Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, earlier this month, President Trump announced his choice to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he told us that nominee would be Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

During this short period of time--just a little over 2 weeks--we have seen some of our friends across the aisle attempt to tank Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation before it really has a chance to get started, certainly before they have a chance to meet him. Five of our colleagues across the aisle announced their opposition to any Supreme Court Justice President Trump might nominate--anybody; fill in the blank. Then, once the President chose Judge Kavanaugh, 15 more fell into lockstep with the first 5, so now we have 20 of our Democratic colleagues, before they have even had a chance to meet the judge, who have announced their implacable opposition.

I thought that would pretty much take the cake until I saw reported this morning that one of our colleagues across the aisle said that to support Judge Kavanaugh would make you complicit in evil. It is hard to take statements like that seriously. To me, that is completely unhinged and detached from any reality. This is the same judge who was confirmed in 2006 by a substantial bipartisan vote to what many have called the second most important court in the Nation. My advice to some of our friends across the aisle who are engaged in this kind of super-heated rhetoric is, get a grip. Get a grip.

The strategy we have seen on the other side hasn't worked too well. They have targeted the nominee's character, but then they have had to deal with the fact that this nominee is a standup guy and a good father. Multiple fact-checkers debunked claims regarding his legal views, as well as the timing of his confirmation, so it seems like our colleagues have moved on.

Now it seems like it is all about the paper. It is all about documents. We have heard from some of our colleagues requesting that every email, every memo, every document that ever crossed Brett Kavanaugh's desk be disgorged and produced in the course of this confirmation proceeding. Ignore the fact for a minute that when he was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, they didn't request any of the documents from when he was Staff Secretary for the President of the United States, but now, for some mysterious reason, they could well be hiding the smoking gun they will use to derail his confirmation--or at least so they are acting.

In the course of my legal career--I served for 13 years as a judge on the trial court and appellate courts in Texas--I have seen phishing expeditions before, and this is the very definition of a phishing expedition.

I agree with our colleagues who say all relevant documents need to be produced--and should be and will be produced in a perfectly normal part of confirming a judicial nominee. But that is the key--the documents need to be reasonably related to the confirmation process.

Our friend the minority leader from New York sees things differently. There is no surprise there. Yesterday, he scolded me personally, as well as other Republican colleagues. He said that we are guilty of applying an enormous double standard when it comes to producing documents in a judicial confirmation hearing. He compared the confirmation of Justice Kagan to Judge Kavanaugh's.

Let's rewind the clock. It is true that Republicans wanted to see Justice Kagan's documents and review them before holding a hearing on her confirmation for the Supreme Court, but it wasn't the range of documents we are talking about with Kavanaugh. Her situation was dramatically different.

First, she had never served as a judge before, as Judge Kavanaugh has. He has a vast judicial record--300 opinions, 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He has a vast record when it comes to his activities as a judge. You would think that would be a good place to start. We thought it was important to review relevant records for Justice Kagan at the White House because we didn't have judicial opinions to review. For Justice Kagan, we needed materials to understand her legal philosophy and style of reasoning, and we had to use what actually existed at the time.

I will say that the Solicitor General files--she was Solicitor General of the United States and represented the U.S.

Government in front of the Supreme Court. Virtually none of that was touched. We recognize that those attorney-client communications should be respected.

Second, for Justice Kagan's confirmation, Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that not every single executive branch document was relevant and important to her confirmation process. In that respect, I will tell my friend the minority leader that is not a double standard; that is the same standard. It should be the same standard.

Republicans and Democrats got together in the case of Justice Kagan and agreed that records from her time at the Solicitor General's Office were too sensitive and privileged and that they shouldn't be made available to the Senate in connection with her confirmation. Instead, the Senate decided it was more appropriate to focus on records from Justice Kagan's time at the White House Counsel's Office and the Office of Domestic Policy. So, too, we would say that Brett Kavanaugh's documents that he authored, that he contributed to at the White House Counsel's Office, subject to any privileges that might pertain, should be fair game. So there is already well-worn precedent when it comes to executive branch records--which should be on-limits and which should be off-limits. We observed that in the case of Justice Kagan, and we would argue that the same consideration should be applied to the Kavanaugh nomination.

Third, in the past comment of mine Senator Schumer was referring to yesterday, I was talking specifically about tens of thousands of documents in reference to Justice Kagan. In the end, 173,000 documents were produced on her behalf. By the way, that is nowhere close to the ``gazillion'' that the junior Senator from Alabama has alleged was produced during the Kagan confirmation. It wasn't a gazillion; it was 173,000. It might have seemed that way because that is a lot of documents. The stacks of paper were stacked high. But the truth is, much fewer than a gazillion were produced--173,000. Compare that to the document production for Justice Gorsuch when he was confirmed. That was roughly 182,000 documents. That is a high number as well, but it pales in comparison to what our Democratic friends are asking for in the case of Judge Kavanaugh.

The truth is, our friends across the aisle are picking numbers out of the air, talking about potentially millions of documents. The senior Senator from California has named 1 million as her magic number, and that is the minimum amount of documents she said she expects to be produced.

As I said, we all know that Judge Kavanaugh, in addition to serving as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and in addition to working in the White House Counsel's Office, served as Staff Secretary to the President. Many documents crossed his desk while he worked in that job. But the effort to insist on every document that he touched from the time he was at the Bush White House as Staff Secretary is ludicrous. It is ridiculous. It is nothing less than a phishing expedition designed to delay his confirmation until after the Supreme Court reconvenes in early October.

Do our colleagues really seriously need to see every piece of paper that crossed his desk? Is what President Bush had for dinner 14 years ago relevant to how Judge Kavanaugh will serve on the Court? I am sure there is a copy of the White House mess menu as part of those documents, but those aren't his documents in the sense that he didn't create them, he didn't contribute to them. He was sort of a traffic cop--a very important traffic cop--in terms of the documents that went across the President's desk.

Our friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut, for example, seemed to suggest that every piece of paper that crossed his desk is important. He said he wants to see any documents that have Judge Kavanaugh's name on them, whether he was a direct recipient or a sender or he was copied.

If somebody sent a document to him, how is that relevant to Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications, something sent to him by somebody else that he didn't contribute to and he didn't author?

Well, based on that rationale, if Judge Kavanaugh were cc'd on an email about somebody's birthday party down the hall, apparently some of our friends across the aisle think that information is absolutely crucial to this confirmation hearing. Well, that is just not right, and it is ridiculous.

Just as the Judiciary Committee quickly processed Justice Kagan's nomination in 2010--somebody who spent a number of years at the Clinton White House--I am confident we could do the same if we got together and worked at it in the case of Judge Kavanaugh.

Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, the Judiciary Committee will work to produce hundreds of thousands of documents for Members to conduct a thorough review. I am confident of that.

We met with the White House Counsel yesterday to talk about the strategy for producing the documents that are relevant to the confirmation process, but there is no better evidence of exactly what kind of judge ``Justice Kavanaugh'' will be than the opinions he has written on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

The committee will receive thousands of documents that are relevant and important to the confirmation process. Senators and their staff will be able to review them, and Senators will be able to ask questions. I guarantee Chairman Grassley will hold a full and fair hearing before the Judiciary Committee when we convene for the purposes of the confirmation hearing.

We will be able to ask--all of us--on a bipartisan basis, the hard questions everybody wants to ask, and at the end of the process, which I am hopeful will take place this September, the Senate will act, and Judge Kavanaugh will become Justice Kavanaugh.

Beyond the document production, there is another wrinkle in the confirmation process that has emerged, and it hinges on the nominees's views on Executive power. I spoke a little bit about that yesterday, but there is just another thing to mention.

I am referring to a 1999 transcript of a panel discussion in which Judge Kavanaugh discussed the case United States v. Nixon, which forced then-President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes. It was a significant event in our Nation's history.

My friend the minority leader has provocatively questioned whether Kavanaugh would have let Nixon off the hook. Well, no, he wouldn't, and neither did the Supreme Court of the United States--just the contrary. That is what we expect from the courts: independent legal judgment, whether it is the most humble among us or whether it is the President of the United States.

In a speech in a law review article, Judge Kavanaugh praised the unanimous ruling in the Nixon case. His views have been further confirmed by those who have worked closely with him over the years. They have said that to Judge Kavanaugh, Nixon was one of the most significant cases in which the judiciary stood up to the President.

So enough already. Enough with all the distractions, the hyperventilation, the fishing expeditions, and let's get to work. Let's keep this process moving forward on a bipartisan basis. Let's roll up our sleeves. Both Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch were confirmed in 66 days. If you applied that standard to Judge Kavanaugh, that would mean we would vote on his nomination on September 13, but we will have plenty of time to vet this nominee and to review the relevant documents that have some bearing on his qualifications and his experience and fitness to serve as a member of the Supreme Court.

I hope our Democratic colleagues will take advantage of the opportunity to meet with Judge Kavanaugh and to talk to him for themselves and see that he is an accomplished jurist and, perhaps even more importantly, an entirely decent human being. He is one who will faithfully and fairly apply the laws written and uphold our Constitution.

I know the senior Senator from West Virginia has agreed to do that, and I express my personal appreciation to him for breaking up this boycott, which has, I guess, been commanded by the highest authorities--the Democratic leader--to not meet with the judge until we get all the documents we are asking for.

Well, in addition to the Senator from West Virginia, the junior Senator from Delaware has also said he will meet with the judge, as has the senior Senator from Indiana, and I appreciate that. I think they will find a lot of comfort in meeting with the judge, and they will be able to get some answers to their questions.

I look forward to continuing our vetting process and voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh this fall.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, is there an objection?

