Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last night the President of the United States announced that Brett Kavanaugh is his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the impending retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. I was glad to have the occasion to join the President and others at the White House last night, and I could not be more pleased with the President's choice.

Now that the President has performed his duty under the Constitution, it now falls to us to do our duty. The appointments clause to the U.S. Constitution says that subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, the President shall appoint members of the Supreme Court, among other officials. The President has done his job, and now it falls to the U.S. Senate to do our job under the Constitution of the United States.

We have all learned a little bit more about the nominee in just the few hours since his nomination. Of course, we know he is a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit--what some have called the second highest court in the land. By that, they mean that because it sits in the District of Columbia, many important cases involving the U.S. Government go up through that court as opposed to courts in Texas or Indiana or other places around the country. For more than 10 years, he has served in that capacity.

We know he has had a distinguished academic and legal career. He graduated from an elite law school--Yale--and clerked for Justice Kennedy himself, the man he will succeed when confirmed. Most importantly and as evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's good judgment, he made the wise decision to marry a Texan. His wife grew up in Abilene and graduated from the University of Texas.

Now that the nomination has been made, the Senate will follow what we refer to here as regular order. That means the Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Grassley, will thoroughly vet the nominee, and then the committee will debate and vote on the nomination, and then the nomination will come to the floor of the Senate, where we will debate and vote on the nomination.

We have already heard some say that there is not enough time to carry out this process before the midterm elections, which should raise all of our antennae. Both Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor were confirmed 66 days after they were nominated, so the truth is that we have plenty of time to do our job under the Constitution. We do want to be thorough, and we will, but we also owe it to the Court and to the American people to move expeditiously to fill this post so as not to leave it vacant. Justice Kennedy said that he intends to leave at the end of the month.

As the senior Democratic Senator from Kentucky said recently, ``The Senate should do nothing to artificially delay consideration of the next Justice.'' I agree with him, and that is consistent with the standard here in the Senate.

Some have said: Well, we have a midterm election coming up, and maybe we ought to defer filling the vacancy. But I would note that in 2010, leading up to a midterm election, just like this year, Senate Democrats confirmed President Obama's nominee to the Court, Elena Kagan. So there is plenty of precedent for moving expeditiously, thoroughly, not recklessly but in a focused fashion to confirm this nomination once it has been vetted and voted on.

It is no secret that Judge Kavanaugh will help decide cases that will be important in the life of our Nation. That is the role of the Supreme Court, and it is already clear from his previous experience that he has had plenty of preparation--academically and work experience and life experience--that has prepared him to do exactly that.

Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated the intellectual capacity that we would expect of a Supreme Court Justice, and over the years, he has demonstrated a rigorous understanding of the law. He has demonstrated his sharp mind and analytical skills in a variety of jobs--working in the White House as a lawyer and as Staff Secretary to the President.

By the way, for those who don't know what a Staff Secretary does in the White House, that is the person who has the final eyes on a document before the President is presented something for his signature. It is a very, very important job. Brett Kavanaugh was Staff Secretary to the President of the United States during the term of office of President George W. Bush.

He has also taught at law schools, such as Harvard, where he was actually hired by now-Justice Elena Kagan, whom he would serve alongside, as well

as Georgetown and Yale. We know that during the years he has been on the appellate bench, he has handed down hundreds of decisions. Let's not forget that in order to attain that important position, the Senate already confirmed him once in 2006 by a vote of 57 to 36.

We all know that this is President Trump's second nomination to the Supreme Court, after that of Justice Neil Gorsuch just last year. In his first term on the Court, Justice Gorsuch has already demonstrated the power of his pen, the clarity of his thought, and the force of his legal reasoning, and I am sure that Justice Scalia would be proud of his successor's impartiality, his rigor, and his self-discipline. Based on his distinguished record, I think Judge Kavanaugh will display many of the attributes Justice Gorsuch has displayed on the Supreme Court.

In the coming weeks, we will hear a lot about Judge Kavanaugh's interesting life story, his long career as a dedicated public servant, his service to his community, and, yes, his strong Catholic faith, but at the end of the day, the decisions of the Supreme Court should not be affected by personal agendas, political or otherwise. That is because the interpretation of the law is a discipline unto itself, and it should always be separated from the personalities, the preferences, or the ideological or political agenda of the judge. That is what judges do. If they can't do it, then they shouldn't serve as judges.

Justices, by their work, must be insulated from the day-to-day politics that are all too common here in the Congress. The Court, of course, should not be a partisan or political institution. It was created by the Founders to be something apart from the political branches of government, the executive and legislative branches. That is because the political branches of the government run for election and are held accountable by the voters--not so with judges who serve for a life term.

I know President Obama once argued in favor of what he called an empathy standard in judicial decision-making, but that is not my standard, and I know it is not Judge Kavanaugh's standard either. It is another way to call for results-oriented judging, which is the opposite of what a good judge should do.

