President Trump made the right decision the other day in
deciding not to start a war with Iran. He must accept responsibility
for some of the challenges we now face.
I think the decision to walk away from the agreement that prohibited
Iran from developing nuclear weapons was shortsighted. By every report
that we have received, this agreement--international agreement--with
international inspectors was being followed by the Iranians. Yet the
President decided to walk away from it. His attempt to isolate Iran
from our allies, to seek regime change, and to declare economic war on
Iran, unfortunately, have all led to this moment in history where a
confrontation seems imminent.
Many around the President here in Washington and abroad have been
anxious for a conflict with Iran. Many of the same people were anxious
for a conflict with Iraq. I remember that. I remember it well because I
was one of 23 Senators who voted against the invasion of Iraq. They are
still there, engaged in a war some 17 years later. Thousands of
American lives have been lost, and thousands more have been injured. We
are spending trillions of dollars in taxpayers' money in a war without
end in Iraq.
One of the great tragedies of the Iraq war, one of the few its
architects have ever admitted, is that the Iraq war actually ended up
empowering Iran. Today, the Iraqi Government is actually something of
an Iranian client state. Yet the same unrepentant voices are again
beating the drums for regime change and another war in the Middle East.
Do the American people want a third war in the Middle East at this
moment in our history? I don't think so.
Some have even had the audacity to argue the 2001 authorization for
use of military force approved by this Congress to respond to those who
attacked us on 9/11 somehow gives this President authority and
permission to invade Iran. I don't agree with that at all.
I cannot imagine anyone here who took that vote 18 years ago thought
they were voting to start a war with Iran that would still be going on
18 years later. I find that impossible to believe.
The Constitution is clear. Article I, section 8 says that the power
to declare war is the explicit power of the U.S. Congress, and it
should be.
No one should ever send our sons and daughters into war without the
consent
[[Page S4550]]
of the American people through their elected representatives. Our
Founding Fathers were wise in making sure this awesome power did not
rest with a King-like or Queen-like figure but with the people's
elected representatives.
I have made this same argument in the House and in the Senate during
my career, regardless of who sat in the White House, a Republican or a
Democrat.
Recently, I was pleased to join with Senator Udall and others in
legislation reaffirming no war with Iran without the consent of
Congress. This bill is also now an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act. I sincerely hope we will have a timely vote to make
sure the President understands that he cannot authorize the invasion or
military force in Iran without the approval and permission of Congress.
Some of the eerie, familiar statements and distortions used to sell
the Iraq war are reappearing now. Vice President Cheney repeatedly
warned us in those days that Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing
nuclear weapons. He even alleged there was ``no doubt'' that they were
amassing those weapons to use against the United States.
Former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle argued that Iraqis could
finance the postwar rebuilding from their own oil wealth, and he had
``no doubt that they will.''
President George W. Bush, who claimed war was actually his last
choice, provocatively tried to link al-Qaida with Saddam Hussein--a
dubious claim echoed by his then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
and one some are even trying to brazenly use today.
Secretary Rumsfeld even tried to claim war in Iraq would last ``Five
days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last
any longer than that.'' That is what our Secretary of Defense said.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Cheney
said we would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators. Wolfowitz argued that
``hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark.''
Five days or 5 weeks, welcomed by the Iraqis? Well, the war started,
and it has never ended. There are 150,000 American soldiers deployed in
Iraq. The war continues into its second decade. Incidentally, no
weapons of mass destruction were ever found, no nuclear weapons, and we
certainly weren't greeted as liberators. Iraqi oil did not pay the $2
trillion that American taxpayers were forced to pay for that war in
Iraq.
More than 4,500 Americans have been killed and 32,000 wounded,
including my brave and amazing colleague in the Senate, Senator Tammy
Duckworth.
How do some of the current occupants of the White House driving Iran
policy feel about that Iraq war disaster? Well, National Security
Advisor John Bolton said in 2015: ``I still think the decision to
overthrow Saddam was correct.'' He made that statement 1 month after
writing a New York Times op-ed piece entitled: ``To Stop Iran's Bomb,
Bomb Iran.''
Sadly, what I find most stunning about the administration's march to
war in Iran is that its actions have, in fact, contributed to the
current mess and Iran's threat to restart its nuclear program.
President Trump has been pursuing a policy impossible to follow:
calling for a regime change, trying to flatter and meet with the
Iranian President Rouhani, trying to negotiate a better deal,
threatening Iran militarily, tightening sanctions. Who knows what the
policy is going to be from day to day.
The President impulsively withdrew from the nuclear agreement without
first designing a credible way to get a better agreement. He went on to
designate Iran's military as a terrorist organization, even against the
advice of our military. And he tried to starve Iran of the agreed
benefits it was to receive from the original deal.
Let me be clear. There is no doubt that Iran is responsible for
dangerous destabilizing actions in that region and beyond. Its proxies
attack our servicemembers in Iraq and threaten our allies in the
region. But why not push back against Iran without withdrawing from the
nuclear agreement? Why give them the pretext for belligerence and
undermine our credibility with the global powers party to our own
nuclear deal?
The tragic end result of this dangerous incoherence is that our
allies are united against us, and Iran may we start nuclear activities,
which had been frozen for the last 4 years.
This Congress, already a rubberstamp for too many of President
Trump's instincts, must not do so in a march to another war in the
Middle East as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to rise today to speak to the
Senate and compliment two of my colleagues, Senator Jim Inhofe from my
State of Oklahoma, my senior Senator, and Senator Jack Reed, for their
leadership and bipartisan work on this year's National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020.
This is a complicated bill. It has had hundreds of amendments, both
in committee and in the initial managers' package that came out of
committee that has already been debated, and there are a lot more
amendments that are still being debated in the process.
It is an incredibly complicated issue to bring the authorization and
information for all military for the next year. It is something that
Congress has done for a long time. But for Jim Inhofe, this is his
first year to chair this committee and to actually be the driver for
this, and I think he has done an exceptional job of walking through
this piece of legislation.
It is a $750 billion authorization. There will be additional
appropriations that have to be done to be able to designate that, but
that is exactly what President Trump had asked for and said is what is
needed, and it is what the Department of Defense has said that they
would need to keep our country safe and to prepare for the future.
There are a lot of elements in the bill. I want to identify a few of
them, beginning with a 3.1-percent pay increase for our troops. That is
something that is much needed. The pay for our troops has been very,
very behind for a long time, and this starts an initial process of
getting them a little bit above inflation to start trying to catch up.
