Floor Statements

Madam President, on immigration, in the past few weeks, it has not been so optimistic. The Trump administration has created a humanitarian crisis at our southern border through its cruel family separation policy. An Executive order signed by the President last week has barely undone the damage. It largely leaves the original policy intact and raises a whole series of unresolved questions.

Those in the administration have a lot of questions to answer, and it is only they who can straighten this out. Legislation might be a good thing, but we all know the path to legislation is fraught with peril. Having legislation pass the House, pass the Senate, and be signed by the President hasn't happened in a while. In the meantime, while people grapple with legislation--and I encourage people to talk to one another--we have a lot of questions that the administration must answer: How many children are separated from their parents? Where are those children? Where are the parents? What kind of care are these kids getting? How are they holding up?

I saw on one of the TV shows this morning a little girl, who asked: Where is my mommy? Where is my mommy? She was a young girl who was, maybe, 4 years old.

That is not the America any of us--regardless of our party, regardless of our political philosophy--believe in. We see that in other countries that are much crueler and less democratic than we. So we need these questions answered by the administration quickly.

The second thing we need is a plan. The administration, the President, and

others have said that we are not going to break up families anymore even though he was the cause of breaking up the families. What is the plan to get them back together? What is the plan for the future? They now say they are going back to the way it was under Obama because they don't have the resources. What are the resources they need? At the same time, when Sarah Huckabee Sanders says that they don't have the resources, President Trump says: I don't want any more immigration judges. This administration is just contradictory and tied in a knot.

Compounding the problem is the President's ranting--that is what he is doing; I hate to say it--at these rallies when he says that Democrats want crime. Democrats want open borders. Well, Mr. President, I am the author, with John McCain--someone you have also belittled--of a bill that passed this body with 69 votes that put $40 billion on the border. It would have been far more effective than any wall. We could do that now. We could do comprehensive reform now if some people would be for it on the other side and in the White House.

These rants--these hysterical, nasty, finger-pointing rants--don't help bring bipartisanship here. Yet we expect that of the President, as he has been highly partisan, but they don't help solve the problem. He just shoots from the hip. The different agencies, whether they be the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, don't know what to do because there are so many contradictory signals coming. Who suffers? These poor little children who are separated from their parents suffer.

Two days ago, Sunday, in New York, I called for a czar--a good czar-- because, when you have different agencies in charge, you need the White House to direct it all. This President shoots from the hip and is more interested in nasty rhetoric than in solving problems, and nothing gets solved. A czar--some capable, level-headed person who has the President's blessing in the White House, who could help coordinate between Justice and HHS and Homeland Security and the other agencies that are involved--could help solve this problem.

Whether it goes for the czar or not, this administration needs to present a plan--ASAP--of how to unify the kids and how to deal with the border. It has no plan. It has a lot of contradictory language. Let's hope it can get there for the sake of humanity and for the sake of what this country has been all about for its beautiful 229 years.

Madam President, on taxes, one of the chief arguments behind the Republican tax bill was the idea that giving corporations a substantial tax cut would compel companies to hire more workers, give raises, and expand operations.

After a few weeks of news about one-time annual bonuses petered out-- and many of those were staged by CEOs sucking up to the President--we have started to get a look at how corporations are really using the profits from the Republican tax bill. What did Harley-Davidson, the iconic motorcycle company that President Trump talked about in his campaign and even afterward, do with their tax cuts? They cut domestic operations, announced a nearly $700 million stock repurchasing program, and now are moving significant operations overseas. Why didn't Harley- Davidson take that tax break to help continue to employ workers here in America instead of a buyback so the wealthy CEOs and shareholders would get a lot of money? President Trump and Speaker Ryan have held up Harley-Davidson as a success story of their tax bill while they are cutting jobs in America and using the tax cuts for stock buybacks.

It is the same thing with Carrier. There was a great big hoopla with Carrier, but Carrier is cutting jobs and still employs loads of people overseas, even though they got a huge tax break. This tax break has helped the wealthy, the CEOs, the shareholders--most of whom are rich and one-third of whom are overseas--but not the workers and not more productivity in America.

Another one is Walmart. They are cited by the House as a positive example of the tax bill in action. Walmart laid off 1,000 employees in recent months and used the tax bill break for a $4 billion buyback of its own stock.

This tax bill has proven to be a travesty. All the things that were promised aren't happening. I know our Republican colleagues. They talk to their wealthy businesspeople, and they think it is great. Talk to the average person. It has become unpopular again. Do you know why? It has sunk in that the money ain't going to them, and the big corporations that are getting these breaks are not benefiting them, by and large. Listen to this number: $450 billion in stock buybacks have been announced. That doesn't employ a single worker. That doesn't raise the salary of a single worker. That doesn't bring new equipment to a company to make it more productive so they can compete better. An analysis was just done by JUST Capital, and 7 percent of the capital allocated by companies from the tax bill's savings has gone to employees, 57 percent to shareholders--close to eight times as much. We Democrats predicted that, and despite the initial hoopla after the bill, the American people are realizing it is happening.

It seems nearly every week, today with Harley-Davidson, there is a new example of corporate America taking a Republican tax cut and putting it to work--not for their employees, not for new equipment, not for new hires but for executives and shareholders. Let's not forget, 80 percent of the stock is held by 10 percent of the wealthiest people. One-third of the shares in America are held by people overseas. As voters head to the polls this November, they should remember that Republicans spent over $1.5 trillion of the taxpayers' money to give corporate America a handout while working America got left behind.

We Democrats need to fix that.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as we are all aware, the Trump administration's border policy has resulted in thousands of families having been separated at the border over the past few months. Despite the administration's recent executive order, thousands of young children remain separated from their parents in cities across the country, across America. According to the New York Times, right now, there are 2,053 children who are stuck in limbo, waiting for various Federal agencies to reunite them with their families.

Some of the most basic questions about their whereabouts and the whereabouts of their families are unknown to Federal officials. Of the thousands of children having been taken away from their parents since the President's family separation policy went into effect, only about 500 children in CBP's custody have been reunited with their families. That is not good enough. Who will be held accountable if these children are not returned to their parents? Some of these children are even too young to know their names.

This unprecedented situation demands a Federal point person to manage the family reunification process and ensure it is resolved as quickly and transparently as possible. Multiple agencies have jurisdiction, including the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice. We need someone in power to work across Federal agencies, cut through the bureaucracy, and lead the accurate, humane, and timely reunification of every child who has been separated by President Trump's policies.

I urge President Trump to appoint a family reunification czar to manage this process.

The administration needs to bring in an experienced and competent person to impose order on the chaos that the President's decision has caused--someone to be accountable so that this doesn't go on for months or longer with different agencies pointing fingers at each other while children languish alone in detention. When multiple Federal agencies are involved in responding to a crisis, the response is often cumbersome and slow. Each agency has its different track, its different goals, its different paths. Without someone in the White House to bring order and have them work in sync, all too often, nothing happens.