As a former judge and justice of the Texas Supreme Court, I believe those who serve in the judicial branch must put their personal beliefs aside and apply the law as written and faithfully interpret those laws passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, as well as interpreting the text of the Constitution. If they want to be policymakers, they ought to run for Congress. They ought to be subject to the vote of the electorate. They ought to run for school board. They ought to run for city council. If you want to be a judge, you have to take an oath to do something different from serving in those sorts of political offices.

It is crucial that as this process begins to unfold, we remember that. It is important that the President's nominee not be subjected to personal attacks from the angry and unhinged element we have seen already reflected on our TV screens and that at times seems to forget that judges in our political system are not charged with making the law or making policy but rather interpreting the law and the Constitution and the laws written by the Congress and signed by the President.

Based on what we have seen so far, the confirmation process will no doubt be contentious. We have seen activists already encourage Members of the Senate to abandon civility and decorum, and I hope we resist. We have seen some of our colleagues already engage in various publicity activities and talk about battle lines being drawn, as if this is some sort of war to be fought. They indicated their unwavering opposition to the President's nominee before we even knew who the nominee might be. One of our colleagues came to the floor of the Senate before the nomination was announced and said he would oppose whomever President Trump were to nominate. Well, that should tell us a lot--that it is not about the individual, it is about the office, and it is about kowtowing to a political base that demands opposition at all costs and at all turns to anything this President might do, no matter how qualified the nominee might be.

In the days ahead, I think we can predict from experience that these attacks will continue. Some of our colleagues will demand that Judge Kavanaugh reveal how he will rule in a particular case in exchange for their vote. How corrupt would that be, to insist that the judge tell you ahead of time how he would rule in a particular case in exchange for a vote for confirmation? That would clearly be wrong. It would be wrong for any judge, without hearing the case--the arguments of the lawyers, the facts of the case--to prejudge an outcome. That, again, is not what judges do. They don't run for office based on a political platform as do the political branches of government. Those of us who run for office for the Senate or the House are happy to talk about what we believe in and what we would do if elected to office, but that is not what judges are supposed to do.

What is more, there is clear precedent for resisting those sorts of guarantees ahead of time. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during her own confirmation process that sort of assurance is completely inappropriate. Justice Ginsburg gave what I think is the correct response to such requests, saying she would offer no hints, no forecasts, no previews of her rulings.

Trying to predict how ethical Justices will decide particular cases is a futile endeavor because, for good judges, it depends on learning the facts as well as entertaining the legal arguments by the lawyers involved, not coming into it with a preconceived notion of how you would rule in any case under any facts involving a particular topic. Sure, hypotheticals can be dreamed up, but no judge knows the right decision until he or she studies the case before them.

I can tell my colleagues, we relish the opportunity to support and defend the President's nominee against any and all baseless attacks. We will not back down. We will not surrender the field to those who make unjustified criticisms of the nominee or attribute to him some characteristic or some experience which is entirely false. We will defend the record of Judge Kavanaugh, who I believe is a thoughtful and willing public servant, against deliberate attacks to denigrate him. We will not allow others to distort the nature of his previous judicial decisions or use him as a sacrificial lamb in some sort of vengeance campaign against this President. We pledged that same level of support for Justice Gorsuch, and we showed we were able to do just that--defend the President's nominee against unjustified attacks--and will do so again, joined by Judge Kavanaugh's many other supporters, including those who do not share his political or judicial philosophy.

I noted today a liberal law professor, Akhil Amar, who wrote an opinion piece saying that, yes, even liberals should support this nominee, and he gives his reasons why. You can read it for yourself in the New York Times, but the stakes are simply too important to let unfair and inaccurate accusations be made about the nominee without correcting them. The American people deserve better. This nominee deserves better.

The American people demand judges like Brett Kavanaugh, who are fair and independent arbiters of the law. The basic problem is, in recent years, some have viewed the court as a way to circumvent and evade the political process and achieve their preferred policy outcomes when judges pronounce some radical change in the law or public policy from the bench without the chance for voters to vote on that individual or on those policies. Many have come to see this as an end-run around the normal political process. Those who can't win at the ballot box, well, let's win on the court, but that is not the right philosophy. That is not the one preferred by most Americans, nor shared by the Founding Fathers of this country or evidenced in the Constitution.

During the first 18 months of this administration, President Trump has nominated, and we have confirmed, 42 members of the Federal judiciary, including Justice Gorsuch. Next on our list is Judge Kavanaugh. So we look forward to doing our duty under the Constitution to vet the nominee, to ask the tough questions, to have the debate and then the vote in the Judiciary Committee, and then bring that nominee to the floor of the Senate and have that debate and that vote here.

Vote we will this fall on this nominee, and I trust we will keep the same sort of timeframe we have seen applied impartially in cases like Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Gorsuch. There is no reason to drag this out other than for partisan, political purposes.

So let's do our job. Let's be dignified about it. Let's not engage in unnecessary name-calling or falsely attribute to the nominee beliefs he does not have or make wild, unhinged predictions about what may happen to the Supreme Court were he to be confirmed.

I look forward to confirming this new equally outstanding nominee this fall.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I have at the desk a motion to instruct conferees, which I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this motion to instruct conferees for the Defense authorization bill is related to our reforms of the operation of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

It is no secret that China is weaponizing its investments in the United States to exploit national security vulnerabilities, including backdoor transfers of dual-use U.S. technology and related know-how.