It also deals with an issue that is very important to our military
families, and that is their housing. There are many areas and many
bases and posts around the country and around the world where the
housing has fallen behind: mold issues, plumbing issues, electrical
issues, roofing issues, and flooring issues. It is important for the
members of our military to have a safe place that they come home to
that really feels like home. They are traveling around the world. They
are in difficult places, and as much as their families can be kept safe
and have a place that they can make home as a family--that is
exceptionally important. For those single men and women, it is
important that they have a place where they can actually get rest and
have connection with each other. This bill deals with additional
funding to deal with housing, which is much needed.
This bill also deals with spouses, in their transition from facility
to facility, being able to pick up an additional job. For many of the
spouses who are traveling with our men and women in the military, when
they move to a new base or post, they also want to pick up a new job in
that place. It takes months to do that transition now.
There is also an issue with licensing. If they have a professional
skill in one State, when they move to another State, there are some
additional hurdles for them just to move to that next State. This bill
helps deal with that and, again, helps those families know that when
they move, as we ask them to move to different locations, it is a
little bit easier on their family to also pick up a second job if they
choose to do that.
Oklahoma is home to Altus Air Force Base, Tinker Air Force Base,
Vance Air Force Base, Fort Sill Army Post, McAlester Army Ammunition
Plant, and, of course, the amazing facilities for our Army and Air
International Guard. We have a lot of folks in Oklahoma who are
veterans who come back to Oklahoma to retire, and a lot of folks who
are actively serving there. This bill deals with every one of those
facilities in some way.
Let me give a few examples. The KC-46 tanker--a brandnew tanker that
will be the refueler for the next generation--has already begun its
delivery. It
[[Page S4551]]
is coming to Altus, and it is already there at Altus Air Force Base. In
fact, I had the privilege, along with Senator Inhofe, to ride in from
Seattle on the very first KC-46 tanker coming to Altus Air Force Base
in the 97th Air Mobility Wing. That wing does all the training for
every pilot who will fly the KC-46 for the decades ahead. Whether they
are in the Reserve or in the Guard or Active Duty, they are going to be
connected to Altus Air Force Base for the KC-46. It has long been
awaited, and it is finally arriving.
This bill does the authorization for an additional 15 tankers, as we
are modernizing that force, and we will do a few every single year for
quite a while.
The bill includes funding for the procurement of critical Army
weapons and combat vehicles, including the Paladin Integrated
Management System upgrade, which is assembled in Elgin, OK, right next
to Fort Sill. The Fires Center of Excellence at Fort Sill organizes,
trains, and equips all the Paladin units in the Army Paladin
Integration Management. In fact, the skills that are coming in at Fort
Sill Fires Center of Excellence are asked for all over the world.
Almost every one of our allies and every single foreign base is asking
for the good folks from Fort Sill who are trained to help protect our
men and women around the world.
Additionally, Senator Inhofe and Senator Reed and all their staff
have worked to get in some of the amendments that I brought in on the
base text. Those amendments--they heard it out. We got a chance to have
dialogue. They have now been included long term.
One of those that I worked with one of my colleagues on--Senator
Shaheen--we worked on a sense-of-the-Senate on dealing with Turkey.
Turkey is a NATO ally. They worked very closely with us in the
development of the F-35, but we have a problem. The leadership in
Turkey is now reaching out to Russia to buy the S-400 air defense
system. The F-35 is incompatible with the S-400 Russian system sitting
right next to it. We will never ever allow the F-35 to sit next to the
Russian S-400 system.
We tried to make that clear in multiple conversations with Turkey and
with Turkey's leaders. We tried to bring this up over and over again. I
worked with Senator Inhofe, along with my colleagues, Senator Shaheen
and Senator Jack Reed, to make it clear that we will not allow the F-35
to be sold to Turkey if they are also going to purchase the S-400 from
Russia.
I maintain my strong support for the F-35 program and applaud its
advanced capability. The military actually will be shaped around the F-
35 in the days ahead, based on its capabilities. But we cannot allow
Turkey to have the F-35 and also buy a Russian system at the same time.
One of my other amendments that I dealt with when I was dealing with
Turkey and the F-35 and the security of that advanced weapons system
also dealt with something that some folks may not have noticed, but I
did, and other folks have as well, and that is the retirement of
chaplains.
We lose track at times that when people enter into the military,
these mandatory retirement ages will sneak up on folks. Well, it is
especially so for chaplains because many chaplains actually enter into
their service in the military after--as a second career. For many folks
in the military, that is their first career, and then they have a
second one, but not so for chaplains. Many of them are pastors or
missionaries or counselors in hospitals and other locations. They get
into their service and then time out.
Chaplains need a little bit of extra time to serve so they can serve
a full term with the U.S. military. One of our amendments in this bill
allows those chaplains to be able to complete service and be a part of
that.
There are many other aspects of this bill that is literally hundreds
of pages long that deal with military service. I want to bring up one
additional element. It is an element that has been in great debate in
conversation here in Congress, and it deals with the country of Iran.
This bill deals with not the military policy specifically with Iran
but deals with our defense and our preparation for any enemy, including
Iran. There is an amendment coming up for debate and conversation that
changes the rules of engagement with Iran, that literally says to this
administration that they cannot engage in any hostilities with Iran.
They can only defend themselves if attacked but cannot respond until
they get a vote from Congress.
I cannot imagine a worse set of rules of engagement for anyone in the
U.S. military who is forward-deployed and facing risk from Iran than to
say: You can respond when Congress votes for it.
I will certainly vote against that amendment, as it comes up as one
of the final amendments, to say to our military leadership: I will not
handcuff you in the face of the threat that is Iran.
I have heard folks on this floor and in the media want to lay the
issues we have with Iran on President Trump. May I remind this body
that we had 444 hostages taken in Iran in 1979. Iran was the mover that
bombed Beirut and our Embassy there in the 1980s. Iran is the one that
attacked the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and killed many of our folks
in the 1990s. The reason Bashar Assad is still in power in Syria right
now is because Iran and their forces have brought them up. The reason
there is a civil war in Yemen right now is because Iran is providing
the weapons there and the insight to be able to instigate that civil
war that is happening in Yemen right now. The reason there is constant
peril on Israel's borders all the way around is because Iran is funding
Hezbollah and Iran is funding Hamas.
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and the
instability in the region is not something new and is not President
Trump's fault. It has been a long-term issue with not only the United
States but all of the West and all of the region.
Our issue is not with the Iranian people. They are smart. They are
entrepreneurs. They are well educated. But they also live under the
thumb of a ruthless regime led by the ayatollahs. That regime squashed
the Green Movement several years ago in Iran--the people just wanting
more freedom.