Madam President, there is an important difference between legal and illegal immigration, and they shouldn't be confused. We should all, as Americans, celebrate legal immigration. In fact, the United States is the most generous country in the world. We naturalize almost 1 million new citizens each year, many of whom serve in the military and otherwise serve their newly adopted country and are rewarded, in part, by an expedited path toward legalization, toward naturalization.

As a result of the deadlock in the U.S. Senate, the drug cartels that traffic in illegal drugs and other contraband--they traffic in migrants, they traffic in children--are celebrating today because we have a big problem that apparently we are unable to solve, and the status quo is simply unacceptable. It is dangerous, it is deadly, and it is killing people--not only the people who attempt the perilous journey from Central America up through Mexico and into the United States but also the drugs that are sold by these same criminal organizations that are, in the words of one expert, ``commodity agnostic.''

This is part of their business model. This is how they make money, and they are celebrating today because the very reasonable solution that our colleague from North Carolina has proposed has been rejected out of hand with no real alternative being suggested.

This is the same mentality, I fear, that calls for the abolition of ICE. You might as well ask for the abolition of the Austin Police Department or the Dallas Police Department or the San Antonio Police Department. It is an invitation to lawlessness. Unfortunately, there are some who believe that the status quo is better than the very reasonable, rational solution offered by our colleague.

Let me explain why objecting to this commonsense legislation imperils the life and well-being of children. Under the current law, unless this very reasonable solution is embraced, children are sent across the border unaccompanied by their parents because the traffickers know and the parents know that if they pay thousands of dollars to these criminal organizations, their child will be transported from Central America across Mexico and into the United States, and if they make it here under the current law, the Border Patrol needs to process this child--some of whom are 17 years of age and older, and for all practical purposes they are young men.

They need to be handed over to Health and Human Services for placement with a sponsor here in the United States. Recently the New York Times pointed out that the United States had lost track of 1500 of the children that had been placed with sponsors. Nobody knows what happened to them because, under the current law, the government doesn't have to do a criminal background check. The sponsor with whom this child is placed doesn't have to be a citizen, and there is simply no infrastructure in place and no system in

place to monitor the status of these children in the hands of these adult sponsors to make sure they appear at their subsequently noticed immigration hearing so that they can present a legitimate claim, if they have one, to asylum or some other immigration benefit.

All President Trump has said is that we are going to enforce our laws against illegal immigration. So if you come into the country as a parent with a child, the parent, being legally responsible, is going to be prosecuted. That is what the law calls for as passed by Congress and signed by the President.

The child will be protected under the law that I mentioned earlier. They will be placed with a sponsor if the parent or the person who claims to be a parent is going to be prosecuted. Part of what we have been struggling with is the refusal on the part of some of our colleagues to actually try to solve this problem, to keep those families together so that they can be kept in a humane, clean family detention facility pending a hearing in front of an immigration judge. If they have legitimate claims, then those can be rewarded.

The status quo guarantees that the criminal organizations that profit from transporting people, drugs, and other contraband across the border win. That is guaranteed by the status quo. It is also that we don't fix the problem associated with unaccompanied minors or minors who come with somebody who claims to be their parent.

So let's say we put the families back together, which is our goal. Everyone agrees with that goal. We don't have detention facilities for those individuals to be detained pending a hearing in front of an immigration judge, so they are released and told to come back for a hearing months, maybe years, in the future. Well, it shouldn't surprise anybody that the vast majority of people don't show up for their hearings. They simply use this flaw in our immigration system and the status quo in order to exploit gaps in our legal immigration system, and it is dangerous.

I regret that rather than embracing a solution, there has been an objection to this very reasonable proposal, which would add additional immigration judges and move these families to the head of the line so that they can present their case before the judge, rather than just releasing them into the vast American landscape. Many of them will never be heard from again. I think it is a terrible lost opportunity.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings en bloc.

Madam President, I wish to first address the vote we held yesterday--one that unfortunately failed but I believe was important nonetheless. It would have set in motion a series of spending reductions--not on bills where we had appropriated money for programs and we knew where it was going to be used, but these were essentially surplus funds which were not being used for the intended purpose and which I believe should have been used to reduce our annual deficits and ultimately our national debt.

I want to express my gratitude to Senator Lee, the Senator from Utah, who spearheaded the effort to take up a bill that the House had already passed.

What we were attempting to do was rescind nearly $15 billion in previously appropriated money that has gone unspent, as I said a moment ago. This was just one small way to show the American people that we are serious--as the majority leader put it yesterday--about tightening our belts financially and taking small steps that hopefully would add up to big steps to live within our collective means.

I voted for the rescissions package because I believe strongly that the government should prioritize keeping its fiscal house in order, one that constantly works to improve and implement fiscal discipline.

I am concerned now that as interest rates are starting to rise, we are going to see more and more Federal spending go to pay debt service or interest payments on bonds that have been issued to secure our national debt.

So I hope we can come back to the table soon with new ideas, and I am disappointed in the outcome of that particular vote.

Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act

Madam President, I have also been speaking this week about the ongoing situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. Of course, this is my backyard. I come from Texas, and Texas has a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico. We know, because we have all seen in the news and been moved by these scenes of people illegally crossing the border with children or individuals they claim to be their children and being separated as they have been processed, consistent with current law, including laws Congress had passed, signed by the President--not necessarily this President, in fact--consent decrees, and other court judgments that necessitated that children be treated differently than people who illegally enter the country as adults.

I will be traveling to the Rio Grande Valley tomorrow. Senator Cruz and I both will be in Brownsville and McAllen so we can learn from the people who are working on behalf of all of us to make sure everybody is treated with dignity and compassion. But we also enforce our laws against illegal immigration.

President Trump yesterday issued an Executive order, which I viewed as an emergency measure, that does not substitute for congressional action. In fact, I am confident that the Executive order will be the target of lawsuits. I think the only thing that could really settle the matter once and for all is legislation, which I know the Presiding Officer and I and others have cosponsored, to keep families together and to maintain enforcement of our laws.

Executive orders, of course, as I said, are always subject to legal challenge, and I think we ought to view this as more of a belt-and- suspenders. The President decided he wanted to do what he could on a temporary basis, but it is just a temporary basis, and we need to make sure, as I said, that this is finally settled so that no parent will be separated from their child even if they enter the country illegally. They will be treated both humanely and with compassion while they are presented to a judge who will make a decision on whether they qualify for a legal immigration benefit like asylum, for example.

The legislation I am referring to is led by the junior Senator from North Carolina and is called the Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act. As the title of the bill suggests, there are two parts: treating families with compassion while allowing them to remain together and enforcing the laws on the books. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, and our bill would ensure that they are not. It will allow children to stay with their families in a safe facility while they await their court proceedings.

It will also set mandatory standards of care for family residential centers where immigrant families are placed and keep children safe by requiring that they are removed from the care of any individual who poses a danger to them. Just as importantly, it will require more than 200 new immigration judges and require the Department of Homeland Security to expedite the court proceedings for these children and families.

Some have rightfully asked questions about the families who have already been separated: What happens now to the children who have already been separated from their parents?

I can tell you our bill requires the administration to take steps to reunify as many families as possible who remain in the custody of Immigration Customs Enforcement or Health and Human Services.

I have to tell you, this is an old movie in many respects. We have seen this movie before, particularly in 2014, when we saw a flood of unaccompanied children coming across the southwestern border. President Obama, at the time, called it a humanitarian crisis, and I agree. We simply weren't prepared for this flood of children from Central America coming to our border and seeking refuge or asylum. We worked hard to try to make sure they were treated compassionately and humanely, but the law, similar to the law in effect now before the President's Executive order and the law that would be modified by the new bill I mentioned a moment ago--the current law requires those children to be processed by the Border Patrol, to then be handed over to Health and Human Services, and ultimately placed with a sponsor in the United States pending their hearing on their immigration case. Because of the huge backlog of cases, it could be literally months or years before those cases are heard.

It shouldn't surprise anybody that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't show up for their court hearing. That is why it is important for us to move these cases to the head of the line, to maintain a humane detention while they are awaiting their court hearing--hopefully, in a matter of days or weeks, at most.

This is a huge problem that frankly was exposed, in part, by the New York Times. It recently reported that based on the tens of thousands of children who came across the border as unaccompanied minors who had been placed with sponsors, in a check of where those children are now, at least 1,500 of them are unaccounted for.

That should surprise no one because the sponsors were not required to be citizens. They weren't required to be relatives. They weren't even required to have a criminal background check. When the U.S. Government places these children with sponsors in the United States with such inadequate supervision and review, it should not surprise anyone that, unfortunately, some of them will be unaccounted for; hopefully not recruited into gangs, hopefully not trafficked for sex, hopefully still alive. This is a huge humanitarian crisis, and the latest episode having to do with separation of families is just the latest version of that story.

Who benefits from status quo when we fail to correct our laws to make sure that both individuals coming across the border are treated humanely and that we enforce our immigration laws? Who benefits the most? It is the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, which make money off the status quo. As one person called it the other day, when they were referring to the situation, these organizations are commodity agnostic. As long as they can make money, they will traffic in people, drugs, weapons, and other contraband. They don't really care as long as they make money.

Until Congress acts, as we must, these cartels, these criminal organizations, will continue to exploit these gaps in American law, and the people who will be hurt the most are these children and immigrants who do have a case to make before the immigration courts.

I hope we will act. Frankly, our track record is not good when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system, but I know Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California, and Senator Tillis have been talking, and a lot of us have been putting our heads together to figure out how we can come up with a narrow bill that will keep families together and allow us to enforce the laws of the land. I hope we keep trying until we get it done and get it done right.