A czar--this is a good czar, not a bad czar--would help to avoid the situation whereby the agencies would be at cross purposes and paralysis and inaction would result. We did this when Ebola occurred. There were many agencies involved when we were worried about the national threat of Ebola. President Obama wisely appointed a czar--I believe it was Ron Klain. It worked, and the Ebola fear that we all had--thank God--didn't materialize. The same can happen here in the sense that a czar could help solve the problem.

It is agonizing--so agonizing--to see young children, with anguished looks on their faces, being separated from

their parents. This crisis demands a timely and efficient response. A family reunification czar would help get the job done. It is not a political situation whereby it is ideological. It is, simply, getting the bureaucracies to work.

China

Mr. President, on China, this morning, the New York Times reported that in several industrial cities in China's interior, Chinese manufacturers have been using incredibly dangerous chemicals known as CFCs, which destroy the planet's ozone layer and are explicitly banned by an international agreement from the 1980s. The CFCs are more dangerous to our atmosphere even than CO2, even than methane. That is why the world came together in a rare moment and successfully, for a long time, banned these CFCs.

Now it seems that this is not occurring in China, and it comes as no surprise. China cracks down so effectively on free speech, so one wonders why the state is unable to crack down on the use of environmentally toxic chemicals that have been banned for over 30 years. It took China's Government a matter of days to block online access to HBO after John Oliver poked fun at President Xi on the network. Yet, when it comes to the use of toxic chemicals that are banned by international agreements, China's government can't get its act together? Please. It is a metaphor. What is happening with CFCs is a metaphor for so many of China's policies, most especially for its trade policy.

Many question if China will ever moderate its self-interested, mercantilist behavior and join the community of nations in fair trade by lowering trade barriers, by abiding by international trade rules, and by ending its practice of intellectual property theft. Well, this news shows that when push comes to shove, China always does what is best for China--short-term profit for China--without regard to the well-being of its neighbors or the strictures of international agreements. Whether it is lead in our children's toys, cadmium in exported fish, or CFCs in the atmosphere, time and again, China flouts and skirts international laws, agreements, and vital environmental standards in ferocious pursuit of its economic interests.

We should not be accommodating when it comes to trade with China. We cannot appeal to its better angels and hope for the best--at least with President Xi in charge. We must recognize that China's government will not retreat from its fundamentally self-interested posture until and unless we force it to, through tough penalties for misbehavior and strong incentives to abide by free-market principles.

(Mrs. Ernst assumed the Chair.)

Healthcare

Madam President, on healthcare, last week insurers in Indiana and in the Presiding Officer's State of Iowa requested an increase in 2019 rates. The addition of Indiana and Iowa asking for increasing rates adds to the growing list of States--including Virginia, Maryland, New York, and Oregon--that have raised rates as a result of Republican healthcare policies.

The CEO of one of the largest insurers in Indiana, Celtic, said insurers could have potentially lowered rates in 2019 if the Trump administration had not attempted to sow mass uncertainty and undermine the market.

Let me repeat that. The CEO of one of the largest insurers in Indiana said that health insurance costs could have gone down if not for President Trump and Congressional Republicans. He went on to say that the rate increases were also a result of the uncertainty caused by the Republicans' repeal of the coverage requirement and the Trump administration's expansion of short-term junk insurance plans.

Think about it for a moment. Middle-class families in Indiana could have saved on their healthcare next year if President Trump, aided and abetted by Republicans here in the Senate, hadn't sabotaged the system. If the Republicans and President Trump would have simply left our healthcare system alone, things would have been so much better. So many people in so many of our States will pay far more in premium increases than they will get benefits from a tax cut--particularly if you are middle-class and not rich. Is that right? Does that put more money in people's pockets? No. Does that get the economy going? Absolutely not.

Sadly, because of a political vendetta against the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have undermined our healthcare system at every turn. They don't have an answer as to what to do. They don't have a new system to put in place. They have tried that for a year and a half, and they haven't gotten anywhere. They just want to sabotage the existing law and make it worse for average Americans because they are so fixated on killing the ACA bill, even though they have nothing to put in its place, and American families are paying the price in the form of higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs, and more expensive prescription drugs.

Civil Discourse

Finally, Madam President, a word on a different subject. Here in the Senate we disagree with one another frequently and often fervently. I certainly do. Many of us disagree with the policies of the current administration. In a country as large and diverse as ours, politics has always been a noisy, raucous affair--probably even more so today. That is OK, but we all have to remember to treat our fellow Americans--all of our fellow Americans--with the kind of civility and respect that we expect will be afforded to us.

I strongly disagree with those who advocate harassing folks if they don't agree with you. If you disagree with something or someone, stand up and make your voice heard. Explain why you think they are wrong and why you are right. Make the argument. Protest peacefully. If you disagree with a politician, organize your fellow citizens to action and vote them out of office, but no one should call for the harassment of political opponents. That is not right. That is not American.

Now, I understand those who look at the conduct of this President--a man who habitually engages in bullying, name-calling, slander, and pure nastiness for its own sake--and think: We have to fight fire with fire. I know I felt those emotions myself. I think we all do. I understand those who are outraged at the hypocrisy of this President when he complains about bullying, harassment, or nastiness when it is used against him or his allies, and he uses it as a regular tool almost every day. I am outraged by the double standard that we seem to let this President get away with. But the President's tactics and behavior should never be emulated. They should be repudiated by organized, well- informed, and passionate advocacy. As Michelle Obama, a person who represents the same kind of fineness that we have always had in America, in complete contrast to the coarseness of this President, said: ``When they go low, we go high.'' That is a contrast of civility, honor, and decency to President Trump's coarseness and meanness. It is a contrast that will serve those of us who oppose what the President does so well.

To opponents of the President's policies, the best way to limit what he can do, to show that America is not as coarse, as mean, as hypocritical as his behavior suggests, the best solution is to win elections. That is a far more productive way to channel the legitimate frustrations with this President's policies than harassing members of his administration.

I yield the floor.

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 ask unanimous consent that in whatever order you choose, Senators Crapo, Baldwin, and Whitehouse each be given a minute, then I be allowed to speak in leader time, and the vote come immediately after that.

Mr. President, I am on leader time.

Forced Family Separation

Mr. President, as the purposeful, cynical, and shameful humanitarian crisis of family separation at the border continues to unfold, the vast majority of Americans are looking to President Trump's administration, which started this practice, to end it.

The Associated Press recently reported that the Trump administration has been sending babies and young children to what they call tender age facilities. It is unconscionable--unconscionable--that the Government of the United States is warehousing babies and toddlers alone in an institutional setting.

The crisis was willfully and purposefully created by this President through his zero tolerance policy at the border. It can and should be ended by the same mechanism. With the simple flick of a pen, the President can end this policy. If the President wants to borrow my pen, he can have it. He can do it quickly and easily if he wants to. It is on his back.