The issues we are facing with Iran right now are not President
Trump's fault, are not because he is being mean, just as Iran's attack
on the Khobar Towers and the murder of many of our people was not
because President Clinton had put sanctions on Iran the year before. It
wasn't President Clinton's fault that the Khobar Towers were attacked;
it is not President Trump's fault in this case. He has pushed back on a
terrorist regime and is demanding that they change their ways not only
in the nuclear setting but also in conventional terrorism around the
region and, quite frankly, around the world. We cannot allow them to
continue to terrorize their neighbors.
No one wants a war with Iran. That is why we have used sanctions and
diplomatic means to address this. All these accusations that the
President is secretly going to try to take us to war with Iran I find
absurd, especially for the man who is trying to get us out of a war in
Afghanistan, out of a war in Syria, and out of a war in Iraq. Suddenly,
secretly, he wants to get into a war with Iran? That is absurd.
All of the region is looking to us to help push back on the biggest
bully in the region for decades, and every President since Jimmy Carter
has tried to isolate and push back on Iran. I do not want to suddenly
limit President Trump from trying to isolate and push back on Iran
because some folks don't trust him.
In the days ahead, we as a nation will cautiously, diplomatically,
economically isolate Iran to try to bring them into cooperation with
the rest of the world, but in the meantime, let's not handcuff our
folks who are in harm's way in that region and tell them: If you want
to respond, come and get a vote from us first.
In closing, I again thank Senator Inhofe, who has done tireless work
on this NDAA, and Senator Jack Reed for their great bipartisan
leadership on this. They have done yeomen's work on this.
I hope that this bill will not only pass the Senate but that we will
put it on the President's desk in the days ahead and give some
stability to our military forces around the world and that they will
know we understand that 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and in every
time zone in the world, they are standing watch for peace and freedom.
They are not a threatening presence. They are a peaceful presence, and
[[Page S4552]]
their strength has brought exceptional peace to the world. I am
grateful for them and for their families and for the amazing sacrifice
they make every day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 900
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to offer
an amendment about the opioid addiction crisis that is devastating our
Nation.
The origins of this epidemic are no doubt complicated, but there is a
simple fact within this complicated problem; that is, the introduction
of the synthetic opioid fentanyl has made this the deadliest drug
epidemic in American history.
Fentanyl is 30 to 50 times more powerful than heroin, which is
obviously lethal. Just 2 milligrams of this substance--that is
equivalent to a few grains of salt--is enough to kill most people. This
synthetic opioid has contributed to or caused 30,000 of the 50,000
opioid overdose deaths in the United States since 2017, and it is
killing Pennsylvanians at an even higher percentage.
As is the case with most illicit drugs, the vast majority of this is
not actually coming from within the borders of the United States; the
vast majority originates outside our borders. So cooperation with the
governments of other countries is essential if we are going to make
progress in ending this scourge.
There are some countries that are extremely helpful. Canada and
Mexico are, unfortunately, important transit points for drugs into the
United States. Their governments work closely with ours and, I think it
is fair to say, are doing all they reasonably can and continue to
strive to do more to end this devastating influx. But fentanyl is
particularly difficult because such tiny quantities are so lethal, and
the fact is that not all foreign governments are as cooperative as they
could be and they should be.
It is well known that the primary source of the fentanyl that is on
the streets in Pennsylvania and across America--the source is
ultimately China. China has been cooperating in some important ways.
China shares advance electronic data on mail parcels, and that is
helpful. As of May 1 of this year--a few weeks ago--China agreed to
schedule fentanyl as a class that is prohibited in China, and that
forgoes the need to schedule every conceivable variant of the chemical.
That is a good development. But we can't be sure that China is going to
follow through on its commitment--the one I just mentioned is very
recent--and they still don't do all they should on pill presses. They
also have a history of breaking agreements with the United States.
Maybe even more importantly, we don't know what other countries might
decide to tolerate fentanyl production within their borders and look
the other way when it arrives in the United States.
Simply, there have to be consequences for countries that knowingly
allow the production of fentanyl in their own land, to then be exported
to the United States, and that do not--I am referring to the
governments--cooperate with us as fully as they could and should be.
That brings me to the bill I introduced. It is called the Blocking
Deadly Fentanyl Imports Act. It is a bipartisan bill that I introduced
with Doug Jones. I want to offer that as an amendment, to get a vote on
this bill we are considering right now.
I should point out that since 1983, Congress has utilized the Foreign
Assistance Act as a way to deal with this kind of problem.
Specifically, this legislation--the Foreign Assistance Act, the
existing law--forbids certain categories of U.S. foreign aid from going
to countries that don't assist us sufficiently in our effort to control
illicit substances.
There is a finite number of illicit drugs that are on the list. They
include heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine and its
precursor chemicals. Congress has periodically updated the list and
expanded the list as times have changed. In 2005, the House and Senate
voted to add methamphetamine and its precursors. Senator Jones and I
and a number of our colleagues believe it is past time that we add
fentanyl to this list, especially since it is arguably the most lethal
drug in the world today.
Our bill would do a couple of things. It would add fentanyl to this
list on the Foreign Assistance Act, the illicit substance list. That
would then require the State Department to identify those countries--at
the moment, China--that are the most significant sources of illicit
fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.
Then we would toughen the requirements in determining whether or not
another country is, in fact, sufficiently cooperating with the United
States. We only toughen the requirements for those countries that are
found to be significant sources of fentanyl, not the other drugs
already on the list but those countries determined by our State
Department to be significant sources of fentanyl. For that small set of
countries, if the President finds that one or more of the following
three criteria are not being met, then, those countries would face the
risk of having these forms of financial aid withheld.
These are the three criteria we want them to meet: No. 1, whether
they have in fact scheduled fentanyl and analogues as a controlled
substance in their country; No. 2, whether steps are being taken to
actually prosecute people who are illegally trafficking in fentanyl;
and the final criteria we would add is whether or not they require the
registration of pill presses, because we know that unregulated pill
presses have been found to be used for production of counterfeit pills
that actually contain fentanyl.
That is the criteria that would get a country crosswise with us as a
consequence of this legislation. What would the consequences be? The
legislation contemplates that if a country is not doing enough with
respect to the existing list of illicit narcotics, then, they would
stand to lose various forms of foreign aid from the United States,
specifically, economic development grants, development finance aid,
health aid, agricultural aid, and military aid.
It is important to note there are other categories of aid that we
provide to foreign countries and more precisely to entities within
those countries that would not be affected by this. They are not
affected under current law, and they would not be affected under our
bill--aid such as products-related assistance, disaster relief, food
aid, medical aid, and aid to refugees. Existing law doesn't interrupt
those forms of aid even with bad-acting governments, and our bill
wouldn't either. In addition, even the categories of foreign aid that
could be shut off and that would be shut off are subject to a
Presidential waiver. If, for whatever reason, the President believes it
is more important that we continue even those forms of aid, then, under
our amendment, the President could do so.
