:

mr. sullivan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent that andrew hamp alternation an intern in my office, be granted floor privil for t rainder the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: madam president it it's thursday and it is one of the best times of the week for me and i know the parliamentarians and others who work here in the senate, now the pages are going to learn this, too, because it' the time every week i get to talk about what i

call the alaskan of the week, someone who's made a difference in my state, someone who's doing a great job, someone who's oftentimes an unsung hero, doesn't get a lot of attention but deserves it. that's what we do here. as i like to say, alaska is a very, very beautiful state. i think the most beautiful state in the country, probay the most beautiful place in the world. and now summer has arrived. the sun hardly ever sets. the fish are running. the air is drenched and the energy is summer. now is the time to visit. everybody's watching or watchg on tv. you've got to come visit. the presiding officer came a couple of summers ago. we had a great time. her father was out there during world war ii, which is a great honor. you'll have the trip of a lifetime. by the way, you'll also have the best food in the world. interestingly enough, in the senate on thursdays, one senator typically hosts a lunch. today i'm hosting. so my colags, i think they

like this, you can almost smell the aroma. right now we're baking it in the kitchen here. salmon, halibut, sausage. we'll all be treated to that in a little bit. what's truly amazing, madam president, about my state is the people who call it home. smart, creative, energetic, caring people focused on helping each other. today i want to talk about our alaskan of the week, mr. greg brown. he comes as a suggestion from some members, actually quite a few members of my staff who call him mr. brown. in fact, the lobbying campaign nor mr. brown to be the alaskan of the week, i can just say in my office has been intense. mr. brown, as he's known far and wide among those who went to anchorage's diamond high school, is a legend among his former

students at diamond, where for 25 years he taught european and u.s. history, art history, philosophy, student government. now many of us are fortunate enough to have that person, that teacher -- usually it is a teacher -- who has really changed our lives, showe us the pure joy of learning. and as my director of constituent relations, rachel bowsma put it that person who made history come alive, that person who made an indelible impact on someone's life or many lives. so for rachel and andrew, who is here with me on the floor, one of my interns, and five members of my staff in d.c. and back home in alaska, that person has been mr. brown.

so let's talk a little bit about mr. brown. originally from texas. when he was 15 years old his family moved to alaska when his father was in the oil business, got transferred to alaska. a lot of texans are up in alaska and then they fall in love with it, like he did. he moved back to texas as a teenager, but alaska still beckoned and it was never really out of his mind. so in 1989 when his father moved back again, he came back. now with a master's degree and a few years of teaching himself, and he never left. he was a substitute teacher for awhile. and in 1993 he got a full-time position at diamond high where he has stayed, learned, taught, and where he has inspired thousands and thousands of students. think about it. 25 years. so what makes a good teacher? according to mr. brown, it's

vital that you, the teacher, fall in love with the subject. also just as importantly, you listen sympathetically, and you should know how to reach your students. sometimes that's through books. mr. brown said sometimes the most important thing you can do is j play a game of chess with a student. and i think that's what you and mr. brown did. isn't that right, andrew? so according to his students, mr. brown did these kind of things. now he was a demanding and an exacting teacher. the papers that they wrote for him were graded hard. graduate-school quality. it demanded excellence. that's another great attribute of a teacher. but because of his passion for the subjects that he taught and the way he treated his students, he treated them like adults who are ready to learn and deliver, he made this huge impact. and learn they did. they read the classics, john

locke, thomas hobbs, socrates, plato, machiavelli, max, martin luther, patrick henry, thomas payne and on and on and on. they learned about the profound impact, that reformation had on europe. they learned abouthe ramifications of governmental authority. they learned about how art can be a language that reflects the present. they learned about how alliances are formed, how leaders are born, how the clashing of events can lead to devastati wars. earned about the roots of different forms of government, and they learned to love or at least appreciate and understand our own government and the importance of institutions like the united states senate. th year was mr. brown's last year as a teacher. he is retiring, unfortunately. he bought a plot of land i willow, alaska, the part of alaska we call the matsu valley.

he's going to garden, he's going to fish, he's going to read, he's going to travel but he's still going to be with us. and he can do that in part because of a gift he received from his students at his retirement party. now, madam president, this is quite unusual. this party that he had, that was thrown for him by his students at his retirement was quite amazing. hundreds of hisast students showed up to pay tribute to mr. brown. some of them gave speeches. many of them cried. and at the end they handed him a picture of one of his -- that one of his students painted. it was a reinterpretation of the school of athens by the 16th century artist raphael. but it was substituting mr. brown for plato in that very famous painting. and then something really

amazing happened at that party. the students also handed mr. brown a voucher. they had individually raised $16,500 for him to travel the world. think about that. motivated and inspired students over 25 years came together threw a party and raised money for their belovedeacher just to show him their deep admiration and abiding appreciation. now that is really, really special. a special teacher. now as his reaction to the gift? mr. brown said i wanted to go somewhere and gently weep. my students have always given me more than i have given them. now, mr. brown, i'm not sure that's true. you've given so much. in fact, at the party one of my

staffers, i already mentioned rachel, in her speech about mr. brown she said, quote, each student you taught carries a piece of the precious gift you gave us. learning the contours of history and the trends that have defined the course of human kind. powerful stuff. so, mr. brown, thank you for all you've done for our young peop, forur state, really for the country, producing great alaskans with a sense of civic duty and history. thank you for being such a great teacher, like we have so many in our great state. and thank you on your retirement for being our alaskan of the week. i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cornyn: madam president, i understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time en bloc. the clerk: s. 3093, a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to address the protective custody of alien children accompanied by parents and for other purposes. s. 3100, a bill to establish the mountains to sound greenway national heritage area in the state of washington.