The administration must end this gratuitously cruel and counterproductive policy that has brought such pain to innocent children and so much shame on this Nation. No law requires the separation of children from their families, no law says you must send babies to detention facilities, and no law is required to end it.

Nineteen Republicans in the Senate have already called on the Trump administration to reverse or suspend this policy administratively, without any congressional action. If our Republican colleagues and the Republican leadership in particular want to solve this problem, they ought to be directing their attention to the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, to the White House, because that is where it can get done, done well, and get done quickly. This is at the administration's doorstep to stop or sustain. This is President Trump's responsibility. He could fix it this morning if he actually wanted to fix it. Instead, he points fingers of blame, he prevaricates, and he makes things up because he doesn't even want to own this policy. He knows how unpopular it is with the American people, but at the same time, he sort of wants to tell his base: I am with you. I am with you.

It is awful.

There is this idea that Congress could step in and pass legislation to deal with family separation. That is highly, highly dubious and unlikely. When has this Congress ever successfully passed immigration legislation in the last few years? Never. It is an illusion. Color us dubious that Congress--the House and Senate, with Republican majorities and strong rightwing elements who hate any change in immigration--could successfully pass legislation. Here are the problems:

First, would Speaker Ryan agree to pass and put on the floor a narrow bill that just deals with this issue? Has he ever done that before? Never. Never. Even if the Senate passed something, in the House, it would be dragged into a morass.

Second, would the President sign something that--it was reported in the newspaper that Sarah Huckabee Sanders said he would not sign the bill that Senator Cruz is talking about. So what is the point? We want to solve this problem.

Third, will both Republican leaders, House and Senate, guarantee that a narrow bill will not have poison pill riders that are unacceptable to large percentages of this body added to any legislation?

Let's get those guarantees--no poison pill riders, Senate leadership and House leadership agree, and Speaker

Ryan has the votes to pass something before we move on a legislative path, when there is such an easy alternative path available, which is the President taking his pen and undoing what he has done.

The bottom line, my colleagues, is that there is only one real solution, as much as we would dream for another; that is, for the President to solve this problem. The odds of any legislation being able to pass--without poison pill riders--the House and Senate and be signed by the President is just about zero, while the percentage that the President could solve this problem if he wants to is just about 100 percent.

I have to say one other thing. Ted Cruz--a leading anti-immigration advocate--must be feeling the heat. He has never been for modifying our immigration laws in any way that helps immigrants. Read some of his past statements.

I ask the question, Is something cynical going on with some people? They want to get this off their backs because they feel the heat, but they really don't want to solve the problem, because if they did, Senator Cruz and the others would do what 19 Republicans have correctly done: Ask the President to solve the problem himself.

Trade

Mr. President, on a different subject entirely, our trade relationship with China. For too long, China has taken advantage of America's unwillingness to strongly confront its rapacious trade policies. For too long, China has dumped artificially cheap products into our markets, stolen the intellectual property of blue-chip American companies, and denied our most profitable companies access to its markets.

I am heartened that President Trump, after making a debacle of a deal on ZTE, has taken a tougher approach to China in recent days. His instincts to be tough on China are right on the money.

President Trump needs to stay strong. If he backs off at the first sign of trouble, after the first company calls to complain, after President Xi calls to complain, then China will know we are weak and unserious.

China is waiting to see if it can ride this out. We need to show China that America means business because the stakes are too high.

Business relocations to China have costs too many American jobs. The theft of our intellectual property has been called ``the greatest transfer of wealth in history'' by a four-star general and commander of U.S. Cyber Command. The lifeblood of the American economy is on the line. I urge President Trump to stay strong on China.

Don't mistake my support on this issue for what the President is doing with our allies. The tariffs leveled against Canada and our European allies are misguided and counterproductive. China is the real threat. And China should be the President's focus.

Republican Tax Bill

Mr. President, 6 months ago today, the Republican majority jammed through a partisan tax bill that lavished tax cuts on big corporations and the wealthiest few. It is an appropriate time to look back on how the tax bill is fairing.

While the Republican leader, on a daily basis, celebrates vague statistics about business confidence, here are some cold, hard facts.

Since the beginning of 2018, corporations have announced plans to repurchase more than $475 billion in stock buybacks--a record pace. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor statistics report that real average hourly earnings have dropped by 0.1 percent.

According to a recent analysis by Just Capital, only 6 percent of the capital allocated by companies from the tax bill's savings has gone to employees, while nearly 60 percent has gone to shareholders.

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

The truth is, the tax law has failed to deliver for American workers and American families. Corporations are reaping record profits as a result of the tax bill and are refusing to pass much of those savings onto their workers. And whatever benefits American families are getting from the tax bill--if they are getting benefits at all--are starting to get wiped out by skyrocketing health care costs, the result of Republican sabotage.

All in all, that is why that today, 6 months since it passed, the Republicans' signature legislative accomplishment remains deeply unpopular.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 2943, as Modified

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

Madam President, Members of both parties--and I believe the vast majority of Americans--remain concerned about the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy, which has resulted in thousands of families being separated at the border. Anyone who has seen the photos, heard the audio of small children, alone and afraid, crying out for their parents, cannot help but feel horror and disgust about what is going on. That is not America. That is not the America we know and love and the generations before us have known and loved.

Clearly, no one should be allowed into this country who doesn't meet the legal requirements, but we have an adjudication process that in the past did not require the separation of parents from their children. The Trump administration has decided, of its own will and volition, to take a crueler, more callous, and indeed more expensive and time-consuming approach.

A bipartisan group of former U.S. attorneys wrote yesterday that ``the Zero Tolerance policy is a radical departure from previous Justice Department policy, and that it is dangerous, expensive, and inconsistent with the values of the institution in which we served.''

Yet President Trump acts as if his hands are tied, as if it is not up to him, as if somehow Congress and Democrats are to blame for a policy his administration instituted, defended, and many members of the administration continue to defend--most recently the Homeland Security Secretary.

The truth is that the Trump administration announced this new zero tolerance policy at the border in April. Even they hadn't done it before that, so they weren't required. The Trump administration decided to criminally prosecute every single illegal border case, instead of simply deporting them. That is what changed--Donald Trump, of his own volition, changing the policy into a much crueler one. He was supported by his whole administration--by much of his administration.

Chief of Staff Kelly called the policy ``a tough deterrent.'' Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielson has defended the policy, as have Attorney General Sessions, White House Advisor Stephen Miller, and several other members of the administration.

Last night on FOX News, Attorney General Sessions characterized the family separation policy as a deterrent. When President Trump tweets ``CHANGE THE LAWS'' and that his policy is the result of a law that ``Democrats forced . . . upon our nation,'' he is ignoring reality; he is contradicting his own administration. As commentator after commentator--Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative--has said: President Trump is simply not telling the truth, and in a cowardly way.

