consumers by flooding the market with products sold under the made in america label that were built using more foreign-made components. that's why the california attorney general, the consumer federation of california support keeping california's strong standards in place. the made in america label should promote u.s. manufacturing and give consumers confidence that they are supporting american jobs. consumers want to know that products bearing the made in america label are truly made in america because this would undermine that confidence and preempt california's strong standards. i believe this bill should not move by unanimous consent. regretfully, for those reasons, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i appreciate the comments made by

my distinguished colleague, the senator from california. when americans see a made in u.s.a. level on a product, it's a source of great pride. it represents the american virtues of innovation and industriness. it is a simple of support and high-quality products. and it spurs consumers to buy that very product. there is a difficult standard for products to claim the made in glai label -- u.s.a. label. it requires that all or virtually all of the products must be made in the united states. however, one state holds a different standard, one that is nearly impossible for businesses to meet. under california's law, if more than 5% of the components of a product are manufactured outside

the united states, even if that means just a few bolts or a few screws, that product cannot be labeled made in the u.s.a. well, companies could legally boast this claim in 49 of the 50 stays but they are often unable to do so because of the flow of u.s. commerce many they sell to whole manufacturers and disperse it. so they must be with the most rigid legislation. in short, one single state is effectively governing how interstate commerce is conducted with regard to made in u.s.a. labeling throughout the country. the reinforcing america made products act would solve this problem. it would ensure that the current definition is the supreme

labeling law in interstate commerce without weakening the made in the u.s.a. national standard. in addition to upholding the constitution, this body, this legislation would provide clarity and consistency, helping american companies to avoid unnecessary hardships and frivolous lawsuits. and in the global marketplace, it's increasingly difficult for small american companies to stay afloat, let alone compete. this would ultimately encourage manufacturing in america and use american tools and resources, and it would help soole many of the small businesses and ordinary american workers that are currently being left behind and helping them ought to be our goal. this bill passed unanimously out of committee and it has broad bipartisan support. i'm disappointed that it's being blocked by the few people who do not support it when it could benefit all 50 of our states. we should exercise this

authority and we should open the flow of interstate commerce. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the oldham nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any shores in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 50. the nays are 49. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the nomination of ryan wesley bounds of oregon to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of ryan wesley bounds of oregon to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the motion is agreed to. the yeas are 50. the nays are 49. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, ryan wesley bounds of oregon to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of senate resolution 572, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsiderren considered -- reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, reserving the right to object. this moment hardly seems the time for the senate to engage in debating rhetorical phrases of

praise for the immigration and custom enforcement agency. when that agency better known as i.c.e. is deeply mired in the scandal of separating children from their parents. it is i.c.e. that partnered with border control and health and human services in this diabolical situation. it's i.c.e. that holds the parents in detention camps. it's i.c.e. that has failed to arrange for the knowledge within the system of which parents go with which children. it's i.c.e. that often has prevented lawyers from having access for the individuals to have access to counsel, to be able to even phone their children, to charge them for using the phone. this situation in which some 2,500-plus kids have been torn out of the arms of their parents, and this particular

resolution would engage in nice phrases of praise instead of addressing itself to solving the problem. we should right now be considering senator harris' act, the reunite act which would accelerate the unification of the children, would make sure that family separation never happens again, that would coordinate actions between i.c.e. and the border patrol and health and human services, that would set up the family case management system that worked according to the i.g. of homeland security to deliver a hundred percent of the time when individuals had a date for a hearing, a hundred percent of the time. that is why, i would ask my colleague to modify his request so that the committee on the judiciary instead be discharged from further consideration of senate bill 3227, the reunite

act, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: will the senator from montana so modify his request? mr. daines: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i strongly object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, i live in a state, state of montana, that has a northern border. i.c.e. agents keep our border secure and i want to thank them for the very important work they are doing. far too many people are coming into our country illegally and

putting the safety and security of american citizens at risk. in fact, in montana, the effects of unsecure borders are very personal. all across our state, communities this moment are torn apart by the meth and opioids that are trafficked through the southern border. in fact, just last year, i.c.e. seized nearly 50 tons of narcotics, nearly a million pounds of heroin, fentanyl, and other deadly drugs that criminals and cartels are smuggling into our country. at a time when america is suffering from a drug epidemic, how many more lives will be lost if i.c.e. agents were not protecting our borders? and how many more innocent americans would be harmed or murdered if we did not have i.c.e. agents to arrest illegal immigrants with criminal

