[Pages S4937-S4942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session 
to consider Calendar No. 53.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Brian 
C. Buescher, of Nebraska, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Nebraska.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Brian C. Buescher, of Nebraska, to be United States 
     District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
         Mitch McConnell, Roger F. Wicker, Pat Roberts, Chuck 
           Grassley, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, David Perdue, Ron 
           Johnson, Joni Ernst, Mike Braun, Martha McSally, John 
           Boozman, Richard Burr, Lindsey Graham, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, Johnny Isakson, Thom Tillis.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 1327

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the men and women who responded to the 
horrific events of September 11, 2001, are among the great heroes of 
American history. Whether fighting the deadly flames, rescuing people 
who were injured or dying, or removing the destructive debris from the 
9/11 attack sites, the 9/11 volunteers and rescue workers displayed the 
courage and the sacrificial service that has earned them universal 
respect and admiration.
  Tragically, their heroism came at a cost. Their heroism, at exactly 
these same dangerous sites we are describing, earned them, in addition 
to great respect, also health challenges in the years since.
  In 2001, in response to those challenges, Congress established the 
September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to compensate both the 
survivors of the attacks and also the residents who lived near the 
site. It was authorized for 2 years, and it paid out about $7 billion 
in benefits and then closed.
  In 2011, Congress revived and expanded the program to cover a larger 
universe of victims and responders, and it authorized that fund to 
spend $2.7 billion over 5 years.
  In 2015, citing a growing need, Congress reauthorized the fund for 
another 5 years and an additional $4.6 billion. Of that $7.4 billion 
authorized since 2011, the fund has now paid out $5.2 billion.
  With money getting tight, in February of this year, the fund began 
temporarily reducing the claimants' benefits until Congress 
reauthorized and replenished it until such time as we can make those 
beneficiaries whole.
  I support that effort. I support it wholeheartedly. The bill before 
us today authorizes the program not for 2 years, as it was in 2001, or 
for 5 years, as we did in 2011 and 2015, no, it authorizes the program 
for an additional 72 years and does not specify a dollar amount.
  In Washington, this is a recipe for trouble. As we all know, finite 
authorizations are how Congress ensures that taxpayer money actually 
gets to its intended beneficiaries and not simply lost in government 
bureaucracy somewhere. It is how we make sure this is about protecting 
those who are supposed to benefit rather than government bureaucrats 
themselves.
  Since 2011, the 9/11 victims fund has always had finite 
authorizations, and, by all accounts, it has had an excellent record of 
avoiding waste and abuse. These two things are not coincidental. They 
go together, and 9/11 survivors and first responders deserve no less 
moving forward. They deserve no less than to make sure the program 
created in their honor for their benefit, in fact, benefits them. This 
is why I would like to offer a simple amendment to this bill that would 
authorize $10.2 billion in additional funding for the 9/11 victims fund 
over the next 10 years. That is the amount the Congressional Budget 
Office has estimated is necessary for covering all valid claims between 
now and 2029.
  My amendment would further authorize an additional $10 billion beyond 
that time. My amendment would not block or delay the bill's 
consideration, let alone its passage.
  This is something we could vote on in a matter of minutes, 15 minutes 
or so, and then move on to final passage. We could, in fact, accomplish 
this today before we adjourn for the weekend. This is, in fact, what I 
prefer. I think finishing our work on this bill to protect victims and 
first responders is worth 15, 20, 30 minutes of our time. That is what 
I prefer.
  I have had conversations with my colleagues, including colleagues 
across the aisle. In order to accommodate requests from some of my 
colleagues, I have agreed, with their mutual assent, to negotiate a 
different arrangement--one that would make sure we get to final passage 
on this bill and that we consider my amendment and that of Senator 
Paul's within the next few days.

