are for americans. >> i agree with a lot of that and we need to keep in mind that for every, all every american, social security is the base of that retirement security, no matter what happens, you get hit by a car, your retirement savings get wiped out, social security is always there no matter what happens and people to rely on other sources of savings and pensions but those hopes don't always have and social security is there and does protect people even when they're moving jobs and dealing with this economy so that have to come first. we have to talk about comprehensively but social security has to come first. >> i agree is a fundamental leg and there's a structure to help you protect against outliving your savings and an important piece, there is good news means there's talk about an upcoming retirement crisis but in many ways those numbers overstate a problem because they don't take into account the savings that go into 401(k)s.

>> see all of this program on our website, cspan.org. we leave this to take you live to the senate beginning with finishing up work from last week on the 2019 defense programs and policy bill. live senate coverage is here on c-span2. >> the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. loving god, whose ways are clearly seen as the heavens declare your glory we celebrate your faithfulness.

lord, we see around us change and decay, but you are changeless. we pray for our lawmakers, for our nation and its leaders, and for all the nations on this earth. through the power of your spirit, use our senators to cause justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. as children are being separated from their parents, remind us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to protect the most vulnerable in our world. may we claim afresh your forgiving and transforming

power, bamming instruments of your love in our world. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 18, 2018. to the senate: under the

provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable todd young, a senator from the state of indiana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. a 5515 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 442, h.r. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes.

i-

mr. schumer: mr. president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now americans are deeply troubled by the images and news of parents being separated from their children at the southern border. the trump administration policy of zero tolerance at the border has already resulted in 2,300 cases of forced family separation. according to homeland security statistics obtained by the associated press. the pace of separation has increased from nearly 50 to nearly 70 a day. any parent could imagine how difficult this is, how heartbreaking it is to be

forcibly separated from your young son or your young daughter, looking at their faces as they wonder what is going on here. why are they taking my parents away from me? and it's heartbreaking to imagine the separation and the anxiety it produces in everybody. so let's be clear here. separating children from their parents, denying relief to victims of brutal domestic violence will not make our country a better or safer place. the policies are cruel, inhumane and so unlike the america we have known for 229 years. no one should be allowed into this country who doesn't meet legal requirements. we cannot have open borders. but we have an adjudication process for those cases. in the past there's been no need to separate parents from children while that adjudication is occurring. the trump administration has actively decided to take a

different, crueler, more callous approach. and yet, what does president trump do? he spent the last few days trying to deflect blame. the president has said repeatedly that the separation of parents and children is the result of a law, quote, democrats forced upon our nation. that is just not true. allow me to quote from the associated press, nonpartisan, fact check of the president's claim. here's what they say, quote, there is no law mandating the separation of children and parents at the border. the separations are a consequence of a trump administration policy to maximize criminal prosecutions of people caught trying to enter the u.s. illegally. trump's repeated but nonspecific references to a democratic law appears to involve one enacted in 2008. it passed unanimously in congress. that meant democrats and republicans supported it. and was signed by president

george w. bush, hardly a democrat. it focuses on freeing and otherwise helping children who come to the border without a parent or guardian. it does not call for family separation. now i know what donald trump will say as he tries to undo our american institution. that's fake news. it's the associated press, which has had a reputation of being down the middle for scores of years. so let me quote the "new york post" editorial board, one of the most conservative newspapers in america. hard right. here's what they say. the immediate cause of the crisis is team trump's decision to start prosecuting illegal border crossers rather than simply deporting them. and in the editorial they ought to go on to president trump, fix this problem, stop blaming democrats. they're not to blame. president trump and attorney general sessions announced this zero tolerance policy in april.

it went into effect in may. if there was a law requiring it, why hasn't it been going on since trump became president? they just started it. chief kelly -- chief of staff kelly called the policy a tough deterrent. there is nothing to do -- this is nothing to do with our current immigration laws. it has nothing to do with any democratic law. it's entirely a decision made by the trump administration to start separating families. so let me say this to president trump. president trump, you can undo the policy tomorrow if you want to, with a snap of your fingers. and president trump, if you don't want to change the policy, own up to it and defend it, instead of blaming somebody falsely. either reverse it, which you can do, mr. president. or own up to it. but this idea, oh, well, it's

democrats to blame, false and untrue and not showing. strength or courage of conviction. health care. over the past few months several insurers in several states -- maryland, virginia, new york, pennsylvania, and originally -- have requested significant rate increases for the next year. the result of republican health care policies that have undermined our health care system. but on friday the state of minnesota sought a decrease in their rates. why? what made minnesota so different than the other states. why the -- were the people of minnesota allowed to breathe a sigh of relief that their insurance costs weren't going up whether it be the payments or deductibles or co-payment. minnesota reinstituted a program helping back stop their health care market. this is what can happen when states support patients and

fight back against what president trump and congressional republicans are doing. this is what happens when you try to strengthen our health care system instead of sabotaging it. imagine if every state were like minnesota. imagine if every state for the first time in decades was dropping premiums and out-of-pocket costs for consumers next year. think about what a difference that would make in the lives of tens of millions of americans who pay too much for health care and worry that both their health care bills are going to go up and their quality of their health care and availability of their health care will go down. it wouldn't have been that difficult to achieve the goals of minnesota. we spent months negotiating a bipartisan health care stabilization package that included ideas like the reinsurance policy that's been implemented in minnesota. senator nelson from florida talked about this, wanted to do it. our republican friends wouldn't.

senator murray and alexander came to an agreement. it would have done a load of good. but rather than pass a bill to strengthen our health care system, even after they tried, the republicans tried and failed to repeal the a.c.a., the republicans doubled down on sabotage. they just hate the system -- the idea that people should get help from their government so much that they make it worse. as part of the tax bill, republicans repealed the coverage requirement and put nothing in its place. then they added poison pills to the bipartisan bill to make sure it wouldn't pass. when president trump canceled the program that helps offset costs for low-income americans and proposed expanding junk insurance plans that pay a lot and get very little, our republican colleagues hardly made a peep. recently the administration says it will refuse to defend in

court protection for americans with preexisting conditions. this is a new one. our republican friends now say we don't want to make sure that a family that has a preexisting condition gets health insurance. that's even worse than they have been before. the republican leader last week said his whole caucus supports protections for americans with preexisting conditions. this is a complete reversal from the various health care bills our republican leadership supported last year that would have decimated protections for people with preexisting conditions. i applaud him for saying it and hope it represents turning over a new leaf. but now senate republicans have to put their money where their mouth is. when president trump does things that are so bad for the american people, so bad for his very supporters who depend on health care, our republican colleagues just fold. they're afraid of him. i hope that's not the case on

preexisting conditions, because millions of americans' lives and health and sanity, at least fiscal sanity, depend on it. so if republicans are serious about protections for people with preexisting conditions, they will join us in urging the trump administration to reverse their shameful decision not to defend the preexisting health care in court. preexisting health care law in court. they would join us in urging the administration not to finalize their plan to sell junk insurance policies. i say to my republican friends and my dear friend, leader mcconnell, actions speak louder than words. you're simply saying that your whole caucus protects americans with preexisting conditions doesn't make it so, as the very administration you support tries to undo it. republicans should work with democrats right now and throughout the summer to focus

on lowering costs for the american people. that starts with telling the trump administration to defend the vital protections for americans with preexisting conditions. and i wanted to say one more thing on the immigration issue, mr. president. first, i'd ask unanimous consent that the new york post editorial which i raoefrpbsed be placed in the -- which i referenced be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: stop breaking up families with border is the title. second i'd like to mention this. the house is toying with the bill supported by some of the less extreme republicans, and they're trying to deal with this issue of family separation. first, we haven't seen the copy, but from all reports it doesn't real deal with it. but second, it's loaded up with so many other poison pills that it's never going to see the light of day. if our republican colleagues in the house who endeavored to pass the discharge petition and failed by a few votes, so they could help the dreamers, want to

do something real about this, about the dreamers, and about family reunification, the support of the bill that's just dead on arrival here in the senate will not assuage their constituents, assuage their conscience. or, most important, fix the problem. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise to speak about the humanitarian crisis happening right now in our country at the border, something that i implore my colleagues to fight to stop. the department of homeland security is tearing young children from the arms of their parents. they are traumatizing infants and children, and congress needs to urgently act. mr. president, i know that we

have disagreements about immigration policy in this chamber, and i know we have disagreements about how we should fix our immigration system, which we've desperately needed to fix for decades. but surely we must be able to agree that federal agents should not be tearing young children from the arms of their parents. we must be able to agree that families with infants should not be forcibly separated. where is the outrage? where is the urgency? i hear my colleagues speak all the time about federal government overreach. well, if this isn't federal government overreach, what is? this is the moment that they have gone too far. one mother was breast feeding her infant. a federal agency took that baby out of her mother's arms, handcuffed her, arrested her. mr. president, where is that baby now?

how is that baby doing? where's the baby's mother? from mid-april through the end of last month, almost 2,000 children were separated from adults at the border. nearly 50 times a day on american soil, our government has separated a child from their parents, creating fear and terror in their lives. and just today it was reported that the department of homeland security is now holding 11,785 minors. 11,785 minors. this is a disgrace. one worker at a detention center for children just resigned as a conscientious objecter, and he described the children being held there as, quote, traumatized -- a traumatized

population that has no clue what is going on. he said the staff wasn't prepared at all to look after four and five-year olds that are coming into these detention centers. he said the kids are screaming and crying for their moms and dads. pediatricians, madam president, pediatricians who have met these children are calling it government sanctioned child abuse. pediatricians are calling it government-sanctioned child abuse. one of our colleagues of the house was able to meet with one of the mothers whose child was taken. she said literally they were sitting next door to where their children were being held fnedz hear their own children screaming. mr. president, have we not

studied -- madam president, have we not studied our own history because this is the kind of thing that we read about in history books and shake our heads in disgust. we ask ourselves how did we let this happen? we ask ourselves, why didn't congress stop this? why didn't anyone do anything? do we not remember what happened during world war ii with the japanese internment camps? children were traumatized. families were damaged, in some cases permanently. the memorial to remind us of this is a stone's throw from the u.s. capitol just for the purpose of reminding us to never do it again. we cannot let our country go down this dark road again. by but if congress does not stop the out of control homeland security, if congress does not

stop families being torn apart, even when it's happening in front of our eyes, this congress, this congress will go down in history as a weak congress that did nothing to stop one of the worst horrific chapters of american history. this has to be the moment when we do our jobs, we stand up, speak truth to power, do the right thing. we don't know how many kids are going to be traumatized for the rest of their lives because of our actions. these young children will never forget that when they first came to america, they were separated from their mothers and their fathers. madam president, the president of the united states is not telling the truth about this policy to the american people. it is not true that this immoral and repulsive practice of separating children from their parents is a mandatory result of existing law. it's just not true. this is the stated practice and policy of zero tolerance by this

administration. it is abhorrent. it is immoral. and the administration could stop this all by themselves today if they wanted to. but since they won't, congress needs to act. if this congress can't or won't push back against this administration when it's actually harming children, when will it act? i urge my colleagues to come together right now to stop disdain on our nation. we have a bill introduced by senator feinstein. we already have 49 cosponsors. we should vote on that bill. it would protect the welfare of children. it would make sure that children would not be separated from their parents and the only time they would be separated from their parents or the adults they are with, if they are being trafficked or abused. otherwise families should be allowed to stay together.

