in my austin field office, but she's been with me for nearly two decades, first in my office when i was attorney general of texas. now in the united states senate whereas -- where she serves, as i said, as my central texas regional director. everybody that knows sandy knows she has the heart and spirit of a public servant. she works hard to make sure that every texan who contacts my office feels appreciated, understood, and is happy with the support they receive. she knows that our faces represent what people get for their tax dollars and with sandy central texans have gotten serious bang for their buck. over the years she is, of course, developed countless relationships with people and organizations working to improve our texas communities in central texas. i'll never forget one year spending a december evening out in east austin at an incredible

nonprofit called the community first village. we joined formerly homeless people for a christmas tree lighting and spent a cold, rainy night with them rejoicing at what this organization and the good hearted people who work there have helped them to achieve. at one point in 2012, sandy had my biting down on a starburst candy so that students attending summer camp could analyze my dental impression. i never got a report back exactly how that turned out. but sandy is not a fairweather friend. she's also been by my side during some very difficult times. for example, in 2009, following the horrific shooting at fort hood, she was there as i fought to find words to provide even an ounce of comfort to the grieving post and the families there. we paid our respects to these

american heroes and watched the ramp ceremony as their flag-during this period caskets were loaded into a c-17 for their flight to dover. then there was 2013 in west texas -- that's not the region, that's the name of the city -- following a massive fertilizer plant explosion. it tore through a tight-knit community and killed many people. sandy of course was on the ground helping to connect with the first responders and local officials, making sure they had the support that we could provide from our office. she was there during the bass drop fires in 2011, the wimberly flooding. sandy has been a gracious helping hand duringth tough

times and an enthusiastic cheerleader during the good ones. i am sorry to lose such a devoted staffer and friend and i know my friend and texas will miss her bighearted participation in our team effort. but i don't think there is really a coincidence that sandy chose the month of september to retire because, of course, this is the start of her beloved texas longhorns' football season. so i know she's looking forward to attending u.t. games this fall along with our husband and perhaps her son. i know she will anne joy spend -- i know she'll enjoy spending more time at her family's ranch. i wanted to express my appreciation as well as that of my entire staff and i would dare say every single texan that ever met her to thank her for the lives she's touched and made

better. i want to say thank you and wish you a well-deserved next chapter in your life. mr. kennedy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. $1 million a minute. not are $1 -- not $1 million an hour or a day or a week. $1 million a minute. that's how much we borrow every minute to operate the federal government. it's $1.4 billion -- that's nine zeros -- a day.

that's how much more we spend than we take in. some people have said -- i've heard americans say this -- that we spend money like a drunk sailor. that's not accurate because a drunk sailor stops when he runs out of money. we just borrow. and we don't just print this money. we issue treasury notes and treasury bonds and treasury securities. we borrow it. some americans loan it to us. some folks in other countries -- japan, chinese -- and they expect to be paid back. and we do have to pay them back. in a couple of years, we're going to be spending more in our

budget on interest on our debt than we're spending on defense. now, we're in the middle of putting together a budget for the american people. the first thing we had to do was agree on how much money we're going to spend. they call that the topline number. but that just lines, how much money are you going to spend for the next two years? you'll not be surprised to learn that we're going to spend more. i think it was bad deal. i voted against it. our agreement on what we're going to spend in the budget we're putting forward now, according to c.b.o., is going to

add to our $22 trillion -- that's 12 zeros -- deficit. in fact, what we just agreed to, the additional spending, is going to add, according to our congressional budget office, $12 trillion over the next ten years. i voted against it. i lost. majority rules. now we're trying to put together a budget with all this extra money, and our challenge is -- or ought to be -- how do we spend the money that the american people are going to give us in an efficient way? the and i -- and i think every single member of the senate wants to do that. i want to talk about an issue

that's going to come up. it's going to come up up through the subcommittee that i chair for a few minutes, and it has to do with elections, and it has to do with money. now, russia tried to infear with our election -- to interfere with our election. you can write that down and take it home to mama. it's true. they did it. they didn't change a single vote. but they did try to influence the way americans did vote. to try to prevent that from happening again in 2018, this congress gave our states $380 million to shore up their election systems. they haven't spental of it --

they haven't spent all of it yet. this congress also took other steps. the senate has unanimously approved two bipartisan election security bills. i think they're both now pending in the house. we passed the defending integrity of voting systems act. that's going to make it a federal crime to hack any voting system in a federal election. we passed the defending elections against trolls from enemy regimes act. we call that the deter act. it'll bar people who interfere in our elections or attempt to do so from entering the united states. our department of homeland security -- very able women and men -- our cybersecurity advisors there, smart people, they're helping our state and local officials on a daily basis guard against threats.