[[Page S4938]]

  



                           Order of Business

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic 
leader, on or before Wednesday, July 24, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 153, H.R. 1327; that the only amendments 
in order be Lee amendment No. 928 and Paul amendment No. 929 to be 
offered; that there be up to 2 hours of concurrent debate equally 
divided between the leaders or designees; that the Senate then vote in 
relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the votes; that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to each vote; and that each amendment be subject to an 
affirmative 60-vote threshold. I further ask that upon disposition of 
the amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on 
H.R. 1327, as amended, if amended, all with no intervening action or 
debate, notwithstanding rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  I am grateful that we now have this agreement on timing so that we 
can get to the floor next week and have an up-or-down vote on the 9/11 
first responders bill and the healthcare they desperately need.
  I just want to go to the merits of Senator Lee's amendment because I 
think there is a misunderstanding. I understand that there is a concern 
about 72 years and that my colleague believes it is a recipe for 
trouble, but the truth is, the timing is limited for this bill because 
these men and women aren't going to survive. So many of them are 
already sick and dying, and all they care about is just being able to 
provide for their families.
  There is nothing about this bill that is trying to play politics with 
the lives of men. There is going to be no fraud. There is going to be 
no disuse. This is literally all that is necessary for families to 
survive during these horrible times when their loved ones are dying.
  I will not support my colleague's amendment because it will cap the 
bill needlessly, and it will mean that if there are survivors who still 
need healthcare, they will have to come back and walk these halls 
again. The gravest concern I have is that we dare ask these brave men 
and women to do this all over again. To watch someone come to the 
Capitol with an oxygen tank, in a wheelchair, unable to breathe or talk 
properly because of their cancer and their illness, is something I 
cannot accept.
  I am grateful that we now have a time agreement for Wednesday, and I 
am grateful that we now have a chance to get an up-or-down vote and to 
get this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will not object. First, I just want to 
thank both my colleagues from New York and Utah for working out this 
agreement with the leader and me.
  What this does is it paves the way, finally, for what we have been 
waiting on for a very, very long time--an up-or-down vote on H.R. 1327. 
There will be two amendments offered. We will oppose them. I don't 
think they have much of a chance of winning, but there is a right to 
offer them.
  I want to thank my colleague from Utah for moving forward here, as 
well as, of course, my colleague from New York for the great work. 
Right now, for the first time, we can not only see the light at the end 
of the tunnel, we are getting very close to getting out of the tunnel. 
I expect that by Wednesday, we will be out of that tunnel, the bill 
will head to the President's desk, having already passed the House, he 
will sign it, and our first responders can go do the job they have been 
intending to do all along, which is to take care of themselves, take 
care of their loved ones, and take care of their brothers and sisters 
who have these injuries or who will get these injuries.
  It has been a long, long and hard, hard struggle for over a decade, 
but now, finally--finally--it looks quite certain that this bill will 
pass the Senate, go to the President's desk, and at long last become 
law, and those first responders who made this happen more than anybody 
else will not--will not--have to come back again.
  I do not object to the offer by my colleague from Utah.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Democratic leader and to 
both Senators from New York for working with me on this and for getting 
this, along with my amendment and Senator Paul's amendment, set up for 
a vote.
  To be very clear--I want there to be no ambiguity--I would be willing 
to vote on this right now. There is no reason we should have to delay 
that. I am taking into account scheduling requests that were made by 
other Members of this body. As far as I am concerned and, as far as I 
am aware, as far as Senator Paul is concerned, we would be happy to 
vote on these immediately. There is no additional reason for delay.
  This is how the Senate is supposed to work. Each Member is supposed 
to have the opportunity to bring forward amendments to offer up 
improvements to legislation, to make sure that they happen and that 
they happen right.
  I respectfully but strongly disagree with my colleagues on the merits 
of some of the issues we have been discussing. We will debate those 
more in the coming days.
  I would reiterate that it is not unreasonable to suggest that a 
program that takes the unprecedented step of authorizing funding for 
something until 2092--that, coupled with language authorizing the 
expenditure of such sums as may be necessary, creates problems. It is 
one of the reasons we opt to vote on this amendment and one of the 
reasons I believe in this amendment.
  In any event, this is the kind of thing that ought not to be 
difficult. When any Member of any political background sees a potential 
weakness or defect in a piece of legislation, the rules of our body are 
such that we are supposed to be able to offer that up and cast an 
amendment. In this circumstance, I am pleased that it worked out the 
way it did, and we will be able to get votes on these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                              The Economy