madam president, we should do the right thing. this is a moral issue. this is a humanitarian issue. this is an issue of right versus wrong. as a mother, as a legislator, i can't imagine the terror that these parents faced to not know what is going to happen to their children. it is wrong of us to stand by silently. it is wrong of us to do nothing. this is what the darkness looks like. we have to stand up against it. i yield the floor. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: napt -- madam president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i have one request for committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it's been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cornyn: madam president, in a few minutes, maybe an hour and a half, we'll be voting on the national defense authorization act which congress has passed faithfully for 57 consecutive

years. that indicates the sense of importance we all have toward funding and providing the authorities and equipment and training necessary for our military to do the job we've asked them to do. i want to particularly commend senators inhofe and reed for their leadership on guiding us through passage of this bill. there are 1.8 million people in the world who are on active duty in the united states military, 1.8 million people. the united states has 737 military installations, and the department of defense is the world's largest employer. supporting all these people in these facilities is no easy task, and the defense authorization bill is one very significant way which we do exactly that. it's hugh we make -- it's how we make sure that all the men and women in uniform are paid and that our alliances are strengthened and that military

facilities are properly modernized and maintained. the bill we're voting on will support an appropriation of up to $716 billion for those tasks. i might add that's a huge number, but this is the number one responsibility of the federal government. in my opinion, everything else the federal government does comes after providing for the common defense because nobody else, no local government, no state government, no private sector could possibly provide for the common defense. and america's leadership role of the world remains essential because we know while there are other countries that will work with us, for example, our nato allies, that they require and the world really demands american leadership. and that's what provides for the safety and security and the peace all across the planet. in texas there are roughly 200,000 men and women who wear

the uniform of the united states military in places like fort hood, joint base san antonio, naval station corpus christy and dais air force base in abilene. those are the people i think of each year as we take up the defense authorization bill. we rely on them to provide our security and they rely on us to deliver what they need in order to be successful. one thing this year's bill will do is give our troops a 2.6% pay raise which is the largest in ten years. it doesn't sound like a lot, but i'm sure they will appreciate it, nonetheless. given the state of today's world, maintaining our military readiness has been -- never been more important or more difficult. the array of security threats facing the united states is more complex and diverse than at any time since world war ii. our military leaders say that the strategic environment could not -- has not been this competitive since the cold war.

our adversaries are investing in their capabilities and in some areas surpassing us. simply put, america no longer enjoys the comparative advantage it once had over our competitors and adversaries. but as i said earlier, the defense authorization bill is important for reasons that hit much closer to home. and i'm thinking about texas military families and military facilities. this year's defense authorization bill will authorize $158 million for military construction projects in texas, including new basic military training dormitory at joint base san antonio and a new warehouse, red river army depot in east texas. it will prioritize access to high quality education for military children and establish a federal grant program for infrastructure near military communities, as well as protect our airports and airfields from radar interference, building on previous efforts at shepherd air

force base and naval air station corpus christi. one additional part of the defense authorization bill i want to highlight promotes justice for victims of sexual assault on military bases. this stems from a piece of legislation that i've cosponsored with the senator from maine, senator king, which has been included in the final bill that we're voting on called the children of military protection act. it's based on actual case studies at fort hood and fort bliss that were brought to my attention by military lawyers. finally, the defense authorization bill will invest in a medical program at fort bliss, cyber institutes at places like texas a&m and our workhorse legacy fighter aircraft like the f-16 at joint base fort worth. texas priorities are far from the only ones addressed in the ndaa but they're important. i'm glad that we are taking care of service members in my state

and keeping our commitment to them. so let's get the ndaa across the finish line this evening. madam president, on another issue, i want to raise -- i want to talk about the ongoing situation at the u.s.-mexico border. this is a border from my state to mexico, 1,200 miles of common border. just like under the obama administration in 2014, we've seen a surge of unaccompanied children and families coming across our southern border during the spring and summer months. overwhelmingly, these families and these children are coming from central america. in other words, from countries that are not adjacent to or contiguous to the united states. some have presented themselves lawfully at ports of entry, but others have tried to enter illegally. for example, if you are attempting to claim asylum, you can show up at one of our bridges or ports of entry and

claim asylum without breaking the law. but if you enter the country through -- between the ports of entry, through the wild, wild west i'll call it of the texas frontier and border region, you enter the country illegally. and then you can claim asylum but you still enter the country illegally so your asylum claim has to be considered in that context. the trump administration has made a decision to enforce all of our laws by prosecuting adults in criminal court when they're apprehended crossing our borders illegally. i approach that -- i support that approach, zero tolerance approach by adults violating our immigration laws. this law has been on the books for many decades but has not always been adequately enforced. because of numerous federal court decisions, settlements and statutes, an adult can be separated from a child as part of the legal process as it plays out. that way children are placed in

a separate, safer setting. i doubt many of us would want a child to go to a jail cell where somebody is being held for illegally entering the country. that's why they are put in a separate, safer setting. they aren't left unattended and fending for themselves mongsst poe -- amongst potentially violent criminals being detained. those legal decisions, settlements and statutes are important to acknowledge because as "the new york times" stated this weekend, there is no expressed trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. so "the new york times," hardly big trump cheerleaders, have said there is no expressed trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. in other words, this is as a result of other consent decrees and laws which are within the

power of congress to change. in fact, i think every member of this chamber will agree that we should never be placing children in prison cells or jails with hardened criminals when their parents are being prosecuted. by the same token, i don't want family members to be separated from one another as a result of d.h.s. and administration officials enforcing the laws that they are sworn to uphold. we have to keep family members together and prevent unnecessary hardship stress and outrage. the good news is we have it within our power to find a better way because parents who are waiting court proceedings shouldn't have to do so separated from their children, and children shouldn't be taken from their parents and left frightened and confused about where they are and what is transpiring around them. in 2014, i introduced a bipartisan bill called the humane act with my colleague,

representative henry qehar of lor aid owe, texas. i plan to soon release an updated version of that legislation. it is improve the family separation while improving the court process for apprehended children and families at the border. to the greatest extent possible, families presenting at points of entry or crossing the border illegally will be kept together while waiting for their court hearings, which will be expedited. additionally, this legislation will help eliminate the incentive for unaccompanied minors and family units with children to come to the u.s. illegally by expediting their court hearings. in other words, we found that catch and release is merely an incentive or inducement for further illegal immigration. so by detaining these families together to make sure they appear in front of an immigration judge and receive whatever immigration benefits they are entitled to under the

law, this will serve as a further deterrent on others who do not qualify for those immigration benefits. these minors should be afforded all required due process and have access to representation in court when making their claims. and through this expedited immigration court process, we would help ensure that children and family units with claims for immigration relief in the united states are able to receive their day in court rather than waiting in a multi-year backlog. this legislation is not a solution for all of our problems at the border. far be it, but it would make real improvements to deter illegal immigration while ensuring the humane treatment of children and family members who have entered the country in violation of our laws. i would ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look at this bill and to work together to find a reasonable solution for this component of the crisis at our border. madam president, i yield the

floor. mr. sanders: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: before i go to the substance of my remarks, let me just say what i think is on the minds of millions of americans today, whether they are progressives or conservatives, democrats or republicans or independents. and that the united states of america is not and must not never be about locking up little children in cages on the southern border. and right now, we have the opportunity and must take advantage of that opportunity to pass legislation to end this horrific practice. madam president, i want to take this moment to thank my

colleagues for their very hard work on the department of defense authorization bill. unfortunately for a number of reasons which i will articulate right now, i intend to vote against it, and certainly one of those reasons is that when you have legislation that expends $716 billion -- let me repeat is totally unacceptable that we do not have a serious debate on the floor of the senate, that amendments are not accepted to improve this legislation. now, i had submitted a number of amendments. other colleagues i know have done the same, but i do want to

express my strong feelings about our nation's bloated military budget, particularly in light of the many unmet needs we face as a nation. a $716 billion military budget is over half of the discretionary budget in this country, and the size of that budget tells me that we need vigorous debate on it. we need to find where there is waste, where there is -- where there is fraud, where there are cost overruns, and to simply pass that gigantic budget without scrutiny is simply not acceptable. you know, madam president, i have heard over and over again

my republican colleagues and some of my democratic colleagues come down here to the floor to complain about a $21 trillion national debt, and they're right. that is a huge debt that we are leaving to our children and our grandchildren. but i do find it interesting that i do not hear any objections to the size of this military budget, to the fact that it has been expanded by $165 billion over the next two years. so what i do find is that when we talk about providing health care to all of our people and doing what every other major nation on earth does, guarantee health care as a right and not a privilege, suddenly people are saying enough, we can't afford it. it's too expensive. but when it comes to a

