food and dish in turkey, they must be involved in terrorist actions. these are the nature of changes that has kept this man in jail for, as i said earlier, 800 -- it's hard to keep track of. 822 days. now, when i talked to the turkish officials, some of the senior leaders there, and i worked with the state department, particularly when i talked to the turkish officials, they say we have a judicial process that we must run through so justice must take its course. well, how do you square that with the president of turkey who suggests that if we're prepared to trade a pastor that's been in turkey for -- for 20 years for a religious leader in the united states who's legally preent that we -- present that we told the turkish authorities, if they can

produce a valid extradition case that lives up to the standards of the u.s. extradition system, then we'll extradite him, but they are not willing to do that. on one hand they say that we have to let the -- let the legal issues take its course. the day that the turkish president made this comment, i believe pastor brunson be legally classified as a political hostage. what makes -- turkey is a nato ally. let me tell but the profound nature of the alliance once you're a member of nato. when you're a member of nato, you, as a country, will agree to come together and deploy your men and woman on foreign soil to protect the sovereignty of that nation fvment turkey were attacked, the u.s. has an obligation to defend the turkish

people and the turkish regime. i've got, for the first time in the history of the alliance, and turkey has been in the alliance since 1952, i've got a political hoes jiang, someone held -- hostage, someone held unlawfully, and i would have to put american men and women in uniform at risk. what is wrong with that? it has never happened before in the history of the alliance. no neigh tee ally has ever treated another nato ally this way. that's why we've got to cast light on this kangaroo court and we have to take every step necessary to make turkey understand that we're not going to give up. one of the things that we're doing to make sure of that is we put a provision in the national defense authorization that asks them serious questions about the nature of our relationship with turkey and whether or not we should really continue that commitment that we make through

our neigh to aloins -- nato alliance. we're going to have an ally who has a potential missile defense system that comes from a would-be adversary? a joint strike fighter manufacturing supply chain that relies heavily on turkey for the f-35. if turkey is going to behave this way and not treat us with the respect i think you should treat another nato ally, then we have to really real think the relationship with turkey. so, mr. president, i hope next week is the first week i don't have to do this speech. i hope next week is the week that we announce that pastor brunson is going to be released. but as long as pastor brunson is in prison, i guarantee you i will be here and i'll find everything i can do as a u.s. senator to make turkey accountable for the unlawful detention of pastor brunson. and i think all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- 70 of them who agree with me -- who agree that pastor brunson should

be set free. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. ifer officer the clerk should call the -- the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, today i want to talk about an dish the presiding officer: the senate? a quorum call. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: thank you. mr. president, today i want to talk about an issue that has gotten a lot of attention attene in washington appeared around the country over the past week or so, and that's the issue of children who cross our border. both those who cross the border illegally with their parents and those who come alone. those who come alone are known as unaccompanied children or u.a.c.'s. first i want to reiterate something that i've said a number of times over the past few weeks and that is i oppose

the policy of separating children from their parents. i think it's counter to our american values. as we'll talk about this afternoon, though, it's also inconsistent with the infrastructure we have in place to be able to deal with it. i was pleased to see the administration agree that we should keep families apprehended at the border together, and i was pleased to see the executive order the president issued to that effect yesterday. i have cosponsored legislation on this issue that has now been cosponsored by 32 of my senate colleagues, i'm told, so it has the support of almost one-third of this chamber, which would in effect take the executive order and put that into law but also make some other changes that are necessary to ensure that we can have a sustainable policy with regard to children coming across the border. i believe we can have strong border security without accept vatting families at the -- without separating families at

the border. i think we should enforce the law, and we should, while remaining true to our values. children should be kept in a safe, caring environment with their parents while immigration officials quickly assess each family's individual immigration case. that's the best solution. beyond the moral argument for halting this policy, by the way, the logistics of separating families is just not practical. let me talk about what currently happens with unaccompanied children. we talked earlier about two categories -- one is children who come with their parents, which has been the issue really we've been discussing the last week, but there's a bigger issue with regard to those children in the sense of the number of children who are in the system and that's those children who come on their own. as chairman of the permanent senate subcommittee on investigations, p.s.i., i have been investigating over the past couple of years the handling of u.a.c.'s, again, these kids that come unaccompanied. i've done this, therefore, both