I am delighted to be working with Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California, on this issue. I thank our friend Senator Inhofe, who has taken a leadership role on the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Crapo for the unanimous vote on the Banking Committee.

I yield to Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length, and I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, this evening, the President of the United States will perform his duty and nominate a person to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice to fill the vacancy left by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement at the end of July. I look forward to joining the President this evening, along with a number of my colleagues, for that historic announcement. It is an important day because the person selected will help decide many cases that will have a deep and lasting impact on American history. Certainly, Justice Kennedy played that role many times in many close cases.

There are a great many talented men and women who are qualified for Justice Kennedy's seat, I believe, and that is why the President's choice is so difficult. All of these candidates who have been identified as a potential pool of candidates have the intellectual capacity that has developed over many years, along with a rigorous understanding of the law. They have demonstrated their analytical skills in a variety of ways--by studying at top-tier law schools, clerking for well-respected judges on the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court, in their public speeches, in the courses they have taught, in the articles they have published, working at the highest levels inside government and prominent law firms, and, of course, in the case of the final four, serving on an appellate bench, which is the midlevel, intermediate Federal court which, for all practical purposes in most cases, is the court of last resort since the Supreme Court only hears roughly 80 or so cases a year.

I know the President has considered a handful of these jurists. He revealed a list of potential appointees to the Court when he ran for President, and I think that probably was one reason why he was elected because when people saw the quality, the experience, and the qualifications of the individuals he said he would consider for the Supreme Court, I think it gave them greater confidence he would choose wisely, given the opportunity as President, to appoint somebody to the Court.

These individuals who are in the pool of prospective nominees have come from different academic and professional backgrounds, but I have no doubt the selection will be a good one primarily because of the one appointment the President has already made to the Supreme Court, which is Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Justice Gorsuch did not disappoint those of us who supported his nomination during his first year on the Court. He has demonstrated not only the power of his pen but the clarity of his thought and the force of his legal reasoning. I am sure his predecessor, Justice Scalia, would be proud of the fact Justice Gorsuch succeeded him on the Court and has left a record of accomplishments in such a short time.

President Trump and Justice Gorsuch taught us all a valuable lesson last year. At the end of the day, the decisions of the Supreme Court should not be much affected by the personalities or the life stories of the Justices themselves. That is because the interpretation of the law should always be separate and apart from the people who apply it, and the Justices and their work must be insulated from the day-to-day politics that happen inside this Capitol Building and the statehouses around the country.

The Court is not a partisan or political institution. After all, that is the way our Founders--the people who created this great country--and our Founding documents wanted it to be. Wisely, they figured there needed to be someone who would make a final decision in the event of a controversy or a lawsuit, but the Court itself should not put a finger on the scale or be a player in the partisan battles that occur here in Washington, DC. Indeed, the Court should be and is a separate and equal branch of government and must stand on its own, apart from the political biases and persuasions that pervade the District of Columbia. So I, along with many other people, am excited to hear the President's choice.

Before we begin this confirmation process, let me acknowledge the work and the legacy of departing Justice Kennedy. I thank Justice Kennedy for his 40-plus years serving this country on the Federal bench. He has presided over and authored the majority opinion in many high-stakes cases of national importance. He may be somewhat hard to pigeonhole at times, but I think it is safe to say he has remained committed to upholding the integrity of the judiciary throughout the course of his career. As a former State supreme court justice myself, I can attest that the work of a judge is painstaking, time-consuming, but obviously extraordinarily important. So we are grateful to Justice Kennedy for his willingness, his ability, and his determination to carry out his important work as a Federal judge.

After being appointed by President Reagan and having served on the Supreme Court for the last three decades, he has furthered the pursuit of American justice one case at a time through calm times and turbulent times. He was an important member of the Court who recognized one's individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, and he recently upheld the President's ability to protect national security and limit immigration from countries that have no ability to vet and to identify potential sources of terrorism in their own countries.

As Justice Kennedy concludes his tenure on the Court at the end of the month, we wish him and his wife, Mary, and his children many more happy years together.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

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

Mr. President, I am a day late with the news, but Justice Anthony Kennedy, of course, announced

he is leaving the bench at the end of the month, and I would be remiss if I didn't start my remarks this morning by thanking him for his 40- plus years of service to this country on the Federal bench.

He has presided over and authored the majority opinion in many high- stakes cases of national importance. As the news has pointed out, after Sandra Day O'Connor left the Court, he has been that pivotal fifth vote in a lot of really significant cases, which is to say, you can't really typecast Justice Kennedy, but I do believe he has remained committed to upholding the integrity of the legal system throughout the course of his career.

I can say, as a former State supreme court justice myself, I know the work he has been doing has been painstaking, time-consuming, and extraordinarily important all at the same time. So I express my gratitude, on behalf of my constituents, to Justice Kennedy for his willingness, ability, and determination to carry out that work.

