Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, most people in America are probably familiar with the advertising slogans: ``Pork, the other white meat'' and ``Beef, it's what's for dinner,'' but what they might not know, what they might not be as aware of is the cronyist underbelly of slogans like these. The U.S. Department of Agriculture checkoff programs behind these very slogans and others like them tend to collect compulsory fees from producers of milk, eggs, beef, and other agricultural products. These funds are then used to promote and do research on those particular commodities. Unfortunately, these programs have been rife with opportunities for abuse. Many of these programs have crept far beyond the scope of their statutory mandate by engaging in illegal lobbying and anticompetitive activities. Take, for example, the case of a small California company called JUST, Inc., formerly known as Hampton Creek, which a few years ago was attacked for selling its vegan mayonnaise known as Just Mayo in stores nationwide. It turns out that a Federal entity called the American Egg Board conspired with USDA employees and top executives from the egg industry to threaten and coerce retailers into not carrying the Just Mayo brand. The original intent of these programs was to research and promote certain commodities, not to disparage other ones, and they certainly were not intended to prevent any new products from having a fair chance in the marketplace. Let me just stop, by the way, while we are talking about Just Mayo and that incident, to take note of the fact that it ought to be very concerning to us that the Federal Government became involved in a campaign to pressure someone about whether they could set up a brand of vegan mayonnaise and call it that. So what were supposed to be promotional boards have instead become protectionist boards. What is more, checkoff programs force farmers to pay into a system that sometimes actively works against their interests and, on top of that, the boards for these programs have come under fire for a lack of transparency and for misuse of their funds. Some have gone so far as failing to submit congressionally mandated spending reports, refusing and delaying requests under FOIA, and even engaging in protracted legal battles to prevent public audits from being disclosed. In short, these programs--the so-called checkoff programs--are in significant need of reform. This is why I have worked hard with my colleagues--Senator Booker, Senator Hassan, Senator Paul, and Senator Warren--to introduce amendment No. 3074. This amendment would address some of the most grievous abuses of these commodity checkoff programs. First, the amendment would prohibit them--these checkoff programs-- from contracting with any organization that lobbies on agricultural policy with an exemption for research at institutions of higher education. It would also prohibit employees and agents of the checkoff boards from engaging in activities that may pose a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the amendment would establish uniform standards for checkoff programs that prohibit anticompetitive activity and any unfair or deceptive practices. While this amendment would not abolish checkoff programs, it would implement much needed transparency measures so farmers can see what their checkoff dollars are actually being spent to do. These commonsense reforms will not be convenient perhaps to the giants of the agricultural industry--at least not the ones using checkoff dollars to rig the system in their favor. These commonsense reforms will help farmers--and particularly the little guys--from the small farms and the startup companies to see exactly where the fees they pay are going and ensure that their hard-earned money is not being used unfairly against them. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to bring about much needed reform with checkoff programs. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2245 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, it is an honor to be involved in the passage of this important legislation. The Knowledgeable Innovators and Worthy Investors Act, or KIWI Act, is a bipartisan bill that legislatively extends E-1 and E-2 visas to citizens of New Zealand. It does not increase the number of available visas. Granting access to these visas to New Zealand would increase both investment and trade into the United States and strengthen our relationship with New Zealand. New Zealand is, of course, a country that is critical to our relationships. We have a critical strategic military and economic partner in the Asia-Pacific region with New Zealand, and this legislation will further strengthen America's presence in the Asia- Pacific region. E-1 and E-2 visas allow qualified foreign nationals to engage in substantial trade or to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which the individual is heavily invested. The United States will benefit from increased investment in trade with New Zealand. New Zealand's citizens and businesses currently make substantial investments in the United States. These businesses have created more than 10,000 jobs. In 2017, $10.5 billion in trade passed between the United States and New Zealand. Allowing New Zealanders to apply for E-1 and E-2 visas will affirm reciprocity and strengthen the United States' relationship with New Zealand. Again, this is a country that is a critical ally and a partner in the Asia-Pacific region, and it will also increase the United States' presence in that region. New Zealand is the only Five-Eyes country whose citizens are currently ineligible to apply for these visas, while American citizens are currently eligible for reciprocal visas in New Zealand. So I am grateful and honored to be involved in moving this legislation. I am grateful to my colleagues for consenting to this. I am grateful to have worked on this with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Hawaii, who worked hard with me to put together this bipartisan piece of legislation that we have been fortunate enough to pass through the Senate today. Thank you. I see that my colleague from Hawaii is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 28, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Legislative Proposals to Examine Corporate Governance.'' committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 28, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Charles P. Rettig, of California, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 28, 2018, to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Jeffrey Kessler, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Lynn A. Johnson, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services, and Elizabeth Ann Copeland, of Texas, and Patrick J. Urda, of Indiana, both to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 28, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Donald Lu, of California, to be Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic, Randy W. Berry, of Colorado, to be Ambassador to the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, and Alaina B. Teplitz, of Colorado, to be Ambassador to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of Maldives, all of the Department of State. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Britt Cagle Grant, of Georgia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, David James Porter, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Holly A. Brady, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana, Andrew Lynn Brasher, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, James Patrick Hanlon, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, David Steven Morales, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Lance E. Walker, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maine, and John D. Jordan, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Missouri, Nick Willard, to be United States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire, and Mark F. Sloke, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Alabama, all of the Department of Justice.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is not entirely unusual to have policy in an appropriations bill. It happens with some regularity. In fact, it happened in the corresponding House appropriations measure. What we are talking about here is some of the worst kind of lawmaking that occurs here in the swamp, in Washington, DC. Congress sets forth a broad, vague standard, and an executive branch agency figures out the rest, sometimes with disastrous consequences. In 2015, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came up with a clean water rule, also known as the waters of the United States rule, one that effectively dramatically expanded the jurisdiction of the Federal Government over land in the United States, in some instances saying that if a plot of land is wet some of the time, some of the year, during any particular year, you can be subject to massive fines totalling millions of dollars if you do anything on that land, subject to the arbitrary determinations of Federal bureaucrats. This is something that garnered bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. We had 49 cosponsors and ended up having 53 people vote to undo this under a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval. That was Republicans and Democrats. Tragically, President Obama vetoed that measure, and we were unable to secure the votes to override that veto. This particular measure is in the House appropriations bill that corresponds to this one. I urge my colleagues to support it and to oppose the motion to table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, pursuant to title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I have a discharge petition at the desk and move to discharge from the Senate Committees on Appropriations and Budget H.R. 3, to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on May 8, 2018.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, over the next 10 years, our national debt is set to balloon from $21.16 trillion today to more than $33.9 trillion in 2028. With interest rates set to increase, the payments on the debt will also likely double over the next 10 years as a percentage of total economic output. Consider for a moment the fact we are paying a little more than $300 billion a year to service our debt. It is not that much more than we were paying a couple of decades ago when our national debt was roughly one-fifth, one-sixth of its current size. The only reason our debt service payments are as low as they are today is that our interest rates are at all-time historic lows. Our Treasury yield rates are artificially, historically, aberrationally, severely low. The situation gets a lot worse if our artificially, historically low interest rates increase or start to return to their historical averages at a pace quicker than has been projected, as is easily possible. For example, if interest rates were to return just to historical norms--I am not talking about a rebound above the historical average, just a rebound to historical norms--taxpayers would soon be drowning in trillion-dollar annual interest payments just for the interest on our debt, which means just the difference between what we are paying in our debt service payment now and what we would be paying then, possibly a few short years from now. It is more than we spend on the Department of Defense. This is really frightening, and this is why it is such welcome news that there is some movement on this front. That is why it is such welcome news that on May 8 President Trump sent to Congress a request to rescind $15.4 billion worth of extraneous spending. This is something Congress used to do all the time. This is something that in decades past would occur dozens, even scores of times, during a single Presidential administration, and it was a bipartisan matter, of course. Returning unused taxpayer money isn't just good government; in a republic, it should be expected, and it should be the norm. In 1981, President Reagan and a divided Congress rescinded more than $15 billion in Federal spending and another $16 billion in 1985 and 1986. President Clinton made three rescission requests in 2000, totaling $128 million. Now we have the chance to take up the mantle again. President Trump's specific proposals draw back unused funds from expired programs, obsolete programs, and accounts that the Congressional Budget Office says are wildly, needlessly overfunded. In fact, according to CBO, none of the funds in the requested rescissions would alter current Federal programs in any way. For instance, CBO has certified that the $7 billion CHIP rescission would not affect either outlays or the number of Americans with health insurance. And I should note that Congress has rescinded CHIP funding in every enacted Labor-HHS appropriations bill since 2011, more than $50 billion in total during that time period. The spending targeted for rescission is either expired or rendered unattainable by current eligibility requirements. The $15 billion is just sitting, unused, in agency accounts. So how does it help to cut spending if this money is just sitting there? This is the real sticking point, for Congress has this cute little habit of paying for new spending by raiding these unused funds. It is a budgetary trick, a gimmick, if you will. The money may not be used this year, but it can be recycled into budget gimmicks in future years. Rescinding it now takes the $15 billion out of circulation for those kinds of shenanigans in the not-too-distant future, and, of course, that is the real reason why it will not pass unanimously. Now, to its credit, the House of Representatives has stepped up. On June 7, the House of Representatives passed its own $14.8 billion rescissions package. Now it is our chance. Now we have the opportunity to do the same. This is the Senate's chance to show the American people that we retain some modicum of attention and of seriousness when it comes to the spending habits of the Federal Government and when it comes to fiscal restraint in Washington, DC. Cutting spending that isn't actually going to be spent may not be a profile in courage, but it is at least a sign of a pulse, and in Washington that is something. That is something important that we can and we should show today. It is a step toward fiscal responsibility and away from the cynicism and the waste that has turned this city into what is known as ``the swamp.'' In Congress we face a lot of difficult decisions--gut-wrenching, heart-wrenching decisions--but this is not one of them. President Trump's request is as reasonable as can be imagined. Now, $15 billion may be a drop in the bucket compared to $15 trillion or $21 trillion, but that is a reason to support this legislation, not to oppose it. Congress needs to retrain its atrophied muscles in preparation for the far larger tasks that lie ahead. If we do not find the will--if we can't somehow muster the willpower necessary to reduce Federal spending ourselves now, long before the laws of mathematics and economics force us to do so--we will regret it. If we wait until those laws catch up with us, it will be a whole lot more painful later than it will be if we start making more modest adjustments now. Every day that passes without action represents more of our national debt being thrown onto our children's backs--another line item on the fiscal indictment that we are writing, however unwittingly or unknowingly, against ourselves. We have to change course. This bill provides us with a good chance to take one small step toward sanity. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to discharge. Discharge Petition--H.R. 3 We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with title 10 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974, hereby direct that the Senate Committees on Appropriations and Budget be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3, a bill to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on May 8, 2018, in accordance with title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974. Mike Lee, Patick J. Toomey, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, David Perdue, Jeff Flake, Joni Ernst, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, Marco Rubio, Thom Tillis, Steve Daines, Mike Rounds, John Cornyn, Ben Sasse, James Lankford, Tom Cotton, John Barrasso, Mike Crapo, James Risch.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, our national debt stands at about $21 trillion. The interest costs on this alone are more than $300 billion every single year. That is money that can't go toward shoring up our national defense or shoring up Social Security or Medicare or some other Federal program. That is money that goes to our creditors. Now, it has to, but the scary part is that that is just a drop in the bucket compared to what it could be just a few years from now. The only reason it is even this low is that our Treasury yield rates--the rates at which we pay interest on our national debt--are at an alltime, historic low. As soon as they return to their historic averages, we will see that interest payment increase manyfold. If we wait until that moment arrives, this will be a very difficult process not just for the Federal Government, not just for Congress, but for the entire country. It is time for us to start taking gradual steps in the right direction now. This opportunity--this rescissions package that has been proposed by the President--provides us with a meaningful step in that direction. I applaud President Trump for proposing these rescissions. It is time for Congress to get back in the practice of taking these things up, of considering them, and of passing them. I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to vote for this measure. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Combating money laundering and other forms of illicit finance: How organizations launder money and innovative techniques for fighting them.'' Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Geoffrey Adam Starks, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission, and Peter A. Feldman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nomination: William Charles McIntosh, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Administrator, and Peter C. Wright, of Michigan, to be Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste, both of the Environmental Protection Agency. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Current and Proposed Tariff actions administered by the Department of Commerce.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``USAID Resources and Redesign.'' Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Medicaid fraud and Overpayments: Problems and Solutions.'' Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Keep What you Catch: Promoting Traditional Subsistence Activities in Native Communities.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, and Julius Ness Richardson, of South Carolina, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Roy Kalman Altman, and Rodolfo Armando Ruiz II, both to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, and Raul M. Arias- Marxuach, to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico. Committee on Rules and Administration The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018 during votes to conduct a hearing entitled ``Election Security Preparations: A State and Local Perspective.'' Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Policy Response to Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.'' Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 12 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I first want to respond to something that was said a moment ago. It is not he and he alone who can solve it. Congress is, in fact, the policymaking body within the Federal Government. We are the lawmaking body within the Federal Government. We can make changes to the law, and we can't lose sight of that fact.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc: amendments Nos. 2289, 2295, 2300, 2322, 2365, 2440, 2441, 2464, 2486, 2509, 2544, 2550, 2579, 2587, 2589, 2598, 2600, 2611, 2617, 2623, 2633, 2634, 2653, 2654, 2686, 2691, 2695, 2721, 2723, 2729, 2737, 2742, 2755, 2758, 2768, 2794, 2799, 2800, 2810, 2815, 2818, 2830, 2862, 2863, and 2887. I further ask consent that these amendments be considered en bloc; that it be in order for the Lee amendment No. 2366 to be called up, and that there be up to an hour of debate on the amendments to run concurrently, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the en bloc amendments and the Lee amendment.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the efforts made by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from South Carolina. I wish to speak concerning the purpose for my making this request. I do so with great respect for this body, for its customs, its traditions, its rules, and for each of its Members. At the same time, it is imperative that we point out what is happening. We have a bill--one of the most consequential pieces of legislation we vote on each year--the National Defense Authorization Act. We have been effectively shut out of a meaningful amendment process, one that has historically marked this body as one of its distinguishing characteristics; one that has historically helped this body to refer to itself as the world's greatest deliberative legislative body. We have tested that in recent months and years as Members have started objecting with increasing frequency to anyone getting a vote on any amendment they don't like, that they object to. The amendment at issue is based on a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Due Process Guarantee Act. I am the lead sponsor, along with my lead cosponsor, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to make sure the U.S. Government has no authority and claims no authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. Most people listening to this--anyone listening to it--would think, why on Earth would we need legislation stating something so obvious? The fact is, we shouldn't. It is the inexorable command of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, not to mention other statutory and constitutional protections, that the indefinite detention without charge, without trial, without access to a jury, without access to counsel--these kinds of things are anathema to our way of life, to our constitutional system of laws. Why then do we need this amendment? Well, about 7 years ago, toward the end of 2011, when Congress was considering, then ultimately passed, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Congress included in that legislation a provision, section 2021 of that bill, that purported to give the U.S. Government that authority in certain circumstances. In other words, there were circumstances based on the accusations against you, as an American citizen, that you could be apprehended on U.S. soil and held indefinitely without charge or trial. This violates everything we know about our system of government. It violates everything we know about the laws of any decent nation--any nation that recognizes the fundamental, essentially eternal dignity of the human soul. This is not something we do in the United States. I raised objections to it at the time. I tried to fix it at the time. It didn't happen. The following year, late in 2012, when we were addressing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, toward the end of 2012, I introduced an amendment that is substantially identical to the one I am trying to seek a vote on today. It passed by a bipartisan supermajority vote. There were 67 Members who voted for this. That is more than a majority; more than the three-fifths it needed to close debate. In fact, it is equal to the sum required when you are proposing a constitutional amendment out of this body or trying to override a Presidential veto. That is what we had. For reasons that escape me, that provision was removed in the Conference Committee when the Conference Committee was trying to recognize competing House and Senate versions of the bill. In the subsequent 6 years, I tried repeatedly to get a vote on this amendment again, recognizing that it passed overwhelmingly and that it was inexplicably removed from the bill during the Conference Committee. Promise after promise has been made to help me get a vote on that amendment, which ever since hasn't panned out. We have an opportunity to consider it here. Yesterday, something interesting happened. Yesterday, there was a motion to table this amendment. In other words, there were some Members of this body who didn't want to consider it at all so they made a motion to table. When you table something in the Senate, you are setting it aside, setting it on the table, saying: We are not going to address that. Do you know what happened? There were 68 people who voted against that motion to table. In other words, 68 people voted that we should have a vote on this amendment. That is more than a majority, more than the three- fifths or 60 needed to close debate. That is more than the threshold required to propose a constitutional amendment or override a Presidential veto. Why then are we not discussing this? Why are we not voting on it so we have a number of amendments? You may have heard me reciting a series of about three dozen four-digit numbers, each referring to a separate amendment being proposed for a so-called managers' package. If we are going to further amend this bill, we need to consider those with a vote, and we need a vote on my amendment. Yesterday, 68 Members of this body agreed that we should be considering this. Ask any American you know--your friends, your neighbors, I don't care what State they live in, what party they identify with, where they go to church or synagogue, whether they are believers in God, regardless of their background, their socioeconomic status, what they do for a living--you ask people from almost any background, and I can almost guarantee you they are going to call this a no-brainer. Why would we not want to remove a pernicious provision from a piece of Federal law that passed a few years ago, purporting to authorize the Federal Government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, without charge or trial or jury or counsel, based merely on the nature of the allegations against them? This is wrong, and the wrongness of that provision, which could be corrected by my amendment, is compounded still by the refusal of this body, by the refusal of 1 Member of this body, 1 Member out of 100, to allow us to get a vote on this. We must vote on this. If we are going to lay claim to any type of status as the world's greatest deliberative legislative body, we have to start voting on amendments again. We have steadily, sadly, tragically relinquished that right by acquiescence. As of today, I say no more. It has to stop. Let us vote on this. We will continue to push this. The laws of the United States and the principles that govern the behavior of decent people everywhere dictate we should correct this error in the law. I implore my colleagues, I implore my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from South Carolina, let us vote on this amendment. Thank you.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this bill does not apply to people apprehended outside the United States. It does not apply to you at all if you are not a U.S. citizen or a lawful resident on U.S. soil at the time of your apprehension. This should not be controversial. This, in fact, is made noncontroversial by the Constitution itself. I urge you to vote no on this motion to table.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a moment about an amendment I offered, the Due Process Guarantee Act amendment. This is based on a bill Senator Feinstein and I have introduced together. It has one purpose: to protect American citizens and lawful permanent residents on U.S. soil from being apprehended here and indefinitely detained. In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton appropriately referred to arbitrary unlawful imprisonment as one of the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyrants. If our country is to make sure that it avoids this mistake, our country needs to undo a decision that was made in section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by this body for fiscal year 2012, which is still in effect today. This amendment does one thing, and it is very simple. It simply says that if you are a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, you may not be indefinitely detained on U.S. soil without trial, without charge, without access to a jury or to counsel. These are not radical concepts. These are simply fundamental American concepts. These are concepts required by the Constitution itself. It is not too much to ask to suggest that we should have a vote on this year's National Defense Authorization Act, given that it was a National Defense Authorization Act passed 7 years ago that put this in place to begin with. In the following Congress, a virtually identical version passed by a supermajority vote of 67 votes. For reasons I have never been able to understand, it was stripped out in the conference committee later. Today we have the opportunity to undo the wrong that was placed into law then. We must prohibit indefinite detention of American citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. That is what this amendment does. We should be voting on it. We should not be blocked from getting a vote. I, therefore, implore you, with all the energy I am capable of conveying, to vote no on this motion to table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's opinions, the Senator from South Carolina. I would like to respond for a moment and speak for a few minutes about a bipartisan compromise that I have introduced, along with the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. The legislation I am referring to is called the Due Process Guarantee Act, which Senator Feinstein and I have introduced. It has also been offered up as an amendment to the legislation now before this body, to the National Defense Authorization Act. Alexander Hamilton, in his writing of Federalist No. 84, called arbitrary imprisonment one of the ``favorite and most formidable instruments'' of tyrants and with good reason. The Constitution includes safeguards against this form of tyranny, including the writ of habeas corpus and the guarantee that American citizens will not be ``deprived of life, liberty, or property'' by the government ``without due process of law.'' If you are going to take away people's life or liberty or property, you have to give them due process. You can't do it without that. That is by mandate of the Constitution. It is made applicable to the Federal Government through the Fifth Amendment, and it is made applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment. Our commitment to these rights has, of course, been tested in times of crisis. This is what happens to our rights when crises erupt. Sadly, tragically, I would add, we as Americans have not always passed these tests. We have not always emerged unscathed from the temptation to dip into the well of deprivation of due process in times of crisis. During the Second World War, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt unilaterally authorized the internment of over 100,000 Japanese Americans for fear that they would spy against the United States--100,000 Americans just based on the fear that they might spy against the United States. To be sure, the government did not--neither President Roosevelt nor anyone in his administration--present any kind of evidence that these Americans--the 100,000 Americans who were imprisoned at that time--posed any kind of threat to our country. There was not one piece of evidence--not one shred, not one scintilla-- presented to that effect. In fact, most of these Americans were themselves native-born citizens. They were eligible, in that respect, to run for President of the United States. Many had never visited Japan in their entire lives. Many didn't speak the language spoken in Japan. That episode in our Nation's history was tragic, and it remains a blight on our record to this very day. It is also an example that is, sadly, personal to the State I represent. You see, the U.S. Government unjustly detained thousands of Japanese Americans in Utah at the Topaz War Relocation Center. Japanese-American internment is, perhaps, the most dramatic and shameful instance of this kind of detention in our Nation's history. Unfortunately, it is not the only instance. In 1950, in a climate of intense fear about Communist infiltration of the government, Congress enacted the McCarran Internal Security Act and did so over President Harry Truman's veto. That law contained an emergency provision that allowed the President of the United States to detain any person he thought might spy on the United States. Think for a minute about what that means--that one person was then vested with this authority to delve most deeply into someone's due process rights without providing him with any due process at all. That is scary. That is the very kind of thing that the Constitution was designed to protect against. There is the due process clause, certainly, but the whole point of having a Constitution in the first place is to protect the people from the dangers that are inevitably presented by the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few. Then more recently, in the post-9/11 era, there has been, of course, some renewed pressure to diminish our constitutional protections--our liberty--in the name of security. Lawmakers from both parties have authorized the detention of Americans who have been suspected of terrorism--their detention indefinitely without charge, without trial, and without meeting the evidentiary standard that is required for every other crime--potentially, for the rest of their lives. You see, this happened just a few years ago in this very Chamber. If I had not been here at the time, I might have accused whoever was describing this of engaging in some sort of paranoid fantasy, in some sort of odd hyperbole, for the purpose of making a point. No. This actually happened in the National Defense Authorization Act that President Obama signed into law for fiscal year 2012. Congress authorized the indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists, including of American citizens, who are apprehended on U.S. soil. These episodes--the Japanese-American internment, the McCarran Internal Security Act, and the 2012 NDAA--are significant. They are teachable moments, if you will. In all three cases, the United States faced real threats from formidable foes--foes that were hostile to our very core values as a nation, foes that were not comfortable with the idea that we as Americans share in common--the belief in the fundamental, inherent dignity of the human soul. Instead of defying our foes by holding fast to those core values, we jettisoned them in a panic. Fear and secrecy won out. The Constitution lost. Liberty lost. Thankfully, that is not the whole story. There have also been times when Americans have stood up to the Constitution even in the face of threats, especially in the face of threats, thus, sending a really strong message to the totalitarian forces arrayed against us. For instance, in 1971, Congress passed the Non-Detention Act, stating, ``No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.'' Congress can make another stand for the Constitution by allowing a vote on this amendment, by allowing a vote on the Due Process Guarantee Act amendment to the NDAA. What, you might ask, is the Due Process Guarantee Act? In short, this bill presented as an amendment would raise the bar that the government has to clear in order to claim and assert the right to detain indefinitely American citizens and lawful permanent residents who are apprehended on U.S. soil. It would forbid the government from justifying such detentions by using general authorizations of military force, such as the 2001 AUMF against the 9/ 11 plotters. Why, you might ask, would this even be necessary? Why would we even need to consider doing this? That is a very good question. It is a question that should be directed toward those who inserted this language into the 2012 NDAA. Under this legislation, under this amendment as it has been proposed, the government would have to obtain the explicit written authorization--statutory authorization--of Congress, which is the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals, before approving the detention of Americans--without charge, that is--if they are captured in the United States. This isn't too much to ask. Some would say this is far too little to ask. It is something that is required both by the letter and by the spirit of our Constitution, by the very concept of liberty, and by the very concept alluded to earlier that each human soul has inherent dignity that needs to be respected by our government. So the Due Process Guarantee Act is based on a very simple premise: If the government wants to take the extraordinary step of apprehending Americans on U.S. soil without charge or trial, it should get extraordinary permission from Congress. Now, to be very clear, if my colleagues want to grant the government this power, that power over their own constituents, their own voters, the very people who elected them into office, then by all means let's have that debate and let's have that discussion. If they want to do that, let them authorize it themselves. I hope I never see the day that happens, but I hope we all agree that Congress should have to agree before any such step is taken. Members of Congress should not simply hide behind vague, broad authorizations so the voting public will not or can't know what they are doing. I am offering this amendment because of my faith in our law enforcement officers and our judges who have successfully apprehended and prosecuted and overseen the prosecutions of hundreds of homegrown terrorists. Their example proves that our security is not dependent upon a supercharged government and a correspondingly weakened Constitution. We can secure the homeland without using the formidable instruments of tyrants. Not only can we, but we must. This, after all, is our constitutional imperative. Each one of us, upon taking office, was required to take an oath to uphold and defend this document, the U.S. Constitution. I hope, I think, I expect, and in fact I am quite confident that the overwhelming majority of our constituents and voters in every State in this country, regardless of where they fit on the political continuum, where they identify themselves on the political spectrum, agree it is not too much to ask that if the government is going to arrest someone and detain them, putting them into a position of incarceration indefinitely without charge, without trial, is extraordinary. That kind of extraordinary remedy perhaps ought never be approached, but, certainly, if it is going to happen at all, it ought not ever happen without the explicit statutory authorization from Congress. All of this relates back to section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which purports to authorize the government to just indefinitely detain without trial American citizens and lawful permanent residents--both of whom would be protected by my amendment-- who are captured in the United States. Look, it is easy to look at this and to separate yourself from this if you think this measure could apply only to bad people--maybe only to bad people who don't look like people we ordinarily associate with. Perhaps they don't look like they came from our neighborhood. Perhaps they don't look like the kinds of people who ought to have protection, but this is the very folly we should always seek to avoid. Either due process is a thing or it is not. Either due process is a constitutional imperative that we should be very reluctant to depart from ever or it is not. Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA represented a departure from that. Think of it this way. Your rights as an American citizen to be charged in a certain way, to have access to a speedy trial, to have access to counsel, your right to a whole host of constitutional protections generally does not, and ought not ever be, something that should be dependent upon how you are charged. If all the government has to do is alter the way in which you were charged to allege that you have been involved in some type of offense that can be characterized as terrorist activity or the aiding and abetting of those who planned the 9/11 attack, if that is all that has to happen, then you are entrusting an enormous amount of discretionary power to government, to a very small handful of decisionmakers who themselves can deprive you of everything that is dear to you--deprive you of those you love, of the place you call home, and subject you to indefinite incarceration, indefinite detention, without access to trial, without access to the ability to confront your accusers in front of a jury of your peers. This is a problem. It is a problem that would sound extreme if it weren't true because it is, in fact, extreme. We have gone now, for the last 6 or 7 years after this was passed into law, without it getting a whole lot of attention. I think this is unfortunate because this ought to be concerning to every single American. If you exist on U.S. soil lawfully or if you are a citizen or lawful permanent resident, this should concern you. Even if you are not, even if you reside outside the United States or are here temporarily--perhaps on a temporary visa of some sort--this should worry you. If you believe in the American dream, if you believe in the fundamental dignity of the human soul, this should bother you. The extent to which you are bothered by this should grow even more severe by virtue of the fact that we have this discussion this afternoon in our Nation's Capitol, within the halls of what purports to be the world's greatest deliberative legislative body, not in the context of being on the precipice of casting a vote on this--no. We are having this discussion of a simple request to vote up or down, yes or no, yea or nay, on whether we should require Congress to state explicitly when it is going to invoke this kind of extraordinary remedy. It defies reason, it defies logic, it defies the rules, the customs, and traditions of this great legislative body for us to refuse to cast a vote on this. By the way, about 5 years ago, a nearly identical version of the same amendment passed through this body with 67 votes. Not only is that more than a majority, but it is also more than the standard required to close debate, and it is also a standard that is consistent with what is required to overcome a Presidential veto. Yet somehow that measure didn't make it into the final product. Somehow it didn't survive the process of negotiation between the House and Senate. It didn't survive the final bill as produced by the conference committee. So 5 years go by, and we have been trying to get a vote on it ever since then. We have been unsuccessful in doing so. We are not asking for every Member to agree right now to support this. What we are asking for is for them to weigh in and allow us to cast a vote on this. You see, we have this quaint idea in this country that being governed requires a certain amount of consent from those being governed; that when the government does something, especially something that could so deeply impact the lives of individual Americans, it ought to be done with the consent of the governed through their elected Senators and Representatives. We have two people here from every State in the Union. I could say, with a high degree of confidence, that if you polled not just the American people at large, not just people within every State, but I would add to that people within every demographic, people within every political party, at least every political party that I know anything about, people, regardless of race, sex, national origin, religious affiliation, belief, or unbelief--I would bet an overwhelming majority of people in every single category in every State of the Union would say this is really troubling. The fact that you would have a government that would be so bold in the first instance as to claim the right, which it did in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, to detain indefinitely citizens of this country apprehended on U.S. soil without charge, without trial, without access to counsel--and after having done that a few years ago, this same body would refuse even to allow a vote on whether future votes should be cast on whether this is appropriate. The Senate, I am told, used to be a place--in fact, the history books made clear it was, in fact, a place where extended debate and discussion could be heard because we as a people tend to believe more debate is preferable to less, more input is preferable to less input, and that whenever government makes a decision, especially a profound decision like the one we are talking about, that the people's elected representatives ought to have some say in it. It is an act of cowardice that we as a body would refuse to have votes on something like this. So I say to my colleagues who object to us even being able to cast a vote on this, what are you afraid of? What is it that you fear so much about the American people that you are unwilling to have a provision like this explored, examined, and get voted on by the U.S. Senate? This doesn't have to take a long time. We could easily have done it today. We could have done it in a matter of hours, perhaps a matter of minutes. Is that really too much of a sacrifice to ask for a few hours or a few minutes of our precious time to vote on whether the U.S. Government should have the power to indefinitely detain without charge, without trial, without counsel American citizens on U.S. soil? I think not. I inform my colleagues, with all the energy I am capable of communicating, to please reconsider. Look in the mirror. Examine your conscience. You decide whether you want to stand accountable to God and the American people one day if and when this power is abused. One thing we know about power is that when excessively accumulated in the hands of a few, bad things happen. Human beings are flawed. They are redeemable, but they are also flawed. That is why we have a Constitution. That is why we are here. We are here to cast votes and to stand accountable to the American people. I urge my colleagues to allow a vote on this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour of debate on my amendment, No. 2366, equally divided between the opponents and proponents, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the amendment.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2366 to the underlying bill.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, last week, the Trump administration proposed new rules to finally bring Federal policy back in line with Federal law. This should not be controversial in a republic committed to the rule of law. But this new policy touches the question of abortion, which tempts all three branches of our Federal Government to turn truth, justice, and the law inside out in the service of violence. President Trump, to his credit, is resisting those temptations and affirming what the law should do--affirming the fact that the law should do what the law says. The particular law in question is the Public Health Service Act. Every year, it allocates hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to public health centers across the country. Under the 1970 statute, no Public Health Service dollars ``shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.'' That is, the bill was expressly written to fund healthcare for lower income communities, including family planning services, but not to fund or facilitate abortion, which, of course, is the opposite of healthcare. Yet in the 1980s, the General Accounting Office found that abortion providers were colocating their nonabortion and abortion-providing services and just keeping two different sets of books. This put patients, policymakers, and taxpayers in an impossible position. So regulations correcting this obvious abuse of the law were implemented; then they were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Subsequent Democratic Presidents rescinded these regulations, leaving the abortion industry free to indulge its ever-growing appetite for Americans' blood and treasure. This is the unacceptable status quo that the Trump administration would correct. By reinstating some of those prior regulations, President Trump is following through on his campaign promise to the American people to get taxpayer money out of the abortion industry. This is to his great credit. Wherever you stand on the question of legalized killing of unborn children, it is essential that we draw the line at taxpayer funding of it. The new rule would indeed reduce the flow of Federal dollars to abortion providers, including the billion-dollar behemoth of the grisly industry, Planned Parenthood. Even a modest step in this direction--in this case, about 15 percent--is to be commended. In addition to incremental reform, this new rule is also a clarifying asset. After all, it does not deny Planned Parenthood or any colocated clinics anything. It doesn't deny anything to them. It simply offers them a choice, and given Planned Parenthood's protestations that abortions are just a tiny fraction of what Planned Parenthood does, the choice should be easy enough. If, despite their billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and private donations, Planned Parenthood and its accomplice organizations can't afford two local facilities--one for abortion and one for nonabortion care and counseling--they will just have to choose which clinic to keep open. They will have to decide--or, perhaps, just publicly admit--what business it is that they are really in: healthcare or abortion, life or death. Of course, we already know the answer. That is why Planned Parenthood is widely expected to lead a lawsuit to block the regulation just as soon as it is implemented. As the New York Times recently put it, abortion is to Planned Parenthood what the internet is to Facebook; that is, like justice and the rule of law are to the American Republic. Our abortion-on-demand legal regime today is doubly unjust, first, because it was created by judges rather than elected lawmakers and, second, because it denies the undeniable humanity of the unborn. President Trump's new policy would improve the law on both counts. First, it would bring the administration of the law back into line with Congress's clear, statutory text. Second, it would signal that in this White House, the protection of innocent human life will be the guiding principle that it should be in any civilized society. The new rule will protect Americans' right to protect themselves and the unborn from taxpayer-funded abortions and, hopefully, create just a little more space for the weakest and the most vulnerable among us to grow, to thrive, and to hope that we will one day see that inevitable day not so far from now when our laws and our hearts answer the immutable call of justice, love, and respect for the dignity of the human soul. I yield the floor.