[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 103 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4253-S4257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5895, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5895) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Shelby amendment No. 2910, in the nature of a substitute.
Alexander amendment No. 2911 (to amendment No. 2910), to
make a technical correction.
McConnell (for Crapo) modified amendment No. 2943 (to
amendment No. 2910), to increase funds for a nuclear
demonstration program.
McConnell (for Baldwin/Portman) amendment No. 2985 (to
amendment No. 2910), to set aside funds for cooperative
agreements and laboratory support to accelerate the domestic
production of Molybdenum-99.
recognition of the majority leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I discussed on the floor yesterday,
returning to regular order in the appropriations process is at the
forefront of the Senate's agenda.
Thanks to the bipartisan work of the Appropriations Committee, led by
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Leahy, and the subcommittee chairmen,
it is actually becoming a reality. Their efforts have already produced
thoughtful legislation for the full Senate to consider, beginning this
week with the combined measures for the Legislative Branch, for Energy
and Water, and for Military Construction and the Veterans
Administration. It is those last components I would like to discuss
this morning.
This year, 2018, has already brought significant legislative progress
for America's men and women in uniform. Earlier this year, Congress and
the President did away with arbitrary funding limits that had eroded
our forces' comparative advantage. We delivered the largest year-on-
year increase in funding for our troops in 15 years. Now, with the
Military Construction-VA funding bill before us this week, the Senate
can keep the ball rolling.
The committee's package would deliver mission-critical maintenance
and improvements that are needed on installations both at home and
abroad. It would support Active-Duty personnel, as well as National
Guard and Reserve units. It would allocate significant resources for
projects that reinforce key alliances and extend our influence around
the world.
In my home State of Kentucky, it would mean major improvements to
training facilities at both Fort Knox--home of the Army Cadet, Human
Resources, and Recruiting Commands--and at Fort Campbell, where the
101st Airborne Division and Special Operations forces prepare for
evolving missions.
[[Page S4254]]
But while underpinning the ongoing missions of our Active Forces, the
legislation before us would also take critical steps to meet the
individual needs of America's warfighters and their families here at
home. It would allocate over $1.5 billion to operate and maintain
military family housing facilities. It would provide for vital safety
updates at overseas American military schools, part of a system that
serves more than 66,000 children. Hundreds of millions in additional
funding would go to build and improve the network of military medical
facilities, which provide care to nearly 10 million servicemembers and
military families.
Finally, within the Military Construction legislation is important
funding to support our veterans. In addition to funding the maintenance
and upkeep of VA health facilities, it goes further in allocating
targeted resources to address the system's shortcomings.
Especially when we talk about access to prompt, quality care, the
status quo is simply not good enough for America's veterans. For the
more than 300,000 Kentucky veterans and for the millions of veterans
nationwide, we can and we must do better. That is why this bill
includes billions of dollars to improve claims processing and to cut
down on backlogs. There is funding for treatment, mental health
services, and preventing opioid misuse.
There are plenty of good reasons to support this appropriations
package, but one of the most compelling is the support it will deliver
to our all-volunteer military and those who have served our country in
uniform. So let's keep this legislation moving this week.
Rescissions Bill
On another matter, Mr. President, speaking of government spending, we
will soon have an opportunity to save some of the money taxpayers
entrust to us. Thanks to the hard work of Members, including Senator
Lee and Chairman Enzi, we will soon turn to a House-passed bill that
acts on the President's request to rescind nearly $15 billion in
previously appropriated money that has gone unspent. This modest belt-
tightening would in no way infringe on the bipartisan spending deal
that Senators on both sides agreed to earlier this year. This savings
package is 100 percent unrelated to that agreement.
Let me say that again. This savings package is 100 percent unrelated
to the bipartisan agreement we reached earlier this year. It is totally
separate. It simply pulls back a small amount of unspent funds from a
variety of government accounts. If we, the people's elected
representatives, want to speak seriously about stewarding taxpayer
money, surely we can vote to recapture these unspent funds that are not
even currently in use.