While serving on the Supreme Court for the last three decades, after having been appointed by President Reagan, he has furthered the pursuit of American justice, one case at a time, which is exactly what Justices are supposed to do, through calm times and politically turbulent times--perhaps, some might say, times like the present. He recognizes that our core institutions are essentially democratic institutions, answerable to the people through their elected representatives.

While the Court has a unique role in interpreting the Constitution-- which is the fundamental bedrock law of the Nation--in cases that don't turn on the constitutionality of the statute, it is important to defer to decisions made by the elected representatives of the people because we are the ones accountable to the electorate for those decisions. Judges, by their nature, are not because they aren't elected. They don't run for election. So their fidelity is supposed to be to the law and not to a personal agenda or politics or any other agenda.

Justice Kennedy was an important member of the Court that recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and recently upheld the President's prerogatives to protect national security.

As Justice Kennedy concludes his term this next month, we, of course, wish him well, along with his wife Mary and their children, and we wish them many more happy--and, hopefully, a little less stressful--years together.

Filling the Upcoming Supreme Court Vacancy

Meanwhile, the Senate will conduct our constitutional role of offering our advice and consent on whomever President Trump nominates. As the senior Senator from Connecticut said yesterday, ``The Senate should do nothing to artificially delay'' consideration of the next Justice. I have heard conflicting views, but I agree with the senior Senator from Connecticut.

This is consistent with the standard set by former President Obama and Vice President Biden. In 2010--which was a midterm election--Senate Democrats confirmed President Obama's nominee to the court, Elena Kagan. Before that, when he was a Senator, Joe Biden argued that Supreme Court nominees should not be confirmed during Presidential election years. So one was a midterm, Elena Kagan. Merrick Garland-- whom we will hear more about from our Senate Democratic colleagues-- came up during a Presidential election, a time during which Joe Biden said that nominees should not be confirmed in the runup to a Presidential election.

After President Trump makes his selection, Senators will have the opportunity to meet with the nominee, examine his or her qualifications, and debate them. We will have a hearing under the Senate Judiciary Committee. This will be the sixth Supreme Court Justice nominee I will have had the privilege to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee for and question. Then, this fall, we will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor.

Justice Kennedy placed a deadline on his time in office. He is retiring July 31. So any idea of delaying this and leaving the Court shorthanded, particularly under these circumstances, really is beside the point.

I know Chairman Grassley will, as usual, manage a fair, thorough, and efficient confirmation process. He always does. It is crucial that as this process begins to unfold, the President's nominee not be subjected to personal attacks from an increasingly agitated and vitriolic political base.

My philosophy on the role of a judge is simple: Decisions should not be made on the basis of the judge's personal beliefs but from the analysis of legal doctrine and actual reading of the legal texts. The President, I believe, understands that. That is the sort of model out of which Neil Gorsuch's nomination came. That is also why we confirmed so many of his excellent choices in the 18 months of his administration.

I look forward to another outstanding selection and a thorough and efficient confirmation process. Then, in the end, we will vote to confirm the President's nominee this fall.

Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act

Mr. President, on a separate note, yesterday, the White House released a statement from President Trump regarding an important piece of bipartisan legislation, which I introduced with the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act or FIRRMA.

This concerns, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Our adversaries around the world have simply figured ways to game foreign investment in the United States to get access to intellectual property and the know-how to duplicate that property surreptitiously, taking advantage of the gaps in the Committee on Foreign Investment's jurisdiction. So we are updating that legislation. It passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee, passed then out of the Armed Services Committee, and now is a part of the Senate-passed Defense authorization bill.

As President Trump mentioned, this bill will enhance our ability to protect the United States from new and evolving threats posed by foreign investment while, at the same time, preserving our ability to engage in international commerce and create new opportunities benefiting our economy and our people.

Let me make clear, this is not to discourage foreign investment. I think foreign investment is a good thing, but when our adversaries look to exploit gaps and antiquated language in some of our statutes in order to gain unfair advantage and seek access to intellectual property in dual-use technology that has national security implications, we need to act, and that is what we have done.

The President concluded that FIRRMA will provide much needed tools to combat the predatory investment practices that threaten our critical technology and national security. I think he is exactly right, and I am glad he pledged to implement FIRRMA promptly and enforce it rigorously once it is enacted into law.

I wish to express my appreciation to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin--who is the convening authority of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--and the entire Cabinet for their input and their support for what we are trying to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks the statement in its entirety. I will read a couple paragraphs because it was pretty strong. The President of the United States said:

Should Congress fail to pass strong FIRRMA legislation that

better protects the crown jewels of American technology and

intellectual property from transfers and acquisitions that

threaten our national security--and future economic

prosperity--I will direct my Administration to deploy new

tools, developed under existing authorities, that will do so

globally.

What the President is saying, and what was reinforced by Secretary Mnuchin in my conversations with him, is the President is depending on this bipartisan legislation being enacted into law and providing the tools necessary to protect our national security. If Congress, for some reason, stumbles and fails to pass this legislation, the President has made clear he intends to act unilaterally to fill that void.

