[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.
____________________