No law--no law--requires the separation of families at the border. That is just not true.

At the Republican convention, President Trump said about the problems of the Nation that ``I alone can fix it.'' In the case of family separation, it is actually true.

Mr. President, you alone can fix it.

The President alone can fix this with a flick of a pen.

Mr. President, you should fix it. If you don't want to change this cruel policy, at least admit it is your decision. Blaming others falsely is cheap, easy, and dishonest--a cheap way out, unbecoming of any President.

President Trump, if you are truly ashamed of what is happening at the border, get your team together and undo this policy. If you don't want to

change the policy, you need to take responsibility and own up to it.

Mr. President, Americans are deeply troubled by the images and news of parents being separated from their children at the southern border. The Trump administration's policy of zero tolerance at the border has already resulted in 2,300 cases of forced family separation, according to Homeland Security statistics obtained by the Associated Press. The pace of separations has increased from nearly 50 to nearly 70 a day.

Any parent could imagine how difficult this is, how heartbreaking it is to be forcibly separated from your young son or your young daughter, looking at their faces as they wonder: What is going on here? Why are they taking my parents away from me? It is just as heartbreaking to imagine the separation and the anxiety it produces in everybody.

Let's be clear. Separating children from their parents and denying relief to victims of brutal domestic violence will not make our country a better or safer place. These policies are cruel, inhumane, and so unlike the America we have known for 229 years.

No one who doesn't meet the legal requirements should be allowed into this country; we cannot have open borders, but we have an adjudication process for those cases. In the past, there has been

no need to separate parents from children while that adjudication was occurring. The Trump administration has actively decided to take a different, crueler, more callous approach.

Yet what does President Trump do? He has spent the last few days trying to deflect blame. The President has said repeatedly that the separation of parents and children is the result of a law ``the Democrats forced . . . upon our nation.'' That is not true.

Allow me to quote from the Associated Press's nonpartisan, fact-check of the President's claims. Here is what they say:

There is no law mandating the separation of children and

parents at the border. The separations are a consequence of a

Trump administration policy to maximize criminal prosecutions

of people caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally. Trump's

repeated, but nonspecific references to a Democratic law

appear to involve one enacted in 2008. It passed unanimously

in Congress--

That meant Democrats and Republicans supported it--

and was signed by Republican President George W. Bush.

He was hardly a Democrat.

It was focused on freeing and otherwise helping children

who come to the border without a parent or guardian. It does

not call for family separation.

I know what Donald Trump will say as he tries to undo our American institutions: That is fake news. It is from the Associated Press, which has had a reputation of being down the middle for scores of years.

Let me quote the New York Post editorial, one of the most conservative newspapers in America--hard right. Here is what they say:

The immediate cause of the crisis is Team Trump's decision

to start prosecuting illegal border-crossers, rather than

simply deporting them.

In the editorial, they ought to go on and say to President Trump: Fix this problem. Stop blaming Democrats. They are not to blame.

President Trump and Attorney General Sessions announced this zero tolerance policy in April, and it went into effect in May. If there were a law requiring it, why hasn't it been going on since Trump became President? They just started it. Chief of Staff Kelly called the policy a ``tough deterrent.'' This has nothing to do with our current immigration laws. It has nothing to do with any Democratic law. This is entirely a decision made by the Trump administration to start separating families.

Let me say this to President Trump: President Trump, you can undo the policy tomorrow, if you want to, with a snap of your fingers. President Trump, if you don't want to change the policy, own up to it and defend it, instead of blaming somebody falsely. Either reverse it, which you can do, Mr. President, or own up to it. But this idea that ``Oh, well, Democrats are to blame'' is false and untrue and not showing much strength or courage of conviction.

Mr. President, second, I wish to mention this. The House is toying with a bill, supported by some of the less extreme Republicans, and they are trying to deal with this issue of family separation.

First, we haven't seen the copy, but from all reports, it doesn't really deal with this. Second, it is loaded up with so many other poison pills that it is never going to see the light of day.

If our Republican colleagues in the House, who endeavored to pass the discharge petition and failed by a few votes--so they could help the Dreamers--want to do something real about this, about the Dreamers, and about family reunification, the support of the bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate will not assuage their constituents, assuage their conscience, or, most important, fix the problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has now been 2 days since the Singapore summit between President Trump and Chairman Kim concluded. America remains troubled by the lack of detail in the joint statement signed by both parties, as well as some of the remarkable concessions made by President Trump, especially the freeze of joint military exercises with South Korea.

In the wake of this first meeting, it has become clearer and clearer that Chairman Kim secured far more concessions than President Trump. Yet, despite all the evidence, President Trump is acting like he just secured world peace. The President is conducting an alternative reality Presidency, and the recent summit with North Korea reveals it better than ever. President Trump says we are no longer on the brink of war with North Korea, after President Trump himself was the one who brought us there in the first place, through bellicose rhetoric and brinkmanship on Twitter. Now the President takes a victory lap for undoing a problem he created in the first place. He pats himself on the back, saying that we are now at peace. We were on the brink of war. He forgets that he brought us there. What kind of Presidency is this?

Again President Trump tweeted yesterday: ``There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' Saying it, Mr. President Trump, does not make it so--once again, an alternative reality Presidency.

Despite what the President says, Chairman Kim has not agreed to dismantle North Korea's nuclear infrastructure. He has not agreed to stop enriching plutonium and uranium. He has not agreed to any sort of inspections regime. When Chairman Kim went home to North Korea, he did not even mention his vague commitment to completely denuclearize. To say there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea after one meeting, after signing one sheet of paper, is living in an alternative reality, and that is where it seems President Trump lives these days, more than ever before.

Finally, in place of serious, arduous negotiations, President Trump preferred signing ceremonies and proclamations. It is a pattern in his Presidency: flash over substance, sign documents in front of cameras, but skip out on the hard work behind the scenes.

The idea is to make it look as if the President is getting stuff done, but not actually doing the hard work and getting it done. We can't have a President who is interested only in playing the role of President. He has to do the job of President.

On a matter as serious as negotiations with North Korea, there is no substitute for the hard work of real diplomacy. Only in President Trump's alternative reality Presidency do photo ops and handshakes suffice, especially when North Korea still presents such a great danger to us. If tomorrow morning Kim Jong Un did a 180-degree reversal, after having gotten what he wants--the handshake, the summit, the reduction of sanctions--we would be in real danger, and President Trump acts like it is all over--an alternative reality Presidency. But when it comes to something as serious and dangerous as North Korea, it is not a joke; it is serious stuff.

The hard details, the concrete concessions, the diplomatic gains for the United States, and safety from a still dangerous North Korea simply have to wait in President Trump's world, and it doesn't even seem to matter if they never happen.