I applaud the President and this administration for giving Congress a

chance to work with the administration to fill this gap through a bipartisan, bicameral legislative process and to not just leap into that void and try to do it unilaterally, perhaps causing more confusion and less predictability.

In conclusion, the President said:

I applaud Congress on its progress toward passing robust

FIRRMA legislation. I urge Congress to send me a strong bill

as soon as possible and look forward to implementing it to

protect America's security and prosperity.

The Senate bill we passed takes a carefully tailored approach, and the House passed a similar version earlier this week by a vote of 400 to 2.

I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the Senate- House conference process to ensure the CFIUS review process is sufficiently strengthened and meets the goals that we and the President share.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

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

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand that the Democratic leader may be on his way, and I will yield the floor when he comes, but I do want to respond to the comments that have been made by my friend, the Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip.

I think what he is proposing is a false choice. He says we need to do away with zero tolerance when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. Basically, what that means is an argument for the nonenforcement of our immigration laws. We can actually enforce our immigration laws and keep families together. Indeed, we have a proposal, which I know he is very familiar with, to do precisely that--proposed by Senator Tillis and Senator Cruz. I know he and Senator Feinstein are talking to them, and hopefully they can come up with a bipartisan solution. Yet the argument that somehow this is a new phenomenon is just not borne out by the facts.

We all remember 2014, when the vast wave of unaccompanied children who came across the border from Central America was called a humanitarian crisis by President Obama. It was because we simply were not prepared to deal with the medical and other needs, feeding, housing, and taking care of these tens of thousands of children who were streaming across the border.

Central America, basically, has some very serious problems which result in there being people who flee from those countries and seek, in many cases, asylum in the United States. Yet the idea that President Trump started something new when he decided to enforce the law or that this phenomenon of children coming across the border is something new is simply not the case. It has been happening for a long time.

Back when President Obama was detaining families and was separating families, on some occasions when the accommodations were not available to deal with them together, we didn't hear a peep out of our friends on the other side of the aisle. When 1,500 unaccompanied children from Central America--those placed with sponsors here in the United States who were not American citizens, who were not even family members, and who had not had criminal background checks--were unaccounted for, as reported in a New York Times story recently, that was as a result of the flawed policies of the past in dealing with this humanitarian crisis.

We do agree on one thing; that is, that families ought to be kept together, and the President has said as much. Yet what every single Democrat across the aisle has agreed to is a bill by our friend from California Senator Feinstein, which, simply goes from zero tolerance, when it comes to violating the immigration laws, to zero enforcement.

What that bill would result in is a return to the flawed catch-and- release policies of the past because, if you can't enforce the law--if you don't have the immigration judges, if you don't prioritize these family cases--then you will have to give people notices to appear at some time in the future. Of course, most of them will not show up for their court hearings, and the cartels and human smugglers, whose business models depend on their ability to exploit these gaps in American law, will win. They will win because they will have successfully circumvented the enforcement of America's immigration laws. Those are the people who benefit the most from this.

I am very sympathetic to the circumstances of these children and their families living in Central America, but as my colleague said, we simply can't accept anybody and everybody who wants to come to the United States under any and all circumstances. That

is why we have a legal system of immigration. That is why we have due process to consider asylum claims, which should be considered and should be expedited, in my view, while these family units are detained, and not simply say that we are going to go from zero tolerance of immigration law violations to zero enforcement and return to a catch- and-release policy, which is associated with huge surges in additional illegal immigration. According to Manuel Padilla, the Rio Grande Border Patrol Chief, who I was with this last Friday, that is a big mistake.

The American people understand that we need to enforce our immigration laws. They are as compassionate as we all would hope to be about keeping these families together as much as we can, but at some point we need to enforce our laws. In this case, that means family units need to be detained in a secure, safe, and humane facility, but then they need to present those claims to an immigration judge on a prioritized basis. If they don't meet the legal criteria, then we simply don't have any alternative but to return them to their home country. That is the law of the land.

So 83 percent of the children in U.S. custody now came unaccompanied because their parents sent them from Central America by themselves. Only 17 percent came as part of a family unit. This is a longstanding problem, and we need to fix it. We have legislation that can do that, and we need to pass it this week in my view.

I see the distinguished Democratic leader here.

Sure.

Mr. President, I am sorry; I did not mean to suggest that the Senator from Illinois didn't object back then, but my point is that Senator Obama--President Obama had the same policies that are now being objected to under President Trump.

Mr. President, I would respond to my friend from Illinois that I think alternatives to detention are a reasonable thing to look at, but the point is that people need to show up for their court hearings because right now, without detention, based on catch-and- release policies, these people simply fade away into the landscape and basically win the lottery when it comes to immigrating illegally to the United States without making a legitimate asylum claim.

I would say on the representation issue that I certainly support pro bono legal counsel being allowed to represent the asylum seekers, and I believe that is the practice now. I would be reluctant to ask an American taxpayer to fund a lawyer for every immigrant who shows up at the border and makes a claim for an immigration benefit. I think that might be a bridge too far. But I do think that pro bono legal counsel makes a lot of sense.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

Mr. President, as we all know, we are on the farm bill this week in the Senate. I express my gratitude to Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for bringing us this far.