$716 billion military budget, which is more than the ten next countries combined spend on defense, i do not hear a word about the size of the budget and about our deficit. madam president, we have been told over and over again that we cannot make public colleges and universities tuition free, that we cannot low the student debt levels that millions of people in this country carry decade after decade. we cannot make public colleges and universities tuition free, but how we can spend $716 billion on a military budget. even though over half of older americans have no retirement

savings, we have been told that we need to cut social security, not expand social security. so, madam president, i think it's time to get our priorities right, and what our priorities are about is addressing the fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country, that we have got millions of seniors in vermont and around this country trying to get by at $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year social security, that our infrastructure is collapsing. maybe we might want to start addressing the issues and the needs of the working people of this country rather than just pour more and more money into the defense budget. madam president, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the enormous -- and i underline the word enormous --

amount of waste at the cost overruns, at the fraud, and at the financial mismanagement that has plagued the department of defense for decades. and that is why i have offered along a bipartisan amendment, along with senators grassley and lee, to end the absurdity of the department of defense being the only federal agency that has not undergone an audit. i don't think it is too much to ask when we're spending $716 billion to have the department of defense give us an audit, tell the american people how that money is being spent, tell us about the fraud, tell us about the cost overruns. madam president, according to a gallup poll a few months ago, 65% of the american people oppose spending more money on the department of defense, but

that is precisely what we are doing right now. not only spending more money, spending a lot more money. madam president, as a point of comparison -- and it's important that we do this -- the increase, the increase in military spending that is in this bill is larger than the entire budget of china. i'm just talking about the increase in military spending. china spends about $150 billion a year on defense. we are going to be increasing military spending by $165 billion over a two-year period. russia spends about $61 billion a year on defense. this budget, again, $716 billion. now, i am sure our friends in

the defense contractor industry are very, very excited about this. they're going to be making zillions of dollars, but i'm not so sure that working people are excited about a budget at the same time as my republican friends tell us we cannot afford nutrition programs for children or expanding social security for the elderly. madam president, i think we all believe in a strong national defense, but we cannot continue to give the pentagon and defense contractors like lockheed martin a blank check while we ignore the needs of working families. madam president, about half of the pentagon's $716 billion budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors, not our troops. there are troops out there who

are living on food stamps. we want to address that problem, but at the same time we do not have to make the military industrial complex even wealthier than they are today. and let us also be clear, over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the united states has paid millions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all while making huge profits on these government contracts. since 1995, boeing, lockheed martin, and united technologies have paid nearly $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct, $3 billion in payments to the government

for fraud or misconduct. yet, those three companies aloan receive about $800 billion in defense contracts over the past 18 years. does anybody care that the major defense contractors of this country time after time after time are found guilty of fraud and various types of misconduct? one of the amendments that i have filed would simply require the pentagon to establish a website on defense contractor fraud with a list of companies convicted of dwawng the federal- defrauding the federal government. i don't think that is a radical idea. the american people might want to know what companies have been found guilty of defrauding the federal government. further, madam president, i find it interesting that the very same defense contractors that have been found guilty or reach settlements for fraud are also

paying their c.e.o.'s and their executives excessive and obscene compensation packages. last year, the c.e.o.'s of lockheed martin and raytheon, two of the top four u.s. defense contractors, were each paid over $20 million in total compensation. moreover, more than 90% of the revenue from those companies came from defense spending. in other words, we have a situation where companies that get almost all of their revenue from defense contracting are paying their c.e.o.'s 100 times more than the secretary of defense gets whose salary is capped at $205,000 a year. that, to me, makes no sense at all, and that is why,

madam president, i have filed an amendment to prohibit defense contractor c.e.o.'s from making more money than the secretary of defense. moreover, madam president, as the g.a.o. has told us, there are massive cost overruns in the defense department's acquisition budget that must be addressed. according to the g.a.o., the pentagon's $1.66 trillion acquisition portfolio currently suffers from more than 5 -- $537 million in cost overruns with much of the cost growth taking place after production. in other words, defense contractors say we're going to build a weapons system for "x" amount of dollars, and then they simply change their mind and ask for a lot more. that is not the way you protect taxpayers' dollars or the way you run a government. in my view, that has got to

change. madam president, let me repeat, a major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the pentagon is the fact that the defense department remains the only federal agency in america that has not been able to pass an independent audit 28 years after congress required it to do so. very interestingly, on september 10, 2001, one day before 9/11, former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld said, and i quote -- this was george bush's secretary of defense. quote, our financial systems are decades' old. according to some estimates -- this is rumsfeld -- we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. we cannot share information from floor to floor in the pentagon

because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible, end of quote. and yet 17 years after secretary of defense reminded felled's statement -- recommends felled's any statements related to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if reads, d.o.d. has still not passed a clean audit despite the fact that the pentagon controls $2.2 trillion, roughly 70% of what the entire federal government owns. madam president, the commission on wartime contracting in iraq and afghanistan concluded in 2001 that 31 $-- $31 billion to $60 billion spent in iraq and afghanistan have been lost in fraud and waste. children in america go hungry. veterans sleep out on the street. elderly people can't make it on

$12,000 a year of social security. but apparently there is not a lot of concern that $31 billion to $60 billion spent in iraq and afghanistan have been lost to fraud and waste. separately. in 2015 the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction reported that the pentagon could not account for $45 billion in the funding for reconstruction projects. and more recently an audit conducted by ernst and young for the defense logistics agency found that it could not properly account for some $800 million in construction projects. madam president, it is time to hold the defense department to the same level of accountability as the rest of the government. i would also like to spend a

minute talking about an amendment that to me makes a great deal of sense. in this bill we are spending $716 billion in defense spending in order to protect the american people, and this bill does that through the production of planes and bombs and guns and missiles and tanks, nuclear weapons, submarines, and you name the weapon of destruction, it is being funded in this bill. the amendment that i am proposing would reduce the defense department by all of one -tenth of one percent -- .1%. and use that known make us safer by reaching out to people throughout the world in ways that bring us together through educational and cultural

exchange programs. at the end of the day, we are a safer country and a safer planet when we do our best to rid the ignorance and hatred which exists all over the world. and one way you do that is by finding and discovering that we have a common humanity and that when children from other countries come into our classrooms and our kids sit in the classrooms of other countries, it turns out that we have a lot more in common than we have in opposition. and that we can reduce hatred and bigotry in that way. dialogue cannot only take place between foreign ministers or diplomats at the united nations. it should be taking place between people throughout the

world at the grassroots level. now, madam president, on a separate note, let me mention that since march of 2015 the united states armed forces have been involved in hostilities between a saudi-led coalition and the houthis in yemen. i believe that the time is long overdue for us to put an end to that unconstitutional and unauthorized participation in this war. the truth about yemen is that u.s. forces have been actively engaged in support of the saudi coalition in this war, providing intelligence and ariel refueling of plans whose bombs have killed

thousands of people and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse. even now as i speak, there are reports of an attack on the yemeni port city of hudaydah by the saudi-led coalition. hudaydah is a key entry point for humanitarian aid into yemen. the u.n. humanitarian coordinator in the country, lisa gran, said last week that, quote, a military attack or siege on hudaydah will impact hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in a prolonged worst case. we fear that as many as 250,000 people may lose everything, even their lives, end of quote. the trump administration has

tried to justify our involvement in the yemen war as necessary to push back on iran. well, you will all recall that another administration told us that invading iraq was necessary to confront al qaeda, and another administration way back told us the vietnam war was necessary to contain communism. turned out that in every instance none of that was true. we should have asked tougher questions then, and we should be asking tougher questions now, and we should be taking our constitutional role more seriously. the issue of going to war is not a presidential prerogative. it is the prerogative of the united states congress. we have now been in afghanistan for nearly 17 years, in iraq for

15 years. our troops are now in syria under what i believe are questionable authorities, and the administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even more. the time is now for congress to reassert its constitutional role in determining when and where our country goes to war. that is why i have filed a bipartisan amendment along with senators lee, murphy, warren, and several others that would put an end to the u.s. refueling of saudi-led coalition planes. this amendment will send a strong message that the united states will no longer participate in this humanitarian catastrophe. directly related to the conflict in yemen is the issue of iran. the trump administration has repeatedly justified its support

for the saudi saudi-emirati war. the trump administration has signaled in many that's what it intends to confront iran, and if anyone has any doubt, i would remind them that president trump's new national security advisor john bolton wrote an article a few years ago that was titled "to stop iran's bomb, bomb iran." end of quote. i have very serious concerns that this administration could lead the united states into another major war in the middle east, which is the last thing that the american people want. madam president, let me conclude by saying this. i think that everybody in the congress believes, understands that we need a strong defense. but we do not need a defense budget that is bloated, that is

wasteful, and that has in it many areas of fraud. i would hope that all of my colleagues remembered what a former republican president, dwight david eisenhower, said as he left office in 1961. this is what president eisenhower said as he was leaving office. quote, in the counsels of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist, end of quote. and in an earlier speech, eisenhower, a four-star general who led american forces in world war ii -- not exactly a passivist -- what eisenhower

said in an earlier speech, and i quote, every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies in the finest sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. this world in arms is not spending money alone. it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. this is not a way of life at all in any true sense. under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. end of quote. i would ask all of my colleagues , democrats and republicans, to remember what president eisenhower said. therefore, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc

-- sanders amendment number 2905 regarding the d.o.d. audit, amendment 2657 regarding a citizen exchange program, amendment number 2660 regarding saudi refueling, and amendment number 2506 regarding defense contractor compensation. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: let me just mention that we have a list still of about 40 amendments that have gone through the process, been cleared on both sides. these four were not among those. i still am holding out some hope to be able to get not just those but also a managers' amendment. however, it would have to be something that's gone through the process. these have not. and so i do respectfully object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sanders: thank you.