We hope sincerely that those hard details do come. We hope sincerely that the Singapore summit was only the first step, rather than the final result, because we all wish to see a diplomatic

resolution to the conflict on the Korean Peninsula. Ninety-nine percent of all Americans don't just want a photo op. We are glad that President Trump is actually trying, at least, to channel diplomacy, but he needs to stop behaving like all the hard work is behind him and open his eyes to the reality that bringing an end to a nuclear North Korea is not as easy, as simple, or as quick as a few days of photo ops.

Department of Justice IG Report

Now, Mr. President, on another subject, this afternoon we expect to receive the report of the Department of Justice's inspector general, who has been reviewing the conduct of the Department of Justice and the FBI in the runup to the 2016 election.

Although we have not yet seen the inspector general's report, there is no reason--no reason--to believe that it will provide any basis to call the special counsel's work into question.

The IG report concerns an entirely separate investigation from the Russia probe that Special Counsel Mueller is conducting. The IG report concerns issues that started long before Special Counsel Mueller was even appointed and concluded before he began his investigation.

Furthermore, the one thing we do know about what happened in late 2016 is that certain actions taken by the FBI, intentionally or not, helped the Trump campaign and hurt the Clinton campaign. The release that Candidate Clinton was under investigation and the release of comments on what she had or had not done hurt her. It will take an awful lot of spin, an awful lot of stretching for Republicans to twist that around and portray the President as some kind of victim.

Regrettably, people like Chairman Nunes, like FOX News, and like some of the Republican supporters of the President in Congress--and even like the President himself--have been running a cynical campaign to undermine the Russia investigation. It seems that the only limits to the wild conspiracies they have cooked up are their imaginations. This hurts America. We have heard new reports that Russia is looking to meddle in our 2018 elections. If foreign powers can meddle in our elections with impunity, this democracy is in trouble--in trouble--both with what the foreign powers may do and in the lack of faith in democracy it instills in people here in America and around the world. Our Republican colleagues who use this and our President who uses this as a political whipping boy are hurting our democracy.

So almost regardless of what the IG report says, we can probably expect the President, Mr. Nunes, some of the FOX News commentators, and others to invent new conspiracy theories and new calls for more special counsels to investigate the investigators. Americans of all stripes are beginning to see these theories for what they are--distortions meant to undermine or distract from Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into the very serious efforts of Russia to influence the outcome of our elections. Well-meaning Members of both parties--both parties--should call them out for what they are.

We are waiting to hear from some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this. There have been too few voices on something so significant.

National Defense Authorization Bill

Mr. President, on another matter--and this one of some bipartisanship, I am happy to say--the Senate continues to process the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act in a bipartisan way to give our military the support and certainty it needs and to make crucial updates to our national security policy.

One strong bipartisan action in this bill is dealing with the Chinese telecom giant ZTE. Let me remind this body that ZTE has violated U.S. sanctions and lied about it, but, even more importantly, its technology has been deemed a national security threat--a national security threat--to these great United States by the FBI, the Pentagon, and the FCC--all appointed by Republicans.

President Trump was flatout wrong when he decided to go easy on ZTE and allow it to start selling its technology in the United States. If you believe some reports, he did it, once again, on a whim--a phone call from President Xi, our enemy on economic matters, who is robbing American jobs and stealing our technology, and who calls him up and says: Let's undo this. President Trump, seemingly without preparation, without briefings by the military or intelligence agencies or our law enforcement agencies, just does it, hurting America.

The good news is bipartisan efforts in this body and in the House to undo what the President did and reimpose the penalties on ZTE that they deserve.

President Trump was flatout wrong when he decided to go easy on ZTE and allow it to start selling its technology in the U.S. again. That puts America at severe risk--the risk of a China-backed company spying on Americans' private information, spying on businesses, spying on our military.

ZTE is allowed to come in here? Every American should be worried when they talk on their iPhone that China is spying on them. Every American business should be worried that China is spying on their businesses and their intellectual property, and, most of all, our military leaders should be worried that China is purloining secrets that help to keep us safe.

That is why we have included a bipartisan amendment. I want to salute Senators Cotton and Van Hollen for leading the charge. I want to salute folks like Senator Rubio, who has been so strong on this issue, putting country first. I want to salute the many on our side who have agreed with that. It is the right thing to do--to not allow ZTE to be here, for both national security interests as well as the economic importance of being tough on China.

Yesterday it was reported, of course, that the White House will oppose the amendment and may seek to strip it out of the bill. We hope cooler heads in the administration, including Secretary Mattis, Chief of Staff Kelly, and others who have had a military background, can inform the President how ill-advised his actions are.

Both parties in Congress must be resolute in blocking the President's bad, pro-China ZTE deal. Protecting America's national and economic security is paramount and any deal that jeopardizes them should be stopped in its tracks.

Senator Corker made a point this week. He is freed of political constraints and can say what he thinks. He made a point--passionately-- that this body does not have to assent to every whim of the President. It is not easy when you are of the same party as the President. I know that. But as everyone in this Chamber knows, on some major issues I opposed President Obama because I thought he was wrong, and I know how difficult it is. I know how difficult it is, but sometimes duty and country and patriotism require it. On a matter as vital as this one, having to do with America's national and economic security, we cannot back off. I urge my colleagues, particularly my friends Senators Cotton and Rubio and Cornyn, who have been so strong and right on this issue, to hang tough, especially when we get to conference.

I want to thank our Acting Chair of the Armed Services Committee for understanding the security risks and for working in a bipartisan way.

Happy Birthday to Abe Schumer

Finally, Mr. President, if my colleagues will indulge me a few more words, they are personal, but they are meaningful.

Today is Flag Day. It is also my father's 95th birthday. This upcoming weekend we will celebrate Father's Day.

My father was a World War II vet over in Burma, and when he came back to Brooklyn after the war, he took over a small exterminating business from his father, my grandpa. I often joke that we are the only family who associates the smell of DDT with love, because my dad would come home from the office smelling of all of those chemicals.

My father hated his job. He paced the floor Sunday nights at 2 a.m., unable to sleep, dreading going to work on Monday. But there was great honor in what he did. He never complained. He was supporting the family, even if it was in a job he was stuck with after getting back from World War II. He labored for many years in a job that wasn't his passion and passed on his idea of serving without complaining to give his children, grandchildren, and, God willing, in November, his soon- to-be first great-grandchild--my daughter

is pregnant--the idea that we could follow our dreams, standing on his strong and weary shoulders. Mine led me here. I will never stop being grateful to my dad for that.

So allow me to wish my father a happy birthday today and to say that I look forward to seeing him and my mom Selma, who turned 90 just on D- Day, as well as my wife and two daughters this weekend for Father's Day, and I wish all Americans the same joy in celebrating Father's Day this weekend.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Thank you. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, talks between President Trump and Chairman Kim in Singapore, as we all know, concluded yesterday. Certainly, we are all heartened to see the two leaders engage in a dialogue. We feel much better when both President Trump and Chairman Kim are talking rather than trading insults and military threats. We all want this diplomacy to succeed.