mr. cornyn: in order to place the bills opblt calendar under -- on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i object to further proceedings en bloc. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. cornyn: madam president, on another matter, i want to first address the vote we held yesterday, one that unfortunately failed, b i believe was important nonetheless. it would have set in motion a series of spending reductions not on bills where we had appropriated money for programs we know where it was going to be used, but these were essentially surplus funds that were not being used for the intended purpose and which i believe should have been used to reduce our annual deficits and ultimately our national debt. i want to express my tkpwhrat taoud to senator -- gratitude to senator lee, the senator from utah who spearheaded the effort, to take up the bill that the

house had already passed. what we were attempting to do was rescind nearly $15 billion in previously unappropriated money that had gone unspent as i said a moment ago. this was just one small way to show the american people that we are serious, as the majority leader put it yesterday, about tightening our belts financially and taking small steps that hopefully would add up to big steps to live within our collective means. i voted for the rescissions package because i believe strongly that the government should prioritize keeping its fiscal house in order and one that constantly works to improve and implement fiscal discipline. i'm concerned now that as interest rates are start to rise that we're going to see more and more of federal spending go to pay debt service or interest payments on bonds that have been issued to secure our national debt. so i hope we can come back to

the table soon with new ideas, and i'm disappointed in the outcome of that particular vote. i've also been speaking this week about the ongoing situation at the u.s.-mexico border. of course this is my backyard. i come from texas, and texas has a 1,200 mile common border with mexico, and we know, because we've all seen it in the news and been moved by these scenes of peopl illegally crossing the border with children, or individuals they claim to be their children, and being separated as they have been processed consistent with current law, including laws that congress had passed, signed by the president, not necessarily this president in fact, consent decrease and other court judgments that necessitated that children be treated differently

than people who illegally enter the country as adus. well, i'll be traveling to the rio grande valley tomorrow. senator cruz and i both will be in brownsville and mcallen so we can learn from the people who are working on behalf of all of us to make sure that everybody is treated with dignity and compassion. but we also enforce our laws against illegal immigration. president trump yesterday issued an executive order which i viewed as an emergency measure that does not substitute for congressional action. in fact, i'm confident that the executive order will be the target of lawsuits, and i think the only thing that can really settle the matter once and for all is legislation that i know the presiding officer and i and others have cosponsored to keep families together and to maintain enforcement of o

laws. executive orders, of course, like i said are always subject to legalhallenge. and i think we ought to use this, or view this as more of a belt and suspenders. if the president decided he wanted to do on a temporary basis, but it is just a temporary basis, and we need to make sure, as i said, this is settled finally so that no parent will be separated from their child even if they enter the country illegally. they'll bereated both humanely and with compassion while they are presented to a judge who will make a decision whether they qualify for illegal immigration benefit like asylum, for example. the legislation that i'm referring to is led by the junior senator from north carolina called the keep families together and enforce the law act. as the title of the bill suggests, there are two parts: treating families with compassion while allowing them

to remain together and enforcing the laws on the books. they don't have to be mutually exclusive. and our bill would ensure tt they are not. it will all -- it will allow children to stay with their families in a state facility while they await their court proceedings. it will also set mandatory standards of care for family residential centers where immigrant families are placed and keep children safe by requiring that they're removed from the care of any individual who poses a danger to them. just as importantly, it will require more than 200 new immigration judges and require the department of homeland security to expedite the court proceedings for these children and families. some have rightfully asked questions about the families who've already been separated. what happens now to the children who have already been separated from their parents? and i can tell you that our bill requires the administration to take steps to reunify as many

falies as possible that remain in custody of immigration and customs enforcement or health and human services. but i have to tell you, madam president, this is an old movie in many respects. we've seen this movie before, particularly in 2014 when we saw a flood of unaccompanied children coming across the southwestern border. president obama at the time called it a humanitarian crisis, and i agree. we simply weren't prepared for this flood of children from central america coming to our border and seeking refuge or asylum. so we worked hard to try to make sure that they were treated compassionately and humanely, but the law, similar to the law in effect now before the president's executive order and the law that would be modified

by the new bill that i mentioned a moment ago, the current law requires those children to be processed by the border patrol, to be then handed over to health and human services, and ultimately to be placed a sponsor the united states pending their hearing on their immigration case. because of the huge backlog of cases, it could be literally months or even years before those cases are heard, and it shouldn't surprise anybody that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't show up for their court hearing. and so that's why it's important for us to move these cases to the head of the line, to maintain a humane detention while they are waiting their court hearing, hopefully in a matter of days or weeks at most. but this is a huge problem that,

frankly, was exposed in part by "the new york times." it recently reported that based on the thousands, tens of thousands of children who came across the border as unaccompanied minors who'd been placed with sponsors, in a check of where those children are now, at least 1,500 of them are unaccounted for. now, that should surprise no one because the sponsors were not required to be citizens. they weren't required to be relatives. they weren't even required toe have a criminal background check. and so when the u.s. government places these children with sponsors in the united states with such inadequate supervision and review, it should not surprise anyone that unfortunately some of them will be unaccounted for, hopefully not recruited into gangs, hopefully not trafficked for sex, hopefully still alive.

but this is a huge humanitarian crisis, and the latest episode having to do with separation of families is just the latest version of that story. who benefits from the status quo when we fail to act, to correct our laws to make sure that both individuals coming across the border are treated humanely and that we enforce our immigration laws? who benefits the most? well, it's the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels who make money off of the status quo. and they are, as one pson called it the other day when they were referring to the situation, they said that these organizations are commodity agnostic. as long as they can make money, they'll traffic in people, drugs, weapon, and other contake band. they don't -- contraband. they don't really care as long as they make money.

and until congress acts as we must, until congress acts, these cartels, these criminal organizations will continue to exploit these gaps in american law, and the people who will be hurt the most are these children and immigrants who do have a case to make before the immigration courts. so i hope we will act. our track record is not good, frankly, when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system. but i know that senator feinstein, the senator from california, and senator tillis have been talking. and a lot of us have been putting our heads together to figure out how can we come up with a narrow bill that will keep families together and allow us to enforce the laws of the land. and i hope we keep trying until we get it done and get it done right. other proposals have been made, including one by our friend the

senior senator from california. she knows -- she and i have worked together on many issues, but i this one i think her bill has a lot of problems. in fact, there's a huge question of what sort of enforcement if any would ever be permitted under her bill. in effect, her bill would make it impossible to enforce the law against an adult illegally crossing the border unless the child is able to go to jail with that adult. now, i don't want a child to have to go to jail and be exposed to hardened and potentially violent criminals. so this is a big problem with our friend's bill, senator feinstein. by the way, every single democrat on that side of the aisle has signed on to that bill. did they intend this result? no, i really don't think they intended it, but it's a big problem with their bill. children should not go to jail run by the bureau of prisons. no one i would think would think