madam president, i raise a point of order that the pending measure violating section 4106 of h. con. res. 71, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motion to waive the point of order is considered made. mr. inhofe: i ask consent that the vote on the motion to waive the budget act with respect to the sanders point of order occur at 5:30 p.m. today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. inhofe: and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that richard j. schroeder, a legislative fellow in the office of senator ernst, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th congress. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: is it all right with the leader that i can get my -- give me remarks at this point? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. hatch: thank you. madam president, as president pro tempore of the united states senate and as the senior senator for the great state of utah, i wish to speak today about the john s. mccain national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2019. i join my colleagues in congratulating my good friend, senator john mccain on the soon-to-be successful passage of the 58th straight defense bill. i would also like to offer my sincere appreciation to senators inhofe and reed and their staffs who along with senator mccain's staff gracefully navigated the committee and the floor processes. this is a monumental bill that will truly modernize our armed

forces. i have long appreciated the bipartisan nature of each year's ndaa. some would say that this process could be seen as a microcosm of how things should work here in congress by putting the good of the country ahead of politics. it's certainly how i've sought to do things here during my senate service. i also appreciated the efforts from most members of this body to get to yes on such an important proposal. the yearly defense bill is not something we do out of tradition or habit. we do it out of necessity. yes, it is a constitutional requirement. but perhaps more importantly, it is an honor to give our men and women in uniform the tools they need to keep america safe. the policies and authorizations we've debated on the floor over the last week represent people.

they represent soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and the civilian workforce, all of whom are family, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. since first coming to the senate in 1977, i have witnessed the use of military force for good access -- for good across the globe. i was personally involved in helping use our military tools to counter soviet expansionism in central asia. it was around that time that i helped establish the national endowment for democracy, an initiative in which senator mccain was intimately involved. the national endowment for democracy embodies our commitment to promoting the virtues of freedom and liberty across this globe. anyone who knows me knows that i like to see the good in people. but even with my optimism, one unfortunate truth exists. there are people and groups in

this world that seek to do harm to the united states. and our men and women in uniform face these threats every day. i am eternally grateful for the sacrifice and dedication of our service members. i am grateful for their strength, their intelligence, and their commitment to preserving the values we hold dear. as we see today with the heinous violations of human rights around the world, freedom, prosperity, and security are under constant threat. the abusive actions of the governments of iran and north korea are just two examples among many. given the constant threats our country and our allies face, we must always work to maintain a strategic advantage over our adversaries. we must be able to win wars without fighting them.

and if we need to fight, we need to begin wars having already won them. how do we do this? by investing in our military and the civilians who support them, giving them more of what they need, not less. by modernizing our weapons systems by taking care of our bases and facilities, and by never losing sight that people come first and that our obligation to them extends beyond their service to the nation. that's what we've accomplished with this year's ndaa which covers an unprecedented $716 billion in support of department of defense and national securite security program of the department of energy. with this historic bill, members of our armed forces will enjoy a 2.6% pay increase. with this legislation, we also

increase personnel for all branches of the military. this bill represents a significant step forward in the modernization of our armed forces. the future fighting force of high-tech war is quickly becoming a reality, but we cannot rest on our laurels. just as our adversaries modernize their forces, we have to do the same. i think we can all agree that maintaining our strategic advantage against now near adversaries must always be our objective. so how do we prepare our future fighting force? we continue to modernize through recapitalization efforts like the f-35, kc-46 and the future ground-based strategic deterrent. we have to maintain our competitive edge. we must also focus on attracting talent and showing up -- shoring up the supply chain.

in serving utah, i have been honored to represent the hardworking men and women of our major military installations. doug way proving grounds, camp williams and the utah test and training range that cannot be duplicated. contained within this bill are necessary increases to keep these installations manned and operational. utah is a wonderful place that provides extensive support to the war fighter through advanced manufacturing, training, and operational capabilities. madam president, i have faithfully worked on behalf of the people of utah and the people of this great country for the last 42 years. as a symbol of my respect for our men and women in uniform, i wish to express my sincere reverence and gratitude for all who have given the ultimate

sacrifice in serving our country, including the over 330 utahans who have died while in active duty service since 1976. i likewise wish to honor their families compose sacrifice is -- whose sacrifice is just as great, that we were able to accomplish so much with this defense bill is credited to the leadership of senator john mccain and others, but certainly senator mccain, who has been a key part of this legislation over the s senate service. senator mccain is so much more than the chairman of the armed services committee. he is an american hero who represents the best this nation has to offer. i know i speak for all of my colleagues in thanking him for his service and sacrifice. now, madam president, with that, i yield the floor.

123450 the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: madam president, i rise in advance of the discussion that will be taking place in a very few minutes on the national defense act. i want to compliment and acknowledge the leadership of senator reed of rhode island and senator inhofe and of course senator mccain, for whom this bill is named. they have provided amazing leadership, as the presiding officer knows from her membership on the committee, to bring this bill to the floor. i look forward to supporting it later this afternoon.

madam president, i do want to take a few moments, however, to discuss a different subject which is what's going on at our southern border. secure borders and limits on immigration are necessary and justified in any country, and that's why there was major border security provisions in the comprehensive immigration reform act that passed this body by two-thirds, 67 votes, in 2013. if that bill had been even taken up in the house, i believe it would have been passed. it would have been signed, and a lot of problems we're having today around the issue of immigration would already be solved. so i believe in border security. i believe in necessary limits. and this is a difficult issue. i understand that, and it's difficult in part because of the proximity of our country to some of the most violent countries in the world, with the highest murder rates.

countries where people are literally fleeing for their lives. but difficult issues are amenable to humane and decent solutions, to solutions that take into account our values, that take into account the underlying principles upon which this country is based. and this is one that could be resolved without this drastic policy of separating children from their parents. and i was asked on the way in, will we do legislation to solve this problem? this problem, madam president, could be resolved by a phone call from the president of the united states to the attorney general. this is not the law. this is a policy of enforcement adopted by this administration in april, implemented in may, and has brought us to the place where 2,000 children have been forcibly separated from their parents. i think there are just a few points that i want to make.

number one, and i think this is important because this is lost in the discussion, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. they are coming to this country under the law. they are allowed to come to the country and then prove their case. and they should have an opportunity to prove their case. they are not illegal immigrants. they're being lumped in with illegal immigrants. these are almost entirely people who are seeking asylum here because they are fleeing violence in their own country. this country was built on asylum seekers. the pilgrims were asylum seekers. the catholics who came to maryland were asylum seekers. the irish who came here as a result of a famine were asylum seekers. the jews who came here in the 1930's and 1940's during the period of the holocaust were asylum seekers. one of the darkest periods of this country's history was the

turning away of the u.s.s. st. lewis in the late 1930's where a third of the population of the jewish people went back to europe and died in the holocaust. this country is based upon some basic principles, some of which are stated very unequivocally on the base of the statue of liberty. give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. the wretched refuge of your teeming shore. send them, the homeless temptest tossed to me. i lift my lamp beside the golden door. that has been the promise of america from the very beginning. we are not a country like most other countries in the world based upon one race, one ethnicity, one population that's lived in the same place for 1,000 years, one language. in fact, our secret is the people who have come here from other places with their ideas and their energy. i sit in the united states

senate seat following four of my illustrious predecessors, all of whom are children of immigrants. every single one. edmund muskie, son of an immigrant polish tailor, one of the great senators of the 20th century. george mitchell, majority leader, the son of immigrants. olympia snowe, the daughter of a greek immigrant. this is who we are as a country, and we're talking about arresting people and locking up their children in cages. now i've heard various justifications for this. we're just following the law. no. the law does not require separating children from their parents. this is a policy that was adopted by this administration in april and implemented in may. this is not required by the law. this is a policy decision, and it can be rescinded by a phone call from the president.

it can be solved this afternoon by a phone call from the president. crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. so is jaywalking. are we going to have a policy that says we're going to separate children from their parents because of jaywalking? it doesn't have to be this way. children and their parents can be kept together while we go through the legal process of determining whether their asylum claim is valid. that's a process that we have. and, yes, it takes too long. that's on us because we haven't adequately funded the judicial system to have enough judges to hear those claims. the next justification i've heard, it's a deterrent. it will be a deterrent. it's only a deterrent if the people coming from these countries -- and by the way, very few are coming from mexico. they are coming from central american countries, some of whom i mentioned have the highest

murder rates in the world. and we're going to say, well, we're going to rip your children away. that word will get back and then you won't come. we could do a lot worse. can you justify anything as a deterrent? can you justify any inhumane treatment? we'll torture you if you come across the border. that would be a deterrent but that doesn't make it right. the next that i heard is that it's a bargaining chip for negotiations. we'll bring the democrats to the table and that's when we'll talk about immigration but we're not going to change this policy until then because it's a bargaining chip. madam president, we do not take children hostage in legislative negotiations and that's what this is. let's call it what it is. it is literally taking children hostage to be a bargaining chip in a legislative negotiation on the broad panoply of issues on immigration. that's wrong. it's a basic principle of

everything that we hold dear that we don't negotiate with hostage takers. and yet that has been explicitly stated as a motivation for this policy. the final justification that i heard and frankly the reason i'm here today, because it just tore it for me, is the bible. somehow this is justified by the christian bible. by romans 13 which says you should obey the law. yes, that's what it says. but it also says the law should be based upon love. and i would add, madam president, that very provision, romans 13 was used 150 years ago to justify slavery. would that provision apply in germany in 1938? where the law was exclusively directed at punishing the jewish people? it was legal under the german law. would that provision say this is

okay, we don't have to object to it because it's part of what's in the bible? no, of course not. of course not. to say that this is somehow justified by scripture is just ignoring the whole message of the bible and certainly the message of the new testament. for me as a christian, it all comes down to matthew 25. the king said, come, you are blessed. take your inheritance for i was hungry and you gave me something to eat. i was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. i was a stranger and you invited me in. i was a stranger and you invited me in. i needed clothes and you clothed me. i was sick and you looked after me. i was in prison. you came to visit me. then the righteous said, lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, or give you something to drink. they went through the whole list and said we never did any of those things.

and jesus said, depart from me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire for i us a hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. i was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. whatever you did to the least of these, my brothers, you did to me. i was a stranger and you took me in. that's what the gospel talks about. that's what we're talking about here is talking about strangers and trying to take them in. and, of course, it goes without saying that jesus and mary escaped from the promise land because of the threat of violence into eji. wharks if egypt had said -- egypt, what if egypt said no, we're going to send you back? they were asylum seekers.