Other proposals have been made, including one by our friend the senior Senator from California. She and I have worked together on many issues, but on this one, I think her bill has a lot of problems. In fact, there is a huge question about what sort of enforcement, if any, would ever be permitted under her bill. In effect, her bill would make it impossible to enforce the law against an adult illegally crossing the border unless the child is able to go to jail with that adult. I don't want a child to have to go to jail and be exposed to hard and potentially violent criminals. This is a big problem with our friend's bill, Senator Feinstein.

By the way, every single Democrat on that side of the aisle has signed on to that bill. Did they intend this result? No, I don't think they intended it, but it is a big problem with their bill. Children should not go to a jail run by the Bureau of Prisons. No one, I would think, would think that is a good idea. So that is essentially what the bill results in.

Again, I am not saying this was their intention, but the result is to reinstate this catch-and-release program, which has been a failure of our immigration system for a long time. When there is nowhere for the families to be detained and when they can't go to Department of Justice facilities, basically, the authorities simply have to let them go and say: Come on back in a few months, maybe a couple of years, when your case comes up on the immigration court docket.

That is the result. As I said earlier, in the vast majority of cases, people do not reappear because they understand, if they made it that far, they are basically off scot-free. The cartels and the transnational criminal organizations that traffic in people and facilitate this sort of illegal immigration are the ones cashing in on these vulnerabilities and on these gaps in American law. We need to fix it.

Let me correct one other misconception from all of the emotional news we have seen recently. Sometimes the facts get lost. If an immigrant family crosses the border outside of a designated port of entry, they have broken the law, unless they are authorized. If you release these individuals without any consequences, you send a clear message that it is acceptable to cross our borders illegally. Once you have sent the message to the criminal organizations--to people in Central America and elsewhere--that it is OK to break the law and you will be released without any consequence, it should come as no surprise that a huge percentage of illegal immigrants fail to show up at immigration court hearings and that it is a magnet attracting more illegal immigration if there are no consequences associated with it.

With all due respect to my friend, the senior Senator from California, her bill has these unintended effects, and I think simply will not do. I want to be clear, we want to work together to try to address what she wants to accomplish and what we want to accomplish. Let's keep families together, but let's not inadvertently or unintentionally reinstate the broken catch-and-release policies, which simply serve as a magnet for more illegal immigration.

Some commentators have pointed out the problem I have identified. It is not just me. They have said Senator Feinstein's bill would present law enforcement with a terrible choice of either keeping children with parents or criminals in the middle of being prosecuted or not prosecuting those violations of the law at all. That is not really a choice. We know what the decision would be. Those cases would not be prosecuted. There would not be enforcement. Then, again, the

transnational criminal organizations, the people who try to take advantage of our laws, will have won.

With these and other shortcomings, I think the much better option would be the bill introduced by Senator Tillis, which I, the Presiding Officer, and others have cosponsored. It would achieve two important goals: continued enforcement of our immigration laws and the unification of families. Some of our friends on the left seem to want one but not the other. They want to unify families, but they don't want to enforce our immigration laws. They say they want to see zero tolerance ended--zero tolerance for violating immigration laws, and, of course, they cast a lot of aspersions on the President and the Attorney General for implementing this policy, along with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Let's think about their criticism for a second. What does that really mean? If you aren't happy with zero tolerance of violating our immigration laws, that means you are happy with tolerating exemptions for lawbreakers. You tolerate not enforcing immigration laws under some, perhaps many, circumstances. We can all see where that leads us. It encourages illegal immigration by sending a message by saying we will not enforce our laws. We should not stand for that and neither should the American people. It would be a big mistake.

Tomorrow Senator Cruz, my colleague from Texas, and I will be traveling to Brownsville and Weslaco, once again, so we can get eyes on the situation there and learn from the people who are charged with making sure our policies are carried out.

As I mentioned, Texas has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and we are ground zero when it comes to the border security challenge. I look forward to talking with our Federal and local officials about the situation, along with faith-based organizations and other groups who are trying to help out. We need their help and welcome their help.

Ultimately, I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue talking urgently and to support the bill Senator Tillis and others have introduced. We can come together, we can fix this problem swiftly, and ensure these children are kept together with their families.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, there are a few things I wish to talk about today, but I would like to start by recognizing the service and bravery of our Capitol Police officers.

This week is the 20th anniversary of a shooting which occurred in the U.S. Capitol that claimed the lives of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson when a gunman forced his way into this Capitol Building. They laid down their lives in defense of others and made the ultimate sacrifice defending the U.S. Capitol, this pillar of American democracy.

At the time, then-President Clinton said: ``The shooting at the United States Capitol yesterday was a moment of savagery at the front door of American civilization.'' He was right.

I was working in the Capitol that day, 20 years ago. I remember where I was, as I am sure everybody does who was here. I remember hearing the gunshots. I was on the telephone from my office in the House of Representatives with a member of the leadership staff, and I heard the chaos through the phone lines for the first time.

We are forever grateful for the sacrifice of those two police officers and their families and for the continued service and commitment of the U.S. Capitol Police every single day in the Capitol. They are the ones who protect us every single day. This week, we are reminded to thank everyone who puts on a uniform and steps into harm's way to protect fellow Americans.

Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act

Mr. President, I also wish to discuss important legislation the Senate passed earlier this week and the House passed today to improve skills training in our country at a time when it is so badly needed.

I am the cofounder and cochair of the Senate Career and Technical Education Caucus. I have to tell you, I am excited about this bipartisan legislation. It reauthorizes what is called the Perkins Career and Technical Education, or CTE, Act. It is a Federal law designed to help Americans get the education, training, and skills they need to fill in-demand jobs. The President supports the legislation. I know he is excited about signing it into law and helping

those who need the skills to fill those jobs that are out there.

CTE--at one time called vocational education--is just a great opportunity for the students but also for our economy and for employers. The bill that passed includes what is called the Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act, legislation my colleague Senator Tim Kaine and I authored a few years ago to allow States and localities to use Perkins grant funding for a number of purposes.

No. 1, we allow them to use it for CTE-focused academies. We also encourage schools to incorporate key elements of high-quality CTE programs from around the country and promote partnerships between local businesses, regional industries, and other community stakeholders to create work-based learning opportunities for students, like apprenticeships and internships. We know they work. Getting that work experience really helps to be able to land a job, so we are excited about this legislation.

It also includes important accountability information for our most vulnerable students to track how well CTE programs are performing so we can ensure high-quality skills training.

When I travel around Ohio talking to employers of all sizes, they all stress one thing to me, which is, yes, the economy is doing better, tax reform has worked well for me, the regulatory relief is happening--that is great--but we are having trouble finding workers.

In Ohio today, on our website OhioMeansJobs, you will probably see 145,000 jobs being advertised, and yet we have 200,000 people out of work. A lot of that is the skills gap. I often hear the biggest challenge employers have is they can't find enough skilled workers for the positions they already have. We want to give these students the chance to acquire that training needed for today's jobs. Again, this legislation helps to ensure it regardless of someone's economic standing.

It provides a route to good-paying jobs and a successful career for students who might not have been interested in a typical formal STEM education or maybe they can't easily spend the time and money involved in going through a traditional college education.

It is not just about the students. It also helps those who are further on in life who are trying to rebuild or start a new career. This bill will also help those incumbent workers. Recently, I visited Flying HIGH, a welding school in Youngstown, OH. It is a very impressive program. It focuses on teaching people in recovery and people who have recently been released from prison to learn a skill--in this case, welding--which lets them transition back into the workplace. I am really impressed by it. Their placement rate is about 100 percent. They have taken people and helped provide them with the skills they need, and then, in turn, their lives have been turned around. This legislation will help enable places like this school to be more successful.

There are so many opportunities out there. Whether it is welding, whether it is coding, whether it is machining, whether it is healthcare skills, or whether it is in commercial driving, where we need drivers right away who have the CDL commercial license, we should encourage more of that.

I wish to thank my colleague and cochair of the Senate CTE Caucus, Tim Kaine, as well as Senator Lamar Alexander, who chairs the Senate HELP Committee that passed the bill this last month, Mike Enzi, and all my colleagues on the CTE Caucus, for their work on this issue over the years.

Once signed into law, this legislation will help students get the career and technical education they need, regardless of economic standing, and help them have the opportunity they need to be able to pursue whatever their American dream is

DATA Act Implementation

Mr. President, the last thing I want to talk about today is some bad news we received this week. This is about our Federal Government and the lack of information from Federal agencies as to how they are spending our hard-earned tax dollars.

As many people know, our Federal Government has grown a lot in the last half century or so. In 1961, President Kennedy entered office with 7 Cabinet positions and 451 career management positions. When President Trump took office, we had gone about seven times higher in terms of the number of people. The number of Cabinet posts have been doubled from 7 to 15.

The increased size of our Federal Government is intended, of course, to provide a better structure to carry out important duties the government has and help more Americans, but one result we have to be cautious of is the increase in Federal spending that comes with it. As the size of our government grows, transparency in how taxpayer money is spent becomes increasingly important.

Most of the increase in funding we have seen over the last 20 years, of course, is in programs that Congress does not appropriate every year. This includes important entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. We need to address this unsustainable growth in the so-called nondiscretionary spending. We need to save these entitlement programs for the current and future generations of Americans who rely on them, but we also need to ensure we rein in the waste, fraud, and abuse in our departments and agencies, the so-called discretionary spending that Congress spends every year on departments and programs. That is why this legislation is so important--to be able to require transparency and accountability with how Federal agencies spend their taxpayer dollars.