that's a good idea. so that's why essentially what the bill results in -- and again, i'm not saying this was their intention, but the result is to rnstate this catch and release program which has been a failure of our immigration system for a long time. when there's nowhere for the families to be detained, when they can't go to department of justice facilities, basically the authorities simply have to let them go and say come on back in a few months, maybe a couple of years when your case comes up on the immigration court docket. that's the result. and as i said earlier in the vast majority of case, people do not reappear because they understand if they have made it that far, take they're basically -- that they're basically off scot-free. and the cartels and the transnational criminal organizations that traffic in people and facilitate this sort of illegal immigration, they are

the ones that are cashing in on these vulnerabilities and on these gaps in american law. so we need to fix it. let me correct one other misconception, madam president, from all of the emotional news that we've seen here recently. sometimes the facts get lost. if an immigrant family crosses the border outside of a designated port ever entry -- of entry, they have broken the law unless they're authorized. if you release these individuals without any consequence, you send a clear message that it's acceptable to cross our borders illegally. and once you've sent that message to the criminal organizations, to people back in central america and elsewhere, once you've sent the message that it's okay to break the law and that you will be released without any consequence, it should come as no surprise that a huge percentage of illegal immigrants fail to show up at immigration court hearings and that it literally is a magnet

attracting more illegal immigration. if there are no consequences associated with it. so with all due respect to my friend, the senior senator from california, her bill has these unintended effects and i think simply won't do. but i want to be clear, we want to work together to try to address what she wants to accomplish and what we want to accomplish. let's keep families together, but let's not inadvertently or unintentionally reinstate the broken catch and release policies which simply certain as a magnet for more illegal immigration. now, some commentators have pointed out the problem i've identified. it's not just me. they've said that senator feinstein's bill would present law enforcement with the terrible choice of either keeping children with parents who are criminals in the middle of being prosecuted or not prosecuting those violations of

the law at all. that's not really a choice. we know what the decision would be. those cases would not be prosecuted. there would not be enforcement. and then again the transnational criminal organizations, the people who try to take advantage of our laws will have won. with these and other short coming, i think the much better option would be the bill introduced by senator tillis which i and the presiding officer and others have cosponsored. it would achieve two important goal, the continued enforcement of our immigration laws and the unifications -- the unification of families. some of our friends on the left seem to want one but not the other. they want to unify families but they don't want to enforce our immigration laws. they say they want to see zero tolerance ended, zero tolerance for violating immigration laws. and of course they've cast a lot of aspersions on the president and the attorney general for

implementing this policy along with the secretary of the department of homeland security. but let's think about their criticism for a second. what does that really mean? if you're happy with -- if you aren't happy with zero tolerance violating our immigration laws, that means you are happy with tolerating exemptions for law breakers. you tolerate not enforcing immigration laws under some, perhaps many circumstances. we can all see where that leads us. it encourages illegal immigration by sending a message that we will not enforce our laws. we shouldn't stand for that and neither should the american people. it would be a big mistake. madam president, tomorrow senator cruz, my colleague from texas, and i will be traveling to brownsville once again so we can get eyes on the situation there and learn from the people who are charged with making sure that our policies are carried out. as i mentioned, texas has 1,200

miles of common border with mexico, and we are ground zero when it comes to the border security challenge. i look forward to talking with our federal and local officials about the situation along with faith-based organizations and other groups who are trying to help out. we need their help and welcome their help. but ultimately i urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue talking urgently and to support the bill that senator tillis and others have introduced. if we can come together, we can fix this problem swiftly and ensure these children are kept together with their families. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, a

few issues have be deviled our country and political process more than immigration. it's well known by now now difficult it is to get anything done on the topic. later today the house will have a vote. i don't know how that will turn out, but we've seen how difficult it is to even get to that point. and the reason why it's a difficult issue is multifaceted. the first is that it involves people. it's easy to throw around numbers, a hundred thousand, 1.1 million a year, 2,000. but these are human beings who by and large want to come to america because it's the best country in the world. and so that's one of the things that makes it difficult is we're talking about human beings. it's not trade, not dollars. it's people. the other reason why it's difficult is because we are a nation in which few of any of us

are but a few generations removed at most from someone who came from somewhere else. the closer you are to that reality, the more you identify with those who want to come here. i was blessed to be born in the united states, but i didn't do anything to earn that. i happened to have benefited from the fact that my parents live 90 miles away from the greatest nation on earth. they could have been born somewhere else. they could have made a different decision in their lives. i'm not sure what would have happened, quite frankly, since my parents had me in their 40's, i'm not sure i would have even been born. but i'm a beneficiary of that incredible blessing. the flip side of it is, i'm also a lawmaker. and i understand that every nation on this planet has immigration laws. mexico has immigration laws. canada has immigration laws. canada earlier this week sent out a statement to t.p.s. recipients in america that if you -- if your t.p.s. expires, don't come to canada because we're not going to let you in.

i have personally witnessed the immigration laws in places like honduras, one of the source countries of our migration. i was there two years ago and i visited a migration place where their policy basically is we detain you. we feed you. and we give you 48 hours to get out of the country. so every country in the world has immigration laws, and any time that those laws are challenged by large numbers of people who want to enter outside of those laws, it creates friction and problems. it has throughout the history of this country. it's doing it all over the world right now. the government the germany, the governing coalition could collapse over the issue. multiple elections in europe have been decided. in fact, the very future of the e.u. itself is under duress over the issue of migration and a common border. this is not just a difficult issue in america. it's a difficult issue around the world. one of the reasons why it's so difficult here is because we have long prided ourselves on being a nation of immigrants,

and we remain that. one of the things that isn't repeated enough, and you'll never get this if you listen to some of the way this issue is covered, on either side of this debate is that every single year over a million human beings, over one million human beings enter the united states legally, and many of them within three to five years swore an oath to become american citizens. and i believe with all my heart that strengthens our country. so with all this noise that you're hearing, just remember the baseline. every single year over a million people come to this country legally. that's happening and will happen again this year. i will tell you no other nation on earth even comes close to that level of generosity. the problem we have is that in our region there are countries of incredible instability. and there's he ebbs and flows. i live in south florida, a majority community deeply influenced by migration waves of cubans who came in multiple

waves to flee communism. of haitians who have come through years of instability. people who flee instability, for example, in the 19 80's from nicarauga. of columbians who fled in the 1990's. but every time that there is a hemispheric problem, people in the countries seek to go to the greatest nation on earth that's closest to them, by the way, and that's the united states. so this is not newor us. and our challenge is how can we accommodate that and accommodate the people -- accommodate our legacy as a nation of immigrants but also do it through a system of law. there is nothing wrong with having ordered compassion. we have safety net programs in america that provide people who have come upon tough times with health care and housing and money for food. but there's a process to get it.