convictions. these are the questions that those who call for the abolishment of i.c.e. should be asking. it is outrageous. it is irresponsible to call for abolishing one of our country's most critical security measures. abolishing i.c.e. would give terrorists, gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals a field day. i stand for protecting american security. i stand for upholding the rule of law. and that's why i stand with i.c.e. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, this resolution being offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is a partisan political stunt to distract the american people from the crisis

created by donald trump's zero tolerance policy. almost 3,000 children are ripped from the arms of their parents and traumatized by the president's cruelty. yesterday the senate judiciary committee had a closed door briefing with officials from the department of justice, department of health and human service, and department of homeland security. the american people deserve to hear from these officials in public and under oath. all these officials provided at this briefing not under oath was more obstruction and ob face indication. the -- ob face obfuscating. they even claimed that they did not mess up here. separating almost 3,000 children from their parents, not meeting judicially set deadlines for unifying these children, the trauma continues. is there anybody in america paying attention to this issue who actually believes there was

no messup? we need a public hearing to hear from these officials under oath. donald trump is weaponizing fear to pursue his antiimmigration ageneral darks and we are not going to be party to that. we should be focused like laser beams on reuniting the children with their parents. a senator: would the senator yield? ms. hirono: i yield to the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i would like to thank the senator for joining in this statement about i.c.e. which is in the department of homeland security. there are certain things that even democrats and republicans coming together could agree on. let me tell you what i think they are. border security. the united states needs security at its borders. there's no question about that, whoever the president may be. the second thing that we agree on is that no one -- no one that is dangerous should be allowed to come into this country and anybody who is undocumented and

dangerous should be removed. 68 senators agreed on comprehensive immigration reform. our immigration laws are a mess, an absolute mess. that's why we continue to debate the topic. 68 of us came to the floor here and voted for a bipartisan measure five years ago to fix the whole system. it passed the senate, died in the house. now where are we today? we're here today debating on the floor the future of i.c.e. there are parts of the functionability of this agency of i.c.e. which all of us would agree on. the fact that i.c.e. has important responsibilities, combating serious criminal activity like smuggling, bulk cash, drugs, weapons, human trafficking, enforcing immigration laws against terrorists, violent catch and release and others who would do us harm. there's no argument about that. but what has become controversial is the trump administration's new immigration policy. you see, we don't have the resources to deport 11 million

undocumented people, nor do we have the resources to arrest everyone who presents themselves at the border. what this administration has done, though, is to say they are going to criminalize, charge as catch and release everyone who shows up at the border. by doing that, they take limited resources and focus them on a mass of people, most of whom are no threat at all to the united states. instead of focusing their resources on the drug smugglers, the traffickers, the would-be terrorists -- those are our priorities, are they not, for the safety of our homes, our families, and our communities? and here we have this resolution that was brought to the floor to commend i.c.e. in all its functions. well, i can just tell you, i don't join in that resolution. i specifically don't join in it when it comes to the president's zero tolerance policy. it became the policy of the trump administration and the united states government to forcibly remove 3,000 children

from their parents. that's bad enough, is it not, the notion that you'd take a baby out of the arms of its mother, a toddler, an infant, separating a young child? we did if under the -- we did it under the president trump zero tolerance policy. now, let me tell you what added insult to that injury. at that point there was no effort made to make certain that we could reunite the parent with the children. time and again we would meet downstairs for a briefing from i.c.e. and other agencies and they'd tell you, we don't know where the parents are. we really don't know where the kids are. we're going to have to go looking. imagine, separating up to 3,000 children from their parents, the united states government did not keep a record of what happened to those kids. ship something by u.p.s. they give you a tracking number. go online. you can track that package wherever it may be. order that pizza from dominoes.

call them after 15 minutes and ask them, where is the pizza. they will tale you. check your coat before you go to the table. when they come back, they give you your coat. pretty simple, is it not? but when it came to children and families, this agency i.c.e. along with other agencies in this government lost them. in one agency in chicago they told me that the search for the parents of the little kids they had was like a scavenger hunt. they just started calling right and left to try to figure out where the parent might be. yesterday we had a briefing and finally these agencies came up with some numbers -- 2,550 children still in our custody, not reunited with their families. 1,800 parents we haven't linked up with families yet, link the -- linked up with their children and we want to put a resolution on the floor to commend this activity, to praise them for their great work? not me. they do good work in a lot of