and egypt took them in. and our lord and savior was born. so don't come to me and tell me that this is somehow justified by sculpture. it just isn't under any stretch of the imagination. and it can be remyed by a phone call. we don't have to negotiate a complicated bill here. we don't have to work on something for three weeks. a phone call this afternoon from the president of the united states to the attorney general can end this obscene practice. and then we can talk about asylum seekers and what the rules should be and what the standards should be, and how long the policy and how many judges we need and how long you should be able to wait until you get your case adjudicated. and all the other complicated issues involved in immigration. but we should not be talking about it in the context of

children being held hostage. so, mr. president, i hope that the president will make that phone call, solve this problem this afternoon, and then we can get about solving some of the larger problems that he and i and everyone else in this body are concerned about. but let's not do it with children in cages anywhere in america. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, as we approach the vote on final passage of fiscal year 2019 authorization bill, at the complete of the floor debate on the ndaa last year, i remarked in my closing statement that i was disappointed in the lack of cooperation in the senate. senator mccain and i both hoped that last year we would be able to return to regular order.

but in the end, we were disappointed. unfortunately this year, i, and i know many of my colleagues, are frustrated by the inability to be able to bring up debate and vote on worthy amendments. so comparison, during consideration of the fiscal year 1994 national defense act, there were 16 roll call votes on amendments. in 1995 during consideration of the fiscal year 1996 ndaa, there were 20 roll call votes and amendments. and the following year for the fiscal year 1997 ndaa, there were 19 roll call votes and amendments. on this bill there was not a single up-or-down vote on an amendment. i was one of the few senators who was able to debate an amendment. it was on a congressional oversight of nuclear weapons which i believe is one of the most important and seminole issues, not only of this bill but of our defense policies today. but the only vote i was able to have on this critical issue was a motion to table.

the motion failed. the bill was pending when we invoked cloture. mr. president, despite the deep differences amongst us, it is my hope that this chamber can return to the ways of the past and i think that's a belief and a hope shared by my colleague, senator inhofe of oklahoma, and that we can hold an open amendment process that guarantees every senator the right to a fulsome debate and vote on the amendments and those issues that matter most to those senators. there are critical issues that pertain to our national security and the welfare of our service members, and they must be addressed through bipartisan dialogue and compromise. it is my hope that moving forward we can return this chamber to regular order and hold an open amendment process. despite my frustrations with this process, indeed, i'm pleased with the overall result of this bill. we successfully incorporated 46 amendments from both republicans and democrats into the bill.

these amendments further strengthen the bill and provide additional resources for the department of defense which allow them to carry out their important missions. i would note once again that a second package of amendments with priorities of many senators on both sides was ready to be passed but was objected to. again, increased cooperation among senators would allow additional amendments to be considered, and i hope in next year's legislation, that increased cooperation is evident. looking ahead, the budget agreement that covered the fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 ndaa's will expire r pair next year -- expire next year meaning a return to sequestration and budget caps unless a new agreement is reached. at this time in which our military is facing readiness shortfalls and numerous global threats, we cannot afford a budgetary retrenchment. we must continue to work together to address these issues and i am confident and hopeful that we will find a way forward.

i would like to particularly thank senator inhofe for his leadership. throughout the committee markup and through this floor process, he has ably shepherded this bill and provided invaluable leach by emphasizing a return to regular order, the same note that i am sounding today. the achievement of this bill would not have been possible without him, and i thank him. i'd also like to thank my sphaf and -- my staff and the staff of the ranking member for their terrific work. they worked tirelessly. they made a commitment both of time and intellectual energy that was extraordinary. the majority's staff and senator inhofe's staff in particular were diligent, were bipartisan, were thoughtful, were cooperative, were everything you could ask for collegial activity here in the senate. of course, i'd like to thank my staff for their invaluable

expertise and dedication to creating the best bill possible. i'd like to specifically thank jodi bennet and carolyn and john clark and john epstein and jerry feldman and john creighton green, osca, gary, kirk mcconnell, maggie, bill, john, and my staff director elizabeth king and also wish her a happy birthday. i'd like to thank the floor staff. they've been exceptionally helpful to us. thank them all on both sides for their insights, for their calmness in the face of difficulties. without this nothing would be possible. but finally, i would like to particularly recognize chairman john mccain after whom this bill is so aptly named. he provided this committee with leadership during difficult times and served as a moral compass when considering

challenging issues. he has been a bulwark for the defense of our country and the men and women of our military, and i know he's proud of the passage of this bill. john mccain is probably the most demanding person that i've ever met, but the key to his greatness is that he demands more of himself than anyone else and he gives more of himself than anyone else. and that has made him not only one of our great senators, not at this moment but of our history, one of our great american leer rows. he's -- american heroes. he'sen extraordinary gentleman -- he's an extraordinary gentleman and today this legislation bearing his name represents once again his extraordinary contribution to the nation. with that, mr. president, i would like to yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, let me just agree with every -- with the comments that were made by senator reed. it's been -- he's been great to work with. i'm glad you mentioned all the help of the staff. people don't realize how -- a bill this size, the largest bill we'll consider probably this year, how much staff is involved. and it's both republican and democrat staff. it's one of the few things we do around here that really isn't partisan. i think we're only -- i think the senator from rhode island and i were only apart from each other on maybe ten or 11 amendments. and by the way, on amendments, i do want to comment how many amendments we took care of during the committee hearing. so we have had a lot of activity on the john s. mccain national defense authorization act for

2019. the last two weeks we've debated this legislation on the senate floor in an open process. we've said over and over again we wanted to have open amendments. we want to have people bring amendments down. we have a system that is probably not going to be changed but there's going to be some activity this next year on several if we're going to be involved in next year's authorization bill for the year 2020. and that is to see if we can't address the major problem. that is, we've allowed a system to take place where one person can stop 99 people from having an amendment. and that's wrong. the -- in january president trump and secretary mattis announced the new national defense strategy that rightfully identified that we're returning

to a world of great power competition, one dominated by the capabilities by russia and china. we talked about that, the power that they have. we talked about an article that was written just recently said that if we got into a fight of russia versus nato, most likely nato would lose and lose to russia. we've watched china in the south china sea putting together islands where they are -- it's always if they're preparing for world war iii. i was there in the south china sea when our people made it very clear, and i'm talking about allies of ours, that they're not sure who would win. we have china out there illegally building islands and putting us in a position where we don't really know what their

intentions are. all we know is everything on those islands, and we're talking about over 3,000 now, that they are put in a position where they're preparing for a world war. you -- you know, it's not like it used to be. now we're in a situation where one country can have a rocket that can hit an american city. so times have changed. while we need to be prepared to respond to threats from terrorism in rogue states like iran and north korea and the national defense strategy was clear, we need to make strategic investments now in the areas where we are falling behind. and we are behind. since the release of the national defense strategy, i have traveled to visit our

allies in both the eastern europe and asia. they all understand the threat of growing aggression from china and russia. i have spoken to our commanders in the field, our military leadership, our troops in the mess halls, in afghanistan, all around the world. perhaps most importantly, i've talked to these people who you can really get more from than you can here in washington. the senate armed services committee was tasked with taking the national defense strategy and implementing it. the result is the john s. mccain national defense authorization act. we made tough choices about where and how to invest our resources, but i'm pleased with the work that we have done to restore america as the leader of the free world. we're making needed investments in training, maintenance, modernization. those are the three areas. any time you are starving a military, the things that you see first are the maintenance,

modernization, and of course that means training. we are in the process of doing this, and that's what this bill is all about. we are changing this. we have addressed that by catching up where we are falling behind -- artillery, hypersonics, nuclear triad. you know, meese people get talked to out in the real world. we assume that america has the best system of anybody else. their systems, plural, are better. artillery, for example, is measured by rapid fire and range. in terms of rapid fire and range, both russia and china are better than we are. we have hypersonics. hypersonics is a new system whereby people are talking about a weapon that is five times the speed of sound. it's something that is still under development. we are working on it in our country. however, we are behind both china and russia.

they are ahead of us in this training. nuclear triad, we haven't done anything for the last ten years on both china and russia. again, they are actually ahead of us. so it's not like it used to be where we did have the very best of everything. so we're standing up to china by strengthening our position across the pacific region. this bill provides support to our allies who stand up against china's military and economic coercion and procedures deploy air base system to enhance incredible combat power. the ndaa also calls out china for illegally creating fortified islands in the south china sea for military purposes. that's what they're for. nothing is on there except for preparing for some military activity. modernizing the committee on foreign investment to address the national security concerns to stop china from trying to

steal sensitive technology from united states companies. the ndaa counters russia's growing aggression and influence across eastern europe by directing a study on permanent -- permanently stationing u.s. forces in poland and conducting a study on russia's maligning influence around the world. it continues limitations on u.s.-russia military cooperation, provides defensive lethal aid -- legal aid to ukraine and allows u.s. cyber command to respond to russia's continued cyber attacks. it keeps faith with our troops by providing 2.6% military pay raise, the highest in nearly ten years, modernizing the officer personnel system and supporting our troops in the military families. there is no doubt in my mind that this bill will make

american families safer and will stand up for our democratic values around the world. let me just thank my partner in this, the democrat leader of the committee. he talked about the staff that we had -- that we have been working with and complimented them. chris rose on our side, samantha clark, those are john mccain's committee staff. tony pancook, d.c. bush burkes,r staff, all of these people worked long, long hours. they're out there all night long. but let me say this. there is something wrong with a system that will allow one member of the -- of the senate to preclude 99 members from

getting their amendments through. this is not right. i'm not sure really how to resolve it. i would just say this, and i think that my good friend from rhode island would agree that we can work out something to keep that from happening or minimizing it. now, it's not quite as bad as it sounds when you say we didn't have any amendments on the floor. we had countless amendments in committee. we had many amendments on the floor. what was that total? 47 amendments that were voted into -- amendments into the -- into the bill. that's after it came to the floor, so we didn't consider those, but we didn't vote on any amendments, and that's what we should be doing. here we stand down here and plead with people to bring their amendments down so we can have an open amendment process, and then one person objects. that's what -- there is something wrong with that system.