Again, to just sum up, the simple thing here is that a country that
knowingly tolerates the production and export of fentanyl and is not as
cooperative with our government as they could be in stopping it
shouldn't be getting all kinds of U.S. foreign aid. That is all.
That is what our amendment would do. The majority on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee supports this. The State Department made
some suggestions that we accepted. Some of the suggestions included
that we drop the reference to precursor chemicals because that might
capture too many countries that shouldn't be captured because they are
not the precursor chemicals used for the purpose of producing illicit
fentanyl. We acknowledged that, and we changed it.
I would again stress that the waivers are available to the President
in the event the country ought to get those waivers.
So let me remind my colleagues that this is the worst drug crisis in
American history. Fentanyl is at the heart of it. We should hold
accountable countries that are not doing enough to stop this poison
from leaving their country and coming into ours.
I am not asking for passage here and now, but I am asking for a vote.
Let's have an up-or-down vote. I would be happy to set the vote at a
60-vote threshold. Let's send a message to any country in the world
that there will be consequences for them if they choose to go down this
road.
With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
amendment No. 862 and call up my amendment No. 900.
[[Page S4553]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree
with the Senator from Pennsylvania that we need to fight the opioid
epidemic from every angle.
The trafficking of this drug fentanyl coming into the United States
has to stop. Many lives are at stake. In my State of New Jersey, over
3,100 New Jerseyans died in 2018 alone as a result of prescription pain
killers, heroin, and fentanyl.
While I support the Senator from Pennsylvania's desire to use all of
the leverage we have at our disposal to pressure China to do a better
job at regulating illicit fentanyl, as is exemplified by the amendment
I cosponsored with Senator Schumer and others that is in the underlying
legislation we are considering as of now, the Senator from
Pennsylvania's amendment could potentially have far more wide-reaching
implications.
I believe every Member of the body should be concerned about the
potential collateral damage should this become law.
The Trump administration's State Department, when we asked them for
an assessment of the original version of this amendment, concluded that
it would lead to the suspension of U.S. foreign assistance to every
country on the planet. That is not something I can support.
When we talk about China, our aid to China isn't to China as a
nation. China doesn't need our aid. It is giving out aid all over the
world. Our aid to China is to individuals, entities, and organizations
that actually promote our national interests and our national security
by creating opportunities for different parts of Chinese society to be
independent from the Chinese state. So it is not China that gets our
foreign assistance, but, in large part, that ultimately would be
denied, and that is a type of loss that the Chinese would be only too
happy to see happen.
My office worked extensively through the weekend with the Senator
from Pennsylvania's office. We offered numerous different compromise
agreements, but none of them were acceptable. So while I agree with the
spirit of this amendment, I cannot support it as it is currently
drafted, and therefore I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, very briefly, I hope the Senator from New
Jersey will continue to engage with us. There is a possibility that we
are not as far apart as it may appear.
Let me be very clear. It is an absolute fact that every country in
the world would not be affected by this legislation at all. Whoever at
the State Department suggested that chose not to read the language or
chose not to understand it. Our legislation would affect a very narrow
category of countries that are determined by our State Department to be
major sources of fentanyl. At the moment, there is a grand total of one
that I am aware of that would qualify for that designation. Nothing
else flows from this. There are no consequences unless you first meet
that criteria. So that alone makes it obvious that it couldn't possibly
apply to every country in the world.
I would also underscore the categories of aid that would be subject
to being withheld in the event that a country is, in fact, a source of
fentanyl and is not cooperating with us--our economic development
grants, development finance aid, health aid, agricultural aid and
military aid are all forms of aid that I think are entirely reasonable
to withhold. The categories that I think the Senator from New Jersey is
concerned about we exclude from the risk of being withheld, because I
acknowledged the Senator's point. There are categories of foreign aid
that don't go to foreign governments. They go to NGOs. They go to folks
on the ground who are actually advancing a cause we believe in. For
instance, there is the democracy development fund. We wouldn't affect
that even if a country is a major source of illicit fentanyl and not
cooperating with us fully. We recognize that this category of funding
doesn't help that government. It helps us with the hope that we could
change that government. I am not convinced that we are as far apart as
it may appear to be.
I would remind everyone that I am only seeking a vote. I am not
asking for unanimous consent for the amendment itself. I hope we can
get back to the business of actually debating substance and voting in
this body. Sometimes the minority leader has suggested that we have
become a graveyard of legislation. Well, I am just proposing that we
have a debate and have a vote. I hope we can get to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as I said, we worked all weekend long
with the Senator from Pennsylvania's office, and we are happy to
continue to work with him to see if we can come to a common ground. His
original amendment that we were discussing did include the elimination
of democracy promotion, and that is something that China would only be
too happy to achieve.
I understand that in this amendment--which I have not had the full
opportunity, nor my staff, to fully analyze--he may have excluded that.
That is another step forward. So we are happy to engage with the
Senator and see if we can come to common ground beyond today.
My goal, however, is to join the Senator in punishing countries that
are ultimately allowing this to happen, but not to do it in a way that
doesn't punish the country but actually denies those whom we are trying
to help inside of those countries in the pursuit of our own interests.
So if we come to that point, I hope we can ultimately come to an
agreement.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Border Security
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about the
horrific humanitarian crisis at our southern border--the inhumane and
truly despicable conditions under which migrants, including children,
are being held by the U.S. Government. Children are being held for
prolonged periods of time in facilities that are woefully inadequate,
and that is an understatement.
On my left is a chart with some pictures. I want to walk through each
of these pictures to talk about these children by name. Since September
of 2018, these children have died while in United States Government
custody.
I will start at the lower right-hand corner of the chart as you are
facing the chart: Carlos Hernandez Vasquez, 16 years old; up here on
the left top of the chart, Wilmer Josue Ramirez Vasquez, 2 years old;
Darlyn Cristabel Cordova-Valle, age 10; Juan de Leon Gutierrez, right
here on the other side of the chart, just 16 years old; Jakelin Caal
Maquin--many know her name from the time when she passed away--just 7
years old; and finally, Felipe Gomez Alonzo, just 8 years old.
These six deaths occurred in the span of less than 1 year and are the
first deaths in at least a decade. Mourning their deaths is not enough.
I think we can at least agree on that. As much as anyone can mourn
their deaths, that is not enough. We must act in light of this terrible
darkness that these children experienced and that their families are
living with and that our country is experiencing as well.