during the obama administration and during the trump administration. and from the work we've done over the past two years, i can tell you that the department of health and human services ant the department of homeland security are not prepared to effectively deal with even more children, unaccompanied minors or those who come in with their parents. there are two key issues we need to address with unaccompanied children who enter the united states. first, we need to ensure that if our government takes charge of these children, they're not trafficked or abused. these are children. they need to be treated as sump. -- as such. second, we need to uphold our rule of law and make sure that our immigration system actually works. we need to make sure that these children company for their immigration court proceedings. i'm afraid we're failing on both counts now and that's unacceptable. let me explain what i mean. i first got involved in this issue very deeply involved back in 2015, a few years ago, when

reports came out that there were eight unaccompanied minors from guatemala who had come up to our southern border, crossed over, a ring of human traffickers lured them to the united states, by the way. the traffickers had actually gone to guatemala, talked to these kids' parents, told them they would provide these kids with an education in america, actually got them mortgages for some of the homes as payment, to pay for the trafficking and the smuggling debt, they also, the traffickers, retained not just the mortgages for these homes but they said when they got the kids in their control, they weren't going to let the kids go until these debts were totally paid off. so they weren't interested in giving them an education. turns out, they were just interested in trafficking these kids. anyway, when the kids crossed the border, they were apprehended.

their status, as defined by immigration lurks it is what of a u.a.c. this means the department of homeland security picks them up, customs tomorrows and border protection following protocol, they're then transferred to h.h.s. so one federal department picks them up, takes them to another federal department called the department of health and human services, and h.h.s., health and human services, is supposed to then keep these kids bost for a short period of time until they can be placed with sponsors. that's how the system worksment. the sponsors then are supposed to ensure these kids stay safe and get them to their appropriate immigration legal proceeding. unfortunately, based on our investigation, often that does not happen. and it certainly didn't happen in this case. what happened in this case is our investigation was able to reveal that these kids, brought up from guatemala by these traffic,taken into custody, gone

to h.h.s. for short-term detention in a facility, then they were sent out to sponsors. guess who the sponsors were these kids were given to? the traffickers. they were given to traffickers. not to family members or friends or someone who could be trusted. you think of a surrogate family of a foster family. they were put into the custody of the human traffickers. they didn't vet these people. and, as a result, the traffickers took these kids north, took them to my state of ohio, which is again how i got engaged and involved in this. they took them to an egg farm in marion, ohio, where these kids lived in squalid conditions. they were required to work 12 hours day, six, seven days a week. they are paychecks were often confiscated by the traffickers. so they were basically getting room and board. the traffickers threatened these kids and their families with physical harm. if the kids didn't perform these long hours, work under these

terrible conditions. fortunately, this trafficking ring was discovered, these kids were rescued, and they've now been prosecuted. but what our investigation found out when we tried to figure out how could this possibly have happened is is that h.h.s. didn't do the background checks on those sponsors. they didn't also respond to a bunch of red flags that should have alerted them to problems with these kids and with the sponsors. for example, h.h.s. missed that a group of sponsors were collecting multiple kids. that should have been a red flag right there. not just one child but multiple children. they missed a major red flag when a social worker working with h.h.s. showed up to help one of these kids or tried to and the sponsor turned the social worker away. this is somebody on contract with h.h.s. that didn't raise a red flag. we held a hearing in january of 2016. h.h.s. committed at that hearing they were going to do better. they were going to take care of