there's qualifications you have to meet. there's an application you have to fill out. there's a limit to how long you can use it. that's true with most charities as well. so you can be generous and yet you can be ordered. but every time that there's a migratory challenge in the region -- any sort of instability in the region it places migratory pressure on the united states. one of the ones that has arisen lately over the last few years is the instability in honduras, guatamala and el salvador. i can tell you, you can watch the documentaries, you can read the books and articles, you can interview the people. i know people personally. i don't know them like i met them at an event. i know them, i know their families, i know their stories because they live in south florida. i know. i know people who have left because some local gang or thug or organized crime group came to them and said unless you pay us 10% of what you make this month,

we're going to kill your daughter, we're going to kill your wife, we're going to burn down your store. so when people are told that, they leave. i know people that have left because they can't feed their family, and so ty come because they're going to work and send back money their kids can eat. and i would ask everyone, if you're a parent and your children are hungry and you're fearful that your children or your wife or your family can be killed by a gang, would you not do almost anything to help them? so we understand that part. and that has to be balanced with the reality that america is a country that's proud of its heritage as a nation of immigrants, that continues to be generous and welcoming, but also has to have a system. it can't be disordered because otherwise it strains our capacity, and it also overlooks another obligation we have and that is an obligation to our own people. no nation on earth, not even one as wealthy or as great as america can welcome every human

being on the planet that wants to come here. that's not harsh. that's true. what other country does? canada doesn't do that, mexico doesn't do that. no nation on earth, including the ones that have policies like that. many are much more restrictive than the united states. most of the nations in europe, you can go there but they'll never let you become a citizen. every country has its own set of rules. our rules have fluctuated. there have been times in our history much more restrictive than now in terms of immigration. so we have this situation. we have this incredible instability in places like honduras and el salvador and guatamala. and one of the responses to it, which i strongly support, we'll fund it again this year, is something called the alliance for prosperity. it is probably in the long term the best thing we can do to deal with the problem we have right now. and what that does is it builds the capacity of the government in those countries to deal with those gangs that are threatening people, to create economic opportunity so people don't have to leave. by the way, this migration isn't

good for those countries. if you're honduras and your youngest, hardest-working people are leaving, how are you going to build your economy in the future? they don't like it either. we need to help them, and we're trying to, and we're doing that. but that takes time to work. and if you don't think that works, then i ask you, why don't we have a migratory crisis from peru or chile or uruguay or colombia or brazil or argentina or costa rica or panama? we don't have migratory crises from those countries because while they don't have america's wealth, you can find a job and you're not being threatened every day by a gang. so the more we can do to help countries reach that point, the less migratory pressure we will have. that is by far the most effective border security measure we can take if it works. we have to make sure it works. now we have this situation, and it's a difficult one. i hear these people on television, and i've got to tell you, i don't know where some people get their information or

even care about how they get their information but they just say things that aren't true and they make it sound like it's so simple. here's the bottom line, okay. imagine for a moment that a family arrives at the u.s. border unlawfully meaning they don't have a permit to enter, they don't have a visa. they just unlawfully cross the border. you are now apprehended, and you have children with you and you're an adult. the law says something called the flores settlement, which is binding, which the white house is challenging with its executive order, it says you can hold the children for 20 days. you can detain the adults. they violated a law, whether you want it to be a misdemeanor, a repeated offense, a felony, it can even be a civil offense potentially. but you can detain them if you need to, but you can't detain the children. so this is a dilemma because if you don't detain people, we know that a substantial percentage, and i mean a very high percentage of people once apprehended and wreathed, they -- retiree leased, they

never show up for the hearing. they are scheduled for a hearing, it can take a couple of years. when the hearing comes we don't know where they are to notify them of it. they don't show up. they don't show up at all. you know if you let them go you'll never see them again. you are basically passing them in. but you can't detain the kids they came with. and so you're left with this choice. i can't detain the kids. therefore, i can't detain the family together. so i either let them all go and never hear from them again, or i detain the adults and separate them from their children. and that's a decision the administration made, along with saying we're going to enforce every single one of these cases. but i already told you if you let them go your chances of ever having them show up again are virtually nil in many cases. well, that led to the problem. because even though we're a nation of law, we're also a nation with a deep judeo-christian principle, and

you're watching on television, you're seeing kids crying. and as a parent, forget about the senator, you're a parent and you're thinking to yourself this is horrifying, it's happening in america. it has to end. so the administration says we're going to end it and we're going to detain them togethernd someone's going to sue us under the flores settlement which is why the government must act. congress must act. so i watched some of the speeches on the floor last night from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and the best way i can describe the argument is i understood it. and if i'm wrong somebody should come tell me. i heard the arguments carefully because i was trying to figure out there there has got to be ao deal with it. their argument was, number one, do not detain the children at all. keep the flores settlement in place. don't detain the children. number two, don't separate the families. so that means not only can you not detain the children but don't detain the parents. so let them go. and number three, if they don't show up for their hearing, and

you eventually run into them, don't deport them either. so if we're not going to detain children, we're not going to detain parents and if they don't show up for the hearing we're not going to deport them unless they're violent criminals, then the de facto policy is if you come to the united states alone, you will be detained and returned. but if you come to the united states with children, you will be released and never deported potentially. now i want to tell you, and this is not conjecture. i already told you i know people. i want to tell you the perception that that creates. it creates the perception, it creates the incentive, people can argue about whether dividing families is a deterrent or not. i don't even want to make that argument because i don't think that's a deterrent we should use as this nation. it's not who we are. we should never say we're going to punish your kids in order to keep you from doing something. but i can tell you whether or not it's a deterrent, it is most definitely an incentive to have a policy that says if you come

