FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017

Mr. President, I would have joined Senator Sullivan in a round of applause. I thank him for sharing that inspiring story.

Funding the Government

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon just to talk very briefly about the real-world impacts of the decisions we are going to make in the next week or so regarding the future of the budget and to really implore my Republican colleagues here, most especially the Republican leadership, to get this job done and not put us on another continuing resolution. This is not a theoretical or a rhetorical exercise; this is about people's lives and our failure to do our job-- our failure to pass a budget and to extend lifesaving programs, like the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is not about politics, and it is not about headlines. It is not about point scoring. It is about making people's lives better.

I really just want to share three stories from Connecticut to talk about the impact of the decisions that we are going to make with respect to the Federal budget. Let me first talk about this often esoteric-sounding concept of parity. One of the most important things that we are discussing is how many additional dollars are going to be in the budget for 2017 and 2018 versus in the prior fiscal year.

There seems to be fairly widespread agreement that we are underresourced when it comes to the Department of Defense. We have a multitude of kinetic challenges that are presented to the United States. A group of us just got briefed, once again today, by our military leadership on the scope and extent of the North Korean threat. I agree with many of my Republican colleagues that we need to increase funding for national security, but national security is not just housed in the Department of Defense. National security is also about making sure that our families are secure and that our communities are secure.

We believe that we should increase funds for the Department of Defense, and we should also make sure that our schools have teachers. We should also make sure that we have cops on the streets. We should also make sure that our bridges aren't falling down. That is national security as well. It is not too much to ask to make sure that our security is taken care of internationally and domestically as well.

Let me give you a perfect example of how you can't just plus-up defense spending and leave the rest of the budget unattended to. We love defense spending in Connecticut. Why? Because we make a lot of big ticket items for the Department of Defense. We make the helicopters at Sikorsky. We make the jet engines at Pratt & Whitney. We make the submarines at Electric Boat.

We are proud of all of them, but let me tell you what happens at Electric Boat if you plus-up the Defense Department at the expense of all of the other discretionary accounts. We are going to be building a lot more submarines over the next 10 years. We are now building two fast attack submarines a year. We are going to start building the new ballistic submarines, the Columbia class, and Electric Boat needs to hire 14,000 employees over the next 10 years. Much of that is because their workforce is older, and so they are going to have a lot of retirements. They have to find 14,000 new employees over the next 10 years. If they can't, we cannot make the submarines in the United States, or we cannot make the parts that go into

the submarines in the United States. Either the job will not get done, or the work will happen somewhere else in another country. You can't assemble the submarines anywhere other than at Electric Boat, but those parts will go to foreign companies rather than American companies.

The way in which we are going to fill the 14,000 jobs is through the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor has a partnership with an organization called the Eastern Connecticut Manufacturing Pipeline. That is a public-private partnership that seeks to train hundreds of individuals in the skills necessary to build the submarines. They received 4,500 applications over the past year. They can't place all those people because they only get a certain amount of funding from the Department of Labor, but they were able to train 500 new workers for Electric Boat, putting them right into those jobs that are necessary to build these submarines. The problem is the money for that program is running out, and with another CR, they can't get renewed funding for that program. So if you plus-up the Defense Department without increasing funding for the Department of Labor, you can't get the stuff that you want to build for the Department of Defense because you can't get the workers in order to fill the contracts.

If you don't renew this contract, if you don't renew this funding agreement with the Eastern Connecticut Manufacturing Pipeline, the work will not get done, and the jobs will go overseas. I just want my colleagues to understand that this isn't some philosophical belief that we need the same amount of money in the Department of Defense as we need in the rest of the budget. It is practical. It is practical because we need domestic economic security, but you also can't execute the Department of Defense contracts without funding in the rest of the budget.

Second, let me talk to you about the real-world implications of not funding the Children's Health Insurance Program. You know that healthcare more than any other issue has become a political football. Democrats toss it to the Republicans, and Republicans toss it back to Democrats. Yet there is no other issue that is more personal than this. If someone doesn't have healthcare for their family, nothing else in their life can happen.

I want to share one story. These letters and emails are flooding into our offices with respect to the real-world impact of not funding the Children's Health Insurance Program.

In Connecticut, letters have gone out to families whose children are insured through CHIP, telling them that by the end of this month--that is 20 days away--they lose their insurance. So here is what Tara from Washington, CT, writes. She said:

Despite our full time employment--

She works as a small business manager, and her husband is a full-time electrical apprentice--

my husband and I do not make enough money to buy health

insurance for our children in addition to our other mandatory

expenses.

She explains that her children go to daycare, which costs $1,800 a month, which she says is more than their mortgage plus taxes and insurance.

To go back to her letter, she says:

This is where the [Children's Health Insurance Program]

comes into play in our lives. I cannot even begin to tell you

the anxiety I faced when I was pregnant with my daughter,

crying every day because I didn't know how we were going to

make ends meet. Thank God for a family friend who happened to

be an insurance agent. She told us about [CHIP] and suddenly

some of that anxiety was quelled.

We have been blessed to have [CHIP] in our lives.

I say CHIP. She says in the letter HUSKY. HUSKY is the name of the CHIP program in Connecticut.

We have been blessed to have [CHIP] in our lives. Last

month my daughter got RSV and was prescribed a nebulizer. Two

weeks ago, my son caught it from her and that developed into

a double ear infection and pink eye, requiring two expensive

medications. The co-pays and premiums are manageable though

and they got the care they needed.

I read in the [local paper] this weekend that letters were

going out to parents of children . . . telling them that

their coverage will end on January 31, 2018.

She is writing this in December.

We are a week away from Christmas, and what should be a

happy time of year has now turned into stress and depression.

How am I going to get insurance for my kids? My daughter

turns two on February 10th, how am I going to pay for her

well visit? I can't just skip it, they won't allow her back

into daycare.

I cannot believe the dysfunction going on in this country.

I cannot believe tax cuts for the wealthy have taken

precedent over the health of my kids. . . . What is Congress

doing to ensure their continued healthcare?

This story is repeated literally millions of times over all across this country. People went through the holiday anxious and depressed because they were convinced that we weren't taking seriously the healthcare of their kids. When we debate the budget, it has to have attached to it a long-term, if not permanent, extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program because there are families just like Tara out there who are doing everything we ask them to. She is full-time employed, her husband is full-time employed, and they can't afford health insurance for their kids without CHIP.

Let me talk to you about the importance of making sure that we get the right amount of disaster funding to Texas, Florida, and in particular Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico matters to us in Connecticut because we have the largest percentage of our population with Puerto Rican roots than any State in the country. We are so proud of that. The Puerto Rican community in Connecticut is vibrant, economically and culturally, powerful politically, involved in our cities and towns and in State government.

The Governor of Puerto Rico has requested $94 billion for Maria recovery and rebuilding, and I am just back from Puerto Rico. I can report to you that the island is still in crisis. One hundred days after the hurricane hit, more than half of the country--half of the households--still don't have electricity.

If that were happening in Connecticut, Alaska, or Louisiana, there would be riots in the streets, but for some reason it is acceptable in Puerto Rico. We are 100 days after the hurricane, and we still haven't approved a disaster recovery package, and the Trump administration is nickel-and-diming the island.

I walked through the poorest, most densely populated neighborhood in San Juan, the capital of the Commonwealth. They have no power. Mold is growing in these homes because they can't dry out the moisture without electricity. Kids are enduring more frequent and more intense bouts of asthma. People are dying because they can't refrigerate their medication or keep their ventilation equipment running. This is what is happening in the United States of America. We need to authorize significant, robust funding for Puerto Rico and for Texas and Florida. We need to do it now.

We need to do it now because the day that I arrived on the island--I think it was January 2--it was reported to us that there was the highest volume of people leaving Puerto Rico since the hurricane--on that day, January 2. The exodus is getting more intense. More people are leaving, not less. Why? Because they don't think we are committed to rebuilding the island. Puerto Ricans don't think that Congress is serious about putting back on the electricity. They waited 1 month. They waited 2 months. They waited 3 months, and then they said: Enough, we can't put our kids in these conditions.

They started leaving in record numbers. They were leaving right off the bat, but they are now leaving in record numbers. While most of them are coming to places like Florida, many of them are coming to Connecticut. Why? Because when they make that move, they often go first to stay with friends. Because we have such a compassionate, large Puerto Rican community in Connecticut, many of these families are coming to Connecticut.

So let me just give you a couple of the numbers here. We asked our school systems to try to keep a rough track of how many new Puerto Rican students are showing up. Our cities are small in Connecticut. We don't have a city that is much bigger than 100,000. In Hartford, they have 388 new Puerto Rican students--``new'' meaning having come since the hurricane from the island. Waterbury, CT, has 268. New Britain, a very small city, has 213. Bridgeport has 179. These are kids who are glad to have shelter and schooling in Connecticut, but they don't want to be in Connecticut. They came under duress. They came to Connecticut as refugees. They want to be back in Puerto Rico.

The stress that this is putting on the schools is serious. We are in a budget crisis in Connecticut. Schools have already had their funding cut from Hartford. Yet these schools are now having to staff up to deal with this influx of students from Puerto Rico. We are glad to do it. We see it as our obligation, and we know that these kids will be a part of Connecticut's strength. But it is not easy to do when we haven't authorized any money to help States like Connecticut to deal with this influx of students. At McDonough Middle School in Hartford, these kids are thriving, but they have had to set up a new immersion lab to handle all these kids coming in. They have had to hire new staff to teach English as a second language. These are schools that were already seeing their funding hemorrhage from the State government.

The impact is real on McDonough Middle School. The impact is real on Tara and her family from Washington. The impact is real for an important supplier in our industrial base, Electric Boat. If we just continue to push CR after CR, these families, schools, and companies will not succeed. This isn't about political headlines. This isn't about numbers on a page. This is about real-world impact for businesses, families, and schools.

So let's get the job done. Let's write a budget. Let's at least agree to the overall budget numbers. Let's fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. Let's get Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas everything they need. News flash: That is our job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I was honored to be invited to the White House and included in a small meeting with President Trump, and it was very clear that I was invited to the White House to stand firm with President Trump today. We talked about immigration, and today I was proud to stand with our President.

We have been crystal clear. Chain migration must end, period. Any solution to our current immigration crisis that the U.S. Senate will consider must include ending chain migration. Before I talk about the details of what chain migration is, I want to put it in perspective.

Our immigration crisis today has been longstanding. We had a law written in 1965 and other changes in 1986, but it has really not been since 1991 that there has been any meaningful immigration change.

Three times in the last 11 years, well-intended people in this body and in the House have done a yeoman's job of trying to solve the comprehensive problem of immigration in the United States--without success. Here we are, again, right now, facing a deadline that the President has put on, and rightfully so. We have a sense of urgency.

The President has done a couple of things. He has defined the scope of the problem, and he has defined a sense of urgency for the people in Congress.

The legal immigration system right now is broken, but to deal with that, we have to deal with our entire immigration system in pieces. The reason I believe most past efforts have failed is that they tried to do a comprehensive solution.

Today, we are breaking it into three areas. One is our legal immigration system, and the next step might be our temporary work visas. Today, we bring in about 1.1 million legal immigrants a year, and I will talk about how that relates historically. But we issue about 2.2 million temporary work visas a year. Then the third issue is, of course, the people who are in the United States illegally.

President Trump had a meeting 2 days ago at the White House. In that meeting, he had Democrats, Republicans, Members of the House, and Members of this body, the Senate, and he drove consensus in that meeting.

It was very interesting that he had the media in there for almost 60 minutes for an open dialogue, and we heard from all people in that room about their position on these topics. I thought it was very interesting that the President had the courage to put this issue in front of the American people and create an air of transparency that we have not had on this issue in decades. In that meeting, he drove two conclusions: one, a scope of the problem and, two, a sense of urgency.

The scope is very simply defined as this: We have to address the DACA situation. The President has given Congress the date of March 5 to come up with a solution for these individuals who are in the country illegally--but not of their doing.

The second issue is border security. We know that border security is a national security issue as much as it is an immigration issue. The good news is that we know that illegal crossings of our southern border are down dramatically this year just because of a couple of reasons. One is the enforcement of current law, and the second is an understanding around the world that we are going to deal with this issue.

The third piece of the scope is chain migration. Any solution to the DACA situation or the legal immigration situation must include addressing the chain migration issue.

Then the last is this archaic diversity visa lottery we have in the United States that was related to at least one of the terrorist attacks, and chain migration was involved in both of the terrorist attacks we have recently experienced here in the United States.

With regard to DACA, the first item on the scope is that we know we have a March 5 deadline. There is a growing consensus in this body of how to deal with that, and there is great latitude on the part of Republicans in this body to deal with that in a way, with our Democratic partners here, to get a consensus bill that solves this once and for all.

The second is border security. Here, with the President's leadership and in these recent meetings with Democrats and Members of the House, there is a growing consensus that we can deal with the national security issues related to our southern border. We don't need a 2,000- mile wall, as even the President of the United States has said just this week. But there are things we need to do, and we need to do them quickly.

The President today said that his goal is to get this done this year. Coming from the real world, I know that is possible. This President, who comes from the real world and is an outsider to this community here in Washington, knows that is possible, and I think he is going to hold us accountable to that.

The third area I mentioned before is chain migration. I will say more about that in a minute.

The fourth is the diversity lottery. This diversity lottery has not served us well. It is not the number; it is the way it is being handled. We know there is fraud, and we know this is a loophole terrorists are now using to put people in their chain inside the United States.

There is a growing consensus on these four items of this scope that the President has defined, and we had a consensus in that room 2 days ago in the White House. There is consensus that we can get to a solution within the timeframe here, but let me be very clear. Any deal--whether it is in business, sports, or certainly in politics--has to have some symmetry. Therefore, any solution for the DACA situation must include a solution for our chain migration crisis.

We must continue working with the President. He is holding us accountable. He is moving at a business pace, but to do that, we really have to talk about chain migration. I understand there are other areas that we have to talk about, as well, but there is a lot of disinformation about what it really is.

Chain migration is nothing more than a law put in place in 1965 to allow legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens to sponsor people for U.S. citizenship. It was put in place in 1965. It has been updated a little bit. But today, a legal permanent resident--for the most part, this is someone who has come in qualified in our legal immigration system, who goes through a 5-year waiting period, who eventually can apply for U.S. citizenship. While they are a legal permanent resident, almost immediately they can sponsor spouses, minor children, and unmarried adult children. That is current law.

Once they become a citizen--and this is true of any U.S. citizen, whether they were a recent immigrant or were born here; a U.S. citizen can sponsor their parents, their spouses, minor children, unmarried adult children, married adult children, and siblings

The issue around this is pretty simple. We have a chart here which shows that in 1965, when this law was put in place, approximately 300,000 U.S. citizens were brought into the United States in that year under this system. Last year, we had, roughly, about 1.1 million. We had a high of somewhere close to 1.3 million. But we can see, this is a geometric progression that increases unbounded. It is not really the number here, but it is the balance that we have lost.

What happens, and the criticism I have as a business guy looking at this, is that the individuals who determine who future immigrants are going to be are current and recent immigrants.

We don't have many guidelines. We have a country cap system which says that most countries have a percentage of the total they have to have, and they can't exceed that. But there is no real cap here, such that if all these numbers were maximized, then over time you would see this number go up geometrically.

We have a second chart that shows this and demonstrates that over a very short period of time, the numbers can increase dramatically, as we have seen in the last 40 or so years.

There have been studies on this. Princeton has a study which says that right now, based on recent history, any immigrant who comes in sponsors somewhere around 3.5 future immigrants within a short period of time. We don't know what the 3.5 immigrants do when they get sponsored and become citizens or legal permanent residents, but if you extrapolate this out--let's say we start with 2 million as a starting point. They become citizens and they sponsor--let's just say the number is 3. In the first iteration, now we have 6 million people sponsored by the original 2 million; then the second iteration goes from 6 to 18; and in the fourth iteration we are at 54 million people. So all of a sudden, as you can see, there is no limit here, other than the country caps, and the country caps do not limit the total number. They limit the mix.

What is wrong with this system? The problem, as I said just now, is that future immigrants are determined by current immigrants without any regard to their ability to participate in the system.

The second one is that because you can bring parents in, immigrants who come in under this system and become U.S. citizens can bring their parents in, and all of a sudden, now we have an aged population coming in--not a younger population--and they then draw social services on an already bankrupt system.

Chain migration is not based on skill or the ability to participate in the current economic situation in the United States. Last year, we brought in 1.1 million immigrants. Of that, 140,000 were immigrants who were related to the worker; 70,000 were the workers, and the other 70,000 were their immediate family. So we can see that over 950,000 people were derivative iterations of what I am talking about.

The third thing is that if chain migration is not stopped, it continues to incentivize future illegal immigration because of what you can do once you get here.

Chain migration is another problem with the DACA situation because if you permit a pathway to some sort of legalized situation in the United States for the DACA population, you end up with a situation where those people who are then legalized can sponsor their parents. The problem with that is, the DACA population is not violating fair law, but their parents have.

The last issue I will bring up is, the national security issues are profound. We have seen two national security incidents just this past year related to chain migration and the diversity visa lottery. There is more than enough evidence to show this has to be addressed.

Again, any symmetric deal on immigration has to include, I believe, the four points the President talked about the other day. We have to deal with the DACA situation. We have to deal with our border security, and that means building a wall. We have to deal with the chain migration issues, and we have to deal with this diversity visa lottery. The President demands it. The American people demand it. Today, as a matter of fact, over 80 percent of America believes we need to deal with the DACA situation. Likewise, 72 percent of people in America believe the immigration law should be the worker, the spouse, and their immediate minor children only--72 percent. I can't think of another issue that has come before this body where we had those sorts of agreements in the American population.

The President wants results. He has charged leadership in this body and the House and those of us who have been involved in this for some time to get to it. There is a March 5 deadline looming. Some people say there is a January 19 date that has to do with funding the government. I personally believe the two have nothing to do with each other, but we want a sense of urgency. The President has demanded it. We need it.

We know there are going to be other steps. This is not the last step to this problem. We know we have to deal with how we bring people to the United States. We need a balance. Of course, we want to continue to be the open arms of the world today in terms of welcoming people to our shores. Just look at what is written on the Statue of Liberty. Who can argue with that? At the same time, we have to have a balance. Right now, we don't bring in people who are contributing to the economy, for the most part, and we are eliminating--we are not bringing in people who can contribute. All we are asking for is a dialogue to bring balance back to that system.

I am excited to be a part of this dialogue because I believe we have a unique, historic opportunity with people on the other side and people on this side who generally have hearts that are not that dissimilar with regard to how to deal with the DACA population, how to deal with the Dreamers population, how to deal with future immigrant populations that are coming to the United States. We can have those debates, and we are having them now. I welcome input from all points. I am anxious to get to the bottom line of this.

I will close with this. It is exciting to have leadership from the executive branch on this issue that has put the responsibility back on this body to come up with something that will not allow us to be back here in the next 3, 5, or 20 years dealing with this same problem. We have a historic opportunity. It is time to get to it.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Today I would like to talk about some of the more positive developments we have seen recently with regard to healthcare aspects of the current debate. As we know, last night, leaders in the House unveiled a legislative package that would keep the government funded as well as address some bipartisan healthcare priorities, including some issues I have personally been working on for some time. I am hoping the House will pass this legislation in short order and that the Senate will quickly follow suit.

Let me talk about some of the specifics in the package. First, the House bill would extend funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 years, which is the longest extension since the creation of the program. As I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, I am the original author of the CHIP Program. Twenty years ago, Senator Ted Kennedy joined with me to draft the original CHIP legislation and to move it through Congress on a bipartisan basis. I have maintained my commitment to this program for the past two decades, even during times when others sought to change it dramatically from its original purpose.

During this Congress, as the chairman of the Finance Committee, I have been working with colleagues on a long-term reauthorization of CHIP, despite some contrary claims that I and the Republican leadership had somehow neglected or forgotten about the CHIP Program and had no intention of reauthorizing it. It is no secret that I have taken some flak in some corners of the Senate from colleagues looking to get some political mileage out of the issue I have worked so hard to keep bipartisan, but I will remind my colleagues that this past September, the Finance Committee's ranking member, Senator Wyden, and I introduced a long-term, bipartisan CHIP extension bill that was overwhelmingly reported out of the committee. A number of my colleagues, including some who were on the committee and voted in favor of that bill, seem to have forgotten this legislation had been drafted and reported. We have endured a number of speeches and television appearances from colleagues accusing Republicans of ``abandoning children in need.'' My gosh. This is even though our friends on the other side were entirely aware that the effort to reauthorize the program had been continually moving forward.

The House's bill is identical to the legislation Senator Wyden and I introduced last fall, except that the funding continues for 1 more year. As I noted, it extends CHIP for 6 years. We have never gotten such a long extension since the creation of the program over 20 years ago.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate, particularly those who have been so outspoken and righteous in their condemnations of Republicans regarding CHIP will support this legislation. It would be odd to see them vote it down after all the acrimony we have endured over the past few months.

In addition to the historic CHIP reauthorization, the House legislation addresses some other long-term priorities of mine: the taxes imposed by the so-called Affordable Care Act. Under the bill, the job-killing medical device tax will be delayed for another 2 years. This foolhardy tax, which has been criticized and condemned by Members of both parties, will come back into effect at the start of this year.

Eliminating this tax has been an important cause to me since the day ObamaCare was signed into law. Utah is home to some of our Nation's most innovative medical device companies, and the United States has led the world in developing lifesaving and life-improving medical technology, an advantage that was threatened by this poorly crafted and irresponsible tax. I would like to see the medical device tax repealed entirely. I have introduced a number of bills to that effect over the years, but until we get that done, it is important that we keep shielding American consumers, patients, families, and job creators from the impact of this tax. The House bill would prevent the medical device tax from hitting any device innovators and their customers until 2020 at the earliest.

The House package also extends the delayed impact of the so-called Cadillac tax, which is another one of ObamaCare's ill-advised shots aimed at the middle class. Again, Members from both parties have expressed concern and opposed this tax. Previous delays have received broad bipartisan support. The House bill would put off the impact of the Cadillac tax through 2021, and I am hopeful this delay receives bipartisan support in the House and Senate.

Finally, the bill would pull back the health insurance tax, which is another reckless tax provision, for 2019. This tax targets small businesses and middle-class consumers. There is not even a set rate for this tax. There is a revenue target, and the rate moves around from year to year in order to raise a specified amount. The results are increased costs passed along to insurance beneficiaries in the form of higher premiums and increased burdens on small businesses. The House bill will give additional relief from this tax starting in January of next year so insurers can lower premiums before the 2019 filing period.

So, as we can see, in addition to keeping the government open, the legislative package unveiled last night in the House would address some key bipartisan healthcare priorities.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this approach. Given their recent statements on some of these issues and their past votes, I think many Democrats would have a hard time explaining to their constituents why they oppose these measures.

While there are still a number of healthcare priorities that must be addressed as quickly as possible, including Medicare extenders, I am very pleased to see the House moving forward with a long-term extension of CHIP and relief to some of the most burdensome ACA taxes. I have been working with my colleagues in both parties and in both Chambers to bring these efforts to fruition. Once again, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation once we receive it from the House.

Having said that, let me make my second set of remarks.

Immigration

Mr. President, I rise to speak on immigration reform. For nearly 20 years, we have been talking about the Dreamer population. We have been talking about border security for just as long. It is time we did something, and there is a lot of desire among my colleagues to find a path forward to make a deal, but as I said at yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing, to do that, we need to be realistic.

To my Democratic friends, I say it is time to stop pushing for a clean Dream Act. As a matter of simple political reality, it is not going to happen.

To my Republican friends, I say we are not going to get the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. We should push for the best deal we can get, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So let's be realistic, and I say that to both sides, as one who has made a lot of deals in my time.

Here is where I am on the issue.

First, we need a deal that has broad support. I hope we can get that support from both sides. Certainly, with the Republican majority in Congress, any deal that moves forward must have broad Republican support and be supported by the President.

Second, we should be wary of false deadlines. There has been a lot of discussion that we need to have a bill done by this date or that date, even though those dates have nothing to do with relevant program deadlines. We should not create a false cliff and then plunge over it in a rush to get something done right this second. A deal on DACA is a deal worth doing, and it is worth doing right. Moreover, a deal on DACA should not just be about DACA.

Third, we need a deal that is going to help our economy. Our goal here should be to strengthen our country. We do that by supporting communities and families and by ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to keep our country safe, but we also strengthen our country by helping businesses thrive and create good, high-paying jobs for our workers.

Fourth, we need a legislative solution for DACA. We can't keep kicking the can down the road and relying on dubious legal authority to keep individuals in our country. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to others who are seeking to enter our country legally.

Fifth, we need meaningful improvements to border security and interior

enforcement, not a figleaf, not window dressing--real reform. There has been a lot of talk about a wall. To those who are unwilling to entertain any deal that will have wall funding, I say: Let's not let something that would amount to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Federal budget scuttle a once-in-a-generation deal.

Sixth, we need to close loopholes and reduce fraud and abuse. One area that has been particularly susceptible to these problems is the diversity visa lottery. I have long been skeptical of the program. In fact, I introduced legislation in 2011 to sunset the program unless changes were made to cut back on fraud and abuse.

Another area that constitutes an enormous potential loophole is the ability of individuals to come to our country illegally but then use family relationships to absolve themselves of the consequences of their illegal actions. I think it is a problem to allow people who come into our country in open violation of our laws to turn around and avail themselves of our Constitution and laws to backdoor themselves into lawful status. We need a better system than that.

Finally, I think high-skilled immigration needs to be part of the discussion. There has been a lot of talk recently about merit-based immigration. Well, high-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated.

Next week, I plan to reintroduce my Immigration Innovation Act, or I- Squared Act. This bipartisan legislation, newly updated for this Congress, will better align high-skilled visas with market demand so that employers are able to hire the talent they need. It will help end our stupid practice of educating people here in the United States and then sending them back home to compete against us, and it will stop some of the troubling abuses we have seen with the H-1B visa program. We should welcome the best and the brightest in the world, regardless of their origin. My I-Squared Act will help us to do that.

Our immigration laws are a mess. They are a morass of conflicting and confusing obligations that reflect past Congresses' pet projects and idiosyncrasies, rather than any real overarching principle. I want a system that makes sense. I want a system that is merit-based. I want a system that doesn't penalize people who were brought to our country illegally through no fault of their own but that also discourages future unlawful entries. Surely, we can have a system that does both. Surely, we can find a path forward that is fair and just to the Dreamer population but that reduces future illegal immigration. Surely, we can design a system focused around economic growth rather than arbitrary allocations of visa numbers, and, surely, we can create an immigration policy that focuses on what individuals will contribute to our country rather than where they came from or who they know.

In short, as I said earlier, we should welcome the best and the brightest in the world, regardless of their country of origin. That should be our mantra as we move forward.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, near the beginning of the document that made us free, our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' So from our very beginnings, our freedom has been predicated on truth. The Founders were visionary in this regard, understanding well that good faith and shared facts between the governed and the government would be the very basis of this ongoing idea of America.

As the distinguished former Member of this body, Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, famously said, ``Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.'' During this past year, I am alarmed to say, Senator Moynihan's proposition has likely been tested more severely than at any time in our history. It is for that reason that I rise today to talk about the truth and the truth's relationship to democracy, for without truth and a principled fidelity to truth and to shared facts, our democracy will not last.

Mr. President, 2017 was a year which saw the truth--objective, empirical,

evidence-based truth--more battered and abused than at any time in the history of our country, at the hands of the most powerful figure in our government. It was a year which saw the White House enshrine ``alternative facts'' into the American lexicon as justification for what used to be simply called old-fashioned falsehoods. It was a year in which an unrelenting daily assault on the constitutionally protected free press was launched by the same White House, an assault that is as unprecedented as it is unwarranted.

``The enemy of the people'' was what the President of the United States called the free press in 2017. It is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own President uses words infamously spoken by Joseph Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase ``enemy of the people'' that even Nikita Khrushchev forbade its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of ``annihilating such individuals'' who disagreed with the supreme leader. This alone should be the source of great shame for us in this body--especially for those of us in the President's party--for they are shameful, repulsive statements.

And, of course, the President has it precisely backward--despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot's enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn't suit him ``fake news,'' it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.

I dare say that anyone who has the privilege and awesome responsibility to serve in this Chamber knows that these reflexive slurs of ``fake news'' are dubious at best. Those of us who travel overseas, especially to war zones and other troubled areas all around the globe, encounter members of U.S.-based media who risk their lives and sometimes lose their lives reporting on the truth. To dismiss their work as fake news is an affront to their commitment and their sacrifice. According to the International Federation of Journalists, 80 journalists were killed in 2017. A new report from the Committee to Protect Journalists documents that the number of journalists imprisoned around the world has reached 262, which is a new record. This total includes 21 reporters who are being held on ``false news'' charges.

So powerful is the Presidency that the damage done by the sustained attack on the truth will not be confined to this President's time in office. Here in America, we do not pay obeisance to the powerful. In fact, we question the powerful most ardently. To do so is our birthright and a requirement of our citizenship. And so we know well that, no matter how powerful, no President will ever have dominion over objective reality. No politician will ever tell us what the truth is and what it is not. And anyone who presumes to try to attack or manipulate the press for his own purposes should be made to realize his mistake and be held to account. That is our job here. That is just as Madison, Hamilton, and Jay would have it.

Of course, a major difference between politicians and the free press is that the free press usually corrects itself when it has made a mistake. Politicians don't.

No longer can we compound attacks on truth with our silent acquiescence. No longer can we turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to those assaults on our institutions.

An American President who cannot take criticism, who must constantly deflect and distort and distract, who must find someone else to blame, is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as a check on the President adds to that danger.

Now we are told via Twitter that today the President intends to announce his choice for the ``most corrupt and dishonest'' media awards. It beggars belief that an American President would engage in such a spectacle, but here we are.

So 2018 must be the year in which the truth takes a stand against power that would weaken it. In this effort, the choice is quite simple, and in this effort, the truth needs as many allies as possible. Together, my colleagues, we are powerful. Together, we have it within us to turn back these attacks, to right these wrongs, repair this damage, restore reverence for our institutions, and prevent further moral vandalism. Together, united in this purpose to do our jobs under the Constitution, without regard to party or party loyalty, let us resolve to be allies of the truth and not partners in its destruction.

It is not my purpose here to inventory all the official untruths of the past year, but a brief survey is in order. Some untruths are trivial, such as the bizarre contention regarding the crowd size at last year's inaugural, but many untruths are not at all trivial, such as the seminal untruth of the President's political career--the oft- repeated conspiracy about the birthplace of President Obama. Also not trivial are the equally pernicious fantasies about rigged elections and massive voter fraud, which are as destructive as they are inaccurate; to the effort to undermine confidence in the Federal courts, Federal law enforcement, the intelligence community, and the free press; to perhaps the most vexing untruth of all--the supposed ``hoax'' at the heart of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

To be very clear, to call the Russian matter a ``hoax,'' as the President has done so many times, is a falsehood. We know that the attacks orchestrated by the Russian Government during the election were real. They constituted a grave threat to both American sovereignty and to our national security. It is in the interest of every American to get to the bottom of this matter, wherever the investigation leads.

Ignoring or denying the truth about hostile Russian intentions toward the United States leaves us vulnerable to future attacks. We are told by our intelligence agencies that these attacks are ongoing. Yet it has recently been reported that there has not been a single Cabinet-level meeting regarding Russian interference and how to defend America against these attacks--not one. What might seem like a casual and routine untruth--so casual and routine that it has now become the white noise of Washington--is, in fact, a serious lapse in the defense of our country.

Let us be clear. The impulses underlying the dissemination of such untruths are not benign. They have the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them. The destructive effect of this kind of behavior on our democracy cannot be overstated.

Every word that a President utters projects American values around the world. The values of free expression and reverence for the free press have been our global hallmark, for it is our ability to freely air the truth that keeps our government honest and keeps the people free. Between the mighty and the modest, truth is a great leveler. So respect for freedom of the press has always been one of our most important exports.

But a recent report published in our free press should raise an alarm. I will read from the story: ``In February, Syrian President Bashar Assad brushed off an Amnesty International report that some 13,000 people had been killed at one of his military prisons by saying, `You can forge anything these days,' we are living in a fake news era.''

In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has complained of being ``demonized'' by ``fake news.'' Last month, the report continues, with our President ``laughing by his side'' Duterte called reporters ``spies.''

In July, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro complained to the Russian propaganda outlet that the world media had ``spread lots of false versions, lots of lies'' about his country, adding: ``This is what we call `fake news' today, isn't it?''

There are more.

A state official in Myanmar recently said: ``There is no such thing as Rohingya. It is fake news.''

He was referring to the persecuted ethnic group.

Leaders in Singapore, a country known for restricting free speech, have promised ``fake news'' legislation in the next year--and on and on and on.

This feedback loop is disgraceful. Not only has the past year seen an American President borrow despotic language to refer to the free press, but it seems he has now, in turn, inspired dictators and authoritarians with his own language. That is reprehensible.

We are not in a ``fake news'' era, as Bashar Assad said. Rather, we are in an era in which the authoritarian impulse is reasserting itself to challenge free people and free societies everywhere.

In our own country, from the trivial to the truly dangerous, it is the range and regularity of the untruths we see that should be the cause for profound alarm and spur to action. Add to that the by now predictable habit of calling true things false and false things true, and we have a recipe for disaster.

George Orwell warned: ``The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.''

Any of us who have spent time in public life have endured news coverage we felt was jaded or unfair, but in our positions, to employ even idle threats, to use laws or regulations to stifle criticism is corrosive to our democratic institutions. Simply put, it is the press's obligation to uncover the truth about power. It is the people's right to criticize their government, and it is our job to take it.

What is the goal of laying siege to the truth? In his spurring speech on the 20th anniversary of the Voice of America, President John F. Kennedy was eloquent in the answer to that question. He said:

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with

unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and

competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its

people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a

nation afraid of its people.

The question of why the truth is now under such assault may be for historians to determine, but for those who cherish American constitutional democracy, what matters is the effect on America and her people and her standing in an increasingly unstable world, made all the more unstable by these very fabrications. What matters is the daily disassembling of our democratic institutions.

We are a mature democracy. It is past time to stop excusing or ignoring or, worse, endorsing these attacks on the truth. For if we compromise the truth for the sake of our politics, we are lost.

I sincerely thank my colleagues for their indulgence today. I will close by borrowing the words of an early adherent to my faith that I find has special resonance at this moment. His name was John Jacques. As a young missionary in England, he contemplated the question: What is truth? His search was expressed in poetry and ultimately in a hymn that I grew up with titled, ``Oh Say, What is Truth?'' It ends as follows:

Then say, what is truth? 'Tis the last and the first,

For the limits of time it steps oe'r.

Tho the heavens depart and the earth's fountains burst,

Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,

Eternal, unchanged, evermore.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the House of Representatives for coming together on the floor of the House and in our various caucuses and conferences to discuss the important challenge that we all face: the balance that we have to protect the American people. That is the oath we take: to protect and defend. As we defend the Constitution, we defend the privacy and the civil liberties of the American people.

It is difficult.

Over 20 years ago, I was on the Intelligence Committee for the purpose of protecting civil liberties and privacy, and also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, two really important overarching issues. So I come to the floor today as one who has worked on this issue for a very long time.

I thank our men and women in the intelligence community for the work they do. We are so proud of what they do.

In those days, almost 25 years ago, when I was first on the committee, it was about force protection and trying to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage, we would have the intelligence to protect our forces. It was about force protection. In the nineties, it became more about fighting terrorism and other overarching issues as well.

We live in a dangerous world and force protection on the ground, in theater, is still an essential part of what the intelligence community does. Again, I thank the men and women in the intelligence community for their patriotism and their courage.

The issue that relates to fighting terrorism is one that sometimes has a frightening manifestation on our own soil. But as we protect and defend the American people and the Constitution and their rights, we have to have that balance. It was Benjamin Franklin who said: If we don't fight for security and freedom, we won't have either.

I want to particularly thank our ranking member on the Intelligence Committee. He has made us all proud in going across the country to honor our Constitution, talking about undermining our election system, talking about protecting the American people in ways that is consistent with our Constitution. I thank Mr. Schiff and I support him today in his support of the bill that came from his committee.

Is it perfect?

I have never voted for a perfect bill in this House.

I also thank Mr. Nadler, a genius on all of these issues that relate to our Constitution. I also thank the members of the Judiciary Committee.

We have very few members on the Intelligence Committee who are deputized by the Speaker and by the leaders of each party to go to the Intelligence Committee to deal with issues that relate to the balance between security and privacy.

With all the respect in the world for the magnificent members of the Judiciary Committee, all of whom I respect, it is not right to say there is nothing in this bill that protects the privacy of the American people.

In fact, when I was supporting the Judiciary Committee bill, outside groups were complaining. They wanted the Zoe Lofgren amendment. They didn't want that bill. They were complaining about it. Now, today, they are saying that is what they want.

Studying the issue, I think one of the differences along the way is when it is appropriate in terms of a warrant. That is why I am so pleased that we will be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what I am hearing about from folks.

The amendment, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both sides of the aisle, certainly in our Democratic Caucus, that seeks to secure the highest possible protections for American civil liberties. At the same time, it ensures that the intelligence community and law enforcement can continue to keep Americans safe.

This amendment would go a step further from the modified bill that is on the floor under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant before accessing Americans' information.

Let me repeat that. The amendment will go a step further than the modified bill under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant before accessing Americans' information.

Under this amendment, a court order would be required to access Americans' data in connection with any nonnational security criminal investigation by the FBI.

This amendment removes predicate--that is the operational word-- standards and it expands the universe of investigations that would require a warrant.

A vote for this amendment--and I hope it would be bipartisan, especially from those who are objecting to the bill on the floor--is a vote for privacy protections and for civil liberties. We would have preferred to have this in the original bill that is coming to the floor. We couldn't get that in committee. Hopefully, we can get it on the floor.

Voting against the motion to recommit means fewer protections, less oversight, and more risk that Americans' rights will be violated.

In the course of this, I mentioned this issue about the warrant and arrest. I talked about the Judiciary Committee's bill. At the offset of all of this, we all opposed the first Intelligence Committee's bill. We supported the Judiciary Committee's bipartisan bill being criticized by some outside groups for supporting it, rather than the Lofgren amendment.

But changes were made in the Intelligence Committee's bill to this effect. We asked the Speaker to take out the masking provisions, which have no place in this bill. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Nunes, foolishly put that in this bill. It made it a complete nonstarter. I thank the Speaker for removing it.

By the way, somebody should tell the President because he thinks it is still in the bill. With that being said, I personally directed the unmasking process be fixed. It isn't fixed in the bill, Mr. President. That would be a second tweet of the day, confusing matters even worse, unfortunately. The administration, although they probably would like an extension of the status quo, understands we have to do more than that.

The other provision that was in the bill was an expansion of agents of foreign governments. Agents of foreign governments opened up more people who would be subjected to surveillance. We said: That doesn't fly. That has to be closed. The Speaker did that.

Then, on the ``abouts'' language, I think most people who understand that--it is a complicated issue--understand that it is really not a factor in this discussion. People don't want it mentioned, but the fact is that it had to be addressed. It is not being used and it is unconstitutional. Until it can be proven to be constitutional, it can't be used. When it is used, they would have to go to the FISA court to get permission, and then come to Congress for ratification of that. So there are many protections there.

It is hard, I know. I had a hard time when I was Speaker and we passed a bill to address the gross violations of Vice President Cheney doing the Bush-Cheney surveillance. It was appalling, in my view. I considered it unconstitutional, others did not. But, nonetheless, we put in many, many protections where there were none, and then renewed and improved them when we renewed the bill subsequently in its reauthorization.

This isn't about the other side of the aisle that is saying you don't care about privacy if you support this bill. It isn't about that. It is about where you strike the balance when you weigh the equities.

We have to come down in favor of honoring our Constitution and our civil liberties, but we cannot do that completely at the expense. And I believe that the Members and Mr. Nadler understand that full well, and I commend him for his deep understanding of the vital national security issues and the invaluable work that his committee has done to strike a balance between security and privacy and has made a difference.

But the choice we have today is to pass something that is--defeat this bill. Okay. You have done that, if you want to do that. Pass an amendment that won't go anyplace, you can do that, and we will be left with extension of the status quo of the current law.

As one who has participated in writing it those years ago, I understand its merit. I also understand the changes in technology, of tactics of terrorists who are out there, and that we have to improve the bill.

I don't consider it a reform bill. It is not that vast. It is some improvements in how we can collect, protect, again, keep the American people safe as well as protect their civil liberties.

Just a couple other things about it. Since this legislation was designed to address concerns related to the use of information collected under FISA section 702, an important foreign intelligence collection authority--we have to keep that emphasis on ``an important foreign intelligence authority.''

So, my colleagues, to that end, this modifies that it requires a court order based on probable cause for FBI criminal investigators to view Americans' communication in the section 702 database and mandates an inspector general study of 702 data. So let's keep the vigilance on, even as we go forward. It contains refined language related to ``abouts'' collection. It requires the executive branch to secure explicit approval from the FISA court for collection. It further objects ``abouts'' collections to--subjects a 30-day congressional review process. I know Mr. Sensenbrenner said nobody can do anything in 30 days, but I think we can.

The bill strengthens the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. That was something I was instrumental in establishing when I was on the Intelligence Committee. I know it is important, but I also know that it has to be strengthened and it has to be respected as a watchdog.

So, I mean, the list goes on requiring public reporting on the use of 702 data, just saying to the intelligence community: Don't try to minimize any violations that may have occurred; we want the facts; we want the truth.

And that is why I am so glad it has expanded whistleblower protections and briefings to the Oversight Committee, which we have required. Unlike the original House Intelligence bill, which I oppose, this bill does not include language that would have likely expanded the universe of FISA targets who are now, as I mentioned before, agents of foreign policy powers. It excludes the language on unmasking; somebody tell the President.

It gives me great pride in our Caucus, if you could have heard the beautiful debate between Mr. Nadler and Mr.

Schiff on this subject. We are not that far apart. I think that the motion to recommit addresses most of the concerns we have been getting from the outside groups, and communities have dedicated their--whose organized purpose is to protect the civil liberties of the American people.

But, again, with great respect for everyone's opinions and whatever they have put forth, again, saluting our men and women in the intelligence community for the work that they do, we want to be sure we strengthen their hand in terms of protecting the national security of our country, which is our first responsibility, keep the American people safe, and, as we do so, to honor our oath of office to the Constitution, to honor the principles of the Constitution.

Our Founders knew full well the challenge between security and civil liberties. They lived in a world when they were under attack. The War of 1812 came very soon after the establishment of our country, so this was not a foreign idea to them, and they bequeathed to us the responsibility to protect, defend, protect our liberties.

And, again, respectful of this debate on this issue, I myself will be voting to support my ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff, our ranking member, and Members will follow their conscience on this. I just wanted you to know, from my experience in all of this and with weighing the equities involved, that that is the path that I will take.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his support and for his very indepth analysis of how this works and why it is constitutional.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner and I be permitted to conclude our remarks prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. President, I yield to the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, I thank the vice chairman of the committee, and I say to those who are opposed to this, I have great affection for all of you. They have passion which really displays their belief that the American people need to be protected from government.

Let me just say from the start, this is the single most reviewed program that exists in the Federal Government. This is reviewed congressionally--it is reviewed by the courts, it is reviewed by the DNI, it is reviewed by the inspector general and the Department of Justice--because, on the committee, we realize this requires not just the stamp of approval from Congress but the assurance by the Intelligence Committee and by every branch of government that it lives within the parameters we set.

I am not sure everybody could have heard a more thorough description than what Senator Warner just gave and a more overwhelming voice of support than what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, gave, but let me take head-on a couple of issues that have come up and claims that have been made on this floor this afternoon.

One is, this is unconstitutional. Well, let me just be clear. This has been tested in the courts, and the courts have ruled this program is lawful, and it is constitutional. So any claim outside of that is not a claim from the Judiciary, which we trust, it is a claim from an individual, and I believe we should, in this case, trust the courts.

Let me say, Congress recognized the constitutionality of section 702 when it reauthorized the bill in 2012. Further, Federal courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of 702. For example, in the United States v. Mohamud, the Ninth Circuit, December 5, 2016, the court unanimously held that no warrant is required for a search targeted at a foreign person abroad who lacks Fourth Amendment rights, even though some U.S. persons' communications are incidentally acquired in that collection.

The court found that section 702 collection was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the reasonableness balancing test, and the targeting and minimization of procedures sufficiently protected the defendant's privacy issues. It is contrary to things you heard on this floor in the last hour, but this is the Ninth Circuit, December 5, 2016, making a ruling based upon this incidental collection that applies to U.S. citizens.

What the vice chairman just shared with you is, we went a step further. We didn't leave it just with the court to determine constitutionality and the lack of a Fourth Amendment protection. We put into the bill that if it didn't have a national security implication-- if it was a criminal act, and it was going to be prosecuted in the courts that way, before they could look at the content of that communication, it required them to go to the court and seek and get a warrant before, in fact, they could look at content.

So not only do we have the courts on our side saying there is no Fourth Amendment protection, we have gone a step further and said: In the case of U.S. citizens, if, in fact, they were incidentally collected and if, in fact, the information that was in the database is going to be used for a criminal case--Senator Paul talked about marijuana--they would have to actually go to a court and get a warrant from a judge to look at that content, which means you are going to have an FBI agent who is going to make a determination whether the content of that message is valuable enough to go to the courts and seek a warrant. This is a protection for the American people. It is not a requirement for the Fourth Amendment or for the constitutionality of 702.

Now, let me just say to my colleagues, if there are any on the fence post, the Director of National Intelligence is off the floor in the Vice President's Room. If you need one of the guys who has to oversee this program, who understands the importance of it, he is here. He is ready to talk to any Member. Why? Because 702 is the single most important national security tool we have in the United States.

If you ask me to sum up what is this bill for, this is to allow government to keep the American people safe. This bill does more to allow law enforcement, intelligence, the Congress of the United States, and the executive branch to assure the American people of their safety. That is at the heart of what Congress is established for. Spending and all these things come after that, but the defense of the country, defense of each individual American is what is at the root of our responsibilities, and 702, as it relates to this age of terrorism, is the single most effective tool we have to assure the American people we are doing everything we can to provide for their safety.

I might add to that, from a standpoint of the international collection and the international cadre of terrorists, we are able to share with other countries in a way nobody else can when their country is in jeopardy of a terrorist attack, and we have multiple examples where we have shared with our partners around the world--and, I might add, we don't necessarily require them to be a partner of ours to share this with them. We take countries we have no relationship with, maybe that we don't like too much--but America is unique. If we see a terrorist attack that is imminent, we will share that with any country in the world, even our hardest enemies. So let me put aside for any question that section 702 is lawful and it is constitutional.

Let me go to the rigorous oversight that I think the vice chairman described: It is overseen by the Foreign Intelligence Service Court. It is overseen by the Department of Justice and the IG. It is overseen by the Congressional Intelligence Committee. It is required to be evaluated on an annual basis by the Justice Department and by the Bureau for procedures they have to follow.

I can't stress enough that the committee--your committee--your colleagues in Congress are the ones who you should feel most confident after reviewing and providing proper oversight for this program. You see, it is those individuals who reach the clarity that is needed for this body and for the Congress to look at the American people and say: We haven't crossed the line. We have stayed within the legal box that was created.

Don't leave it to me. Let's use the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board or, as we like to refer to it, the

PCLOB. In 2014, following an extensive review, PCLOB specifically noted in that review, to date, there are no known instances in which government personnel deliberately violated the statute, targeting procedures, or minimization procedures.

Let me say that again. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board--which many here created--came out and in their report said: To date, there are no known instances in which government personnel deliberately violated the statute targeting procedures or minimization.

At the same time, in that report, PCLOB made a number of recommendations to the government intended to enhance the safeguards for privacy and civil liberties in section 702. In February 2016, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board reported that all of its recommendations had been implemented, in full or in part, by the government.

Let me say that again. In February 2016, every recommendation that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board made about this program, the PCLOB certified that those had, in full or in part, been adopted by the Federal Government.

If you only go on what you heard over the last half an hour or an hour, you would think this is riddled with questions of constitutionality and that there are massive abuses. The fact is, there have not been any, and the courts have ruled that it is constitutional, it is legal, and it does not infringe on the Fourth Amendment at all.

Let me say to my colleagues, I expected we would be here. We had a heated debate in the committee. The Presiding Officer remembers that well because he is on the committee. We considered a lot of amendments, and at the end of the day, we came out with a bill that is very similar to what we have today. A 12-to-3 vote shows tremendous bipartisan support.

Now, if Senator Warner had written it by himself, it would probably look different. If I had written it by myself, it would probably look different. What we are asked to vote on today is a bill that looks different than what we passed out. It is a little bit stronger from the standpoint of the protection of privacy because it does institute this warrant requirement if, in fact, you want to see the content of any collection out of 702 dealing with a criminal process.

If it is national security, we are doing exactly what I think the American people want us to do. We are using the data we have to find the people who want to commit these acts and stop them before they do. If that is not the intent of this, then this probably shouldn't exist. If anybody believes terrorists have quit, and we are no longer a target, then eliminate this.

I am closer to the line than I ever thought I would be before I got to the U.S. Senate and certainly before I became chairman of the Intelligence Committee, but I do understand responsibilities. Responsibilities make sure those individuals whom we charge with protecting the American people have the tools they need to accomplish it. It is the reason we are debating, on this floor and at the other end of the Capitol, the funding of our military. It is to make sure our military has the tools they need to go out and do the mission they have been asked to do.

Well, from the Bureau to the intelligence community, we have asked them to do everything they can to make sure Americans stay safe, and this has been the most effective tool, with no abuses to date--and that is the determination of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, not a right-leaning institution--and the fact is, the government has lived exactly within the letters of the law that we have described.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. Let's move on to the 30 hours on this bill, if that is what, in fact, everybody demands. We have already extended it temporarily. That is not a sign of confidence to those who work in the trenches and we ask to keep us safe.

Let's do the bold thing. Let's finish this. This is a bicameral, bipartisan, negotiated bill--both sides of the aisle and both ends of the Capitol. It is time we do our business. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for cloture.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 682, I call up the bill (S. 139) to implement the use of Rapid DNA instruments to inform decisions about pretrial release or detention and their conditions, to solve and prevent violent crimes and other crimes, to exonerate the innocent, to prevent DNA analysis backlogs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, S. 139.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 139.

On January 19, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 will expire. This vital legislation includes section 702, which permits the government to target foreign citizens located overseas to obtain foreign intelligence information. Section 702 is one of the most, if not the most, critical national security tool used by our intelligence community to obtain intelligence on foreign terrorists located overseas.

Now, some claim section 702 vacuums bulk information without due regard to the intended target. This assertion is simply false. Section 702 is a targeted program, with roughly 106,000 foreign targets worldwide. Given that the worldwide population is about 7.5 billion, this program can hardly be described as bulk collection.

Section 702 targets spies, terrorists, weapons proliferators, and other foreign adversaries who threaten the United States, and locating them is crucial to protecting our troops and our homeland.

As an example, Hajji Iman, who was the second-in-command of ISIS, was located via section 702 and later removed from the battlefield. While the vast majority of examples remain classified, this is just one instance that demonstrates the necessity of this authority.

Subject to multiple layers of oversight by all three branches of government, section 702 is one of the government's most rigorously overseen foreign intelligence collection authorities. To date, while compliance incidents occur and are dealt with appropriately, there has never been a known, intentional abuse of this authority. Nevertheless, the program should be subject to regular adjustments, as necessary, to ensure the effectiveness of privacy protections.

Therefore, after careful consideration of the best way to strengthen privacy protections without hindering the program's effectiveness, the committee supports S. 139, a bipartisan bill that includes provisions and addresses concerns raised by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate.

The bill's reforms include:

Requiring specific section 702 query procedures, separate from existing minimization procedures, which must be reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court every year;

Limiting the instances in which the government can use section 702 information to prosecute U.S. people;

Requiring the inspector general of the Department of Justice to conduct a review of the FBI's interpretation and implementation of the FBI's section 702 query procedures;

Temporarily codifying the end of the NSA's section 702 upstream ``abouts'' collection until the government develops new procedures and briefs the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees;

And, finally, improving transparency by mandating the publication of section 702 minimization procedures and requiring additional reporting to Congress on how the intelligence community is using other FISA authorities.

Mr. Speaker, during discussions over the past several months, both the House and the Senate have made several concessions to achieve this compromised language in order to reauthorize this critical national security authority. Accordingly, S. 139 now includes a probable cause- based order requirement for the FBI to access the content of a section 702 communication during FBI criminal investigations on Americans, unrelated to national security.

This order requirement does not reflect the committee's belief or intent that law enforcement access to lawfully acquired information constitutes a separate search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by numerous Federal courts, does not require the FBI to obtain a separate order from the FISC to review lawfully acquired 702 information.

Though not required by the Constitution, this compromise is meant to provide additional protections for U.S.

person information that is incidentally collected under section 702. Along with the restrictions on the use of section 702 information in criminal prosecutions, this should provide further assurances to the American public that this vital national security tool is used strictly to discover and mitigate foreign threats to the United States, and the handling and use of any incidental U.S. person information is carefully controlled and monitored.

Mr. Speaker, America faces an array of international threats more complicated than anything we have endured in the past.

Speaking for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I cannot emphasize enough that now is not the time to draw back on key national security authorities.

I am dismayed by the amount of disinformation being propagated by those who oppose section 702 for purely ideological reasons. When Congress must reauthorize this program again in 2023, we hope those who debate these issues, both inside and outside this Chamber, do so with intellectual honesty and integrity.

The USA RIGHTS Act, which has been offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, is an attempt to kill this compromise. In its place, the amendment would begin resurrecting the information-sharing walls between national security and law enforcement that the 9/11 Commission identified as a major factor in the failure to identify and thwart the 9/11 plot.

If individuals in this body cannot learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it. There is no support for this bill in the majority of the committees of jurisdiction whose members understand that this amendment would render section 702 inoperable.

Therefore, in order to keep the U.S. interests and troops abroad safe from harm, we must ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to provide intelligence to our soldiers abroad. Section 702 is critical in that regard, and S. 139 provides the intelligence community with the authorities needed to protect the homeland while implementing key privacy enhancements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of S. 139, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues believe that Congress should go above and beyond what is required by the Fourth Amendment and institute additional safeguards on how the government handles any potential U.S. personal information that may be incidentally collected under section 702. While the varying committees may have different ideas as to how to strike the right balance between additional privacy measures and national security, the art of the compromise brings us to the current junction.

Under S. 139, if the bill conducts a U.S.-person query into its database during a criminal investigation not related to national security and conducts a section 702 communication, the FBI must obtain an order from the FISA court prior to assessing the content of the communication.

The committee does not believe that such an order is necessary under the Fourth Amendment, but it is adding more protections, as a matter of policy, in order to address unfounded concerns by opponents of section 702 that the authority is being used to investigate U.S. people.

Proponents of the USA RIGHTS Act amendment will say that S. 139 does not go far enough in its current form and that they have crafted a great compromise that allows the intelligence community to do its job.

Unfortunately, they are selling a poison pill that is extraordinarily harmful to our national security. Per the office of the Director of National Intelligence, under the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, the FBI would not be able to look at lawfully collected data related to suspicious activities similar to that of the 9/11 hijackers. This is unethical to the 9/11 Commission Report, and anyone who thinks about voting for the USA RIGHTS Act amendment should pick up a copy and skim it prior to voting.

Unlike the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, S. 139 is able to balance national security and privacy while adhering to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission reporting. I echo the White House statement last night strongly opposing the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support S. 139.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to emphasize how dismayed I am by the amount of disinformation being propagated by opponents of section 702. I have heard some things over the last couple of days, and I just wonder, how in the world can someone believe that.

Let me tell you why this amendment must be opposed. Under the USA RIGHTS Act, the intelligence community would not be able to query the name of the suspected terrorist supporter in the United States to see if he is in contact with terrorist recruiters. It would not be able to query the name of a person in the United States who has been suspiciously approaching U.S. Government employees with security clearances to determine if that person is part of a foreign espionage network.

We would not be able to query the name of a registered owner of a suspicious vehicle parked in front of the Washington Monument to see if that person is in contact with terrorist operatives overseas. We would not be able to query the name of a person in the aftermath of a mass casualty attack on the United States to see if he has terrorist connections, or as a follow on, if potential follow-on attacks are imminent.

We would not be able to query the name of a foreign national who travels to the United States to take flight training but doesn't care about learning how to land.

Individuals in this room who want to end section 702 know that they have an opportunity to do with their vote, but they would be putting troops and American lives at risk. And if that is okay with you, then go ahead and vote for the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, but I promise you, you will regret it when, some day, in this dangerous world we live in, we have to answer to our constituents for our votes here today.

Mr. President, I have been consistently voting against cloture motions to proceed to debate on judicial nominations, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain why. The Senate has a constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees, and I take this obligation very seriously.

The American people depend on the Senate to fully consider and vet each judicial nominee because throughout the course of their lifetime appointment, judges will issue rulings and opinions that touch each of our lives. The process of nominating, considering, and confirming judges should be a deliberate one. Its purpose should not be to confirm as many judges as quickly as possible. Senators should be able to provide input on who should sit on the Federal bench; Senators should have an adequate opportunity to hear from third-party experts about the records and qualifications of each nominee; and Senators should have enough time to question and examine a nominee during a confirmation hearing.

Insisting on a deliberate and comprehensive process is not, as some of my Republican colleagues might argue, an effort to deny the President his prerogative to nominate judges to lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. Instead, this process is essential in determining whether each nominee is qualified for the job and can separate their personal ideology from the decisions he or she renders. For a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, this shouldn't be too much to ask.

Over the past year, we have observed a number of concerning issues in the nomination and confirmation process for Federal judges that need to be corrected. The President has essentially outsourced the judicial selection process to two organizations with strong, ideologically driven agendas--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

The Federalist Society, for example, describes itself as ``a group of libertarians and conservatives dedicated to reforming the legal order.'' This is a group that has supported legal efforts to undermine environmental protection, erode the constitutional right to choose, and blur the lines between church and State.

The Heritage Foundation describes its mission as one to ``promote conservative public policies.'' Over the past few years alone, this organization, this group, has fought to undermine the Affordable Care Act, oppose LGBTQ rights, and erode the ability of Federal agencies to issue lifesaving regulations. It is not unreasonable to assume that these organizations, through their close association with the White House, expect their ideologically driven agendas to be reflected in the nominees they recommend.

While I concur with Justice Rehnquist's assertion that no judge joins a court tabula rasa, or as a blank slate, we should have a baseline expectation that lifetime appointees should be able to render justice free from their own personal ideologies. At the same time as the Trump administration relies more heavily on the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation to select its judicial nominees, it is devaluing the work done by the American Bar Association. The ABA has reviewed and vetted judicial nominees in a nonpartisan manner for over 60 years. With the exception of George W. Bush and now Donald Trump, Presidents in both parties have consulted with the ABA prior to officially nominating to the bench.

President Obama, for example, provided a great demonstration for how this process should work. Working closely with the ABA, President Obama routinely submitted potential candidates for scrutiny prior to their formal nomination. After conducting their independent, nonpartisan reviews, the ABA issued ``not qualified'' ratings for 14 candidates who had been proposed by President Obama. President Obama followed the ABA's recommendation and did not formally nominate any candidates rated ``not qualified.''

Under President Trump, on the other hand, we no longer wait for the ABA to complete its assessment of nominees prior to a nomination hearing itself, much less before the nomination. We no longer have an opportunity to review the ABA's report and, in many cases, do not have the chance to question an ABA representative at a nomination hearing about its review of the nominee.

We have seen the serious consequences of this change in practice in two high-profile nominations this year.

Despite having never tried a case, President Trump nominated Brett Talley to serve the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Mr. Talley was nominated, given a hearing, and listed for a Judiciary Committee vote before the ABA could even finish its evaluation. Given his complete lack of qualifications for the job, it wasn't

surprising that the ABA unanimously rated him ``not qualified.'' Because he was rushed through the nomination process, we only learned later that Mr. Talley failed to disclose that his wife works in the White House Counsel's office. After two Republicans on the committee-- Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy--expressed their opposition to Mr. Talley, he, fortunately, withdrew from consideration.

We were not so lucky with Steven Grasz, who was recently confirmed to the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Grasz was nominated and scheduled for a Judiciary Committee hearing before the ABA could complete its review. By the time the ABA finished its exhaustive evaluation, during which it found him to be not qualified, Mr. Grasz was scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee in less than 48 hours. This was not nearly enough time to adequately address and assess the ABA's conclusion that Mr. Grasz would not be able to serve as a judge without the undue influence of his personal beliefs.

Courts are supposed to protect the rights of minorities, and it is troubling to reflect on the ABA's conclusion that Mr. Grasz would be unable to divorce his positions on issues like reproductive and LGBTQ rights from the cases he will hear on the Eighth Circuit. Circuit court judges are only one step away from the U.S. Supreme Court and deserve to be scrutinized closely in the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, last year, the Judiciary Committee overrode the objections of the minority to hold four nomination hearings with more than one circuit judge nominee considered simultaneously.

To put this in some historical context, the Judiciary Committee held four such hearings in the entire 8 years Barack Obama was President, and it held each of these hearings with the consent of the Republican minority on the committee. During hearings on circuit and district court nominees, each committee member generally has only 5 minutes to question nominees--many of whom are highly controversial and deserve maximum scrutiny. Five minutes, which includes the time the nominee takes to respond, is not nearly enough time to engage in meaningful dialogue about a nominee's judicial philosophy or to examine controversial cases a nominee may have decided in the past.

The American people deserve much more as we consider lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. I am also concerned about the erosion of the blue-slip process, which has traditionally been a collaborative mechanism to enable Senators to confer with the White House on nominees from their States. Although there have been exceptions over the years, Presidents and Senate majorities of both parties have both respected the blue-slip process.

In 2009, the Democrats controlled the White House and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Every Senate Republican signed a letter to President Obama urging him to respect the blue-slip process. I would like to read a passage from that letter for emphasis.

Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a

nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be

unable to support moving forward on that nominee.

Despite press reports that the Chairman of the Judiciary

Committee now may be considering changing the Committee's

practice of observing senatorial courtesy, we, as a

Conference, expect it to be observed even-handedly and

regardless of party affiliation. And we will act to preserve

this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.

Because of the profound impact that life-tenured federal

judges can have in our society, the founders made their

appointment a shared constitutional responsibility.

This is the Republican conference asking the Democratic majority, the Democratic President, and the chair of the Judiciary Committee to observe the blue-slip process.

President Obama, and the Democratic majority at that time, upheld the blue-slip process without exception. Last year, the Judiciary Committee held a nomination hearing for David Stras to serve on the Eighth Circuit despite his not receiving two positive blue-slips from his home State Senators. This is the first time since the early years of the George W. Bush administration that the Judiciary Committee has held a hearing for a nominee when a home State Senator has not returned a blue slip. If the Senate proceeds to vote on and confirm Mr. Stras, it will be the first time since 1989 and only the third time in the last 100 years that a judicial nominee will be confirmed without having two positive blue slips.

I, certainly, take the chairman at his word that this was a onetime exception to the blue-slip process, but I will hold him and the President to the same standard they demanded from President Obama in 2009.

I will continue to rigorously defend the Senate's constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on lifetime appointees to the Federal bench. Until we return to a normal process through which we can provide this kind of advice and consent, I will continue to oppose invoking cloture on any judicial nominee, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this position.

I yield the floor.