EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Senate - January 08, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 4 (Monday, January 8, 2018)]
[Pages S50-S64]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the 
following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of William L. Campbell, 
Jr., of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge for the Middle 
District of Tennessee.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Children's Health Insurance Program

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to mark 
a milestone no Senator can be proud of and a milestone every Senator 
should regret. That milestone is, it has now been 100 days since the 
Congress failed to extend full funding for the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. The Congress has always looked at this in a 
bipartisan way. This is for the millions of families, for kids who walk 
an economic tightrope with their families, the families who balance the 
rent bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against the grocery 
bill.
  I have to say, there was plenty of time in the last Congress to carry 
out the priorities of the multinational corporations. The people who 
are well connected, the people who are powerful received permanent, 
substantial, really massive new tax breaks, and yet the 9 million kids, 
including 80,000 in my home State who count on CHIP to stay healthy--
what they received was a patch. They received something temporary. They 
received something that didn't resemble the permanent, you-can-count-
on-it tax relief the multinational corporations were celebrating at the 
end of the year. It is a sad statement about the priorities of the 
Congress at the end of last year and one I hope we will move now in the 
bipartisan tradition of this program to pass on a permanent basis.
  The CHIP program was created in 1997 through a simple idea: No child, 
regardless of their income, family's status, or geography should go 
without quality, affordable healthcare. It serves families who make too 
much to qualify for Medicaid but also don't have access to affordable 
healthcare through their employer. A lot of these families go back and 
forth between CHIP and Medicaid, depending on whether a spouse is out 
of work.
  CHIP covers all kinds of essential healthcare for kids from 
preventive services to dental checkups, to treatment for serious 
illnesses. For families across the country, that is peace of mind, that 
is the chance to go to bed at night knowing you aren't going to get 
crushed by big medical bills in the morning. It means you don't have to 
have those heartbreaking, right-before-bed conversations about what you 
are going to do for your sick child, and it doesn't mean you have to 
just plan on the unexpected emergencies with nowhere to turn. All of 
that is at risk because of the ``negligence'' of this Congress, and I 
use that word specifically.
  I talked about the skewed priorities at the end of the year, but 
right now States are stretching their Children's Health Insurance 
Program dollars to the breaking point. They are trying to make sure 
kids stay covered, and what we are faced with is termination notices 
going out. We have to prevent those termination notices for these 
families. As I said, Congress put a patch on all this, contrasting this 
to the permanent relief of the multinationals, and the Congress sent a 
small amount of money to the States to keep them afloat, but make no 
mistake about it, it is not going to be long before bedlam sets in, 
once again, and there are real consequences for children and families.
  Now, I also want to note that I have been working closely with 
Chairman Hatch for months now to get CHIP across the finish line. 
Chairman Hatch knows what it takes. He created this program with our 
friend Senator Rockefeller and the late, great Senator Kennedy. They 
demonstrated that kids' health was an issue that transcends ideological 
lines, and our country is the better for it today.
  Chairman Hatch and I made an agreement in September that extends full 
funding for 5 years, affirms key protections for kids and their 
families, and gives States certainty they can

[[Page S51]]

count on to plan their budgets. I note that the leader, Senator 
Schumer, is here. He has been very supportive of this bill. He sat next 
to me and Senator Rockefeller for years and is supportive of the 
children's health program.
  The Hatch-Wyden bill passed with a strong bipartisan vote in the 
Finance Committee. Again, I am highlighting the priorities where there 
was time for the multinational corporations to get that permanent 
relief, but there wasn't any time to put the CHIP bill--one that had 
only one vote in opposition in the Finance Committee--on the Senate 
floor. In the House of Representatives, they weren't pursuing it like 
we did in the Finance Committee. They never could get past a purely 
partisan approach, out of line with CHIP's long, bipartisan history.
  Now, obviously after months of delay, it is time to act, and I want 
to wrap up with a quick comment about what is going to happen if you 
don't move and move quickly. Just last week, the Congressional Budget 
Office announced that the cost of CHIP has plummeted from $8.2 billion 
to $800 million. That is because premiums in the individual market are 
set to skyrocket after the repeal of the Affordable Care Act's coverage 
requirement in the Republican tax bill. Many of the families who 
currently count on CHIP will have to get their kids' healthcare on the 
private market at a higher cost. As if Congress needed more reasons to 
act, the budget office has demonstrated what is now at stake for kids 
and their families who are counting on quick action for affordable 
healthcare.
  There is a long history, as I have noted, of the Senate working on 
the Children's Health Insurance Program in a bipartisan way. We started 
building on that tradition in the Finance Committee with virtual 
unanimity. Somehow at the end of the last Congress--and your priorities 
can always be illustrated with what you find time to do--there was time 
at the end of the year for the agenda of the multinational 
corporations, but there wasn't time for the youngsters and their 
families who walk an economic tightrope and depend every night, when 
they turn the lights out, on making sure there is a way to pay for 
healthcare if there is an emergency in the morning.
  I want it understood that we are working day in and day out now to 
quickly make sure kids and their families get the certainty and 
predictability they deserve. They deserve the kind of certainty the 
powerful got with the tax bill at the end of the year.
  So we are going to be on this floor until this critical legislation 
is passed. It needs to be passed quickly.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.


                         Funding the Government

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, my dear friend and I got to Congress in 
1980, and I thank him very much for his leadership on the CHIP issue, 
as on so many other issues that pass through the Finance Committee, 
where he has done a terrific job. His caring for kids is unmatched, and 
he is a great asset to his State of Oregon, to this body, and to our 
country.
  We have 2 weeks until funding for the government runs out. Alongside 
our talks about extending government funding, we have also been engaged 
in serious bipartisan negotiations on a number of issues that should 
coincide with that deadline. We have to lift spending cuts, pass 
disaster aid, a healthcare package, reach an agreement to enshrine DACA 
protections alongside additional border security, and of course there 
is the issue of 702 as well.
  Those negotiations, though difficult, have been proceeding quite 
well. In fact, the four congressional leaders met with representatives 
from the White House last Thursday and had an encouraging meeting. 
Unfortunately, following that meeting, the White House issued a series 
of unreasonable demands entirely outside the scope of our ongoing 
negotiations about DACA and border security. It is part of a pattern of 
behavior on the part of this White House during sensitive bipartisan 
negotiations.

  Over the past year, the White House has much more frequently been a 
disruptive force rather than a unifying force. To throw down a list 
from the hard-line wing of the White House at the last minute is not a 
very fortuitous or smart thing to do.
  I hope we can keep on the track that we were on because the issues we 
are facing are mounting, and a major deal requires dedicated, 
bipartisan effort. Democrats are going to keep working toward a global 
agreement with our Republican colleagues, one that lifts the spending 
caps for defense and urgent domestic priorities in tandem, that sends 
our men and women in uniform the support they need, and that puts a 
downpayment on tackling the pressing issues here at home, such as 
combating the opioid epidemic, improving veterans' healthcare, and 
shoring up pension plans. These are every bit as important as helping 
our troops.
  Our troops are extremely important, but we are a great country, and 
we don't have to say: To help the troops, we can't help the victims of 
opioid addiction. To help the troops, we can't help the veterans who 
once were troops themselves. To help the troops, we can't help working 
Americans keep the pensions they paid into year after year. All these 
folks want is to retire to a life of some degree of dignity.
  When the majority leader said this morning that he is not for parity, 
he is saying we can't do both. He is telling victims of opioid 
addiction, many of whom are soldiers who have PTSD, and he is telling 
pensioners--some miners in his own State--and he is telling veterans 
who have to wait in line for healthcare that this country can't do 
both, that we can't protect our military, give them the funds they 
need, and deal with our domestic needs.
  When Donald Trump ran, he said that we have to pay more attention to 
America. What the majority leader is saying is that is not the case. So 
let no one be fooled. When the majority leader says he is not for 
parity, he is not for helping opioid folks to the extent they need, he 
is not for helping veterans to the extent they need, and he is not for 
helping pensioners to the extent they need. We Democrats are there for 
both--helping the military and helping these folks here.
  Over the weekend, I was in White Plains, which is a suburb of New 
York City. I stood with a mother who lost her son to an opioid 
overdose. A mother should never have to bury her son, especially 
Stephanie Keegan, whose son Daniel was a veteran who served our country 
bravely in Afghanistan. He did very well in school but had a duty to 
country. He was in the intelligence unit for a while, he was so 
brilliant. But he came home, as some do, nerves shattered by war, 
struggling with a severe case of PTSD. Stephanie told me that her 
beautiful, brilliant son Daniel--I saw his picture; an all-American 
boy, if ever there were one--her son Daniel waited 16 months for 
treatment by the VA and died 2 weeks before his first appointment.
  ``There are so many things that can be done to change this 
situation,'' Mrs. Keegan said. She is right. We can make a real 
investment in combating the scourge of opioid addiction, putting real 
resources into treatment and recovery, as well as interdiction. We can 
make a real investment in improving healthcare at our veterans 
hospitals so kids like Daniel don't have to wait almost a year and a 
half before they get the treatment they desperately need.
  And what about hard-working Americans who need pensions? Retirement 
is one of the things Americans worry about most these days. For years, 
Teamsters and miners and carpenters paid into pension plans week after 
week, month after month, year after year. They took a little less 
salary in their negotiations because they wanted to know that when it 
was time to retire, they could retire with some degree of dignity. No 
one is going to get rich on these pensions, but at least they are there 
and provide a little bit of a nest egg for people in their golden 
years. As they put the money in week after week, month after month, 
year after year, they were told: You may not become rich when you 
retire, you may not be able to buy luxuries, but at least you will have 
a life of dignity.
  Now those pensions may be stolen from millions in America, in this 
country. These folks contributed to and earned every penny of their 
pensions. Are we going to shrug our shoulders and say: We can't do 
that. Most Americans want us to do that; they don't want it to be an 
either-or situation.

[[Page S52]]

  Our colleagues would say: Well, that might increase the deficit. 
Don't come talking to us about the deficit anymore when you put 
together a $1.5 trillion increase in the deficit, the majority of which 
went to big tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and the biggest, 
fattest corporations in America. No more deficit talk from my 
colleagues here.
  When we Democrats ask for parity in budget agreements, this is what 
we mean: We mean opioids. We mean veterans' healthcare. We mean 
pensions.
  We need to defend and support the middle class here at home just as 
we must protect America from her adversaries abroad, which our military 
does so proudly and bravely. We agree that we need to support our 
military wholeheartedly, but we don't think that is a reason to leave 
the middle class behind. So let's do both. Let's lift the spending caps 
equally for defense and these urgent domestic priorities.
  Our two parties can reach a deal like that, just as we can reach a 
deal to pass a disaster aid package that treats all States and 
territories fairly; just as we can have an agreement on a healthcare 
package that acknowledges the new realities of the healthcare markets, 
which were disrupted by Republicans when they repealed the mandate in 
the tax bill last year; and just as we can reach a deal on DACA--
protecting young people who were brought here as kids through no fault 
of their own--while at the same time making reasonable, appropriate, 
and smart investments in border security--something that in the past 
both Democrats and Republicans have supported.
  In conclusion, an agreement can be reached on all these issues. 
Nobody wants a shutdown. Nobody wants sequestration to come into effect 
for either the military or the domestic side of the budget. So let's 
continue to work together. Let's commit to work together in good faith 
to make progress on these issues and get it done before January 19.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.


        National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, January is National Slavery and Human 
Trafficking Prevention Month. In a recent proclamation, President Trump 
continued what President Obama had begun in making this the ninth 
annual year where we designate our first month of the year to awareness 
and prevention of trafficking, awareness and prevention of this crime 
against humanity.
  President Trump issued a call to action. The proclamation said, in 
part:

       Human trafficking is a modern form of the oldest and most 
     barbaric type of exploitation. It has no place in our world. 
     This month, we do not simply reflect on this appalling 
     reality. We also pledge to do all in our power to end the 
     horrific practice of human trafficking that plagues innocent 
     victims around the world.

  Amen. I commend the President for his strong stance, and I commend 
the U.S. Senate for the work we have done over the past several years, 
in a bipartisan way, to help combat trafficking. We made some progress.
  About 6 years ago, Senator Blumenthal--who will speak about this 
topic later on the floor--and I cofounded the Senate Caucus to End 
Human Trafficking and legislation since that time to increase penalties 
on people buying sex from children; stop international trafficking by 
U.S. Government contractors overseas; find missing children more 
quickly--the most vulnerable among us--by ensuring that their 
photographs and other identifiers are available; improve data on 
trafficking to find out what the problem is, where it is going; and, of 
course, change the paradigm--treat children who are exploited as 
victims rather than, as they have been treated over the years, as 
criminals.
  We have made some progress in these areas, but I have to tell you, 
despite these efforts and despite the increasing awareness of the fact 
that trafficking occurs right here in this country, in all of our 
States, we now know that one form, at least, of sex trafficking is 
actually increasing in our country. Think about that. It is increasing 
in this country, in this century. What experts say when you ask them 
about it is that is primarily because of one reason; that is, the fact 
that the internet is being used to sell sex.
  By the way, doing it on the internet, it turns out, occurs with 
ruthless efficiency. Victims I have visited across Ohio tell me, 
including one this past Friday in Ohio: Rob, it has moved from the 
street corner to the iPhone, from the street corner to the cell phone, 
from the street corner to the internet.
  There was discussion earlier from my colleague from New York about 
the role opioids play in causing harm in our society. Of course, the 
internet combined with opioids is deadly. The young woman I met with on 
Friday was one of those who had become addicted to opioids--in her 
case, fentanyl, which is an incredibly powerful, dangerous drug--and 
depended on her trafficker to be able to provide that. That is one form 
of dependency you see in sex trafficking. And again, online is where 
people are increasingly being bought and sold.
  This increase in sex trafficking is a stain on our national 
character. It is only Congress that has the power to stop it.
  There is one website--backpage.com--that is the leader in online sex 
trafficking. They have knowingly sold underage girls online. I say that 
because we have done an investigation, and we determined that. We now 
know from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that 
backpage.com is involved in nearly 75 percent of all child trafficking 
reports the organization receives from the public.
  The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, along 
with then-ranking member Claire McCaskill and now-ranking member Tom 
Carper, has conducted an extensive, 18-month investigation into online 
sex trafficking and specifically backpage.com. We found that 
backpage.com knowingly facilitated criminal sex trafficking of 
vulnerable women and young children. It coached the traffickers on how 
to edit adult classified ads to post so-called clean ads for illegal 
transactions, and then it covered up evidence of these crimes in order 
to increase its profits. All this was done at the cost of human 
suffering--and sometimes human life--with the sole purpose of 
increasing the company's profits.
  In the fall, I testified on this issue in front of the Senate 
Commerce Committee--about our legislation. With me at the witness table 
was Yvonne Ambrose, a mother whose 16-year-old daughter, Desiree, was 
found murdered on Christmas Eve 2016 after being sold for sex on 
backpage.
  Desiree's death should never have happened--and neither should online 
sex trafficking of minors happen at all--but this tragic trend is 
compounded by the fact that backpage has evaded justice for its role in 
these tragic crimes. Courts across the country have consistently ruled 
that a Federal law--and this is why Congress has such a key role to 
play here--called the Communications Decency Act actually protects 
backpage and others from the liability they should have in sex 
trafficking.
  The Communications Decency Act is a well-intentioned law originally 
enacted back in 1996, when the internet was in its infancy, and it was 
meant to protect third-party websites from being held liable for crimes 
that users might commit on those websites. Ironically, part of the 
original intention of the Communications Decency Act was to protect 
children from indecent material on the internet by holding liable users 
who send explicit material to children. Now this same law is being used 
as a shield by cynical sex traffickers who promote and engage in online 
underage sex trafficking with immunity, thanks to this Federal law.
  Congress didn't intend for this broad immunity in the law--I am 
convinced of that--but numerous courts across the country have made it 
clear that their hands are tied because of the legal precedent that has 
been formed. As the lawmaking branch of the Federal Government, it is 
up to Congress to fix this injustice. No one else can do it.
  In the most blatant call for congressional action I have seen yet, in 
August of last year, a Sacramento judge cited the broad immunity 
provided by the Communications Decency Act in dismissing pimping 
charges against backpage.com. The court opinion stated:

       If and until Congress sees fit to amend the immunity law, 
     the broad reach of Section 230

[[Page S53]]

     of the Communications Decency Act even applies to those 
     alleged to support the exploitations of others by human 
     trafficking.

  That is an invitation to Congress to act. It is clearly up to 
Congress to act. It is past time we update this 21-year-old law for the 
21st century and allow victims who have had their most basic human 
rights violated to get justice against those who facilitate these 
crimes.
  We have an opportunity this month during National Human Trafficking 
Prevention Month to fix this. We can and we must.
  The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, or SESTA, is a bill I 
introduced with my bipartisan colleagues--Senator Blumenthal, who will 
speak later this afternoon, and Senators John McCain, Claire McCaskill, 
John Cornyn, Heidi Heitkamp, Amy Klobuchar, and 18 other colleagues. As 
of this morning, that legislation has 64 cosponsors. It is totally 
bipartisan, supported by both sides of the aisle. It is popular: 64 out 
of 100 have already cosponsored it because it will fix this injustice 
with two very narrowly crafted changes to the Communications Decency 
Act.

  First, it will allow victims to get the justice they deserve by 
removing the Communications Decency Act's broad liability protections 
the judge discussed, specifically for websites that knowingly 
facilitate sex trafficking crimes.
  Second, it will allow State attorneys general to prosecute these 
websites that violate Federal sex trafficking laws. These changes will 
hold bad actors like backpage accountable while doing nothing to impair 
the free internet. In fact, they will protect websites that do not 
actively and knowingly engage in online sex trafficking.
  The ``knowing'' standard is a high bar to meet. The California 
attorney general, Xavier Becerra, testified at the Senate Commerce 
Committee about that this fall. He said:

       We have to prove criminal intent. We can't win a 
     prosecution unless we can show the individuals we're 
     prosecuting, like Backpage, had the intent--the knowledge--to 
     do what they're doing. The legislation we have before you is 
     very narrowly tailored. It goes only after sex trafficking.

  The Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act passed the Senate Commerce 
Committee by a vote that was unanimous. It was bipartisan. It was 
unanimous, and the legislation has the support of an extraordinary 
coalition of law enforcement organizations, anti-trafficking advocates, 
trafficking victims, survivors, faith-based groups, and even some major 
tech players, although some in the tech community continue to be 
concerned. This includes the Internet Association, which now represents 
companies such as Facebook, reddit, Amazon, and others. It was endorsed 
by businesses, including Oracle, 21st Century Fox, Hewlett-Packard 
Enterprise, and the Walt Disney Company. Other companies such as IBM 
and others have stepped up to support it.
  Last year, 50 attorneys general across this country wrote a letter 
calling on Congress to amend the Communications Decency Act in the 
exact way we are proposing in this bill--50.
  Again, in the Senate, a bipartisan group of 64 Senators has now 
cosponsored the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. Those 60-plus 
cosponsors are significant because 60 is how many votes we need in the 
U.S. Senate if there are objections to the legislation to be able to 
get it passed. We already have that many Senators who have now put 
their names down. They said they want to be part of the solution to 
this tragic problem. They want to stop this increase in sex trafficking 
that unconscionably is happening in this country in this century.
  So we shouldn't wait any longer to pass this bill in the Senate. 
Every day we do, those who sell women and children will be allowed to 
continue that, continue to profit, and victims will continue to be 
denied justice.
  It is not an issue of politics or partisanship. It is about 
preventing exploitation and providing justice. I am hoping we can have 
a vote on this bill in the Senate this month, during National Slavery 
and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. This Thursday is National Human 
Trafficking Awareness Day. I urge the leadership to have the bill on 
the floor as soon as possible. We have every reason to act and no 
reason not to.
  These victims deserve justice, and Congress should help provide it. 
Passing the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act is an opportunity.
  Thank you.
  I yield back my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't know whether it is four, five, 
or six, but some Senators would like to have colloquy on the issue of 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and I ask unanimous consent 
that we have that privilege.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                  DACA

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to offer 
remarks about the current status of the negotiations on the Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA Program, as it is known in the 
U.S. Senate.
  Unfortunately, this body still isn't closer to a legitimate and fair 
deal that accomplishes two goals: First of all, to promote and protect 
the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration system 
and, two, provide a fair and equitable solution on DACA.
  Back in December, I introduced a bill, along with Senators Cornyn, 
Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton. The bill, with the acronym SECURE 
Act of 2017, was a product of months of discussion between this 
Senator, these other Senators I just named, and the White House. Our 
plan, simply put, has five pillars.
  First, based on the hard work and leadership of Senator Cornyn, our 
bill provided real, robust border security by mandating the 
construction of tactical and technological infrastructure at the 
border.
  Second, our bill took meaningful steps to end the lawlessness of 
dangerous criminal aliens by cracking down on sanctuary cities, ending 
the misguided catch-and-release policies of the previous 
administration, and, finally, taking steps to address intentional visa 
overstays.
  Third, our bill took steps to eliminate many of the ``pull'' factors 
that encourage people to immigrate illegally by permanently authorizing 
the E-Verify Program and by taking meaningful steps to reduce 
immigration court and asylum adjudication backlogs.
  Fourth, thanks to the leadership and advocacy of Senators Graham, 
Perdue, and Cotton, our bill eliminated the phenomenon known as chain 
migration and made a major downpayment toward transitioning to a merit-
based immigration system.
  Fifth, and finally, our bill provided a bipartisan solution to 
protect undocumented young people brought to the United States as 
children by adopting Senator Durbin's Bar Removal of Individuals who 
Dream and Grow our Economy--that has the acronym BRIDGE Act.
  Our plan was fair, serious, and bipartisan. Most importantly, it was 
and is pro-American. As I have continually said since the bill's 
introduction, this group of Senators is ready and willing to negotiate 
with our counterparts in good faith and to find an equitable solution 
to the DACA situation that incorporates our bill's five pillars of 
reform.
  I said negotiate. I had at least one Democratic Senator infer that I 
could not negotiate in good faith because I did not vote for the Gang 
of 8 immigration bill in 2013. So, sadly, our good-faith offers have 
consistently been rejected by Democratic leadership. Instead, they 
decide to engage in a game of brinksmanship.
  So I ask several questions: Why doesn't Democratic leadership 
negotiate with us? Because we refuse to simply pass what is referred to 
as the Dream Act, as is, with no proportional border security and 
interior enforcement majors. As the Democrats see it, it is take it or 
leave it, their way or the highway. This isn't good faith, this isn't 
negotiating, and that approach is doomed to failure.
  I have to ask: Why do my colleagues in the Democratic leadership 
refuse to even consider measures that would beef up border security and 
interior enforcement? Do they want people to continue to immigrate to 
this country illegally? Do they want sex offenders and human 
traffickers to continue to manipulate

[[Page S54]]

our porous border and enter our country unchecked? Do they want 
criminal illegal immigrants--people like Jose Zarate, who murdered Kate 
Steinle, or Eswin Mejia, who killed Sarah Root, to roam free in our 
country? Are they comfortable allowing criminal alien gangs like MS-13, 
whose motto happens to be ``kill, rape, and control,'' to continue to 
terrorize immigrant communities?
  I am assuming--in fact, I am hoping--the answer to all of these 
questions is a resounding no. If that is correct, then why does 
Democratic leadership refuse to discuss the border security and 
interior enforcement provisions in the SECURE Act?
  Despite the hysteria and the hyperbole you may hear from pro-amnesty, 
open-border immigrant advocates, the SECURE Act does not contain 
draconian enforcement measures. If anything, our bill contains the 
commonsense security and enforcement measures this body has been 
debating, discussing, and considering for years.
  Our bill adds new Border Patrol agents, U.S. attorneys, and judges to 
make it easier to apprehend, prosecute, and deport illegal entrants and 
criminal aliens. We authorize money for critically necessary port of 
entry and exit improvements so we can know who is here, how long they 
are here, and when they left--if they left.
  Our bill increases criminal penalties for human smugglers, these 
offenses that are committed by repeat offenders, often resulting in 
death, resulting in human trafficking, and including even sexual 
assault. We also increase penalties for criminal aliens who commit a 
crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.
  Our bill makes clear that individuals who engage in acts of 
terrorism, criminal gang members, aggravated felons, and drunk drivers 
are not admissible to our country, and makes it clear that they can be 
put into expedited removal if they somehow make it into our country.
  Finally, our bill permanently authorizes the voluntary E-Verify 
Program, and it also provides incentives for employers to participate 
in that voluntary program. It doesn't make E-Verify mandatory. It just 
provides employers certainty by making the program permanent.
  I hope, as I described these things, they are seen as commonsense 
measures. Why would my colleagues on the other side ever want to oppose 
those provisions? It wasn't that long ago that many Democrats supported 
border security and interior enforcement. I would like to list some 
quotes from recent Democratic Presidents who supported some of these 
propositions.
  In his 1996 State of the Union Address, then-President Clinton 
championed his actions to crack down on illegal immigration. He proudly 
noted his administration was ``increasing border patrol by 50 percent . 
. . [and] increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal 
immigrants.''
  In 2006, then-Senator, later President Obama spoke in favor of 
enhanced border security and enforcement measures. He acknowledged, 
even then, that ``we need tougher border security, stronger enforcement 
measures . . . [we] need more resources for Customs and Border Agents, 
and more detention beds.''
  When speaking in favor of the Secure Fence Act, Mr. Obama said: It 
would ``certainly do some good'' and would go a long way in 
``stem[ming] . . . the tide of illegal immigration in this country.''
  Do my colleagues no longer agree with former Presidents Clinton and 
Obama? Do they no longer believe we need to stem the tide of illegal 
immigration?
  My colleagues on the other side consistently talk about how DACA kids 
shouldn't be used as bargaining chips for any potential deal. What 
about the innocent American citizens they are using as bargaining 
chips? What about the thousands of victims every year of crimes 
committed by dangerous criminal aliens? Do the lives of these people 
not matter as well? Does the safety of these people, the happiness of 
these people, the well-being of these people deserve to be bargained 
away?
  This group of Senators whom I have named who are going to participate 
in this colloquy remain ready and willing to negotiate in good faith 
and to make tough sacrifices in order to find common ground on this 
issue. Our counterparts need to be willing to do the same. I am asking 
them, pleading with them, in all sincerity, to sit down and have an 
honest conversation.
  Let's strike a deal that is fair to all, including to law-abiding 
Americans. Any deal cooked up by this poor man's version of a Gang of 8 
that doesn't have real border security, doesn't have real interior 
enforcement measures, and doesn't have the other pillars of reform in 
the SECURE Act--well, it is pretty simple: That is no deal at all, and 
I will not support that.
  I yield the floor.
  I call on my colleague, the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, before the chairman leaves the Chamber, 
I wish to thank him for his leadership as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. He has done an extraordinary job of bringing people together 
to really come up with a solution to this problem.
  This is a problem that has existed for years--almost two decades. The 
first DREAM Act was filed in 2001, I believe. It has been some 16 
years, and they have failed to produce a result. Now, think that 
through. That was through President Bush, and it was through President 
Obama. It was actually at a time when, in 2009, not a single Republican 
vote would have been necessary to pass the DREAM Act. Yet my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle could not produce a result. So we know 
we need to do something different.
  There are things in the Dream Act that we need to file and put into a 
bill. In fact, it was instructed into a bill that I and Senator 
Lankford and Senator Hatch filed called the SUCCEED Act. It is a way to 
provide certainty for the DACA population, but it also needs to be 
paired up with reasonable border security provisions so that we get the 
broad base of support we need for enduring policy here.
  There are some people who are talking about withdrawing from 
negotiations and trying to threaten a government shutdown to get 
something slammed into a year-end spending bill. But if you really care 
about the long-term certainty that we want to provide these young 
people who qualified under the DACA Program, the last thing you should 
do is to play politics and get something half baked into a provision 
that will always be a target of the next year-end spending bill. Why 
don't we do something crazy and actually sit down, check our Members on 
the Republican side and the Democratic side who have extreme views on 
this issue at the door, and solve the problem.
  I have taken a lot of criticism after filing the SUCCEED Act because 
I had a lot of people who said that I was soft on immigration. Well, I 
respectfully disagree with some of my friends who are themselves 
Republicans and conservatives, because I don't think they have it 
right. I think that the young men and women who qualify under the DACA 
Program, who were brought to this country through the actions of their 
parents, through no fault of their own, deserve a respectful, 
compassionate, physically sustainable solution, and certainty. I have 
been working on it, and I have been taking the criticism ever since I 
filed the bill. I even had a congressional district in North Carolina 
censure me, saying, ``shame on you,'' for actually coming up with 
something that made sense.
  One thing that I said, though, when we filed that bill, is that what 
we did in the SUCCEED Act had to be paired with reasonable, sustainable 
border security measures and interior enforcement measures--things that 
are important if we want to make sure that a decade from now, 15 years 
from now we are not back here again worried about a new DACA population 
that has come across the borders.
  I have had some people insisting that having a secure border is not 
compassionate, that it is unfair, but I would actually submit to my 
colleagues that not having a secure border is irresponsible. Talking 
about not being compassionate, allowing things to occur with an 
unsecured border--to me, having a secure border is a hallmark of 
compassion. That is a little bit of what I want to talk about. So let's 
stipulate to that.
  Working with Senator Durbin--and, incidentally, Senator Durbin and I

[[Page S55]]

have been talking about this issue for about a year and a half--I knew 
that we were going to be here with the DACA Program and that we needed 
to work on it. So I reached out to Senator Durbin and said that I am 
willing to try to come up with something that makes sense, but we have 
to be willing to accept something different from all of the random 
ideas and come with a compromise. We made progress in terms of how to 
deal with the DACA population, but some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are unwilling to talk about the reality that we 
should also put into place, and pair with what we do for the DACA 
population, border security and interior enforcement that makes sense.
  Back in February I spent about a week down along the southern border. 
I was on patrol boats on the Rio Grande. I was riding horseback in 
certain areas of the border. I was out in the interior area where 
enforcement actions are taking place every night. I spent a lot of time 
down there. One thing that struck me was some of the briefings that we 
received from border security. I am going to get to what I consider to 
be the most heartbreaking last.
  We want to talk about what is going on. We have people come to this 
floor--my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and say: We must 
do something to address the opioid epidemic in this country. I agree. 
That is why I voted for the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. I 
spoke on the floor several times as a first step toward trying to get a 
handle on something that is poisoning almost 60,000 people a year--
killing them. They are dying from overdoses in this Nation. The reality 
is that the vast majority--and we will get to a slide in a minute--of 
those illicit drugs, including heroin and fentanyl and the other kinds 
of drugs that are extracted from opium and are killing people, are 
coming across the southern border. We simply don't have the resources 
at our land ports and in the areas where drug smugglers cross illegally 
to stop them. The consequence of that in a State like North Carolina is 
that more people are dying from drug overdoses today than are dying 
from automobile accidents--about 1,400 a year. It is even worse in a 
number of other States.
  We were at a land port in Laredo, and they were saying that on any 
given day, millions of doses are probably getting through because they 
are concealed. They are hidden in trucks. They don't have the capacity 
to inspect every vehicle. So they are coming across this border 
ostensibly legally--obviously, through the legal process of entry--but 
carrying illicit drugs, and we are only capturing a fraction of them. A 
part of what we are proposing in this bill is additional resources to 
interdict more of those drugs, to make it less likely that somebody 
could come across the border by use of a pickup truck or by using 
backpacks full of poison that will ultimately get into the blood 
streams of people who will ultimately die--many of them, tens of 
thousands a year. That is a case--a compassionate case--for border 
security.
  This is the number that I was talking about earlier: 15,469 deaths in 
2016 alone related to heroin. A lot of these are coming across the 
border. But only about 1.5 percent of all of the drugs that are 
estimated to come across the border are being seized today. How do you 
actually increase this seizure rate? You put the resources and 
authorities in place so that the Border Patrol and Customs and 
immigration resources down on the border can actually find them, and 
arrest, charge, convict, and incarcerate the people who are poisoning 
the men and women and boys and girls in this country.

  There is also another thing, and this is something that when I was 
down on the Texas border just stuck with me. I was on a 7,500-acre 
ranch, which is really, really small in Texas terms. I was talking with 
the ranch owner, who said that over the last 10 years, they had 
actually recovered 100 bodies on this ranch alone. If you do the math, 
that means they are finding a person who has died trying to come to 
this country illegally about every six weeks on this small ranch. Over 
the past 20 years, we have had about 10,000 people die crossing the 
border, and about 1,000 of them are children.
  If we had a secure border, at least we would have the knowledge and 
the situational awareness to know where these people are so that they 
don't languish somewhere in the middle of nowhere after they cross the 
border or after they have paid somebody $1,000, $5,000, or $10,000, in 
some cases, to carry them across the border. Then, they leave them. 
They take them across the border and then tell them that Houston is 
just a few miles away. Well, Houston is an hour-and-a-half plane ride 
away from where they cross the border.
  So we need border security for the protection of people who are 
making the poor decision to come across. If we have a secure border, it 
is much less likely that any of them will ever attempt to do it, except 
for the legal ones. Then there is the other thing that is happening on 
the other side of the border. The 10,000 people who have died over 20 
years are those whom we have identified--I am sure there are many more 
who we didn't--who were found on U.S. soil after crossing the border.
  One other thing I learned when I was down in Texas is about the 
criminal actions and the criminal gangs, basically--they call them 
plazas and cartels--that basically run every mile of the border. If you 
pass through one of those plazas and you don't pay the toll, you are 
likely going to die. In one case, there were 72 people who were 
murdered because the human smuggler failed to pay the plaza bosses the 
so-called toll when he was supposed to get them across the border. So 
they ordered the execution of men, women, and children just to send a 
message. This is one of the many examples that we have.
  So there is no question in my mind that of the 10,000 people who have 
died over the last 20 years on American soil, there were probably 
thousands or tens of thousands or more who have died in the hopes that 
they could get across the border.
  If we have a secure border and if we work on our immigration systems, 
we can get for those parents and people who want to come to this 
country legally an opportunity to get here without harming themselves 
or harming their children. If that is not a compassionate case for a 
secure border, I don't know what is.
  Now we are in the final stages of trying to negotiate a deal, and 
Chairman Grassley did a wonderful job of summarizing what we have 
proposed as a starting position for negotiation with our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. I hope they will be willing to come to the 
table and negotiate in good faith and recognize that their approach 
over the last 16 years has failed. They promised the Dreamers a 
solution, and they failed to deliver. They have failed to deliver under 
a Republican administration. They have failed to deliver under 
President Obama, when they had supermajorities. We are not going to let 
them fail this time.
  Giving the DACA population certainty, coming up with a solution that 
makes sense, getting a border that is secure, making sure that the 
poison that is coming across the border and killing tens of thousands 
of people a year is reduced, is, in my opinion, the scope that we need 
to negotiate to get to an agreement. If we have Senator Durbin, Senator 
Bennet, and others who have negotiated portions of the immigration 
issue open their eyes to the broader opportunity to come up with a 
balanced policy that addresses the concerns on both sides of the aisle, 
we can be the Congress and President Trump can be the President who 
actually solve this problem and, along the way, make it far less likely 
that it will be another problem for another Congress to solve 10 or 15 
years from now and that, then, may take 10 or 15 years to solve.
  This will have an enduring impact. This will have a compassionate 
impact. This will provide certainty to the DACA population. This will 
allow me to go home and say: I did something meaningful to secure the 
border and protect our Nation. But we have to have people come together 
and negotiate in good faith. It needs to start this week, and we need 
to continue it until we come to terms.
  People need to be willing to compromise and accept something less 
than perfect, because everybody's perfect conceptions of what we should 
do here have all one thing in common: They have all been resounding 
failures. They have been unkept promises.

[[Page S56]]

Along the way, our homeland is not as secure as it can be, and people 
are dying in the process. Hard-working people who are eligible for the 
DACA Program are uncertain about their future.
  So, again, I want to thank Chairman Grassley for his hard work and 
his leadership and willingness to engage. I want to thank the 
President. I was with the President for an hour and a half last week, 
along with Chairman Grassley and others. We are going to be meeting 
again in the White House tomorrow. Hopefully, we will be joined by our 
Democratic colleagues who have been invited to the meeting, and we will 
negotiate something that makes sense.
  Now is the time for us to deliver. The empty promises of the past are 
insufficient. We need to provide an enduring solution, and an enduring 
solution is a fair solution for the DACA population and a responsible 
solution for border security. If we do that, I think we will look at 
this as something meaningful--something the Presiding Officer and I did 
when we came in here in 2015.

  We got tax reform. That is meaningful.
  We have been promising immigration reform forever. This is not all of 
it. We have more work to do. But this is a big first step, and it 
requires bipartisanship, compromise, and a genuine commitment to 
negotiate.
  I hope my Democratic colleagues will take the invitation seriously, 
come to the table, negotiate an agreement we can all be proud of, and 
we can give the certainty that we should give to the DACA population.
  I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on this and for his 
continued leadership on this issue.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Senator has been a leader on this 
with his separate piece of legislation for a long time.
  The next speaker is Senator Cotton; after that is Senator Lankford.
  In the meantime, I yield the floor to my colleagues as I have a 
meeting to go to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I thank Chairman Grassley for his 
leadership on this issue and for offering the SECURE Act, which I and 
some of the other Senators have supported.
  I wish to continue this debate where Senator Tillis left off. We have 
heard a lot today about the so-called DACA Program, Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals, and the negotiations in which we are currently 
engaged. Hopefully, those negotiations will reach a solution that will 
satisfy all the parties and give certain legal protections to the DACA 
population.
  We have heard a lot today about border security and the wall. I want 
to focus on one other element of a needed, negotiated solution, and 
that is chain migration--putting an end, once and for all, to chain 
migration. When you give legal status to an illegal immigrant, that is 
a permanent change in law; it will never be reversed. Therefore, you 
can't simply accept some window dressing at the border--1 year of 
funding for demonstration or pilot projects. You have to have a 
permanent change in return for a permanent change, and an end to chain 
migration will be one of the most important permanent changes to U.S. 
immigration law in 52 years.
  What is chain migration? Under the current law, which dates back to 
1965, if you are a citizen, you can bring any one of your relatives to 
this country, not just your spouse and your unmarried minor kids--your 
nuclear family--but also your adult kids and their spouses and their 
children and your adult brother and your adult sister and your parents 
and then their siblings and so on and so forth. That is why it is 
called chain migration. Each person is a potential link in a never-
ending chain. The vast majority of people who immigrate to our country 
legally every single year do so for the sole reason that they just 
happen to be related to someone who is already here.
  We have heard a lot of talk about the American dream in recent days--
that we are a nation of immigrants; it is part of our core, and that is 
absolutely right. We are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation where 
blood ties are not supposed to dictate the path of your life, where you 
can fulfill your dreams. But we have an immigration system that does 
the exact opposite--an immigration system that favors the ties of 
blood, the ties of kinship, the ties of clan, and the ties of tribe. 
What could be less American than that?
  As a result, we have also had a massive wave of low-skilled and 
unskilled immigrants, over the last 52 years. Today, of the million-
plus immigrants who come here every year, only 1 in 15 comes here 
because of education, job skills, or a job offer. That means we have 
thousands and thousands of workers, with absolutely no consideration 
for what it means for the workers who are already here--the workers who 
are American citizens, who are earning a wage. In many cases, the most 
recent immigrants are going to face competition from the next wave of 
unskilled immigrants, so we are putting downward pressure on their 
wages--the wages of people who work with their hands and work on their 
feet, who hold the kinds of jobs that require you to take a shower 
after you get off work, not before you go to work.
  Blue-collar workers have begun to see an increase in their wages over 
the last year for the first time in decades, and that is in no small 
part because of the administration's efforts to get immigration under 
control. But it is not enough to stop there.
  The real question is, who should our immigration system work for? It 
should work for the American people, the American worker. It should be 
crafted for their benefit, not for the benefit of foreigners. We should 
have an immigration system that fulfills the needs of our economy, that 
focuses on jobs and wages for American citizens here, whether your 
parents came over on the Mayflower or whether you just took the oath of 
citizenship last week. This is not some radical position. Liberal 
Democrats used to believe in that.
  I understand that in this debate most of the attention is focused on 
the population of about 690,000 illegal immigrants who came here, 
through no fault of their own, as young children 15, 20, 30 years ago. 
I think the concern for them is very understandable. President Trump 
has shown it. My colleagues have shown it today. I share it as well.
  President Obama did them a real disservice by unilaterally and 
unconstitutionally--therefore unsustainably--giving them legal status 
in this country to work. President Trump did the right thing by 
recognizing that President Obama lacked that authority and shouldn't 
have put them in that position. But nobody in the Senate--I think I can 
speak for my other 99 colleagues. Nobody is eager to see these people 
face deportation. Yet, at the same time, if we are going to give them 
legal status, we have to recognize that inevitably, as an operation of 
logic, there are two negative consequences that flow from that. You can 
say that you don't mind them, but you can't say that they don't exist.
  First, as you have heard from so many others, you are going to 
encourage parents from around the world who live in poverty, 
oppression, strife, and war to illegally immigrate to this country with 
their small children in hopes of giving their children American 
citizenship sometime in the future. That is dangerous, and, in my 
opinion, it is immoral to offer those kind of inducements.
  Second, as I have explained, you will create a whole new category of 
American citizens who can now get legal status for their extended 
families--to include the very parents who brought them here in 
violation of law in the first place. As part of this debate, we have 
often heard the old line that children ought not to pay for the crimes 
of the parents. Well, if that is the case, can't we at least agree that 
parents can pay for the crimes of the parents? They are the ones who 
created the situation in the first place.
  President Trump has said, as I have noted, that he wants to protect 
the DACA population. But at the same time, he has said repeatedly: We 
must build a wall and secure our border and end chain migration. I 
agree that we have to build a wall on our border.
  I have to say, it is a little amusing to see how our Democratic 
colleagues have changed their tune on this point. First, they were 
complaining for weeks that the President hadn't written a border 
security plan yet. They kept asking for a punch list. A punch list is 
what your contractor provides you when he is done building your home

[[Page S57]]

but not quite done with every single technical spec. The administration 
provided that to them just last week.
  Now they are complaining that it is too expensive: It is outrageous, 
in the words from the Senator from Illinois. I want to point out that 
although the President's proposal would cost $18 billion--it is over 10 
years, so $1.8 billion a year--the Senator from Illinois has proposed a 
naked amnesty bill that would cost $26 billion over 10 years. That is 
right; $18 billion is too much to secure our southern border to build a 
wall and provide more agents and buy more technology, but $26 billion 
to provide more welfare for illegal immigrants after they get amnesty 
is A-OK.
  I would also point out that a lot of Democrats supported the Secure 
Fence Act just over a decade ago--building over 700 miles the physical 
barrier on our southern border. Maybe I can propose new grounds for 
starting negotiations. How about we simply agree as a baseline that we 
will fully fund the hundreds of miles of physical barriers that the 
Senate minority leader voted for just 12 years ago?
  They also supported the so-called Gang of 8 bill 5 years ago, which 
also would have built hundreds of miles of physical barrier on our 
southern border. What has changed since then?
  All that being said, building a wall will help stop illegal 
immigration, but it will not fix all the problems to the law itself. 
That is why I have said, as the President has said, we also have to 
deal with that second consequence--ending chain migration.
  One trial balloon I have heard floated in recent days is that a 
negotiated piece of legislation could eliminate the immigration 
preference for the adult, unmarried kids of legal permanent residents, 
green card holders. That is perfectly fine. We should do that, for 
sure. But to act as if that alone would end chain migration is 
preposterous. It will delay a very small part of chain migration--only 
delay, only delay a very small part--about 26,000 of the more than 
300,000 people who come here a year through family preferences. It 
doesn't even touch the preference for the adult, unmarried children of 
citizens or parents or siblings of citizens and green card holders 
alike.
  In other words, once these young people in the DACA population become 
citizens, then they will be able to get legal status for their 
relatives, which means, far from stopping chain migration, it will 
actually accelerate the naturalization process and the chain we are 
trying to stop in the first place.
  The time has come to end this foolish, unwise, and, indeed, dangerous 
policy, as we saw just a few weeks ago in the most recent attempted 
terror attack in New York, which had at its initiating point someone 
who had come into this country because of chain migration. Not a single 
advanced, industrialized nation has such a lax immigration policy as we 
do when it comes to immigrant families--not Canada, not the United 
Kingdom, not France, not Germany, not New Zealand, not Japan.
  If we are actually going to fix this problem--if we are going to do 
right by the American worker, if we are going to promote the American 
dream and American ideals, then it is time for these mindless family 
preferences and chain migration to come to an end.
  I yield the floor, and I yield to my colleague from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, it is an interesting conversation we 
can finally have about immigration. This has been that topic which has 
been discussed for a while but not settled.
  For 20 years, this body has talked about solving some of our 
immigration issues. National security immigration hasn't been a 
partisan issue until of late. Suddenly, when President Trump brings it 
up, we have a bunch of folks who used to be for border security but are 
now against border security because President Trump wants border 
security--with some of the exact same ideas that have been in the Gang 
of 8 bill or were in previous versions or were even talked about with a 
secure wall or fence before. Almost every Democrat in this body voted 
for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
  It is interesting to me the number of people who contact us saying: 
We do not want to build a wall. I have said: What about the 650 miles 
of wall that already exists and was put in place after 2006, which, by 
the way, President Obama, when he was Senator Obama, wholeheartedly 
supported and voted for?
  This is suddenly a partisan issue. I am trying to help our entire 
body take a step back and say: Immigration should be a humanity issue 
and a legal issue, not a political issue.
  I had a conversation with a friend of mine this weekend. We have 
known each other for years. He is a pastor. We started talking about 
the immigration issue. In that dialogue, he said to me: In the church, 
we look at every individual as an individual created in the image of 
God, and the church has a ministry to be able to reach out, regardless 
of legal status.
  Then he said, right behind it: But, in government, we understand 
there is a different responsibility. The church engages with every 
person equally, but the government has the responsibility of looking at 
laws--what is legal and what is not legal--and helping abide by those 
laws and enforcing those laws.
  He is correct. There is an issue of humanity in this. These are 
people caught in a system, and oftentimes those children in the DACA 
Program are caught in a gap in which literally they have no home 
country. They were brought as infants or as young children with a 
parent who violated the law but did so with a child who came in and has 
now lived in the country, in some cases 20 years, and they know only 
this country. They are literally caught in the middle. While we have 
great compassion, we are walking this interesting balance between 
compassion for people, which we as a nation have, and also consistency 
with the law. The law applies to every person. Whether you are the 
President of the United States or an undocumented individual who has 
come in, the law applies to everyone.

  What do we do with this? The first thing I think we need to do is 
take a deep breath and pull the politics out of this and to say border 
security--in fact, security as a whole is not a controversial issue. I 
will tell you, as a U.S. Senator, I have the privilege occasionally of 
going to do interviews. Let me give you an example. CNN has a great 
studio in Washington, DC. When you go to the studio in Washington, DC, 
you go through the front door of a big building. There is a security 
person there, and they will check your ID before you go any farther. 
Not only will they check your ID, they make sure you are already 
preregistered to be there to visit with CNN because you can't just walk 
in. You have to notify them ahead of time you are coming, even if you 
are the person being interviewed. Then, there is a physical barrier 
between you and the elevators. Once the security guard clears you, you 
go through the physical barriers, but you can't go up the elevator 
because the security guard has to clear you to actually go up that 
elevator and punch in a certain code to go up to the floor. When you 
arrive at that floor, you are literally in nowhere land because 
everywhere around you are locked doors until someone comes in and 
clears you. You go to another security guard, and you sign in with that 
security guard, again check ID, and then you have an escort who takes 
you into the studio. That escort stays with you because as soon as your 
interview is done, they will smile at you and say: Your time is up. We 
are going to escort you out.
  It is a shame CNN has to do that, but they do because not everybody 
who walks through their doors means to do them no harm. There are some 
people who mean to do them harm, and it is right for them to keep that 
level of security.
  For that level of security that we talked about for CNN, all of us 
see that as rational--unfortunate but rational. I would say to us as a 
nation, why is that rational at CNN headquarters, and it is irrational 
for us to be able to do the same thing with our own borders? Not 
everyone who crosses our border is there to help us. We can all admit, 
there are some individuals--a few thankfully--who do mean to cross our 
borders and do us harm. We should be aware of that. We have half a 
million people a day who legally cross our border, our southern border, 
alone--half a million people a day who cross back and forth, who 
legally go through the system. They are doing commerce. They are 
visiting family. There are all

[[Page S58]]

kinds of individuals who move back and forth through our gates legally 
every single day. We should ask the question: Why are half a million 
people moving through legally but yet there are thousands and thousands 
who are moving through illegally? What is the difference, and should we 
ask questions of some of those people? Should there be a physical 
barrier in some spots?
  We have seen some places like in Yuma, AZ, when there wasn't a 
physical barrier and there is a large city right on the border and 
someone would cross the border quickly, commit a crime, and move right 
back across the border. When a physical barrier was put in place a 
decade ago in Yuma, AZ, the crime rate dropped dramatically in that 
area. The physical barrier helped and did reduce crime.
  I have had people say, if you build a 30-foot wall, there will be a 
31-foot ladder leaning against it. That is true, but it slows them down 
and gives enough time in remote areas or in heavily urbanized areas for 
people to be able to respond and be able to interdict those 
individuals. Walls don't stop people. They slow people down so you can 
actually do interdiction and ask: Why are you going over the wall 
rather than through the gates like half a million other people are 
doing today?
  Why is that happening? That is not unreasonable, but it has become 
heavily politicized. We need to step back and remove this from a 
conversation about Presidents and about political parties and move it 
back to some basic, commonsense things--things this Congress used to do 
with wide, bipartisan support--things like a physical barrier. There 
should be a wall in certain areas of the southern border that don't 
have a wall right now. There should be areas of technology in other 
areas. There should be an area to have watch towers with cameras that 
are there. We should add some additional personnel. We are talking 
about 3,000-plus miles on our northern border, 2,000 miles on our 
southern border. That is a lot of territory to be able to cover. Some 
of those areas don't even have broadband access to it, so just getting 
information to the agents who work there takes a very long time or is 
unreliable. We do need to have some technology improvements in some of 
those areas. Should every part of our border have a wall? No, I don't 
think so. It shouldn't all have a wall, but in heavily populated areas, 
it probably should because that provides greater security, quite 
frankly, on both sides of the border.
  Some of it is even more simple than that. There are areas where there 
are large amounts of cane that is growing up in the Rio Grande River, 
and the Border Patrol agents can't see on both sides of the river who 
is moving through because people can hide in the cane. Just eradicating 
the cane that is all through that area on the border, in the river 
area, would provide tremendous visibility. That would allow people to 
be able to see farther and, quite frankly, stop some of the drug 
movement and allow for more interdiction in those areas. It shouldn't 
be that controversial. That should be common sense--adding technology, 
adding sensors, adding greater visibility, adding a wall in areas where 
a wall is needed, and in other areas that don't need a wall, we don't.
  That is not just the issue. Some of the issue is fixing loopholes in 
the law that get exploited. There are some individuals who cross the 
border, and they know the rules. The coyotes in Central America who are 
actually humans smuggling them all the way through Mexico and getting 
them to the border have told them exactly what to say. When they 
encounter a Border Patrol agent, they say: Say these words, and you 
will get access to asylum, whether they are true or not.
  The way it typically starts is, they say those words the coyotes have 
told them to say, and they actually get a quick hearing and what is 
called a notice to appear for another hearing, which is usually 2 or 
2\1/2\ years later. They disappear somewhere into the American system, 
and we have no idea where they are. They are somewhere among 300-plus 
million Americans in some town, and we don't know where they are. The 
vast majority of them never show up for the court hearings, but they 
have a piece of paper that says ``notice to appear,'' which also means 
they are given legal protections until that court date, and they can 
move around the country.

  That is a loophole in our system. It should be fixed. Nowhere else 
would they do that. Why do we do that? We allow ourselves to be 
exploited. There are some words and phrases that we need to be able to 
clean up in the law and some things that need to be done. Again, that 
shouldn't be controversial. It should be security related. There should 
be some basic questions about how we are going to handle immigration.
  We allow 1 million people a year to become citizens of the United 
States legally--1 million people a year. Yet the American system is 
also ignoring hundreds of thousands of others who are coming into the 
system illegally and pretending it is not happening. It is. For 20 
years, this Congress has not paid attention to it.
  Say what you would like to about President Trump, but he is pushing 
this Congress to do something it has not done in two decades--deal with 
the issue of border security. This body will have to come to agreement 
on that. The House of Representatives will have to come to agreement on 
that, and the President will have to be able to sign it or it will be 
just another Executive action that will not last very long. If we are 
going to have lasting, real change in border security, it has to go 
through the legislative process.
  The President is pushing us to get that done before the first week of 
March. We had 6 months of time. Four months of that has already run 
out. It is time to get that document finished, to deal with the basic 
things the President has asked for--border security, a legal status for 
those individuals who are in the DACA Program whom the previous 
President just put into deferred action status--that we will not arrest 
them, but they are in some sort of legal limbo in between. President 
Trump wants to have a permanent answer for all of those families. 
Dealing with things on border security, not just the wall but the other 
exceptions to it. The President wants to deal with the visa lottery, 
which is a system where the names of 50,000 people somewhere in the 
world are just randomly drawn out of a hat to be able to become 
American citizens.
  Many of us said for a long time, that is a foolish way to do your 
immigration system. Our immigration system should be based on what we 
need in America--what jobs, what locations--rather than randomly 
pulling names of people around the world out of a hat. I understand 
there are millions and millions of people around the world who would 
love to be Americans, but in America, we want to be able to target 
those individuals who want to not just be Americans but want to be a 
part of us, not just culturally but economically, to be part of the 
fabric of whom we are, to make decisions for ourselves as a nation, and 
to do it not just in our own policy but also our own immigration 
policy. It is not too much to ask.
  There are basic things that should be done. Dealing with the DACA 
students who are literally caught in a place where they have no home is 
a compassionate thing to do, but along with our compassion, we also 
need to uphold the law. Those kids should not be held to account for 
what their parents did, but their parents should not have the same 
access to the American system of being naturalized as the kids do--only 
because the parents did intentionally violate the law. They chose to 
break the law and bring their child with them when they did it. The 
child didn't make that decision. Now they are growing up in a place 
where they have no country. They should have a shot at being in our 
Nation. I do not believe the parents of those kids--who broke the law--
should have that same access to our system. That may seem heartless, 
but I will tell you, that is the balance we have to have between 
compassion for people and upholding the law; that the law does apply to 
all people. Maybe there is a way to do some other work permits or some 
other things that could be there, but access to citizenship should be 
reserved for those individuals who are upholding the law, not violating 
it.
  There are some DACA kids who have done some remarkable stuff, some 
DACA kids who are pretty amazing individuals. I ask folks in Oklahoma 
when I am home, if I could identify for you 700,000 people somewhere 
around the world who speak English, who are excellent students, who 
have stood up

[[Page S59]]

every day in their school and pledged allegiance to the United States 
of America, who are in our military already, who are already working in 
our economy right now, are those the individuals you want to reach out 
to and be part of that 1 million people a year who become citizens? I 
have yet to have someone tell me: No, that is not whom we are looking 
for. Everyone says: That is exactly whom we are looking for.
  I get to smile at them and say: They are already here. They just 
happen to have grown up in this country already, but they have no home 
and would love to call this one their home.
  I would like to give them the opportunity to earn the ability to be 
naturalized--not automatic, to earn it--and go through the process, to 
get in line like every other person around the world, to get in line 
but not have to return to their home country because they don't know a 
home country, but get in line here to do it.
  There is a way to be able to do this. The President has been the 
first advocate for that. There is a way to be able to actually answer 
the problems we have dealt with for 20 years on border security so we 
don't continue to have another DACA Program in 5 years, in 10 years, 
and over and over again as we are right now. Let's solve it.
  Interestingly enough, in 2012, when President Obama announced the 
DACA Program, he made some pretty blunt, clear statements during that 
time period. One of them was, for individuals--this was in June of 
2012--who are already here, he set a date. He said: For those 
individuals, our Nation wants to provide an opportunity to not be 
arrested, and we will work on your status, but for any future 
individuals who cross our border, you will not have access to this 
program.
  That is President Obama who made that statement in 2012. While I have 
heard individuals say we should abide by the words of our Presidents, 
when President Obama made those statements to those kids in 2012, I 
would remind us as a nation, we should honor all of those statements, 
if we do any of those statements, including President Obama's 
statements saying that this will end, and people who are crossing our 
border will be returned to their home country.
  As he announced publicly, there is a right way to be able to do 
immigration. Let's do it the right way. We already receive 1 million a 
year. Let's do it the right way, and you will find a very welcoming 
United States of America.
  That is where I think we can go, and I hope in the days ahead we can 
finish out a negotiation and be able to resolve some basic things--not 
everything in immigration but at least the core issues of immigration 
and border security so we can resolve the issue not only for the kids 
in DACA but continue to be able to work on how we are securing our 
Nation for the future.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, before I turn to the main portion of my 
remarks, I wish to speak briefly on the situation in the Middle East.
  The protests across cities in Iran reflect the failed leadership of a 
corrupt regime. The Ayatollah's negligence in denying the basic rights 
of his own people is inexcusable. Instead of allocating resources to 
care for families in need, the regime has chosen to use what economic 
gains it has accrued through the Iran deal to fund terrorism and 
sectarian violence in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the 
region. I stand with the Iranian people in their demand for prosperity 
and freedom, and I call upon my colleagues in Congress to do the same.


                      Remembering Thomas S. Monson

  Madam President, I wish to devote the remainder of my remarks to 
honoring the memory of a dear friend, President Thomas S. Monson, a 
beloved leader whose love for God and his fellow man defined a lifetime 
of selfless service. President Monson passed away quietly last week, 
with friends and family gathered by his bedside.
  Today, I join millions across the globe in mourning the loss of an 
extraordinary man whom, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints, we have long looked upon as a prophet, seer, and 
revelator. I also wish to extend my deepest sympathies to President 
Monson's family, especially his children--Thomas, Ann, and Clark. 
Although we are saddened by President Monson's passing, we take comfort 
in knowing that he has been reunited with his wife Frances, his 
lifelong friend and eternal companion.
  President Monson was born in Salt Lake City in 1927 to G. Spencer 
Monson and Gladys Condie Monson. Growing up during the Great 
Depression, young Tom was greatly influenced by his parents, who taught 
him the importance of taking care of others. From an early age, Tom 
displayed a remarkable concern for the most vulnerable among us, and 
throughout his life, he showed that concern and worked on solving 
problems for them.
  When Tom was just a boy, he had two beloved pet rabbits, to which he 
tended every day, but when he heard of a destitute family in his 
neighborhood, a family so down on their luck that they had nothing to 
eat for Christmas dinner, Tom did what few little boys would ever do: 
He gave his two pet rabbits to his neighbors so they could have a nice 
Christmas meal. Yet, when little Tommy returned home to see his empty 
rabbit hutch, tears filled his eyes, but these were tears of gratitude 
for the joy he had felt in helping others. Selflessness, service, and 
sacrifice--these would soon become the virtues by which Thomas Monson 
lived his life, and everybody who knew him knows that.
  Following graduation from West High School, President Monson attended 
the University of Utah, where he met Frances Johnson during his 
freshman year. Around the same time, he joined the U.S. Navy and served 
in the waning days of World War II. After the war, he graduated cum 
laude from the University of Utah with a bachelor's degree in business 
management. Shortly thereafter, he married Frances in the Salt Lake 
Temple.
  Following graduation, President Monson was hired by the Deseret News 
to work in the paper's advertising department. He worked in various 
positions for the newspaper and eventually became the general manager 
of the Deseret Press.
  As he was just beginning his professional career, President Monson 
was called at the exceptionally young age of 22 to be a bishop of a 
Mormon congregation. That hardly ever happens in the LDS Church. In 
this position, he was charged with leading a congregation of more than 
1,000 members. Then, at the age of 31, Tom was again called to a 
leadership position typically reserved for older men when he was asked 
to serve as president of the LDS mission in Canada and preside over a 
whole raft of young missionaries. When he was only 36, Tom was called 
as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, among the most 
influential positions in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints. In 2008, he was sustained as president of the church, 
overseeing the day-to-day operations of a faith with millions of 
followers. The church witnessed record growth during his tenure as 
president, with more than 2 million men and women joining the ranks of 
converts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  Whether as a prophet, as an apostle, as a mission president, or as a 
friend, President Monson simply took care of people. One particular 
story stands out among the rest. When he was a young bishop, there were 
84 widows in his congregation. During the Christmas holiday, he would 
visit each and every one of them, ensuring that they were all provided 
with a good holiday meal. Even after President Monson was released as 
bishop, he continued to stay in contact with each one of these widows--
writing letters, making phone calls, and frequently visiting them in 
their homes. In fact, President Monson remained so close with each of 
these 84 widows that he eventually spoke at all of their funerals. That 
is a real record.
  President Monson's example of intimate, individual ministry 
underscored what was most remarkable about his leadership. Although he 
presided over a church of millions, his focus was always on the one. 
Although tasked with

[[Page S60]]

making administrative decisions affecting thousands of people the world 
over, his lifelong commitment was to serving individuals in need. 
Although an expert manager, he was first and foremost a disciple of 
Jesus Christ, a man of remarkable kindness, unwavering love, and 
preternatural empathy.
  President Monson was a servant first and a leader second. Endless are 
the stories in which he would drop everything, sometimes even leaving 
church meetings early over which he was presiding, to visit a grieving 
widow, bless a sickly child, or minister to a family in need. Both on 
macro and micro levels, President Monson was intimately involved in 
building up the Kingdom of God, and he was perhaps the greatest living 
example of Christ's admonition to find the one lost sheep who has gone 
astray and take him back to the fold.
  Of President Monson's boundless charity, Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin 
once said:

       Tom has given everything to [those in need], including the 
     shirt off his back. I mean it! I've seen him give away his 
     suits and his shirts and his shoes.

  President Monson was among the greatest men I have ever known. 
Service was his motto and humility his hallmark. Countless were the 
lives he touched as a prophet, father, and friend. He emulated Jesus 
Christ in every particular, helping all of us draw closer to God by 
drawing all of us closer to each other.
  I am so grateful for the life of my dear friend and for the example 
he left for everyone to follow. He was a friend of mine. He showed me 
great friendship and at times stood up for me. I will never forget one 
time he leaned over to me and said: ``I vote for you.'' That meant so 
much to me. All I can say is that having his vote was very important to 
me. The man was one of the greatest men I have ever met on this Earth--
a man of humility, a man of effort, a man of distinction, a man of love 
and compassion, a man who really knew how to work with other people, a 
man who loved his fellow men and women, a man who worked in a 
consecrated manner all the days of his life for Jesus Christ and his 
ministry. I am going to personally miss him. I believe that his imprint 
on not just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--commonly 
nicknamed the Mormon Church--but around the world is going to be very 
difficult to ever forget.
  God bless the remaining family. I hope everything will go well with 
them. I intend to attend the funeral if I can and hopefully lend 
whatever I can to honoring one of the greatest men I have ever met in 
my life, and I have met a lot of really great men and women.
  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. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             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 William L. Campbell, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United 
     States District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee.
         Mitch McConnell, Deb Fischer, John Barrasso, John Thune, 
           Roger F. Wicker, James M. Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Mike 
           Crapo, Tom Cotton, Chuck Grassley, Thom Tillis, Mike 
           Rounds, Michael B. Enzi, James Lankford, Lindsey 
           Graham, Pat Roberts, Todd Young.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of William L. Campbell, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United 
States District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from 
Georgia (Mr. Perdue), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) 
and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 1, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Ex.]

                                YEAS--89

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--1

       
     Hirono
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Alexander
     Corker
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Isakson
     McCain
     Perdue
     Roberts
     Tester
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 1.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Texas.


                           National Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this last weekend I had the honor of going 
to Camp David with Members of both the House and the Senate to meet 
with the President and Vice President and members of his Cabinet to 
talk about the prospects for 2018. After a very successful 2017, we are 
now looking forward to what sort of legislation we can do on a 
bipartisan basis that will help us build on those successes of 2017. 
Many of these are domestic priorities, but, of course, others are 
national security in nature.
  Our internal strength, of course, affects our diplomacy and military 
effectiveness abroad, and where we were located, at Camp David, 
actually demonstrates that. It was, after all, the site for secret 
talks to negotiate the Camp David Accords, historic peace agreements 
signed by Israel and Egypt in 1978. What happened on American soil 
ultimately changed the global landscape, and it wasn't the only time. 
Over the years, Camp David has come to represent peace. It is a place 
where leaders put aside their differences to look to avoid conflict.
  Nonetheless, today we have to admit, given the global environment, 
that peace is imperiled. We have recently seen that in Iran, where the 
largest wave of protests in more than a decade have revealed widespread 
discontent not only with Iran's economy but also as a result of the 
actions taken by its military, which has supported Hezbollah and other 
terrorist organizations around the world. As a matter of fact, Iran is 
the No. 1 state-sponsor of international terrorism, which is one reason 
why many of us blanched at the idea of releasing money to Iran as part 
of the joint agreement on Iran's nuclear program--money that they could 
then plow back into their support for organizations like Hezbollah and 
their aggressive support for terrorist organizations generally.
  Last week the Trump administration imposed sanctions on five entities 
tied to Iran's ballistic missile program. Apparently, Tehran continues 
to care more about funding its terrorist proxies across the Middle East 
than supporting its own citizens, and frustrated

[[Page S61]]

Iranians rightfully have said: Enough already; we are not going to take 
it anymore.