important areas, and i'll be happy to join that chorus. but for us to stand here and ignore the obvious, that this zero tolerance policy has given our nation a black eye, has raised questions about our values as americans, has created situations which we cannot morally defend, separating children from their mothers. you know what the american academy of pediatric medicine tells us? the doctors tell us, this is an institutional form of child abuse, to remove these children. i've seen them. these poor kids, 5- and years old in these settings, a place i visited in chicago was doing their best to help the children. but two little girls walked into the room where i was sitting, hold being hands. cute little kids. it was my opportunity to meet about 10 or 12 of the kids who had been separated from their parents under the zero tolerance policy. these two little girls were holding hands. i thought they were sisters. we asked in spanish, no, amigas,

she said -- friends. they'd become friends to one another. turns out one was five years old from guatemala, one was six years old from mexico. they were hanging onto one another because that's all they had was one another. because our government separated them from their mothers. now this agency, which is struggling to find these mothers, cannot in some circumstances even link up the children with their parents. no, i'm not going to join in a resolution of congratulations for the work that they've done. many of the things they've done have been courageous and important is pour the security of this country. but when this comes in this zero tolerance policy, it is not. do want to make one last point. thereon what the top agents at the homeland security investigations agency which focuses on serious transnational criminal activity had to same last month a majority of the agents focusing on transnational criminal activity wrote a letter

to the secretary of the department of homeland security kirstjen nielsen asking that homeland security investigations be removed from i.c.e. because of, quote, the political nature of civil immigration enforcement, close quote. these are men and women who are focusing on serious crime and they asked to be removed from i.c.e. they're tired of the politics. i'm weary of it as well. we need to start solving these problems -- border security, dangerous people kept out of this country and removed, comprehensive immigration remove and for goodness sakes, reunite these children with their parents. i yield the floor. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise in support of the brave men and women of our immigration and customs enforcement agency. these are law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day to keep this country safe. rising in support of law enforcement used to be a

bipartisan issue. it used to be an issue that brought us together that unified us. sadly, as we have seen in the preceding minutes, that is no longer the case. i rise today to urge my democratic colleagues to say no to the reckless and radical voices within their party that are pulling their party so far out of the mainstream, so far out of touch with the american people that it is barely recognizable. for a long time, when democrats were debating immigration issues, they used to say, well of course we support enforcing the laws. almost as an obligatory throw-away. instead we are here today debating abolishing the immigration and customs enforcement agency. the exact antithesis of where most congressional democrats claim they were. all of this started because a

few weeks ago, a longtime democratic incumbent member of the house found himself beat nona primary in new york state by an avowed socialist and as a result many of my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle are suddenly terrified of their left flank. because her campaign focused on abolishing i.c.e., abolishing the immigration and customs enforcement agency, more and more democrats, incumbent democrats, have said they, too, were open to abolishing i.c.e. mr. president, i call on this body to pull back from the abyss. on immigration there are areas of good-faith disagreement that this body has debated, will continue to debate. i've long characterized my views on immigration as being able to be summed up in four words -- legal, good, illegal bad. i think the vast majority of texans, the vast majority of americans agree with that. there are a host of immigration

policies that ought to be commonsense, bipartisan policies. mr. president, you have shown great leadership in fighting against sanction ware cities -- sanctuary cities, fighting against jurisdictions that defy federal immigration law and that release violent catch and crimis without being willing to turn them over to immigration officials. those catch and release up in turn go offer to commit more violent crimes. i am the author in the senate of kate's law, a commonsense proposal that says aggravated felons who repeatedly enter the country illegally should face a mandatory minimum prison sentence. it was named for kate steinle, that beautiful, young california woman 28 years old murdered on a california pier by an illegal immigrant who had been deported over and offered and over again, had been in and out of jail over and over and over again, had multiple felony convictions and yet because san francisco is a

sanctuary city, they releaseed them yet again and he committed murder. kate steinle would be alive if we could come together on the one hand kate's law, if we could come together on end ising sanctuary cities. but yet it turns out in today's hyper polarized world, even that's not extreme enough for the modern democratic party. multiple leaders of their party are advocating abolishing the immigration and customs enforce the agency. what does i.c.e. do? i have met with a great many of the agents in my home state of texas. i have met with a great many border patrol agents, joined them on their midnight muster, i've gone out and patrolled with them as they've risked their lives keeping us safe in the interior. criminal aliens arrested by i.c.e. in fiscal year 2017 were