so i want to thank the chairman and ranking members of the senate armed services committee for their continued leadership. i want to thank my friend from rhode island, senator reed, for his leadership and commitment to bipartisan collaboration throughout the process. we shared a commitment to open debate and amendments. and secondly and most significant, i need to recognize the chairman of the senate armed services committee, senator mccain, for his leadership. you know, most of the stuff that is in this bill has come from him through the deliberation and the leadership of senator mccain. you can clearly see that this bill reflects his priorities and policy initiatives that he's fought for as our chairman, his commitment to government oversight, accountability, and american leadership around the world is evident on every page. we miss his voice in the chamber today, but today's vote is a true tribute to his lasting legacy to our nation, and i urge

my colleagues to join me in voting in support. i would say this -- that we're going to cast two votes. at some point in this process, i will make another effort -- we have listed 47 amendments that have been cleared on both sides, democrats, republicans, they're all for this. we want to have an opportunity to have all three of these passed in a package. i'm hopeful that there will not be a member of this body that will object to that and object to 47 people having their amendments that have been cleared to actually pass. with that, i will -- we are getting very close to the time we will be voting, so i yield the floor and ask for the --

well, a quorum call. i was thinking there ought to be one last shot that we have on this. maybe not. anyway, this is a very significant vote that's coming up, and i do suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask that the quorum call in process be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on the motion to

waive the point of order made under section 4106 of h. con. res. 71. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 14. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask for order. mr. president, i have a bipartisan list of amendments that have been cleared on both sides. we have been talking about this, wanting to have these presented. there's no objection to any of them. so i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of the substitute amendment, the amendments be called up en bloc. there are 44 amendments. i further ask consent that these amendments be agreed to en bloc

and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and i send the list to the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, i have no objection to us voting on amendments if we allowed all amendments. we have an amendment that 68 members of this body said that no american should be detained without a trial. if you put that amendment that 68 senators support in the package, i would be happy to have consent. if we don't have consent, i will continue to object. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 442, h.r. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense, and

so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? any senator wish to change the their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 5,the nays are 10, the bill, as amended, is passed. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 449, h.r. 5859, an act making aopenings pros for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators.

the presiding officer: which unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 5895, an act making aopenings pros for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019 and for other purposes shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under this rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? do any senators wish to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 92, the nays are 3. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed to

the consideration of h.r. 5895, an act making appropriations for energy and water development, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: if there is no put debate, the question is on the -- no further debate, the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion to proceed is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 449, h.r. 5895, an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. shelby: mr. president, i call up the substitute amendment now to number 2910. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the presiding officer: the

senator from alabama, mr. shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 2910 to h.r. 5895. mr. shelby: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i call up amendment number 2911. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from tennessee, mr. alexander, proposes an amendment numbered 2911 to amendment numbered 2910. mr. alexander: i ask consent that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: tomorrow, the distinguished senator from alabama, senator shelby, and the distinguished senator from vermont, senator leahy, will lead us in the beginning of the senate's appropriations process for the year that begins this

october, 2018. this is also the best opportunity we've had in a long time to do the appropriations process properly. for the last several years, we have finished and reported our 12 bills out of the appropriations committee on which about a third of the senate sits. we have reported those bills to the senate floor. we have usually done that with bipartisan support and often unanimously. this is no small task. for example, in our energy and water subcommittee, which i chair and which the senator from california, senator feinstein, is the vice chair, this year we have had three hearings. we have received comments from 83 members of the senate. we have considered their comments. we considered our bill in a subcommittee markup, and then we passed the bill 30-1 in the

appropriations committee on may 24. we are on pace this year, thanks to the leadership of senator shelby and senator leahy, to take those same steps with all 12 appropriations bills. the interior subcommittee which has not been able to get bipartisan agreement since the fiscal year 2010 was able to reach an agreement this year. so i want to thank senator shelby and senator leahy and i thank senator mcconnell and senator schumer, the democratic and republican leaders for creating an environment in which all of this is possible. what we are doing is we're saying to all members of the senate we would like for the senate -- we would like for the appropriations bill to be considered by more than one-third of the senators. we know that we have created your thoughts and we considered your thoughts in our committee process. we have done that. we have done that carefully. but to the extent senators want

to, we ought to be able to consider relevant amendments, amendments that have something to do with the bill on the floor of the senate. so the key now is whether we know how to do amendments, whether we can remember how to consider, talk about, agree to time agreements and then vote on amendments. how we can occasionally show restraint and not offer an amendment that would blow the whole bill up. keeping in mind that our goal is to pass an appropriation bill -- literally a series of appropriations bills that will spend more than a trillion dollars of the taxpayers' money in the year that begins october, 2018. too often, mr. president, once we have gotten on the senate floor in this shape, we have gotten ourselves into this situation, senators blocking other senators' amendments, which senators can do, but if

senators block other senators' amendments and the tit for tat gets going back and forth, then no amendments are considered and we're back in a situation where only the 31 senators on the senate appropriations committee have a chance to vote on the final bill. this is a chance for the other 69 senators to be more involved by offering their amendments on the floor. so it's my hope that beginning tomorrow, we'll return to the practice of offering amendments that have something to do with the bills at hand, and then we will either accept them, modify them, try to talk a senator out of offering it, or agree to a short period of time to talk about a bill and then actually vote on the amendment. if we do that, mr. president, we can finish our work in a timely way, and we can restore to the senate its most basic process which is its article 1 of the constitution responsibility for

appropriating dollars. tonight, i will make my opening remarks on one of the three bills that we'll be considering this week -- the energy and water development appropriations bill. tomorrow, senators shelby and leahy will officially kick off our appropriations process. senator feinstein, my colleague on the energy and water appropriations subcommittee with whom i have worked for several years, will make her remarks. so will the other senators for the other two subcommittees. and then we will begin to vote on amendments. our plan is to begin voting on amendments tomorrow. we have a number of amendments already proposed that are bipartisan. of course it's up to the republican leader and the democratic leader how we proceed, but i have talked with them. i have talked with other colleagues. our hope is to have a couple of amendments to vote on just

before lunch, two more amendments to vote on right after lunch, other amendments to vote on tomorrow afternoon. i would say to senators and to staff, that all six of us senators involved in the three subcommittees, plus senator shell bids and senator leahy, hope that senators will file their amendments tonight and tomorrow. we want to finish the bill this week. that's what senator mcconnell has asked us to do. that means in order to have timely consideration of amendments, we can do a number of them during the week. those that aren't accepted, we can vote on. we need to get on with it. we can still consider several amendments tomorrow other than the ones that are already planned. and this information has been available to senators and staff for them to consider. the energy and water appropriations bill went through that entire process that i just mentioned. that's been public. and it's been available for

anybody to read since may 24. it was approved by 30-1, by a third of the senate, and as i said, 83 senators made suggestions that we tried to accommodate in the bill. the military construction, veterans affairs bill has been available to the full senate since june 7. it was approved unanimously after going through the full appropriations process on a vote of 31-0. the legislative branch appropriations bill is the third subcommittee bill that will be considered this week. it's been available since june 14. it went through the entire process and was approved 31-0. on last saturday, all three of these bills were all stitched together into one bill. that's been available and we call it in our colloquy or in our way of talking a minibus.

three subcommittee appropriations bills fully vetted, fully public. it's time to deal with them. before i describe the energy end water appropriations bill in detail, i would like to tell the senate a story that was told to me by the senator from colorado, senator gardner, who is taking an active interest in research, technology, and development ever since his arrival in the united states senate four years ago. senator gardner came by my office a few weeks ago and this is what he said to me. he said, i was flying over the middle east and i looked down. there were cars everywhere, and i thought, well, henry ford invented the assembly line. then it got to be dark and there were lights everywhere and i thought, well, thomas edison invented the light bulb. we were flying at 30,000 feet. i thought, the wright brothers invented the airplane. they're all americans. that's not all.

we invented the internet, the personal computer, the polio vaccine, the nuclear power. it's hard to think, mr. president, of a major technological innovation since world war ii that didn't have some support from government-sponsored research. a few weeks ago a friend of mine in nashville came up to me and lamented the fact. he said, i'm so sorry that congress hasn't been funding research, because he understood since world war ii it had been so important to our country. i told my friend that i think you've been missing what's actually been happening. because quietly with bipartisan support this congress, which has a republican majority and for the last two appropriations bills a republican president, has been approving record funding for science, research, and technology. it's important that the american people know that. since january 2015, it's true

we've had a republican majority in congress. but there's been a consensus with democratic members of congress. we've worked together to provide those record levels of funding for science, research, and technology. let me be specific. in the current year, fiscal year 2018, for the third consecutive year, we've included record funding levels in regular appropriations bills for the following activities -- the office of science. now, the office of science provides funding for our 17 national laboratories, like the oak ridge national laboratory. those laboratories are america's secret weapon. no other country has anything like them. funding for the office of science in the next appropriations bill, the one that we're voting on this week, would increase by 16%. or let's take supercomputing.

last friday, secretary perry, the secretary of energy, traveled to oak ridge, where he announced that the united states will regain the number-one position in the world in supercomputing. which we compete for every year with china and japan. this is the result, mr. president, not of one year of funding but of ten years of bipartisan effort through three different administrations, democratic and republican, to try to make sure that america is first in supercomputing in the world. we continue to do that. -- in the appropriations bill that we're doing this week. or take an agency we call arpa-e. arpa e is a cousin of darpa. those are shorthand for an agency that was created in the department of defense some time ago out of which came a variety of wonderous technological inventions from stealth to the internet, for example. so ten years ago congress

decided, why not try the same thing in energy and create what had we call arpa-e to invest in high-impact energy technologies and then quickly get those technologies out into the private sector. that's just our committee. in other committees, the commerce, justice, science committee chaired by senator moran and senator shaheen. the fiscal year 2018 bill increased funding for the national science by $200 million. next year it will go up another $300 million. the national science foundation makes will 11,000 grants to universities and other institutions around the country, $8 billion this year, is a part of our effort to stay first in research, science, and technology. then one more example. in the fiscal year 2018 for the third straight year, the labor, health, and human services subcommittee chaired by senator

blunt and senator murray have provided record funding for the national institutes of health and boy medical research. $2 billion in the first year, $2 billion the second year, $2 billion the third year, and in addition to that, money from the 21st century cures act to focus on precision medicine and on the cancer moon shot, among other things. senator blunt has said there's a 23% increase over three years. so i would say to my friend in nashville and to others who may not have noticed, this quiet development, that this republican congress and the democratic members of congress as well as understand that a principle reason why this country produces 24% of all the mo enin the world -- of the money in the world with just 5% of the people, the principle reason for this extraordinary

concentration of brainpower in the united states has been support by federal dollars through our national laboratories, the national institutes of health, the national science foundation, and other agencies. now let me make one other statement right up front. that funding is not the cause of the federal deficit. funding for national laboratories, national defense, national parks, the national institutes of health are all part of the 30% of the federal budget that we call discretionary spending. that's what we're talking about this week. that's the money the congress appropriates every year, more than $1 trillion. over the last ten years, this part of the federal budget, the 30% discretionary funding, has gone up at a little bit less than the rate of inflation according to the congressional budget office. and the congressional budget office projects that over the next ten years this part of the

budget will rise a little bit more than the rate of inflation. so, mr. president, record funding for the national institutes of health or the national science foundation or arpa-e or to keep our position in supercomputing or for that matter national defense is not the source of the federal deficit. it is -- what has happened is that the congress, democrats and republicans alike, have placed a priority on science, technology, and research and within the budget limits that are established we've given that excellent funding, record funding. the source of the federal budget deficit is mandatory spending which amounts to more than 63% of the budget. now to the energy and water appropriations bill. this legislation provides a total of $443.8 billion, $566

billion above what congress provided last fiscal year, the year we're in now, and $7.4 billion above the president's budget request. funding in this bill supported several agencies including the u.s. department of energy, the corps of engineers, the national nuclear security administration, the nuclear regulatory commission, the bureau of reclamation, and the regional commissions, including the appalachian regional commission and the delta regional authority. i'm pleased, as i said, that the bill provides the fourth year of record funding for our 17 national laboratories and increases funding for supercomputers so that we can stay first in the world. the u.s. department of n.r.c.'s office of science -- the u.s. department of energy's office of science, which is the nation's largest supporter of research is

funded at $6.65 billion, a new record funding level. the advanced research projects agency, we call that arpa-e, is funded at $375 million, record funding in a regular appropriations bill. it was created in 2007 by the american competes act, a bipartisan effort to invest in high-impact energy technologies. the bill provides a total of $1.68 billion for high-performance computing, including $980 billion within the office of science and $703 billion. this includes $677 million to deliver at least one exoscale machine in 2021, that's the supercomputer that will reassert u.s. leadership in this critical area. that's the one secretary perry announced last week. the bill also advances efforts to clean up hazardous materials

at cold war era sites. the bill provides $7.2 billion to support cleanup efforts. mr. president, this bill also includes legislation -- also includes provisions regarding the united states army corps of engineers. the corps of engineers touches the lives of almost every american. based upon the number of appropriations requests we received from my colleagues in the senate, the corps of engineers is the federal government's most popular agency. i could remember a hearing of one of our committees sortly after a missouri river flood a few years ago and 18 different senators showed up to suggest we needed more money for the army corps of engineers. the corps maintains our inland water ways, deepens and keeps our ports opens, it manages the river levels to prevent

flooding, and it stands to provide mission-free renewable hydroelectric energy. the bill restores $2.142 billion that was cut from the president's budget request bringing the corps budget up to $6.9 billion, a new record funding level. for the fifth consecutive year, the bill makes full use of the inland waterway trust fund revenues for water infrastructure projects. in other words, when we raise -- when we take tax money from the barges that use the waterways, we spend that tax money to improve the waterways rather than put it in some account somewhere. the bill also provides funding that exceeds the harvard maintenance trust fund target established by the water resources reform and development

act of 2014. this is the fifth consecutive year the bill has met or exceeded the harbor maintenance trust fund targets which is necessary to fund our nation's harbors including mobile harbor in alabama, savannah harass bar and many others across the country. we hear a lost talk about infrastructure -- we hear a lot of talk about infrastructure and the need to do something about it. this bill does something about it. for five straight years we're spending all the money we collect and in fact we raised the revenues a couple years ago. all the money we collect to improve our inland waterways and deepen our ports. a key pillar of our national defense is a strong nuclear deterrent. that's been in the news this last few weeks because of the president's discussions with the leader of north korea.

the bill includes a total of $14 billion for the national nuclear security administration, including $1.9 billion for six life extension programs which fix our replace components of weapons systems. congress must maintain a safe and effective nuclear stockpile to keep reconstruction projects on time and on budget. this bill achieves those goals. nuclear power is our best source of inexpensive carbon-free baseload power. it's important for our national security and competitiveness. nuclear power provides 20% of our nation's electricity, more than half of our carbon-free electricity. the nuclear regulatory commission which overseas 99 nuclear power reactors is funded in this bill. we included funding to ensure the nuclear regulatory commission is prepared to review applications for new reactors, particularly small modular

reactors and advanced reactors and extend the licenses of our existing reactors if it is safe to do so. the bill also provides $47 million for research and development at the department of energy to support existing nuclear reactors. $30 million for the center for advanced simulation of light water reactors and $20 million for the transformational challenge reactor. the legislation again includes a pilot program to allow consolidated nuclear waste storage that i've worked on with senator feinstein for the last six years. this has been a special priority of the senator from california, as it is of mine. funding is also included for the department of energy to take the first steps toward being able to secure nuclear waste at private facilities. so, mr. president, tomorrow senator shelby and senator leahy will formally begin the process of the appropriations of the senate for the year that begins

october 1. as i said at the beginning, this is our opportunity to do it right, something we haven't done in a long time. we've done our work in committee. we've gotten our bills through. we've had our hearings. we've considered everybody's ideas. but that's just 31 of us. what about the other 69 senators? they might like to have more of a say when the bill reaches the floor. so what we're asking tonight is that senators and staff read the bills. we don't have two or three or four or five days just to sit around and read the bills. senator mcconnell would like for us to be through with this bill this week. we have 12 appropriations bills to consider. we ought to be able to do that in two or three days. because if we read the bills and decide what amendments haven't already been considered, file the amendment tonight, tomorrow we can ask consent for a time agreement of say 20 minutes and

give each side ten minutes to speech and then we can actually vote on the amendment. that's what we're supposed to do here. sometimes the united states senate has been like joining the grand ole opry and not being allowed to sing. it's rare that we have an amendment. the appropriations process is a chance to do that. so, mr. president, i hope that we'll have a chance to do that. if i may make one other plea to my fellow senators, the senate has enormous power. each senator is equal. as a result, when the majority leader gets up and says we're going to start tomorrow with a prayer and this bill and then we're going to move to something else, he says, if you listen carefully, i ask unanimous consent that we open tomorrow at 9:30. i ask unanimous consent that we move to this bill. and he gets that. he gets that because senators recognize that although any one of us could have stopped that by objecting, we demonstrate some restraint. just because you have the

freedom to do something doesn't mean you should always try to do it. we learned that in kindergarten. we're well past that level now. we're in the united states senate. so i'm hopeful we can begin tomorrow with our speeches from at least eight of our senators who have been working on this bill, including our leaders. i'm hopeful that we'll have a couple of amendments to vote on before lunch, bipartisan amendments. maybe a couple more after lunch. maybe two or three more in the late afternoon. that's up to the democratic leader and the republican leader to finally decide. but i think the chances are good at that. and i would ask all senators, staffs who are paying attention tonight, please read these three bills. if you have amendments that need to be considered that are relevant to the bill, please file them tonight or first thing in the morning. talk with our staff. let's see if we can accept them, modify them. if necessary, vote on them. let's try to get that done this week and show ourselves and the

world that the united states senate is still capable of a complete appropriations process. after all, that's our most basic responsibility. i thank the president, and i see i have -- mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that for the purpose of rule 16, in relation to the substitute amendment 2910 division a of h.r. 5895, serve as the basis for defense of germaneness for division a of the amendment, division b of h.r. 5895, serve as the basis for the defense of germaneness for division b of the amendment, and then division c of h.r. 5895 serve as the basis for defense of germaneness for division c of the amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. alexander: i see the senator from hawaii here. i don't know if he has any remarks to make. i look forward to working with him. i see the senator from oklahoma.

i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: earlier this year this chamber was full of conversation about immigration. we had four bipartisan proposals that all came to this floor. all four of them had votes. all four of them had some engagement from different members. all four of them failed. while we didn't succeed in getting something passed and resolved in immigration, i would note that over 70 senators voted for at least one of the four options that included wall funding, increased border security, and naturalization for those students that are in daca, or daca eligible. at least 70 senators-plus voted for those three options. now they were written different ways in each bill, but all that

same basis. i was one of those. like many of my friends on both sides of the aisle during the debate, i said that americans don't hold children accountable for the actions of their parents. it's been a basic principle we've held for a long time. we believe in the protection of children in the unity of families. that's what we've been about. now we have some debate about that because some in this body believe a child is not a child until you can see them, and some believe a child is a child even when they're in the womb. but we do have unity about those individuals that when we can see them and know them as a child that we keep them as a family. though you could strongly put me on the side of saying i think a child is a child even when they're in the womb. it's right for us to be able to focus on families. but quite frankly, it's also right of us to be able to focus on immigration and law and to believe that we're a nation of

laws, and we have a great dilemma at this point happening around our border. when -- let me set some context for this that i think is important, that i want to make sure that people understand. we are a very open nation for immigration. we have been before, and we are now. last friday i had the wonderful opportunity to be able to speak at a naturalization ceremony in oklahoma city. watching people from all over the world take the oath, set aside their old country and become citizens of the united states. i dare anyone to go to one of those events and try to keep a dry eye. they're incredibly moving to watch people have this event happen in their life that they will never forget. they became an american. they didn't just go to america. they're americans. they have the exact same rights as anyone else in this chamber and live under the same law. 1.1 million people a year become