-- this is a federal agency and to have a federal agency give the kids to traffickers and have this situation unfold is just unacceptable. that was during the obama administration, by the way. so remember this is not a partisan issue. during previous administrations and during this administration, this system has not worked. after that hearing h.h.s. and d.h.s., the department of homeland security under which we have the border patrol, border protection service, they committed to clarifying their respective responsibilities for protecting these kids. because one thing we found out is, you know, nobody was really accountable. so people were pointing fingers at each other and the kids were falling through the cracks. h.h.s. and d.h.s. entered into a three-page memorandum of agreement which said that the agencies recognized that they should ensure that these kids around abused or trafficked. the memorandum also said the agencies would enter into a joint concept of operations, spelling out their specific responsibilities within a year's time. that that would be done by

february of 2017s. that's of course what i was looking for and what our committee was looking for. how are you going to handle these kids? who is responsible for them? what's the handoff? who's accountable? that was supposed to be due, again be, february 2017. today is june 2018. that the operations agreement between the agencies is still not completed. they missed their own deadline by about a year and a half. they had promised, by the way, based on a hearing we recently had with h.h.s., to complete this agreement and to get it to us, this joint concept of operations, by july 30. so we are expecting it, you know, within four or five weeks. and we're very much looking forward to that. this is based on a hearing we had in april. we called them back to the

explain, why we hadn't seen the agreement, despite every couple of weeks them telling you it's coming, it's coming, it's coming. we wanted to hear how they would work together to ensure that these kids were is mr.ed in safe environments and be sure they were following up with these children, to ensure that the kids actually went to their immigration court proceedings. so it is not just about ensuring that they aren't abused and trafficked. everyone of course agrees with that. everyone should also agree that they ought to go to their court hearing. and we ought to be sure the system works. we've made some progress since that 2016 hearing. for example, under the trump administration, h.h.s. started making telephone calls to follow up, which i think is a good idea. these were 30-day wellness check phone calls after they placed an unccompanied minor with a sponsor. h.h.s. testified at our april hearing that from october to december of last year, they had the data now on the calls that they had made. these are the 30-day calls

they're making after kids go out with their sponsors. those calls revealed that about 1,500 children were unaccounted for. in other words, they placed a call, talked to the sponsor, said, you know, how is is this child doing? and the sponsor wasn't responsive. either said we don't know how the child is doing. they couldn't find the sponsor. they couldn't find the child. in some cases, the child had actually run away. so 1,500 kids unaccounted for. doesn't mean they're not with a family somewhere, doesn't mean they're not even going to their court case. but they couldn't find these kids. that's unacceptable. and we're now working on a bipartisan basis, republicans and democrats alike, with new legislation that will be informed by this concept of operations we hope to have in the next several weeks here but will lay out how we ought to treat unaccompanied minors and hold someone accountable,

particularly h.h.s. that has these children in their custody, and prior to that d.h.s., the department of homeland security, to ensure that these instances will not happen again and to ensure that we know where these kids are. think the about your home state and the foster care system which is probably overburdened right now because of the opioid crisis. but you have a foster care system where foster parents are actually screened. part of the our legislation, by the way, is to he will it the states where the kids are so the states can play a role in this as well. what this all highlights is that the federal government is not doing nearly enough to protect unaccompanied minors from trafficking and other forms of abuse and not doing enough to enshould you are that they get to their court date. right? so we've got a system, we've got these kids in the system. i don't care what your views are on immigration policy. it doesn't matter whether you believe that we should have a much more secure border and a wall or whether you believe that

there ought to be more of an open border and a catch-and-release system. nobody should want to have these kids treated like this. everyone should want to ensure that these kids are cared for properly and get to their court date. ensure that we don't have the kinds of tragic instances we had in my home state of the ohio. but i also think it is important not to conflate these two issues together, the unaccompanied kids and the 1,500 who are unaccounted for and what has happened in the last several weeks with separating families from children. unfortunately, a lot of people have conflated the two. there were a "new york times" story that 1,500 kids were missing and somehow that got conflated with a lot of folks online and even some folks in this chamber with this nokes that this is about the separation policy and the zero tolerance policy. it is not. it is something different. but what it says to me is, let's

not add more children to a system that's not working. in other words, as i said earlier at the start, we don't have the infrastructure in place to deal with it. its one reason i felt strongly that separating kids from their families was not only the right -- the wrong thing to do in terms of a moral policy but also in terms of our government's ability to handle it. even if there was a situation where it was important to get this kid away from a family where maybe there was a sign of abuse or maybe the kid was being trafficked. we've got to have a better system in place to deal with these children who are unaccompanied or others who end up in the system. so what was happening under the zero tolerance policy, so-called zero tolerance policy over the last six weeks was that adults illegally crossing the border were arrested and put in detention facilities.