responsible for more than 76,000 dangerous drug offenses. and yet many democrats are saying, abolish their role. they were responsible for over 48,000 assault offenses. they were responsible for over 11,000 weapons offenses. they were responsible for over 5,000 sexual assault offenses. they were responsible for over 2,000 kidnapping offenses, and they were responsible for over 1,800 homicide offenses. and yet the approach of the modern democratic party is not to find thes commonsense common ground, toss say, abolish the agency that has arrested criminals responsible for photographer 1,800 murders. when it comes to drugs, the volume that they are dealing with fighting the narcotics

traffickers, i.c.e. in fiscal year 2017 seized more than 980,000 pounds of narcotics. i.c.e. seized approximately 2,3 p 0 pounds of fentanyl, approximately 6,967 pounds of heroin. and yet today too many elected democrats, afraid that they, too, might face a socialist primary, that their far left is so angry, hates president trump so much, that their position is not we should enforce the immigration laws. their position is not that they will stand with law enforcement. their position has become abolish the immigration and customs enforcement agency, the agency charged with enforcing our immigration laws. mr. president, this is not a reasonable position in a public

policy debate upon which reasonable minds might differ. there are many of those in the immigration world. this is not one of them. this is a radical and reckless position, and yet this resolution -- by the way, this resolution says not a word about the issue of family separation. we have heard some of the speeches from my democratic colleagues focused on family separation. i can tell you, every member of this body, democrat and republican, agrees that families should not be separated and, indeed, i've introduced legislation to prohibit family separation to ensure that children stay with their parents. the best place for a kid is with his or her mom or dad. but to do so in a way that also respects the rule of law, that doesn't return to the failed policy of catch and release. that only enccurrence more and more aisle legal immigration. that only puts more littler boys

and girls in the position of being physically sexual assaulted by human traffickers. no one who cares about humanity, no one who cares about compassion should want to incentivize putting little children in the control of global transnational drug cartels and human traffickers. for the past several weeks i've been negotiating with democratic members of this body trying to see if we can reach common ground to unite and say we will not separate families but at the same time we will respect the rule of law and not return to catch and release in a way that incentivizes illegal immigration. we'll find out if any democrats are willing to find a common ground. all 100 would join together on ending family release and ending this today, but too many on the democratic side want to condition ending family release on essentially mandating the release of every illegal alien in custody.

those apprehended with children mandating their release. that's not a reasonable position. that's not a position the american people support. and critically, this resolution before the senate says not a word about it. this resolution does not address that question. instead this resolution says those i.c.e. agents, the i.c.e. agent who right now may be kicking down the door at a meth house and facing violent drug lords firing weapons at them, risking their lives to keep us safe, that we stand with those law enforcement agents. even if we may disagree on the parameters of legal immigration -- i'm one who believes we should welcome and embrace legal immigrants, those who follow the rules and wait in line like my father in 1957 when he came as an immigrant from cuba seeking freedom. but those debates we can have. we ought to be coming together in the spirit of bipartisan

agreement to stand with law enforcement. and so i call upon the responsible members of the democratic party, and surely there must be some left. surely in the democratic party, there are some voices that are willing to stand up to the reckless and radical left and say no, we should not abolish the agency charged with enforcing our immigration laws, charged with protecting us from vicious and violent criminals. the fact that senate democrats are today objecting to this resolution shows just how captive they are to the theory that rages against president trump. everyone in this chamber has at one time or another had something that the president has said or done that we've all disagreed with. that's part of the political process. but the rage and fury on the far left is a qualitatively

different matter. it is a rage that is demanding for democrats to go after, to undercut, to attack law enforcement agents to keep us safe. that's a mistake. it's a disservice to this institution. it's a disservice to the legacy of many distinguished senators, and it's a disservice to the american people and the constitution that we are sworn to protect. i would urge this body to pass this commonsense resolution standing with law enforcement, standing for enforcing our borders and stopping violent criminal murderers, kidnappers, rapists that i.c.e. arrests every year. abolishing law enforcement puts all of us at peril. and so i call upon my democratic

colleagues to reject that radical and reckless position. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, this senator came to talk about trade, and i'm going to do that. but i think what we have is an example of extremes in politics that is on display before us. i think on the one hand, political points are trying to be scored about the abolition of certain law enforcement organizations. on the other hand, there's the political points that a government, especially our

government, should not have a policy of separating children from their parents unless the parents have committed a crime and need to be incarcerated for the purpose of that crime. and so here we have the extremes again going to either side when in fact if there were goodwill, if there were not such a highly polarized, highly charged partisan atmosphere in part, as we say in the south, egged on by various members of the leadership in the congressional as well as the executive, if we didn't have all of that, we