But now that the dust is settling after the Singapore summit, three things are clear. No. 1, Chairman Kim achieved far more than President Trump did. No. 2, our adversaries, Russia and China, have gained while our allies, like South Korea and Japan, have lost footing and some degree of faith in America's reliability. No. 3, the summit was much more show than substance--what the Texans call ``all cattle and no hat.''

Let me elaborate. In past agreements with North Korea, the United States won far stronger language on denuclearization, and we won specific measures to ensure that North Korea was taking steps in that direction. Of course, even with the stronger language, the North Korean regime repeatedly backtracked from previous American-led agreements.

The joint statement in Singapore includes none of the concrete details that could make an ambitious goal like ``complete denuclearization'' close to meaningful. Chairman Kim did not even mention his ambiguous comment to denuclearize when he returned home to North Korea. It was absent in all the North Korean press. Often you can tell how a leader feels from what they tell their people, not what they say publicly to the world. In this case, denuclearization was not even mentioned.

Still, President Trump tweeted this morning ``there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' What planet is the President on? Saying it doesn't make it so. North Korea still has nuclear weapons. It still has ICBMs. It still has the United States in danger. Somehow, President Trump thinks that when he says something, it becomes reality--if it were only that easy, only that simple. That is what stood in the way of making this meeting more meaningful.

It is not show. It is not verbiage. It is action. President Trump, in his actions, did things that President Kim wanted. I don't know what President Kim has done that we want, other than show up, which was a benefit for him.

President Trump agreed to freeze joint military exercises with South Korea, and he called them ``provocations''--right out of the North Korean propaganda playbook--without the knowledge of South Korea or our own military. I guarantee that our military men and women were squirming when President Trump called our joint military exercises ``provocations.''

These exercises and others that the military conduct around the world are designed to ensure that our servicemembers are fully trained and ready for action. They are not a provocation, President Trump.

Adopting the North Korean view on American military exercises, which President Trump did, is nothing short of a public relations coup for Chairman Kim. It seems that President Trump didn't even think it through or consult with anybody. You cannot do this stuff on the fly. Saying that the danger from North Korea is over doesn't make it so. Saying that these are provocations makes things worse. You cannot do it on the fly. You need serious thought because it has consequences. If Chairman Kim walked away from these negotiations thinking that it is easy to deal with President Trump, Kim might think: I get what I want, and I don't have to give him anything. That doesn't bode well for the future.

In the final tabulation, after all the pomp and circumstance has faded, it seems clear that Chairman Kim walked away the victor, unfortunately. What President Trump achieved on behalf of the United States is unclear and difficult to certify. What Chairman Kim achieved for North Korea is tangible and lasting.

No doubt, our Republican friends would be up in arms if a Democratic President walked away from a summit with so little to show for it. But, of course, while we haven't heard full-throated praise from our Republican side--their reactions have been kind of lukewarm--it is not close to the criticism they launched at President Obama in similar situations.

In the weeks and months ahead, President Trump and his team need to focus on securing real and enduring concessions from the North Koreans on plutonium and uranium enrichment, on the destruction of nuclear infrastructure, on an ``anywhere, anytime'' inspections regime, and the unambiguous end of missile testing.

These are the things that make a strong nuclear agreement. Unfortunately, the Singapore summit produced none of them and talked about none of them. We hope that in the future that changes for the safety of America, but, again, the emphasis on showmanship as opposed to substance will not serve America or the prospects for peace well in the long run.

On one final point, congressional oversight and involvement is critical to this process. Secretary Pompeo needs to make clear what the process moving forward includes and what, if any, additional agreements were made in Singapore. Congress needs to learn the terms for any sanctions relief, whether U.S. troop presence in Korea was discussed and whether any agreement will include a halt to North Korea's key missile programs.

Now, Mr. President, on healthcare. Even as North Korea dominates the headlines, Democrats are going to continue to focus on the No. 1 issue on the minds of most Americans: healthcare.

Insurers in State after State are announcing double-digit premium increases and blaming Republican healthcare policies for the increase. Now, amazingly, the Trump administration is refusing to defend the constitutionality of protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, turning its back on the most popular and most humane advancement in our healthcare system.

Imagine the return of the days when a mother with a child who has cancer can no longer find affordable care for her daughter and the days when hard-working Americans who fall on hard times are made to suffer and denied healthcare coverage, precisely because they need it so desperately. How wrong, how backward, and how immoral that system was, and that is where President Trump wants to take us again.

So we Democrats are going to spend the next few months, including the August work period, focusing on the critical issue of the Nation's healthcare system. We will be trying to get premiums down, costs down, and better healthcare, not the deterioration we have seen under President Trump and the Republican congressional leadership.

We are going to focus on all that our Republican friends have done to drive up the costs of healthcare on average Americans and what we should be doing to reverse that awful trend.

Finally, there is the IG report. Tomorrow, the inspector general of the Justice Department will release a report about the Department's handling of an investigation of Secretary Clinton in 2016. We look forward to the report and learning what it has to say.

Now, we hope our Republican colleagues don't take the cynical track of trying to spin the report's contents to somehow sully the completely separate and ongoing investigation into Putin's meddling in the 2016 election. The DOJ IG report is likely to focus on the conduct of the Justice Department and the FBI in handling the Clinton email investigation in the runup to the 2016 election. Mueller was not appointed at that point. He wasn't a gleam in anyone's eye. So what he is doing is totally independent of what happened here.

Furthermore, when the President says ``witch hunt'' and somehow blames Democrats for this, well, whatever Comey did hurt Hillary Clinton, and he didn't do the same thing to President Trump, which would have hurt him. He released the details of Hillary's investigation--many of us thought he did that wrongly--but didn't release any details of the investigation into possible collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians.

So this idea that somehow what Comey did and what Mueller is doing was designed to hurt President Trump and Republicans at Democrats' behest is like ``Alice in Wonderland''--it is the opposite of the facts. The investigation into Putin's meddling in our elections and any potential associations between Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign is an entirely separate investigation from what happened with Hillary Clinton.

It would be erroneous to try to use the information in the IG report to discredit the special counsel, but we hear rumblings that some of these very partisan Republicans, led by Chairman Nunes, may try to go down that road. We hope they won't be so cynical or so willing to twist the facts inside out and turn truth on its head, all for political gain.

It is crucial--critical--that Special Counsel Mueller's investigation get to the bottom of what happened and who was involved in Russia's efforts to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, before I begin my remarks, I wish to congratulate our Republican leader on becoming the longest serving Republican leader in the Senate. My friend Leader McConnell reached that milestone today.

It is no secret we disagree on a whole lot of issues, both political and philosophical, but that doesn't mean we can't or don't work together or that I don't admire the qualities which help make him the longest serving Republican leader.