alone, you'll be apprehended, detained and returned. but if you come with kids, we're going to let you in. because it is true, i find it to be cruel to separate these kids from their parents. i want to tell you what else is cruel. and that is the journey that people have to undertake in the hands of some of the most horrible human beings on this planet who traffic human beings through mexico and across our border. and let me tell you how horrible it is. it's so horrible that many of the young women who make that journey actually before they go on the journey, ensure that they get on birth control because they expect to be sexually assaulted. that's how cruel it is. cruel because children disappear on that journey, and we don't know what happens but they vanish. it's cruel because families are often robbed and beaten on that journey. it is one of the nastiest, most

cruel journeys anyone could imagine. i'll never forget being in honduras a couple years ago. we were at a migrant center and our u.s. customs border protection people that are embedded there alongside our honduran partners were talking to this young man who happened to be from cuba, who was on his way to the united states, and he warned them, he showed them, he talked them through. he said you are about, once you cross this border, you are about to be in the hands of some of the worst human beings on the planet, who make a habit of killing people, assaulting people, trafficking people. this young man was determined. i don't know what happened to him, to be honest with you. i gave him my number. i told him you make it to the states, we can be helpful, whatever it might be. we never heard from him again. i imagine he made it or something else happened. i personally tried to discourage him from making the journey. so, yes, it is cruel to divide families. it is also cruel to have an incentive for people to bring children on this journey.

and that's what this is. and to go back to the point, unless i'm wrong, as i understand it, the policy that we're being asked to support by some is don't detain the kids, don't detain the parents in order to not separate the families. and when t don't show up for the hearing, don't deport them. well, then, your de facto law basically is that you come to the united states alone, you'll be detained in return. but if you come with kids, you will get to stay. that's irresponsible. and if that is in fact the policy, then you should admit it, this is our policy. this is what we think the law should be. and you can't go around saying i'm for border security but they'll never tell you what they're for. and you can't go around saying we should only enforce our immigration laws on dangerous criminals. everyone agrees with that one. the bottom line is if we want to continue to be a nation of immigrants and of immigration, then we have to have an ordered system of immigration. otherwise you have what we have

now. you have what we have now in america and you have what we have now all over the world, and that is people, a nation of immigrants, many turning on immigration. not because they don't believe in it because they think what we have now is unsustainable and wrong. and you'll never hear me say that these people are animals or terrible people. they're not. any time you take thousands of people and put them together of course there's going to be bad people among them. but it is my experience and my deep belief that the overwhelming majority of people are just looking for a better life to send money back to their family, to live in a safer place, to reunite with loved ones that are already here. their motives are not wrong. but there has to be a process by which you do it. and our laws put us in this position every single day. i'll never forget a handful of years ago a home across the street from ours was occupied by a family. and i don't know what happened -- i know what happened.

obviously at some point they didn't pay their renton enough and the landlord evicted them which requires you to go to the courthouse. you've got to get a court ruling. the sheriff's office comes, opens the door and takes out all of your furniture and puts it on the curb. and we drove by and we saw this family sitting there on their couch, three kids, the mom, on the cell phone calling somebody, all their possessions sitting in plastic bags on the curb because they didn't pay their rent. they were evicted and it was painful to watch. and we did would we could. we tried to talk and see if there was anything we could do, to provide them, a place to stay that evening. no one suggested what we should do is just not allow landlords to no longer evict people for not paying rent. no one suggested that because we realized that if we ever have a law like that, no one will ever rent people property again. if we stop enforcing the right of a landlord to evict people from their homes, if we stop enforcing that, there will be no

more landlords. nobody will put anything up for rent. we'll have a housing crisis. about you that doesn't mean it doesn't break our heart to see the images of what that means when it's applied. i know people that have lost their homes in foreclosure. their homes are their dream. they came across difficult times. they couldn't pay the mortgage and they were out of their home. it breaks your heart. but i haven't heard anyone suggest we should make mortgages unenforceable. it's not the same thing, but my point to you is our laws always put us in this situation. but the answer can't be don't enforce the law. every single day, even as i speak to you now, somewhere in this country some adult is going to be arrested and this adult is going to go to jail, perhapsor many years. and their children are not going to be able to see them. now, i'm not claiming that someone who commits a horrible crime in america is the same as someone who crosses our border. my point to you is that happens every day. it doesn't diminish it. but no one has suggested we should no longer arrest anyone or apply the law to people if it would divide them from their

families. because jails are full of people that have been divided from their families. i make these points not as comparison. i'm not saying evicted from your home and crossing the border is the same thing. i'mot sing committing a serious crime that commits you for years in jail and crossing the boarder is the same thing. what i am saying is oftentimes the application of our law leads to results that trouble our heart. but we recognize if we don't apply the law, the alternative is as bad if not worse. and that's where we are. the reason why a nation of immigrants has a significant percentage of americans that frankly want to see immigration significantly slashed is not because they have forgotten where they came from but it's because they think this is out of control. they're okay with one million people, 800,000 people coming a year legally. what they're not okay is anyone coming any time they want anywhere they want.