While the White House and Congress tracks spending through the budget and appropriations process, each Federal agency tracks its own spending internally. They have their own metrics and measurement systems. As you can imagine, it has made it hard to truly know where all of the funds are going to various departments and agencies because each has their own measurement. We recognized a need to address this.

In 2006, when I was Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act became law. I personally endorsed that legislation by then-Senator Tom Coburn--who some will remember was a key sponsor of that--when I was at OMB because I knew we needed it badly. We went about putting all grants and contracts online. That was a good thing. The goal of that law was to standardize the way Federal departments and agencies report their spending to have a more comprehensive and transparent account of where taxpayer dollars are going.

It also created a public website to be managed by OMB called USAspending.gov, where taxpayers and policymakers could go to get accurate, accessible information about what these funds are used for. Taxpayers should be able to see where their money goes, and Congress-- which is given the power of the purse in our Federal Government--needs to know what the funds it allocates are being used for to make informed decisions about spending.

In 2010, the GAO, Government Accountability Office, looked into how this program was working. What they found was the usefulness of the USAspending.gov website was impaired by the lack of guidance to agencies on how to report their spending. So, in 2014, my colleague Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and I authored what is called the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, the DATA Act. We followed what the GAO had said, and we wrote this legislation to fix the law.

The goal of the DATA Act was to create a more consistent spending system across government to improve the efficiency of USAspending.gov and make tracking Federal spending more transparent and accessible. That would ultimately provide the American public and policymakers, we thought, with accurate, consistent, and reliable data on governmentwide spending to eliminate unnecessary spending.

Being able to follow Federal dollars from appropriation to the resulting grant or contract that actually occurs is incredibly helpful in that effort. The DATA Act required Federal agencies to report spending in real time down to the location by congressional district by 2017.

Now it is time to take stock of how that program is working and to assess the transparency in our Federal spending. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has taken this task on. Along

with the ranking member, Senator Tom Carper, we have looked into the implementation of the DATA Act and how accurately departments and agencies report spending data. What our bipartisan report found was troubling.

We reviewed inspectors general, or IG, reports of 25 Federal agencies, making up more than 80 percent of all Federal spending from the second quarter of 2017.

At least 55 percent of the spending data--equal to roughly $240 billion those agencies submitted to USAspending.gov--was found to be incomplete, inaccurate, or both. Notably, the IG's report on the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy determined that 100 percent of those Departments' spending data was not accurate.

According to the inspectors general, some agencies, such as the Department of Education and the Agency for National Development, did well. They reported accurate data.

Unbelievably, about 96 percent of the spending data the Treasury Department submitted for its own Department was not accurate. So the Treasury Department, which the DATA Act says is supposed to monitor other Departments' spending data for accuracy, overwhelmingly submitted inaccurate data itself--and we found that just last month, OMB and the Department of Treasury have updated agency guidance that appears to weaken some of these data standards, which could lead to less accurate and not standardized DATA Act submissions in the future.

So we should be doing more to ensure this law is properly implemented, to ensure accountability and accuracy in our finances.

We also found deficiencies with the USAspending.gov website itself. The DATA Act requires the website to be user-friendly and accurate. Our investigators found it to sometimes be neither.

It is important to remember that the DATA Act is still in its early stages. It was fully implemented just a little over 1 year ago. So it is not yet what we had hoped it would be when it became law in 2014, but it is not too late to improve it. We know it has to be done. Our PSI--Permanent Subcommittee Investigation--report includes recommendations to do just that.

First, OMB and the Treasury Department should continue to update the standards and guidelines for agencies to follow when making DATA Act submissions to improve accuracy and accountability of spending. It is really up to them to do it.

Second, OMB and the Treasury Department should establish clear definitions for agencies and IGs to follow when conducting reviews of DATA Act compliance to avoid any existing confusion and disparity, which we found is out there today.

Finally, the Treasury Department should improve the overall quality of USAspending.gov.

These are all reasonable steps, and they are going to help increase accountability within the Federal Government and provide greater transparency for taxpayers. As I mentioned, taxpayers deserve to be able to access accurate information on where their money is going, and lawmakers need to know how departments and agencies are actually spending their resources to be able to conduct proper oversight, plan future budgets, and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our Federal spending.

On the floor today, we were discussing appropriations bills. We will pass another floor appropriations bill this week, I hope. That is good, but part of this process is that we have to be sure we are doing the oversight so that if we are passing spending bills--all 12 should be passed by this Congress--we know where the money is going so we can identify ways to improve the spending.

I recognize that a lot of hard work has gone into USAspending.gov to date, and I am grateful for all the support and investments that many outside groups--like the Data Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight--have put into making this project successful. I also appreciate those in the Federal Government who have taken this seriously and have worked hard on this.

Although the executive branch has only implemented the law selectively so far, it has already made our government more transparent. If we continue to do the necessary followup to this important law that passed 4 years ago, I am optimistic that it will spur action to make our government spending more accountable, more accurate, and more accessible. That is the goal.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, it is always an honor to follow the President pro tempore of the Senate on the Senate floor.

I am here to talk about the work we are working through and what--for decades would actually be an understatement--for a couple of centuries was the principal work of the Congress, which was to set our priorities by how we spend the money people have entrusted us with.

Today I want to talk specifically about the importance of transportation, and the ag bill is in here, too--the agricultural bill. Certainly, those things come together in a way that allows us to be competitive or don't come together in a way that doesn't allow us to be as competitive as we would like to be.

There is no question that our Nation's infrastructure is not what it should be. The Interstate Highway System, built under the leadership of President Eisenhower, some of it is now over seven decades old, a lot of it over five decades old. It is not where it should be. It has outlived the projected life, and that is a good thing. The construction and repair are better than thought to be at the time, but they are not the kinds of things that are going to last forever.

It has been reported that we have a backlog of at least $836 billion in highway and bridge infrastructure, just that part of our infrastructure.

I am the chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Aviation. The Chair and I serve on that committee, and on that committee, we believe there is at least $100 billion in airport infrastructure projects. There are all kinds of airports all over the world that you can fly into or fly out of, and as you come back into the United States, you realize how far we are behind.

Location is important to us. In fact, Winston Churchill said at one time, talking about the United States, that the United States of America was the best located country in the world. We have the Pacific Ocean on one side and the Atlantic Ocean on the other. We have neighbors north and south whom we have learned to cooperate with and live with. We could turn to the Pacific, if that is where the opportunities were. We could turn to the Atlantic.

Winston Churchill pointed out that the Mississippi River, which runs through the center of our country, is maybe the greatest waterway in the world, in terms of the system that created transportation from the very start. The Mississippi River and all the tributary valleys there were incredibly well located.

But all of these things can benefit us if we make the most of them, but it is possible to make the least of them. If you get to the water or if you get to the river and you get on it and you can use it and it becomes an avenue of commerce, it is an opportunity. If you get to the water and you can't get on it, it is an obstacle.

That is sort of what all these things are when we talk about transportation. Are we going to talk about obstacles or

opportunities? What are we going to do with inadequate and deficient infrastructure that really does impact whether local communities can compete or not?

Back to the thoughts about the map of America and where our State is located, Missouri is really at the hub of where a lot of the natural infrastructure of the country come together, and also the No. 2 and No. 3 biggest rail yards in America are in our State. No. 2 is in Kansas City, and No. 3 is in St. Louis. The interstate highways come together there.

Chairman Collins and her committee worked on this part of the bill--a bill where all four committees have brought a product to the floor that we can vote for and that we get a chance to amend. We get a chance to talk about how this could have been made better and maybe find a way to make it better or maybe find a way to realize that, now that I understand the arguments, it is a better bill than I thought. That is the importance of getting that to the floor.

The bill provides $1 billion for BUILD Grants. Those were previously known as TIGER grants. At least 30 percent of that billion dollars is to benefit rural areas. This is particularly the kind of program we had benefited from. The program funded the Champ Clark Bridge over the Mississippi River in Louisiana, MO, and the bridge over the Missouri River at Washington, MO. They all benefited from TIGER Grants.

There is another $49.3 billion for critical highway infrastructure. That is an increase of $3 billion over the authorized level. This program will provide our State with $79 million more in Federal funding increases for roads, bridges, and freight programs. Highways and roads are generally still largely a State problem. This bill encourages States to do things that they might not quite be able to do otherwise.

We have 3,000 bridges in our State deemed structurally deficient. I think it is the highest number of bridges anywhere because we have more than 3,000 bridges that are structurally deficient and there are thousands of bridges more than that.

The bill provides $175 million in discretionary spending, combined with $140 million in mandatory spending to support Essential Air Service communities. Those communities can almost support their own commercial system, but not quite, and still have an argument that they need it. In Missouri, Joplin, Cape Girardeau, and Kirksville all benefit from that Essential Air Service Program. The airport in Columbia is benefiting right now with rehabilitating runways from that program.

The bill provides some capital investment grants that allow some help with transit projects.

As far as ag infrastructure is concerned, we have the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on the floor right now. For ag to work, you have to have an infrastructure that works. The world price of grain is the world price of grain less what it costs you to get it there. The way you win that competition is to have a transportation network that works in a way that allows you to be more competitive than anyone else. If you could arrive with a quality product and get it there cheaper than anybody else can, you get that marketplace.

We don't want to forget broadband. As we think about rural America today, broadband is as important as the telephone was 70 years ago. We figured out how to get telephones to people that were a long way from the nearest telephone, or until they got a telephone, a long way from the nearest telephone pole. We figured that out, and we need to figure out rural broadband just as well. If you can't get the high-speed information you need, you may be doing something that you don't have to go to an office to do, like commodity trading, but you do have to have instantaneous information to do it effectively.