He understands his caucus and represents them well. He knows how to fight, and he knows how to cooperate. The job is not an easy one so it is a testament to his qualities that he has done it longer than anyone in the history of the Senate.

Trump-Kim Summit

Madam President, on North Korea, in the early hours this morning, President Trump and Chairman Kim met in Singapore for the first meeting between a sitting U.S. President and the leader of North Korea. It was a welcome improvement to see the two of them having a dialogue rather than engaging in name-calling and saber-rattling. Certainly, Americans feel better about talking than name-calling and threats of war, which had characterized the relationship up until now.

Though we are all rooting for diplomacy to succeed, we must be clear- eyed about what a diplomatic success with North Korea looks like. A diplomatic success would be the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula--nothing less. Why do we say that? It is not to make any political points, but a nuclear North Korea with ICBMs probably presents a greater danger to the United States and the safety and well-being of

our country than any other in the world. It is imperative that we actually get action here, not just photo ops. Previous negotiations have sought the same goal, with good reason. In 1994 and 2005, those negotiations yielded agreements that were, in fact, much more rigorous than the initial communique issued by President Trump and Chairman Kim. This communique lists denuclearization as a far-off goal but includes no details about a pathway to achieving it; no details about how the United States might verify that North Korea has disarmed when they repeatedly lied in the past; no details about stopping the enrichment of plutonium and uranium; no details even about the definition of complete denuclearization, which has been a main point of contention in previous negotiations.

Unfortunately, the entire document is short on details. As we have learned, in the wake of the collapse of the 1994 and 2005 agreements, North Korea is liable to backtrack on vague commitments as soon as it is in its interest. Chairman Kim, like his father before him, has a history of backing away from agreements. There is a great fear now that Chairman Kim has won a major concession from the United States of a meeting with our President, he may not go any further.

Now, as then, we must be wary of this probability. When trust is lacking, it is best not to dive in headfirst and hope for the best but rather to work slowly, transparently, and verifiably to build trust and lock in concessions. It is worrisome--very worrisome--that this joint statement is so imprecise.

What the United States has gained is vague and unverifiable at best; what North Korea has gained, however, is tangible and lasting. By granting a meeting with Chairman Kim, President Trump has granted a brutal and repressive dictatorship the international legitimacy it long craved. The symbols that were broadcast all over the world last night have lasting consequences for the United States, for North Korea, and the entire region.

For the United States, it is permanent proof that we have legitimized a brutal dictator who has starved his own people. For North Koreans, to have their flags astride those of the United States, it is a clear symbol that they are to be respected and belong among the community of nations, and their sins at home and abroad are beginning to be forgiven. If the United States is unable to win concrete, lasting concessions from North Korea, the meeting alone will be a victory for Kim Jong Un and a defeat for President Trump.

Even more troubling, only an hour ago, President Trump agreed to freeze joint military exercises with South Korea--a legal activity--in exchange for the mere hope that North Korea will freeze its illegal nuclear testing regime. Alarmingly, President Trump called our military exercises with South Korea provocations. That is something North Korea would say, not South Korea or the United States.

Again, it seems the President has undercut our foreign policy by drawing a false equivalency between joint military exercises with our allies and the nuclear testing of a rogue regime.

Ultimately, if this is the result, it will have failed President Trump's own standard. The President has said that ``if North Korea doesn't denuclearize, that will not be acceptable.'' President Trump has not made much progress toward that goal yet and has given up substantial leverage already: the leverage of joint military exercises and the leverage of an audience with the President of the United States.

Imagine for a moment if a Democratic President had gone to North Korea in similar circumstances and came away with little more than a handshake and a photo op. Imagine if a Democratic President had placed the flag of the United States next to the flag of North Korea and met a dictator on equal terms. The commentators of the rightwing media and, in fact, the entire Republican Party would be shouting grave warnings about the end of American leadership and the belittling of our country, about selling out and appeasement.

We Democrats do not see it this way. We remain supportive of American diplomatic efforts, in general, but are focused on significant, substantive concerns with President Trump's preliminary arrangement with North Korea. We want to see these efforts succeed and ensure that what has just transpired was not purely a reality show summit.

Here in the Senate, we Democrats believe that means five things. First, North Korea must dismantle or remove every single one of its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Second, North Korea must end the production and enrichment of uranium and plutonium for military purposes and permanently dismantle its nuclear weapons infrastructure. That means test sites, all nuclear weapons research and development facilities, and enrichment facilities all have to be destroyed. Third, North Korea must continue to suspend all ballistic missile tests. Fourth, North Korea must commit to anytime, anywhere inspections for both its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, including all nondeclared suspicious sites. If inspectors reveal any violation, we must be permitted to implement snapback sanctions. Lastly, any agreement between the United States and North Korea must be permanent.

Let us hope this is not the final chapter in diplomacy with Pyongyang. President Trump and his team must take stock in what has happened, what North Korea has achieved, and what we have yet to achieve and pursue again a tougher course. For the sake of our national security, our interests abroad, and the safety of the American people, the United States can settle for no less than the certifiable, permanent denuclearization of North Korea.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this week the Senate continues its consideration of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. Among important provisions related to our military readiness and operations abroad, the NDAA presents crucial opportunities to address other matters of national security.

In addition to the critical improvements to CFIUS we must make in this bill, one of the most concerning issues is the decision by the Trump administration last week to reduce the harsh penalties previously imposed and then to provide relief to the Chinese telecom giant ZTE, lifting restrictions on the company and allowing it to continue to sell its products in the United States. ZTE was guilty of evading U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea and then lying to U.S. officials about it afterward.

Asked about the decision to relax penalties, President Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, said: ``It's going to be three strikes you're out on ZTE.'' Why are we giving ZTE three strikes? If you purposely evade U.S. sanctions and then lie about it, that is reason enough to bring the hammer down and leave it there. I have another expression for the Trump Administration: ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.''

It seems the administration was outmaneuvered by the Chinese on ZTE once again. Congress should reverse what the administration has done by reinstituting the hard penalties on ZTE, and we should do it on the NDAA bill that will be on the floor this week.

You might ask: Why is this related to defense? This is the Defense bill.

It is precisely related. Cyber security experts, national security experts, principal government agencies, the Republican-led FCC, the Republican-led FBI, and the Republican-led Pentagon have all deemed the sale of ZTE products in the United States a national security threat. Even if they hadn't violated sanctions and even if they hadn't lied about it, they shouldn't be here. This gives the Chinese Government-- which in many ways takes advantage of the United States militarily and economically and is spying on us by cyber warfare--a great opportunity to get right inside all of our communications.

This is what Director Christopher Wray, appointed by President Trump, had to say:

We're deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any

company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments . .

. to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications

networks. That provides the capacity to exert pressure or

control over our telecommunications infrastructure. It

provides the capacity to maliciously modify or steal

information. And it provides the capacity to conduct

undetected espionage.

