Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do have a few comments I will make. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate for 44 years. For 20 of those 44 years, I was either the chairman or the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. During those 44 years, I have seen 19 nominations to the Supreme Court. I voted for most of the nominees--for both Republican and Democratic Presidents. The first one was John Paul Stevens, who was nominated by President Ford. I voted on every current member of our Nation's highest Court. When I was in Vermont over the weekend I was thinking of these nominations, and I believe that I have never seen so much at stake with a single seat as with the current nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. There is one thing we can all agree upon, Republicans and Democrats alike, that like many Supreme Court nominees before him, Judge Kavanaugh has impressive academic credentials and judicial experience. But unlike most of his predecessors, Judge Kavanaugh also had a lengthy, partisan career. Prior to his time on the bench, Judge Kavanaugh was a political operative engaged in some of the most divisive fights in our Nation's recent history--including Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton, Bush v. Gore, and five contentious years as a senior official in President George W. Bush's administration. It is no surprise, then, that Judge Kavanaugh has quite a paper trail--over one million pages. His lengthy, controversial record was something that the White House was well aware of when the President selected him. But the President selected him, nonetheless. Under the advice and consent clause of the Constitution, the burden falls now to the Judiciary Committee to review his record. It should be self-evident that records relating to an especially significant period of a Supreme Court nominee's career should be among those most closely examined by the Senate. Indeed, the methodical review of a federal court nominee's full record is not optional. It is the most fundamental part of the Senate's constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. In fact, we saw just a few weeks ago that such vetting led to the withdrawal of a circuit court nominee with a record of very offensive college writings. This process must be even more exhaustive for a nomination to our Nation's highest Court. One only need look to the Senate's consideration of Justice Elena Kagan. Like Judge Kavanaugh, she served in the White House prior to her nomination. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. I worked with the ranking member at the time, Senator Jeff Sessions. We requested the full universe of her documents from the Clinton Presidential Library. We worked together. We wanted to ensure the request was expedited. We wanted the collection to be complete. Crucially, President Obama made no claims of executive privilege. In fact, less than one percent of the documents were withheld on personal privacy grounds. To this day, those emails are posted online for anyone to see. Then, I also supported then-Senator Sessions' request for documents related to military recruitment at Harvard. Military recruitment at Harvard is not the sort of thing one thinks of for a Supreme Court nominee, but Justice Kagan, a brilliant lawyer, had been dean of the law school. Well, that request was beyond the scope of our committee's usual practice, but I agreed with the Republicans that the records could potentially be of public interest, and therefore they ought to be subject to public scrutiny. Transparency weighed in favor of disclosure, but, then, transparency almost always does. For Justice Sotomayor, when I was chair, I joined then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions to request decades-old records from Justice Sotomayor's time working with a civil rights organization in the 1980s. Remember, she was a sitting judge on an appellate court, and we had her record, which is what some of the Republicans are saying is all we should look at with Judge Kavanaugh. They wanted the documents during the time she had worked with a civil rights organization decades before. We did have 3,000 opinions that she had written over the 17 years she served as an appellate and district court Federal judge. Every Republican wanted those records, and those of us who were in the majority, the Democrats, said: Fine, the public should know what they are. We agreed. What a change, what a change--they wanted to have the records from Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, and they had to come up with those records, but he doesn't have to. This is what the American people deserve to see from Judge Kavanaugh. Every document of public interest should be made public with no artificial restrictions and no abuse of executive privilege. The American people deserve the unvarnished truth of this man, just as Senate Republicans rightly demanded of the two highly qualified women that President Obama nominated. We wanted the records from them, and we want the records from him, but, unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee is not on track to uphold its bipartisan standard of transparency. Two weeks ago, my Republican friends expressed a willingness to request White House documents that Judge Kavanaugh authored or contributed to as Staff Secretary of President Bush. We thought it was very similar to requests made of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. But then they had a private meeting with White House Counsel last week. Now, suddenly, we can't do that. Suddenly, the White House, a different branch of government, is telling the independent Senate Judiciary Committee what they have to do, and suddenly all of Judge Kavanaugh's Staff Secretary records were off-limits. Then last Friday, in a stark departure from committee precedent, Chairman Grassley, who is a friend of mine, shocked me when he sent a partisan request that omitted any and all records from Judge Kavanaugh's three contentious years as Staff Secretary. This was a particularly extraordinary admission, given that Judge Kavanaugh himself singled out his three years as Staff Secretary as ``among the most instructive'' for him as a judge, when he provided advice ``on any issue that may cross the [president's] desk.'' During this time, Judge Kavanaugh said he helped to ``put together legislation,'' and he ``worked on drafting and revising executive orders.'' Karl Rove described Judge Kavanaugh as playing a major role in reviewing and improving practically every policy document that made it to the President. Judge Kavanaugh said this experience gave him a ``keen perspective on our system of separated power.'' Yet, Senate Republicans don't want to see any of it. Not even those memos and other documents that Judge Kavanaugh himself authored and edited. Just as I worked to provide these same documents when the Republicans requested them in a Democratic administration, I do not believe the Senate can fulfill its constitutional duty to provide advice and informed consent to a nominee for our Nation's highest Court without vetting three years' of such critical records. That is why, yesterday, I joined Ranking Member Feinstein and the other Judiciary Democrats to send our own records request to the Bush Presidential Library. The request mirrors--not surprisingly--almost word for word the request I sent with then-Senator Jeff Sessions for Justice Kagan. We simply cannot have a lower standard of transparency for Trump nominees than for past nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. The fact that the Judiciary Committee is willing to move forward without Judge Kavanaugh's full record is especially alarming because the last time Judge Kavanaugh testified before the Senate under oath, he appeared to provide a misleading account of his work at the Bush White House. In his 2006 confirmation hearing, I and other senators asked about his knowledge of several Bush-era scandals, including warrantless wiretapping, torture, and detainee treatment. Judge Kavanaugh testified he had no knowledge of such issues until he read about it in the paper. He testified in response to a question from Senator Durbin that he ``was not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.'' Again, this was under oath. After his confirmation, press reports indicated that he had participated in a heated discussion in the White House over the legality of detainee policies. Judge Kavanaugh discussed whether the Supreme Court would uphold the Bush administration's decision to deny lawyers to certain enemy combatants. Judge Kavanaugh advised that his former boss, Justice Kennedy, would likely reject the argument that the White House was putting forth. I try to look at this conversation every way I can. I was a trial lawyer. I took depositions. I argued cases. I am trying to reconcile it with Judge Kavanaugh's sworn testimony under oath, but it is impossible. It makes it all the more critical that we review his complete White House record to find out what he really did. The only records I have seen from Judge Kavanaugh's time as Staff Secretary are a handful of emails previously released through an unrelated FOIA request. One happens to show very clearly that Judge Kavanaugh was looped in, notwithstanding his statement, on the Bush White House's efforts to message the infamous torture memos. From the 1 million records that exist on Judge Kavanaugh, we have but one drop in the bucket, but in that one drop, they are discussing torture. It is something he said that he had read about only in the papers. Yet this email shows he worked on these issues while in the White House. I am afraid that my Republican friends clearly do not want records from Judge Kavanaugh's three years as staff secretary to be public, but the fact that records may be controversial doesn't mean they should be hidden from the public view. Indeed, just the opposite principle applies. Just as we gave all of the records on President Obama's nominations, we should do this. The American people must not be in the dark about controversial aspects of a nominee's record. Certain principles are more important than party. Transparency is one of them. We have learned this lesson before. Wearing blinders when considering a former administration official for a lifetime judgeship presents grave risks. When President Bush nominated Justice Department lawyer Jay Bybee to the Ninth Circuit in 2003, I and other Senators asked about his involvement in the legal issues surrounding the war on terror. He didn't answer our questions. But a year after he was sworn in for a lifetime position on the Federal court, the American people learned that Judge Bybee gave the legal green light for the official use of torture, something that most people now agree is one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history. Had we known that at the time, Judge Bybee would still be known as Mr. Bybee. He never would have been confirmed. A majority of Republicans and Democrats would have voted against him. Judge Kavanaugh was directly involved in some of the most politically charged moments of our recent history. The Senate owes the American people an unsparing examination of his nomination--a nomination that could shape their lives for a generation. It is my hope that Senate Republicans and Chairman Grassley will reconsider their partial records request for Judge Kavanaugh and join the Democrats' request for all of his records. I agreed when they demanded that for Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Well, if that is the standard we followed for both of those tremendous jurists--Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan-- shouldn't we demand the same of Judge Brett Kavanaugh? He is no different than they are on the issue of what he has had to say. We ought to find out what it is. Then make up your mind; vote for him or vote against him. I am pretty sure that had we gotten the right answers on then-Mr. Bybee, he never would have become Judge Bybee. I don't believe that many Senators of either party will stand up here and say that it is great that we broke the law on torture for dubious reasons. I see the Senator from Missouri. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our intelligence community unanimously agrees that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections and that there is an imminent threat to the 2018 elections. Our country, our democracy, is under attack, and we should respond. Let's heed the warnings of our intelligence agencies. The lights are blinking red. Let's listen to our State attorneys general and Secretaries of State. My amendment does provide $250 million for State election security grants to protect our upcoming election. It helps States improve election cyber security, replace outdated election equipment. We did provide, as the distinguished Senator said, $380 million in fiscal year 2018. That was the first new funding for election security in years, but more is needed. The President is not going to act. The duty has fallen to us. Let's not, after an election, find out that this country was defenseless against attacks from Russia, and then say: Oh, gosh, we should have done something. This is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats have to be concerned. I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment to secure our elections.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud what the senior Senator from Alabama said. We worked very closely together on the weekend, yesterday, and today, and we are continuing to work on a managers' package. I also want to be able to bring up my elections security grants amendment, especially as we know that Russia and others continue to try to interfere with our elections. I believe the Senate has to act as a coequal branch of government in defending against a threat to our democracy. The threat is very real. Our intelligence community unanimously agrees that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. There is an imminent threat to our 2018 elections. Just last week, we learned that a Russian hacker targeted the office of a sitting Senator. We can't ignore such a threat against this Chamber or our government. My amendment, if I bring it up, will provide $250 million for State election security grants to protect our elections. It improves election cyber security, replaces outdated election data equipment, and undertakes other anti-cyber efforts. In fiscal year 2018, Congress came together--Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate--and appropriated $380 million for state election security grants. It was the first new funding for election security in years. In just a few short months since then, all the States and territories--55 in all--requested funding, and 100 percent has been committed to the states and 90 percent disbursed. Last week, 21 State attorneys general signed a letter pleading with Congress to provide more funding to address this crisis, writing: ``More funding is essential to adequately equip states with the financial resources we need to safeguard our democracy and protect the data of voting members in our states.'' Securing our elections and safeguarding our democracy should not be a partisan issue. The House Republicans blocked Democrats from even having a vote on the House floor. I am still hopeful the Senate will not make that same mistake. Let us heed the warnings of our intelligence agencies. Of the lights blinking red. Of the appeals from the attorneys general, the secretaries of state, and the state and local election officials who are sounding the alarm. This duty has fallen to us, and we must not later be found to have been asleep at the switch, with so much at stake. I join with Senator Shelby on this next vote, but I do want Senators to be on notice that I will be bringing this up at some point.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator preceding me, and I thank him very much. He has worked very hard in the Appropriations Committee. Senator Shelby and I have worked very hard to get a bipartisan bill. I would hope that we could have a consent agreement very soon to bring the current bills to a conclusion. I would note that both Mr. Shelby and I have done our best to work with Members of both parties. Many people on the Appropriations Committee have concerns, some of which are by nature parochial, many national. I think we have tried to accommodate as many people as possible, and I hope that Senators can reach an agreement soon so we can know exactly what we will be voting on if not tonight, tomorrow morning. I thank the Senator for his comment. I see my friend is about to speak, so I will yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Shelby and I and Senator Moran have worked on this. We have no objection.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would again note that Senator Shelby and I have been working very hard on this appropriations bill, but so have a whole lot of other Senators, my colleague from Kansas being one of them. Both Republicans and Democrats want to bring the Senate back to the way it should be, where we work things out between both parties. It means that everybody has to give something, and not everybody wins everything, but the country does very well. That is what we are trying to do on the appropriations bill. I think we can wrap these up, and I would hope that the other body, when they get back from their vacation, will be able to work with us to get them finalized and to the President. I must point out that it has taken the courage of a lot of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, to work together to get this done. As the dean of the Senate--the longest serving one here--I applaud them very, very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see nobody seeking the floor. I will speak briefly, but I would urge the Congress--both bodies--to heed the clear warnings of our intelligence community, and I urge them to take a meaningful step, an important step, toward defending our democracy. If we do nothing, we leave our elections vulnerable to an aggressive foreign adversary fully intent on destabilizing our country. To this Vermonter, and many of the Senators in the Chamber, it is a simple choice. It is a solemn responsibility. Today, the Senate should vote on my amendment to provide $250 million in grants to the States to help secure their election systems. We have to send a clear message to Russia and other foreign adversaries that tampering in our elections will not be tolerated. Simply giving a speech about it is not enough. We should vote on this. If there was a missile attack against any of our States, we would respond immediately. Our democracy is a sacred part of what we cherish as Americans--all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike--and our States are under attack. In fiscal year 2018, Congress came together--Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate--and we appropriated $380 million for State election security grants in response to our intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. In just a few months since then, States and territories--55 in all-- have requested funding, and 100 percent of these funds have been committed; 90 percent of them having been disbursed to the States. The need is clear, and we have only scratched the surface. This week, 21 State attorneys general signed a letter pleading with Congress to appropriate more money to address this imminent threat. Experts agree that aside from our appropriation last year, Congress has not provided any new spending on election security grants in years. By not providing these funds, Congress has allowed our election infrastructure to lag behind the times and the threat. We are leaving our country vulnerable to a clear threat to the foundation of this very institution and the other institutions of American Government. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars in defending against missile threats, as we should, or threats from the sea, the air, and the land, as we should. But here is a very direct threat we can begin to address with a tiny fraction of what we spend on these other threats. My amendment will provide the funding needed to help protect our elections. Our intelligence community has warned us publicly that we are, once again, being targeted. The Senate should not allow that. We should vote to defend this institution, the U.S. Senate, and our own democracy. In a world where the President of the United States stood shoulder to shoulder with Vladimir Putin and refused to condemn Russia's attack on our election and attacked our own law enforcement intelligence agencies, my amendment is a necessary first step. I believe in America first, not Russia first. I believe in protecting America. Our State works very hard to protect our elections. We elect Republicans and Democrats in our State. In the last election, Republicans elected a Governor, and I was reelected as a Senator. It is obvious we split votes, but we count our votes, and we do not have interference from another country. Vermont is a small State, and we go under their radar, but anybody who reads the intelligence knows there is no question Russia has attacked us before, Russia is continuing to attack this country today, and Russia will attack this country in November. We must protect it. I don't believe anybody is seeking recognition. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I simply say to the Senator from Alaska, in my having had the honor of serving here with both her father and with the former chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, that I hear her saying things that are very similar to what I had heard both of them say. Perhaps Senator Stevens--rest his soul--would have said it with a little bit more emphasis, especially if he had been wearing his ``Incredible Hulk'' tie, but the Senator from Alaska is one of those who believes in the Senate working the way it should and getting things done, and I compliment her efforts. Senator Shelby and I made a pact that we would try to get these appropriations bills through, which is something that had been stalled for years. The Senator from Alaska has been essential, as have been a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, in our getting that accomplished. We have gotten our bills through. Almost all of them have passed the Appropriations Committee unanimously. I joke that sometimes you can't get a unanimous vote around here that the Sun will rise in the East, but here is a case in which we have shown that it can. The Senator from Alaska is absolutely right in that one person's poison pill may be another person's essential, but we have worked it out. If we can get the appropriations bill through--and I realize the other body is going on a 6-week vacation, but I hope there will be some who stay around. We are going to be here. We could conference some of these bills and get them passed. I think it would encourage the country to see both bodies do what we have done here in the Senate. It would improve how the government runs. I share the frustration of heads of Departments, whether here in this administration or any other administration, who never know whether their appropriations are going to pass. How do they plan? How do they spend money? Where do they go? We can make this process work the way it is supposed to work. I see the distinguished Democratic leader on the floor, but I do want to compliment the Senator from Alaska for her efforts in making this possible. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I totally agree with both the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maine. First, as they said, this violates the bipartisan agreement this body made and agreed with the President about the things we would do. Seventy-three thousand jobs would be cut from the Federal Highway Administration projects when we need them, including 800,000 low-income women, infants, and children no longer receiving WIC. Mr. President, the Paul amendment proposes an 11.39-percent cut in each of the four bills under consideration. If adopted, it would undo the bipartisan budget deal the Senate passed and the President signed into law just a few months ago, and it would undo all of the work that has gone into crafting the bipartisan bills we are considering today. More importantly, an 11.39-percent across-the-board cut would have devastating impacts on programs that are important to millions of Americans and to our economy. I would mean a loss of over 73,000 jobs that would otherwise be created through Federal Highway Administration projects. An 11.3- percent cut to our National Parks would cause steep reductions in visitor services, law enforcement, and natural resource protection, all at a time when our National Parks are seeing a dramatic increase in visitors. An 11.39-percent cut means 108,000 low-income families, the elderly, and disabled will lose their HUD rental assistance and be at risk of becoming homeless. It means 830,000 low-income women, infants, and children would no longer receive WIC assistance. These are just a few examples. I urge a no vote on the Paul amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my friend, the senior Senator from Alabama, Chairman Shelby, as we prepare to debate the second set of appropriations bills to reach the Senate floor this session. Senator Shelby has noted that this is a change in recent years. I commend him, and I commend both Republicans and Democrats who have worked together in the way we used to and now are again. This minibus contains four important bills for fiscal year 2019: the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill; the Financial Services and General Government bill; the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill; and the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development and Related Agencies bills. Now, that was something significant to be on the Senate floor in past years. What is even more significant--and Chairman Shelby would agree with me--each of these bills was reported by the Appropriations Committee unanimously. Every Republican, every Democrat voted for them. They fund programs that provide important services to the American people across the country. They invest in the future of this country. Let me take one example, the Agriculture appropriations bill. This bill is a win for farmers, for families, and for rural communities through its investments in rural development, housing, food, nutrition, agriculture, research, and clean water programs. Every State in this Nation--yours, Chairman Shelby's, and everybody else's, and of course my own State of Vermont--has rural communities and farm economies that benefit from these important programs, every one of us does. The Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development bill will make critical infrastructure investments across the country and, of course, also in my home State of Vermont. It includes $10 billion in new funds--new funds--to help address our crumbling bridges and railways and roads. Let me just say, if I might be parochial for a moment, what that means in Vermont. It will help invest in safety improvements on Amtrak's Vermonter and Ethan Allen lines but also will make much needed repairs to our railroads and bridges. These increases in every one of our States are a direct result of the bipartisan budget deal reached earlier this year, and they are critically needed. I have been here for over 40 years. What Senator Shelby and I have done is we have brought the Senate back to the way it used to be to actually get things done with Republicans and Democrats working together. Improving the Nation's infrastructure was one of President Trump's key campaign promises. Unfortunately, he criticized the very budget deal that made these increases possible. He proposed cutting--not increasing--funding for infrastructure programs that this bill supports. I am glad to say, again, that Republicans and Democrats came together on appropriations and took a different path. This bill also protects key investments in affordable housing and community development programs, such as HOME and CDBG. That is crucial funding that communities leverage to construct, rehabilitate, and maintain affordable housing. This is housing that is desperately needed across America--certainly in my State of Vermont--to shelter families, but it also promotes economic mobility and stability. The Interior bill makes critical investments in programs to help ensure we have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. I can't think of any State in the country that doesn't want clean water and doesn't want clean air. It also supports important conservation programs, including support for our national parks. Our national parks attract millions of visitors each year. What a treasure, allowing families to come and see such an important part of America. I think it is quite in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and others who had supported such parks, but it also has the Forest Legacy Program and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is going to be beneficial for Vermont, New York, and, truly, the whole northeast region. The bill continues our commitment to regional efforts to protect, restore, and preserve Lake Champlain, the largest body of fresh water in the United States outside of the Great Lakes. I am pleased to report that the committee rejected the misguided cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency proposed by the administration that would have set back the progress we have made in recent decades to preserve our environment not just for ourselves but for future generations. Finally, the Financial Services bill helps to support small businesses and local economies through the Small Business Development Centers Program and other related programs. Every one of us knows that small businesses and local economies make up the strength of our States. It also funds regulatory agencies that U.S. citizens rely on to protect them from unfair, unsafe, or fraudulent business practices, like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, which protect consumers. Yet we were able to reach consent to consider such a broad package of bills in the Senate. This is a broad cross section of issues, and every one of us had different views. With the vast array of issues here, every one of the 100 Senators here, if writing this legislation by himself or herself, may include something different or something else, and, then, of course, we would have nothing. Instead, Republicans and Democrats came together. I think a lot of this comes from the direct result of the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell-Schumer commitment to move forward on a bipartisan basis. Senator Shelby and I met with the two leaders and said we wanted to do that. We wanted to actually show the Nation that the Senate can work, and we did it at spending levels agreed to in the bipartisan budget deal. We rejected new poison pill riders from the right and the left or controversial authorizing legislation. We will all have issues about which we care deeply, but we had to come together on what is in the best interests of the country, and, frankly, as a Senator for almost 44 years, it was in the best interests of the Senate. I think Senator Shelby would agree with me that achieving this goal of reporting strong, bipartisan bills took considerable restraint on both sides of the aisle, but that restraint is what is required to get these bills through the Senate. But I worry that the House is proceeding on a different path. They have passed partisan bills filled with poison pill riders that cannot and will not pass the Senate. Funding the government is one of our most basic constitutional responsibilities. If you go across this country, you will find that the American people expect us to work together. They expect us to reach across the aisle and to reach agreement on these bills. The programs funded in these bills make a real difference in the American people's lives, and they shouldn't be held hostage to unrelated partisan policy fights. So I hope that when we get to conference on these bills, the House will reverse and do their work in a bipartisan fashion for the benefit of all Americans--not just Republicans, not just Democrats, but all Americans. I especially want to thank Chairman Shelby for his partnership on these bills. I also thank the chairs and ranking members of each of the subcommittees. If they hadn't been willing to work and cooperate together, we wouldn't have these four bills before us. Again, I note that they went through unanimously. We had reached a point where some thought that we couldn't get unanimous agreement in the Senate that the sun rises in the east. Maybe we couldn't, but we did get unanimous agreement here, and thank goodness. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois just said. I will speak about the same amendment. We will be offering this amendment. It does provide $250 million for State election security grants. It provides it to protect our upcoming elections from attacks by Russia especially but from many other hostile foreign powers. We don't do this as an exercise. We know the attacks have been there in the past, and they are coming in the future. Look at what our intelligence community said. They unanimously said that Russia interfered in our 2016 election. After the intelligence community unanimously said they interfered, Congress came together, and we appropriated $380 million for State election security grants in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. Since that time, all 55 eligible States and territories have requested funding. One hundred percent of these funds have been committed to the States. As of yesterday, 90 percent of the funds have been disbursed to the States. This is pretty remarkable considering that the fiscal year 2018 omnibus was signed into law just 4 months ago. I have asked what the funding was used for. I am told it has assisted States in improving election cyber security. They have replaced outdated election equipment. They have undertaken other anti-cyber efforts. That is an important first step. I know all of us do not want our democracy attacked by foreign aggression. More is needed. It is certainly needed before the November 2018 elections--I might say even afterward. States need postelection audit systems. They have to be able to verify the accuracy of the final vote tally. They have to be able to upgrade election-related computer systems if our Department of Homeland Security identifies vulnerabilities. I believe the State and local election officials should undergo cyber security training. They should start using established cyber security best practices. These efforts are all essential to the security of our elections, and my amendment would enable them to go forward. In fact, yesterday, 21 State attorneys general signed a letter. They urged Congress to appropriate more funding for the States to help them meet their security needs. Let me quote from their letter. They said: Additional funding for voter infrastructure will not only allow states to upgrade the election systems, but will also allow for a comprehensive security risk assessment. Unfortunately, past practice has shown that the existing Election Assistance Commission grants are simply insufficient to provide for the upgraded technology needed. More funding is essential to adequately equip states for the financial resources we need to safeguard our democracy and protect the data of voting members in our states. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, at the conclusion of my remarks, a letter, dated July 23, 2018, signed by 21 State attorneys general. Mr. President, it is clear that Congress--this involves everybody in the Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike--must serve as a bulwark against Russian aggression. I say this because our President has, time and again, proven he is either unable or unwilling to do so. Standing on the world stage with Vladimir Putin, with everybody watching, President Trump repeatedly refused to condemn Russia's attacks on our democracy. He almost groveled to the authoritarian Putin. He praised and defended Putin's ``strong denial'' of Russian interference. Then, to make it worse, President Trump attacked our own law enforcement institutions while standing feet away from the very foe our institutions work so hard to protect us from. All of our intelligence communities and law enforcement have the sworn duty to protect all Americans from foes like Russia. The President stands next to the President of Russia and attacks the same law enforcement institutions that protect us. This brought about, not unexpectedly, bipartisan outrage over the Helsinki fiasco. The next day, the President tried to walk back his comments. But in typical fashion, he tried to have it both ways. He repeated the baseless claim that the attack ``could be other people also.'' Then, the very next day, when asked whether Russia is still targeting the United States, the President inexplicably said, ``No.'' That was roughly 48 hours after his own Director of National Intelligence issued a statement reaffirming that Russia is engaged in ``ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.'' Without going into any of the classified material--just go by what our intelligence agencies have said publicly. Russia is engaged in ``ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.'' And when the President is asked whether they are targeting the United States, the answer isn't no, it is yes. Some have argued that this is an issue for the States to deal with entirely on their own, that the Federal Government should not involve itself in States' electoral systems. But our States were attacked in 2016 by a foreign adversary, and their election systems were hacked by Russia's foreign military intelligence service. If any one of our States was attacked by a foreign government, would we stand by and say: Well, that is the State's problem. No. We wouldn't say: Well, it is not my State, it is not my problem. You are on your own. Of course not. An attack on any one of us is an attack on all of us. We are the United States of America. We would come together to protect that State. We would provide the Federal resources to help them out. That is what we Americans do. The same standard applies here in helping States strengthen and protect their election infrastructure. We Senators from both parties have a choice: We either heed the fact- based warnings of our dedicated law enforcement and national security professionals or we do as President Trump has done and say: Well, we will take Vladimir Putin at his word. I don't. We either choose to act as a coequal branch of government to defend our democracy or leave that responsibility to a President who doesn't see the threat. In fact, he embraces the threat even when it is standing right beside him. I say to my fellow Senators, if you believe that Russia is fully intent on destabilizing our democracy yet again in November, which is something every one of our national security and law enforcement officials believes--the people who read all the classified matters every single day, the people who know our intelligence backward and forward believe Russia is fully intent on destabilizing our democracy-- let's stand up for our country. Let's stand up for our intelligence services and have this amendment as a chance to take action--more than anything else, to stand up for America, stand up for our democracy.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't know whether there are others seeking the floor. I was going to suggest the absence of a quorum, but I see the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, and I yield to her.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Ross, a detailee from the Department of Agriculture; Ramsay Eyre, an intern at the Appropriations Committee; and Olivia Harris, an intern in my personal office, be granted floor privileges for the length of the current debate on H.R. 6147, an act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as we all know, in this country, in 2016, the Russian Government weighed a covert, multifaceted criminal campaign to interfere in our elections. We now know it was intended to help then-Candidate Donald Trump win the Presidency. We don't know the full impact of Russia's interference, but it is beyond debate that it happened. Russia, as we now found out, used inflammatory propaganda--it actually was fake news--attempting to suppress Democratic turnout and boost support for Donald Trump. They also stole communications belonging to the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which were then strategically released to maximize their impact. They were released at times when they could counter negative news stories about Donald Trump. Just last week, 12 Russian intelligence officers were charged with hacking campaign officials' emails and State election boards. In just over a year--in what may rank as the most productive special counsel investigation in our Nation's history--32 people and 3 companies have been charged or pled guilty as part of the Russian investigation. We likely will not know the full extent of Russia's interference until the special counsel's investigation is complete. But what is clear--and this is what should concern Republicans and Democrats alike--is that our democracy, our great country, was attacked by a foreign adversary. And two days ago, on an international stage, standing shoulder to shoulder with Vladimir Putin, our President sided with that attacker. Instead of forcefully condemning Russia's attack on our democracy, its role in annexing Crimea, poisoning individuals with chemical weapons on the soil of one of our closest allies, Russia's downing of a passenger airline with nearly 300 innocent civilians onboard, or undermining democracies around the world, our President offered only praise for the authoritarian President Putin. He then repeated his conspiracy theories about the FBI and called the Russia investigation a ``witch-hunt''--denigrating our law enforcement institutions, while standing beside the foe they work so hard to protect all Americans from--Republicans and Democrats alike. In my 44 years as a Senator, I have never seen anything like it. I can think of no Republican President and no Democratic President who would ever do this. I never thought it would be possible in our country before President Trump took office. Yesterday, the President attempted to walk back his decision to side with Russia over our own intelligence agencies. He attempted to do it because of the criticism he got from both Republicans and Democrats, but as many of my colleagues told me would happen, President Trump walked back his walk back. He reiterated that the interference ``could have been other people. There are a lot of people out there.'' This morning on Twitter--where apparently he does his deepest thinking--he claimed that people at the higher ends of intelligence loved his press conference in Helsinki. I do not think anyone here doubts that the President meant what he said and said what he meant in Helsinki. And, after their two-hour private meeting in Helsinki, I do not think President Putin has any doubt either. We have to know that Russia shares neither our values nor our interests. Russia is not our friend. Of course, we want to see improved relations with Russia on Syria, on nuclear proliferation, and on many critical issues, but for that to happen, Russia needs to respect our democracy and values. We must not slouch down to theirs. The United States is the leader of the free world. The free world is under threat, as it has so often been. But these threats are not supposed to come from within. Just moments ago, when asked if Russia is still targeting the United States, the President inexplicably said ``no.'' That is not the truth. Russia is still targeting the United States. This is despite his Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, confirming just last week that Russia is, indeed, still targeting our digital infrastructure and interfering in our democracy. Director Coats compared it to the warning signs that emerged prior to the 9/11 attacks, but the President denies it is happening. I know Director Coats. I served with him when he was a Republican Senator in this body. I know he would not say this if it were not so. Notwithstanding the President's saying that Russia is not targeting us, his own Director of National Intelligence says they are. We can't trust this President's judgment when it comes to Russia. Remember, the President takes an oath to protect and defend our Nation. When it comes to Russia, it appears he does not intend to abide by his oath to defend and protect our Nation. This Congress is going to be derelict in its duty if it takes no action. All of us have to speak with a single voice in this moment-- Republicans and Democrats alike. We should all condemn the President's actions, which were as dangerous as they were shameful. These condemnations are important, but words are not enough. Remember, Congress is a coequal branch of government. Remember that the Senate is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. Let's act like it. The President, obviously, can't be trusted to keep his hands off of the Russia investigation. By denigrating it at every opportunity and by dismissing its lead investigator last year, he has repeatedly failed the test. The Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed legislation with a strong bipartisan vote. Republicans and Democrats alike voted to protect the special counsel's investigation. That legislation is before the Senate. Let's enact it into law. Let's take what Republicans and Democrats together said in the Judiciary Committee--that we will protect the special counsel's investigation. Let's vote up or down. Let's do it and enact it into law. It is often said that the only thing President Putin responds to is strength. Let's show him that here in the Congress, we stand united in opposition to his ongoing attempts to attack our democracy. Believe me, they are ongoing right at this moment. Let's pass stronger sanctions targeting him and the oligarchs who enable him, who continue to help him because they become billionaires by doing it. Let's pass a resolution making it clear that if President Trump chooses to stand with President Putin, then he stands alone. The European Union is not our foe. And President Putin is not our friend. Our allies around the world, especially those that have stood with us since World War II, are looking at us at this moment. They are questioning whether the United States will be a reliable partner in the face of creeping authoritarianism, both at home and abroad. Let's show them where we stand. This is not about politics. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is about who we are as a country and what we stand for as Americans--whether we stand for democracy; whether we stand for freedom, including the freedom of the press; whether we stand for the rule of law; whether we stand for truth; and whether we stand for America. As a Vermonter and a Senator, I know where I stand. It is time we stand together.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to draw the Senate's attention to the plight of civil society leaders in Niger, where political and civil rights have been deteriorating over the last several years. This disturbing trend threatens the U.S.-Niger partnership and should concern each of us. Mahamadou Issoufou was elected President of Niger in 2011 and, in the following years, worked cooperatively with Niger's international partners, including the United States, to make progress toward the restoration of democratic governance in that country. Our countries have partnered together on health, development, and humanitarian assistance programs, and as we all know, we have suffered tragic losses together in the fight against terrorism. Progress toward democratic governance has been significantly eroded. Since the run up to President Issoufou's reelection in 2016, the government has increasingly persecuted opposition politicians, journalists, peaceful protesters, and civil society leaders in a manner that has undermined progress and stability in the country. This trend has not gone unnoticed. The State Department noted in its most recent Human Rights Report that Niger's significant human rights issues include harsh and life-threatening prison and detention center conditions, detention of opposition politicians, and restrictions on freedom of assembly. In November 2017, Niger withdrew from the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative after being suspended for failing to meet good governance standards, including for its repression of civil society. An example of this disturbing trend involves the arrest of several dozen civil society leaders between March and April of this year, in connection with demonstrations against the country's new finance law. Many of these individuals, like Ali Idrissa, the coordinator for the Network of Organizations for Budgetary Transparency and Analysis, are affiliated with Publish What You Pay and are advocates for transparency and accountability of Niger's revenues in order to combat corruption. That effort should be a shared goal in Niger. Peaceful public assembly and calls for accountability should not result in imprisonment. I urge the Trump administration, other donor governments, including the EU, and the international financial institutions to hold the government of Niger accountable for respecting its citizens' right to freedom of expression and assembly and to join me in calling on President Issoufou to release the detainees and to dismiss the charges against these individuals. This is now a matter of urgency, as four civil society leaders reportedly face jail sentences at a judgment hearing on July 24. Doing so would be a positive step by the government of Niger toward proving that it is serious about upholding the values that underscore our partnership, including to maintain its eligibility under the recently initiated Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact. That Compact is now subject to heightened scrutiny by the Appropriations Committee, which provides the funding for it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering one of the most troubling executive branch nominations that this President has made to date--the nomination of Brian Benczkowski to lead the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. For years, I have studied and have been aware of the Criminal Division. This is an amazing nomination. I think it is enough to oppose Mr. Benczkowski's nomination because he is objectively unqualified for this important position, but there are also compelling reasons to believe that it would be uniquely reckless to confirm him to this position. Now, speaking about Mr. Benczkowski's lack of qualifications for this role is not meant to denigrate. Many of us know him, as I did, from his service in the Judiciary Committee as the staff director for the then Ranking Member Jeff Sessions. The fact is, this nominee to head the Criminal Division has virtually no criminal law experience. Even at this age, he has never tried a case. He has never served as a prosecutor. He has almost zero courtroom experience. Instead, his experience has been to serve as a political aide to various officials. As a former prosecutor, I know there is no substitute for actual courtroom experience, actually going into a courtroom and trying a criminal case, arguing criminal cases on appeal, determining whether you bring a charge or don't bring a charge. These are things an experienced prosecutor has to do. For the last several decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, every head of a criminal division--which is probably the most important litigating arm of the Justice Department--has had substantial prosecutorial experience, with the exception of one individual whose nomination I simply could not support. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. I voted for nominees in Republican administrations and in Democratic administrations because they were qualified, and there are countless qualified prosecutors the President could select. For this reason alone, the Senate should not consent to Mr. Benczkowski's nomination. But there are two other reasons, aside from the fact that he has absolutely zero qualifications for this important position. It is sort of like sending somebody in to do brain surgery when their main experience has been clipping hedges. You have to have some experience in there, but aside from the fact that he has no experience, there are two other reasons he shouldn't be confirmed. First, he has demonstrated, at a minimum, exceptionally poor judgment when it comes to perhaps our Nation's most critical ongoing national security investigation--the Russian Government's attack on our democracy. We all know, if we have read the intelligence reports, Russia attacked the U.S. democracy and vote in the last election. After serving on Mr. Trump's transition team, Mr. Benczkowski represented a Putin-connected Russian bank, Alfa-Bank, regarding its bizarre server communications with the Trump organization during the height of the Presidential campaign. Alfa-Bank was at the very center of scrutiny into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, even making an appearance in the Steele dossier. Yet Mr. Benczkowski took on Alfa-Bank as a client on an issue related to the Russia investigation at the same time he was being considered for a senior position in the Trump Justice Department, totally blinded to the obvious conflict of interest. In fact, he continued to represent Vladimir Putin's connected bank until the day he was formally nominated to lead the criminal division. Now, some have said we should give Mr. Benczkowski the benefit of the doubt. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, you have to admit, at least demonstrates an embarrassingly poor sense of judgment for someone who is nominated to lead the Criminal Division to look into the criminal activities of places like Alfa-Bank. Now, we find Mr. Benczkowski has refused to recuse himself from matters related to the Russia investigation or the Steele dossier. You can't make these things up. It is just conflict of interest 101. As Senator Durbin and Senator Whitehouse have warned, as head of the Criminal Division, Mr. Benczkowski would therefore have visibility and be able to look into investigations of individuals related to the Trump campaign. He could serve as a conduit of information to the Attorney General about these sensitive matters. According to the Department of Justice, it is possible Special Counsel Mueller's office ``will seek approvals from the Criminal Division as required . . . or may simply want to consult with subject- matter experts in the Criminal Division as appropriate in the normal course of department investigations,'' and who would have availability to that? Mr. Benczkowski. He could even be in a position to share secret grand jury information directly with the President. What is also concerning is that if Mr. Benczkowski were to be confirmed and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein were then to be removed, the President, under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, could simply install Mr. Benczkowski as the Acting Attorney General, with respect to the Russia investigation. So what do we have? We have Mr. Benczkowski, under those circumstances, gaining direct control over the special counsel's investigation. He would even have the power to stop the special counsel's probe. Gosh, we wonder, could that ever occur to someone at the White House; that he could suddenly stop Mr. Mueller from his investigations? On qualifications, the man who is going to be head of the Criminal Division has never tried a case, never handled any criminal matter, never had anything to do with criminal matters. He is really unqualified for this role by any objective measure. The only apparent qualification that Mr. Benczkowski has is his close relationship with, and political loyalty to, the Attorney General and the President. In fact, that is likely the very reason he was nominated to this critical position. That is all the more troubling given his terrible judgment with respect to the Russia investigation. We are putting someone in who has been involved as an attorney for a bank involved in this Russia investigation. Many of my fellow Republican Senators, to their credit, have stated their commitment to ensuring that Special Counsel Mueller be allowed to carry out his investigation independently and without political interference. I hope they keep this commitment in mind when considering Mr. Benczkowski's nomination. I hope they join me in voting no. Apparently, his only qualification is he is going to be put in a position where he could stymie Mueller's investigation of Russia. I have voted for a lot of nominees, both Republicans and Democrats, in this position because of their qualifications--not because of their ideology but their qualifications. No President of either party has ever nominated somebody for this critical position who is less qualified. In fact, it is pretty hard to find anybody in this country less qualified. Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield to them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been a member of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee since I was first elected to the Senate. The work that committee has done throughout my tenure in the Senate has proven that a bipartisan, reasonable process is not only possible but is preferable to the rancor and rhetoric that so often curtails the important work before the Senate. The 2018 farm bill process once again demonstrates this distinctive quality of the Agriculture Committee, which has produced a vital legislative product that will improve our Nation's agricultural, food, and environmental systems. As a former chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I know just how much work it takes to draft and advance a bill of this size, breadth, and influence, and I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for working together to get this done. This bill stands in stark contrast to the version passed by the House of Representatives just last week, in which an ugly partisan process resulted in legislation full of environmental riders and harmful policy constraints that would devastate the millions of families that depend on our nutrition programs for basic nutrition. I urge all Senators to recognize that the bipartisan product reported nearly unanimously by the committee is a strong bill that provides leadership on food, agriculture, nutrition, natural resources, and rural development issues. The policies it advances are based on the best available science and will provide for effective management. This bill is so much more than just a ``farm bill'' or even a ``food bill.'' This is a bill that addresses a wide swath of American life and helps to set priorities for the policies that affect every single one of us. It is our chance to show farmers, foresters, families, rural communities, and every American consumer that we hear their concerns and can help everyone live a healthier, fuller life. Vermont farmers and families expect that the programs and guidance within the farm bill will help our struggling farms, large and small, to stay productive, ensure that children are well nourished, and protect our environment. This is a bill for every America and a bill for future generations. I have heard countless heartbreaking stories from Vermont dairy farmers who are struggling to stay afloat right now amid perilously low milk prices. In addition to dairy, I know that agriculture across the country is facing increasing difficulties when it comes to competition, trade, dropping prices, and dramatic weather challenges that have farmers everywhere on edge. I am proud that this bill will continue to address these. I particularly want to thank the chair and ranking member for the inclusion of the improved Dairy Risk Coverage Program that builds on the important margin protection improvements I was able to secure in February for our struggling dairy farmers. The bill also provides important support for the rapidly growing organic industry and local food systems and the opportunity for farmers to diversify their crops by growing and selling hemp products. We continue the proud tradition of providing nutritional assistance to our fellow Americans with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and this bill continues our commitment to worldwide stability and productivity with programs like McGovern-Dole, Food for Peace, the Global Crop Diversity Trust, as well as valuable research to support farmers here at home and around the world. We know that, when families and children do not have to wonder where their next meal may come from, children do better in school, workers are more productive, and our Nation is stronger. The same is true when we support international efforts that combat poverty and provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance, we alleviate poverty and build stronger U.S. partners. Our Nation's conservation tradition is reinforced in this bill, with significant funding and necessary improvements to programs that allow farmers and forestland owners to make environmentally friendly improvements to their land and take care of the natural areas that make our lands and our countryside so vital, productive, and unique. Wildlife, biodiverse ecosystems, and the air, land, and water we rely on will be cleaner and healthier because of this bill. Through the support of the committee's chair and ranking member, the bill does not include problematic changes that would have weakened pesticide and forestry laws. This farm bill provides critical economic development support to address the unique challenges and needs faced by our rural communities. I am proud of the steps this bill makes possible to improve the lives of rural citizens everywhere by investing in rural community infrastructure and facilities, including a new priority for treatment centers for substance abuse disorders, while providing and expanding much-needed technical assistance and access to affordable capital for small and growing rural businesses that serve as economic engines in our rural towns. This bill is a good bill, a strong bill, and it is a breath of bipartisan fresh air. Coming on the heels of our recent passage of the first package of Senate appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019 earlier this week, we are again proving that the Senate can move important and complicated legislation with bipartisan support when we take the time to work with each other and we commit to keeping these bills free of controversial items. This bill serves as an example of why we are all here: to help those who need it, to make sure our Nation is secure, and to protect our natural resources for generations to come. I will work with the chairman and ranking member to ensure that this bill passes and that we are able to send a strong and balanced bill to the President that we can all stand behind.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Murray in introducing the Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2018. This legislation, if enacted, will establish critical privacy protections for Americans by limiting the unjustifiably wide ``border zone'' within which Department of Homeland Security officers may-- without a warrant--stop vehicles and search private land for the purpose of patrolling the border. The current 100 mile ``border zone'' was established through regulatory fiat. While the Fourth Amendment allows limited exceptions to the warrant requirement at or close to the border, this 100 mile zone is neither limited nor reasonable. It includes marine borders. At present, it encompasses almost two-thirds of the population of the United States. This includes major cities such as New York, Seattle, Chicago, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, even the ``border town'' of Richmond, Virginia, as well as entire states such as Maine, Delaware, and Florida. The need for this legislation has never been clearer. The Trump administration's aggressive yet wasteful use of immigration enforcement resources has subjected law-abiding citizens to needless and intrusive searches at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoints far from the border. Not only do these searches produce minimal value to border enforcement, they violate the constitutionally protected privacy of citizens and residents of border regions, including in my home State of Vermont. Recently, CBP agents in Vermont have boarded Greyhound buses in Burlington without a warrant and inquired about the citizenship of passengers. They have targeted international college students for questioning about their legal status. In the nearby States of Maine and New Hampshire, they have shut down interstate highways with immigration checkpoints. In Montana, a CBP agent even stopped an American citizen simply for speaking Spanish. This should not be a partisan issue. This is about ensuring that every person in this Nation receives the constitutional protections to which they are entitled. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute have sharply criticized these practices as problematic under the Fourth Amendment. Vermonters have rightly been concerned about these expanded border zone searches. They believe, as I do, that once inside our country the phrase `show me your papers' does not belong inside the United States of America. The Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act is based on an amendment that Senator Murray and I successfully attached to immigration reform legislation in 2013 during the Obama Administration. The 100 mile ``border zone''--and the similar 25 mile zone where many types of warrantless property searches are permitted--predates this current administration, but the actions of this administration have shown just how much we need legislation like this today. The Fourth Amendment does not stop 100 miles from our land and sea borders. Its protections extend whether in the heart of Kansas or in the middle of Vermont. Ensuring that the protections of the Fourth Amendment are available to everyone within the United States should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope all Senators will support this commonsense measure to ensure the Fourth Amendment is upheld.