As for rural Missourians, we have 3 percent of the rural population in our State, and half of that population doesn't have access to high- speed internet. That is behind the rest of the country, and our State is trying to catch up. If we can take advantage of these broadband pilot grants that encourage everybody to catch up, we will catch up faster than we would otherwise.

This bill provides distance learning and telemedicine grants as part of our rural community development, and there are rural development community facilities grants in here. We are benefiting from that, and we hope to see that program continue. We received rural development community facilities grants for things like police facilities, road construction equipment, and healthcare facilities in Dent County, Scotland County, Livingston County, Grundy County, and Schuyler County. All of those kinds of things would still be out there to compete for if we pass this bill.

It includes $1.25 billion for the Rural Development Water and Waste Disposal Program to be developed in rural Missouri. We have eight communities right now benefitting from that. Every level of government--local, State, and Federal--as well as the private sector, really has to continue to recognize the importance of infrastructure-- the infrastructure we see on top of the ground, the infrastructure we don't see below the ground, and the broadband infrastructure that some people have and other people don't. That is how we compete.

This bill largely is a bill about competition. Certainly, the transportation and ag parts of this bill are about competition. We need to do what we can to strengthen our overall infrastructure and our transportation network, to boost economic growth, to create jobs, and to be sure that we are more competitive where I live and where you live and all over our country. That is what this bill is about.

I am really pleased that, for the first time in a long time, every Member of the Senate has a right to come to the floor and say: Here is how we can spend this money better. Our goal should be to take what we have been entrusted with and spend it in the way that benefits the country in the most effective way. I think this bill goes a long way in the right direction to do that. I am certainly looking forward to supporting it when it comes to final passage and looking carefully at every amendment anybody offers to see if that is not a better idea than those of us on the Appropriations Committee had.

I see that my friend from West Virginia is here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 772, which was received from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the Blunt substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, in 2010, legislation passed that mandated national calorie menu labeling standards for chain restaurants and similar retail food locations, like grocery stores. Many of us know that there are many different ways that foods are prepared and sold to customers. We can see all kinds of examples by walking around the Capitol Complex itself, let alone through one's neighborhood grocery store. As a result, it would be almost impossible to have a one-size- fits-all rule.

Before I mention what the Blunt-Alexander-King substitute amendment would have done, to which the Senator from Washington State has objected, let me, first of all, address the House-passed bipartisan bill that has been pending on the Senate's calendar.

Senator King joined me in introducing the bipartisan Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act here in the Senate--the same bill that has already passed in the House. The bill is not just bicameral but bipartisan, meaning Democrats and Republicans have sponsored legislation in the Senate and Democrats and Republicans have passed the same legislation in the House. My Democratic colleague from Missouri cosponsored the initial bill.

The House-passed bill would not exempt pizza delivery and it wouldn't exempt supermarkets or grocery stores or convenience stores or others from menu labeling requirements.

There are always all kinds of things that are talked about here. What the House bill and what the Blunt-Alexander-King bill would do, which is pending in the Senate, is recognize that there are unique differences in business types and product offerings to allow for more flexibility in different kinds of business models providing their customers with calorie information. This would still happen under our bill, but it would happen in a more effective way so that it meets the customers' needs. The goal here should be the customers' receiving the information rather than exactly where the information is placed in a one-size-fits-all or in a one-location-fits-all kind of format.

The campaign on this issue of misinformation has run pretty wild. There is a group saying that what we are trying to do is exempt restaurants and others from menu labeling. They clearly haven't read the bill that Senator Alexander and I and Senator King have introduced. I would like to go on record as saying what the amendment does.

First and foremost, it does not impact the delay of that menu labeling final rule that went into effect this year. Again, it does not impact the delay or stop the menu labeling final rule. The Blunt- Alexander-King amendment provides those who have to implement the rule with the regulatory flexibility to implement the rule and provide the information to their customers in the most useful manner. The amendment also provides protection against frivolous lawsuits. That is really all it does. Those are two big things, but they are two not very complicated things.

I have been working on this issue for a number of years. I am disappointed that we have been unable to move a commonsense measure here in the Senate.

I thank Senator King for working with me on this issue, and I thank Senators McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Donnelly--all Democrats--along with Senator King, for joining me as bipartisan cosponsors.

I also thank Chairman Alexander, who is the chair of the authorizing committee, who has joined with me and others in finding a commonsense path forward to ensure we provide the information to consumers in the most effective way, while providing the flexibility in implementation and protection from lawsuits, not only on the information but on some highly technical piece of the rule that really wouldn't have an impact if anybody were to have the information or not. Senator Alexander has been a leader on this. I know he is as disappointed as I am that we can't move forward with the House-passed bill, for I spent a lot of time on it.

I turn now to my friend Senator Alexander, the chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, to make whatever comments he wants to make.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning, the hot Sun rose on a tent city 20 miles outside El Paso, TX. That tent city stands as a makeshift detention facility to house children who have crossed our border and have been separated from their parents. This tent city, I would suggest, is hopefully a temporary monument to modern-day American cruelty.

Across South Texas, so-called tender age shelters have sprung up to house very young children, even infants, who have been taken from their parents in an act that pediatricians, psychologists, and frankly anyone who has raised a child themselves know is the most traumatizing and upsetting thing you can do to a young child, which is to take them away from their parents by force, with no understanding of what is happening or expectation of when they will be reunited.

This morning, thousands of children woke up to the voices of strangers in strange places and started another day in institutionalized, fenced-in confinement. This is happening in our Nation.

I have heard from dozens--hundreds of Delawareans by every means they could communicate with me, and I am sure my colleagues have also heard from hundreds or thousands of their constituents, as we, as a nation, have been haunted by the sounds and images of vulnerable children crying out for help.

On one hand, I think this is a simple issue of right and wrong, but on the other, this issue, like so many others that affect us in the Senate, has been complicated by politics and by rhetoric and by statements, frankly, meant to mislead.

The American people, though, I think deserve clarity about what has been happening along our southern border in recent weeks and what its impacts have been and may be to families, to children, and to parents who have crossed our border. So let's be clear about what is happening.

President Trump and his administration created--created--a humanitarian crisis by adopting a so-called zero tolerance policy to compel prosecution of all who cross our southern border, many of whom are people fleeing unspeakable violence in their home countries in Central America. Then the President and leaders in his administration excused or even misled people about this policy--this cruel policy--in a variety of different, conflicting, and, frankly, at times, even absurd ways in the past week.

Administration officials claim they didn't actually have this policy or claimed they were compelled to do this by a nonexistent law or claimed their policy was a deterrent to prevent people from seeking asylum in the United States.

Regardless of the explanations given, the American people spoke clearly and forcefully over the past week and said the President's policy was unacceptable. They said this treatment of children was an un-American tragedy that should not continue.

Under that sustained pressure from the American people, our President relented and yesterday signed an Executive order, but even then he has only created new problems with the Executive order he just issued.

As a Senator and as a person of faith, my own public service is closely tied to the values taught to me by my Christian faith and by my parents. I know many of my colleagues with whom I have spoken, on both sides of the aisle, feel the same way. We have to ask ourselves as parents, as people of faith: How can we stomach the human suffering of a child being ripped from his mother's arms and that intentional, willful child abuse being imposed to make that child a hostage or a bargaining chip in our long-running and unresolved conflicts here about immigration policy? How can we tolerate even one father being left in torment, searching for his baby or child, not knowing where they are or even if he will ever see them again, and having that torment imposed as a tool of policy, and how can we stomach multiplying those individual tragedies by 2,342?

By my count, since May, 2,342 children have been forcibly separated from their parents after crossing our border. In just 6 weeks, 2,342 lives have been changed in ways that will have lasting consequences.

Now, the President has issued the Executive order that he claims will end this separation of families, but that Executive order is seriously flawed and will create as many problems and questions as it seeks to address. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that this policy, this zero tolerance policy, has already inflicted trauma and suffering for thousands of families and children. I think it creates a new humanitarian challenge, a new humanitarian crisis, because the consequences of this new Executive order will be to detain entire families in what may well prove to be ill-equipped tent cities.

This policy does nothing to clarify what will become of the more than 2,300 children already separated from their families, some of whom have been lost track of by the agencies responsible for them.

We live in the world's most powerful and prosperous Nation, but I am afraid we are watching, day after day, the way in which the administration has chosen to treat children, through their indefinite detention or separation from their parents, in a way that will have lasting and negative consequences for our human rights record.

As a nation, we were founded as an idea, a place to which people came fleeing persecution, fleeing countries in collapse or authoritarian regimes, and seeking a brighter, newer future in this country. I think we are being dishonest or shortsighted about our own family's history if any one of us stands and says that none of our ancestors came here-- none of our ancestors came here seeking relief from oppression or outside the legal mechanisms of the time. I think we are forgetting our family's history if we say: Today we must close our border absolutely and prevent anyone seeking asylum from coming to our country.

Frankly, I have struggled as leaders in this administration have chosen to cite Scripture and to use their faith as an explanation or justification for why this zero tolerance policy was required.

Our Attorney General, a former colleague of mine, someone whose knowledge of Scripture I know to be thorough, cited Paul's Epistle to the Romans to justify this policy. In fact, I think it is specifically Romans 13:1 through 5.

He said Romans 13 requires us ``to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for His purposes.''

I, too, am somewhat familiar--in a passing way--with Scripture. I try to read my Bible daily, and, with all due respect, I disagree with Attorney General Sessions's reading.