The President's modest rescissions request is entirely reasonable. It
should be without controversy. I look forward to voting for it myself,
and I urge my fellow Members to do the same.
Tax Reform
Now, on one final matter, Mr. President, today marks 6 months since
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed Congress. On Friday, it will be 6
months since the President signed it into law. What a 6 months it has
been.
Already, Americans have seen their paychecks grow as the IRS
withholds less of what they earned. Already, families are reaping the
fruits of a new business tax code that gives American employers more
ability to increase pay and create jobs. Six months in, these tax cuts
have already led employers to issue tax reform bonuses, raises, and new
benefits to 4 million workers and counting. That is welcome relief for
middle-class families. But what about the long term?
Republicans know that enduring prosperity needs thriving businesses
competing to hire American workers. So we designed tax reform to flip
the Obama-era script and make America a more attractive place to
invest, expand, and create jobs.
For large companies, capital investment might mean breaking ground on
new locations or purchasing state-of-the-art technology. If you are a
midsized employer, it might mean filling your factory floor with new
equipment. If you are a Main Street family business, it could mean
expanding into the vacant storefront next door or buying new tools that
will transform your day-to-day operations.
In every case, you are placing a bet on your community and on your
country. You are betting on American land, American equipment, and,
most importantly, the future of the American workforce. You are putting
down roots here instead of shipping jobs overseas. This is precisely
what we have seen in the past 6 months.
Earlier this year, Apple announced plans to make $30 billion in
capital investments over the next 5 years--new facilities, new data
centers, and more than 20,000 new jobs.
Chipotle Mexican Grill announced a $50 million investment in
upgrading and refurbishing their restaurants.
Carpenter Technology is using tax reform to speed up a new $100
million facility in Redding, PA. Their new state-of-the-art mill will
allow them to compete in precision electronics manufacturing. New
equipment can't be easily outsourced; neither can the jobs it will
create. Sure enough, Carpenter is partnering with a local community
college to train a 21st century workforce.
Remember, these businesses aren't just creating new opportunities
themselves. These projects also mean prosperity for American
contractors and construction crews, and it is not just the big guys.
In West Palm Beach, FL, tax reform means new kitchen appliances for
the Don Ramon Restaurant. In my home State of Kentucky, at Glier's
Meats, tax reform meant a new quarter-million-dollar machine to speed
up production of their famous sausages. For a small business with fewer
than 30 employees, that is a noteworthy opportunity. Everywhere you
turn, businesses large and small are going all in on the future of the
United States.
There is one more interesting thing the last 6 months have revealed:
just how impossible it is for our Democratic colleagues to set aside
their outdated, tax-and-spend ideology. Every Democrat in the House and
in the Senate voted on party lines to block tax reform. They insisted
the law wouldn't help American workers one bit. They said that it would
be a disaster. Of course, the facts have debunked those predictions.
But are our Democratic friends admitting they were wrong? No. They are
doubling down on this silliness.
By now, we are all familiar with the House Democratic leader's
comments from January. She laughed at the four-figure bonuses that
working families were celebrating and called them ``crumbs.'' Earlier
this month, she doubled down:
Hip, hip hooray, unemployment is down. But what does that
mean for me?
Well, my Democratic friends seem hopeful they can convince Americans
that tax cuts, bonuses, and a stellar job market are nothing to
celebrate. Talk about a tall order.
But while those rhetorical gymnastics keep them busy, Republicans
will keep up the fight for middle-class families.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Idaho.
Amendment No. 2943, as Modified
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in a few minutes we are going to vote on
the Crapo-Whitehouse amendment. I stand to support that amendment and
encourage my colleagues all to vote in favor of it.
I first want to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse. He and I have
worked together on a number of issues, building bipartisan support to
advance our ability to utilize nuclear energy in the United States.
I also thank Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein for their work
to complete this Omnibus appropriations bill and to continue to push to
bring our appropriations process to regular order.
Our amendment focuses on the development of fuel sources for our
advanced nuclear reactors. The United States currently lacks both the
supply of high assay low-enriched uranium, called HALEU, and a process
to make HALEU for advanced reactor designs.