Interestingly, in a town where differences tend to be along partisan lines and ideological lines, the differences in the farm bill tend to be largely regional as much as anything else, but they have done a good job in trying to bring a fair and equitable bill to the Senate floor. That is reflected by the near unanimous vote in committee for the bill.

The farm bill has always been important. With its being renewed every 5 years, it helps to ensure that Americans and the people who benefit from American exports around the world enjoy access to the safest, cheapest, most reliable food source on the planet. The farm bill impacts many areas beyond food production. It promotes the conservation of farmland and watersheds. Foreign food aid programs are reauthorized as part of this bill, and we lay down the policy that affects the management of our Nation's forests.

I am especially pleased with this year's farm bill and its impact on my home State and the Presiding Officer's home State of Texas. Among the most noteworthy provisions is protecting seed cotton eligibility for the farm bill safety net. This year's bill also retains and strengthens the Price Loss Coverage Program to help provide Texas agricultural producers with stability through unpredictable weather and natural disasters. Finally, the bill promotes animal health and reauthorizes disease research programs, including a crucial one that will help the U.S. Department of Agriculture provide research to contain the spread of the cattle fever tick. I doubt many people have heard of the cattle fever tick, but it is a real threat to our herds, our beef herds, and it has the potential to wipe out cattle herds and cause devastating financial losses.

I want to highlight three areas where I do think the bill could stand some improvement--first, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. There is a lot of good done in the bill for farm and agricultural programs, but many people don't know that about 80 percent of the money spent in the farm bill is directed to so-called nutrition programs. So calling this a farm bill is a bit of a misnomer, since only 20 percent of its resources deal with farm and agriculture. So we need to consider targeted ways to ensure that tax dollars used to pay for these nutrition programs are used wisely.

That is why I will support an amendment that expands work requirements for those who receive SNAP benefits. It is not just for work, but for people who are able-bodied who need to train for work or provide community service as condition of qualifying for this welfare benefit.

My second related amendment will authorize a pilot program to encourage nongovernmental partners to help address food insecurity in local communities. While I salute Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for attempting to ensure the integrity of our nutrition programs, I believe these amendments will further promote the goal we all share.

The last one I will cosponsor with the junior Senator from Kansas, whose leadership I would like to commend, is one that addresses the wildfires we have had the last 2 years and the destruction these natural disasters have provided in farm country.

I see the chairman of the Agriculture Committee on the floor, and I yield to him if he has a question he would like to ask.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and I appreciate his efforts to try to accommodate the concerns I have raised.

Believe me, I understand this isn't his first rodeo. He has been down this path many times trying to come up with a farm bill that can get passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States, and that is no easy task.

I would state on the work requirement for qualifying for the so- called nutrition program, I am aware of the fact that since these are Federal dollars, many States, even though they have the authority to impose some work or community service requirement, can waive that rather easily, since they are not spending their

money; they are spending the Federal Government's money. So we are looking for ways to perhaps strengthen that provision.

I hope we will have an opportunity to have a vote on it. My goal is to make sure we pass a farm bill, but I do think it is important that we demonstrate our commitment to protecting the Federal taxpayer and imposing modest work, preparation for work, or community service requirements on able-bodied people.

I yield to the chairman.

I appreciate the chairman's comments, and I have confidence in him and his ability to manage this bill successfully across the floor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on Friday, I traveled to the Rio Grande Valley, right along the U.S.-Mexico border, expecting the front-page news to be about separation of families when our immigration laws were being enforced. Imagine my surprise when the front page of the newspapers in the Rio Grande Valley were talking about the flooding in South Texas.

We heard that late last week, more than 200 water rescues were performed on the border city of Mission alone, and some areas were pounded by more than 15 inches of rain over a 4-day period. Cities in South Texas, such as Harlingen, Mercedes, Weslaco, Brownsville, and others, were affected. I saw it myself when I was in the Valley last week. A feeder road and entire soccer fields were underwater, and county officials were out surveying flood damage around the airport. This has been especially tough news because some of the coastal areas in my State that were impacted by this flood were also hit by Hurricane Harvey less than a year ago and are still recovering from that catastrophe. Just as life started to get back to normal--whatever normal is--the rains came.

As hurricane season is now underway, we will continue to monitor the weather and the conditions there that may arise throughout the remainder of the summer months and to work with all of my constituents and leaders at the local, State, and Federal level to make sure we are as prepared as we can humanly be for the next adverse weather event.

Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act

As I said, Mr. President, I went to the border to talk about immigration and family separation policies. I traveled there to tour two facilities in Brownsville, along with Senator Cruz, that housed young children--some very young and some up to 18, just under 18 years of age--who are being sheltered after their parents crossed illegally into the United States.

It is important to note that in so many respects, life is pretty good in the Rio Grande Valley. Business is booming. Men and women are working hard, going to school, paying their bills, just like the rest of us. It is not all the Wild Wild West, as the press sometimes makes it out to be.

When it comes to immigrant shelters, I think it is very important that we learn what the facts are rather than continue a narrative that has very little basis in fact.

