Floor Statements

Madam President, as we all know, in this country, in 2016, the Russian Government weighed a covert, multifaceted criminal campaign to interfere in our elections. We now know it was intended to help then-Candidate Donald Trump win the Presidency. We don't know the full impact of Russia's interference, but it is beyond debate that it happened.

Russia, as we now found out, used inflammatory propaganda--it actually was fake news--attempting to suppress Democratic turnout and boost support for Donald Trump. They also stole communications belonging to the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which were then strategically released to maximize their impact. They were released at times when they could counter negative news stories about Donald Trump.

Just last week, 12 Russian intelligence officers were charged with hacking campaign officials' emails and State election boards. In just over a year--in what may rank as the most productive special counsel investigation in our Nation's history--32 people and 3 companies have been charged or pled guilty as part of the Russian investigation. We likely will not know the full extent of Russia's interference until the special counsel's investigation is complete.

But what is clear--and this is what should concern Republicans and Democrats alike--is that our democracy, our great country, was attacked by a foreign adversary. And two days ago, on an international stage, standing shoulder to shoulder with Vladimir Putin, our President sided with that attacker.

Instead of forcefully condemning Russia's attack on our democracy, its role in annexing Crimea, poisoning individuals with chemical weapons on the soil of one of our closest allies, Russia's downing of a passenger airline with nearly 300 innocent civilians onboard, or undermining democracies around the world, our President offered only praise for the authoritarian President Putin. He then repeated his conspiracy theories about the FBI and called the Russia investigation a ``witch-hunt''--denigrating our law enforcement institutions, while standing beside the foe they work so hard to protect all Americans from--Republicans and Democrats alike.

In my 44 years as a Senator, I have never seen anything like it. I can think of no Republican President and no Democratic President who would ever do this. I never thought it would be possible in our country before President Trump took office.

Yesterday, the President attempted to walk back his decision to side with Russia over our own intelligence agencies. He attempted to do it because of the criticism he got from both Republicans and Democrats, but as many of my colleagues told me would happen, President Trump walked back his walk back. He reiterated that the interference ``could have been other people. There are a lot of people out there.''

This morning on Twitter--where apparently he does his deepest thinking--he claimed that people at the higher ends of intelligence loved his press conference in Helsinki. I do not think anyone here doubts that the President meant what he said and said what he meant in Helsinki. And, after their two-hour private meeting in Helsinki, I do not think President Putin has any doubt either.

We have to know that Russia shares neither our values nor our interests. Russia is not our friend. Of course, we want to see improved relations with Russia on Syria, on nuclear proliferation, and on many critical issues, but for that to happen, Russia needs to respect our democracy and values. We must not slouch down to theirs.

The United States is the leader of the free world. The free world is under threat, as it has so often been. But these threats are not supposed to come from within.

Just moments ago, when asked if Russia is still targeting the United States, the President inexplicably said ``no.''

That is not the truth.

Russia is still targeting the United States. This is despite his Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, confirming just last week that Russia is, indeed, still targeting our digital infrastructure and interfering in our democracy. Director Coats compared it to the

warning signs that emerged prior to the 9/11 attacks, but the President denies it is happening.

I know Director Coats. I served with him when he was a Republican Senator in this body. I know he would not say this if it were not so. Notwithstanding the President's saying that Russia is not targeting us, his own Director of National Intelligence says they are. We can't trust this President's judgment when it comes to Russia.

Remember, the President takes an oath to protect and defend our Nation. When it comes to Russia, it appears he does not intend to abide by his oath to defend and protect our Nation. This Congress is going to be derelict in its duty if it takes no action.

All of us have to speak with a single voice in this moment-- Republicans and Democrats alike. We should all condemn the President's actions, which were as dangerous as they were shameful.

These condemnations are important, but words are not enough. Remember, Congress is a coequal branch of government. Remember that the Senate is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. Let's act like it.

The President, obviously, can't be trusted to keep his hands off of the Russia investigation. By denigrating it at every opportunity and by dismissing its lead investigator last year, he has repeatedly failed the test.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed legislation with a strong bipartisan vote. Republicans and Democrats alike voted to protect the special counsel's investigation. That legislation is before the Senate. Let's enact it into law. Let's take what Republicans and Democrats together said in the Judiciary Committee--that we will protect the special counsel's investigation. Let's vote up or down. Let's do it and enact it into law.

It is often said that the only thing President Putin responds to is strength. Let's show him that here in the Congress, we stand united in opposition to his ongoing attempts to attack our democracy. Believe me, they are ongoing right at this moment. Let's pass stronger sanctions targeting him and the oligarchs who enable him, who continue to help him because they become billionaires by doing it. Let's pass a resolution making it clear that if President Trump chooses to stand with President Putin, then he stands alone. The European Union is not our foe. And President Putin is not our friend. Our allies around the world, especially those that have stood with us since World War II, are looking at us at this moment. They are questioning whether the United States will be a reliable partner in the face of creeping authoritarianism, both at home and abroad. Let's show them where we stand.

This is not about politics. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is about who we are as a country and what we stand for as Americans--whether we stand for democracy; whether we stand for freedom, including the freedom of the press; whether we stand for the rule of law; whether we stand for truth; and whether we stand for America. As a Vermonter and a Senator, I know where I stand. It is time we stand together.

Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to draw the Senate's attention to the plight of civil society leaders in Niger, where political and civil rights have been deteriorating over the last several years. This disturbing trend threatens the U.S.-Niger partnership and should concern each of us.

Mahamadou Issoufou was elected President of Niger in 2011 and, in the following years, worked cooperatively with Niger's international partners, including the United States, to make progress toward the restoration of democratic governance in that country. Our countries have partnered together on health, development, and humanitarian assistance programs, and as we all know, we have suffered tragic losses together in the fight against terrorism.