In Paul's letter to the Romans, he says, just before Romans 13--in Romans 12, and then just a little later in Romans 13--so if you just read a few verses on either side, I think the message is clear: We are urged to share with the Lord's people in need; we are urged to live in harmony with one another, and we are reminded most pointedly later on in Romans 13 that love is the fulfillment of the law and that ``love thy neighbor'' is the greatest Commandment of all.

If there is one common theme, not just in this epistle but in the Gospel, it is that Jesus radically opened His heart and His preaching to those considered outcasts and ordinary and marginalized in His society in His time. With whom did He spend His time? Outstanding citizens? Respected leaders? No, with prostitutes, with tax collectors, with lepers, with Samaritans, with the others, and with the outcasts.

I just ask those who heard what Attorney General Sessions had to say and who thought it was the right answer to rethink whether this strained and cramped reading of Paul's letter is truly a faithful reading.

Romans 13 does, indeed, instruct us to follow the law and to respect those in authority, but I will say this particular passage--and it is being misquoted in order to support oppression--has a long and storied history.

It was cited by Tories in this country who opposed those who stood up for freedom in the American Revolution. It was cited by slaveholders who opposed abolition in the runup to the Civil War. I heard it cited by those who defended the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

Yes, it does teach us to obey the law and respect the law. It does teach us that God ordains those in authority, but it does not mean we should simply accept unjust and inhumane laws and the abuses that flow from them. As a person of faith, I simply cannot accept the current policies for the treatment of those who cross our borders seeking asylum and refuge in our Nation.

In the last few days, as I have heard on my television and social media, the sounds of crying children and the images of children being kept in what certainly looked to me to be little more than cages, I have been thinking about something written by one of America's most famous former slaves, Frederick Douglass--a man who spent much of his life in this very city and who wrote about the consequences on the oppressor of cruelty.

In his book, ``My Bondage and My Freedom,'' he recounted his life as a slave, and he wrote about the brutalizing impact of slavery on the people of faith who tolerated it. I think his words bear briefly repeating today. He said at one point in that book:

The mistress of the house was a model of affection and

tenderness. Her fervent piety and watchful uprightness made

it impossible to see her without thinking and feeling--``that

woman is a Christian.'' There was no sorrow nor suffering for

which she had not a tear, and there was no innocent joy for

which she had not a smile. She had bread for the hungry,

clothes for the naked, and comfort for every mourner that

came within her reach.

Frederick Douglass goes on to say:

Slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of these

excellent qualities, and [slavery soon proved its ability to

divest] her home of its early happiness. Conscience cannot

stand much violence. Once thoroughly broken down, who is he

that can repair the damage?

I think we should reflect, as people of conscience motivated to public service, in many cases by a shared faith, about our responsibility to speak up for the values upon which our Republic was founded and through which it has been improved.

When we promote humanity, kindness, love, tolerance, and openness, we advance our Nation. I have been heartened by the calls I have heard from across my State and country by people of many different backgrounds, many different faith traditions, many different political views. I am reminded of that passage of Frederick Douglass of the harm it causes us to be a part of a nation that imposes such a cruel and thoughtless policy and turns away and fails to look at it and fails to step forward and fails to change it. I am encouraged by what change there has been so far, but I will remind those listening that we must redouble our efforts.

Let me quote just a few. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called forceful family separation ``immoral'' and ``contrary to our Catholic values.'' The Holy Father, Pope Francis himself, expressed his agreement with that opinion, saying he is on the side of the bishops conference in this debate.

Rev. Franklin Graham, one of President Trump's most ardent defenders, called this policy ``disgraceful'' and said: ``It's terrible to see families ripped apart and I don't support that one bit.''

A personal friend of mine, Rev. Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, has worked with a broad group from across faith leadership, from the evangelical community to the Protestant community, to put together a group that goes by reclaiming Jesus and to post online an important statement that speaks to how across so many different faith traditions this practice, this policy of forcibly separating children--and now a subsequent policy of family detention--speaks ill of all of us.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, humanists, people of all traditions have been calling on our President to end this treatment of fellow human beings. I have heard from colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, from all over this country, their voices of concern. So it is my hope that we will refuse to tolerate this; that we as a body will take a stand; and that we as a nation will urge our President and this administration to adopt new, more humane policies for people crossing our border and seeking refuge in this country; and that we will support bipartisan legislation to fix our broken immigration laws. It is only by the action and leadership of this administration that we have gotten into this space; it is only by their action and leadership that we can get out of it.

I pray it is not too late for us to restore this Nation's reputation as a country that welcomes those seeking refuge from around the world. I will continue to pray every day for our President, for our Senators, for our Nation, for its values, and for our ability to stand up for the treatment of children in distress.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, first, as the Senate continues to process appropriations bills on the floor, I thank Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy for their hard work on the appropriations process.

The Republican leader and I have both committed to work through appropriations in a bipartisan way, through regular order, which is something the Senate hasn't achieved in some time. Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy are leading the way. We want to continue along this road in a bipartisan, cooperative way, wherein what we bring to the floor basically has approval from both sides of the aisle.

Family Separation Policy

Madam President, on immigration, let me address the humanitarian crisis at our southern border.

For a little over a month, President Trump's family separation policy has resulted in more than 2,300 children being separated from their families. Young children, toddlers, babies are being held alone. I have seen the pictures of these tiny, little girls with forlorn looks on their faces--it breaks your heart--and they are being placed into what are being called tender age facilities. That is an Orwellian term if there ever were one. Other minors have been flown, scattershot, to different parts of the country to live in foster homes that are hundreds of miles away from their parents. A 5-year-old is sent hundreds of miles away from his or her parents? What kind of country are we?

Yesterday the President signed an Executive order that made it 100- percent clear that what the Democrats have been saying--that the President can fix this problem on his own--has been correct. The President vindicated everything we had been saying and undid everything he had been saying when he said only Congress could fix this problem. Of course, he made it partisan.

It is a relief that the President has reversed himself and recognized the cruelty of his policy of separating children from their parents. I would like to believe he found it in the goodness of his heart. We certainly know there was a ton of pressure on him to do this and that he didn't do it when he first looked at the problem.

After weeks of acting like his administration bore no responsibility for this policy--contravening all fact and all reality--I hope this represents a turning point with the President. I hope it means this President will stop blaming others for problems he creates and will start fixing them himself. I hope it means the President realizes, just because he says something, it doesn't make it so. So often, more than any other President many times over, what he says is just outright false, made up. It pops into his head, and he says it. Yet this Executive order raises several questions. That means the President must continue to deal with these problems, which, again, he can do on his own.

First, the way the Executive order was drafted means it will not go into effect until a court rules on its legality. What is the President's policy on family separation in the meantime? Will he continue to insist that these heartbreaking separations continue?

Second, the Executive order allows for the indefinite detention of families who are apprehended at the border. The U.S. Government cannot be in the business of indefinitely detaining minors.

Third, the Executive order is silent on the more than 2,300 families who have already been split apart. Will the President and his administration work to reunite those families? We believe he must do that immediately. What exactly is the President's plan to accomplish this? Leader Pelosi and I are sending a letter to the President this

morning that will demand he use all the necessary resources to reunite the separated families.

At his rally in Minnesota last night, which is the kind of red meat thing the President likes--gathering 10,000 people together in a State of 5, 6, 7, or 8 million so he is a hero with everyone, which is the way he thinks--the President acted as if he had taken care of the border crisis, as if all of the problems were in the rearview mirror.

He said: ``I signed an executive order keeping families together because I think that's probably a very important thing to be doing.''

The only thing is, we in Congress and the American people have a whole bunch of questions the President hasn't answered, questions which are listed above that I will repeat. How many kids are in these facilities now? What are their conditions? Why hasn't the media been allowed to go in, see, and verify that the conditions are humane? The Department of Defense has been asked whether it can house 20,000 unaccompanied children from now until the end of the year. How will that work? Is it even feasible? How is the administration keeping track of the families who have already been separated? What are the plans and timetable for their being reunited?

President Trump hasn't taken care of the problem, not by any stretch of the imagination, but he has certainly admitted that his administration does have the power to take action. He, in a sense, by what he did yesterday, increases the burden on himself to solve these other problems. I urge him to continue to use his power to address these serious, unresolved issues. Legislation in Congress remains unlikely and far more difficult to achieve than the simple corrective actions the President can take immediately and administratively.

Let us not forget that immigration has been the graveyard of legislation for years in this Congress. Saying Congress can act and getting Congress to act are two different things, particularly when, on the House side, we have a group of Congress Members in the Freedom Caucus--way out of the mainstream by any polling standard, by any real standard on immigration--that insists that poison pills be added to anything we do on immigration. Speaker Ryan, thus far, has shown no ability or desire to resist them. So having Congress get it done is not going to solve the problem, unfortunately, because immigration is such a contentious and divisive issue. The President has to do it himself, and let us hope he does.

Trade with China

Madam President, on our trade relationship with China, for too long, China has taken advantage of America's unwillingness to strongly confront its rapacious trade policies. For too long, China has dumped artificially cheap products into our market, stolen the intellectual property of startup and blue-chip American companies, and denied our companies access to its markets. When companies have good products that China wants to copy, it has denied our companies access to its markets so China can steal the know-how of how to do it and then compete with us. China alone, by its rapacious, unfair trade policies, has accounted for the loss of millions of American jobs and the decline in pay of millions of other American jobs.

So I am heartened that President Trump, after making a debacle of the deal on ZTE, has taken a tougher approach to China in recent days. His instincts to be tough on China are right on the money. As I said before, on China, my views are closer to President Trump's than they were to President Obama's or President Bush's, both of whose administrations, anyway, let China get away with economic murder.

