Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. No American should have to relinquish all of their privacy rights in their cell phones, laptops, and other electronic devices, simply because they are coming home from a trip abroad. Yet that is exactly how our Government views it: currently, if a Vermonter crosses the border into Canada for a day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can search through the Vermonter's emails, text messages, photos, and anything else contained in their electronic devices without any reason to suspect the person is in violation of anything. Let me repeat that: without any suspicion at all. That is unacceptable. That is why I am joining with Senator Daines to introduce legislation to require the Government to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search or seize Americans' electronic devices at the border. This legislation is a vital step toward protecting our Fourth Amendment rights, while also ensuring that officers protecting our homeland have the lawful authorities they need to do their jobs. Last year, CBP searched the electronic devices of over 30,000 travelers, and this number continues to grow. These searches can take place at any international airport, or at any land border point such as U.S.-Canada border crossings in my home state of Vermont or Senator Daines's home state of Montana. Nothing in this legislation will prevent CBP officers from doing their jobs to protect the homeland, detect contraband, and enforce the law. Our legislation simply says that if an officer of the Government wants to search an American's electronic device at the border, at a minimum they should have reasonable suspicion. If they want to seize the device, they should have probable cause. And if they want to conduct a forensic examination of the device, they should get a warrant from a judge. Our legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to collect statistics on such searches and seizures and report them to Congress. This will significantly increase transparency on the Government's use of these invasive tools, providing Congress and the American people an opportunity to assess the balance between the needs of law enforcement and the imperative of protecting privacy and civil liberties. I urge other Senators to join us in support of this legislation. It should not be controversial to be concerned at the Government's ability to search our electronic devices at the border without any suspicion at all. All of us--Republican and Democrat--can support the goal of protecting our borders while also protecting the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on February 18, 2018, New Hampshire lost one of its finest lawyers and humanitarians, Maurice Duane Geiger. He was 83 years old. Some might ask why, as a Senator from Vermont, I would call the Senate's attention to a resident of our neighbor to the east. In fact, Maury Geiger not only had close ties to Vermont where, in 1982, he cofounded the Rural Justice Center in Montpelier, he was in every respect a global citizen. Over his long career, he worked to improve access to justice in Haiti, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and several other countries. I met Maury Geiger years ago and will never forget going with him, my wife, Marcelle, and my staff member Tim Rieser to visit the national penitentiary in Port au Prince, Haiti. A more squalid example of a corrections facility would be hard to imagine. It was overflowing with thousands of impoverished men of all ages, sweltering in the heat and humidity, crammed into cement rooms with nothing to sleep on but the floor, with little food and vulnerable to AIDS, tuberculosis, and other dangerous diseases, and the vast majority had never been formally charged with any crime. Some had languished there for 2 or more years, far longer than any sentence they would have received if tried and convicted. Almost none had lawyers. After first laying eyes on that unforgettable scene of inhumane neglect, Maury returned to Haiti year after year, determined to do whatever he could to help improve the lives and protect the rights of those caught up in Haiti's corrupt, dysfunctional justice system. It was that same passion for justice that took him to the courts and jails of rural America and to distant places like Addis Abba and Tbilisi. As his obituary describes, Maury was born into poverty, and that experience, and his mother's guidance, shaped his character. He served as a naval aviator and then at the Department of Justice. He was as patriotic and as fierce a defender of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as anyone I have known. He became one of our country's first experts in court administration, and he worked throughout his life to teach others about the fundamentals of a modern justice system. Maury loved his work, and he cared passionately about fairness. He devoted his life to fighting for justice at every opportunity. Knowing what it means to be poor, Maury did not hold himself above anyone. He was not the least bit impressed by wealth or titles. He loathed the self-importance of so many government officials and the abuse of power, especially when it was at the expense of those without power, which is so common in places like Haiti where inequality is glaring and the rule of law barely exists. He was known for his irreverence, just as he was for his wonderful, dry sense of humor. Over the years, I have met countless accomplished people, many of them of the highest integrity. Maury Geiger could match any of them. He was as ethical, selfless, compassionate, and determined a champion of the less fortunate as anyone I have known. My thoughts are with Nancy, his wife of 58 years, and their four sons, Robert, Kevin, Tom, and Steven. I know they are all proud of the principled example Maury set for all of us. I ask unanimous consent that the February 20 obituary of Maurice Duane Geiger in the Conway Daily Sun be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the actions by the Trump administration regarding undocumented immigrants in this country have been ineffective and nothing short of heartless. Their priorities have abandoned long- held practices such as the need to focus limited enforcement resources on those who actually present a public safety risk. These changes are being felt by families across the country. Last fall, Rosa Maria Hernandez, a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who was taken to the hospital for urgent surgery was forcibly taken into custody by ICE when she was discharged, instead of being released into the care of her parents as recommended by her doctors. A few months ago, Jose Fuentes who was fleeing El Salvador with his 1-year-old son, Mateo, was detained at the border and transferred to a facility in San Diego while Mateo was held in Texas. These actions are appalling and run counter to the time honored values in this country. No child should be separated from their parents in this way. The effect of such a traumatic experience and disrupted attachments on children, adolescents and families is longlasting. The cost of these failed policies will not be fully realized for years to come. Under current policy, families are supposed to be kept intact while awaiting a decision on whether they will be deported and held in special family detention centers or released with a court date. The Trump administration's proposed policy change sends parents to adult detention facilities, while their children would be placed in shelters designed for juveniles or with a relative in the United States. Wendy Smith recently wrote an article in the Chronicle of Social Change on the Trump administration's proposed policy of separating immigrant children from parents entering the United States illegally, as a means of deterring immigrant families from coming to the United States. I ask unanimous consent that this January 29, 2018, article entitled ``Separating Families at the Border Will Multiply Child Trauma'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the University of Vermont's College of Nursing has so much of which to be proud. My wife, Marcelle, who serves on the college's advisory board, recently showed me a touching article about Barbara Tennien Murphy. It speaks so much to the value of nurses and the education they received in Vermont, just as Marcelle did. I ask unanimous consent that this article, which was published on the university's website last year, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my honor and privilege to recognize the achievements of a great Vermont broadcaster and friend, Ken Squier. Ken recently became the first journalist ever to be enshrined in the NASCAR Hall of Fame. While his roots are at WDEV Radio in Waterbury, VT, Ken is known nationally as the country's most recognizable voice of auto racing. Without question, Ken's voice and calls of the most memorable auto races were key to the rise in prominence of the sport. Still, with all of the national recognition, Ken has always made Vermont his home. His radio station, WDEV, is strongly committed to community service and serves the people of his hometown and the greater Vermont community with distinction. Ken Squier is, without question, a Vermont treasure. In honor of Ken's induction into the NASCAR Hall of Fame and his continued outstanding service to Vermont, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Jasper Goodman, from the January 24, 2018 edition of the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, ``Profile: Squier a living legend,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the inspiring and dedicated work of Cecile Richards, who has recently announced she is stepping down as president of Planned Parenthood after 12 years. Throughout her tenure as president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile has been a passionate advocate for healthcare for women and men across the country. Despite the constant attacks leveled at Planned Parenthood in recent years, the organization managed to grow stronger with Cecile at the helm. Today Planned Parenthood has more volunteers, supporters, and donors than it ever has had before. None of that would have been possible without Cecile's exemplary leadership. Millions of Americans depend on Planned Parenthood for their healthcare, and for many, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care. As president, Cecile maintained Planned Parenthood's mission, and she never stopped fighting for the millions of American women and men-- including tens of thousands of Vermonters--that have trusted and depended on Planned Parenthood for their basic healthcare needs, including annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer tests, and HIV screenings. Because of her dedication to helping low-income women, she worked to ensure free birth control coverage was included in the Affordable Care Act. Cecile is leaving as president when the teen pregnancy rate is at a historical low and unintended pregnancies overall are at a 30-year low. None of that would have been possible without Cecile's relentless determination to her mission of helping those that do not have the resources to help themselves. The true measurement of Cecile's work at Planned Parenthood goes beyond the statistics, however, for she understood that the organization's strength comes from the voices of those who believe access to healthcare for all women is a right. Those who up until recently believed that there was nothing they could do or say that would make a difference. Those who simply went on with their lives as if they had no other options. It is those same people who have taken to the streets--in Washington, in Vermont, and across the world--to let their voices be heard. Cecile's unwavering passion and commitment to advocating for these voices is one of her greatest strengths as a leader. While Planned Parenthood is stronger than ever, Cecile leaves a legacy that will be hard to follow. Her ability to lead with grace and courage has given hope to those who need it most. She has truly been inspiration to us all. Marcelle and I wish Cecile Richards all the best as she moves into the next chapter.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feinstein and Cruz in cosponsoring a resolution recognizing the 59th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule--March 10, 2018 as ``Tibetan Rights Day.'' Fifty-nine years ago, Tibetans took a stand, together, for the freedom of their homeland. The people of the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, fearing for the life of the Dalai Lama, surrounded his residence, organized a guard, and called for the withdrawal of Chinese forces from Tibet and the restoration of Tibet's freedom. Chinese statistics estimate 87,000 Tibetans were killed, arrested, or deported to labor camps during the suppression of the 1959 uprising, which also led to the forced exile of the Dalai Lama and tens of thousands of other Tibetans. Today, 59 years later, the Government of the People's Republic of China remains engaged in the severe repression of Tibet's unique religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage, and is engaged in gross violations of human rights in Tibet, including extrajudicial detentions, disappearances, and torture. At least 152 Tibetans in Tibet are known to have self-immolated in protest in the past decade. Yet the Tibetan people have not given up their struggle for fundamental human rights and freedoms. We stand by the Tibetan people, who have long been our unwavering friends. We also stand by the rights of Tibetan Buddhists, not just in Tibet but around the world, who should be able to determine their own religious leadership in accordance with their inalienable right to religious freedom. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Chinese government claims the power to select the next Dalai Lama with the help of a law that grants the government authority over reincarnations. That is absurd. The identification and installation of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders, including a future 15th Dalai Lama, is a matter that should be determined solely within the Tibetan Buddhist faith community. We can foster closer, cooperative relations with China, but until China works with Tibetan leaders to pursue a new way forward, their reputation in the community of nations, and their ability to act as a global power, will remain deeply tarnished. I urge other Senators to join in support of this resolution, and to pass it before the important anniversary commemoration on March 10, 2018.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is debating the fate of our Nation's Dreamers this week. Everywhere I go, people recognize the uncontestable truth that underpins our discussion: We are all a nation of immigrants. Unless you are Native American, you come from a line of people who come from somewhere else. More than in any other country on Earth, this simple fact is a defining characteristic of our national identity. Throughout our history, immigrant communities have greatly enriched our Nation; their individual stories have become the American story. Out of many, we have become one. My maternal grandparents emigrated from Italy, began a business, hired a lot of people, and were pillars of the community. My wife's parents emigrated from French-speaking Canada and also owned a business. She was born in Vermont. Yesterday, we buried my wife's uncle, an immigrant from Canada who started off as an $8-a-week clerk at a shoe store. He was buried with honors at the age of 100 yesterday, and people talked about the $20 million or $30 million he has given to philanthropic causes in Vermont--this $8-a-week immigrant clerk at a shoe store. I think sometimes we forget who we are. In the late 1800s we passed laws excluding Chinese immigrants. During World War II, we turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust--turned them away at the shores of our country--and many went back to die in the gas chambers. We know today that these were tragic mistakes, fueled by our own ill-informed, xenophobic rhetoric. Mistakes were made, but they must never be repeated. Yet now, in 2018, I am concerned that we are hearing echoes of past mistakes. Anti-immigrant voices, armed with the same shameful fearmongering, are attempting a comeback in our country. In recent months, Dreamers have been regularly disparaged. Some have even suggested that Dreamers pose a risk of terrorism or have links to international drug trafficking. These absurd depictions would be laughable if they weren't so damaging, especially to those of us who remember one of the biggest terrorist attacks on our country, in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh, who was not an immigrant; he grew up there and was born there. Thankfully, most Americans know better. Dreamers are not threats to our national security; not a single one--not a single one--has been suspected of terrorist activities. Nor do Dreamers present a threat to public safety. Far from it. By definition, Dreamers are law-abiding strivers who seek only to contribute to our country. Brought here as children, Dreamers are now our neighbors, our first responders, our teachers, our medical personnel. Nearly 1,000 have served in our Armed Forces, risking their lives to defend the only country they have ever known as home. I will never forget one Dreamer who wrote to me last year. Dr. Juan Conde is a DACA recipient. He is a resident of Vermont. He was born in Mexico and brought to the United States as a young child by his mother. In 2007, tragically, his mother died of cancer. Showing remarkable courage and determination for a young man, Dr. Conde was motivated by this personal tragedy to help cancer patients like his mother. He ultimately obtained a Ph.D. in cancer research from the University of Texas. But as accomplished as he already was, Dr. Conde was not satisfied with just studying cancer. He wanted to treat the people suffering with and battling the disease. Every one of us in this Chamber knows somebody who has suffered from and battled cancer, and many have died. But only after he enrolled in DACA was Dr. Conde able to attend medical school, and he is currently doing that. He is studying oncology at the University of Vermont's Larner College of Medicine. Dr. Conde hopes to spend his life in the United States treating cancer patients and researching to find a cure for the disease. This Vermonter--and I think all Americans would agree--believes that America is a better place with Dr. Conde in it. There are hundreds of thousands of Dreamers just like Dr. Conde, all with the potential to contribute to our communities and to our country. To deny them these opportunities because they were brought here as children would be as senseless as it is cruel. We are better than that. And this week, we have an opportunity to prove it. I am proud of those in the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, who are engaged in good-faith negotiations over proposals to protect our Dreamers and improve our border security. I sincerely believe that we can find a path to 60 votes, and I hope the Republican leadership will let us. The Majority Leader's decision yesterday to seek to open up the debate with a vote on a poison pill amendment about so-called sanctuary cities--which has nothing to do with either Dreamers or border security--was less than a helpful start. These kinds of attempts to score political points stand in stark contrast to the bipartisan search done by leading Republicans and Democrats behind the scenes for a solution. As the most senior Member of this body, it is my hope that all Senators will focus on a bipartisan solution, not on just divisive distractions. I respect this institution as much as anybody. For 43 years, I have been here and I have seen--and I hope contributed to--the good that can be accomplished. I have often said that at its best the Senate can and should serve as the conscience of the Nation. But it can only do so when we put aside our own self-interest, and we work across the aisle in the spirit of compromise. I know we are capable of meeting this challenge today. We have done it before. Five years ago, when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we brought together 68 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, and we voted for an immigration bill that provided protection for Dreamers, including an expedited pathway to citizenship. Unfortunately, the House, even though they had the votes to pass it, would not bring it up. Well, it is time now for the Senate to do so again and, this time, for the House to follow suit. President Trump claims he will treat Dreamers with great ``heart.'' If he meant what he said, he will certainly sign our bipartisan compromise that emerges. So let's get to work. The future of Dreamers-- and the fate of the American dream itself--lies in our hands. As I left that funeral yesterday in Vermont, I thought of my wife's uncle and her parents coming from Canada to make a better life, my grandparents coming from Italy, and my great grandparents coming from Ireland, all to make such a mark on our little State of Vermont, all for the better. As a member of that family, how proud I am to stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but I want to do more than just stand here. I want to vote for a bill to help more people like those who come to our country and to make our country better. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be brief and speak briefly in my capacity as vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. There are things here that could be exciting to talk about, and some things are kind of dry, but when we talk about the budget, the consequences affect every single one of us, in every single State, and for multiple generations. The consequences of the Budget Control Act sequestration cuts since 2011 have been devastating and are going to last for generations. Its impact on military readiness led Defense Secretary Mattis to say that no enemy on the field has done more harm to our military than what we have done to ourselves through sequestration. By not investing in our domestic priorities, we allowed our infrastructure to crumble, care to our veterans to be delayed, and investments in education to fall behind. The bipartisan budget deal announced yesterday by Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer is the first step toward providing much-needed relief from sequestration and stability in the appropriations process. I have followed very carefully what they have been doing. My staff, especially on the Appropriations Committee, has been very much involved. Defense caps have been increased by $80 billion in fiscal year 2018 and $85 billion in fiscal year 2019. Nondefense caps are increased by $63 billion above the caps in fiscal year 2018 and $68 billion above the caps in fiscal year 2019. Those are the numbers. Let's look at a couple of things these numbers mean. This additional funding will allow us to increase support our troops, improve care for our veterans, repair our crumbling infrastructure, take care of our seniors, and invest in our economy in real ways. This bipartisan deal we have worked out--and I stress that it is bipartisan--advances our priorities by guaranteeing that we can make real investments in addressing the opioid crisis. We can all give speeches about the opioid crisis, but speeches don't solve the problem. Actually putting money in there to fund the necessary resources does. It lets us fund medical research. Keep in mind that we can't turn medical research on and off. We can't say: Oh, you are making great steps in cancer research, but I will stop it for a few years, and then we will come back with money. You have to continue it. It is also going to improve college affordability. Everywhere I go in Vermont, I hear people say: I haven't been able to buy a house because I have had to borrow so much money for college. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes an important provision I worked on with my colleague and the chairman, Senator Cochran, which is going to improve assistance to our Nation's dairy and cotton farmers. In Vermont and across the country, it is going to mean immediate relief for struggling dairy farmers who can't wait for the next farm bill for assistance. We will work on these problems in the next farm bill, but in the meantime, until that farm bill comes, we need some immediate assistance. This deal finally fulfills our promise to communities recovering from recent natural disasters--from wildfires out West, to the shores of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas, and Florida--by providing $89 billion to help them rebuild. States in the West, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Texas, and Florida are all part of the United States. Just as Vermont sought help when we were hit just a few years ago by a natural disaster and others came to our aid, people I talked with in Vermont say: Of course, we help others in our country. The agreement also provides continued funding for several healthcare programs that Congress has allowed to expire. We include long overdue funding for community health centers, which have been struggling because of the uncertainty of continued funding for months. Now they will have some certainty. The bipartisan agreement funds the Special Diabetes Program to make advancements in Type I diabetes. It ensures ambulances can continue to serve rural areas and closes the Medicare Part D coverage gap by 2019. It continues the maternal health home visiting program and permanently repeals the Medicare Therapy Cap, allowing Medicare beneficiaries the certainty of therapy services after an accident or a stroke without an arbitrary cap on coverage. And the bill extends funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program for an additional 4 years, ensuring children and their families can benefit from the program for the next 10 years. I am pleased that this deal finally extends tax provisions, many of which lapsed in 2016, that will benefit individuals and small businesses. Inexplicably, the $1.5 trillion Republican tax bill left these important credits orphaned when they passed their corporate tax bill. With this deal, we finally restore them. Now, not everything I wanted was included in this deal. I see my friend from Texas, a member of the leadership. Not everything he wanted is in here. That is why we have a compromise. Nobody gets everything they want, but we are a lot better off than we were. I worry about the fact that it does not provide protection for our Nation's Dreamers. These are law-abiding strivers who call America home and seek nothing more than to contribute to our society. They are individuals like Dr. Juan Conde of Vermont, who came to the United States as a child and is studying to treat cancer patients at the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont. Do we tell him to leave, a man who might be part of those who find a cure for cancer? I recently wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Vermont. They had talked about the stone carvers in Vermont, and I had talked about one stone carver in my letter. My maternal grandfather emigrated from Italy to Vermont. He was a master stone carver from the Friuli region, near the Aviano Air Base in northern Italy, and he talked about the business he started. My mother was then born in South Ryegate, VT. My great-grandparents came to central Vermont from Ireland, on my paternal grandparents' side. My grandfather, after whom I am named, Patrick Leahy, was also a stone carver. I never knew him because, like so many, he died of silicosis of the lungs when my father was a young teenager, but I am proud to be named after him. My wife Marcelle's parents emigrated from Canada. She was born in Vermont and became a medical surgical nurse. Now, everybody in these families added to and improved our State of Vermont. We must realize that immigrants bring diversity, strength, and skills to our country and make us greater. So when we talk about the Dreamers, we shouldn't forsake their cause. Their cause is our cause. Their dreams are part of the American dreams of my grandparents and my parents-in-law. Those dreams are a part of our American dreams. So we have to continue to work to get legislation passed to protect them. Leader McConnell has given his word that he will allow votes on legislation the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers. I can assure you that the American people expect him to keep his word. I am also disappointed the agreement does not include the CREATES Act, a bipartisan solution to lowering the cost of prescription drugs by prohibiting the anticompetitive behavior that keeps generic drugs from entering the market. We can all agree that high drug prices are a problem, as President Trump noted in his State of the Union Address, and the CREATES Act offers a commonsense, bipartisan way forward. I hope the Senate passes this important legislation soon As I said, the agreement does not contain everything I would like. Very little I have seen in legislation does contain everything I want. But, on balance, it is a good bill for the American people. It allows us to complete the 2018 appropriations process. Through what we call regular order, we can have a real debate on the fiscal year 2019 bills. We will start working on those next week. So I thank Senator McConnell, and I thank Senator Schumer for their hard work in coming to this agreement. I work almost daily with both of them. I know how hard it was. Compromise is not always easy. Often, it is not popular. Well, nobody came here thinking everything was going to be easy, and, if they do, they don't belong in the Senate. You should be here to be a legislator. I encourage all Senators: Help us pass this bipartisan deal. Allow the Senate Appropriations Committee to resume its work, and we will next week. I hope the House will do the same before tonight's midnight deadline. I will continue, as I have, working with my friend Chairman Cochran in the coming weeks, as I will with all Republicans and all Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee. This agreement will finally let us do the job we are supposed to. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Texas. I yield to him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are now 128 days into the fiscal year. For 128 days, we have failed to fulfill our basic responsibility of funding the government. Congress has not reached a bipartisan budget deal, even though, in past years, we always would have by this time. So the government is on autopilot. Across America, just as I find in Vermont, around families' kitchen tables, people are asking how to address the opioid crisis. Veterans are asking us why it takes months to get a doctor's appointment at the VA. People are worrying about having to stop working if they can't get quality and affordable childcare. So many have stopped me in the street to talk about how they are struggling to pay off college loans. Well, it has been 128 days. Instead of saying: We will get to it, the check is in the mail, let's actually get to it, we have had four continuing resolutions. It is about time we get serious about a bipartisan deal and get the budget going. Let's, for once, get past the sound bites and start dealing with substance.

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, on another matter, last Friday, Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, received approval to release a classified memo that purports to show that a FISA application to conduct surveillance of a Trump campaign aide was politically motivated. Over the weekend, the President, speaking in the third person, told us this memo ``totally vindicates `Trump' '' in the Russia investigation. Following a pattern that has become all too familiar, the President also viciously attacked the FBI in a series of tweets, something we have never seen by any President, either Republican or Democratic--certainly not in my memory. There are more than a few problems with this, the most disturbing of which go well beyond this highly flawed and misleading memo. In case anyone believes this memo represents a serious attempt to address serious problems within the FBI or within our FISA surveillance authorities, I want to raise a few points they might consider because if they think it actually addresses serious problems, they either haven't read it or they don't understand the serious problems. For years, I have been leading calls in the Senate to protect our civil liberties and reform our surveillance authorities under FISA. I am appreciative of the number of Republicans and Democrats who have joined me in that cause. This memo, however, has absolutely nothing to do with improving FISA. Nor does this partisan memo have anything to do with serious oversight of FISA authorities more broadly. Instead, whether intentional or not, this memo represents a direct attack on rank-and-file professionals in both our law enforcement and our national security agencies. The memo deliberately distorts a multilayered process that is required to obtain and renew a judicial warrant for a suspected foreign agent. This meticulous process to obtain or renew a judicial warrant is conducted by career, nonpartisan professionals. In this case, the process led to a warrant, approved by a Federal judge and was renewed three times, for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Carter Page is an individual who bragged about his ties to Russia. He even claimed at one point publicly to be an adviser to the Kremlin. He was also targeted for recruitment by known Russian spies beginning in 2013. Both of these facts are conveniently left out of the Nunes memo. But the Nunes memo was not about capturing relevant facts or conducting actual oversight. If it were, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman would have read the underlying intelligence that purported to form the basis of the memo. He did not. If it were about actual oversight, he would have granted the FBI Director's request to brief his Committee prior to releasing the memo. He did not. If it were about transparency, he would have allowed the Democratic response memo to be released at the same time. He did not. Instead, his Committee voted along party lines last week to block the Democratic response. We will learn later this evening if they are going to change course and allow its release. I have been here since the beginning of both the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees. I have never seen anything as partisan as this. Proponents of this memo claim it proves that the FISA warrant of Carter Page was politically motivated. They claim that the so-called Steele dossier was the reason why a FISA warrant was granted and that the dossier could not be relied on because it was indirectly funded by Democratic interests. What it ignores is that this document was only one part of the lengthy FISA application establishing probable cause. The judge had to look at all of it. Never mind that the judge was explicitly informed of the likelihood of a political motivation behind the dossier. The Republican memo conveniently leaves that out. By leaving it out, it undermines its central claim that the FBI hid the ball on the dossier's political origins. And never mind that the dossier was originally funded by a conservative newspaper, or that its author had previously been assessed by the FBI to be a reliable source. One can disregard all of those facts and still see the memo for what it is: a complete and utter dud. The memo itself just disproves its own premise. Because of its reference to the controversial Steele dossier, President Trump and his allies paint this FISA application as the Russia investigation's original sin. They ignore the fact that the memo also reveals that an entirely separate source unrelated to the Steele dossier provided information to the FBI that triggered the opening of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Oddly enough, that is something we did not see in President Trump's tweets over the weekend. What we knew about the memo leads to one and only one conclusion: The FBI did its job. Rank-and-file professionals within the FBI and DOJ acted appropriately when obtaining a FISA warrant of Carter Page. Frankly, the President's attacks on these career professionals for obtaining the FISA warrant are entirely without merit. I have been here with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, eight Presidents in all, and I have never seen anybody make such unwarranted attacks on career professionals. These professionals, I suppose, if we really look, are Republicans, Democrats, and some are apolitical. All of them are professional. What the Republican memo from the House reveals is nothing about abuses in the FISA process, but it does reveal a lot about both the President and the House Republicans who released it. It represents yet another desperate, hyperpartisan attempt to smear key Justice Department officials and undermine the Russia investigation. Again, in my 40-some-odd years in the Senate, I have never seen this under either Republican or Democratic leadership or either a Republican or Democratic President. Let's remember what is at stake. This is not about a Republican memo, which is nothing more than a sloppy, bad-faith attempt to distract from the special counsel's Russia investigation, nor is it about the Steele dossier. That represents an almost irrelevant side story. The only thing that matters here is that a foreign adversary attacked our democracy in 2016, suffered no consequences, and is poised to do it again. The President is not willing to address this threat. He is not even willing to implement sanctions on Russia that were overwhelmingly approved by the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress. The only thing this President has done in response to this threat is disparage the very people who defend our country from such foreign attacks--our dedicated law enforcement and intelligence professionals. I am afraid that for the President, it is Trump first and America second. The fact is, we are under constant attacks on our political system by Russia. Which countries did the President single out in the State of the Union Address as countries that pose grave threats to the United States? Venezuela and Cuba. No. It is the second largest nuclear power in the world that is a threat, a power that has shown, by anybody's analysis or efforts--many of them successful--to undermine the electoral system not only of our country but of others. It is more important than ever that the Special Counsel be able to complete his investigation without interference from either the President or any misguided allies in Congress. We need to know first how Russia interfered in our election, and whether anyone in the President's circle aided that effort or tried to cover it up. I have been in the Senate for more than 43 years. I have never been as concerned as I am today for the institutions in our country and for our ability to stay united in the face of a true, unprecedented threat. I don't say this lightly. Madam President, I have walked back and forth the dirt road in front of my home in Vermont. I have paced the floor and thought about it. I have gone back through notes I have taken through Presidents going back to Gerald Ford when I first came here, notes I took as a young, 34- year-old U.S. Senator. I have never been as concerned as I am now. I have never been as concerned about this great country having the ability to stay united in the face of a true, unprecedented threat. Russia will be back, and many say Russia has never left. Enough with the partisan distractions. It is past time we faced this threat standing together. The American people deserve that much. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I cannot help but note that the fiscal year began October 1 last year. Four months have passed. That is 122 days since the start of the fiscal year, and we still don't have a budget deal to allow us to finish the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills. That is 122 days, and the Congress has not done their job. Recently, President Trump has taken to Twitter. He has accused Democrats of holding up funding for our troops. Well, the idea that Democrats are holding up defense spending doesn't pass the laugh test. I mean, last July--7 months ago--I called for bipartisan budget negotiations, something we have always done in the past. As the vice chairman of Appropriations, I put forward a proposal that would increase defense spending by $54 billion and would increase nondefense spending by an equal amount of $54 billion. Basically, what we did when Senator Murray and then-Congressman Ryan worked out the budget agreement. We did that years ago based on parity. The proposal was responsible, it was reasonable, and it was based on parity. It was something we have done for years. It would have fully funded President Trump's budget request for our military, but it would also have provided much needed relief from the damaging effects of sequestration that we have seen on both sides of the ledger, defense and nondefense. But instead of trying to reach a bipartisan budget deal to allow us to finish our spending bills on time, the Republican leadership, which controls the agenda, had other priorities. They spent the last 7 months trying to repeal healthcare for millions of Americans and rolling back important consumer protections. They cut environmental and workplace protections, protections for women in the workplace, and they passed budget-busting tax cuts that primarily benefit big corporations and the wealthiest Americans. As a result of doing that, the funding for our troops, as well as for key domestic priorities, has been left to limp along under four continuing resolutions. Yesterday, the Trump administration--and I wonder if they have actually looked at the President's budget--accused Democrats of holding defense spending hostage over arbitrary demands for lower priority domestic programs. I am curious. What are the domestic programs the Trump administration considers a lower priority? Do they consider the services for our veterans that are lacking around this country--do they think helping our veterans is a lower priority? What about the funding to combat the opioid epidemic? Every single State represented by every single Senator here, Republican and Democrat alike, in every corner of our country, has been hurt by the opioid epidemic. Is the Trump administration saying that is a lower priority? How about investments in education for our Nation's children? Is that a lower priority? Is disaster relief for our communities that have been devastated by hurricanes--there are so many--a lower priority? What about replacing our crumbling bridges all across the country before people start dying in record numbers? Is that a lower priority? The President puts before us a false choice, and it makes me wonder if he is actually seeing the budget his administration proposes. There is no reason we can't fight for and fund both our military and other domestic programs. It is not an either/or choice. It has never been an either/or choice, whether we have had a Democratic or Republican administration. One thing we do know is that operating under four continuing resolutions is no way to govern. I think it is time to get serious about reaching a deal. Later today, the House is going to pass another Defense appropriations bill that will exceed the budget caps by $73 billion, and they don't even know where it will be spent. But if you don't have a budget deal to raise the caps, this would be a false promise to our military because that funding level would trigger a sequester. It would force a 13-percent across-the-board cut on defense programs. It is not a serious bill; it is a messaging bill. There are those who are going to tout it on the floor of the House, saying: Look what we are doing to raise it. Will they at least take a moment to say that it actually cuts our defense programs 13 percent across the board? I asked the Secretary of Defense what he thinks about that. He says it would be a disaster. What we are doing is we have been substituting sound bites for substance. I think we are past the time for that kind of messaging. The budget and the appropriations process are where we set our priorities as a nation and where we put those priorities into action. That has been our policy here in the Senate under Democratic and under Republican leadership for decades. Instead of doing this basic job, Congress and the President have put the Federal budget on perpetual autopilot, so it never gets done. It comes up, we talk about it, and it doesn't get done. It comes up again, we talk about it, and it doesn't get done. The can has been kicked down the road over and over again. It makes me think of ``Groundhog Day.'' We are coming up on Groundhog Day. Well, it is ``Groundhog Day,'' plus a sequel, plus another sequel, plus another sequel and yet another sequel. Well, that may have been a funny movie, but this is real life for over 300 million Americans, and 100 Americans are entrusted to make their lives better. Kicking the can down the road and playing ``Groundhog Day'' is corrosive and damaging to our Nation and to the American people in countless ways. Certainly, my experience with a Republican administration and a Democratic administration, many times in the majority in this body and many times in the minority in this body--one thing I have learned, and many of my Republican colleagues tell me the same thing, is that you can't govern by continuing resolution. It is easy. It means you don't have to do your work. But neither the military nor our country can properly function under sequestration. They can't function if we don't do our jobs. This week, we are taking another recess after this afternoon. I wish we would just stay here and get these bills passed. I am willing to. Vermont is a very nice place to be this time of year--great skiing, lovely place. I have kids and grandkids there, but I will stay here if it means we can get the appropriations bills passed, get us off this corrosive, wasteful continuation of a continuing resolution and sequestration. The continuing resolution expires on February 8. That is 9 days from today. It is up to the Republican leadership in both Chambers to get serious about striking a bipartisan budget deal. I believe there is something we can do. Talking with both Republican and Democratic Senators, I think we could have a budget deal that would get 60 votes in the Senate. We could raise the caps. We could take care of defense but also take care of a lot of priorities we hear about when we walk down Main Street in the towns and cities we represent. These aren't people who have a partisan attitude; they just want to see the government work. The States that have suffered from hurricanes and flooding want to see us help them as a nation. If their community is devastated by opioids, they want to see us do something about it. They would like to see the Federal Government do something about stopping the millions of opioids flooding into this country illegally from China. They are not coming across the wall; they are coming from China through the mail, through the post offices we all have in our communities. Let's start to look at the real threats to America. You don't do it by sound bites; you do it by substance and hard work. There are many Senators on both sides of the aisle who are willing to do that hard work. We have unbelievably talented staff from both Republicans and Democrats who have been working very hard to get us there. Let's start doing that. Let's stop looking for the sound bite. Let's start looking for the substance. I am ready to. I have talked with key Members of both parties about this. It can be done. I felt honored the other day when Senator Robert Dole, one the titans of this body--a Republican, a conservative Republican--asked me to be one of the two Senators to speak when he received the Congressional Gold Medal. We had a chance to chat first about how we used to do it. Without sounding like the old-timer talking about the good old days, what we would do is the Republicans and Democrats--key Members of both parties--would sit down and we would work something out because we could take each other's word for it. We set aside political posturing, and we did what was best for the country. Senator Dole joined with Senator Moynihan--a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat--and they saved Social Security. Senator Dole joined with Senator George McGovern--again, a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat. As a result, millions of children were fed, others were fed, hungry people were fed in this country and in other countries. What a great humanitarian gesture. Both Senator Dole and Senator McGovern fought in World War II. Both had a distinguished military career. Senator Dole was severely injured. Senator McGovern volunteered to fly many, many missions beyond the number he was required to, even though so many planes in those missions were being shot down. But they came back and said: OK. We did that. Now what are we doing for the people we fought to save? We should listen to people like that. We should listen to them. We would be a better Senate, we would be a better country if we did. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to remember a remarkable Vermonter, Tim O'Connor, who passed away last week. For those of us who knew him, Tim was unforgettable. He had a terrific sense of humor, especially when it involved the Irish. Marcelle and I have been friends with Tim and his wife, Martha, since I was a young lawyer starting my practice. We fondly remember meals at their home and how they cared for us and our children as I was first running for Senate. Tim loved Vermont and was committed to making a difference, both in Brattleboro and statewide. He set an example for the importance of public service, serving in positions as humble as town moderator, to those as important as speaker of the Vermont State House. He served as a Democrat in the Vermont House of Representatives from 1969 to 1981. Throughout his career, Tim embodied bipartisanship above all else, reaching across the aisle to put Vermonters first. In what surely sounds like a fairytale in this hyperpartisan era, when Tim served as speaker of the house, Republicans controlled the chamber. The only thing that Tim loved more than our State was his family. Marcelle and I have them in our hearts, and our prayers go out to Martha, Kerry, Kate, and Kevin. I called Martha to tell her how I will miss him, but that I will look, every day, at the walking stick Tim brought me from Ireland. I ask unanimous consent that Bob Audette's article in the Brattleboro Reformer be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska on the floor. I will not be long, as I noted to him. I am speaking in my capacity as the Democratic manager of the legislation before us. I think--like most of us and most people in the country--we are frustrated by what is happening, because I have only heard one person say they want a government shutdown, and he got exactly what he wanted. It was President Trump who said the country could ``use a good shutdown.'' President Trump said a shutdown would be ``good'' for him politically. It was President Trump who tweeted yesterday that the shutdown was a ``nice present'' to himself. Well, the United States of America is not designed to give presents to the President. We expect Presidents to do what is best for the country, not for themselves. The best for the country would be not to have a shutdown. People are suffering under the Trump shutdown. For him to call it a ``nice present'' to himself escapes reality. In fact, as he rubbed shoulders with the superwealthy at his father's fundraiser last night, the President's son said a shutdown is ``a good thing for us politically.'' It is hard to make up this kind of detachment from our country. I want to make one thing very clear to President Trump, there is no such thing as a good government shutdown. It is not a good thing that today medical research is ground to a halt. It is not a good thing that families in Vermont or New Hampshire who are trying to help their loved ones overcome opioid addiction cannot access the resources they need. It is not a good thing that readiness training exercises for our military were canceled this weekend. The President apparently is thinking of himself and playing the politics of fear and obstruction. In fact, he was actually prepared for it. One would think he was hoping for it. Yesterday morning, the first day of the Trump shutdown, the President's campaign posted a video that was nothing short of racist fearmongering. Propaganda meant to scare the American people has no place in our democracy. Instead of playing the politics of fear, the President should be leading and working with us to reach a bipartisan deal and a path forward. That could be done if the President really wanted to lead instead of talking about what is a good political present for himself. I think he knows this. In 2013, when talking about the government shutdown at that time, he said the President has ``got to get everybody in the room and he's got to lead,'' but so far the President and Republican leadership continue to lock Democrats out of the negotiations. When they do that, they exclude the voices of half the American people. This morning, the President even said the Senate should change its rules to permanently exclude the input of the minority party. Well, I have been here many times in the majority and many times in the minority. I can't think of Republicans or Democrats who want to take that chance because someday the shoe is always on the other foot. That is why I was so proud to be asked by Senator Bob Dole--one of the great leaders of this Senate, a Republican leader--to speak on his behalf at the Gold Medal presentation this past week. He knew both sides have to work together. I have long said the Senate can be the conscience of the Nation. It can be the conscience of the Nation precisely because it forces bipartisan compromise. It forces the inclusion of views from across the political spectrum, because its Members--and I include the Republican leader, the majority leader today--have a deep respect for this institution. They are not going to take a sledgehammer to the Senate. It is the majority's responsibility to produce a bill to send to the President. They didn't get 60 votes because they had not negotiated with Democrats. Republican leadership presented the Senate with a bill that was produced behind closed doors, with no involvement from the Democrats, and, I suspect, no involvement from many of their own party. They allowed no amendments. That is a recipe for failure, and that failure and the President's inability to keep his word put us here. The Republican Party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, and it is their job to govern and to lead. It is their job to reach out to us and come up with a compromise. In my 43 years here, I have been in so many of these compromises with people across the political spectrum, where no one gets everything they want, but the country was far better off. The President promised to treat DACA recipients with ``great heart.'' Instead, he is holding our Nation's Dreamers hostage to a rightwing, anti- immigration agenda. He rejected a bipartisan deal--actually, the bipartisan DACA deal with Senators Graham and Durbin and others from both parties--specifically drafted to meet what the President said were his demands. In the wake of his heartless decision to end DACA, nearly 122 Dreamers lose status every day--122 yesterday, 122 today, 122 more tomorrow. The Trump administration has acknowledged to Congress that implementing any Dream legislation will take up to 6 months, during which tens of thousands more Dreamers could lose their status, like the young who is excelling in medical school. In an interview, he said he worries about a knock on the door, and he may have to leave. The irony is, there are a whole lot of other countries that would like to have him, even though he is in an area where we have a shortage of doctors. We know on March 5, hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients will lose their status because of President Trump's actions. Republicans argue there is no urgency to provide protections to Dreamers. It couldn't be further from the truth. Since President Trump decided to revoke their protective status, these hundreds of thousands of Dreamers have had to live with fear and anxiety every day. No urgency? I tell you right now, if this were part of my family, I would feel the urgency, not every hour but every minute, every second. We are here because we had 113 days to do this. The can got kicked down the road on the basic responsibility of Congress to fund the Federal Government. Republican leadership failed to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program and failed to advance legislation to protect the Dreamers. For 113 days, Democrats supported three continuing resolutions. I voted for a critical one of those, but we had the promise from the Republicans that they needed a little more time to reach a bipartisan deal. The time they said they needed is long gone. We voted for a continuing resolution in September to provide for time. We voted for a second continuing resolution in early December to provide more time. We voted for a third continuing resolution in late December to keep the talks going. How will it be different if we vote for another 4 weeks? We have all the pieces to reach a bipartisan path forward. All we have to do is say yes. Let's do our job. We want to raise budget caps set in place by the Budget Control Act. We want to stop the devastating consequences of sequestration on both defense and nondefense legislation. We want to take care of the bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program. We want to extend community health centers, and we actually have a bipartisan agreement to protect the Dreamers. Let's not kick the can down the road. If we pass another continuing resolution without a bipartisan agreement, we only drive further into the fiscal year without doing our jobs, and the American public, Republicans and Democrats alike, will know that. Even if we did reach an agreement at the end of the next continuing resolution, we would still need another month to write the appropriations bills, which could bring us halfway into the fiscal year. As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we are ready to start moving on those bills the second we have an agreement because we can't govern by continuing resolution. Our military cannot function under a continuing resolution and under the burden of sequestration. We Democrats have been ready, willing, and asking to negotiate bipartisan deals since June. We need to reach a deal on a long-term path forward. We need to have the courage to reach that deal now. I see my friend from Alaska on the floor I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Illinois, my dear friend, just said. It is interesting when we deal with substance and not sound bites. I used to worry when I was first here and I would hear some of my very senior colleagues--they were all senior to me; I was the most junior Member of the Senate--talk about when this, that, and the other thing happened. I came here with President Ford was the President. I served with President Carter, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President Clinton, President George W. Bush, President Obama, and now, of course, President Trump. Every one of these Presidents were different, but when we got in times like this, they believed in substance and not sound bites. Every one of them would reach a point where Republicans and Democrats could sit down and reach an agreement knowing, whether it was a Republican President or Democratic President, they would keep their word and the Members would keep theirs. I was honored to be asked to speak at the Gold Medal presentation to Senator Bob Dole the other day. Senator Dole was a Republican leader and the Republican majority leader, one of the finest Senators I ever served with--this, from a liberal Democrat from New England--because he always kept his word, because he always brought both Republicans and Democrats together, because he knew we would keep our word. Frankly, as I spoke those words at his Gold Medal presentation, I thought: Can't we go back to those days? Can't we have a time when our leaders come together and the Members across the aisle come together and then vote? The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, said: Let's have votes. Yes, we passed most of the appropriations bills out of committee in the past year, but we want time to bring them up on the floor. There will be amendments I will not like, there will be amendments I will like, but we will get to vote on them. Vote yes or vote no. That is what we should do. Months ago, when President Donald Trump called for a government shutdown, I thought, when I first heard that, it couldn't be. Then I saw what he said: ``Our country needs a good shutdown.'' Well, through his leadership and chaos and inability to govern or keep his word, he got exactly what he wanted. I would tell him, after 43 years' experience in this body, there is no such thing as a good shutdown. It hurts our Nation, it hurts our reputation around the world, it hurts our military, it hurts our civilian population, it hurts our businesspeople, it hurts our educators, and it hurts those who are seeking cures for every kind of disease there is. Now, I know it is the majority--and the majority is, of course, the Republicans who control the White House, the House, and the Senate. It is their responsibility to produce a bill to send to the President. If they can't get 60 votes because they refuse to negotiate with Democrats, well, that is their responsibility. All they needed was nine Democrats. They couldn't get it done. In fact, they lost four of their own Members. They could not get it done because Republicans shut Democrats out of their closed-door meetings. They disenfranchised more than half the American people. They only appealed for our support after they had written a bill without our input. Let me tell you, after my years of experience under Democratic and Republican leadership and Democratic and Republican Presidents, that is not the way to do it. On the first day of this Trump shutdown, the anniversary of his inauguration, we are 112 days into the fiscal year. For 112 days, the leadership has told us they just need more time to negotiate a bipartisan deal. I have yet to see the negotiations. I have yet to see the deal. They spent that time pursuing a hyper-partisan agenda over the last year. They stripped healthcare from millions of Americans. They rolled back commonsense regulations. They passed a tax bill for big corporations and the superwealthy on the backs of middle-class working people. This was not time spent negotiating in good faith on the budget, or the Children's Health Insurance Program, or for veterans, or for community health centers, or for Dreamers or for a comprehensive disaster relief package to address the disasters that have gone across our country in the past year. Now, last night they said let's have another month to negotiate. Come on, we are 112 days into the fiscal year, and now they want another month into the fiscal year--another month of not addressing the consequences of sequestration by reaching a bipartisan deal to increase the spending on our military and invest in our communities. Another month where we fail to adequately take care of our veterans. Our military leaders agree, we cannot govern by a continuing resolution. The military cannot function under sequestration, and I agree with them because we need a budget deal. I admire Defense Secretary General Mattis. He said, ``for all the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of our military than sequestration.'' Last night, I could not, in good conscience, support another continuing resolution without even the promise of a bipartisan deal. Democrats have been ready and willing and asking to negotiate since June, just as we did in April, to get the budget passed. In July, I offered a path forward that would have raised the budget cap set in place by the Budget Control Act. My plan would have increased spending for our military by $54 billion and increased investments in our domestic priorities by $54 billion. Parity has always been the path forward. It allows us to both strengthen our military but also invest in our infrastructure, improve our education, combat the opioid epidemic, and address the needs of our veterans. These are bipartisan priorities. I know from my friends in both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, we share--we share--these goals. But now, for 112 days, the Republican leadership has kicked the can down the road and cast aside the basic responsibility of Congress to fund the government. They gave us this government shutdown. They followed what Donald Trump said in asking for a good shutdown, even though anybody who has had any experience in government knows there is no such thing, as the President has said, as ``a good government shutdown.'' This was done under the careening leadership and chaos of the President. He said he was for extending CHIP in the House bill, and then he was against it. He said he would sign any bipartisan deal we brought to his desk to protect the Dreamers and increase border security. Then, through a bipartisan deal, Republicans and Democrats came and did exactly what he asked for, and he scoffed at it. Now, that is not steady-as-he-goes leadership. If we can't take the word of the President, when we know he is only one tweet away from changing his mind, why should we trust him when he says he will take care of our veterans or get serious about the opioid epidemic? Why would we take his word when he says he wants to protect the Dreamers? After promising to treat DACA recipients with great heart, President Trump and the Republicans instead held our Nation's Dreamers hostage. They caved to the xenophobic voices within their party. President Trump rejected a bipartisan deal--the only bipartisan DACA deal--which Senators Graham, Durbin, and others specifically crafted to meet his demand. As we speak, 122 Dreamers lose their status every day; that is, yesterday on Friday; that is, today on Saturday; and that is tomorrow on Sunday. We know, on March 5, hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients will begin to lose their status due to President Trump's actions. Republicans now argue there is no urgency to provide protection for Dreamers. I wish you would sit with one of these families and listen to them. They are people who are pursuing great educations. They are pillars of our communities and taxpayers. Ask them if there is any urgency, when you have a medical student about to graduate from medical school and he worries that he will hear [knocking] at the door. Well, in light of the decision to end DACA, 122 Dreamers lose their status every day, and the administration has acknowledged to Congress that implementing any Dream legislation would take up to 6 months, during which tens of thousands more could lose their status. No urgency? If that were my family, I would feel the urgency every minute of the day and night. Since President Trump decided to revoke the protected status, hundreds of thousands of Dreamers have had to live with fear and anxiety every day their status has not been resolved. Imagine how they feel when they see the President's views seem to change constantly, almost daily. Talk about causing whiplash. Dreamers have no reason to believe President Trump would not prioritize them for deportation. The fact is, the administration has asked the Supreme Court to immediately nullify a district court decision--immediately nullify it--to protect DACA recipients, and they seem to have no sense of enforcement priorities. They detained a 10- year-old Texas girl with cerebral palsy. They deported a Michigan father, with no criminal record, who came to this country as a child 30 years ago, paid his taxes and obeyed the law. Even the majority leader, to his credit, is uncertain of what the President wants for Dreamers, or for any path forward for that matter. The majority leader, the Republican leader, said earlier this week, ``As soon as we figure out what he is for, then I would be convinced that we were not just spinning our wheels.'' I have never heard a comment like that in 43 years in the Senate. We are spinning our wheels with a Trump shutdown. We are spinning our wheels because the leadership waited for guidance from the President, unfortunately, instead of doing their jobs working with us, sending a bipartisan deal to his desk. We are spinning our wheels because President Trump--I will give him at least credit for this--is very straightforward. He repeatedly called for a government shutdown. He is probably the only person in the government ever who has been foolish enough to do that, but he got exactly what he wanted, a government shutdown. So, today, medical research has ground to a halt. Today, in Vermont and across the Nation, hundreds of thousands of Federal workers are furloughed through no fault of their own. In Vermont and across the Nation, every additional hour of a Trump shutdown deals another blow to the men and women trying to recover from opioid addiction. Every hour, the burden of the Trump shutdown should weigh heavier on the President's shoulders because there is only one person in this country who wanted this shutdown; that is, President Trump. The Trump shutdown is not and was not necessary. We have always had the pieces. Everybody--Republicans and Democrats--want to raise the budget caps set in place by the Budget Control Act. We want to stop the devastating consequence of sequestration. We want to take care of the bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program. We have a bipartisan agreement to protect the Dreamers. We have all the pieces. Let's put them together. Let's show the honesty and the courage to do our jobs. I see other Senators on the floor wishing to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to paraphrase a Republican President I enjoyed knowing, here we go again. In 1995 Republicans shut down our government. They wanted to recklessly cut education programs and environmental programs, and they even wanted to raise Medicare premiums on millions of senior citizens, and they were willing to shut down the government to do it. Of course, more recently in 2013, Republicans once again sought to strip the healthcare of millions of Americans. They wanted to shut down the government in a failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Actually, that is an effort they continued this summer instead of negotiating a bipartisan budget deal that could have averted the situation we find ourselves in today. In 2015 Republicans continued their attack on healthcare by bringing us to the brink of yet another government shutdown in an attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the source of healthcare to millions of Americans in rural America. Millions of American women, men, and young people--certainly, tens of thousands of Vermonters in my little State--trust and depend on Planned Parenthood for their basic healthcare needs, including annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer screening, and HIV screenings--terrible that they might provide that care to Americans. They tried to shut down the government because of it. It was also in 2015 that the Republicans began their attack on Dreamers. They attempted to shut down the entire Department of Homeland Security, which protects our skies, our borders, and everything else, and they were risking our national security because they wanted to block DACA, the Dreamers bill. If these were just talking points and political ploys, it would be one thing, but they have real consequences. The 2013 Republican shutdown dealt a devastating blow to economic growth amounting to $1.5 billion per day. For a State the size of Vermont, $1.5 billion is a lot of money. It was an estimated $1.5 billion for each of the days of the shutdown, and there were 16 of those days. That is economic growth we lost that we never get back. Hundreds of thousands of Federal workers were furloughed through no fault of their own for a combined total of 6.6 million days. Lifesaving research on cancer, on diabetes, on heart conditions ground to a halt. The doors and fences of our iconic national parks and monuments that Americans have always relied on to go and see were shuttered. Now, in 2018, President Trump wants to shut down the government over a cynical and misbegotten ``big, beautiful wall.'' And he wants that ``big, beautiful wall''--whatever it might be--to be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, not Mexico. He is using the Dreamers as negotiable commodities, as though they are some kind of money, instead of people, to meet his unreasonable demands to spend $18 billion on last century's technology. President Trump is making these demands after he promised taxpayers it wouldn't cost us a cent because Mexico would pay for it. Well, if he really believes that, open a bank account, and let Mexico send the money. When they send the money, we will build the wall. I mean, be serious. He said they will build it. Now he wants the American taxpayers--who are strapped on so many things--to build last century's technology. Let Mexico send us the money. When they do, we will build it. If he is telling the truth, they will send it. If he is not telling the truth, of course, they will not. But he is also just continuing the Republican tradition of being the ``shutdown party.'' We have some very responsible Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate. I have not heard a single one of them say we need a good government shutdown. I take it back. One Republican has: Donald Trump. Donald Trump has said that our country needs ``a good shutdown.'' That is the only person, Republican or Democrat, I have heard say that they want a shutdown. I wonder if that is what he has asked his own party to angle for--a manufactured crisis to distract from the fact that they are not doing their job. I can say, as the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I know the Democrats have been ready and willing to negotiate a spending agreement since last June. Instead of working toward that goal, congressional Republican leadership has spent the last year overturning consumer protections. They stripped healthcare from millions of Americans. They passed a massive tax cut for big corporations and wealthy Americans, paid for by middle-class Americans and future generations because it adds trillions to the deficit. But during that time, they continued to kick the can down the road. They have failed to do their jobs to pass sensible spending bills to keep our government open. They have cast aside Congress's fundamental responsibilities in pursuit of a hyperpartisan agenda. As a result, we haven't reached a bipartisan budget deal that would allow us to strengthen our military--something both Republicans and Democrats want. We haven't reached a bipartisan budget deal to allow us to invest in our communities--something I believe both Republicans and Democrats want. We all agree that the consequences of sequestration have been devastating. We have to lift the spending caps set into law by the Budget Control Act. Every Republican and Democrat I talked with has said they do, but we have to invest equally in our military and our communities because our national security is intrinsically linked to the investments we make in our communities. We are the greatest country in the world exactly because we make a commitment to invest in education and infrastructure. If we back off of that commitment, we are no longer great. We aim to provide the necessary resources to combat the opioid epidemic, and we strive to ensure that no child goes to school hungry, but if we don't have defense and nondefense parity in spending, we can't achieve these goals. We have not passed a comprehensive disaster relief package that takes into consideration the unique needs of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These are American citizens. They have been living without power and without access to clean drinking water, and communities, devastated by natural disasters for months, are without adequate help from their own country--the U.S. Government--and people are dying. The Dreamers, who are American citizens in every way but on paper, have been thrown into crisis, a crisis of President Trump's own making, a crisis that threatens to tear them from the only lives they have ever known. Remember, the President is solely responsible--not Members here on this floor--for creating this untenable situation faced by the Dreamers. The President, all by himself--actually he is a party of one--rescinded the DACA policy. Now we have a path forward, put together by Republicans and Democrats, which meets the requirements the President laid out himself. But instead he continues to favor governing by chaos. He continues to move the goal posts. He continues to push the agreement further out of reach. He continues to say that our country needs a good shutdown. So much for the ``Art of the Deal.'' I would never hire someone to make a deal like that. The latest effort to kick the can down the road, which Republicans passed out of the House this evening, does not address any of these issues. Its attempt to address the needs of the Children's Health Insurance Program is public relations, but it is inadequate, and based on the President's own twitter feed--which I get dizzy trying to follow--goes in and out of favor with the President hourly. Why does the bill extend CHIP for 6 years when extending this bipartisan program for 10 years would actually save the taxpayers $6 billion? Why are community health centers--which millions of Americans and CHIP recipients depend upon for their primary care--not extended? Why don't we protect Americans and our taxpayers? Most importantly, why was this program allowed to expire and to be used as a negotiating part in the first place? Republican leadership, led by the President, has brought us to the brink of a government shutdown. I have been here a long time. I have looked at a lot of good legislation and bad legislation. I do not want to say the most terrible thing possible about the House bill because I know the respect we show back and forth. But the House bill is a joke and does not have my support. It leaves too much in doubt. What it attempts to address is woefully inadequate. The majority now wants bipartisan support. Why not do as we always used to and work with Democrats, instead of appealing for our support only after they have written a mishmash, laughable bill crafted behind closed doors? I have been here over 40 years. I understand reality. Republicans control the House; Republicans control the Senate; Republicans control the Presidency. If Republicans want the government to stay open, it will stay open. If Republicans want the government to shut down, it will shut it down. I wish they would stop kicking the can down the road and start negotiating in good faith, as so many Senators in both parties have been willing to. It is time to stop kicking the can down the road and time to start negotiating in good faith. Keep our government open, and show respect to those who live here in this country who consider themselves Americans. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I find myself in strong agreement with the comments of the senior Senator from New York State. He talked about 702. Let me refer to that a bit. Section 702 is in S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017. We are going to vote very soon on whether to cut off debate and block any amendments on a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation that fails to reform one of our most important surveillance tools. Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act was intended to provide for vast and powerful surveillance of foreigners overseas who might do harm to us, and it does, but the fact that it is an effective surveillance tool used against foreigners abroad is not the concern you will hear about today. Today, you are going to hear concern that Section 702 has also become an unexpected and powerful domestic surveillance tool--not one directed at those abroad who might do us harm, but potentially directed at every single American in this room and throughout this country, allowing the government to search for Americans' emails and other substantive communications without a warrant--the so-called backdoor loophole. If we put through here legislation saying- this legislation will allow our government to search all our emails without a warrant, Republicans and Democrats will be jumping up saying: Wait a minute. That violates the Fourth Amendment. Well, the legislation we are voting on today--authored by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes--contains what his supporters portray as a fig leaf of reform, but, in fact, the legislation makes a bad problem even worse. I will oppose cutting off debate on this bill, and I strongly urge my fellow Senators to do the same--not to kill the bill but to afford us, on such a critical surveillance tool, the opportunity to debate the constitutional implications and offer amendments to improve the bill and to protect Americans in every single State in this country. The Majority Leader has provided no such opportunity. He doesn't want us to offer any amendments--even amendments we know could pass with a bipartisan majority. Senator Lee and I are filing several amendments to improve this bill, including our USA Liberty Act. That is a Senate companion to a bill that was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee in a strong and very bipartisan vote. Our amendment offers a sensible compromise. It would protect national security--something we all want to do--but it also protects American civil liberties, which I would hope we also want to do. I strongly support a warrant requirement based on Senator Feinstein's amendment in the Senate Intelligence Committee that would close the backdoor loophole. These amendments, and others offered by Senators Paul and Wyden and others, deserve a vote. And that is what I am asking for today. Senator Lee and Senator Paul have spoken so strongly on the problems in this. They ought to be heard. They ought to have a chance to offer amendments. Instead, the only bill we are voting on today is the House bill, which fails to comply with the fundamental constitutional imperative. I think we can do better in the Senate than to accept a flawed House bill. Do not be deceived by the sham warrant contained in the Nunes bill. Again, that is why we should have a Senate bill that speaks to those things we know as Senators and not the flawed warrant in the Nunes bill. Its exemptions are so large as to render it meaningless. The bill would require a warrant only during the final stage of a criminal investigation and only when the government believes national security or risk to life or bodily harm are not implicated at some undefined point in time. In all other cases, and at previous points in an investigation, the government can search for an American's information in the Section 702 database just as frequently and casually as we might look up football scores on Google. Yet, even if it is completely ineffectual, the Nunes bill has a warrant requirement. That means the sponsors of this flawed legislation acknowledge that some sort of warrant is required to protect Americans' privacy. They recognize that a search through a vast database of Americans' communications can trigger Fourth Amendment protections, at least when it is convenient to the government. The problem is, the Constitution doesn't say: We protect Americans' rights only if it is convenient to the government. The reason they wrote the Constitution is to make sure every one of us has protections against the government. When a Fourth Amendment interest is implicated, the government can easily obtain a warrant. They are going to come search your home. They are going to come search your files. They are going to come and search your papers. They should have to have a warrant. The Fourth Amendment either applies or it does not. If it does not, then let's have a constitutional amendment and do away with it. Nobody here would vote for that. Even the sponsors of the Nunes bill now agree the Fourth Amendment applies. The only question is whether we have a real warrant requirement or a warrant in name only. Simply calling something a warrant doesn't make it that. I firmly believe a real warrant requirement doesn't have to put our national security at risk. The reform proposals I support contain well- tried exemptions for exigent circumstances to allow for emergencies. For these reasons and others, I strongly support a warrant requirement to close the backdoor loophole. I think my fellow Senators, Republicans and Democrats, ought to be allowed to at least have a vote on it. If they don't, I would urge my colleagues of the Senate to vote no on invoking cloture on the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act. Section 702 authorities can be temporarily extended as they were in December. In fact, the FISA Court's statutorily authorized certifications that permit 702 surveillance don't expire until the end of April. There is no emergency now. We still have the time and the ability to get this right. Let's protect the Constitution. Let's protect Americans. The Majority Leader should do his part and allow members of both sides of the aisle who care deeply about this issue to offer amendments before any long- term authorization. I agree Section 702 is an important tool, but this issue is too important to rush through without adequate debate. I firmly believe we can both protect our national security and the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This bill clearly falls short, and I will be voting no. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, just last week we began the second session of the 115th Congress. We are now safely into 2018, and we should be talking about what we can accomplish for the American people in the new year. We simply face a long list of unfinished business from 2017--last year--and, unfortunately, we have a very short window in which to get it done. We are 4 months into fiscal year 2018, and we still don't have a budget deal. I am vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We should have had this done long before now. Our agencies are operating under last year's funding levels. They have little flexibility to handle the problems they face today. We still haven't reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program, what we call CHIP, so that puts the healthcare of 9 million children at risk. These are American children. Nearly 800,000 Dreamers live under uncertainty and fear of deportation, living in the country they have known most of their lives. I don't know how anybody, Republican or Democrat, could call this acceptable. Now, I know the Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the White House. They are in charge. They have to show responsibility and show leadership on these issues, but instead of addressing these issues, last year the Republican leadership spent time rolling back sensible regulations designed to protect the American consumer, designed to protect our environment, and designed to protect people from harassment in the workplace. They rolled those all back, and then they passed a massive tax cut for big corporations and the wealthiest of Americans. We Democrats have been calling for bipartisan budget talks since June--7 months ago. We have passed three continuing resolutions since September of last year to give us more time to strike a deal on the budget and Dreamers and CHIP and disaster funding. These are just to name a few, but they are enormously important to the people who are experiencing the disasters or who have children who need healthcare or who are Dreamers. Yet, on the 102nd day of the fiscal year, there are only 9 days until the next fiscal cliff, and we don't have a budget deal. President Trump said months ago that the country could use a good government shutdown. I don't agree with him, but I am beginning to think that is exactly what his party is angling for--a manufactured crisis to distract from the fact that they are not doing their job. The Washington Post seemed to confirm this last December, when it reported the President privately told people that a government shutdown would be good for him politically. In all of my years in the Senate--I have been here under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike--I have never heard such damaging rhetoric come from the President of the United States. Nobody wants a government shutdown--nobody. It is devastating to people not only throughout the government but to people throughout the whole country. However, that seems to be what they are vying for. For months, I have been calling for a bipartisan budget deal that is based on parity--equal increases for defense and nondefense programs-- that would provide relief from sequestration. I agree with the Republicans and Democrats who say military readiness has suffered under sequestration but so has our Nation's economy, so has our educational system, so has our infrastructure, and so has our care for our veterans. If we want to combat the problems caused by sequestration, we have to raise the caps on both sides of the ledger. Fixing one side of the equation will not address the needs of our Nation and, even worse, will actually shortchange our military. If we don't invest in our economy, if we don't invest in the education of our youth, the military will not have expert, qualified soldiers, the men and women on whom they rely. If we don't invest in our diplomacy, our Nation and the world become less safe. If we don't improve our cyber security defenses and our physical infrastructure, we become soft targets for those who would do us harm, both in this country and outside this country. If we don't care for our veterans, we are not going to have young men and women who are willing to serve. This week, the majority leader came to the floor making the case for increased defense spending. He asked us to listen to our nonpartisan military leaders about what they think is needed to keep this country safe. I couldn't agree more. To that end, I have two letters signed by a combined 560 retired admirals, generals, and other former military members. I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record following my remarks. I have no idea what these admirals', generals', and others' political parties are, but they make the case that we have to increase our investment in domestic priorities--including education and childcare, as well as diplomacy--if we are going to keep our country safe and support our military. Secretary of Defense Mattis said even more bluntly: If we do not fully fund the State Department, we should be prepared to buy more ammunition for our military. The wisdom of our military leaders notwithstanding, Republicans appear to be dug in. They claim equal increases for both defense and nondefense programs would add too much to our deficit and burden our children. It is one over the other. It is hard to have somebody say that with a straight face in the wake of the President signing a tax bill to add $1.5 trillion to our Nation's debt and to benefit primarily large corporations and the wealthiest Americans. You can't make the argument that we can't afford to take care of our domestic needs. It is simply not credible. Budget negotiations are not the only place where Republicans haven't engaged in a productive way. President Trump's decision to end the DACA Program has put nearly 800,000 Dreamers in this country in an untenable position. The decision was as cruel as it was senseless. It may make a tweet that people look at, but if you are one of those Dreamers and you are on your way to school and are expecting a scholarship to college and you don't know if you are going to be in this country tomorrow, that is not a tweet. The President should have worked with Congress. He should have found a permanent legislative solution while keeping DACA protections in place. I believe he terminated the program under false pretenses, yielding to xenophobic voices in his administration, and last night a Federal judge issued an order that said just that: Terminating DACA was not required under the law--far from it. But a court order that only temporarily halts the administration from dismantling DACA provides little comfort to Dreamers. They live each and every day uncertain of the future and with fear of deportation. Now, I have heard Members of the Senate trying to decide at what time we are going to finish voting for the week. Their big fear is this: Are we going to make our flight home? Dreamers have to worry if their flight is going to be out of this country and back to a country they don't even know. They worry if they will have to leave the country they know and love. Dreamers are Americans in every way, except on paper. They were brought here as children, through no fault of their own. They are law- abiding members of our community. They attend school. They serve as doctors and teachers. They defend our homeland as brave men and women in uniform. This is a crisis of the President's own making. Now, Congress needs to pick up the pieces. I hope, after the meeting yesterday, we will be allowed to pick up the pieces. We have spent months trying to find a path forward, but you can't find one if the administration keeps moving the goalposts. We need to address the fate of the Dreamers now. You can take a poll in this country. The American people want us to. Also, look at the broad bipartisan support on display yesterday at the White House. Republicans and Democrats want to fix the mess that the President created. A solution should be within our grasp. The White House has made unreasonable demands, such as $18 billion of American tax dollars to build a wall on the southern border, in exchange for Dreamers. The $18 billion wall is last century's solution. It does nothing for this century. If they really believe Mexico is going to pay for it, I have a solution. Open a bank account and, as Mexico sends us money, then use it to build a wall. Don't ask the American taxpayers, who are strapped at home, to pay for something the President says the Mexicans will pay for. Open an account, find out if they are telling the truth, let the money come into the account, and then build it. But, worse, don't use the Dreamers as negotiable commodities. They are not commodities. They are human beings. They are people who deserve to have their dreams. Let's pass a bill--we could do it this week-- protecting Dreamers now. Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. This is their government. We have a week and a half before the next continuing resolution expires. We have a lot to do. Let's get serious. Let's get to work. I am willing to work here every day, every night, right through the weekend. Let's get it done. We are not doing it for us. We are doing it for all the American people. Let's do it for all the American people-- not for special interests, not for one party. Let's do it for all the American people. It could be done, if we want to.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

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