[[Page S4255]]
Advanced reactor startup cores require a high assay low-enriched
uranium containing less than 20 percent fissile content. At the end of
naval fuel's life, it contains highly enriched uranium with an average
enrichment of 80 percent. Current operating naval reactors have the
potential to create a total of 100,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, and
the Department of Energy estimates disposal of this spent nuclear fuel
will cost about $100 billion.
However, advanced nuclear reactors have the potential to reuse this
spent nuclear fuel and to reduce the overall disposal cost. HEU
repurposing, from materials like spent naval fuel, can be done using
hybrid processes that use advanced dry head-end technologies followed
by material recovery, which creates the fuel for our new advanced
reactors. Repurposing this spent fuel has the potential of reducing
waste that would otherwise be disposed of at taxpayer expense, and
approximately 1 metric ton of HEU can create 4 useable tons for our new
reactors.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, let me say what a pleasure it
has been to work with Senator Crapo on these issues.
Our situation is pretty simple. We have a U.S. Navy that generates
spent nuclear fuel through its operations; we have a U.S. industry of
next-generation nuclear technology that needs that spent fuel in order
to test those innovative technologies; and we have extraordinary
National Labs with world-class expertise in handling that nuclear
material and supporting that innovation.
This amendment brings those three together. It allows the U.S. Navy's
spent fuel to be delivered to National Labs so that pursuant to a law
we just passed in the Senate recently, the cooperation between the
National Labs and the nuclear innovation community can move forward. We
have already passed that bill. I hope we will pass this bill.
I will close by saying there is something else in this that I think
is worth our consideration. We have an enormous national liability with
respect to our existing stockpiles of nuclear waste. Presently, we have
no realistic plan for dealing with that. There is a prospect--it is
definitely a maybe; I don't want to overpromise anything--there is
definitely a prospect and it is the intention of some of these next-
generation technologies that we will be able to develop nuclear
technologies that will go through our nuclear waste stockpile and turn
that into productive electricity generation. If we can get there, that
would be a terrific Holy Grail. In the meantime, this is a smart and
efficient way to support American innovation in these technologies.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes. I, again, appreciate Senator
Crapo's leadership on this and the extraordinary National Lab that he
has in his home State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 2985
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support my bipartisan amendment regarding an essential medical isotope.
This amendment that I have introduced, along with Senator Portman,
would achieve three simple goals: It would safeguard and improve
patient access to critical health screenings, it would promote medical
innovations needed for cutting-edge diagnostics and new treatments, and
it would move us away from our dependence on foreign sources of medical
isotopes, while supporting America's medical innovation industry.
Let me explain quickly why my amendment is needed. The United States
does not currently produce the medical isotope our healthcare system
uses the most. This isotope is used in medical screenings and helps
50,000 patients per day in the United States by providing early
detection and enabling treatment of cancer and heart disease.
U.S. patients are currently relying on supplies of this key isotope
that come from Canada, the Netherlands, and South Africa. This raises
costs and risks supply disruptions. Mind you, this isotope only lasts
for 3 days.
For security in the healthcare system and certainty in patient access
to essential medical tests, which are often needed in urgent
situations, we must develop a domestic supply of these isotopes. The
Department of Energy has been working diligently with the private
sector to develop sources that are made in America, and this amendment
would dedicate $20 million to ensure that work continues so we can
secure domestic production as soon as possible.
I urge my colleagues to support this important and bipartisan
amendment.
I yield back.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. 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
[[Page S4256]]
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
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on agreeing to Crapo amendment No. 2943, as modified.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms.
Duckworth), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 9, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--9
Feinstein
Flake
Gillibrand
Harris
Markey
Merkley
Sanders
Warren
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Cardin
Duckworth
McCain
Shaheen
The amendment (No. 2943), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2985
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
the Baldwin amendment No. 2985.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30
seconds on the Baldwin-Portman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, Senator Baldwin spoke a moment ago about
this amendment we are about to vote on.