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, just another day on Wall Street and just 
another news story. The New York Times' headline today was ``Big Banks 
Are Earning Billions of Dollars. Trump's Tax Cuts Are A Big Reason.''
  So Congress can continue to do tax cuts for Wall Street. Congress can 
continue to weaken rules on Wall Street. Congress has forgotten. They 
have this collective amnesia about what happened 10 years ago when this 
country's economy almost imploded because of Wall Street greed. So now 
Congress--because of the tax cut and because of continued relaxation of 
Wall Street financial stability safety rules, Wall Street is doing 
really well again.
  However, Congress can't pass an overtime bill--I mean, sorry. 
Congress can't pass a minimum wage bill. The last minimum wage increase 
in this Congress was signed by President Bush in 2007. President Obama 
never did it, and President Trump continues to oppose a minimum wage 
increase.
  President Trump has rolled back an overtime rule, which in the State 
of Indiana--the Presiding Officer's State--almost 100,000 workers were 
going to get a raise because of the overtime rule we passed a couple 
years ago. So people, if they work more than 40 hours, they ought to 
get paid for more than 40 hours--President Trump rolled that back--and 
130,000 workers in my State alone would have gotten a big bump in their 
wages because they were working 45, 50, or 60 hours a week.
  This Congress will not pass an infrastructure bill. Look at the 
conditions of the roads in Cleveland, Toledo, Mansfield, Findlay, 
Akron, Youngstown, Gallipolis, Chillicothe, and Portsmouth, in my 
State, and all kinds of communities in Indiana, which the Presiding 
Officer represents. Congress can always find the time and can always 
find the money to help the richest 1 percent and help the big banks, 
but we can't turn around and do what

[[Page S4939]]

we ought to do on the minimum wage, what we ought to do on the overtime 
rule, and what we ought to do to expand the earned income tax credit. I 
do appreciate the Presiding Officer's interest, especially in the 
earned income tax credit--what he has tried to do there. We just simply 
can't find the time to do that.
  We always help the people who have much in this society, and we just 
never get around, in this Congress, to helping the people who need a 
break.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The Senator from Texas.