``Undetected espionage,'' the head of the FBI says, is what allowing ZTE in America will do. That is the Nation's chief law enforcement official--a Republican, appointed by President Trump--testifying that ZTE's technology is an espionage risk. What the heck are we doing cutting a deal with China--which is no friend of ours on economics and is stealing our jobs, stealing our intellectual property--letting them into the United States so they can have a window on hearing what our companies, our Defense Department, and everyone else are doing?

Does that make any sense? I don't think so. That is why we have had bipartisan support and concern. I want to salute Senator Cornyn, Senator Rubio, and Senator Cotton. Their views and mine are not the same on a whole lot of issues, but on America's security and letting China spy on us, we are the same.

I urge the Republican leader and the leaders of the bill to include a bipartisan amendment, offered by Senators Cotton and Van Hollen, to reverse the agreement made by the administration and prevent it from being able to provide ZTE relief for at least a year. We have to do this.

God forbid that this country declines, and if they write a book on it, this will be one of the key points. We have a chance to stand up to China, to protect our national security, and to tell the Chinese that they can't keep taking advantage of us, and we are going to back off, for no stated good reason, because, clearly, Secretary Ross has said the deal he has put in is a good one. Forget about it. It is as weak as a wet noodle--fining them $1 billion. They don't care. They are backed by the Chinese Government. Putting some outside observers on the board--come on. They will not know what is going on because the Chinese Government controls just about all the big companies in China. So I hope we will stop this.

Nominations of Thomas Farr and Ryan Bounds

Mr. President, alongside the consideration of the NDAA, we are told that the majority intends to see the confirmation of more judicial nominations during this work period. In the next few weeks, the Senate is likely to take up two highly controversial nominees: Thomas Farr, for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and Ryan Bounds, for a Ninth Circuit seat in Oregon.

Thomas Farr has spent a lengthy legal career defending the interests of corporations against workers. That seems to be a trademark of so many of the nominees of this administration and this Republican Senate. He has not once but twice defended the gerrymandering of congressional districts by North Carolina's Republicans, and probably worst of all, he defended North Carolina's restrictive voter ID law, which ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' That is not some politician's words. Those are the judges of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a rather conservative court. For somebody to target African- Americans and say, ``let's make

it less likely they vote and give them less power,'' is such a grand step backward in this country, no matter what State you come from-- North Carolina, New York, Oregon. And we are going put this guy on the bench? Shame on us. Shame on us.

By the way, the only reason Farr can be considered for this nomination is that an Obama nominee, Jennifer May-Parker, was blocked for nearly 3 years via the blue slip. Our Republican friends used the blue slip and kept this seat vacant, and now they have undone the blue slip in an act of partisanship, narrowness, and enmity in this country, and now they are going to fill it with someone like Mr. Farr--again, shame.

Like Mr. Farr, Mr. Bounds is also controversial. Recently, we learned that Mr. Bounds had some rather offensive writings that he failed to disclose to the bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee established by Senators Wyden and Merkley. That certainly validates their decision to withhold the blue slip. Despite the opposition of both home State Senators, the majority is moving forward. In doing so, they will further erode the century-old blue slip tradition that they themselves used to block an unprecedented number of nominees when Obama was President.

Net Neutrality

Mr. President, on another matter, the Republican-led FCC's repeal of net neutrality goes into effect today. The rules enacted by the Obama administration to bar large internet service providers from charging customers more for certain content are gone. The rules to bar large internet providers from slowing down certain websites are gone. The rules ensuring an open and free internet with a level playing field for small businesses, public schools, rural Americans, people without a lot of money, and communities of color are gone.

Democrats tried to forestall this day by writing and then passing a CRA Act resolution through the Senate. It is bipartisan; some Republicans helped us. It couldn't have passed without them. Then, as a unified Senate caucus, Democrats sent a letter last week urging Speaker Ryan to schedule a vote, which I believe would have passed had it been put on the floor of the House of Representatives. Ryan refused to bring up the companion legislation to restore net neutrality. Once again, our Republican friends in the Senate, the House, and the administration have done it over and over, siding with the big, powerful special interests--in this case, internet service providers--over the average person, who is sort of powerless. How many of us rail against our cable bills? How many of us feel helpless when it comes to getting that cable bill? This increases the power of the same people.

Do our Republican friends really want to do that? I guess so. Let me put it this way. By refusing to bring up the Senate-passed resolution to restore net neutrality, House Republican leaders gave a green light to the big internet service providers to charge middle-class Americans, small business owners, schools, rural Americans, poorer people, and communities of color more than they did before.

With the exception of three brave Republicans in the Senate, it should be crystal clear to the American people that Republicans in Congress chose to protect special interests.

Healthcare

Mr. President, finally, I wish to address a bit of news on healthcare. On Thursday evening, the Trump Administration made a startling announcement: It would no longer defend the constitutionality of protection for Americans with preexisting conditions. This decision is a shameful capstone in the Trump administration's yearlong sabotaging our Nation's healthcare system. It is the most dangerous, most potent example of sabotage to date, even as premium increases hit double digits in State after State because of Republican actions. If the Trump administration gets its way, our entire healthcare system will be thrown into chaos.

A mom goes to a health insurance company: My daughter has cancer.

We are not going to fund you.

She goes to another one.

We are not going to fund you.

The mother suffered. The family suffered. Their child is agonizing, dying of cancer, and they can't get insurance now because the Trump administration is no longer saying that we are going to protect people who apply with preexisting conditions.

What is going on here? What is going on? And our Republican friends do nothing. The one thing I can tell you is that healthcare is going to be the biggest issue in 2018. It is far more important to the vast majority of Americans than any other issue. It is far more important than the tax cut they get, because for most Americans whatever they got back in tax cuts--for many, many Americans, and my guess is most--is a lot less than the amount their premiums are increasing. It is a killer for small businesses and others who want to insure their workers.

President Trump, when he ran, explicitly and repeatedly said that he was going to protect folks with preexisting conditions. He has once again undone what he has promised. He has dropped the ball on healthcare, letting middle-class Americans, average Americans, and working families pay an awful price.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I share Mr. Marcus's concerns about rising anti-Semitism on college campuses and his strong opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which I believe is infused with anti-Semitism. I voted against Mr. Marcus's nomination, along with all of my Democratic colleagues, because Mr. Marcus convinced me in his hearing that he would not be an effective advocate for students of all backgrounds, including victims of sexual assault on campus. Mr. Marcus was unable to name a single example of something President Trump has said or done when it comes to discrimination or civil rights that he disagrees with, he agreed with Secretary Devos's Title IX changes, which rolled back protections for campus victims of sexual assault, and his answers on protecting minority students and LGBTQ students were woefully insufficient to earn my support.

(At the request of Mr. DURBIN, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)