In recent weeks we have heard some of the reporting. There have been
reports of children held without adequate medical attention, without
food or water or sanitation.
Just by way of one searing example, Warren Binford, a law professor
at Willamette University, who spoke with children at the Texas
facility, said:
Basically, what we saw are dirty children who are
malnourished, who are severely neglected. They are being kept
in inhumane conditions. They are essentially being
warehoused, as many as 300 children in a cell, with almost no
adult supervision.
This is a lawyer who is trained to understand and to explain these
kinds of conditions. This isn't some casual observer. This is an expert
in her field who is telling us this. She is not a Member of Congress.
She is not an employee of the U.S. Government. She is a lawyer who saw
this with her own
[[Page S4554]]
eyes--children who are malnourished, neglected, living in inhumane
conditions, warehoused, with 300 children in a cell with no adult
supervision.
This same law professor reported witnessing a 14-year-old--a 14-year-
old--caring for a 2-year-old without a diaper, lack of medical care,
with flu outbreaks and lice infestation.
Law Professor Binford said:
It's the worst conditions I have ever witnessed in several
years of doing these inspections.
That is what a trained professional is telling us about what is
happening in these conditions.
A Senate colleague of mine talked about going into a facility where
children were housed. This is a Senator with a lot of experience in the
Senate. He said, usually when you walk through any kind of facility or
any kind of environment in the United States of America where children
are, you can hear them laughing and playing and having fun--that
beautiful noise of children playing. He said you couldn't hear any of
it. He talked about the eerie and disturbing quiet in that place. There
was no noise, no laughing, no happiness, I guess, is probably the best
way he described it.
Then this one Senator talked about making eye contact with a child.
As soon as he or she made eye contact, the child would turn away.
I am sure we have other examples from colleagues here and in the
House and within our government, but when a law professor who has been
in a lot of these circumstances tells us this, we should listen, and we
should act.
Another lawyer reported speaking with young mothers and children--all
of whom were claiming asylum at a Texas facility. The mother reported a
lack of proper medical care, or clean clothes, or sufficient cups or
baby bottles, forcing reuse and sharing of those same cups and bottles,
as well as mothers wiping their children's runny noses or vomit with
their own clothes because they have nothing else--not even a paper
towel--to clean with when they are experiencing these conditions. This
particular lawyer was quoted in the Texas Tribune, just in case anyone
wants a source.
These reports of overcrowding and lack of medical care, sanitation
problems, and lack of food or water are an abomination. This is not
America. It is not the America we grew up with. It is not the America
we tell the world we are. We have told the world for generations that
we care about each other; that we welcome people to our shores and try
to treat them fairly. We can't say that when we have these kinds of
insults.
Just imagine the fear a child experiences in these circumstances--the
fear that comes from being alone, the fear of not having their mother
or their father or some loved one nearby, in many circumstances. Some,
I guess, might have an older sibling with them, but just imagine how
frightened they are. Then, to compound that, they don't have basic
necessities. I can't even imagine the fear.
There is a great hymn in my faith that talks about being a servant. I
will not go through all the lyrics. The song is named ``The Servant
Song.'' I will take the sacredness out of it for purposes of where we
are speaking today. One of the lines of ``The Servant Song'' says: ``I
will hold the . . . light for you in the night time of your fear.''
I can't imagine any other circumstance that anyone here could
describe to better fit that description--in the night time of the fear
of children who may have survived, but others, as this chart depicts,
lost their lives because of failures of our government. A 2-year-old, a
10-year-old, a 7-year-old, a 16-year-old, an 8-year-old, and another
16-year-old who were in government custody of the United States of
America lost their lives. I can't even begin to imagine that fear.
We all have to ask ourselves a lot of questions, but one question we
have to ask ourselves in both Houses of Congress and the administration
is, Will this government be there in the night time of the fear
experienced by these children or not? It is readily apparent, from all
the reporting month after month, that we are in no way meeting that
test for too many children. Maybe some are in better conditions, but
there are a lot of children--I don't even know the number. I hope it is
only in the hundreds, but many people believe it is a lot more than
that. There may be thousands or more who are in the night time of their
fear.
Our government is not only part of creating the fear, we are doing
next to nothing to alleviate it. We should ask ourselves, will we be
there for them in the night time of their fear?
The administration's response to all of the reporting of this horror
has been an insult to the United States of America. It is an insult to
the taxpayers who send money to the government and say: Make sure that
when a child comes to our borders, we treat them humanely; make sure
the system works. It is an insult to our values, of course.
It is an insult to the proclamations we make as Americans to the
world that we are a beacon of light for the world in so many ways.
Thank goodness we are in some other facets of our government and of
course the lives of our people. On this issue, we are bringing darkness
not only to the lives of those children, but we are bringing darkness
to the world.
We are less safe as a country when this happens. We empower people
around the world--very bad actors around the world--who have been
perpetuating this narrative for generations that America allows this to
happen. When you do that, you empower the bad guys to recruit and to
marshal their forces against you. When you treat children this way, who
then lose their lives in government custody, we are less safe. It hurts
our national security. It doesn't just undermine our values. It is not
just immoral. It makes us less safe. It is a national security threat
as much as it is an insult to our values or at least the values we
claim to have as a government in the executive and legislative
branches.
This administration has sought to increase family detention. They
sought to relax the standards under which children are held. The
administration recently canceled English classes, recreational
programs, and legal aid for unaccompanied minors at shelters across the
country.
Recently, an attorney for the Department of Justice argued that the
government should not be required to give a detained migrant child--or
in this case children--toothbrushes, or soap, or towels, or showers,
and probably goes on from there. It is hard to comprehend how insulting
that is to our values; how cruel and inhumane that is. If our
government can't provide that to a child, how can we call ourselves a
government? How can we say we have the values that we claim to have as
a government? This person was a lawyer for the U.S. Government from the
U.S. Department of Justice. A lawyer said that, not some low-level
employee of some department in the Federal Government. A lawyer in a
courtroom said our government shouldn't have to provide toothbrushes or
soap or towels.
We should not be relaxing standards when, according to the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the Department of Homeland Security facilities
already don't meet the basic standards for care of children in
residential settings. Moreover, the Academy of Pediatrics stated that
detention itself, even for short periods of time, can cause
psychological trauma and induce long-term mental health risks for
children.
I made this point to the administration months ago; that when you are
setting up your protocols about how to deal with a child, please
consult with the American Academy of Pediatrics--which is probably the
leading organization in the whole country--about how best to care for a
child and what not to do. I think we should listen to them, and I hope
the administration would not only be listening to the American Academy
of Pediatrics but would be incorporating their expertise and protocols.