Progress toward democratic governance has been significantly eroded. Since the run up to President Issoufou's reelection in 2016, the government has increasingly persecuted opposition politicians, journalists, peaceful protesters, and civil society leaders in a manner that has undermined progress and stability in the country.

This trend has not gone unnoticed. The State Department noted in its most recent Human Rights Report that Niger's significant human rights issues include harsh and life-threatening prison and detention center conditions, detention of opposition politicians, and restrictions on freedom of assembly. In November 2017, Niger withdrew from the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative after being suspended for failing to meet good governance standards, including for its repression of civil society.

An example of this disturbing trend involves the arrest of several dozen civil society leaders between March and April of this year, in connection with demonstrations against the country's new finance law. Many of these individuals, like Ali Idrissa, the coordinator for the Network of Organizations for Budgetary Transparency and Analysis, are affiliated with Publish What You Pay and are advocates for transparency and accountability of Niger's revenues in order to combat corruption. That effort should be a shared goal in Niger. Peaceful public assembly and calls for accountability should not result in imprisonment.

I urge the Trump administration, other donor governments, including the EU, and the international financial institutions to hold the government of Niger accountable for respecting its citizens' right to freedom of expression and assembly and to join me in calling on President Issoufou to release the detainees and to dismiss the charges against these individuals. This is now a matter of urgency, as four civil society leaders reportedly face jail sentences at a judgment hearing on July 24.

Doing so would be a positive step by the government of Niger toward proving that it is serious about upholding the values that underscore our partnership, including to maintain its eligibility under the recently initiated Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact. That Compact is now subject to heightened scrutiny by the Appropriations Committee, which provides the funding for it.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering one of the most troubling executive branch nominations that this President has made to date--the nomination of Brian Benczkowski to lead the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.

For years, I have studied and have been aware of the Criminal Division. This is an amazing nomination. I think it is enough to oppose Mr. Benczkowski's nomination because he is objectively unqualified for this important position, but there are also compelling reasons to believe that it would be uniquely reckless to confirm him to this position.

Now, speaking about Mr. Benczkowski's lack of qualifications for this role is not meant to denigrate. Many of us know him, as I did, from his service in the Judiciary Committee as the staff director for the then Ranking Member Jeff Sessions. The fact is, this nominee to head the Criminal Division has virtually no criminal law experience. Even at this age, he has never tried a case. He has never served as a prosecutor. He has almost zero courtroom experience. Instead, his experience has been to serve as a political aide to various officials.

As a former prosecutor, I know there is no substitute for actual courtroom experience, actually going into a courtroom and trying a criminal case, arguing criminal cases on appeal, determining whether you bring a charge or don't bring a charge. These are things an experienced prosecutor has to do. For the last several decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, every head of a criminal division--which is probably the most important litigating arm of the Justice Department--has had substantial prosecutorial experience, with the exception of one individual whose nomination I simply could not support. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. I voted for nominees in Republican administrations and in Democratic administrations because they were qualified, and there are countless qualified prosecutors the President could select.

For this reason alone, the Senate should not consent to Mr. Benczkowski's nomination. But there are two other reasons, aside from the fact that he has absolutely zero qualifications for this important position. It is sort of like sending somebody in to do brain surgery when their main experience has been clipping hedges. You have to have some experience in there, but aside from the fact that he has no experience, there are two other reasons he shouldn't be confirmed.

First, he has demonstrated, at a minimum, exceptionally poor judgment when it comes to perhaps our Nation's most critical ongoing national security investigation--the Russian Government's attack on our democracy. We all know, if we have read the intelligence reports, Russia attacked the U.S. democracy and vote in the last election.

After serving on Mr. Trump's transition team, Mr. Benczkowski represented a Putin-connected Russian bank, Alfa-Bank, regarding its bizarre server communications with the Trump organization during the height of the Presidential campaign. Alfa-Bank was at the very center of scrutiny into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, even making an appearance in the Steele dossier. Yet Mr. Benczkowski took on Alfa-Bank as a client on an issue related to the Russia investigation at the same time he was being considered for a senior position in the Trump Justice Department, totally blinded to the obvious conflict of interest. In fact, he continued to represent Vladimir Putin's connected bank until the day he was formally nominated to lead the criminal division.

Now, some have said we should give Mr. Benczkowski the benefit of the doubt. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, you have to admit, at least demonstrates an embarrassingly poor sense of judgment for someone who is nominated to lead the Criminal Division to look into the criminal activities of places like Alfa-Bank. Now, we find Mr. Benczkowski has refused to recuse himself from matters related to the Russia investigation or the Steele dossier.

You can't make these things up. It is just conflict of interest 101. As Senator Durbin and Senator Whitehouse have warned, as head of the Criminal Division, Mr. Benczkowski would therefore have visibility and be able to look into investigations of individuals related to the Trump campaign. He could serve as a conduit of information to the Attorney General about these sensitive matters.

According to the Department of Justice, it is possible Special Counsel Mueller's office ``will seek approvals from the Criminal Division as required . . . or may simply want to consult with subject- matter experts in the Criminal Division as appropriate in the normal course of department investigations,'' and who would have availability to that? Mr. Benczkowski. He could even be in a position to share secret grand jury information directly with the President.

What is also concerning is that if Mr. Benczkowski were to be confirmed and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein were then to be removed, the President, under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, could simply install Mr. Benczkowski as the Acting Attorney General, with respect to the Russia investigation.

So what do we have? We have Mr. Benczkowski, under those circumstances, gaining direct control over the special counsel's investigation. He would even have the power to stop the special counsel's probe. Gosh, we wonder, could that ever occur to someone at the White House; that he could suddenly stop Mr. Mueller from his investigations?

On qualifications, the man who is going to be head of the Criminal Division has never tried a case, never handled any criminal matter, never had anything to do with criminal matters. He is really unqualified for this role by any objective measure. The only apparent qualification that Mr. Benczkowski has is his close relationship with, and political loyalty to, the Attorney General and the President. In fact, that is likely the very reason he was nominated to this critical position. That is all the more troubling given his terrible judgment with respect to the Russia investigation. We are putting someone in who has been involved as an attorney for a bank involved in this Russia investigation.

Many of my fellow Republican Senators, to their credit, have stated their commitment to ensuring that Special Counsel Mueller be allowed to carry out his investigation independently and without political interference. I hope they keep this commitment in mind when considering Mr. Benczkowski's nomination. I hope they join me in voting no. Apparently, his only qualification is he is going to be put in a position where he could stymie Mueller's investigation of Russia.

I have voted for a lot of nominees, both Republicans and Democrats, in this position because of their qualifications--not because of their ideology but their qualifications. No President of either party has ever nominated somebody for this critical position who is less qualified. In fact, it is pretty hard to find anybody in this country less qualified.

Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield to them.

Mr. President, I have been a member of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee since I was first elected to the Senate. The work that committee has done throughout my tenure in the Senate has proven that a bipartisan, reasonable process is not only possible but is preferable to the rancor and rhetoric that so often curtails the important work before the Senate.

The 2018 farm bill process once again demonstrates this distinctive quality of the Agriculture Committee, which has produced a vital legislative product that will improve our Nation's agricultural, food, and environmental systems. As a former chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I know just how much work it takes to draft and advance a bill of this size, breadth, and influence, and I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for working together to get this done.

This bill stands in stark contrast to the version passed by the House of Representatives just last week, in which an ugly partisan process resulted in legislation full of environmental riders and harmful policy constraints that would devastate the millions of families that depend on our nutrition programs for basic nutrition. I urge all Senators to recognize that the bipartisan product reported nearly unanimously by the committee is a strong bill that provides leadership on food, agriculture, nutrition, natural resources, and rural development issues. The policies it advances are based on the best available science and will provide for effective management.

This bill is so much more than just a ``farm bill'' or even a ``food bill.'' This is a bill that addresses a wide swath of American life and helps to set priorities for the policies that affect every single one of us. It is our chance to show farmers, foresters, families, rural communities, and every American consumer that we hear their concerns and can help everyone live a healthier, fuller life. Vermont farmers and families expect that the programs and guidance within the farm bill will help our struggling farms, large and small, to stay productive, ensure that children are well nourished, and protect our environment. This is a bill for every America and a bill for future generations.

I have heard countless heartbreaking stories from Vermont dairy farmers who are struggling to stay afloat right now amid perilously low milk prices. In addition to dairy, I know that agriculture across the country is facing increasing difficulties when it comes to competition, trade, dropping prices, and dramatic weather challenges that have farmers everywhere on edge. I am proud that this bill will continue to address these. I particularly want to thank the chair and ranking member for the inclusion of the improved Dairy Risk Coverage Program that builds on the important margin protection improvements I was able to secure in February for our struggling dairy farmers. The bill also provides important support for the rapidly growing organic industry and local food systems and the opportunity for farmers to diversify their crops by growing and selling hemp products.

We continue the proud tradition of providing nutritional assistance to our fellow Americans with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and this bill continues our commitment to worldwide stability and productivity with programs like McGovern-Dole, Food for Peace, the Global Crop Diversity Trust, as well as valuable research to support farmers here at home and around the world. We know that, when families and children do not have to wonder where their next meal may come from, children do better in school, workers are more productive, and our Nation is stronger. The same is true when we support international efforts that combat poverty and provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance, we alleviate poverty and build stronger U.S. partners.

Our Nation's conservation tradition is reinforced in this bill, with significant funding and necessary improvements to programs that allow farmers and forestland owners to make environmentally friendly improvements to their land and take care of the natural areas that make our lands and our countryside so vital, productive, and unique. Wildlife, biodiverse ecosystems, and the air, land, and water we rely on will be cleaner and healthier because of this bill. Through the support of the committee's chair and ranking member, the bill does not include problematic changes that would have weakened pesticide and forestry laws.

This farm bill provides critical economic development support to address the unique challenges and needs faced by our rural communities. I am proud of the steps this bill makes possible to improve the lives of rural citizens everywhere by investing in rural community infrastructure and facilities, including a new priority for treatment centers for substance abuse disorders, while providing and expanding much-needed technical assistance and access to affordable capital for small and growing rural businesses that serve as economic engines in our rural towns.

This bill is a good bill, a strong bill, and it is a breath of bipartisan fresh air. Coming on the heels of our recent passage of the first package of Senate appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019 earlier this week, we are again proving that the Senate can move important and complicated legislation with bipartisan support when we take the time to work with each other and we commit to keeping these bills free of controversial items.

This bill serves as an example of why we are all here: to help those who need it, to make sure our Nation is secure, and to protect our natural resources for generations to come. I will work with the chairman and ranking member to ensure that this bill passes and that we are able to send a strong and balanced bill to the President that we can all stand behind.

Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Murray in introducing the Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2018. This legislation, if enacted, will establish critical privacy protections for Americans by limiting the unjustifiably wide ``border zone'' within which Department of Homeland Security officers may-- without a warrant--stop vehicles and search private land for the purpose of patrolling the border.

The current 100 mile ``border zone'' was established through regulatory fiat. While the Fourth Amendment allows limited exceptions to the warrant requirement at or close to the border, this 100 mile zone is neither limited nor reasonable. It includes marine borders. At present, it encompasses almost two-thirds of the population of the United States. This includes major cities such as New York, Seattle, Chicago, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, even the ``border town'' of Richmond, Virginia, as well as entire states such as Maine, Delaware, and Florida.

The need for this legislation has never been clearer. The Trump administration's aggressive yet wasteful use of immigration enforcement resources has subjected law-abiding citizens to needless and intrusive searches at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoints far from the border. Not only do these searches produce minimal value to border enforcement, they violate the constitutionally protected privacy of citizens and residents of border regions, including in my home State of Vermont. Recently, CBP agents in Vermont have boarded Greyhound buses in Burlington without a warrant and inquired about the citizenship of passengers. They have targeted international college students for questioning about their legal status. In the nearby States of Maine and New Hampshire, they have shut down interstate highways with immigration checkpoints. In Montana, a CBP agent even stopped an American citizen simply for speaking Spanish.

This should not be a partisan issue. This is about ensuring that every person in this Nation receives the constitutional protections to which they are entitled. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute have sharply criticized these practices as problematic under the Fourth Amendment. Vermonters have rightly been concerned about these expanded border zone searches. They believe, as I do, that once inside our country the phrase `show me your papers' does not belong inside the United States of America.

The Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act is based on an amendment that Senator Murray and I successfully attached to immigration reform legislation in 2013 during the Obama Administration. The 100 mile ``border zone''--and the similar 25 mile zone where many types of warrantless property searches are permitted--predates this current administration, but the actions of this administration have shown just how much we need legislation like this today.

The Fourth Amendment does not stop 100 miles from our land and sea borders. Its protections extend whether in the heart of Kansas or in the middle of Vermont. Ensuring that the protections of the Fourth Amendment are available to everyone within the United States should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope all Senators will support this commonsense measure to ensure the Fourth Amendment is upheld.

Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Murray in introducing the Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2018. This legislation, if enacted, will establish critical privacy protections for Americans by limiting the unjustifiably wide ``border zone'' within which Department of Homeland Security officers may-- without a warrant--stop vehicles and search private land for the purpose of patrolling the border.

The current 100 mile ``border zone'' was established through regulatory fiat. While the Fourth Amendment allows limited exceptions to the warrant requirement at or close to the border, this 100 mile zone is neither limited nor reasonable. It includes marine borders. At present, it encompasses almost two-thirds of the population of the United States. This includes major cities such as New York, Seattle, Chicago, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, even the ``border town'' of Richmond, Virginia, as well as entire states such as Maine, Delaware, and Florida.

The need for this legislation has never been clearer. The Trump administration's aggressive yet wasteful use of immigration enforcement resources has subjected law-abiding citizens to needless and intrusive searches at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoints far from the border. Not only do these searches produce minimal value to border enforcement, they violate the constitutionally protected privacy of citizens and residents of border regions, including in my home State of Vermont. Recently, CBP agents in Vermont have boarded Greyhound buses in Burlington without a warrant and inquired about the citizenship of passengers. They have targeted international college students for questioning about their legal status. In the nearby States of Maine and New Hampshire, they have shut down interstate highways with immigration checkpoints. In Montana, a CBP agent even stopped an American citizen simply for speaking Spanish.

This should not be a partisan issue. This is about ensuring that every person in this Nation receives the constitutional protections to which they are entitled. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute have sharply criticized these practices as problematic under the Fourth Amendment. Vermonters have rightly been concerned about these expanded border zone searches. They believe, as I do, that once inside our country the phrase `show me your papers' does not belong inside the United States of America.

The Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act is based on an amendment that Senator Murray and I successfully attached to immigration reform legislation in 2013 during the Obama Administration. The 100 mile ``border zone''--and the similar 25 mile zone where many types of warrantless property searches are permitted--predates this current administration, but the actions of this administration have shown just how much we need legislation like this today.

The Fourth Amendment does not stop 100 miles from our land and sea borders. Its protections extend whether in the heart of Kansas or in the middle of Vermont. Ensuring that the protections of the Fourth Amendment are available to everyone within the United States should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope all Senators will support this commonsense measure to ensure the Fourth Amendment is upheld.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Hawaii. I have enjoyed working with both of them because look where we are. This is somewhere we have not been for a number of years. It is where we used to be--certainly for the first few decades I was here. It is where we were when Senator Alexander or my hero, Senator Baker, were here.

What we are doing is voting on final passage of the first package of Senate appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019. The minibus before us contains a string of appropriations bills: the Energy and Water appropriations bill, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, and the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We will have these votes in a matter of half an hour, and they will only take a few minutes, but there are hours and hours and days and weeks that went into this by both Republicans and Democrats.

Chairman Shelby and I worked very closely with Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer. Both Senator Shelby as chairman and I as vice chairman committed to getting the appropriations process back on track. We both have been here when the Senate has been in a better place because the appropriations process worked. Our strategy has been to advance appropriations bills that have bipartisan support, comply with the budget deal and are free of poison pill riders or controversial authorizing legislation. What we have before us is the first test of that strategy. I think both Republicans and Democrats should be pretty pleased with the result.

We had a good debate on this package of bills, including the last eight rollcall votes. We adopted a managers' package that contained 32 amendments on which we have reached agreement. This minibus is the result of hard work and compromise on the part of the chair and ranking member of each subcommittee, and I urge Senators to vote aye on final passage.

Importantly, during the debate on this package of bills, as just mentioned, the Senate voted to table a controversial amendment offered by Senator Lee to overturn the 2015 clean water rule related to waters of the United States. This rule was designed to prevent pollutants from spreading through tributaries into our Nation's drinking water supply. I felt that the amendment not only would have driven a stake through the heart of the clean water rule, it would have done so without having to abide by the Administrative Procedure Act, it would have effectively eliminated the American public from any participation in the process, and it would have sidestepped and allowed arbitrary and capricious standards, which we cannot have, if we had repealed the rule.

I opposed this amendment not only because I believe that repealing the clean water rule would be shortsighted, and that doing it in this manner would set a terrible precedent for the next bedrock environmental regulation, but also because this is precisely the type of poison pill policy rider both Republicans and Democrats have worked so hard to avoid.

The adoption of the Lee amendment would have endangered our ability to complete our work on the minibus. We tabled the amendment, and we had votes from both sides of the aisle, including from Senators who agreed with the substance of the Lee amendment, but they recognized this reality as well--that adopting it would stop the whole bill. That is how the process should work. By focusing on funding matters, by avoiding controversial policy riders, we have ended the Senate debate with a bipartisan product that both Democrats and Republicans can support.

I went on at some length on this because I am concerned that the House is pursuing a different path. They are taking up partisan bills and filling them with poison pill riders that cannot and will not pass the U.S. Senate, and they know that, including a rider similar to the defeated Lee amendment. Democrats proceeded to this package of bills in good faith, and we will go into conference negotiations with that same approach, but if our progress is to continue, we cannot sign conference reports on bills that can't pass the Senate. They must be bills that can pass the Senate, bills that both Republicans and Democrats can vote for, and that means they have to be free of poison pills from the right or the left.

This minibus provides significant resources for the support and care of our Nation's veterans and their family

members, and it makes critical investments in our country's water infrastructure and energy programs. It should not be used as a vehicle to advance a partisan political agenda.

Before concluding my remarks, there is one issue we were not able to address in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill that must be addressed in conference. The bill still does not provide enough money to cover the costs associated with the VA Choice Program, which was transferred to the discretionary side of the budget under the MISSION Act. The MISSION Act only provided funding for this program through May of 2019, leaving the balance unaddressed. To cover the shortfall, we are going to need an estimated $1.6 billion more in fiscal year 2019 and an additional $8.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 and $9.5 billion in fiscal year 2021 to cover the Veterans Affairs Choice Program. These costs were not accounted for when we negotiated the budget caps in the bipartisan budget deal, so the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee were unable to address the shortfall within their allocation without cutting funding for other important programs.

Senator Shelby and I filed an amendment--the Complete the MISSION amendment--which would have provided the flexibility needed to make sure we fulfill this commitment to our veterans without triggering sequestration or without having to cut other valuable veterans programs.

I would note that on June 19, we received a letter from 33 veterans service organizations representing millions of veterans, servicemembers, and their families in support of the amendment Chairman Shelby and I filed. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement to get a vote on our amendment or have it included in the managers' package, but Chairman Shelby and I remain committed to solving this problem in conference. If we don't do so, we will jeopardize the healthcare and well-being of the men and women who have faithfully served our country, who relied on the promises made by our country when they served our country, and I am not willing to accept going back on our country's promise.

I thank Chairman Shelby, and I thank the Republican chairs and the Democratic ranking members of each subcommittee for their hard work. As the longest serving Member of this body, I think we provided a roadmap to consider the rest of the appropriations bills, going back to doing it the way we have done it under both Republican and Democratic leadership and where the country is better off.

I also want to thank Shannon H. Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, David Adkins, Tyler Owens, Jen Armstrong, Adam DeMella, Meyer Seligman, Rachel Littleton, Molly Marsh, Sarah Boliek, Lucas Agnew, Patrick Magnuson, Jennifer Bastin, Joanne Hoff, and Carlos Elias of the majority staff and Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Doug Clapp, Chris Hanson, Samantha Nelson, Melissa Zimmerman, Jean Kwon, Chad Schulken, Jason McMahon, Jessica Berry, and Jordan Stone on the minority staff for their work on these bills.

Madam President, I do not see anybody seeking recognition.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time equally divided.

Mr. President, it is with a mixture of pride and sadness that I recognize the life of a friend, Francis ``Fran'' Voigt, the cofounder of the New England Culinary Institute of Montpelier, VT. Fran passed away in May, leaving a strong legacy and many family and friends.

Fran Voigt was an innovator, who originally came to Vermont to teach at Goddard College. In 1969, he came to Vermont with his wife, poet Ellen Bryant Voigt, who would later serve as Vermont's poet laureate. He was part of a faculty and staff at Goddard that changed the culture of central Vermont. While at Goddard, Fran developed programs in many fields, including social ecology and art therapy. Fran believed in hands-on education, both at Goddard and later at the New England Culinary Institute, known locally as NECI, which he cofounded in 1980.

The New England Culinary Institute, which began in the basement of Montpelier's Capitol Plaza Hotel and Conference Center, grew quickly and garnered national attention. Fran and NECI were soon at the forefront of our

country's progressive culinary education movement and were recognized by President Bill Clinton as first runner-up for the Nation's small business of the year in 1994. In 2000, Fran was named Vermont Citizen of the Year by the Vermont Chamber of Commerce.

Vermont's culinary landscape was forever changed by the New England Culinary Institute, as its students opened and worked at restaurants throughout the State.

In memory of Fran Voigt, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Stephen Mills in the May 22 edition of the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, ``NECI founder revered for student model,'' be printed in the Record.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. President, I was simply going to add to what the Senator from Tennessee was saying.

Senator Shelby and I have tried to keep things that are inappropriate out of the appropriations bill so that we may actually pass some appropriations bills. So I will join the Senator from Tennessee.

Madam President, I have been in the Senate long enough to think that maybe the Senate can start to go back to being the Senate. A Senate that votes on things and debates things and reflects the will of the people--not what is dictated from the White House. Perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part, because in just the latest example of the ``cut first and ask questions later'' policies of the Trump administration, we are now going to vote on a bill that will claw back billions of dollars from children's health insurance, affordable housing investments, infrastructure, rural development, and innovative energy programs. This is the same White House that just forced through Congress a $1.9 trillion--not billion, but trillion--tax giveaway, most of which goes to billionaires and corporations. Then, they say we have to cut children's health insurance because we have to reduce the deficit. We can give billionaires and corporations $1.9 trillion, but this might increase the deficit. So we have to cut children's health insurance, affordable housing investments, infrastructure, rural development, and innovative energy programs. That goes beyond laughable. It is unconscionable.

President Trump is seeking to cut $7 billion from funding for children's health insurance. If you strip this funding from the Children's Health Insurance Program, we leave children unprotected from unforeseen events like a flu outbreak or a natural disaster.

This takes away the ability of Congress should be able to make critical investments in healthcare and education. Even if the money can no longer be dedicated to CHIP, we should reinvest it in other important programs as we have done in the past--programs that support our Nation's children and families. I don't think there is any Member of this body who, when they are campaigning, doesn't talk about how important children and their families are to them. I hope those same families will ask them: How much money did you take out from children and families?

Earlier this year, the Congress did what they were supposed to. Republicans and Democrats came together to direct this funding to the Federal response to the opioid epidemic, the childcare and development block grants, Head Start, and the National Institutes of Health. These are investments in our country. They are not tax giveaways. They are investments in our country. If you strip this funding, it is penny wise and pound foolish.

President Trump wants to claw back billions of dollars from infrastructure programs. I see so many of these photo ops he does, speaking about how we want to have better infrastructure. However, we don't want to pay for it so we will take the money back.

Let's look at what the money is that he wants to take away. It is programs to do everything from supporting loans to helping factories produce more efficient vehicles to building bridges in small communities. These are programs that directly support American jobs. They are not jobs overseas. They

are jobs right here, and now they want to take the money out.

For an administration that is perpetually in ``infrastructure week,'' it doesn't make sense if you are trying to cut funding for infrastructure. How do we put ``America first'' when you strip funds that support Americans jobs?

In a continued push to leave rural America behind, Mr. Trump's rescission package would cut millions of dollars from rural development programs. Every single Senator in this body has rural areas in their State, and they know that these programs help to ensure that the same basic services are offered in rural areas that we see in urban areas-- things that we rely on, like schools or healthcare, for instance, or police stations. Are we saying that only urban areas can have that but rural areas can't?

In the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby and I have been focused on moving forward through the fiscal year 2019 process. We are trying to return the committee to regular order--something that most Republicans and Democrats in this body say they want. We have successfully kept poison pill riders and controversial authorizing language out of the appropriations bills, whichever side of the aisle they came from, and we passed, by an overwhelming margin, seven bipartisan bills out of our committee.

It has been years since we have seen that happen. Here we have seven bipartisan appropriations bills come out of committee, and almost all Republicans and all Democrats voted for them. Even with the Interior appropriations bill--that is a bill that has been historically bogged down with poison pill riders and usually forced into a massive omnibus appropriations bill because we could not reach an agreement. In the past we had to put it in an omnibus bill because we couldn't agree on it--guess what happened. We passed it out of committee unanimously. I don't recall that happening in nearly a decade.

Now, if we go forward with this rescission package, it is going to derail the process.

The rescission bill undermines the bipartisan budget deal that Republicans and Democrats struck just four months ago.

If we go forward with this package, another will fall, and another, and another, even further undermining the agreement.

I will remind everybody that if they haven't gotten around to reading the Constitution, it does grant Congress the power of the purse, not the executive branch. Congress decides spending priorities, not the President. We ought to actually do our job. We should exercise our right. We should reject this rescissions package. We should uphold the bicameral, bipartisan budget agreement.

So I urge all Senators to reject this rescissions package and to oppose the motion to discharge.

Madam President, I don't see any other Senator seeking the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments from my friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. As many know, Chairman Shelby and I have been friends for decades. We have traveled to different parts of the world and tried to promote the U.S. agenda. We have worked very closely together. That is why we are opening debate on the first set of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019. The minibus before us contains the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, and the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. These bills have strong bipartisan support.

On each subcommittee, I compliment the chairs and ranking members, who worked very closely together and set aside partisan labels to get these bills before the full committee so that Senator Shelby and I could then bring them up for votes in the full committee. So far, we have reported from the committee 7 of the 12 annual appropriations bills, each with overwhelming bipartisan support--I almost want to reemphasize that: each with overwhelming bipartisan support--at a time when it is as though nothing can be done in a bipartisan way. I think we have set the example of the way the Senate was, should be and can be.

As one who has been in this body for almost 44 years, I like to see the Senate work the way it should. In fact, we are going to mark up three of the five remaining bills this week. The chairman and I are committed to making the appropriations process work again. So far, in committee, it has. In that respect, I thank, again, my good friend Senator Shelby for his leadership and bipartisan cooperation, which has helped us achieve these results so far.

Our best chance for restoring regular order and avoiding the need to do an omnibus spending bill at the end of the year is to abide by the bipartisan-bicameral budget agreement and avoid poison pill riders from the left or the right. The bill before us does just that.

The chairman and I--and we are the ones who have to spend the time on the floor--want a real debate of the spending measure. Members should come to the floor, offer amendments, and debate them. Yet, if we are going to succeed in moving this bill through the Senate, Members on both sides of the aisle need to show restraint as we did when we marked up these bills in committee and refrain from offering controversial legislative matters or other poison pills as amendments. Offer those on authorizing bills, where they should be, and debate them there.

The appropriations bills that make up the minibus before us contain funding for important programs and make a real difference in people's lives, certainly in the lives of those in every Senator's State--in Vermont and across the Nation. We should not derail this process because of unrelated policy riders. If we do this--if both sides of the aisle can show restraint--we will take a very important step in getting this process back on track and putting the Senate back to where it should be.

Let's talk about the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It dedicates considerable resources to the support and care of our veterans, including $2 billion to address the maintenance backlog at our VA hospitals and clinics. We agreed to that in the bipartisan budget deal, and we have it in this bill. It also has critical funding for medical care and research, hospital and clinic construction, and disability and pension programs.

The Energy and Water Development bill invests in our country's water infrastructure and energy programs. It also provides funding to support our rural communities and farmers, which will benefit not just Vermont but the rest of the Nation. All of us have rural areas in our States, and this will benefit them. I am pleased that the bill supports much needed repairs and improvements in our environmental infrastructure and in our energy infrastructure and that it strengthens innovative ways to deliver these critical assets.

From a parochial point of view, I know it makes Vermont more resilient to the change in climate and violent weather events. All one has to do is look at the map. It makes every State more resilient, which is what we need. Once again, the bill includes strong funding for the weatherization program and, of course, helps families in Vermont, the Northeast, and northern States across the country. Families in Vermont can struggle with high home heating prices during the cold winter months, when it is not unusual to have days or a week during which it is below zero.

The bill wisely rejects several of the administration's budget proposals by making real investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. That is going to accelerate diversified

and sustainable energy production in every part of our country and support American innovation in the private sector as well as the many world-class research institutions across the country. I want to see American innovation being supported. This bill will create and sustain American jobs.

The Legislative Branch bill provides funding for the Senate at large, as well as to cover the House of Representatives, the Library of Congress, the Copyright Office, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Capitol Police. In addition, it supports the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office, which are essential to our oversight functions. I support this package of bills that came from the committee, and I urge other Members to do the same.

Let me just mention one issue briefly that relates to veterans' healthcare. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill has one serious problem, and Chairman Shelby and I are committed to fixing it. The bill does not provide money to cover the costs that are associated with the VA Choice Program, which was transferred to the discretionary side of the budget under the VA MISSION Act. It will become part of a new consolidated community care program to be funded in this bill. Unfortunately, the MISSION Act provides funding for this program only through May of 2019, leaving the balance unaddressed. To cover the shortfall, we are going to need an estimated $1.6 billion more in fiscal year 2019 and an additional $8.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 and $9.5 billion in fiscal year 2021.

These costs were not accounted for when we negotiated the budget caps in the bipartisan budget deal, so the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee were unable to address the shortfall within their allocation without cutting funding for other important programs. We do our veterans no favors if we promise care but then not back it up and say: Oh, by the way, we are not going to pay for it. Senator Shelby and I are working to find a solution to provide the flexibility needed to make sure, having made this promise to our veterans, we can carry out the promise. We hope to offer an amendment later this week to address this issue.

In conclusion, I look forward to the debate on the appropriations bill before us, and I ask Senators--all 100 of us--to work with us to restore the appropriations process. We can only achieve success if we return to regular order and pledge to work together. To give an example that Chairman Shelby and I have set, the 31 members of the Senate Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle for these bills. So I thank the chairman, and I also thank the subcommittee chairs and ranking members because they worked like mad, and they got it done.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today the Senate will approve its version of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. It is right and fitting to name this bill after the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has for years been a stalwart advocate for our military and our national defense.

Unlike the defense authorization bills of recent years, this bill is streamlined and straightforward. It is focused on improving strategic Department of Defense thinking and aligning resources to meet that strategy. It also conforms to the bipartisan budget agreement reached earlier this year.

I am pleased that this bill renews a commitment to securing America's leading edge of technological innovation. This is great news for States large and small, including Vermont. The bill includes provisions to improve the long-term strategic development and purchasing of microelectronics for the defense industry. It includes a partial solution to the delays of Federal recognition for members of the Guard receiving their State commissions. It fixes the TRICARE dental plan management and options that have frustrated Vermonters. It includes numerous provisions to support small businesses in the industrial base, including to improve cyber security. Building on last year's language, the bill adds to the accounting of usage of the long-chain molecules that have been found to have dangerous health effects, particularly its use in Air Force firefighting foam. These are all appropriate issues to be dealt with through the defense authorization bill.

Like any product of compromise, however, this bill is not perfect. I am frustrated that, despite a bipartisan majority of Senators voting in support of further debating the bill's treatment of low-yield nuclear weapons, we are advancing to a vote on final passage without that debate. Low-yield nuclear weapons are dangerous and add nothing to our nuclear deterrence. Any administration should at least have to specifically ask to build them.

Similarly, a bipartisan majority of Senators rejected the tabling of an amendment to prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens; yet the bill includes no such provision. The underlying bill also continues the mistake of the Guantanamo Bay detention mission.

On balance, the final bill on which the Senate votes today is truly bipartisan. I will support this National Defense Authorization Act.

(At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I see nobody else seeking the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, for those of us who read history, we know that throughout history, including at times in our own country many years ago, the forcible separation of families was used as an instrument of terror.

I struggle to imagine a more damaging and inhumane governmental policy than to forcibly and needlessly tear children away from their parents. For decades, the United States has rightly led the world in condemning such practices as flagrant abuses of government power and human rights.

Yet, today, in an extraordinary breach of our most basic values, the Trump administration is now regularly employing these very tactics. It is true that some children were separated from their parents during the previous administration. I vocally and forcefully opposed it then, because I believed and I am still convinced that there are alternatives that are far more humane and effective than the tearing apart of families.

But the family separation we are seeing today is so vastly different both in purpose and in scope than what occurred during the Obama administration. There is no comparison. Separation is no longer limited to narrow circumstances where it is arguably in the best interest of the child. Separating children, even infants, from their parents is now being carried out as a blanket policy. It is frightening. This disturbing policy is happening by design.

The Trump administration's decision to criminally prosecute every adult who arrives at our border without documentation establishes a de facto family separation policy that is going to rip thousands of innocent children away from their loved ones. The administration's claim that this policy is necessary to deter illegal border crossings rings hollow. The administration has also separated families who follow the rules and lawfully present themselves at ports of entry with claims of asylum. They are asking for asylum.

There is simply no way we can sanitize the cruelty of this policy. The anguish we are inflicting is evident in the story of each parent who is losing a child. Let me tell my colleagues a couple of those stories.

Here are the words of Maria, who was separated from her children, ages 7 and 2, just last month when she sought asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry.

She said:

[A]t about 8 a.m. they called just my two children and I

went out and they said, ``Miss, only they are going.''. . . .

[T]he officer said, ``They are here for them. Can the little

one walk?''

``Yes,'' I told the officer.

``Let him down,'' they told me.

The older one took his hand and they started to walk. Then

they turned around to look and when they saw that I was not

going after them, they cried.

I will tell another story, the ordeal of another mother with two sons, age 4 and 10. She is seeking asylum from El Salvador.

I was only given five minutes to say goodbye before [my

sons] were torn from me. My babies started crying when they

found out we were going to be separated. It breaks my heart

to remember my youngest wail, ``Why do I have to leave?''. .

. . My youngest cried and screamed in protest because he did

not want to leave my side. My oldest son was also confused

and did not understand what was happening. In tears myself, I

asked my boys to be brave, and I promised we would be

together again soon. I begged the woman who took my children

to keep them together so they could at least have each other.

This is a description from a father seeking asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry:

I was told I was going to be separated from my son. I

suffer from high blood pressure and felt as though I was

having a heart attack. . . . I feel like I was in shock and

do not remember what happened next or even how I got to the

detention center after that. All I can remember is how much

my son and I were both crying as they took him away.

The anguish inflicted on these parents and children at the moment they are separating is excruciating. For those of us who are parents, it is inconceivable, but it is just the beginning. Parents are given limited information--sometimes none at all--about where their children are being held, in whose care, or for how long. Some have begged the courts for information, frustrating judges who know little more than the parents. Some are deported while their children remain in unknown locations in the United States. Pediatricians describe the trauma that can be inflicted on these children as toxic stress. It results in lasting damage to a child's health.

Who here would tolerate such a thing if it were happening to American children? Who would defend such an abhorrent practice that was happening in another country--say, Russia or any other country? None of us would. We would condemn it.

But all of this lays bare the ugly truth about the true intent of this policy: to strike fear into the hearts of families who are seeking refuge from gang violence, chaos, murder, and rape in their home countries. The message could not be clearer: If you try to seek refuge in the United States, which is your right under international law, if you seek your right, if you seek refuge, if you seek the right you have under international law, we in America will punish you and punish your family because you are not welcome here.

This policy unquestionably flouts our domestic and international legal obligations. Worse, it flies in the face of who we are. In the past, we have shown the world that protecting our homeland is not incompatible with providing refuge to the vulnerable. We have proven that being a nation of laws is not antithetical to being a country of compassion. We have demonstrated that our unmatched power is derived in part from how we treat the most powerless among us. But President Trump's policy abandons our principles. Actually, it abandons our identity as a moral beacon for the world.

Republicans and Democrats must speak with one voice to condemn this cruelty. Family separation is no more a Republican policy than a Democratic

policy. It is neither. It is an un-American policy.

The United States, this great country that beckoned my maternal grandparents to come to the United States and Vermont, or my great- grandparents, paternal grandparents to come to the United States and Vermont--this great country must not be seen as terrorizing children to score political points. That is beneath the greatness of the United States. It is wrong. It is abhorrent. We must not be seen as pursuing policies with the intent of inflicting pain and anguish on vulnerable people, on children.

I hope Senators of both parties with join me in condemning this outrageous practice of forced family separation. We are a nation that is better than this. We have always thought of ourselves as better than this. Well, it is time we acted like we are better than this.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, who some here also know from his service as Jordan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations and as Jordan's Ambassador to the United States.

The High Commissioner has held his post since September 1, 2014, and his term will end on August 31, 2018. He has carried out his responsibilities with exceptional courage, compassion, commitment, and even humor, qualities that are indispensable for any successful U.N. High Commissioner. In so doing, he has been the target of relentless attacks by government officials who abuse their authority by manipulating their countries' electoral processes and security forces to arrest, imprison, abuse, and even assassinate their critics, whether independent journalists, members of political opposition parties, or civil society activists.

In a speech delivered Tuesday at an international conference marking the 25th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted on June 25, 2003, in response to the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia, the High Commissioner warned that human rights are under siege in many parts of the world, including Europe.

He said, ``This anniversary could be the occasion for a polite celebration of the achievements of my Office over the past two and a half decades--and they are many. But today is not a time for soporific complacency. Human rights are sorely under pressure around the world-- no longer a priority: a pariah. The legitimacy of human rights principles is attacked. The practice of human rights norms is in retreat. Here in Europe, ethno-populist parties are in the ascendant in many countries--fueling hatred and scarring their societies with deepening divisions.''

No one should be surprised by this. We see the consequences every day, including in countries that are friends and allies of the United States. Legitimate dissent is labeled ``terrorism.'' Those who defend human rights are themselves maligned and targeted. Dictators are feted, and their crimes are ignored. Xenophobia and racism are treated as legitimate responses to domestic problems.

As the High Commissioner noted, it is incumbent on each of us to defend human rights and to counter those who promote hatred and intolerance. What is the alternative? Despotism. Fascism. Isolationism. Forces and ideologies we have resisted and fought against for generations. We owe it to past and future generations, as the High Commissioner said, ``to stand by our achievements and the advances which have been made.'' This is not only a moral imperative for upholding the values our country stands for and preserving our international reputation, but a pragmatic necessity for protecting our interests at home and abroad.

I want to thank the High Commissioner for his extraordinary efforts during the past 4 extremely challenging years. He has been a tireless, principled defender of universal human rights,

and in doing so, he has set a high bar for those who follow in his footsteps.

I ask unanimous consent that the High Commissioner's remarks be printed in the Record.