                             Texas Veterans

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud of the fact that 1 out of every 
10 persons who wears the uniform of the U.S. military calls Texas home. 
It is no surprise that with more than a dozen military installations in 
the State, many servicemembers choose to live in Texas when they return 
to civilian life. We have the second highest veteran population of all 
of the States, with an estimated 1.6 million veterans living in Texas.
  As you might suppose, in having the honor of representing these 1.6 
million veterans, I talk to them quite a bit and hear from them often. 
I hear about the challenges they face when they transition back to 
civilian life. Whether the challenges are the big ones or the little 
ones, whether the challenges are of navigating complicated trails of 
paperwork, getting the timely healthcare they need, or finding 
employment when they return to civilian life, I am eager to help them 
identify solutions.
  Over the last few years, we have made some major progress. In the 
last Congress, for example, we passed the historic VA MISSION Act, 
which modernized the veterans' appeals process and the electronic 
health records system. The bill reformed GI benefits, improved 
accountability within the VA Administration, and provided the largest 
funding increase in history for veterans' care and services.
  We have also passed other bills to help veterans transition from 
military service. For example, our Jobs for Our Heroes Act made it easy 
for veterans to get commercial driver's licenses. Believe it or not, it 
is hard for the private sector to find the truckdrivers it needs. After 
somebody has driven a large vehicle in the military as part of his 
daily duties, you can imagine that his transitioning to a commercial 
driver's license would be a relatively simple thing. Given the 
paperwork and the bureaucracy and the challenges of one's applying for 
a commercial driver's license, we were able to pass legislation to 
facilitate that transition.
  We also passed the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act, which ensures 
that veterans get hired by local law enforcement agencies. If you think 
about that, it is a skill set that many learn in the military, whether 
they served in the military police or otherwise. If you talk to one of 
your local police departments, one of the things the department is 
short on is the number of people who work for local law enforcement. 
That is also true for Federal law enforcement agencies, particularly 
for the Border Patrol. Many military servicemembers come out of the 
military with the very skills that are needed most by the police 
agencies that work to keep our communities safe.
  To improve the educational opportunities that are available to these 
men and women, in the last Congress, we passed a bipartisan bill called 
the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, also known as 
the Forever GI Bill. President Trump signed it into law in August of 
2017. With a stroke of a pen, he enhanced and expanded education 
benefits for veterans, servicemembers, and their families.
  The Forever GI Bill made much needed updates for veterans who face 
school closures while they are enrolled. It expanded work study 
activities. It also created a scholarship program for students who 
pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math, the so-
called STEM fields.
  It established the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship, which 
provides student veterans with an additional 9 months of GI bill 
eligibility to ensure they have the time and the financial assistance 
they need in order to complete their studies in some of our most needed 
fields. We later learned that there is an issue, though, that prevents 
many students from taking full advantage of that program. The current 
law mandates that students must be enrolled in a STEM program for more 
than 128 credit hours, but the Department of Veterans Affairs found 
that there are only three States in which the average STEM degree 
exceeds that minimum. That places many students in an unfair position 
of either picking from a limited list of schools or forgoing the 
scholarship money, which can provide up to $30,000 in financial 
assistance. That is a Hobson's choice for our veterans, and it is time 
for Congress to fix that error.
  To ensure that all veterans who want to take advantage of the Nourse 
scholarship are able to, on a bipartisan basis with several of my 
colleagues, I recently introduced legislation called the Veteran STEM 
Scholarship Improvement Act, which would lower the 128 credit hour 
requirement to the more common 120 credit hour requirement. Now, 
changing a number from an eight to a zero may not seem like a big deal, 
but for the veterans who have been frustrated by this impediment that 
prevents them from using the benefits they were promised, it can be 
life-changing. This would ensure that Texas's veterans who are 
interested in pursuing STEM programs that are offered in their 
communities are able to do so while they receive their GI benefits.
  I just want to say a word about the GI bill because it is personal to 
me and my family. My dad, who was a B-17 pilot in the Army Air Corps 
and was stationed at Molesworth Air Force base in England, flew a total 
of 26 bombing missions over the English Channel into the industrial 
heartland of Germany to try to end that terrible, terrible war. 
Unfortunately, he was shot down and was captured as a prisoner of war 
on his 26th mission, and he served the last 4 months of World War II as 
a prisoner of war. Thankfully, he survived that experience.
  To my point here, when he came back to Corpus Christi, TX, he took 
advantage of the GI bill so he could continue his education. He 
received a 2-year associate of arts degree from, as it was called then, 
the Del Mar Community College. He also met my mother at about that 
time, and they married. Lo and behold, he ended up deciding, I think I 
want to go to dental school. So, after he had been shot out of the sky 
by German anti-aircraft guns, maybe a nice, placid dentist's life 
sounded pretty good, and that is what he chose.

  It was thanks to the GI bill that the whole generation of that so-
called ``greatest generation'' was able to come back from the war and 
get the tools and the education they needed in order to contribute to 
our country and help make our economy and our country as strong as we 
inherited it and welcome it today.
  Even for this next greatest generation of veterans who fought in Iraq 
and Afghanistan and for those who still serve today, it is important 
for us to keep this opportunity of the modern GI bill benefits when 
they take off the uniform as Active-Duty servicemembers and transition 
to civilian life.
  I thank my colleagues--particularly Senators Rubio, Cruz, Manchin, 
and Sinema--for supporting the STEM bill I described a little earlier. 
The House passed the legislation this last month, and I hope the Senate 
will do the same soon so we can get this bill to the President's desk 
for his signature.
  In addition to this legislation, I am eager to vote on the final 
passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. 
Last month, the Senate passed our version of the bill with broad, 
bipartisan support. As a matter of fact, only eight Senators voted 
against it. It is hard to find many things that are that bipartisan in 
the Senate or in Washington, DC, today.
  In addition to investing in military modernization and in providing 
the largest pay raise in a decade for our troops, this legislation also 
included other provisions to support our veterans.
  A bill I introduced with Senator Baldwin, of Wisconsin, called the 
HAVEN Act, was included as a provision of the NDAA. This bill would 
shield VA and Department of Defense disability benefits in bankruptcy 
proceedings in the same way Social Security disability is exempted. 
Veterans shouldn't be penalized for receiving