under the flores decision, if adults were traveling with children, those children had to be placed in what the court says is the least restrictive settling possible. that's one of the arguments the trump administration has been making. that's one reason with the zero tolerance policy and the parents going into the criminal justice system, going into that kind of detention, the kids couldn't go with them because of this court decision. it's an issue. there's no question about it. it's the primary reason why they are saying they put about 2,000 children into the care of h.h.s. and d.h.s. essentially turning them into unaccompanied minors putting them into a system that in my view is not working. what we've seen over the past two years is d.h.s. and h.h.s. are not adequately prepared to take care of these kids and make sure they're placed in safe environments and get to their court hearings. so again, as soon as i

understood what was going on with separating families i spoke out and said this is bad. we cannot allow this to happen for both reasons. not the moral thing to do but also we don't have the infrastructure. and on tuesday i signed a letter to attorney general jeff sessions calling on him to stop this practice of separating kids from their families, giving it a pause so that we can have the opportunity to look at this issue, develop the right legislation that we've now introduced. this letter, by the way, was led by my colleague senator orrin hatch and was signed by 11 of 0 you are colleagues. i commend the administration for the executive order yesterday that keeps families together. that's a positive first step but we've got to go further. because of the flores decision we talked about earlier which is again a settlement made back in 1997, congress is stkpw-g to have to -- going to have to step in as well. i think it's likely that the executive order will be in

litigation immediately because of the flores decision. the legislative solution that congress enacts needs to address the flores settlement agreement as it applies to children who arrive with their parents. in those cases the settlement agreement currently requires these children be separated from their families and keep in the least restrictive setting possible instead of staying with their families if their families are in detention. this legislation we introduced yesterday called keep families together and enforce the law act, again, has almost a third of the senate signing on. it will provide thatting long-term solution to keep families together and expedite these immigration cases. unlike other proposals which would incentivize more illegal immigration, in my view, by essentially codifying past practice where people were apprehended but then released into the community, this legislation actually solves the problem by keeping families together while ensuring the integrity of our immigration laws.

again, it among other things overrides the flores settlement agreement ensuring that families are kept together during their immigration enforcement proceedings. but importantly to me, it also expedites these proceedings. and this is one of the problems i've sao*ep in -- seen in the immigration system. we have so many cases, such a backlog, so much time required to get to a decision that it creates a lot more problems in terms of what do you do with folks who come across the border. so this would expedite and prioritize these cases and families, provide lots more immigration judges which you've got to get a decision on these people. you need to have more immigration judges and a better process. more money, frankly, is going to be needed, interest resources to be sure that infrastructure is in place to deal with this issue as quickly as possible, to get a decision, an appropriate decision as to whether the person stays or leaves. i hope more of my colleagues will sign on to this legislation. i hope they'll do it on a

bipartisan basis. i think the keep families together and enforce the law act is the right position that finds that common ground between all of us here on the floor who believe we ought to uphold our immigration law. but i also think that families need to stay together. we need to have a compassionate approach to this. there is a consensus now on not separating families. that's good. but there's also a consensus we need an immigration system that works. so let's come together in both chambers. let's do the hard work. let's get this done. of course we need to do broader immigration reform as well. but this issue is staring us in the face. let's keep families together. let's provide for an immigration system that works over the long term, that provides compassionate care for those kids, that's in line with our country's values and enforces the laws of our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time.

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader.