  As Secretary Mnuchin said last week, here in the United States we 
shouldn't ``hesitate to call out the [Iranian] regime's economic 
mismanagement, and diversion of significant resources to fund 
threatening missile systems at the expense of its citizenry.'' The 
Secretary is exactly right.
  Meanwhile, the situation in North Korea remains precarious. That 
country--and I say this unequivocally--must denuclearize. That is why I 
recently introduced a resolution with many of my colleagues here in the 
Senate.
  The purpose of the resolution is to expressly declare that Congress 
is unified in its condemnation of the increasingly hostile and 
intransigent behavior of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
  Since Kim Jong Un took power 6 years ago, he has ordered at least 
four nuclear tests, including the September detonation of what his 
regime--and outside experts generally agree--said was a hydrogen bomb.
  Despite great efforts made by the United States, including a recent 
Executive order by the President, North Korea's history as a bad-faith 
negotiator continues unabated on the world stage. It obstinately 
violates diplomatic norms and human rights at will and was recently 
redesignated, itself, as a state sponsor of terrorism.
  The resolution I referred to a moment ago asserts that the United 
States, as well as the United Nations Security Council and our regional 
allies, should continue to implement the absolute strictest of sanction 
regimes in an effort to get the regime's attention and hopefully bring 
them to the table as part of this path forward toward denuclearization. 
We must continue to exhaust every reasonable diplomatic option 
necessary to achieve the complete, verifiable, and irreversible 
dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile 
programs.
  Our resolution also recognizes that the President has the 
constitutional responsibility to protect the United States and our 
allies, but it emphasizes that congressional authorization is necessary 
prior to committing U.S. forces to a sustained military operation on 
the Korean Peninsula. In other words, under the Constitution, the 
President has his responsibilities and duties, and Congress has its 
responsibilities and duties, and this resolution recognizes both. We 
look forward to working together closely with the President in a 
unified front this year to confront North Korea, as well as rogue 
actors elsewhere.
  President Trump, we know, does not take our national security threats 
lightly. He has a world-class national security team, with General 
Mattis, Secretary Tillerson, and Director Pompeo, just to name three. 
In an important speech last month, the President outlined the four 
pillars of his administration's national security strategy.
  He said the first pillar is to protect our homeland. We can't secure 
our Nation if we can't secure our own borders, and we can't secure our 
borders unless we confront, both at home and abroad, the threat of 
terrorism and ideologies bent on doing us great harm.
  Second, the President said that we need to promote American 
prosperity because the only way we are going to be strong militarily 
and at the homeland is if we have the resources and economy to pay for 
it. Economic growth at home is critical for our influence around the 
globe as well. We, of course, took a big step in this direction by 
passing tax reform last month, but a lot more needs to be done to 
continue to grow our economy and to return America to its historic 
prosperity--like updating and not scrapping the North American Free 
Trade Agreement and other trade agreements, for example, and rebuilding 
our national infrastructure, which was also on the agenda at Camp David 
this weekend.
  The President's third pillar of the national security strategy is to 
preserve peace through strength. We usually attribute that concept to 
Ronald Reagan, but of course he is not the first or the last to 
recognize the joinder of peace and strength. President Trump said in 
his speech that ``weakness is the surest path to conflict, and 
unrivaled power is the most certain means of defense.''
  I think he is exactly right--which means we have to end the defense 
sequester that started with the Budget Control Act of 2011. I supported 
our efforts to rein in discretionary spending, but the fact is, only 
about 30 percent of the money that the Federal Government spends is 
actually appropriated, and a little more than half of that is defense 
spending. I simply cannot in good conscience agree to continue those 
budget caps for defense spending without considering the increase in 
risks to our men and women in uniform and our country's national 
security generally. We have to continue to modernize our military, 
which we started last year by reauthorizing the Defense Authorization 
Act.
  Fourth, the President's strategy asserts that we have to advance 
American influence in the world through strong alliances and by 
championing our core values without apology. As the President said:

       A nation that does not protect prosperity at home cannot 
     protect its interests abroad. A nation that is not prepared 
     to win a war is a nation not capable of preventing a war. A 
     nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident 
     in its future. And a nation that is not certain of its values 
     cannot summon the will to defend them.

  I couldn't have said it any better myself.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                   CHIP and Community Health Centers

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today marks a sad and, frankly, shocking 
day for too many of America's children and hard-working families 
because it has now been 100 days since funding for the Children's 
Health Insurance Program and community health centers expired.
  History has shown us that there is a whole lot that can get done in 
100 days. It took Thomas Jefferson only 17 days to write the 
Declaration of Independence; the brave allied forces who landed on D-
day advanced through France and liberated Paris in only 80 days; and 
Congress managed to pass 15 major pieces of legislation during 
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first 100 days in office. Yet, 
here we are, 100 days past the deadline of September 30, and Congress 
still hasn't managed to pass long-term legislation to reauthorize what 
we call CHIP--the Children's Health Insurance Program--and to fund our 
community health centers.
  We have a strong bipartisan bill funding CHIP, which was passed out 
of committee. I give our chairman and ranking member kudos for working 
together. I was proud to work with them. It came out of committee with 
only one ``no'' vote and has waited and waited and waited on the floor 
of the Senate. Senator Blunt and I have a bipartisan bill to continue 
funding community health centers, and 70 Members of the Senate have 
signed a letter supporting long-term funding for community health 
centers, which expired September 30--100 days ago.
  Right now, we are in a situation where 9 million children and their 
parents don't know what is going to happen long term. As soon as this 
month, 100,000 children and their families in Michigan have begun to 
get letters saying that their children will lose coverage, and they are 
trying to figure out what is going on.
  Imagine being a parent who is working hard. A lot of folks I know are 
working two jobs, trying to hold it together. You don't have health 
insurance; you earn too much for your children to be able to get 
Medicaid health insurance, so the Children's Health Insurance Program 
is your lifeline. It is your lifeline. It gives you peace of mind to 
know that if your daughter falls and breaks her arm or your son gets a 
cough that won't go away, you can take them to the doctor.
  What if those children have something worse than a broken arm or a 
cough? What if they are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes or asthma or 
cancer? Just imagine being that parent and getting a letter which says 
that your child may no longer have health insurance. It is not 
necessary. This is not necessary.
  We could do this tomorrow. If we thought it was important enough to 
bring it to the floor, we could get a vote--and I believe it would be 
overwhelmingly bipartisan--tomorrow if

[[Page S62]]

there were a sense of urgency, an understanding, about how these 
parents feel and how these children feel.
  So what would you do if you got that letter? Would you tell your 
kids? You don't want them to worry about it. What would you do? I 
believe hard-working families--and we are talking about working 
families, people with jobs, working--deserve better.
  Then we have community health centers that serve 25 million people 
across the country, including 300,000 veterans and 7.5 million 
children. Our health centers are doing a phenomenal job. At more than 
260 sites across Michigan, our health centers are serving 681,000 
people, including about 13,000 Michigan veterans.
  This month, health centers that were supposed to receive a new 12-
month grant are only getting a small amount of funding to get them 
through the next few weeks, not knowing what is going to happen again. 
By June, Michigan's community health centers will lose over $80 million 
in funding, and over 99,000 patients will lose care.
  Last month, I had the opportunity to visit two of our great Michigan 
community health centers, each of their networks operating more than 
one site--Hamilton Community Health Network in Flint and Western Wayne 
Family Health Centers in Inkster. Like clinics across Michigan, these 
centers are serving literally thousands of Michigan families every 
day--people of Michigan who don't have medical care for one reason or 
another. Now those thousands of people are at risk of having no place 
to go if they get sick or if they need preventative care so that they 
don't get sick.
  Hamilton Community Health Network will run out of funding in April, 
and Western Wayne Family Health Centers will not get their full funding 
this month. They were asking me: Should they lay people off? How should 
they be planning for their centers? What should they be doing?
  That means 15,500 people are wondering what will happen to them if 
they or their children get sick or slip on the ice--which there is a 
lot of in Michigan--and sprain an ankle.
  Felicia knows what it is like to live under that cloud of fear. She 
wrote me a letter indicating that in 2011 she was an AmeriCorps 
volunteer serving in Lansing and didn't have health insurance. When she 
started feeling tired all the time and losing weight, she went to the 
Center for Family Health in Jackson, MI, another great center. The 
Center for Family Health, which served 29,000 patients in 2016, will 
run out of funding in March if we don't act.
  Felicia was diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin's lymphoma--pretty scary 
stuff. The Center for Family Health helped her get her health coverage 
through Medicaid and care from the University of Michigan, including 
chemotherapy and later a stem cell transplant.
  Felicia wrote me:

       Now I am feeling awesome, I am cancer-free, and I am 
     working part time while I am finishing up college. I feel 
     that I owe my life to the Center for Family Health.

  Felicia knows the importance of community health centers; one in 
Michigan saved her life. People like Felicia and children who are 
covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program, which we call 
MIChild in Michigan, shouldn't have to wait a day longer. They are 
counting on us to get this done. It has been 100 days of uncertainty 
that did not have to happen.

  Let me say that again. We have a bipartisan bill reported out of the 
Finance Committee. The House has reported their version. There is no 
reason we can't immediately put a 5-year extension on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Senator Blunt and I and our cosponsors of our bill have always 
assumed that once CHIP came to the floor, we would be adding in 
community health centers, for which there is strong support, and we 
would be able to get this done. People would know that their 
neighborhood health center is there. Their children can go to the 
doctor instead of sitting for hours in the emergency room. They would 
be able to see their doctor if they got sick. It has been 100 days 
since funding has expired for community health centers and children's 
health insurance. That is 100 days too many.
  I have been coming to the floor every week to say: Let's do it today. 
Let's do it tomorrow. We don't have to wait and hold them as bargaining 
chips in some bigger appropriations negotiation. These are families. 
These are kids. These are people who want to have confidence in us that 
we will do our jobs. This one can get done. It could have gotten done 
before the holidays. What a great Christmas present that would have 
been. It can get done now.
  On behalf of the 25 million people who use those community health 
centers, the 9 million children and their parents who use the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, I call on all of us to have the 
sense of urgency and the leadership--the leader--to bring this up. We 
can get it done in a day. We would all feel good about it because it 
would be something we would be doing together instead of having these 
families wait and wait.
  Mr. President, before yielding, I want to acknowledge our newest 
Senator, Mr. Jones, who is here, and thank him. Even as he was in his 
happiness, and rightly so, on the evening he found out he was going to 
be the next Senator, he mentioned CHIP. In listening to that acceptance 
speech, it did my heart good to know that children's health insurance 
was at the top of our newest Senator's mind at that important time, and 
it is a pleasure to see him on the floor this evening.
  I believe the Senator from Arizona is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                                  DACA

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, over the past couple of months, we have 
seen a lot of effort with regard to immigration reform and in 
particular to address the situation of the so-called DACA kids, the 
Dreamers who were brought here through no fault of their own and are 
now protected--many of them--through the DACA Program. But those 
protections will run out on March 5. In fact, some have lost their 
protections already. So there is a great impetus and urgency to deal 
with this program.
  I have said from the beginning that in order to establish a long-term 
resolution and to provide regulatory certainty, a true DACA fix must be 
a bipartisan solution. Over the past year, the two big items this 
Chamber and the Congress have dealt with--healthcare reform and tax 
policy--have been done under rules of reconciliation, meaning that if 
we could get a bare majority of Republican votes, that would be enough, 
if we could keep all the Republicans together. That is no longer the 
case with our approach to DACA. We are not under rules of 
reconciliation. It will require 60 votes, meaning that only a 
bipartisan solution will do. That is why I have been working on such a 
measure with my Republican and Democratic colleagues in Congress, as 
well as the White House.
  As I have said repeatedly, on this issue, I believe that the 
President's instincts are better than some of the advice that he gets. 
I truly believe that he does want a solution for these young 
immigrants. I hope we can get there. We will have a meeting tomorrow at 
the White House--a bipartisan meeting--to try to get a little farther 
down the road.
  Let me stress that a lot of words that are highly charged are thrown 
around this immigration debate. No word is perhaps more highly charged 
than the word ``amnesty.'' That has been thrown around by a number of 
my colleagues. I would suggest that is not the case here with the DACA 
kids. Amnesty, by definition, is an unconditional pardon for a breach 
of law. I don't think a child who was brought across the border by the 
parents has committed a violation of the law--not the child; certainly 
the parents but not the child. To provide relief for those kids and to 
allow them to stay in the only country they know I don't think should 
be called amnesty. Yet that highly charged word is often used. To 
suggest that anyone pursuing a bipartisan solution is proposing amnesty 
I think is misleading, and it sets back the cause of trying to fix the 
situation.
  A proposal that we are drafting--this bipartisan group--offers a 
pathway to citizenship for only a specific group of young immigrants--
as I mentioned, those who were brought here through no fault of their 
own. These are immigrants who are serving in the military, who are 
seeking education, who are holding good jobs. They will be required to 
continue to do so before they

[[Page S63]]

can have a chance to earn citizenship. As for the parents of these 
young immigrants, nobody can deny the fact that they did break the law, 
and any bipartisan proposal on DACA cannot and will not reward them for 
this behavior.
  I agree with the President when he said that dealing with DACA is a 
very difficult subject but that we must do so with heart. I believe 
that has been the case for those in this Chamber who have tried for 16 
years to get a solution for these kids.
  We have to prioritize border security measures, obviously, to 
determine which ones are sensible to include in a DACA measure. We will 
go beyond simply dealing with these DACA kids with some border security 
measures, but we have to find out which ones are sensible and make 
sense to include in this limited measure and table those that should be 
considered for the future.
  I have been part of comprehensive immigration reform efforts in the 
past. I look forward to being part of comprehensive immigration reform 
efforts later this year, but this is not that. We have a very specific 
purpose to achieve before the 5th of March. The commitment we got was 
to have a bipartisan bill on the Senate floor by January 31. I believe 
we need to have that in order to have enough runway to get this done by 
March 5.
  The White House, after much urging on our part, finally sent a list 
over as to what should be considered part of the border security plan. 
As I mentioned, many of these items need to be addressed. Maybe all of 
the items need to be addressed, but they need to be addressed as part 
of a larger, more comprehensive effort, not the limited fix we are 
going to do before March 5. I am all in when it comes to comprehensive 
immigration reform. I look forward to that debate. But we have to 
understand that we can't do it all before March 5 if we are going to 
protect these kids.
  Some will say: Well, we get to March 5, if we can't do it, then we 
just kick the can down the road again with some other protection.
  I think the courts have made it clear that what was done prior to 
this--the DACA Program itself--was not constitutional, and should we 
simply say we are going to extend that program now, it would be found 
unconstitutional by the courts. This is a real deadline, and we have to 
meet it. We have to focus specifically on protecting these DACA 
recipients. I think Republicans, Democrats, and the President all want 
this. The question is, Are we going to, just over the next couple of 
weeks, talk about bigger, broader issues that need to be dealt with but 
have no chance of being part of legislation?
  In 2013, I participated in what was called the Gang of 8. We 
negotiated for 7 straight months nearly every night. We were in 
Washington. We as Members negotiated--and our staffs did as well--much 
longer hours and into the weekends. Then we brought that piece of 
legislation to the Judiciary Committee, where we debated it for a 
couple of weeks. I think we amended it more than 100 times. Then we 
brought it to the House floor for another couple of weeks and amended 
it several more times before passing it by a vote of 68 to 32. That was 
a long process--hard-fought compromises in that legislation. To suggest 
that we can go through a similar effort in the next couple of weeks--it 
simply isn't going to happen. The list the White House brought forward 
is simply something that we ought to consider for comprehensive reform 
but not for this specific fix.
  With regard to the border itself, we all know that we need additional 
infrastructure on the border. I represent Arizona. We have some 375 
miles of border. Some of the border has good barriers in terms of 
fences. The closest thing we have approximating a wall is these old 
landing strips from World War II that we put on their end and cemented 
in. They are opaque. You can't really see through them. We have them in 
a number of the communities along the border. We have been taking them 
out because they are not very effective and putting fences in place of 
them because we need to have visibility to the other side of the 
border.
  Most of what the President is talking about along the southern border 
is a fence. We do need more fences. In the Gang of 8 bill, I think we 
authorized 700 miles of additional and improved fencing. Nobody is 
suggesting we don't need additional infrastructure or barriers on the 
border. The question is, How much do we provide for it in this 
legislation?
  The President has made a request in the budget for about $1.6 billion 
for the coming year. I think that will result in about 74 miles of 
fence between Texas and California. I think that is a good place to 
start. How much we authorize going forward will be very much in debate.
  I know that during the campaign, the President talked long and hard 
about building a wall, but every time he mentioned building a wall, he 
talked about Mexico paying for it. We all know--and many of us knew at 
the time--Mexico was not going to pay for that wall. They are not. That 
is why the President is asking for $18 billion of U.S. taxpayer money 
to fund that wall. To suggest that the President hasn't changed his 
position and that we are dealing with a proposal that we have known was 
coming from the White House simply isn't true. It has changed. The 
President initially said that Mexico would pay for it. That is not the 
case. The U.S. taxpayers are going to pay for any infrastructure on the 
border. That is as it should be. If we are putting up the border fence, 
we ought to pay for it. To suggest that nobody has changed their 
position is simply not true.
  Deals like this where you need 60 votes necessarily involve 
compromise. No party, no individual is going to get everything they 
want. The White House will not get everything they want. The Democrats 
in Congress will not, and neither will the Republicans. This will be a 
compromise.
  I am simply suggesting tonight--let's get real about the time 
involved between now and when we have to fix this and not think that we 
can simply kick the can down the road and put in some temporary fix, 
some kind of bridge later that will protect these kids. Those 
protections will run out on March 5 and may be done at that point. 
Let's get serious. Let's all get serious, Republicans and Democrats, 
and not come to the table with unrealistic expectations about what can 
be done and what can be part of this legislation. Let's have something 
that we can put on the Senate floor by the end of the month to leave 
sufficient time to get this fixed by March 5. I hope we can all work 
together on this, Republicans and Democrats.

  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.


                  Children's Health Insurance Program

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about another matter that 
will be before us in the days ahead. It should not be before us as it 
should have been done many months ago. In fact, if you want to count it 
by days, it should have been done about 100 days ago, as we have heard. 
That is the Children's Health Insurance Program, known by the acronym 
CHIP.
  Most Americans know what the CHIP program is. It is a program that 
became Federal law a little more than 20 years ago in order to provide 
an opportunity for healthcare for those families whose incomes were a 
little bit too high, maybe, to have their children enrolled in Medicaid 
but those families did not have their children's healthcare paid for by 
their employers. You had a lot of families--a lot of middle-income 
families or families near middle income--who were caught in between and 
didn't have opportunities for healthcare. So CHIP was passed. For the 
most part, it was bipartisan. All of these years now--decades later--it 
remains bipartisan, but it is not reauthorized. Probably, the only two 
numbers I will get into tonight are 9 and 180. What do I mean by that? 
I will start with Pennsylvania.
  So ``180'' means 180,000. That is the number of children, roughly, 
who were enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program as of 
December of 2017. If you look at it over the course of a year--of 
children becoming eligible and then maybe moving off of CHIP to some 
other insurance or having other changes--in Pennsylvania, roughly, in 
the last year, 340,000 children benefited, at one time or another, but 
the monthly number was 180,000 children just in

[[Page S64]]

Pennsylvania, and ``9'' was representative of the 9 million children 
across the country who were enrolled in CHIP. When we have all of these 
debates about what has to get done in the next couple of days and 
between now and the middle part of January, I hope that 9 million 
number will be uppermost in people's minds. Included within that are 
180,000 children in Pennsylvania.
  This is really not about a number or a program. It is about real 
people, real people's lives. Every Member of the Senate has a 
constituent he could tell a story about or hundreds, if not thousands, 
of stories. I will just tell one tonight about a mom whom I met not too 
long ago, just about a week ago, Jennie Sheeks. Jennie is from Upper 
Makefield, PA. That is Bucks County, Southeastern Pennsylvania, just 
north of the city of Philadelphia.
  Jennie told us about her son Kam-au. Kam-au is 8 years old, and he is 
enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program. His brother and 
his sister have special needs and are Medicaid beneficiaries. So, in 
one family, you have an example of one child, thankfully, benefiting 
from the CHIP program and then two other members of that same family 
benefiting either from CHIP or the Medicaid Program. Thank goodness 
those programs are in place. Without CHIP and Medicaid, Jennie said her 
children would be uninsured because, even though both Jennie and her 
husband work full time, covering the whole family on her plan is too 
expensive.
  This is another example of working families who depend upon these 
programs for their children. They need these programs. These programs 
aren't theoretical. They aren't some far-off Washington debate about 
timing and leverage and negotiations and back-and-forth. This is about 
their real lives right now. As I said, the CHIP program should have 
been reauthorized 100 days ago, and it is inexcusable that it is not 
being done now.
  We all left here right after the tax vote. Everybody went back to his 
home State and, I am sure, had a great holiday season. Unfortunately, 
even though there was a little bit of a patch--a tiny, little patch 
made for this program--a lot of people left here with no worries at all 
and went back to their States and communities and neighborhoods, where 
there were a lot of other people worrying about whether they were going 
to get the kind of coverage for their children they should have a right 
to expect.
  Back to Jennie and her son. What are they going to do without the 
Children's Health Insurance Program? I cannot imagine--and few Senators 
or House Members can imagine--how Jennie and her son will get from here 
to there without having the Children's Health Insurance Program. I 
cannot imagine what it must be like for Jennie to worry about how she 
will pay for her son's care if he loses CHIP coverage. No parent should 
have that kind of stress in his life when there is an existing program 
that covers 9 million kids that should be reauthorized.
  When he was a public official, my father used to talk about people 
who had led lives of real struggle. We have all known them in our 
lives--people who have to work every day just to make ends meet in 
order to provide for their families and get through another day, 
another week, another month, another pay period. He used to refer to 
those Americans as leading ``quietly triumphant lives.'' My father's 
words for those who struggle--``quietly triumphant lives.''
  There are a lot of families out there who lead very difficult lives, 
and they depend sometimes on the Children's Health Insurance Program or 
Medicaid or some other program just to get through another week, and I 
think about Jennie and parents like her who have to overcome so much to 
help their children--to love them, to care for them, to protect them, 
and to educate them. Even the most loving, caring, hard-working, and 
dedicated parent cannot provide the protections and the care health 
insurance coverage and quality healthcare can provide, the kind of 
quality healthcare from professionals that comes to that child because 
he or she has the protection of health insurance. Those parents--no 
matter how much they work, no matter how good they are to their 
children--sometimes cannot provide something as basic, obviously, as 
healthcare and, of course, the insurance coverage that makes it 
possible.
  We have legislation ready today, the KIDS Act, that is bipartisan. It 
has already moved through the Finance Committee unanimously. I don't 
think there was a single vote against it. If there was, it was not that 
loud a vote. I hope we can make these children a priority in the coming 
days, finally, at long last.
  There were a lot of deals made in the tax bill, a lot of numbers 
moved around to get the tax bill done. I understand that is part of any 
legislation, but if a tax bill can get done in the U.S. Senate, we can 
certainly have a vote to get the Children's Health Insurance Program 
reauthorized now that it is 100 days old.
  I see the distinguished majority leader is here so I will wrap up 
tonight with the words of Jennie's son Kam-au:

       I was happy when I got health insurance because I knew I 
     could go to the doctor if I got hurt or sick. When I didn't 
     have health insurance, I was a little worried . . . I think 
     we should keep CHIP going so we can stay healthy.

  No better words were uttered or spoken about the Children's Health 
Insurance Program than Kam-au's, an 8-year-old, who said CHIP should 
stay in place so we can stay healthy.
  I agree. The American people agree. Let's get CHIP done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 
p.m. tomorrow, all postcloture time on the Campbell nomination be 
considered expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Campbell 
nomination with no intervening action or debate; finally, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________