we had a classified briefing. by we, i mean all members of the senate -- republicans, democrats. classified means that it's in our room down in the basement where foreign antiquities -- foreign agents cannot listen in. the f.b.i. director was there. the director of national intelligence was there is. most senior members of our military were there. and the topic was, how did we do in 2018? we know the russians and others took a run at us in 2016. they didn't succeed, but they tried. how did we do in 2018? and met me till -- and let me tell you, our men and women at the f.b.i. and in our military

and in homeland security, they are on it. our 2018 election went off without a hitch. i'm not saying that some foreign despots didn't try to influence how vietnamed, but they didn't -- how we voted. but they didn't change a single vote. our people did a great job. and every senator -- democrat and republican -- in that room, in that classified setting -- i can't tell you the details -- i wish i could. if i could, you'd be impressed. but everybody walked out of there and said, man, we're on it. 2018 elections went off without a hitch and, by god, we're ready for 2020. but we didn't just do that -- i'm going to go back to what i just said. we gave our states $380 million. they haven't even spent all of it yet. but there's going to be an effort to spend a whole bunch

more just to give to the states. i don't know how much. at least $200 million, maybe $400 million, maybe $1 billion. if i thought it was necessary, i'd vote for it. some of my colleagues are in perfectly good faith. they think the states need more money, even though they haven't spent what we gave them to begin with. even though all of our intelligence officials say we're ready for 2020, some of my colleagues, in good faith, think they need more money. but some of my colleagues see this as a first step to nationalizing elections, and that's what worries me. you know what makes our elections safest of all? you can't just hack one system. you got to hack 50.

you got to hack 50. because the states run elections, and they do a pretty good job. they do a really good job. and there is an effort -- not by all but by some -- they want to get the federal government in charge of elections. and you know how he do that? -- and you know how you do that? you don't just jump and grab them. you sneak up on them. you start giving them money and you get them addict and you give them a little more money and you get them a little more addicted. the next thing you know, the feds are running the elections. and not for all but for some of my colleagues, that's what this is about. now, this country started out as a self-reliant, tax-averse union of states. very skeptical of the federal government. and our original states and all

those after them, they insisted on running their own elections, and it has worked. we don't need the federal government in charge of elections. but there's some of my colleagues coming in time. and, looks, i'm not impugning their integrity. they're entitled to their opinion, because this is america. but i'm entitled to i move to proceed to -- but i'm entitled to mine. now, in the effort last year, we were able to beat it back. i'm afraid some of my friends on this side of the aisle this time are having second thoughts. i'm hearing all kind of rumors. 'tis u.s. it's -- it's amazing what you can pick up around this place if you just walk around this floor and keep your mouth shut and your ears open. you hear all kinds of stuff. and i'm here to say, if we do it, we're going to look back when the federal government is running our elections and screwing them up and say, this is where it began.

if you want to put the united states federal government in charge of your elections instead of the states, if you think that's a swell idea, i want you to close your eyes for a minute and imagine living in a world designed by the post office, because that's what you're going to get. i suggest the absence of a quorum, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. as if in legislative session -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. kennedy: i would ask that we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the secretary of the senate be authorized to request from the

house of representatives the return of the papers to s. 1790 to provide for a correction. i further ask that if the house agrees to the senate's request, upon receipt of the papers from the house and the senate, notwithstanding passage of the bill, the amendment at the desk be agreed to and the papers be returned to the house. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the bowman nomination. the clerk will call the roll. mr. kennedy: i ask for the yeas and nays, madam president. the presiding officer: is there a second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 60. the nays are 31. and the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: development, jennifer d. nordquist of virginia to be united states executive director. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: nomination, department of treasury, thomas peter feddo of virginia to be assistant secretary. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. this is not the first time that i've come to the floor to discuss the situation that is on our nation's southern border and the need that we as a country have for a stronger, more efficient immigration policy. i've made more than one trip to south texas this year, and each time i return i find myself more motivated to cut through the noise and to get something done. what should a practical policy discussion has unfortunately turned political and very real problems have compounded into an

unprecedented crisis. within these halls, we have debates over asylum camps and visa requirements. they are indeed important issues, but recent reports on the explosion of human rights violations perpetrated by cartels, coyotes, and international gangs has added some much-needed context to these debates. by now we've all heard how dangerous the journey to our southern border can be for those who are being brought forward by cartels, coyotes, and international gangs. traffickers have really built a big business, a very big and profitable business on moving drugs and desperate human cargo across the border.