Now President Trump needs to stay strong. If he backs off at the first sign of trouble, after the first company calls to complain or after President Xi calls to complain, then China will know we are weak and unserious. I am worried China already thinks that because of what the President has done on ZTE. China is waiting to see if we are tough enough to ride this out. We need to show China that America means business because the stakes are too high. Business relocations to China have cost too many American jobs. The theft of our intellectual property has been called the greatest transfer of wealth in history by former four-star general and Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command GEN Keith Alexander.

The lifeblood of the American economy is on the line, so I urge President Trump to stay strong on China. At the first sign of complaint, if we turn, China will know it can push us over, and the number of jobs we will lose--the amount of wealth we will lose--will far exceed the kind of damage these tariffs might do.

Please don't mistake my support on this issue as a license for the President to be reckless or as an endorsement of what the President is doing to our allies. The tariffs leveled against Canada and our European allies are misguided and poorly timed. We should be rallying our allies to work with us against China, which is what they want to do. Instead, we are poking them. China is our No. 1 economic trade enemy, and I use the word ``enemy'' advisedly. We have to have the whole world on our side, and these other actions are poorly timed at best.

Republican Tax Bill

Madam President, 6 months ago, in the dead of night, the Republican majority jammed through a partisan tax bill that lavished tax cuts on big corporations and the wealthiest few--the old theory of trickle-down that the Republican Party embraced. My friend from Pennsylvania is one of the few who will actually say that is what he believes, which I appreciate, even though I strongly disagree.

It is an appropriate time now to look back on how the tax bill is faring. While the Republican leader, on a daily basis, celebrates vague statistics about business confidence, here are some hard, cold facts.

Since the beginning of 2018, corporations have announced plans to repurchase more than $475 billion in stock buybacks--a record pace. In the past week, the Washington Post has reported ``wages aren't just flat, they are falling'' for a strong majority of American workers. According to a recent analysis by JUST Capital, only 7 percent of the capital allocated by companies from the tax bill's savings has gone to employees while 57 percent has gone to shareholders--just what we Democrats predicted.

When the vast majority of the tax cuts goes to the very wealthy and to the largest and most powerful corporations, the average worker sees very little gain--trickle-down--certainly, a smaller proportion of the gain than the cut. The kind of plan we would have advocated, which would have helped the middle class predominantly, not the wealthy, would have been far better for average workers.

Remember what President Trump promised the American people? He said the Republican tax bill would give a $4,000 raise to the average American family. In reality, American families are not seeing close to that figure. A recent Washington Post headline sums it up best: ``The Republican tax bill's promises of higher wages and more jobs haven't materialized.''

The truth is that the tax law has failed to deliver for American workers and American families, and the American people are realizing it. The polling data shows it is becoming more unpopular. It started out being very unpopular with all of those little publicity bonuses that many of them arranged. In January, it was at about 50-50, but now it is declining again. American families know they are getting the short end of the stick in this tax bill. Corporations are reaping record profits as a result of the tax bill, and they refuse to pass much of those savings on to their workers.

Whatever benefits American families are getting from the tax bill, if they are getting benefits at all, are starting to get wiped out by the skyrocketing healthcare costs--the result of Republican sabotage, some of which was in the tax bill itself. There are millions of American families now whose tax breaks are far exceeded by the increases in premiums they are paying for healthcare.

All in all, that is why today, just 6 months since its passage, the Republicans' signature legislative accomplishment is so deeply unpopular with the American people and why Republican pundits are saying we had better go over to the area of immigration because this tax bill thing isn't working for us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be very brief.

I thank the Republican leader and the senior Senator from Tennessee-- the chair of one of the relevant subcommittees--for their comments.

We want to make this process work. It is going to take a little work to bring it back to the way it used to be on both sides. This is an outstanding start, and I appreciate that very much.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3433.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, before I make remarks on this amendment, I express my gratitude to my colleagues from New Mexico, to Senator Reed, who is the ranking member, and to Senator Collins, the chair of the appropriate Appropriations subcommittee, for working so closely with me and my colleagues in regard to rail service, the Southwest Chief, from Chicago to Los Angeles, which transports people through Kansas and through Colorado and through New Mexico. We have had a bipartisan effort from the Senators of those three States to make certain that service continues into the future. I am very grateful for their support.

I ask my colleagues, the other Senators, to support the Moran-Udall amendment.

Amendment No. 3433

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to force the USDA to continue honoring its existing agreement between grain handling facilities and official inspection services.

Following the passage of legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards Act, the Department of Agriculture amended its regulations and changed the treatment of grain facilities using inspection services located outside their defined, designated geographic areas.

The USDA's decision to alter the way it had been doing business has disrupted existing agreements and longstanding working relationships between grain handlers and grain inspectors. Also, the change has decreased the efficiency of inspections and reduced grain elevator operators' flexibility to coordinate with inspection services.

This amendment would not allow the USDA to revoke any additional agreements that are currently in place. To be clear, these grain elevators are still using USDA-sanctioned, official inspection agencies. The inspection agencies in question have agreed to perform inspections outside of the designated geographic areas.

The question we will soon be voting on is whether USDA ought to honor those exceptions already made to grain facilities and their inspectors. This is a commonsense amendment to make certain USDA does so--honors its commitments--and that grain facilities are afforded the best possible service from the Department of Agriculture.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I want to speak this evening for a few moments about trade and tariffs. They certainly have been in the news for a long time. They are in the news today. I want to highlight the importance of trade and exports to Kansas, my constituents, and express my concerns about tariffs and an escalating trade war.

A global trade war will raise the price of goods for American consumers; result in retaliation against farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers who depend upon exports; and weaken our ability to work with our allies to challenge China's unfair trade practices.

Kansans are already feeling the effects of tariffs. Approximately $361 million worth of Kansas exports are being targeted by the emerging trade war, including soybeans and sorghum exports to China, aerospace exports to Canada, and beef and corn exports to Mexico. Moving forward with another $200 billion to $500 billion in tariffs against China or new section 232 tariffs on automobiles for supposed national security concerns will only increase the negative impact upon my folks at home.

With 95 percent of consumers living outside our country's border, the ability for Kansas farmers and rancher to earn a living is directly tied to our ability to sell food, fuel, and fiber. The food, fuel, and fiber we grow in Kansas must be exported to people around the world.

Since March, uncertainty in trade has contributed to the price of soybeans falling by $2 a bushel. A $2 drop in soybean prices equates to Kansas farmers and grain handlers losing out about $378 million of possible revenue solely on soybeans--one crop.

The significant harm the trade war is causing to farmers and ranchers is no doubt the reason the administration is proposing $12 billion in disaster relief for agriculture. Unfortunately, it is only a short-term fix to a long-term problem and will not make up for the lost markets for farmers.

China and Mexico, two of our largest markets in Kansas for agriculture producers--Mexico is No. 1, and China is No. 2--have already started to increase purchases of ag commodities from Brazil and Argentina instead of from U.S. producers, including those in Kansas. I am concerned that once we lose those markets, it will take years, if ever, for us to regain those markets.

This hit could not come at a worse time for ag producers. Farm revenue has already fallen by over 50 percent since 2013. Low commodity prices have pushed many producers to limits of financial viability.

I wrote an op-ed this spring arguing that Kansas farmers and ranchers can't afford a trade war. With fall harvest around the corner, many farmers will be faced with the reality of selling grain at or below the cost of production just to be able to pay off this year's operating loans.

The impact of the downturn in the ag economy cannot be solely quantified on a balance sheet. I am concerned that reduced economic opportunity in agriculture will result in fewer young people returning to rural America. One of my goals is to see that the sons and daughters of farmers and ranchers in Kansas have the opportunity to continue another generation of agriculture production in our State. When they cannot reach a price that is profitable, when they cannot obtain a price that is profitable, the likelihood of those young men and women remaining or returning to Kansas farms and ranches disappears because when agricultural struggles, so do our rural communities.

As the average age of a farmer nears 60 years old, it is critical that our policies increase the likelihood that a

young person is able to return to take over the family farm or ranch. I fear the trade war and tariffs will unfortunately have the opposite effect. Fewer markets to sell meat and grain will make it more difficult for the next generation to earn a living in rural America.

If farmers in Kansas are not producing a crop and selling it, then it means their communities also suffer. The ability to keep a grocery store in town or a grain elevator or a hardware store is diminished when farm income is as it is today.

It is not just an agricultural issue. In fact, Kansas manufacturers are also dealing with the negative impact of recently imposed tariffs.

Users of steel and aluminum are frequent in Kansas. Ours is an automobile and aviation manufacturing State, and they are facing increased costs of materials, regardless of whether they utilize domestic or imported steel and aluminum.

Chanute Manufacturing in Chanute, KS, is an example of the steel and aluminum tariffs harming a small company and its workers. The company, which employs about 130 Kansans, is a domestic manufacturer of steel- based components for the power generation market. Due to tariffs, Chanute's cost for raw materials has increased by about 8 percent.

However, when the same powerplant equipment is manufactured overseas, it can be imported here tariff-free. The actual unintended consequence of the steel tariff has been to incentivize foreign manufacturing of power equipment currently made in my home State.

Chanute Manufacturing has also missed opportunities to compete on projects in other countries due to the tariffs. Last year, the company built and shipped equipment they manufactured in Kansas to Morocco. However, when a duplicate project came available in Morocco again this year, Chanute wasn't even considered because the steel tariffs have raised their production costs, making them less competitive than cheaper foreign manufacturers.

China is important. The President is right to try to change the behavior of China. Tariffs are not the only tool to make certain that other countries follow international trade rules and treat American exporters and workers fairly.

