[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.

                          ____________________