sometimes these individuals make it and sometimes the guides leave their charges to die, to die alone in the desert. rumors of abuse, assault, gang rape have manifested and been proven true. border patrol agents at most ports of entry administer pregnancy tests to girls as young as 12 years of age. while we waste time arguing over talking points, monsters, absolute monsters are dragging children into the crosshairs of an international crisis. while we debate the best way to loose our asylum laws, traffickers are findining ways o exploit those laws, using children back and forth across the border under the guise of

parental legitimacy. child recycling is a crude term, but an accurate term and we define it as when a minor is used more than once by adults who are neither relatives nor legal guardians but pose as family members for the purposes of crossing the border. how despicable and how very selfish of them. child recycling isn't a myth, unfortunately. it's not an urban ledg legend. it is a definite, well defined clear and present danger. d.h.s. has uncovered more than 5,500 fraudulent asylum claims since may of 2018. i want you to think about that

number. 5,500 fraudulent asylum claims since may of 2018. customs and border patrol tell us unaccompanied minors are particularly vulnerable to trafficking, and that drug runners and sex predators are rolling the dice on these fraudulent asylum claims to move their product which bear in mind this is people and drugs to move them more efficiently. earlier this year immigration and customs enforcement introduced a pilot program they believed would help determine how serious the child recycling problem is. they began administering d.n.a. tests on all adults accompanied by minors who claim a familial relationship, but like the

paperwork -- but lacked the paperwork to prove this relationship. all swabs are destroyed and no genetic profiles were stored. the purpose was solely to prove a d.n.a. match and thank goodness somebody was watching. the results have been horrifying. one in five claims are fraud lnts. that means one in five children who were brought to the border and then funneled into the pilot program were likely being exploited. i asked my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say that finally we have had enough and to voice their support for the end child trafficking now act. this act requires the department of health and human services in conjunction with the department of homeland security to administer d.n.a. tests for all

adults accompanied by minors at a port of entry who claim a familial relationship without sufficient legal documentation to prove the connection. refusal of the test will be met with immediate deportation. fabrication of family ties or guardianship will carry a maximum ten-year penalty, and the child will be processed as an unaccompanied minor under current law. proven family members and guardians, however, will be allowed to move forward with the immigration process. the test themselves are simple. a quick swab of the cheek and a quick wait. i say quick because we'll be using a new form of genetic testing that can analyze a d.n.a. sample in about 90 minutes. now, i'll tell you i am aware that the various factions in this chamber have vastly different approaches to

immigration reform. we should be having a serious discussion about the fundamental flaws in our policies. and our plans to fix them. i welcome these discussions and i look forward to the changes, but i know and my colleagues know that no one bill or package will repair what is broken in our current immigration system. there is no viable quick fix. we owe it to this country. we owe it to the children that are brought here under duress, under false premises to do whatever we can to prevent what experience and pilot testing has proved that we can indeed prevent. let's make certain that children coming to the southern border

are with family and that they are protected. i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president, are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, before we vote, i'd like to take a moment to recognize a lifelong public servant, cindy hassack who will be retiring after 32 years in this chamber with the sergeant at arms and the senate door keepers. cindy came to the senate in the spring of 1 1987. in her time here she's seen hundreds of senators pass through these doors and when particular senators were nowhere to be found, she was usually the one who would have chased them down. there's also so much work in the senate that gets done behind the scenes. so much of it essential to our

operations and all of it performed flawlessly, quietly, wonderfully by dedicated staffers who rarely get the recognition they deserve. truly, the senate would not function without the quiet dedication and steady excellence of folks like cindy. after days of chasing down senators come to a close, i wish her all the best as she embarks on a well-earned and well-deserved retirement where, luckily for her, she will be close to her family, friends, and loved ones and far from the frenetic demands of wrangling 100 senators with 100 different schedules. i thank her. we all thank her for her dedicateed career in public service. she will always, always, always have the gratitude of this grand

institution. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: