[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S215-S225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         RAPID DNA ACT OF 2017

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to concur in the House 
amendment to S. 139, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany S. 139, a bill to implement the 
     use of Rapid DNA instruments to inform decisions about 
     pretrial release or detention and their conditions, to solve 
     and prevent violent crimes and other crimes, to exonerate the 
     innocent, to prevent DNA analysis backlogs, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the bill.
       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the bill, with McConnell amendment No. 1870 (to the House 
     amendment to the bill), to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 1871 (to amendment No. 1870), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.


                          Truth and Democracy

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, near the beginning of the document that 
made us free, our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: 
``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' So from our very 
beginnings, our freedom has been predicated on truth. The Founders were 
visionary in this regard, understanding well that good faith and shared 
facts between the governed and the government would be the very basis 
of this ongoing idea of America.
  As the distinguished former Member of this body, Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan of New York, famously said, ``Everyone is entitled to his own 
opinion, but not his own facts.'' During this past year, I am alarmed 
to say, Senator Moynihan's proposition has likely been tested more 
severely than at any time in our history. It is for that reason that I 
rise today to talk about the truth and the truth's relationship to 
democracy, for without truth and a principled fidelity to truth and to 
shared facts, our democracy will not last.
  Mr. President, 2017 was a year which saw the truth--objective, 
empirical,

[[Page S216]]

evidence-based truth--more battered and abused than at any time in the 
history of our country, at the hands of the most powerful figure in our 
government. It was a year which saw the White House enshrine 
``alternative facts'' into the American lexicon as justification for 
what used to be simply called old-fashioned falsehoods. It was a year 
in which an unrelenting daily assault on the constitutionally protected 
free press was launched by the same White House, an assault that is as 
unprecedented as it is unwarranted.
  ``The enemy of the people'' was what the President of the United 
States called the free press in 2017. It is a testament to the 
condition of our democracy that our own President uses words infamously 
spoken by Joseph Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that 
so fraught with malice was the phrase ``enemy of the people'' that even 
Nikita Khrushchev forbade its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party 
that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of 
``annihilating such individuals'' who disagreed with the supreme 
leader. This alone should be the source of great shame for us in this 
body--especially for those of us in the President's party--for they are 
shameful, repulsive statements.
  And, of course, the President has it precisely backward--despotism is 
the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot's enemy, which 
makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When a figure in power 
reflexively calls any press that doesn't suit him ``fake news,'' it is 
that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.
  I dare say that anyone who has the privilege and awesome 
responsibility to serve in this Chamber knows that these reflexive 
slurs of ``fake news'' are dubious at best. Those of us who travel 
overseas, especially to war zones and other troubled areas all around 
the globe, encounter members of U.S.-based media who risk their lives 
and sometimes lose their lives reporting on the truth. To dismiss their 
work as fake news is an affront to their commitment and their 
sacrifice. According to the International Federation of Journalists, 80 
journalists were killed in 2017. A new report from the Committee to 
Protect Journalists documents that the number of journalists imprisoned 
around the world has reached 262, which is a new record. This total 
includes 21 reporters who are being held on ``false news'' charges.
  So powerful is the Presidency that the damage done by the sustained 
attack on the truth will not be confined to this President's time in 
office. Here in America, we do not pay obeisance to the powerful. In 
fact, we question the powerful most ardently. To do so is our 
birthright and a requirement of our citizenship. And so we know well 
that, no matter how powerful, no President will ever have dominion over 
objective reality. No politician will ever tell us what the truth is 
and what it is not. And anyone who presumes to try to attack or 
manipulate the press for his own purposes should be made to realize his 
mistake and be held to account. That is our job here. That is just as 
Madison, Hamilton, and Jay would have it.
  Of course, a major difference between politicians and the free press 
is that the free press usually corrects itself when it has made a 
mistake. Politicians don't.
  No longer can we compound attacks on truth with our silent 
acquiescence. No longer can we turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to those 
assaults on our institutions.
  An American President who cannot take criticism, who must constantly 
deflect and distort and distract, who must find someone else to blame, 
is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as 
a check on the President adds to that danger.
  Now we are told via Twitter that today the President intends to 
announce his choice for the ``most corrupt and dishonest'' media 
awards. It beggars belief that an American President would engage in 
such a spectacle, but here we are.
  So 2018 must be the year in which the truth takes a stand against 
power that would weaken it. In this effort, the choice is quite simple, 
and in this effort, the truth needs as many allies as possible. 
Together, my colleagues, we are powerful. Together, we have it within 
us to turn back these attacks, to right these wrongs, repair this 
damage, restore reverence for our institutions, and prevent further 
moral vandalism. Together, united in this purpose to do our jobs under 
the Constitution, without regard to party or party loyalty, let us 
resolve to be allies of the truth and not partners in its destruction.
  It is not my purpose here to inventory all the official untruths of 
the past year, but a brief survey is in order. Some untruths are 
trivial, such as the bizarre contention regarding the crowd size at 
last year's inaugural, but many untruths are not at all trivial, such 
as the seminal untruth of the President's political career--the oft-
repeated conspiracy about the birthplace of President Obama. Also not 
trivial are the equally pernicious fantasies about rigged elections and 
massive voter fraud, which are as destructive as they are inaccurate; 
to the effort to undermine confidence in the Federal courts, Federal 
law enforcement, the intelligence community, and the free press; to 
perhaps the most vexing untruth of all--the supposed ``hoax'' at the 
heart of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.
  To be very clear, to call the Russian matter a ``hoax,'' as the 
President has done so many times, is a falsehood. We know that the 
attacks orchestrated by the Russian Government during the election were 
real. They constituted a grave threat to both American sovereignty and 
to our national security. It is in the interest of every American to 
get to the bottom of this matter, wherever the investigation leads.

  Ignoring or denying the truth about hostile Russian intentions toward 
the United States leaves us vulnerable to future attacks. We are told 
by our intelligence agencies that these attacks are ongoing. Yet it has 
recently been reported that there has not been a single Cabinet-level 
meeting regarding Russian interference and how to defend America 
against these attacks--not one. What might seem like a casual and 
routine untruth--so casual and routine that it has now become the white 
noise of Washington--is, in fact, a serious lapse in the defense of our 
country.
  Let us be clear. The impulses underlying the dissemination of such 
untruths are not benign. They have the effect of eroding trust in our 
vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them. 
The destructive effect of this kind of behavior on our democracy cannot 
be overstated.
  Every word that a President utters projects American values around 
the world. The values of free expression and reverence for the free 
press have been our global hallmark, for it is our ability to freely 
air the truth that keeps our government honest and keeps the people 
free. Between the mighty and the modest, truth is a great leveler. So 
respect for freedom of the press has always been one of our most 
important exports.
  But a recent report published in our free press should raise an 
alarm. I will read from the story: ``In February, Syrian President 
Bashar Assad brushed off an Amnesty International report that some 
13,000 people had been killed at one of his military prisons by saying, 
`You can forge anything these days,' we are living in a fake news 
era.''
  In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has complained of being 
``demonized'' by ``fake news.'' Last month, the report continues, with 
our President ``laughing by his side'' Duterte called reporters 
``spies.''
  In July, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro complained to the 
Russian propaganda outlet that the world media had ``spread lots of 
false versions, lots of lies'' about his country, adding: ``This is 
what we call `fake news' today, isn't it?''
  There are more.
  A state official in Myanmar recently said: ``There is no such thing 
as Rohingya. It is fake news.''
  He was referring to the persecuted ethnic group.
  Leaders in Singapore, a country known for restricting free speech, 
have promised ``fake news'' legislation in the next year--and on and on 
and on.
  This feedback loop is disgraceful. Not only has the past year seen an 
American President borrow despotic language to refer to the free press, 
but it seems he has now, in turn, inspired dictators and authoritarians 
with his own language. That is reprehensible.

[[Page S217]]

  We are not in a ``fake news'' era, as Bashar Assad said. Rather, we 
are in an era in which the authoritarian impulse is reasserting itself 
to challenge free people and free societies everywhere.
  In our own country, from the trivial to the truly dangerous, it is 
the range and regularity of the untruths we see that should be the 
cause for profound alarm and spur to action. Add to that the by now 
predictable habit of calling true things false and false things true, 
and we have a recipe for disaster.
  George Orwell warned: ``The further a society drifts from the truth, 
the more it will hate those who speak it.''
  Any of us who have spent time in public life have endured news 
coverage we felt was jaded or unfair, but in our positions, to employ 
even idle threats, to use laws or regulations to stifle criticism is 
corrosive to our democratic institutions. Simply put, it is the press's 
obligation to uncover the truth about power. It is the people's right 
to criticize their government, and it is our job to take it.
  What is the goal of laying siege to the truth? In his spurring speech 
on the 20th anniversary of the Voice of America, President John F. 
Kennedy was eloquent in the answer to that question. He said:

       We are not afraid to entrust the American people with 
     unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and 
     competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its 
     people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a 
     nation afraid of its people.

  The question of why the truth is now under such assault may be for 
historians to determine, but for those who cherish American 
constitutional democracy, what matters is the effect on America and her 
people and her standing in an increasingly unstable world, made all the 
more unstable by these very fabrications. What matters is the daily 
disassembling of our democratic institutions.
  We are a mature democracy. It is past time to stop excusing or 
ignoring or, worse, endorsing these attacks on the truth. For if we 
compromise the truth for the sake of our politics, we are lost.
  I sincerely thank my colleagues for their indulgence today. I will 
close by borrowing the words of an early adherent to my faith that I 
find has special resonance at this moment. His name was John Jacques. 
As a young missionary in England, he contemplated the question: What is 
truth? His search was expressed in poetry and ultimately in a hymn that 
I grew up with titled, ``Oh Say, What is Truth?'' It ends as follows:

       Then say, what is truth? 'Tis the last and the first,
       For the limits of time it steps oe'r.
       Tho the heavens depart and the earth's fountains burst,
       Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
       Eternal, unchanged, evermore.

  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleague 
Senator Flake for his words and to join with him in standing up for the 
First Amendment.
  When I was at home over the last recess, I read Senator Flake's book, 
and one of the many things I took away from that book, which I thought 
was quite an amazing book, was the fact that when he was growing up, 
his family had a 3-by-5 card on their refrigerator. They looked at it 
every day, and it said: ``Assume the best and look for the good.''
  The way he has articulately talked about our Constitution today, he 
is assuming the best, as we all should do, about the citizens of this 
country and that they will look at this document and care about this 
document and understand why the First Amendment is so important to our 
freedom.
  For me, this started at home. My dad was a reporter his entire life. 
He went from a hardscrabble mining town in Ely, MN, to go to a 2-year 
community college, and then got a journalism degree at the University 
of Minnesota. He got his first job at the Bismarck paper in North 
Dakota. He served during the Korean war and finally ended up at the 
Star Tribune in Minneapolis.
  He went from that mining town and saw the world. He got to interview 
everyone from Ronald Reagan to the Chicago Bears coach, Mike Ditka, to 
Ginger Rogers. But through it all, he saw his mission as a mission of 
searching for the truth, whether it was standing outside of political 
conventions through tear gas or whether it was calling the election in 
1960, when he was with the AP, for John F. Kennedy.
  The world has changed since my dad was a journalist, but the role of 
journalism hasn't changed in any way. We need the protection of the 
First Amendment now more than ever. As Senator Flake has pointed out, 
it was Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers who saw the importance 
of journalism and the importance of the First Amendment. Thomas 
Jefferson once wrote that our first objective should be to leave open 
``all avenues to truth,'' and the most effective way of doing that is 
through the freedom of the press.
  While the most extreme forms of anti-press behavior have happened 
abroad, as pointed out by Senator Flake--with journalists being 
murdered, being put in fear of their very lives and their families' 
lives--there has been a growing aggression toward journalists in our 
own country.
  During the campaign, then-Candidate Trump mocked a disabled reporter. 
During his Presidency, he has referred to journalists as dishonest, as 
disgusting, as scum. During President Trump's first month in office, 
his administration coined the phrase ``alternative facts,'' attempting 
to undermine the fact-checking efforts of reporters. That same week, 
another senior White House official said that the press should ``keep 
its mouth shut.''
  The President has taken to Twitter countless times to attack news 
organizations and to discredit specific journalists. He has threatened 
to challenge the licenses of specific news networks and these networks 
that ran negative stories. There are even reports that the 
administration is using anti-trust enforcement authority as leverage to 
secure positive media coverage.
  Just last week, the President suggested weakening the very laws that 
protect journalists. He threatened to open up our libel laws so that he 
could sue the media for writing negative or unfavorable stories. This 
is unacceptable. This is unacceptable because we are a beacon for the 
freedoms across the world, but it is also unacceptable here at home.
  So what can we do about it? We can make sure that this 
administration's views, first of all, are not carried through into the 
actions of the Department of Justice. We must ensure that the 
Department continues to follow the guidelines that have been in place 
for a number of years to protect journalists, even if those journalists 
criticize the government and even if they uncover facts that are 
uncomfortable for the government.
  During his time in office, Attorney General Eric Holder committed not 
to put reporters in jail for doing their jobs. He also strengthened the 
Justice Department protections for journalists and their sources. The 
loophole was closed that allowed the government to get around bans on 
search warrants for reporting material. They tightened guidelines that 
are used to issue subpoenas that would require journalists to disclose 
their confidential sources. They understood the roles these guidelines 
play in our democracy. Attorney General Holder said they strike an 
appropriate balance between law enforcement's need to protect the 
American people and the news media's role in ensuring the free flow of 
information.
  Over the last year, during Judiciary hearings, I asked Attorney 
General Sessions twice if he would commit to protecting journalists 
from being jailed for doing their jobs. It was a simple question. He 
wouldn't. Both times he would not commit, and he said he had to review 
the rules. Well, it has been nearly a year, and there has been enough 
time to review the rules. I still have not received an answer to my 
question. I think we would all agree that after almost a year as leader 
of the Justice Department, it is past time he made this commitment.
  Let me be clear. The President doesn't have the legal authority to 
undercut our libel laws. No matter what he says, our courts still 
uphold the safeguards and must uphold the safeguards we place on the 
press's freedom.
  In New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark Supreme Court decision is 
crystal clear in its protections of journalists who cover public 
officials. The standard for libel is well established. It is not 
subject to the whims of the politics on any given day.

[[Page S218]]

  While Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and I do not agree on much, 
I questioned him on this landmark decision, and he agreed that the 
precedent is clear on First Amendment protections for journalists. The 
American people deserve the truth, and we rely on journalists to keep 
digging for it. That is something to celebrate, not to undermine.
  Standing up for freedom--even one as fundamental as the freedom of 
the press--isn't always easy, but it is vitally important. The future 
of our democracy depends on the ability of journalists to do their 
jobs. We must uphold this freedom every single day.
  With all of this in mind, I thank Senator Flake for his very 
important remarks, and I urge this Chamber to do everything we can to 
live up to Jefferson's words and to protect this essential avenue to 
truth.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Flake from 
Arizona and Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, for bringing this timely 
issue to the floor.
  We are facing an attack on an American institution--an attack on our 
freedom of the press. Sadly, the President is making an award of some 
kind to what he considers to be corrupt media, but I am afraid, once 
again, his actions will cast a shadow over our constitutional 
commitment to the basic freedoms we enjoy in America.
  We all know why freedom of the press was included in the Bill of 
Rights: because the Founding Fathers--those who crafted those critical 
words that have led us for more than two centuries--believed there 
should be an accountability, accountability when it came to the 
government, its actions, and to public officials. That accountability 
sometimes is painful, as Senator Flake has acknowledged. Many of us, as 
Members of the Senate, House, and other political roles, really hate to 
receive certain phone calls and questions from members of the press, 
but it is part of our responsibility, as public servants, as public 
officials, to be accountable to the public. That is what freedom of the 
press is about. I think that is the part that troubles and worries and 
pains the President the most; that he will be held accountable for the 
things he has said and the things he has done.
  This notion of ``fake news,'' unfortunately, is a phrase which is 
being used, as Senator Flake noted, by despots and authoritarians 
around the world to try to silence critics and to silence the press in 
their countries. We cannot allow this regimen of ``fake news'' and 
``alternative facts'' and words like those to diminish our commitment 
to the basic constitutional protection of freedom of the press. It is 
essential to the future of our democracy.


                              Immigration

  On January 11, last Thursday, I was invited to a meeting at the White 
House to discuss the issue of immigration. Sadly, at that meeting, 
there were things said by the President and those who were with him on 
the issue which I believe constituted an attack on another basic 
element of American history: the history of immigration.
  We are a nation of immigrants. That diversity that has come to these 
shores from all across the world is a diversity which makes us strong. 
We consider our land of origin, whatever it may be, but we love the 
land we live in. That was what immigration has meant to us and to 
previous generations for so many years.
  Words spoken by the President at that meeting were stunning and, in 
some respects, disgusting to think that the President would make the 
comments he did. For the sake of our Congressional Record, for the 
Senate, and for those who are watching, I will not repeat the 
President's words. They have been reported in the press, but I want to 
go to the heart of his criticism.
  He was raising a basic question as to whether the United States 
should continue to be open to immigration from all around the world. I 
believe we should. Americans believe we should. We know that men and 
women, even of humble circumstances, who come to the United States 
determined to make a life, to make a future, and to help their families 
have made a profound difference in our country, in terms of its past 
and its future, and they have come from every corner of the world.
  Senator Lindsey Graham was at that same meeting on January 11. He 
spoke up when the President uttered those infamous words which have 
been reported, and he noted that when it came to his family, they came 
from one of the countries the President described, and they came with 
little or nothing to offer, but they wanted to be part of America. They 
came here and made a business, made a life, made a future, and brought 
to the Senate an extraordinary Member representing the State of South 
Carolina. Many of us can tell the same story.
  My mother was an immigrant to this country. She was brought here in 
1911 at the age of 2 from Lithuania. Lithuania was not exactly a 
prosperous nation in those times. It was under the thumb of a Russian 
czar, and it is one of the reasons my family left. One thing my 
grandmother carried with her on that trip, and I still have today, was 
a Roman Catholic prayer book, written in the Lithuanian language, which 
had been banned by the Russian Government. She secreted this away in 
her luggage and brought it to the United States because she knew, and 
we know, that there is freedom of religion in this country, and no 
government was going to stop her from saying her prayers in her own 
language. That is my story. That is my family's story. That is 
America's story.
  What the President said in the White House last week did not 
recognize that fundamental truth; that people just like my mother and 
my grandmother and just like Lindsey Graham's parents came to this 
country not because they were engineers, Ph.D.s, or wealthy people, 
they came here with the desire to build a life and to build a nation, 
and they have done it.
  When we hear all this talk about merit immigration, let's have merit 
selection of the people who are coming to these shores--of course, 
there are certain experts we bring in with certain visas to fill needs 
in business and research, but, by and large, we bring to this country 
people who are desperate to be part of our future, and we also bring 
people who want to be part of their family.
  We hear this phrase, ``linked migration''; that somehow or another, 
if we bring one immigrant in, they are going to bring in 100, and some 
of them may not be desirable. What we find overwhelmingly is just the 
opposite is true. It is family unification. It is building the strength 
of a family. Isn't that fundamental to who we are as Americans?
  I know, in my family and many others, relatives who came in from 
other places really strengthened our family unit and gave us a chance 
to help one another have a chance to succeed.
  Now we face a critical moment--a critical moment on the issue of 
immigration. I listened to the Republican leader come to the floor 
today, Senator McConnell, and when he speaks of DACA and the Dreamers, 
he uses the words ``illegal immigration.'' Technically, I suppose it is 
illegal. Those we are talking about are undocumented, but we have drawn 
a distinction over the years as to what happened to these young people 
and why they should be seen differently.

  They were brought to the United States as infants and toddlers and 
children--at best, teenagers--who had no voice in whether they were 
coming to this country. Did they break the law by overstaying a visa or 
crossing the border? Well, technically, of course they did, but should 
they be held culpable today? Should we deport these young people or 
give them a chance to be part of our future? This is not some idle 
philosophical discussion. This is a discussion made real by this 
administration, the Trump administration.
  It was September 5, of last year, when this President announced he 
was going to repeal DACA--the program started by President Obama to 
protect these young people living in the United States. Seven hundred 
eighty thousand of them have enrolled, and President Trump said, as of 
March 5, 2018, that program will be ended. Then he turned and 
challenged the U.S. Congress: Pass a law. If you don't like what I have 
done with this Executive order, pass a law.
  So here we are, over 4 months later, and the question has to be asked 
of the Republican leaders in the House and

[[Page S219]]

the Senate: What have you done to answer the President's challenge? The 
answer, quite honestly, is precious little, if anything.
  The Republican leader comes to the floor today and says: There is no 
hurry. We can get to this later. It will not expire until March 5. What 
he ignores is the obvious: 15,000 protected young people lost that 
protection during this period since September 5--122 a day are losing 
that protection.
  Fortunately, last week, a California court stepped in and said: Stop 
taking away the protection of DACA from these young people. So we have 
a temporary stay, being challenged by the Trump administration, which 
protects these young people for now, but that protection could end in a 
court decision tomorrow. That is the reality of life for young people.
  Yesterday, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we asked the Secretary 
of the Department of Homeland Security: Do you believe the President 
can extend his March 5 deadline for the end of DACA?
  She said: No; the President said he doesn't have that authority.
  Well, I will trust her statement and her judgment on that, but it 
further should put to rest this argument made by Senator McConnell that 
we have all the time in the world to deal with this issue.
  Let me tell you, on March 5--the deadline imposed by the President. 
As of March 5, horrible things will happen to innocent people. One 
thousand young people a day, protected by DACA, will lose their 
protection. I had one of them at the hearing yesterday. She is a young 
woman who has used her extraordinary skills to apply to medical school, 
and Loyola University Stritch College of Medicine accepted DACA-
protected young people for the first time. There are 28 of them in 
their ranks.
  She wants to be a doctor. She has helped people in underserved areas 
throughout her young career, but we know--everyone knows--that becoming 
a doctor means serving a residency, working those long hours to learn 
what it means to face clients or patients in a clinical setting. To 
become a resident, you need to be employed to take that job.
  If this young woman, who has devoted so many years of her life to her 
dream of being a doctor, loses the protection of DACA, she cannot apply 
for residency. She is finished. There will be no further progress in 
her medical education. That will happen, starting on March 5, to 1,000 
young people a day. So I would say to Senator McConnell, the Republican 
leader, there is a sense of urgency. We can't put this off.
  The good news is, six U.S. Senators--three of us on the Democratic 
side and three on the Republican side--have been doing what no other 
committee has done, no other Senators have done. We put together a 
bipartisan compromise that moves us forward on this DACA issue. It is 
something that took 4 months, and they weren't an easy 4 months. They 
were difficult. We had to debate some of the hardest issues and come to 
an agreement. I ended up giving ground on some things which I wish I 
didn't have to, and I am sure those on the Republican side feel the 
same way, but that is why we were sent here--weren't we?--Democrats and 
Republicans, to find a solution to the problems that face us, and this 
is a very real problem.
  So now the Republican leader comes to the floor and says: We don't 
have time to discuss this. We have to get out of here at the end of the 
week. Well, I disagree with him. We have enough time to do it.
  Take a look at this empty Senate floor and tell me we don't have 
enough time to take care of the DACA issue. Tell me we don't have an 
opportunity to come to this floor and bring the Senators here and do 
what we were elected to do--to debate this issue, to vote on this 
issue, to solve a problem in America. This empty Chamber is testimony 
to the fact that the Senate has done precious little for the last year 
and plans to do just about the same during the course of this year.
  I am proud to be a Member of the Senate, but I will tell you, I was 
prouder in the days when we actually debated measures on the floor, we 
ended up passing legislation to deal with America's challenges and 
problems, instead of what we face today--an exchange of speeches in an 
empty Chamber. So we have work to do.
  This morning, I went over to the Department of Defense and met with 
Secretary Mattis. I respect him. He is our Secretary of Defense and was 
a four-star general in the Marine Corps. The man has served his country 
with distinction. He talked about what is going to happen to the budget 
of the Department of Defense if Congress doesn't act. We told him we 
want to get this job done, but we also said to Secretary Mattis: There 
are other elements of this government, there are other issues before us 
that need to also be brought forward.
  You heard Senator Schumer from New York, the Democratic Senate 
leader, come to the floor and turn to Senator McConnell and say: Why is 
it always a take-it-or-leave-it when it comes to these measures? Why 
aren't we sitting down, on a bipartisan basis, to come up with a good 
way to move forward?
  It has been 119 days into this fiscal year, and we still don't have a 
budget for the United States of America. That is not just embarrassing, 
it is scandalous. To think that we have over $1 trillion that needs to 
be debated and spent, and we haven't been able to do it, and we are 
one-third through this fiscal year. The net result of that, of course, 
is to waste precious taxpayer dollars and the energy of our elected 
officials who want to be applying that energy to solving problems 
rather than the problems Congress creates.
  We can do this, and we can do it on a bipartisan basis. Senator 
Lindsey Graham and I, along with four of our colleagues, have a measure 
we are going to present to the U.S. Senate. The purpose of that measure 
is to make it clear we are ready to debate, we are ready to move 
forward, and we are ready to solve this problem that faces hundreds of 
thousands of young people across the United States of America.
  Some can call it illegal immigration, as Senator McConnell has, 
others have called it amnesty. Whatever they wish to call it, 80 
percent of Americans believe we can solve this problem.
  As you walk around the Capitol and the Capitol buildings, you will 
see young people who may step forward to introduce themselves. Many of 
them have never been to Washington before. I met one yesterday who had 
driven for 35 hours to come here. Why was she standing in the corridors 
of the Dirksen Building on Capitol Hill? She is a Dreamer. She is 
protected by DACA. Her whole life is hanging in the balance as to 
whether this Congress will actually do something to solve the problem.
  She and others have come forward to challenge us. We should accept 
that challenge, and we should meet it this week. We should say to 
President Trump: We have met the challenge that you put forth just 8 
days ago, when on Tuesday of last week you said to us: Send me a bill, 
and I will sign it. I will take the political heat. And don't take a 
lot of time to do it.
  We met that challenge with this bipartisan measure that we proposed, 
and now we challenge others on the same issue. Come forward with your 
proposal. Come forward with your idea. If you don't, at least give us a 
chance to present this bipartisan measure, which we have worked on long 
and hard, to solve this critical issue.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Funding the Government

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we move closer to the expiration date 
for Federal Government funding at the end of the week, there is no 
shortage of rancor in the air. Pundits and partisans have, for weeks 
now, been arguing incessantly about a wide range of issues, all of 
which, in one way or another, have been tied to the fast-approaching 
deadline. Don't get me wrong, there are legitimate issues at play this 
week. These debates, to the extent they are focused on solutions, are 
meaningful, and I am optimistic we can find solutions.

[[Page S220]]

  Today I would like to talk about some of the more positive 
developments we have seen recently with regard to healthcare aspects of 
the current debate. As we know, last night, leaders in the House 
unveiled a legislative package that would keep the government funded as 
well as address some bipartisan healthcare priorities, including some 
issues I have personally been working on for some time. I am hoping the 
House will pass this legislation in short order and that the Senate 
will quickly follow suit.
  Let me talk about some of the specifics in the package. First, the 
House bill would extend funding for the Children's Health Insurance 
Program for 6 years, which is the longest extension since the creation 
of the program. As I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, I am the 
original author of the CHIP Program. Twenty years ago, Senator Ted 
Kennedy joined with me to draft the original CHIP legislation and to 
move it through Congress on a bipartisan basis. I have maintained my 
commitment to this program for the past two decades, even during times 
when others sought to change it dramatically from its original purpose.
  During this Congress, as the chairman of the Finance Committee, I 
have been working with colleagues on a long-term reauthorization of 
CHIP, despite some contrary claims that I and the Republican leadership 
had somehow neglected or forgotten about the CHIP Program and had no 
intention of reauthorizing it. It is no secret that I have taken some 
flak in some corners of the Senate from colleagues looking to get some 
political mileage out of the issue I have worked so hard to keep 
bipartisan, but I will remind my colleagues that this past September, 
the Finance Committee's ranking member, Senator Wyden, and I introduced 
a long-term, bipartisan CHIP extension bill that was overwhelmingly 
reported out of the committee. A number of my colleagues, including 
some who were on the committee and voted in favor of that bill, seem to 
have forgotten this legislation had been drafted and reported. We have 
endured a number of speeches and television appearances from colleagues 
accusing Republicans of ``abandoning children in need.'' My gosh. This 
is even though our friends on the other side were entirely aware that 
the effort to reauthorize the program had been continually moving 
forward.
  The House's bill is identical to the legislation Senator Wyden and I 
introduced last fall, except that the funding continues for 1 more 
year. As I noted, it extends CHIP for 6 years. We have never gotten 
such a long extension since the creation of the program over 20 years 
ago.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate, particularly those who have been 
so outspoken and righteous in their condemnations of Republicans 
regarding CHIP will support this legislation. It would be odd to see 
them vote it down after all the acrimony we have endured over the past 
few months.
  In addition to the historic CHIP reauthorization, the House 
legislation addresses some other long-term priorities of mine: the 
taxes imposed by the so-called Affordable Care Act. Under the bill, the 
job-killing medical device tax will be delayed for another 2 years. 
This foolhardy tax, which has been criticized and condemned by Members 
of both parties, will come back into effect at the start of this year.
  Eliminating this tax has been an important cause to me since the day 
ObamaCare was signed into law. Utah is home to some of our Nation's 
most innovative medical device companies, and the United States has led 
the world in developing lifesaving and life-improving medical 
technology, an advantage that was threatened by this poorly crafted and 
irresponsible tax. I would like to see the medical device tax repealed 
entirely. I have introduced a number of bills to that effect over the 
years, but until we get that done, it is important that we keep 
shielding American consumers, patients, families, and job creators from 
the impact of this tax. The House bill would prevent the medical device 
tax from hitting any device innovators and their customers until 2020 
at the earliest.
  The House package also extends the delayed impact of the so-called 
Cadillac tax, which is another one of ObamaCare's ill-advised shots 
aimed at the middle class. Again, Members from both parties have 
expressed concern and opposed this tax. Previous delays have received 
broad bipartisan support. The House bill would put off the impact of 
the Cadillac tax through 2021, and I am hopeful this delay receives 
bipartisan support in the House and Senate.
  Finally, the bill would pull back the health insurance tax, which is 
another reckless tax provision, for 2019. This tax targets small 
businesses and middle-class consumers. There is not even a set rate for 
this tax. There is a revenue target, and the rate moves around from 
year to year in order to raise a specified amount. The results are 
increased costs passed along to insurance beneficiaries in the form of 
higher premiums and increased burdens on small businesses. The House 
bill will give additional relief from this tax starting in January of 
next year so insurers can lower premiums before the 2019 filing period.
  So, as we can see, in addition to keeping the government open, the 
legislative package unveiled last night in the House would address some 
key bipartisan healthcare priorities.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
approach. Given their recent statements on some of these issues and 
their past votes, I think many Democrats would have a hard time 
explaining to their constituents why they oppose these measures.
  While there are still a number of healthcare priorities that must be 
addressed as quickly as possible, including Medicare extenders, I am 
very pleased to see the House moving forward with a long-term extension 
of CHIP and relief to some of the most burdensome ACA taxes. I have 
been working with my colleagues in both parties and in both Chambers to 
bring these efforts to fruition. Once again, I hope all of my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation once we receive 
it from the House.
  Having said that, let me make my second set of remarks.


                              Immigration

  Mr. President, I rise to speak on immigration reform. For nearly 20 
years, we have been talking about the Dreamer population. We have been 
talking about border security for just as long. It is time we did 
something, and there is a lot of desire among my colleagues to find a 
path forward to make a deal, but as I said at yesterday's Judiciary 
Committee hearing, to do that, we need to be realistic.
  To my Democratic friends, I say it is time to stop pushing for a 
clean Dream Act. As a matter of simple political reality, it is not 
going to happen.
  To my Republican friends, I say we are not going to get the Sun, the 
Moon, and the stars. We should push for the best deal we can get, but 
we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So let's be 
realistic, and I say that to both sides, as one who has made a lot of 
deals in my time.
  Here is where I am on the issue.
  First, we need a deal that has broad support. I hope we can get that 
support from both sides. Certainly, with the Republican majority in 
Congress, any deal that moves forward must have broad Republican 
support and be supported by the President.
  Second, we should be wary of false deadlines. There has been a lot of 
discussion that we need to have a bill done by this date or that date, 
even though those dates have nothing to do with relevant program 
deadlines. We should not create a false cliff and then plunge over it 
in a rush to get something done right this second. A deal on DACA is a 
deal worth doing, and it is worth doing right. Moreover, a deal on DACA 
should not just be about DACA.
  Third, we need a deal that is going to help our economy. Our goal 
here should be to strengthen our country. We do that by supporting 
communities and families and by ensuring that law enforcement has the 
tools it needs to keep our country safe, but we also strengthen our 
country by helping businesses thrive and create good, high-paying jobs 
for our workers.
  Fourth, we need a legislative solution for DACA. We can't keep 
kicking the can down the road and relying on dubious legal authority to 
keep individuals in our country. It is not fair to them, and it is not 
fair to others who are seeking to enter our country legally.
  Fifth, we need meaningful improvements to border security and 
interior

[[Page S221]]

enforcement, not a figleaf, not window dressing--real reform. There has 
been a lot of talk about a wall. To those who are unwilling to 
entertain any deal that will have wall funding, I say: Let's not let 
something that would amount to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 
Federal budget scuttle a once-in-a-generation deal.
  Sixth, we need to close loopholes and reduce fraud and abuse. One 
area that has been particularly susceptible to these problems is the 
diversity visa lottery. I have long been skeptical of the program. In 
fact, I introduced legislation in 2011 to sunset the program unless 
changes were made to cut back on fraud and abuse.
  Another area that constitutes an enormous potential loophole is the 
ability of individuals to come to our country illegally but then use 
family relationships to absolve themselves of the consequences of their 
illegal actions. I think it is a problem to allow people who come into 
our country in open violation of our laws to turn around and avail 
themselves of our Constitution and laws to backdoor themselves into 
lawful status. We need a better system than that.
  Finally, I think high-skilled immigration needs to be part of the 
discussion. There has been a lot of talk recently about merit-based 
immigration. Well, high-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. 
It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most 
highly educated.
  Next week, I plan to reintroduce my Immigration Innovation Act, or I-
Squared Act. This bipartisan legislation, newly updated for this 
Congress, will better align high-skilled visas with market demand so 
that employers are able to hire the talent they need. It will help end 
our stupid practice of educating people here in the United States and 
then sending them back home to compete against us, and it will stop 
some of the troubling abuses we have seen with the H-1B visa program. 
We should welcome the best and the brightest in the world, regardless 
of their origin. My I-Squared Act will help us to do that.
  Our immigration laws are a mess. They are a morass of conflicting and 
confusing obligations that reflect past Congresses' pet projects and 
idiosyncrasies, rather than any real overarching principle. I want a 
system that makes sense. I want a system that is merit-based. I want a 
system that doesn't penalize people who were brought to our country 
illegally through no fault of their own but that also discourages 
future unlawful entries. Surely, we can have a system that does both. 
Surely, we can find a path forward that is fair and just to the Dreamer 
population but that reduces future illegal immigration. Surely, we can 
design a system focused around economic growth rather than arbitrary 
allocations of visa numbers, and, surely, we can create an immigration 
policy that focuses on what individuals will contribute to our country 
rather than where they came from or who they know.
  In short, as I said earlier, we should welcome the best and the 
brightest in the world, regardless of their country of origin. That 
should be our mantra as we move forward.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Order for Recess

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Funding Our Military

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I was just in the Presiding Officer's 
chair and saw my colleague and my friend for whom I have a lot of 
respect, the Democratic whip, talking about some of the issues we are 
looking at right now, in particular, military spending and the 
appropriations we need to fund our military. He mentioned it was a 
priority. Certainly, it should be a priority. It is probably the most 
important thing we do here in the Congress. He said they are focused on 
it. We should all be focused on it.
  I just thought I would reply a little because I think the facts of 
what has been going on here on the floor of the Senate the last couple 
of years would make one skeptical of that claim that it has been a 
focus of theirs.
  Let me just give a few examples. I know the Presiding Officer is very 
familiar with all of these. In the last administration, from 2010 to 
2016, military spending for the United States was cut by almost 25 
percent. That was led by the previous President, despite the fact that 
there is no one who doubts that national security threats to our Nation 
have increased: We are going to cut defense spending by 25 percent--
when there are threats around the world, and we know what they are--
ISIS, Iran, China, and Russia. A lot of people like to talk about 
Russia, which is definitely a threat, but we are cutting defense 
spending by 25 percent. That makes no sense, but that is what has been 
going on.
  When I got to the Senate, one of the first things that happened was 
that the previous administration decided that they were going to cut 
the Army by an additional 50,000 troops--Active-Duty Army troops. The 
Presiding Officer remembers the spring of 2015 and the big announcement 
that we were going to cut 50,000 more troops. That made no sense.
  A number of us were very concerned about the direction the country 
was going, the Congress was going, and the administration was going 
with regard to our military. The good news is that there has been a 
bipartisan recognition that the cuts were way too dramatic and the 
increases and threats to our Nation have risen so significantly that we 
have to do something about rebuilding our military, rebuilding 
readiness, and rebuilding serious funding.
  In this year's National Defense Authorization Act, led by my good 
friend from Arizona Senator McCain, we actually authorized increased 
funding by up to $700 billion. That was very bipartisan. As a matter of 
fact, there was a unanimous vote to move that out of the Armed Services 
Committee, on which I have the honor to serve with the Presiding 
Officer. Then, it was unanimous on the floor of the Senate. It was very 
bipartisan to authorize increased defense spending, but we haven't 
appropriated the dollars. So there is a difference there in terms of 
authorization and appropriations.
  This has been a bipartisan failure of this body for years. How has it 
been working? We see how it has been working. We have these giant 
omnibus spending bills, usually, at the end of the year. If we can't do 
it, we do a CR, or a continuing resolution. It says that we will keep 
funding the government as is, and then we will do this giant bill with 
all of the spending for the year.
  These CRs are really hurting our military. They hurt all kinds of 
Federal agencies because there is no predictability, but the one 
element of our Federal Government that really gets hurt by continuing 
resolutions--by these omnibus bills--is the men and women in the U.S. 
military.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, general after general and civilian 
leaders in the military, whether Democrats or a Republicans, come to 
the Congress and to our committee, and they say: These CRs are killing 
us; they are killing our readiness. We all say: Oh, yes, we know it is 
important. Then, this body does nothing. So it is not from a lack of 
effort.
  I am going to tell a story that I think the other side doesn't want 
to remember, but I think it is really important to remember, 
particularly given what the minority whip said earlier today. When a 
number of us were elected in 2014, it was a big wave election. Twelve 
new Republican Senators came to this body, and they took control of the 
Senate. The one thing we said is this: We need to fix this 
appropriations process, which is clearly broken. We need to do

[[Page S222]]

it the way it was intended--not with these smash-up derby, giant bills 
at the end of the year. We need to have a focused, disciplined approach 
to funding our government.
  Everybody knows how it is supposed to work. You have the funding 
bills, 12 of them, and the Appropriations Committee, a very important 
and powerful committee, debates those for different sections of the 
Federal Government. They get voted on out of committee. Then, they come 
to the floor, and we vote on those 12 appropriations bills.
  In 2015, a lot of us--particularly, the new Senators, and the 
Presiding Officer is one of them--said: We need to fix this. Let's do 
it the right way. And then we did. A lot of people don't remember, but 
the Appropriations Committee worked really hard under the Chairman, the 
great Senator from Mississippi, and they produced 12 appropriations 
bills in the spring of 2015.
  As you know, most of those bills were bipartisan. Most of those bills 
came out of committee with really strong bipartisan numbers--so far, so 
good. We are trying to focus on this. We are trying to be disciplined.
  The next step is that you bring the appropriations bills, one at a 
time, down to the floor. You debate them, and then you vote on them. 
Then, you try to get it over to the President to sign it--not a smash-
up derby omnibus that is 5,000 pages, and nobody knows what is in it, 
but an appropriations bill on a singular subject.
  That is what we tried to do. It came out of committee. We started 
bringing all those bills down to the Senate floor. Guess what happened 
at the next step? The minority leader was Harry Reid back in 2015. He 
decided that he was going to filibuster every one of those 
appropriations bills. Why? We said: Certainly, he is not going to 
filibuster things like the appropriations bill that came out of 
committee unanimously that funds our military. We have troops in 
combat. We have threats all over the world. That came out of committee. 
Let's at least vote on that one. Let's at least vote on the 
appropriations bill that came out of committee unanimously to fund our 
troops.
  So what happened? The other side, led by the previous minority 
leader, Harry Reid, filibustered funding our troops. Let me repeat 
that. He filibustered funding our troops on a bill that was already out 
of committee unanimously--when our troops are at war.
  So when I hear my colleagues on the other side say that they really 
care about funding the troops, I get a little skeptical. A number of us 
were quite upset about that. We went to our leader and said: Let's keep 
bringing this up. We guarantee you that if the people back home in any 
district in the country, your constituents--whether you are a Senator 
who is a Republican or Democrat--knew that they were filibustering 
funding the troops for no reason, they would get a little upset.
  We brought that bill to the floor five different times over the 
course of a couple of months, trying to get the singular appropriations 
bill to fund our military--which passed out of the Appropriations 
Committee unanimously--a vote on the Senate floor. Guess what. The 
other side filibustered it five times.
  The Presiding Officer and I were on the floor with a bunch of our 
colleagues making the argument that this is outrageous, and then we 
asked the other side to come down and tell the American people why they 
were filibustering the funding for our troops. A lot of people here 
like to do the process thing, where they don't think people are 
watching--people in the Gallery, people on C-SPAN--and they never once 
came down and said: Here is why we filibustered funding for the troops 
five times in a row. They didn't want their constituents to see it 
because they knew their constituents--whether Democrats or 
Republicans--were going to say: You are doing what? You are 
filibustering the appropriations bill for the men and women who are 
fighting to defend our Nation? That is what you are doing?
  Well, that is what they did. Yet they never explained it.
  Again, when I hear the minority whip saying: We really care about 
funding the troops, I get a little skeptical. I am still waiting for 
the answer: Why did you do that?
  As you know, we have a system right now that is broken. The budget 
system--the way we fund the government right now--I think, is a 
bipartisan failure. The normal way we appropriate and authorize is not 
working. It leads to what we are doing right now: these giant 
omnibuses, these continuing resolutions. It has happened so long--these 
year-end, smash-up derbies, where essentially, the leadership in the 
House and Senate--Democrat and Republican--and the White House go off 
somewhere, make a deal, and come back with this huge bill. It is not 
how the system is supposed to work. It is not doing our country 
justice.
  Again, the good news is that there are a number of Senators--
particularly some of the newer ones, a bipartisan group, by the way, of 
Democrats and Republicans--led by my friend and colleague from Georgia, 
Senator David Perdue, who are looking at a bipartisan way to fix this 
problem.
  Right now the way we fund the government is that we have these end-
of-the-year smash-up derby, massive, thousand-page omnibuses. When we 
can't get there, we do another CR, which really impacts our military 
negatively and a bunch of other elements of the Federal Government. We 
need to do better.
  I am going to be working with my colleagues who are focused on this. 
It is going to be hard. It is not going to be easy. A lot of people 
like the smash-up derby approach, but it is not worthy of the American 
people who we are supposed to represent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                         Funding the Government

  Mr. REED. Madam President, President Trump and the Republicans have 
been in charge of the White House, the House of Representatives, and 
the Senate for nearly a year now. Under their control, these three 
institutions have formed a Bermuda Triangle, if you will, for any kind 
of meaningful legislation that will help average Americans.
  They devoted most of last year to a destructive attempt to eliminate 
health insurance coverage for 30 million Americans before pivoting to a 
partisan tax bill that benefits the powerful and costs trillions of 
dollars that could be spent many ways, including to enhance and improve 
our military equipment and our military personnel; $1.5 trillion were 
dedicated to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and not to the men 
and women of the military. This tax legislation will also leave 13 
million Americans without health insurance. So contrary to the 
President's declarations--or those of his campaign--that he has a great 
plan that will cover all Americans, 13 million Americans likely will 
lose their coverage.
  Now, Congress is 2 days away from a government shutdown because, 
again, the majority and the President appear uninterested in governing, 
which means compromise. It means working on policy together with both 
Republicans and Democrats to deal with the real priorities--like jobs, 
education, infrastructure, and national security--that are essential to 
the American people.
  The press has been focusing on the Trump-caused immigration crisis as 
the supposed cause for the Republican dilemmas at the moment. It is 
true that finding a solution for Dreamers is very important. Indeed, a 
poll cited by the Washington Post's editorial board this morning said 
that 82 percent of voters, including almost 70 percent of Republican 
voters, believe there should be a path to citizenship for Dreamers.

  This immigration crisis is not the only unfinished business before 
Congress. We also have the Republican leadership's failure to make the 
effort early on to deal with some of the issues that are now facing us 
directly and affecting millions of Americans. Just think of some of the 
issues.
  Since September, 9 million children who are covered by the CHIP 
program have essentially been going month to month on their healthcare 
coverage because the President, and this Congress, hasn't passed a 10-
year extension that actually saves taxpayers money.
  Community healthcare centers are such a vital part of our healthcare 
system. More than 25 million Americans use these centers. Once again, 
their funding is in limbo because the program has not been 
reauthorized.
  Then there is the bipartisan Alexander-Murray bill to provide greater 
stability to private health insurance

[[Page S223]]

markets. For a President who claimed he had a great plan to insure all 
Americans much better than the Affordable Care Act, there has been no 
movement on this important aspect of improving private healthcare 
insurance for Americans.
  What about issues like the flood insurance program? We saw 
devastating floods in Florida and Texas. We know they are coming again. 
In fact, last year was the largest year in terms of government 
expenditures for storm damage that we have seen, including some of the 
wildfires that raged in the West. We know the floods will come again; 
yet a program we have for flood insurance is woefully underfunded, but 
that has not been dealt with.
  Then, of course, at the heart of what so many talk about are the 
issues of the lingering sequestration caps that jeopardize defense and 
nondefense priorities alike. Indeed, by the way these caps are 
structured, our national security is jeopardized if we don't raise both 
defense and nondefense spending because under the category of 
nondefense are the State Department and other critical agencies. 
Without funding, they will not be able to protect the country, along 
with our Defense Department personnel. We have sought, over many 
months, a balanced solution to provide the resources necessary to cover 
the gamut of government programs for the benefit of all Americans.
  In terms of flood insurance, we have American citizens in Puerto 
Rico--all American citizens--along with the people of Texas and Florida 
and California, because of the wildfires and recent floods, who 
desperately need additional help, and we should respond.
  Just as an aside, one other proposal the President made on the 
campaign was for a really big infrastructure program, with investments 
up to $1 trillion. He was going to do that in the first 100 days. Well, 
a year later, we are still waiting, but in that time, we have seen $1.5 
trillion being dedicated to tax cuts before anything else, and there is 
very little room left--given our fiscal situation--for the robust kinds 
of efforts he promised within his first 100 days.
  The issue that has captured the imagination of so many is the issue 
of the Dreamers, as I mentioned before. The President decided he would 
remove protections for these individuals--as many as 800,000 of them--a 
few months ago, last September. He created a crisis that need not have 
been created.
  We know the American people want these young people to get a chance 
to stay here. They are working. They are serving in the military. They 
are going to school. They are contributing to this community, and of 
his own volition, the President decided he was going to create a 
crisis. That crisis has now weighed heavily on us because, if we can't 
resolve this issue, there is a danger these young men and women could 
be immediately or very promptly removed from the country. We have been 
talking about this for months, but there is no progress.
  I was very impressed with Senator Graham's testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee yesterday. As he noted, we thought last Tuesday we 
had a solution because, on Tuesday, the President was talking about 
love and comprehensive reform of our immigration laws and working 
together. In fact, he was flanked by Senator Durbin on one side and 
Representative Hoyer on the other side. That was Tuesday. Come 
Thursday, it seemed to be a different President--a different President 
in tone, a different President in terms of willingness to cooperate, a 
different President in terms of bipartisanship. We just hope that, 
before too long, the President from Tuesday returns because we don't 
want a shutdown. We want, in fact, a comprehensive solution to our 
problems.
  When it comes to this particular issue of the Dreamers, as I have 
suggested, both Senator Graham and Senator Durbin have done a 
remarkable job working together in that good old-fashioned bipartisan 
way of finding a good middle ground in which we can provide some sense 
of security for the Dreamers. We can provide what the President wants: 
border security. We can think about a first step toward comprehensive 
immigration reform. That is the way we like to think this Senate, this 
House, and this government would operate. They have done their part, 
but they were met on Thursday with just unpredictable rejection and a 
tone that is not Presidential, but far from that. We have to get that 
job done, and I hope we can do that.
  We have all heard the horror stories of these Dreamers. They have 
come in to visit us. They have talked about what they are doing. They 
have talked about how they want to continue to contribute to this 
country. Again, I think we have to do that for them, but also because 
they provide a significant economic contribution to this country.
  The Center for American Progress has indicated that if DACA 
recipients lose their right to work lawfully, it could reduce our GDP 
by over $433 billion over the next decade. That is going to be a blow. 
It would be $60 million annually over this decade for my home State of 
Rhode Island. Not only is finding a solution the right thing to do, it 
is the smart thing to do in terms of our economic well-being as a 
nation.
  It is still possible to break through this deadlock. ``It is not over 
until it is over'' is the famous quote. We still have time--but not 
much time--to provide for appropriate relief for the Dreamers, to 
provide funding for our national security--that is defense and 
nondefense funding--to raise the caps so we can deal with this and do 
it, hopefully, not just for a short period of time but for at least 2 
years. I think another kick-the-can-down-the-road measure is going to 
be unacceptable. Another couple more days, even with an inducement here 
and there--a nod at some of these policies that have not been actuated 
yet--I think that would be the wrong approach. I think we have to sit 
down and get it done.
  This agenda has been the President's agenda, not the Democratic 
minority's agenda. That is what happens when you control the 
Presidency, the House, and the Senate; you set the agenda. Some argue 
we should have been talking about infrastructure in January--last 
January. Some argue we should have been talking about budget caps last 
January and have a situation where we would be passing budgets on time.
  Some of the complaints of my colleagues--and I heard them--is it is 
not just the fact that the funding isn't sufficient, it is the 
uncertainty of the funding that affects our readiness in the military, 
that affects our ability in non-DOD functions to deal effectively and 
efficiently with problems that face Americans.
  As I mentioned, this agenda has been an agenda that was preoccupied 
and just fixated on taking on ObamaCare, and that failed. Then it 
shifted not to infrastructure, not to our budget problems, not to other 
factors but to tax cuts, but to $1.5 trillion in deficit-funded tax 
cuts.
  Again, if you look at some of these military programs--for example, 
the whole reinvigoration of our nuclear posture, which is to be the 
subject of a nuclear posture deal, it has been estimated, over a decade 
or more, to cost in the vicinity of $1 trillion.
  I think people who are strong defense advocates can ask very 
sincerely, if we are going to borrow $1.5 trillion, why don't we use it 
on military equipment that we know we have to improve? Why are we 
giving it disproportionately to the richest Americans? I think those 
are questions that are resolved by the President and the leadership in 
the Senate and the House.
  We are here because I think most Americans want to get things done. 
As I suggested by my polling numbers from the Washington Post, they 
want overwhelmingly to see the Dreamers have a path to freedom. They 
want to see people in Texas, in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 
Islands get the help they need because of a natural disaster. They want 
healthcare for children--the CHIP program. They want these children to 
be able to go to community health centers because that is where the 
vast majority of them go. They want to go ahead and ensure that these 
things are accomplished.
  Now is the chance to govern, and the levers of the government are 
clearly in the hands of the Republican President, the Republican 
Senate, and the Republican House, and those levers should be moving for 
the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S224]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
complete my remarks, notwithstanding the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, the Founding Fathers knew and understood 
well what it was like to live in a dangerous world. When America was 
founded, we were threatened by foreign adversaries. The military might 
of the United States was feeble compared to the great powers of that 
day. Yet the Founders insisted on a Constitution that would protect the 
civil liberties of the American people. They knew it was possible to 
defend the homeland and Americans' rights at the same time. It still 
is.
  The War of Independence was fought in part because King George III 
abused general warrants that let his officers snoop through the papers 
and property of law-abiding subjects. The abuse of general warrants and 
the use of things like writs of assistance prompted the American people 
into action, representing that their fundamental liberties were at 
stake. That is part of what ushered in the American Revolution.
  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was put in place 
specifically to protect these very kinds of liberties and to protect 
the American people against this very type of snooping. The Fourth 
Amendment does this by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures 
of Americans' persons and property. The very wording of the Fourth 
Amendment itself recognizes that this is part of what our security 
means. It is not just that we are protecting privacy; we are protecting 
privacy by protecting our security, to make sure that we are secure in 
our persons, our papers, houses, and effects.
  The Fourth Amendment also requires search warrants to be limited in 
scope and to be based on evidence producing probable cause that a crime 
has been committed. Those warrants also have to be particularized so 
that they are not open-ended, so that they can't be applied to any and 
every circumstance.
  Critics of the Fourth Amendment complain about it. They complain 
about it from time to time as if it were somehow an annoyance that has 
to be dealt with, ultimately circumvented. Some people refer to it even 
as something of a security threat in and of itself. This is wrong. Our 
Nation's history should itself be enough to convince us that the Fourth 
Amendment is no annoyance. It is an essential safeguard of our liberty 
in the face of a vast, powerful, and frequently overreaching 
government. Just think of how much more powerful the government has 
become in the age of supercomputers and the internet. The kinds of 
abuses endured by the founding generations will be repeated on an even 
greater scale if we are not vigilant in checking the power of 
government.
  Last night, this body--the U.S. Senate--voted to close debate on a 
bill to reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act. This program may sound dry. It may sound 
inconsequential or even uncontroversial to many people's lives. But 
supporters and critics who are familiar with it often agree that it is 
anything but.
  FISA's section 702 authorizes the intelligence community to spy on 
suspected foreign terrorists. Not many people are troubled by that 
aspiration. The intelligence-gathering that this authorizes is a 
valuable task, and it is one that helps protect the homeland from bona 
fide threats from outside the United States. However, FISA 702 also 
allows the collection of incidental intelligence about American 
citizens who communicate with foreign suspects. Once the intelligence 
community has collected this incidental information about Americans, 
domestic law enforcement can access the information for their own 
investigations without first obtaining a search warrant, as 
contemplated under our constitutional structure. In other words, FISA 
702 opened a backdoor to government spying on American citizens. This 
incidental spying is a different matter altogether, and it does 
implicate the Fourth Amendment--certainly the spirit of the Fourth 
Amendment if not also the letter thereof
  It is profoundly worrying that the government maintains vast 
collections of information about American citizens, no matter how that 
information is collected, incidentally or intentionally. It is likewise 
worrying that the government cannot or will not say, specify, list 
exactly how many Americans have been subjected to government snooping 
under this provision.
  Surveillance programs like this one may be implemented with the best 
of intentions--and I am willing to assume for purposes of this 
discussion that they are with the best of intentions here--but they 
themselves provide the raw material that overzealous bureaucrats can 
use to snoop on anyone the government doesn't like.
  When we speak of the United States, when we speak of our government 
agencies, we are not speaking of an omniscient force, something that 
can only act for benevolent reasons. Our governments, by necessity, are 
run by fallible, mortal individuals. No matter how patriotic might be 
the goals underlying this law or the agencies that implement it, at the 
end of the day, a human being is in control of each and every action 
taken under this law.
  So maybe, you might say, the subjects of this type of government 
surveillance are in fact overwhelmingly threats to the public. But can 
you guarantee that is the case? And if it is the case today, can you 
guarantee it will always be the case? Can you be so sure that tomorrow 
or the next day or the next year or in a few years from now or decades 
from now, that will also be the case? What if the next time, the 
subject is a critic of the government, or perhaps the subject is a 
petty political enemy of someone charged with implementing this 
statute?
  History cannot reassure us that this or any other surveillance power 
will always be used for good. It is not difficult, for that matter, to 
fathom hypothetical scenarios in which this could come about. Imagine, 
for example, a political candidate disliked by someone with authority 
to do a so-called backdoor search of a section 702 database. Imagine 
that someone with that authority dislikes that political candidate and 
decides to go looking for dirt on that political candidate, finds dirt 
on that political candidate, and then perhaps decides to leak that same 
information--unlawfully accessed by this individual acting pursuant to 
this program. This might be against all sorts of department protocols. 
It might be against the policy of those same agencies charged with 
administrating this statute. But the fact that we can't rule it out, 
the fact that it is not clear that this couldn't happen, ought to be 
concerning to every single one of us.
  The only check on this frightening power is the FISA Court, which 
rules in near total obscurity about what the government is allowed to 
collect. I say the FISA Court is the only check because Congress 
certainly isn't acting like a credible check on this authority.
  Not long ago, the House handed us a bill that would reauthorize FISA 
section 702 for another 6 years, and I am sorry to report that many of 
my colleagues in the Senate are forcing this bill through as is, in the 
same condition as we received it from the House of Representatives, 
without a single change from the bill the House sent us, without any 
amendments to protect Americans against warrantless, backdoor searches 
by the government about U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
  I believe that Americans' Fourth Amendment rights are worth much more 
due diligence than that. Instead of simply rubberstamping FISA 702 
through the bill that the House sent us, this body could have 
strengthened it by voting against cloture, which would have opened up 
the bill for amendments.
  To be clear, a vote against cloture would not have been a vote 
against FISA section 702. It would not have ended the program or 
jeopardized our Nation's ability to spy on suspected foreign 
terrorists. In fact, as far as I know, not one of the Members of this 
body who voted against cloture would even support such an outcome. Not 
one of us, as far as I am aware, would like to see FISA end. What we 
would like to see is for amendments to at least be considered, to be 
debated, to be discussed by the people's elected representatives in 
this body to make sure that we have achieved the proper balance between 
the power the government desires and the security and privacy of the 
American people. A vote

[[Page S225]]

against cloture would have allowed this body to improve FISA section 
702 through a legitimate amendment process--one that we, unfortunately, 
are being denied this week.
  You see, one of the reasons why it is important, as we consider this, 
to allow for amendments is that this law comes up for reauthorization 
only so often. I think the American people legitimately would expect 
that when it comes up, we would actually have an open, honest debate 
and discussion; that we would do more than simply rubberstamp what the 
other Chamber has already passed; that we would ask some difficult but 
important questions about the rights of the American people relative to 
this program.
  Had we voted down cloture, had we decided not to vote to end debate, 
this would have given us an opportunity to protect Americans' safety 
and their constitutional rights, not one or the other. It wouldn't have 
put us in this awful Hobson's choice scenario, where you have to choose 
to protect one or the other.
  What, you might ask, may some of these possible changes to section 
702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have looked like? They 
would look a lot like the provisions contained in the proposed USA 
Liberty Act, which Senator Leahy and I introduced last year. The USA 
Liberty Act would tighten this standard the government must meet in 
order to collect and access information on you, pursuant to section 
702. This safeguard, and any of the other provisions contained in the 
USA Liberty Act, would be worthy additions to FISA 702.
  These changes would not restore respect for the Fourth Amendment 
overnight. I believe it will take many more battles with the entrenched 
interests within government to achieve that, but they would be steps in 
the right direction.
  If history is our guide, any unlimited, unaccountable power we hand 
to the government ultimately will be used against the people. In FISA 
section 702, the government has a vast grant of power--a digital-aged 
general warrant--to hoard untold terabytes of information about 
American citizens.
  I hope we can work together in the coming months to improve this 
surveillance program and vindicate what the Founders so clearly knew; 
that our safety does not have to come at the expense of our rights; 
that our security and our privacy are not at odds with one another but 
that our privacy and our security are one and the same. Our security is 
part of our privacy and vice versa. We can protect both. We can walk 
and chew gum at the same time. We can honor the Constitution and 
protect the rights of the individual while simultaneously protecting 
the security of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. We 
can do better, and we must.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________