Conditions for migrant adults are also completely unacceptable and an
insult to our values. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security
Office of the Inspector General issued a report. This isn't just a
routine report. I will read the headline: ``Management Alert--DHS Needs
to Address Dangerous Overcrowding Among Single Adults at El Paso Del
Norte Processing Center.'' This is a management alert sent by one part
of the government--not just the executive branch but one department to
the other--the inspector
[[Page S4555]]
general to the management of the Department of Homeland Security. That
is how bad it is.
I will read just one line on page 9 of the report:
Recommendations.
We recommend the Acting Secretary of DHS:
1. Take immediate steps to alleviate the overcrowding at
the El Paso Del Norte Bridge Processing Center.
They didn't say work on it for a couple of months and try to get
something done. Their own inspector general is saying take immediate
steps.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have at least the body of
this report, if not the attachment, printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Management Alert--DHS Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding Among
Single Adults at El Paso Del Norte Processing Center (Redacted)
May 30, 2019
Memorandum for: The Honorable Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
From: John V. Kelly, Acting Inspector General.
Subject: Management Alert--DHS Needs to Address Dangerous
Overcrowding Among Single Adults at El Paso Del Norte
Processing Center.
For your action is our final management alert, Management
Alert--DHS Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding Among
Single Adults at El Paso Del Norte Processing Center, the
purpose of which is to notify you of urgent issues that
require immediate attention and action. Specifically, we are
recommending that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
take immediate steps to alleviate dangerous overcrowding at
the El Paso Del Norte Processing Center (PDT). Issuance of
this management alert is consistent with our duties under the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to conduct
inspections and recommend policies to promote economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness in DHS programs and operations.
We have incorporated the formal comments provided by your
office on the draft management alert and appended them
verbatim. Your office concurred with the recommendation we
made to alleviate overcrowding at PDT, but gave a target
completion date of November 30, 2020. Because DHS's
corrective action is critical to the immediate health and
safety needs of detainees, who cannot continue to be held in
standing-room-only conditions for weeks until additional
tents are constructed, we consider the recommendation open
and unresolved. We will continue our spot inspections of the
southern border facilities and may revisit El Paso sector
sites to monitor overcrowding.
Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector
General Act, we will provide copies of our alert to
congressional committees with oversight and appropriation
responsibility over DHS. We also will post the alert on our
website for public dissemination.
Please call me with any questions, or your staff may
contact Diana Shaw, Assistant Inspector General for Special
Reviews and Evaluations, at (202) 981-6000.
background
In May 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and
Border Patrol leadership jointly testified before Congress
that they are experiencing an unprecedented border security
and humanitarian crisis along the southwest border. According
to CBP statistics, the number of southwest border migrant
apprehensions during the first seven months of FY 2019 has in
general already surpassed that of the total apprehensions for
each of the previous four fiscal years. At the sector level,
El Paso has experienced the sharpest increase in
apprehensions when comparing the first seven months of FY
2019 to the same period in FY 2018. Table 1 shows the total
number of apprehensions by category and the percent increase
for the El Paso sector.
TABLE 1.--EL PASO SECTOR BORDER PATROL APPREHENSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apprehensions Apprehensions
October 2017 to October 2018 to Percent Increase
April 2018 April 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unaccompanied Alien Children........................ 2,116 10,027 374%
Family Units........................................ 3,865 74,072 1,816
Single Adults....................................... 7,665 13,953 82
Total........................................... 13,646 98,052 619
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Border Patrol southwest border apprehensions by sector
During the week of May 6, 2019, we visited five Border
Patrol stations and two ports of entry in the El Paso area,
including greater El Paso and eastern New Mexico, as part of
our unannounced spot inspections of CBP holding facilities.
We reviewed compliance with CBP's Transport, Escort,
Detention and Search (TEDS) standards, which govern CBP's
interaction with detained individuals, and observed dangerous
holding conditions at the El Paso Del Norte Processing Center
(PDT) Border Patrol processing facility, located at the Paso
Del Norte Bridge, that require immediate attention.
Specifically, PDT does not have the capacity to hold the
hundreds currently in custody safely, and has held the
majority of its detainees longer than the 72 hours generally
permitted under the TEDS standards (TEDS 4.1).
Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention at the PDT Border Patrol Facility
Puts Detainees and DHS Personnel at Risk
According to PDT Border Patrol processing facility staff,
the facility's maximum capacity is 125 detainees. However, on
May 7 and 8, 2019, Border Patrol's custody logs indicated
that there were approximately 750 and 900 detainees on site,
respectively. TEDS standards provide that ``under no
circumstances should the maximum [cell] occupancy rate, as
set by the fire marshal, be exceeded'' (TEDS 4.7). However,
we observed dangerous overcrowding at the facility with
single adults held in cells designed for one-fifth as many
detainees. Specifically, we observed:
a cell with a maximum capacity of 12 held 76 detainees;
a cell with a maximum capacity of 8 held 41 detainees; and
a cell with a maximum capacity of 35 held 155 detainees.
PDT's seven general cells and three small isolation cells
are unable to accommodate the number of detainees currently
being held at the processing facility within TEDS standards.
Further limiting available space is the need to separate
detainees with infectious diseases, such as chicken pox,
scabies, and influenza, from each other and from the general
population.
Border Patrol agents told us some of the detainees had been
held in standing-room-only conditions for days or weeks.
According to Border Patrol's custody logs, there were 756
detainees on site when we visited PDT on May 7, 2019. Of
those, 502 detainees (66 percent) had been held at PDT for
longer than 72 hours, with 33 detainees (4 percent) held
there for more than two weeks. On May 8, 2019, we returned to
PDT for another unannounced spot inspection and observed that
some family units and adult females had been transferred, but
overall numbers were even higher as additional detainees had
arrived for processing. According to Border Patrol staff, on
May 8, 2019, the total number on site was approximately 900.
During our visits, we observed the triage of hundreds of
detainees outside in the PDT parking lot. There were
approximately 75 people treated for lice, hundreds of family
units waiting in the tented area to be processed, and
hundreds of detainees in line to surrender their valuables,
such as money and phones, to DHS staff. Figure 4 depicts some
of the outdoor lines we observed on May 7, 2019, and May 8,
2019. We also observed staff discarding all other detainee
property, such as backpacks, suitcases, and handbags, in the
nearby dumpster. Border Patrol personnel told us that these
items might be wet, have bugs, and be muddy, and, therefore,
presented a ``biohazard.''