could get a lot more done. because the genius of american politics is for us to be able to come together to respect each other, to understand the other fellow's point of view and then work out our differences. it's the same thing on the international stage. that's why we see it's so difficult to reach international agreements when people have gotten hardened into positions because of race or religion or political boundaries. and so if you note a tone in this senator's voice of sadness, then you are correct because, again, we are seeing the polarization of american politics. why can't we have a law

enforcement organization that also doesn't have to operate under a policy of separating children from their parents? that's the commonsense point of view. but, no, we dissolve into these extremes. now i came here to talk about trade, and here's another example of extremes. is the united states taken advantage of by other countries? you bet, and especially china. and we've been letting them get away with it for years. but you don't all of a sudden try to correct that situation by suddenly saying i'm going to impose a tariff, as the president has, on imported steel and aluminum, 25% on steel, 10%

on aluminum. because what happens, the people that use those products in the manufacturing, whatever their business is, that's going to cost -- cause the cost of those goods to go up. the consumers are going to be the one that's hurt. and, oh, by the way, what that's going to do, again, it's the extremes. you do this, and then the person that is offended is going to do this and do it more. and that's exactly what's happening in this trade war that is suddenly starting to hurt all of us. so in reaction to steel and aluminum tariffs that the united

states has imposed, good friends of ours, major trading partners of ours -- i'm keeping china different category. i'm talking about the european union. i'm talking about canada, one of our closest friends, and i'm talking about mexico. and so in retaliation for what we're doing to them, they are now retaliating and putting tariffs on other goods, and that's everything not only from steel and aluminum, washing machines to lobster, whiskey, and cheese. and we're starting to see the consequences of these moves, and people are starting to hurt. so this senator has heard from many businesses in his state that are starting to get hurt.

in florida, we're seeing the harmful effects of these tariffs. mind you, it's not just the budweiser brewery that i visited several months ago in jacksonville that produces 3.3 billion aluminum cans a year. and of course, the cost of those cans are going to go up, and of course it's going to be the consumer that pays. but it's going to be others in the restaurant industry, the medical device industry, the marine manufacturing industry, the auto parts industry. let me tell you about auto parts. the cost of these auto parts that we have to import or that are made here domestically because of the increased cost of

the steel or aluminum, the cost of those parts are going up. now maybe the dealer who services your car and replaces parts is one thing, but what about the individual entrepreneur, the auto mechanic shop that has to buy his parts, and now all of a sudden he has to charge more. and the big guys that deal in many more automobile repairs, they can spread that over a lot, and that poor individual auto mechanic shop, he's getting hurt, and it's happening, and it's happening right now. and he's losing business. take, for example, the marine manufacturing industry. how about manufacturing boats,

that's a big industry. in florida that's $121 billion a year in florida. that's 650,000 jobs in florida. that's tens of thousands of downstream jobs in florida and nationwide. the industry in our state alone provides over $10 billion in annual economic activity, and all of those businesses are really getting hurt because the european union, canada, and mexico, three big export markets for the boat manufacturers, those are getting orders cut because the retaliatory tariff

of 25% from the european union, they're not going to sell any more boats to european customers if they have to pay an extra $25%. they'll go elsewhere where they can get it cheap. ten percent extra costs in canada, 15% in mexico. what is that going to do? those jobs in that boat manufacturing industry, they're going to go away. they are brands that you might recognize, nautique, bryant, bass cat, all of that was just from one company. correct craft that i visited in orlando this week, they manufacture boats and engines in

factories across the country with their headquarters in orlando. so what the president's tariffs have done have increased the production cost considerably, the cost of aluminum and steel that goes into those boats. but then to add that insult to the already existing injury, they're being hit with these retaliatory tariffs from other countries where they sell their goods. now it's no sugar coating, we're in the midst of a full-blown trade war. if this thing gets out of control, it can take us into an economic recession like the smoot-hawley tariffs did into a recession that is known as the great recession.

and if we continue down this path without an exit strategy, we're going to regret it. so already our boat manufacturers in florida have lost tens of millions of dollars in canceled orders. regold marine industries had $4 million worth of orders fall through. the company estimates it'll lose about $13 million this year because of these tariffs. that will wind up costing people their jobs, and it's no small thing. and this is what happens when you get excessively extreme, when you get partisan, when you act like you know it all,