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the cloture motions on the substitute amendment number 2910 and the bill be withdrawn. i further ask that the managers' package which is at the desk and has been cleared by both sides be greed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the amendment number 2911 be agreed to, the substitute amendment number 2910 as amended be agreed to. finally, that at 5:30 p.m. on monday, june 25, the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of h.r. 5895 as amended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to move to proceed to h.r. 22 during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to

proceed to h.r. 2 and send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on to calendar number 483, h.r. 2, an act to provide for the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2023 and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination, p.n.1641. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: didn't of -- department of health and human services, jean hoflland of south

carolina. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the senate vote on nomination without any intervening nomination or -- and that no further motions be in order and that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor signify by saying aye. all opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair to play before the senate the house message to accompany s. 1091. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message.

the clerk: resolved, that the bill from the senate, s. 1091, an act to establish a federal task force to support grandparents raising grandchildren do pass with amendments. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur on the house amendments. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor, signify by saying aye. opposed, the motion carries. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 551 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 551, expressing support for the designation of the week of

june 18 through june # -- 22, 2018 as national g.i. bill commemoration week . the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i further ask that 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. mcconnell: so now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, june 25, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be a closed -- closed. i further ask following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of 5895 under the previous order, finally i ask that the cloture motion filed during today's session ripen

following disposition of h.r. 5895. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.

>> and we proudly support c-span's effort to inform and educate the nation on policy, politics history and current events. jci and cable companies make c-span possible there is no government mandate were public advertising or finding it as a public service fully funded by other companies and gci. it calls itself cable's gift to america. and now thanks to the long-standing social partnership with the 50 capitals to her we can showcase our state, the

largest in the nation by the way to the rest of the country through c-span. they are here. finally. >> we are static. it is a huge deal for us giving us a chance to showcase our city nationwide and for what we have to offer we like the idea that you are here richf north carolina.

>> we call the hearing to order. i would like not only to welcome our witnesses that apologize for the one hour delay unfortunately we have no control over the floor for votes in a couple snuck in on us at the last minute but i will do everything i can tood navigate us the open session and closed section -- session as quickly as we can thank youu to the former assistant secretary of state for the european and eurasian affairs

thanks to both of you for making the time today the next step in our efforts to fully investigate and explain how russia interfere in u.s. elections and how we reacted to what we have learned the committee moved quickly to discuss the threat to the voting system and we welcomed melegislation that sent urgent assistance to the state we thoroughly reviewed the intelligence community assessment on russianho interference and all the sources and holding a closed hearing responsible for that product. and then to finalize the assessment to the russian interference and today's hearing is the first of a series of several capstone events.

we invited ambassador rice to join us in a few weeks also from the department of justice to testify in july today we have been enjoying for this important hearing.el he sat on different sides of the same policy debate with those indicators russian hacking activity as well as countries like germany and ukraine meanwhile watching moscow pursue interest in ukraine and elsewhere that interest or carry over from the old soviet union with a new twist the kremlin began to use social media and qualified governmental agencies to weaken adversaries you were well-versed and you understand

putin's political will to use those tools today be like to know when the bigger picture emerged and how policymakers responded. do they seek to deter the democratic institutions or takeke action? if not, what held them back? we would like to thank them publicly today on behalf of the committee to talk to staff and for the candidate testimony. they consistently said they were operating summer and fall iof 2016 without a flavor this had an undefined set of rules they wanted to warn the russians to stopte interfering

but avoiding the appearance the white houset is putting the thumb on the scale during the election year they wanted to warn the public but not carry the border for them. they wanted the states not alienate states election officials we can look back with the benefit of time and distance to talk about what could have been done also looking to the 2018 elections in the 2020 elections more broadly we now realize that i russian campaign was to fracture our society because general discord that is connected that the focus should be to prevent and deter

for the future and a turn to the vice chairman for any con telephone -- comments he may have. >> thank you. we appreciate you recappinge how much work has been done on a bipartisan basis. as the january 2017 shows the effort demonstrated a significant escalation level of activity and the scope of effort compared to previous operations. during the 2016 campaign it is evident many ways we were caught flat-footed at the outset and our response was inadequate to meet the

escalation at the end of the day it is hard to see the russian influence campaignersn anything but a success for vladimir putin today learning from these past missteps because we know we have to do better there are far too many monday morning quarterbacks however looking back we should not have been surprised how far russia was willing to go how the baltics and eastern europe have long experienced the cyberattacks ukraine as part of these tactics. and we had a firsthand witness when the private conversations were intercepted and