We are concerned that overcrowding and prolonged detention
represent an immediate risk to the health and safety not just
of the detainees, but also DHS agents and officers. Border
Patrol management on site said there is a high incidence of
illness among their staff. Border Patrol management at PDT
and other sites also raised concerns about employee morale
and that conditions were elevating anxiety and
affecting employees' personal lives. They noted that some
employees eligible for retirement had accelerated their
retirement dates, while others were considering
alternative employment opportunities.
In addition, Border Patrol management on site said there is
an ongoing concern that rising tensions among detainees could
turn violent. We observed that staff must enter crowded cells
or move large numbers of detainees for meals, medical care,
and cell cleaning. For example, at the time of our visit, 140
adult male detainees were crowding the hallways and common
areas of the facility while their cell was being cleaned. We
observed staff having difficulty maneuvering around this
crowd to perform their duties,
[[Page S4556]]
and were told that staff feel they have limited options if
detainees decide not to cooperate.
The overcrowded conditions also complicate efforts to
ensure compliance with TEDS standards. For example, CBP was
struggling to maintain hygienic conditions in the holding
cells. With limited access to showers and clean clothing,
detainees were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks.
Although TEDS standards do not require a change of clothing
for adults, Border Patrol agents said they were nevertheless
trying to obtain clean clothing for adult females because the
lack of clean clothes was ``wearing down on them.'' We also
observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make
room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the
toilets. Border Patrol agents said detainees who were not ill
were raising medical complaints to obtain temporary release
from the cells, adding to the medical staffs burden.
DHS Needs a Coordinated Approach to Managing Long-Term Detention during
Sharp Increase in Apprehensions
Although CBP headquarters management has been aware of the
situation at PDT for months and detailed staff to assist with
custody management, DHS has not identified a process to
alleviate issues with overcrowding at PDT. Within DHS,
providing long-term detention is the responsibility of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), not CBP. El Paso
sector Border Patrol management said they are able to
complete immigration processing for most detainees within a
few days, but have not been able to transfer single adults
into ICE custody quickly. Border Patrol managers at the
stations we visited said they call ICE daily to request
detention space for single adults. They said in some
instances ICE officers tell them they cannot take the
detainees. In other instances, ICE initially agrees to take
some adult detainees, but then reverses the decision.
ICE has the infrastructure to transport and detain aliens
nationwide, but its current ability to do both of these tasks
is also strained. ICE senior managers stated that ICE does
not currently have sufficient detention bed space to take all
of Border Patrol's adult detainees, and explained that Border
Patrol has the authority to decide which detainees are the
highest priority to transfer to ICE custody. ICE managers
also stated that ICE prioritizes requests from CBP over any
other requests for bed space and, when possible, uses its
national transportation system to fly and transport detainees
to available detention beds.
When we discussed the situation at PDT with ICE, ICE
officials suggested the El Paso sector could develop a single
point of contact to better prioritize requests for adult
detention beds. They said with individual Border Patrol
stations making requests to ICE, the highest priority
detainees may not be transferred to ICE. Prioritization could
alleviate the situation at PDT and in the El Paso sector in
the short term, but would not contribute to a coordinated DHS
approach to managing long-term detention during this sharp
increase in border apprehensions.
Recommendations
We recommend the Acting Secretary of DHS:
1. Take immediate steps to alleviate the overcrowding at
the El Paso Del Norte Bridge Processing Center (PDT).
DHS Management's Response and OIG Analysis
DHS management provided written comments on a draft of this
alert. We included a copy of DHS' management comments in
their entirety in appendix A. We also incorporated DHS'
technical comments in the final alert, as appropriate.
DHS Response to Recommendation #1
Concur. CBP has constructed a 500-person holding capacity
soft-sided structure at El Paso Station, will construct an
additional tent by July 31, 2019, and will open a Centralized
Processing Center within 18 months. CBP will continue to
review the number of migrants in custody at Border Patrol
stations to determine available space and transfer subjects
accordingly. The Border Patrol, through its single point of
contact at El Paso Sector, will continue to communicate with
ICE to improve the migrant transfer process.
The estimated completion date is November 30, 2020.
OIG Response
We observed conditions at the El Paso Del Norte Processing
Center (PDT) Border Patrol facility that represent an
immediate risk to the health and safety of detainees and DHS
employees. Specifically, Border Patrol agents told us some
single adults had been held in standing-room-only conditions
for days or weeks. Border Patrol management on site said
there is an ongoing concern that rising tensions among
detainees could turn violent. Dangerous overcrowding among
single adults in PDT requires immediate action.
While we consider the actions outlined in DHS' response to
be partially responsive to the recommendation, the
recommendation will remain unresolved and open until DHS
offers an immediate corrective action plan to address the
dangerous overcrowding at PDT.
Appendix A--DHS's Management Comments to the Draft Management Alert
May 28, 2019
Memorandum for: John V. Kelly, Acting Inspector General
From: Jim H. Crumpacker, CIA, CFE for Director, Departmental
GAO-OIG Liaison Office.
Subject: Management Response to OIG Draft Management Alert:
``DHS Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding Among
Single Adults at El Paso Del Norte Processing Center
(PDT)--For Official Use Only'' (Project No. 19-039-SRE-
CBP).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
appreciates the work of the Office of' Inspector General
(OIG) in planning and conducting its review and issuing this
report.
DHS performs an essential role in securing our Nation's
borders at and between ports of entry, and enforces U.S.
immigration law within the interior of the country. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and agents continually
uphold the utmost professionalism while performing essential
border security operations. DHS is devoted to the care and
processing of the individuals in our custody with the utmost
dignity and respect.
The current situation on the border represents an acute and
worsening crisis. Our immigration system is not equipped to
accommodate a migration pattern like the one we are
experiencing now. Previous patterns--somewhat predictable in
composition and predicated on seasonal variations--are no
longer the norm, Through April 2019, CBP enforcement actions
along the southwest border are 84 percent higher than the
same period last fiscal year; this includes a 117 percent
increase in U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) apprehensions.
Additionally, the speed with which illegal migrants are
transiting through Mexico to reach our southern border is
frustrating our best efforts to respond quickly.
The current migration flow and the resulting humanitarian
crisis are rapidly overwhelming the ability of the Federal
Government to respond. In March 2019, CBP encountered over
103,000 illegal border crossers and inadmissible aliens. In
April 2019, that number exceeded 109,000--the highest monthly
levels in more than a decade.
DHS has taken steps to ensure an elevated standard of care
in response to the current humanitarian crisis and has
directed additional personnel and resources to the border.
CBP has constructed a weatherproof and climate-controlled
soft-sided structure in the El Paso Sector. The structure
will allow Border Patrol agents to expedite, process, and
transport migrants to ICE or the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. The structure provides areas for eating,
sleeping, recreation, and personal hygiene for up to 500
people. There are also separate areas for processing, medical
evaluations, bathroom facilities, laundry, trailers, sleeping
mats, kitchen equipment, personal property storage boxes,
office space, television, and lockers.