and they react against it. and it's easy to hear these people on television say, well, that's something horrible that's going on america. it's the president's fault. it's happening all over the world. it's happening in every country inurope. it's increasingly now putting pressure on canada. it's happening in mexico which a w years ago b to crack down on their southern border. and so the best way forward is a bill that senator tillis and others filed yesterday. that is one that will allow us to house families together while pending their hearing. some will qualify for asylum and get to stay. others will have to return together. is it perfect? no. the united states government is not in the business of housing families. we do have an obligation to ensure that we can expedite their hearings so they're not there for a long time. we do have an obligation to say if you legitimately qualify for asylum, you should be given the opportunity to apply for it. we do have an obligation to say while we detain families, we are going to provide them safe, sanitary conditions. because that's who we are as a

people and that's who we should be. we do have an obligation to do all of that. and that's why this bill adds 200 new judges to help expedite and why it calls for expediting cases that involve families with children. i know this is a tough issue. but our law cannot be that if you come here unlawfully with children, you get to stay. we're not going tone force it because you are creating a cruel incentive for more people to do that. and you're basically saying we have laws but we'll refuse to enforce them. and then you don't have an immigration system. and then people turn on immigration. and then we can't solve the problem we have today. i say to you in closing as someone who is by no means an immigrationist restrictionist, by no means. in fact, i support doing something reasonable with the people who have been here a long time and are not dangerous criminals, they are not part of our country. i support extending t.p.s. for the haitian community, many of whom are business owners in

miami-dade county where i live. i support trchlts p.s. for the honduran community who are here legally in both cases, t.p.s. makes you legal. some own businesses. some have graduated and are going to medical school. i support all of that i support doing something responsible with people who were brought here as children through no fault of their own, grew up here their entire lives. some don't speak anything but english and finding some perms si to their status in this country and a path to citizenship, i support all of that stuff. i support our immigration laws so we can welcome more people in the future but that has to be a process. every sovereign country in the world has laws and a process and most of them enforce their laws in ways that are much more stringent, in many cases much more barbaric than anything that you'll ever be accused of having done in the united states. and that's not what i'm advocating. i don't know anyone who is.

so it's been a tough week on a tough issue. i hope that we will act. i know how appealing this is as a political issue. i know how much cable news time people get on both sides talking about it. but i hope we can make progress at least on this one little piece. and then move fward and do the rest. but this one little piece i hope we'll deal with it and i think we've got a proposal before the senate that doesn't make the situation perfect but sure makes it a lot better than what it is now. and it sure is preferrable to dividing families and sure is preferrable to a law that tells people bring your children on this very dangerous journey because if you do, you'll get to stay. it's my hope we'll act and get something done. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: thank you, madam president. i rise today to take you h.r. 5895, the energy, water, legislative branch, military and veterans appropriations act of 2019. i couldn't help but listen to my lleague senator rubio and the very fine way in which he has expressed the same thing that many americans feel and that is a compassion for those individuals who find themselves at our border and who simply want a better way of life for their families. mr. rounds: while at the same time expressing the frustration that our laws are very, very clear if you want to come into our country, you have to follow the laws. while at the same time the compassion that's been shown by people across this entire country with regard to these children who through no fault of their own find themselves in this serious predicament in many communities along our border. i'd like to also express my appreciation to the president for the executive order which he has put in place in an effort to at least in a very short period of time address the situation

for these young people and to try to unite as many of us want, to unite those families once again. the compassion of the american people continues to shine through with regard to assisting and recognizing those who simply are not in a position of taking care of themselves, regardless of which country they are a citizen of today. madam president, i would like to refer to and discuss the appropriations bill which is in front of us today. this appropriations mini bus combines three separate appropriation bills, each of which were voted nearly unanimously out of the senate appropriations committee earlier this year. they spent about $147 billion or they proposed to spend about $147 billion. this is significant because since coming to the senate three and a half years ago, this is the -- this is only the second time that we are actually bringing smaller, separate appropriation bills to the

floor. months before the deadline and also having a healthy, robust debate on amendments to this legislation. it is a long overdue step that is getting us back to what we call regular order which is the traditional way of working appropriation bills through the senate. it let's everydy see what's in the bills. it is truly long overdue. let me go over some highlights of this particular appropriations package of three bills starting with the energy and water development section. this section authorizes funding for the department of the interior, the department of energy, and the army corps of engineers just to name a few. it appropriates $42.8 billion to these agencies to improve our water infrastructure and invest in critical national security needs concerning nuclear energy. it also provides additional resources to invest in science and energy resources, including providing full funding for the

long baseline facility and deep underground experiment which at $145 million is up from $95 million last year. this funding will allow the scientists at the sanford underground research lab in lead, south dakota, a world renowned research facility in my home state, to continue therapy important research on knew treen knows -- on nutrinos and dark matter. the report language of this section also encourages the army corps of engineers to finally implement the snow pack monitoring program in the upper missouri river basin. it ds this by recommending that the snow pack monitoring equipment be eligible for funding under the operation and maintenance account. now, this is significant because the implementation of the upper missouri river's basin no pack monitoring system will help mitigate the possibility of a major flood event for those living or working along the

missouri river and the mississippi river. it is time for the army corps to step up and finally implement this much was originally authorized under the 2014 water resources bill four years ago. and this was in direct response to the flood which occurred on the missouri river and the mississippi river in 2011. it is time to implement this monitoring process now. the military construction and veterans affairs section of this bill which was supported unanimously when it was reported out of committee, supports infrastructure investments to help assure maximum readiness for our troops, providing a total of $10.3 billion in funding for military construction. this includes report language that appropriates $15 million for a new national guard readiness center in rapid city, south dakota. this section will also provide funding for needed improvements

in innovations at the v.a., including funding to prevent veterans suicide, increase rural access to health care, and support mental health care programs for our veterans. in total, this bill provides $78.3 billion for the v.a. to help them care for the approximately 9.3 million veterans enrolled for fiscal year 2019. finally, the legislative branch and related agencies portion of this omnibus includes funding and policy provisions to improve operations and address heightened security requirements for those working in congress and those visiting the u.s. capitol complex. it's important to point out that this is just three of basically 12 appropriation bills. now, this was also approved, this particular portion of this legislation, this three

appropriation bill package, it was also approved unanimously by the senate appropriations committee earlier this year. so, madam president, by tackling our appropriation bills in this fashion and by allowing members to offer and to actually vote on amendments to make these bills better, we are taking a monumental step toward getting our appropriations process back on track. staying committed to a regular appropriations process allows the american people through their elected representatives to have a true, meaningful voice in ow their tax dollars are spent. it also presents us -- prevents us -- it also prevents us from having to rely on a series of continuing resolutions which have a significant harmful impact on our military readiness. military leaders have repeatedly warned of the dangers of these short-term stopgap spending bills and what they do to our ability to adequately train, equip, and maintain the force. in particular, under continuing