I support efforts to hold China accountable for unfair trade practices and the theft of trade secrets and intellectual property rights from American companies. I applauded the United States for filing a challenge to China's domestic agricultural support levels at the World Trade Organization. When China unfairly subsidizes its producers or limits market access to U.S. wheat, corn, and rice, the United States is right to contest them and to contest them strongly and firmly. While I remain unconvinced that tariffs are the best tool to change China's behavior, it does not mean we should not pursue strong enforcement of global trade rules.

I am also concerned that picking a fight on trade with the rest of the world reduces our ability to win the fight with China, the country that is most deserving of strong trade actions by the United States. By attempting to take the whole world on at once, the United States risks spreading our resources thin and reducing our focus on changing China's practices.

The United States is not the only country with complaints about China's trade practices. Yet, instead of working with our allies to influence China and change their behavior, we have forced confrontations with other countries that ought to be by our side in dealing with China.

I believe that by strengthening our trade and economic relations with our allies, the United States will be better able to continue directing sound trade policies on the global stage. This includes successfully concluding a NAFTA renegotiation with Canada and Mexico and reengaging in the Trans-Pacific Partnership--TPP--negotiations or pursuing bilateral agreements with countries in the TPP, such as Japan.

This week, in fact tomorrow, Ambassador Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative, will be testifying before the Appropriations subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science. That subcommittee oversees the funding for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The hearing will be an opportunity for the subcommittee members to hear firsthand from Ambassador Lighthizer on USTR's trade efforts and to express concerns about the impact the tariffs have had and will continue to have on our constituents. I hope to learn more about the USTR strategy and the end goal in threatening more tariffs, progress to conclusion of NAFTA negotiations, and efforts to fill the President's call for a new bilateral trade agreement.

Again, recently imposed tariffs are having immediate impacts upon farmers and ranchers and manufacturers, but the long-term implications of disrupting supply chains and losing market share that took decades to build up is perhaps even more concerning. It is time to inject more certainty into our trade policies. We ought to start by reaching an agreement on a modernized NAFTA and ending the threat of an escalating trade war.

I look forward to conversations with Ambassador Lighthizer this week and making certain that the administration understands the importance of getting trade policy right for Kansas and for America.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 477, S. 3093. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Heller and Senator Cornyn may join in a colloquy with myself.

Madam President, I want to talk about my motivation for offering this unanimous consent request.

The people listening to the debate may not understand, but we have a courtesy in the Senate where we make colleagues on the other side of the aisle aware of our intent.

Before I do that, I yield the floor to Senator Durbin.

Madam President, Reserving the right to object, I first wish to acknowledge that Senator Durbin has worked hard to address the DACA issue. I don't think there is a lot of daylight between Senator Durbin and me on the need for a path to citizenship and having the DACA legislation move forward. I think there are voices trying to come together to try to come up with a just solution to a myriad of immigration issues.

However, this particular unanimous consent request is in reference to, I think, a bill that was introduced earlier today, and we have not had an opportunity to study it. I think it is another positive step in the process of maybe bridging the gap, but in the absence of being able to analyze it and reconcile it against the bill I am actively involved in that the Senator mentioned, I have to object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Heller, Senator Cornyn, and I be allowed to enter into a colloquy.

Madam President, I was trying to explain to those who are watching this what is going on. What is going on is, we actually have a very collegial environment, where we come to the floor and ask unanimous consent on something, and if somebody doesn't object, the bill moves out of the Chamber. We don't surprise people. We inform them so they are able to come to the floor and register their objection, which is exactly what Senator Hirono did today. So you could ask yourself, why would I come down here and offer up something I knew was going to be objected to and not move forward? Because I think it is pretty important for people to understand we are making progress, and it is pretty important to keep this issue and this discussion active in the U.S. Congress because Congress needs to act.

Regardless of where you are on the Trump administration's position, it is Congress's job to set long-term clarity. It is our job to set policy that can't move based on who happens to be in the White House. It is our job to fix the immigration problem, not the President's. This is the first step, in a number of things we need to do, to fix the failed immigration system in this country and to fix what I think are legitimately some injustices going on.

I have to disagree--I think it is interesting--and I look forward to reading the measure Senator Durbin put forth for unanimous consent. In his comments, he said a part of the baseline language came from a bill I have been working on with Senator Feinstein, the Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act.

What we are trying to do is figure out a reasonable, fair way to keep families together, to have families prioritized so they can go before a judge and determine whether they have a legitimate asylum claim, and to move as expeditiously as possible.

So this bill--if you heard Senator Hirono, you would think it is some heartless, uncaring--I think the words were ``partisan political stunt.''

Let me just tell my colleagues briefly--and I know Senators Heller and Cornyn will speak as well--this bill has agreement on most of the provisions. We want to make absolutely certain that if the families have to be kept together while they are going through the adjudication process, that it is in proper facilities. We want to make sure that if the parents want their children with them while they are being detained--which is, on average, about 40 to 60 days before they get their case cleared--then they can.

We also want that time period to be reduced, which is why we agree that we need to add an aggregate of about 700 judges to draw the backlog down, but until the backlog gets drawn down, parents with children get to the front of the line. We want to make sure there are an adequate number of attorneys--about two and one-half to every one judge we are adding--so we don't get clogged up in the courts.

This discussion about indefinite detention is just simply patently false. We are talking about a matter of 40 to 60 days. We want to draw that backlog down even further. We want to make sure these images of people being held in tent cities never occurs. We want to make sure we have adequate family facilities while they are being detained going through a legal process.

We want to also do the one thing I heard in Senator Hirono's comments--I am not an attorney, I believe Senator Hirono is--but it is false. The fact is, there is a court order that actually prevents children from being detained

for more than 20 days. So now we have this catch-22, where you detain the parents because they crossed the border illegally. They are being detained to process their immigration case, and they happen to have children, but you can't keep children for more than 20 days, so that is why the separation is occurring.

We are not talking about eliminating the whole Flores agreement. What we are saying is, we need to have very clear language that allows us to keep these children with their parents who are being detained pending court procedures. These are not unaccompanied children who would still be subject to Flores and who would be placed in the community within about 20 days, but there are other reasons--including some of the 2,500 or so whom Senator Durbin mentioned--we may need to keep them a little bit longer.

For example, what if their parent or guardian has been convicted of human trafficking or child abuse or some other charge, and we need to make sure it is the right setting for that child to go to? We are holding the same standards for these guardians or these parents that we do for any American citizen when we are trying to determine whether that child is going to be in a safe setting. Those are the sorts of things we put into place within narrowly tailored language, which is, my understanding right now, the only sticking point.

I came to the floor today to propound this unanimous consent request so we can start having this discussion in front of the American people, and we put pressure on ourselves to solve this problem.

This is not a problem for the President to fix. It is Congress's problem for the President to fix, and then it is the administration's responsibility to act on the will of Congress.

So I am going to continue to work with people on both sides of the aisle to do everything I can to eliminate the partisanship, the polarizing rhetoric, and fix this problem for these children who deserve and must be--should be--with their parents and put them in a setting that I think is respectful and safe.

I yield the floor to Senator Heller.

Mr. President, I am here again this week to fulfill a promise I made after becoming deeply involved in a situation involving a Presbyterian minister who has been held in prison since 2016 in the country of Turkey.

I have traveled to Turkey a couple of times, and I have met Pastor Brunson. He is from an area in Western North Carolina. He is actually a part of a church affiliated with the Reverend Billy Graham. He has been a missionary in Turkey for about 20 years. In October 2016, he was incarcerated and accused of being a part of plotting the coup attempt-- an illegal act for which people who were involved should be held accountable, but he was not one of them--and, also, suspected of terrorist activities.

Back in the late winter, after almost 19 months in prison without charges, after the indictment was issued, he was concerned that the American people were going to look at this indictment and turn their back on him. I felt like I needed to be able to look him in the eye and tell him nothing could be further from the truth. So I traveled to Turkey and met with him in a prison outside of Izmir to tell him that I would continue to be his voice and that I spoke for a number of Senators who are also concerned with this. More than 70 signed onto a letter expressing their concern. This is not a partisan issue. This is about the illegal incarceration of a Presbyterian minister in a NATO ally, Turkey.

Pastor Brunson has been imprisoned 656 days, counting today. We just got word this morning that the Turkish authorities have agreed to release him on house arrest. So we are going to get him out of the situation he has been in for about 16 or 17 months, in a cell designed for 8 people that had 21 in it. Now he is at least going to be able to be under house arrest and held outside of prison.

For as long as I am in the Senate, I will come to this floor every week and advocate for Pastor Brunson and a number of other people who are detained in Turkey for what I believe are inappropriate reasons-- reasons that wouldn't keep you in jail overnight in the United States.

Under the emergency authorities that President Erdogan had, they were swept up and some have been convicted. We have a NASA scientist who also has family in Turkey. He was arrested when he was over there, apparently for being a conspirator in the coup attempt. We have State Department staff and Turkish nationals who worked with our State Department and our Embassy over there who are in prison. We have to have a watchful eye on everybody.

I am glad that the Turkish Government is moving in the right direction with Pastor Brunson, but he is still effectively detained. Now it is under house arrest. So I will continue to work for Pastor Brunson's release, but I also want to make sure that the other people who are, in my opinion, illegally and inappropriately detained in the Turkish prison system also have a voice here in the U.S. Senate.

Again, I appreciate the Turkish officials taking this step to release Pastor Brunson and to put him on house arrest, but I will guarantee that, for as long as I am a U.S. Senator and there is somebody detained in Turkey, they will have a voice here in the U.S. Senate.

I hope that by next week or in the next couple of weeks Pastor Brunson is back in the United States, and I hope I don't have a reason to come to this floor and speak on his behalf and be his voice.