Additionally, a modular facility that is capable of holding
up to 800 people is projected to be in use by July 2019.
Construction of a permanent Centralized Processing Center
(CPC) in El Paso is planned to further alleviate
overcrowding. The CPC is expected to be operational in
approximately 18 months, with a holding capacity of
approximately 1,800. Congress can also help by working on
targeted solutions to restore integrjty to our immigration
system and remove the incentives for families and children to
cross our border illegally.
The draft report contained one recommendation, with which
the Department concurs. Attached find our detailed response
to the recommendation. Technical comments were previously
provided under separate cover.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment
on this draft report. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions. We look forward to working with you again
in the future.
Attachment: Management Response to Recommendation Contained in 19-039-
SRE-CBP
The OIG recommended that the Acting Secretary of DHS:
Recommendation 1: Take immediate steps to alleviate the
overcrowding at El Paso Del Norte Processing Center (PDT).
Response: Concur. In an effort to alleviate the
overcrowding at the PDT brought on by the unprecedented
increase in the number of families and children arriving at
the Southwest Border, CBP has implemented a multi-layered
approach.
CBP has constructed a 500 holding capacity soft-sided
structure at El Paso Station that has been operational since
May 2, 2019. CBP will construct an 800 holding capacity
modular facility at El Paso Station to be operational by July
31, 2019. In addition, a permanent CPC with a holding
capacity of approximately 1,800 is planned to further
alleviate overcrowding in El Paso. It is scheduled to be
operational within 18 months.
CBP will continue to review the number of migrants in
custody at USBP stations within El Paso Sector to determine
available space and transfer subjects accordingly. USBP,
through its single point-of-contact at El Paso Sector, will
continue to communicate with ICE's Enforcement and Removal
Operations to improve the migrant transfer process.
In an effort to supplement staff, CBP will continue to
temporarily detail Border Patrol
[[Page S4557]]
Agents and CBP Surge Force personnel to El Paso Sector, as
well as utilize personnel from the U.S. Department of
Defense.
Due to capacity issues, USBP will continue processing non-
criminal family units for immediate release under an order of
recognizance.
Estimated Completion Date: November 30, 2020.
Appendix B--Management Alert Distribution
Department of Homeland Security
Secretary
Deputy Secretary
Chief of Staff
General Counsel
Executive Secretary
Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office
Under Secretary Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans
Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs
Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs
Commissioner, CBP
CBP Component Liaison
Office of Management and Budget
Chief, Homeland Security Branch
DHS OIG Budget Examiner
congress
Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees
Mr. CASEY. This report details dangerous overcrowding for a prolonged
basis at this detention center and the dangers it creates. According to
the report, a facility with maximum capacity of 125 detainees is
holding approximately 900. Some migrants were held in standing-room-
only-conditions for days or weeks with limited access to showers or
clean clothing. Migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers, were
observed standing on toilets themselves to make room and gain breathing
space. These conditions not only violate Custom and Border Patrol's
transport, escort, detention, and search standards but are an affront
to our values as a nation. Asylum seekers who have fled violence and
suffered through an arduous journey should not be subjected to
unhealthy, unsanitary, unsafe conditions under any circumstances.
Asylum seekers are coming to our shores because of violence in their
home countries. Everyone knows this. This isn't a theory; it is fact.
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador rank in the top 10 countries in
the world for homicide. Why do we think they are coming? Would any one
of us journey hundreds or thousands of miles? I don't think so.
According to a report issued from Doctors Without Borders in 2017,
Northern Triangle countries--the countries I just mentioned--are
experiencing ``violent displacement, persecution, sexual violence, and
forced repatriation akin to the conditions found in the deadliest armed
conflicts in the world today.'' That is not some Member of Congress
just talking.
For asylum seekers, the decision to move is not a choice; it is a
necessity. The journey can further subject them to violence, danger,
and other abuses along the way.
Once they arrive at our shores, it is critical that they are treated
with compassion and human dignity and receive a fair opportunity to
present their claims.
That is the America that we believe in. That is the America we were
taught to believe that we are--a nation that respects human life, human
values, and gives people a fair chance when they present themselves for
asylum.
The only good news that we can report tonight is that the Senate
passed a bill to provide nearly $4.6 billion in humanitarian aid,
including $2.88 billion to the Office of Refugee Resettlement to care
for migrant children and to help minimize the time they are held in
Federal facilities, in Federal custody. The House also passed a bill,
which I support. We must quickly conference these bills to provide the
needed resources while we also ensure there are protections for
migrants and greater accountability and transparency from DHS to ensure
the funds are appropriately spent.
The faster we get this done, the better, and maybe we can reduce the
likelihood that six more children will die in the next couple of months
in the custody of the U.S. Government.
I end with this note: I talked about what we are as a nation and what
we believe that we should be and the standard we are not meeting now.
We must be a nation that respects people who come to our shores and
treats them with a measure of human dignity and compassion and
fairness.
What we must not be is a nation that refuses asylum seekers who flee
persecution and violence from the murder capitals of the world. We must
not be a nation that separates children from their families. We must
not be a nation that gives migrants, including children, who are in
squalid and inhumane conditions, no hope of getting out of that
circumstance.
We are, indeed, when we are at our best, a nation of opportunity, a
nation of immigrants, and, of course, a nation of laws. It is
imperative that we fix our broken immigration system more broadly so
that it, once again, reflects these American values.
As we work on a broad response to a broken immigration system, let us
at least be there for those children in the nighttime of their fear--
No. 1, not to create that fear and, No. 2, not to perpetuate it for
these children. At a minimum, we should make a pledge in our government
to never have six deaths of children who are in the custody of the U.S.
Government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Order of Procedure
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on Senate amendment No. 764
occur at 12 noon on Thursday, June 27; further, that if cloture is
invoked, amendment Nos. 864, 863, and 862 be withdrawn and the
postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on amendment
No. 861, with no further amendments in order.
I further ask that the time until 1:45 p.m. be equally divided; that
at 1:45 p.m., the Senate vote on the substitute amendment, as amended,
if amended; that the cloture motion with respect to S. 1790 then be
withdrawn and the Senate vote on the passage of S. 1790, as amended, if
amended, with no further intervening action or debate; finally, that at
a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with
the Democratic leader, on Friday, June 28, the Senate vote on the Udall
amendment, No. 883, notwithstanding the passage of S. 1790, and that it
require 60 affirmative votes for adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________