naturalized citizens of the united states. each day 500,000 people a day legally cross the border from mexico into the united states. but we still have a debate on what happens for those other individuals that aren't the 1.1 million that are legally going through the process to become u.s. citizens or the 500,000 people a day that legally cross into the united states. what do we do with those individuals that choose not to do it legally? it's a much smaller number, but it's exceptionally contentious for us. because we're a compassionate nation, but we're also a nation that believes in following the law, rightfully so. in fact, many people are fleeing from countries where the law is ignored to come to a country like ours. so how did we get here? when a family is detained for illegally crossing the border,

the department of homeland security has a long-standing policy and it's not just for this administration. it's a long-standing policy. not to separate children from their parents unless there's one of three things that occurs. d.h.s. can't establish that the adult traveling with the child is actually the guardian of the child or the parent of the child. the second one, they believe the child is in danger. for instance, if there's a belief this child is being trafficked or abused. or the third area is the individual that's traveling with the child, parent or guardian assumed, is being prosecuted for a crime. those are the three ways that you separate children from their families. throughout the last administration to this one, those individuals were prosecuted. but the difference is this administration has determined now they're going to prosecute more individuals when they're crossing the border. the previous administrations would look the other way. they would see individuals crossing the border, and they would say if they haven't committed some other crime

besides crossing the border, they would look the other way and they would allow them to come in. or they would take that unit and they would say here's what's called a notice to appear, and you can go into the interior of the country and live in the united states but show up for a court hearing a year or two from now in some place that you want to go to. the problem is that the trump administration has noted that the vast majority of those individuals that were given a notice to appear at a future court date never show up for that court date. and they live illegally present in the united states. now again, they're not one of the 500,000 people a day, each day that cross legally into the country. they are the small group of individuals that chose to cross illegally into the country. they're given the notice to appear and then don't appear. the trump administration is struggling with this right now, trying to figure out what do we do in that situation.

well, our decision was to say zero tolerance. we're going to prosecute those individuals that come. rather than just give them a ticket to come future to a court date, let's do the date right now. the problem with that is as soon as you press charges on that individual, you get one of those three criterion that kicks in immediately. as soon as charges are filed on the adult, not on the child but on the adult, then the adult is taken to have charges filed on them and they start going through the legal process. and there is a requirement to separate the children then and to be able to then have the children go to what's called the least restrictive environment, usually that's with a family member somewhere in the country. but it's usually two months or so before we can get that child to someone else to be able to help them be back with a family member. that is a mess. now it's something that has occurred based on the decision of the adult that brought the child and the decision of the adults who legally crossed the

border. but it is still a mess, and we as compassionate americans absolutely detest watching families being pulled apart. as i have said to the department of homeland security our default every time should be to keep families together unless there's absolutely no way to be able to do it. families should stay together. these are individuals that are fleeing from whatever country or coming for economic benefit. they should face the consequences of illegally crossing the border rather than doing it the right way legally that hundreds of thousands of people do every single day, doing it the right way. but we should try to keep families together if at all possible. the question becomes now what? since the policy change of may 5, there are about 2,200 families that have crossed the border since may 5 that have been picked up. about 2,200 adults that have been taken one way and their

children taken the other way. it's very difficult for our nation to watch. as a father, i absolutely believe in every fiber in my being that children should be safe, kept with their own families in a loving and healthy environment. now we're in a tough spot. so let me try to review and try to make some recommendations of what we can do about this. in 1997, there was an agreement called the flores settlement. the flores settlement was an agreement between the department of justice and a group of immigrant minors. it stated that the federal government must release migrant children held in federal custody to their parent or guardian without unnecessary delay. now in this case, the parent or guardian is under criminal prosecution, so they can't do that. so the next thing they have to do is to find the least restrictive environment to be able to release this child. that's based on this 1997

agreement. now, this is not a new issue, and every administration since 1997 has tried to figure out what to do with it. the previous administration, as i mentioned, just released people, adults and children into the interior of the country because they didn't know what to do with this agreement. i would say there is a way to be able to resolve this and help keep families together no matter what their status is as they are working through this process. in fact, i believe in it enough, in february, in one of the proposals that i brought to this body to vote on in february when we were dealing with immigration as a whole, there was an agreement to resolve flores in that part. we voted on this already. i have had folks as recently as today say bring a piece of legislation to be able to fix this. i smiled at them and go i did, four months ago. and we voted on it as a body, because this is not a new issue. it's not just popped up since may 5 and the trump

administration's focus on prosecution. this has been an issue a couple of decades. solving the flores loophole is exceptionally important to us in our immigration conversation because there are no simple answers to it until we resolve that issue. when the court requires us to be able to separate children from families while they are under prosecution and to find the least restrictive environment to ship children off it, it makes for this convoluted, bureaucratic, painful separation of families. now, i don't think that was the court's intention, but it has clearly been the result of that since 1997. now it's happening more but it's happened before in the past. it will continue to happen until we solve this. so what we brought up in february, we need to continue to be able to debate and continue to get this done. we've tried this before.

let's keep focusing on trying to be able to solve this. in the meantime, it is my recommendation to this administration that they offer to families before they do prosecution the opportunity to do voluntary return. currently, if you're from mexico or you're from canada and you legally cross the border, you have the opportunity to have what's called volunteer return -- voluntary return. that you don't go through all the prosecution, you know you're in the country illegally, you are not quite at the point of having charges filed against you. you had the opportunity, you can take that opportunity. i think they should offer that to every family that comes across the border before they file charges, the opportunity to say keep your family together. instead of going through this painful separation of any kind of prosecution that would happen regardless of how prosecution occurs, give that family the opportunity to be able to stay together, make a decision on what they're going to do together, and to be able to get this done. that is something they can do.

short of that, i absolutely believe that kirstjen nielsen, who is our secretary of homeland security, is exactly correct when she says this is congress' fault. congress has had the opportunity for a couple of decades now to be able to fix this, and congress for a couple of decades has said that's not a problem, that's not a problem, that's not a problem. myself and several other senators and quite a few house members have continued to wade this issue and say it is a problem. no matter how it's used, whether it's used with heavy prosecution or light prosecution in previous administrations. it is always a problem, and congress has the ability to fix it but congress has been unwilling to do it. it is time congress speps up and does the job that they are supposed to do, take the votes that they are supposed to take. i am very aware these issues are difficult and technical and emotional, but these are real lives that are mixed into this.

individuals that were created in the image of god that have value and worth. families that were affected by this. congress needs to step up, take the votes, and actually do the task that needs to be done. the administration's right on that. this is congress' problem. it is congress' responsibility to fix it. we shouldn't leave the administration hanging out there. but i would also say to the administration you have other options and other tools in the meantime to be able to keep families together. use them. for the sake of all of those kids and all those families, use them. but in the meantime, in the middle of this intolerable position, let's step up and let's take the votes. we all know we need border security. in this body, border security

was an overwhelming bipartisan supported measure in 2006 when the act was passed. we believe there needs to be border security. let's vote for it. let's not just talk about it being done someday. let's actually do it. let's add more immigration judges. a backlog of a year and a half before you can get to an immigration court is absurd. catch and release is absurd. no one would do that or should do that. we have the ways to be able to fix that. i have stated over and over again in this body, i think it's absurd that we have individuals that are in this country that have grown up in this country under no fault of their own that we have just ignored and pretended they are not there. those kids that are in daca or daca eligible deserve an answer. this congress should vote on it rather than just keep them in limbo. now, i have stated publicly i believe they should have a shot

at naturalization. i think it's a reasonable thing to say. give us ten years to get the border security done. at the same time those individuals who are in daca have a ten-year path that they are headed toward naturalization. that should not be unreasonable. in the meantime, give those individuals the opportunity to be able to travel and work and go to school and be full participants in our society. i think the diversity lottery is absurd. it just tells the rest of the world if you want to be an american -- which i think is one of the greatest gifts in the world. other than salvation in christ, i think one of the greatest gifts you could possibly have on this earth is american citizenship, we just put it out there and say you don't have to have any qualifications. if you want to come, come. i think we should extend it to people who are going to be engaged in the economy, be productive parts of our society who have gifts and abilities that will help us as a culture. let's make the extension of that. let's keep the diversity lottery. i am grateful to have people from all over the world here. let's just make sure they are

bringing the skills that we need. i just don't think it's that unreasonable. there are things that we can do that we agree on that we should move on rather than just saying someday let's do. someday's today. someday is right now. it's time, congress, to be able to step up and take the lead and stop blaming everybody else. it's time for us to be able to do our job and vote on this for a result. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 550 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 550, congratulating the golden state warriors, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous

consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it will adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, june 19. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. i further ask that following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 5895. finally, i ask the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. >> the senate today approved the 716 billion dollars defense programs and policy bill for

2019. they also voted to limit initial debate on federal spending for energy and water projects, the legislative branch, military construction and veterans' affairs. live senate coverage when they return here on c-span 2. the justice department's inspector general michael horowitz and fbi director christopher wray testified today about the recent ig report on the investigation into hillary clinton's use of personal e-mail and how the fbi handled the probe leading up to the 2016 presidential election. they took questions from members of the senate judiciary committee. you can watch that hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. tonight on the communicators, last week's decision by a federal judge approving the 85 billion dollars merger of at&t and time warner. joining us to talk about the deal, diana moss, president of the american antitrust

institute. and joshua wright of george mason university's global antitrust institute. >> no mention of the word market power, really, in the decision. and that's really the key issue here, in a vertical merger and in a horizontal merger is how does the merger change the company's incentives and their ability to exercise greater market power? >> i teach antitrust law. i have an antitrust law case book. we have looked a long time to find a vertical merger opinion after a fully litigated case to teach to students, there isn't one in the modern era. i think whatever way this case came out, and even whichever way it comes out on appeal, again, should there be one, being the first fully litigated opinion in a vertical merger challenge in a long period of time, i do think even though it's one district court judge and one specific

opinion and one industry or one proposed merger does give it some degree of importance. i think other judges should there be another vertical merger challenge, who are looking around to see what their article 3 judicial colleagues have done in these opinions can't miss this one because there's nothing else. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> a number of senators spoke today about separating migrant children from their parents on the southern border. here are some of the speeches. >> thank you, mr. president. now, americans are deeply troubled by the images and news of parents being separated from their children at the southern border. the trump's administration policy of zero tolerance at the border has already resulted in 2300 cases of forced family separation, according to homeland security statistics obed