The truth is, the surge of humanity coming across our southern border is nothing new. This year so far--since October 1--there have been roughly 32,000 unaccompanied children who have come across the border, more than 50,000 families, but all told, the Border Patrol has detained roughly 250,000 people coming across our southwestern border.

I know that here in Washington, you could be forgiven for thinking ``Well, the border is not a problem. Illegal immigration is not a problem,'' but I am here to say it is a problem, and it is a national security threat. The humanitarian crisis we have seen at the border because countries like those in Central America continue to send their young children up across the border into the United States--it creates a huge challenge for us, just as it did in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis, because, frankly, our communities along the border and the Federal Government are not prepared to deal with such an influx of humanity, particularly those who need to be taken care of in a compassionate and humane way, especially the children who come across the border.

Why are children coming across the border unaccompanied and in some instances with family units? Because the

cartels--the criminal organizations that profit from a business model that allows them to exploit vulnerabilities in American law, particularly when it comes to border security--are making millions of dollars trafficking in humanity. They don't just traffic in illegal immigration; they traffic in those who would ply these immigrants for sex trafficking, those who would distribute drugs illegally in the United States, particularly heroin, an opioid, along with fentanyl, coming across the border, perhaps even from China, which is part of the opioid crisis in the United States.

As one gentleman who has a lot of experience in the area phrased it-- he said that when it comes to what the cartels and the criminal organizations will transport into the United States, they are commodity agnostic. What he meant by that, I gathered, is that what it is all about is the money. It is the money these large criminal organizations earn trafficking in people, trafficking in drugs, trafficking in contraband across our southwestern border that represents such a challenge to our government officials at the local level, at the State level, and, of course, at the national level.

I know there has been a lot of misinformation about what happens at the border when somebody comes to the border and claims asylum. There are accepted procedures and legal standards that should be applied when somebody comes from another country and claims a credible fear of persecution because of who they are--their race, their religion, and the like.

As Secretary Nielsen, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pointed out, it is not a crime to come to a port of entry--that is, one of the bridges--and ask for asylum. It is a crime for an adult to try to cross the border between those ports of entry into the United States, and that is why we end up with this huge challenge of what to do when they come across with a minor child with them.

After touring these facilities in Brownsville and meeting with various Federal agency officials, nongovernmental organizations, and local elected officials at the Weslaco Border Patrol Station, what we learned is that this situation is far more complex than meets the eye and that many of the narratives that have been spun about what is happening at the border are simply false or may be based in part on fact but in part on nonfactual information.

What we did was we had the Federal officials at the Weslaco Border Patrol Station go through the step-by-step process of what happens to immigrant families when they are apprehended at the border, what happens when they are detained, and what happens when their cases are heard in a court. This is very useful information, and I want to particularly credit Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Chief Manny Padilla, Custom and Border Patrol's David Higgerson, and all the men and women on the frontlines who are doing a great job under very difficult circumstances across the border.

I am glad to know that the processes are changing based on the Executive order President Trump issued last week. That order stated that immigrant families should be detained together when appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. The problem is that I am not sure anybody could be prepared for this influx of humanity coming across the border, but they are doing the very best they can.

We know that Executive orders are always subject to legal challenges. We in Congress have introduced legislation to make sure that if, in fact, the President's Executive order ordering families to be kept together is somehow challenged or found deficient in court, that we have legislation to back it up. It is important that we in Congress make clear in statute that the status quo along the border cannot continue.

That status quo has resulted in family members being separated from one another--in some cases, young children from their parents, which is something I know we all want to avoid. We know that in many cases, these children have remained in close touch with their parents throughout the course of their detention. But we still need to make sure these families are kept together where possible.

I, along with a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, led by the junior Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis, introduced a piece of legislation last week to address this situation. It 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 by allowing them to remain together and enforcing our immigration laws don't have to be mutually exclusive, and our bill will ensure that they aren't. It will allow children to stay with their parents in a safe facility while they await their court proceedings to see if they perhaps are eligible for some sort of immigration benefit, like asylum. Our bill will also set mandatory standards for care in family residential centers where immigrant families are placed and keep children safe by requiring they be removed from the care of any individual who presents a danger to them.

Just as importantly, it provides additional resources. It will require more than 200 new immigration judges and require the Department of Homeland Security to expedite the court proceedings of families and children. We don't want those family units to remain in detention any longer than necessary to present their case to an immigration judge.

Some have rightfully asked questions about the families who have already been separated. What happens now that the kids have been placed apart from their parents? Our bill requires the administration to take steps to reunify as many families as possible who remain in ICE's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or HHS's, Health and Human Services, custody.

Believe it or not, as part of this disinformation or misinformation that seems to pervade this topic, some have falsely claimed that our bill promotes the indefinite detention of families, but that is certainly not the intention. Our bill does not mandate the Department of Homeland Security detain parents and their kids together indefinitely. It, simply, removes an arbitrary, court-imposed rule that says families can be held together for no more than 20 days. This is from the so-called Flores case.

In many instances, allowing families to remain together in custody for more than 20 days will allow immigration courts to process their claims faster so that they will literally have better access to justice. Generally, immigrants are detained only until their proceedings in front of immigration judges are completed. So those who claim that the bill would somehow promote the indefinite detention of these families, simply, aren't telling you the truth. These families will remain in residential shelters only until their court proceedings are completed, but we need to prioritize these cases, in particular--to move them to the head of the line--so that these families will not have to wait any longer than necessary.

Other proposals have been put forward in addition to the Tillis proposal. One of the most prominent is the one being offered by our friend, the senior Senator from California. I have worked together on many issues with Senator Feinstein, but on this issue, I think her bill has a number of problems. In fact, there is a huge question of what sort of enforcement, if any, would be permitted under her bill. In effect, this bill would make it impossible to criminally prosecute parents for crossing the border illegally unless their children were able to go into Department of Justice's custody with the parents. This bill doesn't even specify where the families should be held. That is a big problem because children shouldn't go to jails and prisons, run by the Department of Justice, that have hardened, potentially violent criminals.

I don't know anybody who thinks that that is a good idea. That is why, essentially, the bill advocates for catch and release. Nowhere does the bill say where these families should be held since they can't go into the Department of Justice's facilities. Basically, the only alternative left up to immigration enforcement officials is to let them go and issue them notices to appear at future court dates. The bill specifically forces the Department of Homeland Security to release family units without exception, which prevents potential criminals from being prosecuted. Again, it is the adults we are talking about, not the children.

Chief Padilla, the Chief of the Rio Grande Valley sector of the Border Patrol, which is the most active part of the southwestern border, said: If you look at the surges in illegal immigration over recent history, the highest surges in illegal immigration are when the U.S. Government has had a policy of catching and then releasing people who have violated the immigration laws and has ordered them to appear in the future. Of course, most of the people don't show up in the future. They know they will rarely be followed up on and rarely be caught unless, of course, they commit some other crime or offense and are picked up by local police, at which time U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's and local law enforcement's records are matched in order to identify those people.

To suggest that we should not enforce our immigration laws or to suggest that we should catch people who violate those laws and release them and have them appear on future dates, which is far from certain, is itself a huge encouragement and inducement to surges in illegal immigration. One of the main reasons is that the cartels--again, the criminal organizations that control much of the human trafficking, the illegal drug trafficking, and the movement of immigrants across the border--are very smart, and they know when there are gaps in the U.S. Government's policy that can be exploited, like catch and release.

I am not sure everyone who supports the bill that Senator Feinstein has proposed understands what the consequences are of the legislation. Where are the provisions that allow us to enforce our immigration laws? Both of our bills allow for families to be kept together while they are waiting for court proceedings, but only one of them, the Tillis bill, also permits the enforcement of our laws. That seems to be the choice that our Democratic colleagues have made.

With all due respect to our Democratic colleagues, their legislation, simply, doesn't cut it. I don't think the American people will tolerate a situation in which our borders remain open, essentially, to the poison shipped over here from the drug traffickers, to the human trafficking by which people are, simply, sold into modern-day slavery, or whether open borders is used as a way to transport people illegally from one country to another.

We want to make it clear that families should be kept together but, also, that we will enforce the law even when that requires families be held in government custody for a short period of time pending their court hearings. We also want to be clear that where they should be held is in safe residential family housing and away from hardened, potentially violent criminals.

Again, the legislation, which has been proffered by our friend from California, doesn't mandate that. Basically, it just prevents us from enforcing our laws. It promotes catch and release, and it doesn't specify where families should be held together, which could jeopardize the safety of these children.

With these and other shortcomings, I think the much better option is the bill that our Republican colleagues and I, along with Senator Tillis, have introduced. I hope the discussions which, I know, have been planned between Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Tillis, and Senator Cruz--perhaps as early as today--are very productive. It would be important to achieve both important goals at once--the continued enforcement of our immigration laws and the unification of families.

I have become disturbed by what I have seen on social media. There is a hashtag in social media called ``abolish ICE,'' abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I have read where one Democratic House Member has actually introduced legislation that would abolish our immigration enforcement agency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Basically, what that would do is to create an open invitation to the criminal organizations that facilitate illegal immigration, drugs, and other contraband. There will be no limit to the number of people who will be able to enter the country illegally. We will just wave them on through.

In addition to the open borders, which is no solution, there are colleagues who are advocating this sort of notion, who have no plan of how to deal with the influx of humanity, whether it is from a health and safety or a safe and secure facilities perspective. I think it is a half-baked idea and one we should reject.

I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue talking and to support the legislation that Senator Tillis and I and others have introduced.

I would like to see the Senate take swift action. I wish we could have done it last week because we all agree that families should be kept together, and we all agree that this is an emergency situation. We must act quickly. If we come together, we can resolve this situation swiftly and ensure these children will be kept with their families, which is our No. 1 priority.

It is also a priority of all of us to enforce the laws that are on the books and not to, basically, benefit the business model of the drug cartels in the process and see them continue to prey on young, susceptible, vulnerable people who are willing to risk it all just to make their way to the United States, to our borders.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).