resolutions, the defense department is restricted from starting new programs which is deeply concerning in today's rapidly changing threat environment. since coming to the senate, i've expressed my frustration with our broken appropriations system which really hasn't worked in 40 of the last 44 years at the current budget process -- that the current budget process has been in place. while our appropriation process is still in need of significant reforms to get a handle on our budget process and begin to tackle our $21 trillion debt, taking accountability and actually managing the 31% of the budget that we can vote on is a significant step toward becoming more accountable to american taxpayers. let me say that again. we're talking about three of approximately 12 appropriation bills. we're talking in this particular case about 11% of what we are

actually going to be voting on in -- or what we will actually be talking about spending. as an example, if you take the total amount of dollars in defense and nondefense discretionary spending, we will spend this year -- proposed to spend for this coming year about $1.3 trillion. now, of of that, this group of bills amounts to $47 billion. so it's about 11%. but at the same time if you look at the $1.3 trillion that we're going to vote on, if we do this all successfully, under the existing appropriations plan, the way the laws are set out, we'll be voting on $1.3 trillion, but the federal government will actually spend

about $4.2 trillion. the rest of it is mandatory spending, medicare, medicaid, social security, and $316 billion in interest on our federal debt. we don't vote on that. that is simply on autopilot. but in order to get to that part of the budget, we have to show that we can actually manage and vote on the smaller part of the budget, the $1.3 trillion that's before us in the next series of appropriation bills. today we take up three of them for $147 billion in spending. now, we're spending this entire week doing it, and hopefully as all of our colleagues have the opportunity to look at, review, and make modifications by amendment to them, we begin to have the confidence to understand that we really should take responsibility for, and in the longer term, actually start

managing and voting on the entire federal budget, which today is, as i say, about $4.2rillion. i want to take this opportunity to thank senate appropriation's chairman shelby, ranking member leahy, leader mcconnell and all who helped to get this full legislation to the floor. responsible spending starts with a responsible appropriations process. we owe it to every american to be responsible stewards of their hard-earned dollars. i believe this is best through an appropriations process that brings serious, appropriate debate on how this money is spent. this is a good bill that invests in energy an infrastructure, provides our troops with additional tools for maximum readiness and funds the v.a. so they can do a better job of

taking care of our veterans. i urge my colleagues to not only support these appropriations, but future appropriation bills that may come to the floor later this summer, avoiding the last-minute continuing resolution or the usual 2,000-page omnibus bill in september or, unfortunately, even later. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. alexander: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i want to thank -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. alexander: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i'd like to thank members both sides of the aisle and staff members for having a first good week on the appropriations bills. we have three of them that we made progress on. we had six recorded votes in the last kubl of -- couple of days. we have about 20 other amendments, most of them bipartisan, which we believe we can adopt by a voice vote, but we have one or two recorded votes we're going to need to take this afternoon unless we have agreements otherwise. so based on that, i ask unanimous consent to call up the

bennet-gardner amendment numbered 2983, i further ask consent at 2:00 p.m. the senate vote on the bennet amendment and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from tennessee, mr. alexander, for mr. bennet and others, proposes an amendment numbered 2983 to amendment number 2910. at the end of title 3 -- mr. alexander: i ask to suspend the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: what that means in plain english, mr. president, is that we'll have a vote at 2:00. if we secure an agreement, we could quickly wrap-up this afternoon. if we don't, we'll have further votes this afternoon. i see no other -- seeing no other senator, i notice the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: are we currently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. coons: mr. president, this morning, the hot sun rose on a tent city 20 miles outside el paso, texas. that tent city stands as a make-shift detention facility to house children who crossed our border and have been separated from their parent. this tent city, i would suggest, is a --opefully temporary monument to modern-day american cruelty. across south texas, so-called tender-age shelters have sprung up to house very younghildren, even infants, who have been taken from their parents in an act that pediatricians and psychologists and frankly anyone who has raised a child themselves knows is the most traumatizing and upsetting thing you can do to a young child, to take them away from their parents by force with no understanding of what's happening or expectation of when they would be reunited.

this morning, thousands of children woke up to the voices of strangers in strange places and started another day, in institutionalized, fenced-in confinement. this is happening in our nation. and i have heard from dozens, hundreds of delawareans by every means they can communicate with me, and i'm sure my colleagues have also heard from hundreds or thousands of their constituents as we as a nation have been haunted by the sounds and images of vulnerable children crying out for help. on one hand, i think this is a simple issue of right and wrong, but on the other, this issue, like so many others that affect us here in the senate, has been complicated by politics and by rhetoric and by statements frankly meant to mislead. the american people although i think deserve clarity about what is happening along our southern

border in recent weeks and what its impact has been and may be to families, to children, to parents who have crossed our border. so let's be clear about what's happening. president trump and his administration created, created a humanitarian crisis by adopting a so-called zero tolerance policy to compel prosecution of all who cross our southern border. many of whom are people fleeing unspeakable violence in their own countries in central america. the president and leaders in his administration excused or even misled this policy, this cruel policy in a variety of different and conflicting and frankly at times absurd ways in the past week. administration officials claimed that they didn't actually have this policy or claimed they were compelled to do this by a nonexistent law or claimed their

policy was a deterrent to prevent people from seeking asylum in the united states. regardless of the explanations given, the american people spoke clearly and forcefully over the past week and said the president's policy was unacceptable, that this treatment of children was an un-american tragedy that should not continue, and under that sustained pressure from the american people, our president relented and yesterday signed an executive order. but even then he has only created new problems with the executive order he just issued. mr. president, as a senator, as a person of faith, my own public service is closely tied to the values taught to me by my christian faith and by my parents. i know many of my colleagues with whom i have spoken on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. we have to ask ourselves as parents, as people of faith, how can we stomach the human

suffering of a child being ripped from his mother's arms and that intentional willful child abuse being imposed to make that child a hostage or a bargaining chip in our long-running and unresolved conflicts here about immigration policy. how can we tolerate even one father being left in torment, searching for his baby or child, not knowing where they are or if you will ever see them again and having that tormentmposed as a tool of policy. and then how can we stomach multiplying those individual tragedies by 2,342, because by my account, since may, 2,342 children have been forcibly separated from their parents after crossing our border. in just six weeks, 2,342 lives have been changed in ways that will have lasting consequences.