[[Page S4940]]

disability compensation that they are rightly due.
  I hope this provision will be included in the final version, which 
will follow the conference committee on the national defense 
authorization bill. The House passed its version of the NDAA last week, 
and I hope the conference committee will quickly iron out the 
differences between the two bills so we can approve this legislation.
  Like all of my colleagues, I am grateful for the dedicated service 
and sacrifice of millions of men and women across our country who 
defend our freedoms. I want to make sure, as we all do, that their 
transitioning to civilian life after their military service is as 
smooth as possible.
  By improving access to healthcare, employment, and education, the 
Senate is working hard to support America's veterans, and we are 
demonstrating in a country that has an all-volunteer military that we 
will keep our commitments to our military members while they wear the 
uniform and keep our commitments to our veterans when they transition 
to civilian life. This is an important part of our continuing to 
recruit and retain the best and brightest to serve in the U.S. 
military.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I start this afternoon with a topic we are 
all talking about--the horror that we saw and heard last night at a 
rally when there was a chant over and over again--we have seen the 
footage of it--of ``send her back.''
  I condemn this--as I did earlier today--in the strongest possible 
terms, and I want to reiterate my condemnation of that chant. I know 
that condemnation is widely shared on both sides of the aisle. I hope 
folks in both Chambers and both parties will condemn and reiterate the 
condemnation of that kind of chant but also what is underneath it. It 
is racist, for sure, and it is not who we are. That is not America.
  I am glad the President said that if it happens again, he will try to 
stop it. I wish he had done that in real time last night, but let's see 
what happens at the next rally.
  There is no excuse for any public official to do anything other than 
condemn that kind of language. Representative Omar is a Representative 
in the Congress of the United States who came here as a child, and for 
anyone to utter those kinds of words against her or anyone else, of 
course, should be condemned.
  Fortunately, I think most Americans agree with me, and we have to be 
very clear when we have that kind of sentiment expressed, especially 
when it is repeated across the country, as we saw last night.
  I want to talk about our asylum system, a legal asylum system that 
was established in the wake of the horrors of World War II. We as a 
Nation--the United States of America--vowed after that conflict to do 
better, to be better, to serve as a refuge for those fleeing violence 
and persecution in their home countries.
  Today, families from Central America are arriving at our southern 
border, hoping to avail themselves of this system because of the 
violence in their home countries. The three we have heard so much 
about--Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--rank in the top 10 
countries in the world for homicide--homicide. According to a report 
issued by Doctors Without Borders in 2017, Northern Triangle countries, 
these three countries, are experiencing--and this is a direct quote 
from the Doctors Without Borders report, 2017--``violent displacement, 
persecution, sexual violence, and forced repatriation akin to the 
conditions found in the deadliest armed conflicts in the world today.'' 
So said Doctors Without Borders.
  In the face of violence and other such circumstances, the choice to 
move in search of opportunity and safety is one that the vast majority 
of families would make, even when that journey can further subject them 
to violence and danger.
  Late last month, the Nation was horrified--indeed, the world was 
horrified--by a photograph of a 2-year-old girl and her father, her 
small arm clinging to her father as they lay facedown in a river, dead.
  That is not the picture I am showing here. We all know that picture. 
I don't need to show it again. So many Americans, so many people around 
the world remember that picture.
  But the picture I put up is a picture of that little girl and her 
father as they lived, a picture of the two of them that appeared in the 
Washington Post in an article dated Thursday, June 27, 2019, on page 3.
  Here is the article that the picture was taken from. The headline 
reads, ``Pair who died at border were desperate for a better life''--
desperate for a better life.
  That is the story of so many of these families--desperate for a 
better life, free from violence or the threat of violence, free from or 
at least distant from death threats, and free from poverty, grinding 
poverty, the likes of which so many of us have never had to experience. 
That is what they are desperate for when they say ``desperate for a 
better life.''
  Rather than simply focus on this father and his daughter and how they 
died and the picture of them facedown in a river, I wanted to make sure 
we saw their faces, to celebrate their lives but to remind us of our 
obligation, our enduring obligation, to make sure that we at least--at 
least--take steps to reduce the likelihood that we will ever see again 
a horrific picture like the one of the two of them dead in a river, 
facedown.
  Here is what part of the story is of this little girl and her father. 
The little girl's name was Valeria. Quoting from the Washington Post 
story:

       Valeria was a cheery child. Not even 2 years old, she loved 
     to dance, play with her stuffed animals and brush her family 
     members' hair. Her father, Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez, 
     was stalwart. Nearly always working, he sold his motorcycle 
     and borrowed money to move his family from El Salvador to the 
     United States. Martinez and his wife, Tania Vanessa Avalos, 
     wanted to save up for a home there. They wanted safety, 
     opportunity.
       ``They wanted a better future for their girl,'' Maria 
     Estela Avalos, Vanessa's mother, told The Washington Post.
       They traveled more than 1,000 miles seeking it. Once in the 
     United States, they planned to ask for asylum, for refuge 
     from the violence that drives many Central American migrants 
     from their home countries every day. But the farthest the 
     family got was an international bridge. . . . On Sunday--

  This would be the Sunday before June 27.

       On Sunday, they were told that the bridge was closed and 
     that they should return Monday. Aid workers told The Post the 
     line to get across the bridge was hundreds long.

  Then we know what happened next to this father and his daughter.
  There was also another story in the New York Times the day before, 
June 26. The headline read ``Girl was Safe but Tried to Follow Father 
Back.''
  I will not go through all of it, but here is what they were facing in 
terms of their own economic circumstances. At the end of the New York 
Times story it reads as follows:

       Mr. Martinez quit his job at Papa Johns, where he had 
     earned about $350 a month. By then, his wife had already left 
     her job as a cashier at a Chinese restaurant to take care of 
     their daughter.
       The couple lived with Mr. Martinez's mother in the 
     community of Altavista, a massive housing complex of tiny 
     concrete houses east of San Salvador, according to [someone 
     referred to earlier in the story].
       Though Altavista is under the control of gangs, the couple 
     was not fleeing from violence, [Ms. Ramirez] told him. 
     Rather, the grind of surviving as a family on $10 a day had 
     become unmanageable.

  So we have a lot of families fleeing for reasons based on violence 
and death threats and that horror, and then we also have families 
fleeing because they, in this case, had $10 a day to live on.
  So these families risk danger as they cross through--what could only 
be said by way of understatement--treacherous terrain. They risk that 
danger because the graver risk is not to make that journey.
  The administration has not sought, in my judgment, to address the 
root causes of migration, such as what we just talked about: violence, 
poverty, and corruption. Rather, the administration has repeatedly 
attempted to walk back our Nation's solemn vow

[[Page S4941]]

and close the door on refugees and asylum seekers.
  Over the past couple of weeks, reports have surfaced of children held 
in squalid conditions without adequate medical attention, sanitation, 
or even food and water.
  A law professor who spoke with children at a Texas CBP facility was 
quoted in the Washington Post as saying, ``It's the worst conditions I 
have ever witnessed in several years of doing these inspections.''
  That is a law professor, not a casual observer but someone who has 
experience and training, recognizing what is happening in these 
facilities.
  In May, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector 
General issued a report stating that the El Paso Del Norte Processing 
Center, a facility with a maximum of 125 detainees, was holding 900--
capacity 125, holding 900 detainees.
  Some migrants were held in standing-room-only conditions for days and 
weeks with limited access to showers and clean clothing. These 
conditions were dangerous and posed an immediate risk to both migrants 
and personnel.
  The administration has sought to use inhumane policies like 
separating families, just one example, as a deterrent--as a deterrent.
  They recently canceled English classes, recreational programs, and 
legal aid for unaccompanied minors at shelters across the country, and 
an attorney for the Department of Justice argued that the government 
should not be required to give detained migrant children toothbrushes, 
soap, towels, or showers.
  Does that make any sense at all? Is that consistent with our values?
  The administration is seeking to relax standards for holding 
children, when, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics--also 
not casual observers but a set of experts on what a child needs to 
survive and thrive--Department of Homeland Security facilities already 
do not meet the basic standards for the care of children in residential 
settings.
  Earlier this week, the administration issued an interim final rule 
that essentially bars Central American migrants from claiming asylum by 
making them ineligible for asylum, including unaccompanied children who 
enter the United States at the southern border after passing through 
another country. This is just the latest in many attempts to restrict 
our asylum system and bar those fleeing violence, persecution--and for 
other reasons--from exercising their legal right, a legal right that is 
not just grounded in United States law but international law, the right 
to petition the U.S. Government for protection consistent with what we 
did after World War II because of the horrors we saw in World War II. 
This wasn't just some concept that was dreamed up. It was meant to deal 
with the horrors that World War II brought, to say to the world that we 
are going to make sure that if someone is fleeing violence and 
persecution, they will at least have a shot to make their case, to have 
due process to make their case. Most don't make the case; we know that. 
Most end up not being successful. But we should let them make the case 
because we are, on our best days, a nation of laws. We are also, of 
course, a nation of immigrants, and both of these principles are 
intertwined and undergird our values.
  President Kennedy said it pretty well:

       Immigration policy should be generous; it should be fair; 
     it should be flexible. With such a policy, we can turn to the 
     world and to our own past with clean hands and a clear 
     conscience.

  It is entirely possible to create an immigration system that reflects 
not just President Kennedy's vision but our values as Americans--a 
system that respects the rule of law, that treats all individuals with 
human dignity, and reflects our values as a Nation.
  When we think of not just what our immigration system must be about 
but what our asylum system must be about, let us think of those 
families who put their lives at risk because of what they are fleeing, 
who simply want to make their case.
  Let's also remember two people whose faces we didn't see much of 
except in this one picture--a father and a daughter, little Valeria and 
her father, Oscar Martinez Ramirez--and remember what they were trying 
to do. I realize some will debate this: What happens when someone 
presents themselves at our border based upon poverty? I understand that 
will be the argument against it, but we are a big enough country and a 
great enough country to be able to develop a system to make sure that 
child and that father have a shot to come here.
  One of the problems we are having now at the border is that when you 
tell the world that you want to push people away, by way of rhetoric or 
by way of extreme policies at the border--inhumane policies, which 
might be an understatement--and by telling the world, or at least 
sending the message to the world, that you want to greatly restrict 
immigration, you are going to have people choosing a different system 
to try to make their case. We need to fix both. We have a broken 
immigration system which this body dealt with in 2013--68 votes in the 
Senate--to fix the system and to deal with all the tough issues. We 
can't get 68 votes around here to adjourn for lunch or to move on to 
the next part of the day sometimes. That is only a slight 
exaggeration--but 68 votes.
  What happened? Because there are extreme voices in this town that 
told the House of Representatives, ``Don't even vote on it; just end it 
right here,'' the best attempt in maybe decades to secure the border, 
to deal with citizenship, to deal with the guest worker program, to 
deal with all the difficult issues with immigration, and with 68 votes 
here, died in the House. It didn't even get a vote in the House, and 
this Chamber and the House have done basically nothing since then, at 
least the way I see it--nothing in terms of dealing with this system, 
trying to fix this broken system so you have rules and order and 
certainty, but also based upon and founded upon our values.
  Some people say: You can't do it. It is just too hard. Congress isn't 
equipped for that.
  We are the greatest country in the world for a lot of reasons. One of 
them is because of our values. Another reason is when we are at our 
best, we tackle tough problems. Fixing this broken immigration system 
is a tough problem. Many Presidents and many Congresses have wrestled 
with it, but we got as close to getting to a fix as anytime in recent 
American history when that bill passed. The faster we get back to 
something that comprehensive, that bipartisan, and that grounded in 
fact and law, the better off we will be.
  While we are doing that on immigration, we should have a conversation 
about asylum--how to do it right and how to make sure that system is 
working so well that it will be an example to the world.
  We have a long way to go. We have work to do, but I think these 
difficult issues are indeed a great mission--a difficult mission, but I 
think they are a mission worthy of a great country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks 
on Tuesday, July 23, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 
1327, as under the previous order; I further ask that notwithstanding 
rule XXII, at 12 noon, the Senate proceed to executive session and, if 
cloture has been invoked on the Esper nomination, all postcloture time 
be considered expired and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action. Finally, that following 
the cloture vote on the Dickson nomination, the Senate resume 
legislative session and consideration of H.R. 1327 with all debate time 
considered expired at 2:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4942]]

  

                          ____________________