It is $20 million to the National Nuclear Security Administration's
domestic isotope program. This is something this body voted for back in
2012. CBO says it has no budget authority impact. It is really
important because we are getting this all from overseas. We have no
domestic source. We want to get away from using highly enriched uranium
for national security reasons.
I encourage you to all vote for this.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth)
[[Page S4257]]
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--2
Flake
Paul
NOT VOTING--3
Duckworth
McCain
Shaheen
The amendment (No. 2985) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Forced Family Separation
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I have just returned from South Florida
where I went to a detention facility in Homestead, FL. There are 1,000
children in this detention facility, and 94 of 1,000 are children who
have been separated from their families.
Despite being the senior Senator of Florida, despite having oversight
responsibility of the Department of HHS, despite the fact that in that
oversight capacity, we have the funding responsibility for the
Department of HHS and one of its components, the Office of Refugee
Resettlement--these children separated from their families are handled
by that office--despite all of that, the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of HHS refused to allow me to enter this facility and said
that it was the Department's policy that you have to fill out a form,
which we had done, but you have to wait 2 weeks before being allowed to
enter the facility.
The question is, Why do they not want the Senator from Florida to get
into this detention facility where there are children who have been
separated from their parents? It must be that not only is this
Department policy, but this is being directed by the President in the
White House. They don't want me to see it because they don't want us to
know what is going on in there.
I have subsequently found out that in addition to those 94 children,
there are 174 children being held in my State of Florida who have been
separated from their families. This is the current debate: Children
have been ripped apart from their moms and dads, and it has always been
an American value to keep families together, even when you are
adjudicating the lawful or unlawful status of the parents. You always
keep those children together on an immigration question, yet President
Trump has now altered that policy.
Despite all the finger-pointing and the deflection, President Trump
and his administration know this is their policy; he doubled down on it
last night. But there is nothing in the law that requires them to tear
parents away from their children. There is nothing in the law that
requires the administration to rip an infant from a parent's arms, some
young enough still to be nursing.
The decision to enact this quite horrendous and shameful policy was a
decision by this administration--and this administration alone. That is
why this Senator went to Miami yesterday. I wanted to see it for
myself. I wanted to see: Is the facility clean? Are the children
sleeping in beds? Are they sleeping on the floor? Do they have adequate
care? If they were, I could report that it was a good news story.
I also wanted to be able to talk to the young children, the ones who
had been separated. I had already gotten word from Senator Van Hollen,
who had been in Texas on Saturday and met a mom who said that her child
had been separated from her and that child was in a detention facility
in Florida. I wanted to see that child.
I am very proud of all of our colleagues who have come together to
support legislation to keep these families together, and 49 of us on
this side of the aisle have signed on as cosponsors. The policy of this
legislation is simply this: Don't separate families in this question of
immigration. It would prohibit the separation of those families. That
has been the policy, and all the President would have to do is to say
it, but in taking the position he has, maybe the only recourse is for
us to pass this law.
I am proud of our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have
rightfully stood up and publicly condemned this practice because every
American knows that taking children from their parents is just not
right. If a family is legitimately fleeing violence, repression, and
conditions that most of us cannot imagine, they have a right under
American law to present themselves at the border and ask for asylum.
Past administrations of both parties have recognized this, which is why
they acted with compassion and refused to do what the Trump
administration is doing now. It is certainly time that we return to our
true American value of keeping families together.
Because the passage of a statute is a long shot, it is really not up
to us. It is up to the President. He could say it, and it would be
done. No matter what we do here in this Chamber, the power to end this
shameful chapter in our Nation's history lies with the President and
his pen. He can sign an Executive order today, just as easily as he can
sign a law that we pass here in Congress. Either way, it is up to him.
He doesn't need Congress to act. He and he alone is allowing this
shameful practice to continue, and he alone can stop it right now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I first want to respond to something that
was said a moment ago. It is not he and he alone who can solve it.
Congress is, in fact, the policymaking body within the Federal
Government. We are the lawmaking body within the Federal Government. We
can make changes to the law, and we can't lose sight of that fact.
____________________