now, the president has issued the executive order that he claims will end this separation of families, but that executive order is seriously flawed and will create as many problems and questions as it seeks to address. of course, it doesn't change the fact that this policy, this zero tolerance policy has already inflicted trauma and suffering on thousands of families and children. i think it creates a new humanitarian challenge, a new humanitarian crisis because the consequences of this new executive order will be to detaken entire families in what may well prove to be ill-equipped tent cities. and this policy does nothing to clarify of what will become of the more than 2,300 children already separated from their families, some of whom have been lost track of by the agencies responsible for it. mr. president, we live in the world's most powerful and prosperous nation, but i'm afraid we are watching day after

day the way in which the administration has chosen to treat children through their indefinite detention or separation from their parents in a way that will have lasting and negative consequences for our human rights records. as a nation, we were founded as an idea, a place to which people came, fleeing persecution, fleeing countries in collapse or authoritarian regimes, and seeking a brighter, you are in future in this country. i think we are being dishonest or shortsighted about our own family's history. if any one of us stands and says none of our ancestors came here, none of our ancestors came here, seeking relief from oppression or outside the legal mechanisms of the times, i think we are forgetting our family's histo if we say today we must close our border absolutely and prevent anyone seeking asylum from coming to our country.

and frankly, mr. president, i have struggled, as leaders in this administration have chosen to cite scripture and to use their faith as an explanation or a justification for why this zero tolerance policy was required. our attorney general, a former colleague of mine, someone whose knowledge of scripture i know to be thorough cited paul's epistle to the romans. in fact, specifically romans 1. -- romans 13 to justify this policy. romans 13 requires us to obey the laws of the government because god has ordained the government for his purposes. i, too, am somewhat familiar with the passage of scripture. i try to read my bible daily. with all due respect, i disagree with attorney general sessions' reading. paul's letter to the romans, he

says just before romans 13, in romans 12, and then just a little later in romans 13, so if you just read a few verses on either side, i think the message is clear. we are urged to share with the lord's people in need. we are urged to live in harmony with one another, and we are reminded most pointedly later on in romans 13 that love is the fulfillment of the law, and that love thy neighbor is the greatest commandment of the law. if there is one common theme, not just in this epistle but in the gospel, it's that jesus radically opened his heart and his preaching to those considered outcasts and other marginalized in his society in his time. with whom did he spend his time? outstanding citizens, respected leaders? no. with prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, samaritans, with the other and the outcasts.

i would just ask those who heard what attorney general sessions had to say and thought it was the right answer to rethink whether this strained and cramped reading of paul's letter is truly a faithful reading. romans 13 does indeed instruct us to follow the law and to respect those in authority, but i'll say this particular passage, and it's being misquoted in order to support oppression. it has a long and storied history. it was cited by toriesn ts country who oppose those who stood up for freedom in the american revolution. it was cited by slaveholders who opposed abolition in the runup to the civil war. i heard it cited by those who defended the apartheid regime in south africa. yes, it does teach us to obey the law and respect the law. it does teach us that god ordains those in authority, but it does not mean we should simply accept unjust and

inhumane laws and the abuses that flow from them. and as a person of faith, i simply cannot accept the current policies for the treatment of those who cross our borders seeking asylum and refugee in our nation. in the last few days, as i've heard my television and social media the sounds of crying children and the images of children being kept in what certainly look to me to be little more than cages and thinking about something written by one of america's most famous former slaves, frederick douglas, a man who spent much of his life in this very city and who wrote about the consequences on the oppressor of cruelty. in his book, "my bondage and my freedom," he recounted his life as a slave and he wrote about the brutalizing impact of slavery on the people of faith who tolerated it. i think his words bear briefly repeating today. he said at one point in that

book, "the mistress of the house was a model of affection and tenderness. her watchful uprightness made it impossible to see her without thinking and feeling that woman is a christian. there was no sorrow, nor suffering for which she had not a tear. there was no innocent joy for which she had not a smile. she had bread for the hungry, cloture motions for the naked and comfort for every mourner who came within her reach." frederick douglas goes on to say, but slavery, soon approved its ability to divest her of these excellent qualities and slavery soon proved its ability to divest her hoax its early happiness, conscience cannot stand much violence. once broken down, who is he that can repair the damage? i think we should reas people conscience motivated to public service by a shared faith, about

our responsibility to speak up for the values upon which our republic was founded and through which it has been improved, when we promote humanity, kindness, love, openness, tolerance, we advance our nation. i've been heartened by the calls i've heard from across my state and country by people of many different backgrounds, many different faith traditions, many different political views, i'm reminded of that passage by frederick douglas of the harm it causes us to impose such a cruel and thoughtful policy and turns away and fails to step forward and fails to change it. i am encouraged by what change there has been so far but i remind those listening, we must redouble our efforts. let me quote just a few. the u.s. conference of catholic bishops called forceful family separation immoral and contrary

to catholic values. the holy father pope francis himself expressed his agreement with that opinion saying he's on the side of the bishop's conference in this debate. reverend franklin graham, president trump's most ardent of defenders, called this policy disgraceful and said, i quote, it is terrible to see families ripped apart, and i don't support that one bit. a personal friend of mine, reverend jim wallace of sojourners has worked with a broad group from across faith leadership of evangelical community, the profit stant community to -- the protestant community to put together a group to post online an important statement that speaks to how across so many different faith traditions this practice, this policy of forcibly separating children and now a subsequent policy of family detention speaks ill of all of us. christians, jews, muslims,

humanists, people of all traditions have been calling on our president to end this treatment of fellow human beings. mr. president, i've heard from colleagues -- republicans and democrats, from all over this country -- their voices of concern. so it is my hope that we will refuse to tolerate this, that we as a body will take a stand, that we as a nation will urge our president and this administration to adopt new, more humane policies for people crossing our border and seeking refuge in this country, and that we will support legislation, bipartisan legislation, to fix our broken immigration laws. it is only by the action and leadership of this administration that we've gotten into this space. it is only by their action and leadership we can get out of it. i pray that it is not too late for us to restore this nation's reputation as a country that welcomes those seeking refuge from around the world, and i will continue to pray every day

for our president, for our senators, for our nationing, for its values and for our ability to stand up for the treatment of children in distress. thank you, mr. president. with that, iiehelo. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: