Floor Statements

Mr. President, Vermont has a rich history of supporting vibrant arts in communities throughout our State and across the world. Local and foreign visiting artists alike make invaluable social and economic contributions to our communities. Today our complex, overloaded, and outdated immigration system often prevents foreign artists from coming to the United States and engaging in international cultural exchange.

That is why I am reintroducing the bipartisan Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act with Senator Orrin Hatch. Our bill would assist nonprofit arts organizations in obtaining visas for foreign artists by ensuring enforcement of current statutory requirements. The O visa is available to individual foreign artists, while the P visa is available to groups of foreign artists. The Immigration and Nationality Act currently requires that O visa and P visa petitions be processed within 14 days. However, artists and nonprofit arts organizations routinely confront lengthy and uncertain wait times in the adjudication process. Many nonprofit arts organizations are unable to afford the exorbitant filing fee necessary for expedited processing of petitions.

The ARTS Act would require USCIS to provide premium processing services, without a fee, if an O visa or P visa is not adjudicated within the statutorily required 14-day timeframe and if the petition is filed by or on behalf of a nonprofit organization.

The many problems plaguing our immigration system demand responsible reforms. This bill is just one small piece. As we look ahead to comprehensive immigration reform, I hope that Congress will consider commonsense legislation like this that will help create permanent solutions. Foreign visiting artists provide an important public service and support our international diplomacy. It is time we start working to create results that can best help our communities as a whole.

Mr. President. No American should have to relinquish all of their privacy rights in their cell phones, laptops, and other electronic devices, simply because they are coming home from a trip abroad. Yet that is exactly how our Government views it: currently, if a Vermonter crosses the border into Canada for a day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can search through the Vermonter's emails, text messages, photos, and anything else contained in their electronic devices without any reason to suspect the person is in violation of anything. Let me repeat that: without any suspicion at all. That is unacceptable.

That is why I am joining with Senator Daines to introduce legislation to require the Government to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search or seize Americans' electronic devices at the border. This legislation is a vital step toward protecting our Fourth Amendment rights, while also ensuring that officers protecting our homeland have the lawful authorities they need to do their jobs.

Last year, CBP searched the electronic devices of over 30,000 travelers, and this number continues to grow. These searches can take place at any international airport, or at any land border point such as U.S.-Canada border crossings in my home state of Vermont or Senator Daines's home state of Montana.

Nothing in this legislation will prevent CBP officers from doing their jobs to protect the homeland, detect contraband, and enforce the law. Our legislation simply says that if an officer of the Government wants to search an American's electronic device at the border, at a minimum they should have reasonable suspicion. If they want to seize the device, they should have probable cause. And if they want to conduct a forensic examination of the device, they should get a warrant from a judge.

Our legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to collect statistics on such searches and seizures and report them to Congress. This will significantly increase transparency on the Government's use of these invasive tools, providing Congress and the American people an opportunity to assess the balance between the needs of law enforcement and the imperative of protecting privacy and civil liberties.

I urge other Senators to join us in support of this legislation. It should not be controversial to be concerned at the Government's ability to search our electronic devices at the border without any suspicion at all. All of us--Republican and Democrat--can support the goal of protecting our borders while also protecting the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. President. No American should have to relinquish all of their privacy rights in their cell phones, laptops, and other electronic devices, simply because they are coming home from a trip abroad. Yet that is exactly how our Government views it: currently, if a Vermonter crosses the border into Canada for a day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can search through the Vermonter's emails, text messages, photos, and anything else contained in their electronic devices without any reason to suspect the person is in violation of anything. Let me repeat that: without any suspicion at all. That is unacceptable.

That is why I am joining with Senator Daines to introduce legislation to require the Government to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search or seize Americans' electronic devices at the border. This legislation is a vital step toward protecting our Fourth Amendment rights, while also ensuring that officers protecting our homeland have the lawful authorities they need to do their jobs.

Last year, CBP searched the electronic devices of over 30,000 travelers, and this number continues to grow. These searches can take place at any international airport, or at any land border point such as U.S.-Canada border crossings in my home state of Vermont or Senator Daines's home state of Montana.

Nothing in this legislation will prevent CBP officers from doing their jobs to protect the homeland, detect contraband, and enforce the law. Our legislation simply says that if an officer of the Government wants to search an American's electronic device at the border, at a minimum they should have reasonable suspicion. If they want to seize the device, they should have probable cause. And if they want to conduct a forensic examination of the device, they should get a warrant from a judge.

Our legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to collect statistics on such searches and seizures and report them to Congress. This will significantly increase transparency on the Government's use of these invasive tools, providing Congress and the American people an opportunity to assess the balance between the needs of law enforcement and the imperative of protecting privacy and civil liberties.

I urge other Senators to join us in support of this legislation. It should not be controversial to be concerned at the Government's ability to search our electronic devices at the border without any suspicion at all. All of us--Republican and Democrat--can support the goal of protecting our borders while also protecting the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. President, on February 18, 2018, New Hampshire lost one of its finest lawyers and humanitarians, Maurice Duane Geiger. He was 83 years old.

Some might ask why, as a Senator from Vermont, I would call the Senate's attention to a resident of our neighbor to the east. In fact, Maury Geiger not only had close ties to Vermont where, in 1982, he cofounded the Rural Justice Center in Montpelier, he was in every respect a global citizen. Over his long career, he worked to improve access to justice in Haiti, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and several other countries.

I met Maury Geiger years ago and will never forget going with him, my wife, Marcelle, and my staff member Tim Rieser to visit the national penitentiary in Port au Prince, Haiti. A more squalid example of a corrections facility would be hard to imagine. It was overflowing with thousands of impoverished men of all ages, sweltering in the heat and humidity, crammed into cement rooms with nothing to sleep on but the floor, with little food and vulnerable to AIDS, tuberculosis, and other dangerous diseases, and the vast majority had never been formally charged with any crime. Some had languished there for 2 or more years, far longer than any sentence they would have received if tried and convicted. Almost none had lawyers.

After first laying eyes on that unforgettable scene of inhumane neglect, Maury returned to Haiti year after year, determined to do whatever he could to help improve the lives and protect the rights of those caught up in Haiti's corrupt, dysfunctional justice system. It was that same passion for justice that took him to the courts and jails of rural America and to distant places like Addis Abba and Tbilisi.

As his obituary describes, Maury was born into poverty, and that experience, and his mother's guidance, shaped his character. He served as a naval aviator and then at the Department of Justice. He was as patriotic and as fierce a defender of the Constitution and Bill of

Rights as anyone I have known. He became one of our country's first experts in court administration, and he worked throughout his life to teach others about the fundamentals of a modern justice system.

Maury loved his work, and he cared passionately about fairness. He devoted his life to fighting for justice at every opportunity. Knowing what it means to be poor, Maury did not hold himself above anyone. He was not the least bit impressed by wealth or titles. He loathed the self-importance of so many government officials and the abuse of power, especially when it was at the expense of those without power, which is so common in places like Haiti where inequality is glaring and the rule of law barely exists. He was known for his irreverence, just as he was for his wonderful, dry sense of humor.

Over the years, I have met countless accomplished people, many of them of the highest integrity. Maury Geiger could match any of them. He was as ethical, selfless, compassionate, and determined a champion of the less fortunate as anyone I have known.

My thoughts are with Nancy, his wife of 58 years, and their four sons, Robert, Kevin, Tom, and Steven. I know they are all proud of the principled example Maury set for all of us.

I ask unanimous consent that the February 20 obituary of Maurice Duane Geiger in the Conway Daily Sun be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the actions by the Trump administration regarding undocumented immigrants in this country have been ineffective and nothing short of heartless. Their priorities have abandoned long- held practices such as the need to focus limited enforcement resources on those who actually present a public safety risk.

These changes are being felt by families across the country. Last fall, Rosa Maria Hernandez, a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who was taken to the hospital for urgent surgery was forcibly taken into custody by ICE when she was discharged, instead of being released into the care of her parents as recommended by her doctors. A few months ago, Jose Fuentes who was fleeing El Salvador with his 1-year-old son, Mateo, was detained at the border and transferred to a facility in San Diego while Mateo was held in Texas. These actions are appalling and run counter to the time honored values in this country. No child should be separated from their parents in this way. The effect of such a traumatic experience and disrupted attachments on children, adolescents and families is longlasting. The cost of these failed policies will not be fully realized for years to come.

Under current policy, families are supposed to be kept intact while awaiting a decision on whether they will be deported and held in special family detention centers or released with a court date. The Trump administration's proposed policy change sends parents to adult detention facilities, while their children would be placed in shelters designed for juveniles or with a relative in the United States.

Wendy Smith recently wrote an article in the Chronicle of Social Change on the Trump administration's proposed policy of separating immigrant children from parents entering the United States illegally, as a means of deterring immigrant families from coming to the United States. I ask unanimous consent that this January 29, 2018, article entitled ``Separating Families at the Border Will Multiply Child Trauma'' be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the inspiring and dedicated work of Cecile Richards, who has recently announced she is stepping down as president of Planned Parenthood after 12 years.

Throughout her tenure as president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile has been a passionate advocate for healthcare for women and men across the country. Despite the constant attacks leveled at Planned Parenthood in recent years, the organization managed to grow stronger with Cecile at the helm. Today Planned Parenthood has more volunteers, supporters, and donors than it ever has had before. None of that would have been possible without Cecile's exemplary leadership.

Millions of Americans depend on Planned Parenthood for their healthcare, and for many, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care. As president, Cecile maintained Planned Parenthood's mission, and she never stopped fighting for the millions of American women and men-- including tens of thousands of Vermonters--that have trusted and depended on Planned Parenthood for their basic healthcare needs, including annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer tests, and HIV screenings. Because of her dedication to helping low-income women, she worked to ensure free birth control coverage was included in the Affordable Care Act. Cecile is leaving as president when the teen pregnancy rate is at a historical low and unintended pregnancies overall are at a 30-year low. None of that would have been possible without Cecile's relentless determination to her mission of helping those that do not have the resources to help themselves.

The true measurement of Cecile's work at Planned Parenthood goes beyond the statistics, however, for she understood that the organization's strength comes from the voices of those who believe access to healthcare for all women is a right. Those who up until recently believed that there was nothing they could do or say that would make a difference. Those who simply went on with their lives as if they had no other options. It is those same people who have taken to the streets--in Washington, in Vermont, and across the world--to let their voices be heard. Cecile's unwavering passion and commitment to advocating for these voices is one of her greatest strengths as a leader.

While Planned Parenthood is stronger than ever, Cecile leaves a legacy that will be hard to follow. Her ability to lead with grace and courage has given hope to those who need it most. She has truly been inspiration to us all.

Marcelle and I wish Cecile Richards all the best as she moves into the next chapter.

Mr. President, it is my honor and privilege to recognize the achievements of a great Vermont broadcaster and friend, Ken Squier.

Ken recently became the first journalist ever to be enshrined in the NASCAR Hall of Fame. While his roots are at WDEV Radio in Waterbury, VT, Ken is known nationally as the country's most recognizable voice of auto racing. Without question, Ken's voice and calls of the most memorable auto races were key to the rise in prominence of the sport.

Still, with all of the national recognition, Ken has always made Vermont his home. His radio station, WDEV, is strongly committed to community service and serves the people of his hometown and the greater Vermont community with distinction. Ken Squier is, without question, a Vermont treasure.

In honor of Ken's induction into the NASCAR Hall of Fame and his continued outstanding service to Vermont, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Jasper Goodman, from the January 24, 2018 edition of the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, ``Profile: Squier a living legend,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feinstein and Cruz in cosponsoring a resolution recognizing the 59th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule--March 10, 2018 as ``Tibetan Rights Day.''

Fifty-nine years ago, Tibetans took a stand, together, for the freedom of their homeland. The people of the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, fearing for the life of the Dalai Lama, surrounded his residence, organized a guard, and called for the withdrawal of Chinese forces from Tibet and the restoration of Tibet's freedom. Chinese statistics estimate 87,000 Tibetans were killed, arrested, or deported to labor camps during the suppression of the 1959 uprising, which also led to the forced exile of the Dalai Lama and tens of thousands of other Tibetans.

Today, 59 years later, the Government of the People's Republic of China remains engaged in the severe repression of Tibet's unique religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage, and is engaged in gross violations of human rights in Tibet, including extrajudicial detentions, disappearances, and torture. At least 152 Tibetans in Tibet are known to have self-immolated in protest in the past decade. Yet the Tibetan people have not given up their struggle for fundamental human rights and freedoms. We stand by the Tibetan people, who have long been our unwavering friends.

We also stand by the rights of Tibetan Buddhists, not just in Tibet but around the world, who should be able to determine their own religious leadership in accordance with their inalienable right to religious freedom. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Chinese government claims the power to

select the next Dalai Lama with the help of a law that grants the government authority over reincarnations. That is absurd. The identification and installation of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders, including a future 15th Dalai Lama, is a matter that should be determined solely within the Tibetan Buddhist faith community.

We can foster closer, cooperative relations with China, but until China works with Tibetan leaders to pursue a new way forward, their reputation in the community of nations, and their ability to act as a global power, will remain deeply tarnished. I urge other Senators to join in support of this resolution, and to pass it before the important anniversary commemoration on March 10, 2018.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is debating the fate of our Nation's Dreamers this week. Everywhere I go, people recognize the uncontestable truth that underpins our discussion: We are all a nation of immigrants. Unless you are Native American, you come from a line of people who come from somewhere else. More than in any other country on Earth, this simple fact is a defining characteristic of our national identity. Throughout our history, immigrant communities have greatly enriched our Nation; their individual stories have become the American story. Out of many, we have become one.

My maternal grandparents emigrated from Italy, began a business, hired a lot of people, and were pillars of the community. My wife's parents emigrated from French-speaking Canada and also owned a business. She was born in Vermont. Yesterday, we buried my wife's uncle, an immigrant from Canada who started off as an $8-a-week clerk at a shoe store. He was buried with honors at the age of 100 yesterday, and people talked about the $20 million or $30 million he has given to philanthropic causes in Vermont--this $8-a-week immigrant clerk at a shoe store.

I think sometimes we forget who we are. In the late 1800s we passed laws excluding Chinese immigrants. During World War II, we turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust--turned them away at the shores of our country--and many went back to die in the gas chambers. We know today that these were tragic mistakes, fueled by our own ill-informed, xenophobic rhetoric. Mistakes were made, but they must never be repeated.

Yet now, in 2018, I am concerned that we are hearing echoes of past mistakes. Anti-immigrant voices, armed with the same shameful fearmongering, are attempting a comeback in our country. In recent months, Dreamers have been regularly disparaged. Some have even suggested that Dreamers pose a risk of terrorism or have links to international drug trafficking.

These absurd depictions would be laughable if they weren't so damaging, especially to those of us who remember one of the biggest terrorist attacks on our country, in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh, who was not an immigrant; he grew up there and was born there. Thankfully, most Americans know better. Dreamers are not threats to our national security; not a single one--not a single one--has been suspected of terrorist activities. Nor do Dreamers present a threat to public safety. Far from it. By definition, Dreamers are law-abiding strivers who seek only to contribute to our country. Brought here as children, Dreamers are now our neighbors, our first responders, our teachers, our medical personnel. Nearly 1,000 have served in our Armed Forces, risking their lives to defend the only country they have ever known as home.

I will never forget one Dreamer who wrote to me last year. Dr. Juan Conde is a DACA recipient. He is a resident of Vermont. He was born in Mexico and brought to the United States as a young child by his mother. In 2007, tragically, his mother died of cancer. Showing remarkable courage and determination for a young man, Dr. Conde was motivated by this personal tragedy to help cancer patients like his mother. He ultimately obtained a Ph.D. in cancer research from the University of Texas.

But as accomplished as he already was, Dr. Conde was not satisfied with just studying cancer. He wanted to treat the people suffering with and battling the disease. Every one of us in this Chamber knows somebody who has suffered from and battled cancer, and many have died.

But only after he enrolled in DACA was Dr. Conde able to attend medical school, and he is currently doing that. He is studying oncology at the University of Vermont's Larner College of Medicine. Dr. Conde hopes to spend his life in the United States treating cancer patients and researching to find a cure for the disease. This Vermonter--and I think all Americans would agree--believes that America is a better place with Dr. Conde in it.

There are hundreds of thousands of Dreamers just like Dr. Conde, all with the potential to contribute to our communities and to our country. To deny them these opportunities because they were brought here as children would be as senseless as it is cruel.

We are better than that. And this week, we have an opportunity to prove it. I am proud of those in the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, who are engaged in good-faith negotiations over proposals to protect our Dreamers and improve our border security. I sincerely believe that we can find a path to 60 votes, and I hope the Republican leadership will let us.

The Majority Leader's decision yesterday to seek to open up the debate with a vote on a poison pill amendment about so-called sanctuary cities--which has nothing to do with either Dreamers or border security--was less than a helpful start. These kinds of attempts to score political points stand in stark contrast to the bipartisan search done by leading Republicans and Democrats behind the scenes for a solution. As the most senior Member of this body, it is my hope that all Senators will focus on a bipartisan solution, not on just divisive distractions.

I respect this institution as much as anybody. For 43 years, I have been here and I have seen--and I hope contributed to--the good that can be accomplished. I have often said that at its best the Senate can and should serve as the conscience of the Nation. But it can only do so when we put aside our own self-interest, and we work across the aisle in the spirit of compromise. I know we are capable of meeting this challenge today. We have done it before.

Five years ago, when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we brought together 68 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, and we voted for an immigration bill that provided protection for Dreamers, including an expedited pathway to citizenship. Unfortunately, the House, even though they had the votes to pass it, would not bring it up. Well, it is time now for the Senate to do so again and, this time, for the House to follow suit.

President Trump claims he will treat Dreamers with great ``heart.'' If he meant what he said, he will certainly sign our bipartisan compromise that emerges. So let's get to work. The future of Dreamers-- and the fate of the

American dream itself--lies in our hands.

As I left that funeral yesterday in Vermont, I thought of my wife's uncle and her parents coming from Canada to make a better life, my grandparents coming from Italy, and my great grandparents coming from Ireland, all to make such a mark on our little State of Vermont, all for the better. As a member of that family, how proud I am to stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but I want to do more than just stand here. I want to vote for a bill to help more people like those who come to our country and to make our country better.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will be brief and speak briefly in my capacity as vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. There are things here that could be exciting to talk about, and some things are kind of dry, but when we talk about the budget, the consequences affect every single one of us, in every single State, and for multiple generations.

The consequences of the Budget Control Act sequestration cuts since 2011 have been devastating and are going to last for generations. Its impact on military readiness led Defense Secretary Mattis to say that no enemy on the field has done more harm to our military than what we have done to ourselves through sequestration. By not investing in our domestic priorities, we allowed our infrastructure to crumble, care to our veterans to be delayed, and investments in education to fall behind.

The bipartisan budget deal announced yesterday by Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer is the first step toward providing much-needed relief from sequestration and stability in the appropriations process.

I have followed very carefully what they have been doing. My staff, especially on the Appropriations Committee, has been very much involved. Defense caps have been increased by $80 billion in fiscal year 2018 and $85 billion in fiscal year 2019. Nondefense caps are increased by $63 billion above the caps in fiscal year 2018 and $68 billion above the caps in fiscal year 2019. Those are the numbers. Let's look at a couple of things these numbers mean.

This additional funding will allow us to increase support our troops, improve care for our veterans, repair our crumbling infrastructure, take care of our seniors, and invest in our economy in real ways.

This bipartisan deal we have worked out--and I stress that it is bipartisan--advances our priorities by guaranteeing that we can make real investments in addressing the opioid crisis. We can all give speeches about the opioid crisis, but speeches don't solve the problem. Actually putting money in there to fund the necessary resources does.

It lets us fund medical research. Keep in mind that we can't turn medical research on and off. We can't say: Oh, you are making great steps in cancer research, but I will stop it for a few years, and then we will come back with money. You have to continue it.

It is also going to improve college affordability. Everywhere I go in Vermont, I hear people say: I haven't been able to buy a house because I have had to borrow so much money for college.

I am particularly pleased that the bill includes an important provision I worked on with my colleague and the chairman, Senator Cochran, which is going to improve assistance to our Nation's dairy and cotton farmers. In

Vermont and across the country, it is going to mean immediate relief for struggling dairy farmers who can't wait for the next farm bill for assistance. We will work on these problems in the next farm bill, but in the meantime, until that farm bill comes, we need some immediate assistance.

This deal finally fulfills our promise to communities recovering from recent natural disasters--from wildfires out West, to the shores of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas, and Florida--by providing $89 billion to help them rebuild. States in the West, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Texas, and Florida are all part of the United States. Just as Vermont sought help when we were hit just a few years ago by a natural disaster and others came to our aid, people I talked with in Vermont say: Of course, we help others in our country.

The agreement also provides continued funding for several healthcare programs that Congress has allowed to expire. We include long overdue funding for community health centers, which have been struggling because of the uncertainty of continued funding for months. Now they will have some certainty.

The bipartisan agreement funds the Special Diabetes Program to make advancements in Type I diabetes. It ensures ambulances can continue to serve rural areas and closes the Medicare Part D coverage gap by 2019. It continues the maternal health home visiting program and permanently repeals the Medicare Therapy Cap, allowing Medicare beneficiaries the certainty of therapy services after an accident or a stroke without an arbitrary cap on coverage. And the bill extends funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program for an additional 4 years, ensuring children and their families can benefit from the program for the next 10 years.

I am pleased that this deal finally extends tax provisions, many of which lapsed in 2016, that will benefit individuals and small businesses. Inexplicably, the $1.5 trillion Republican tax bill left these important credits orphaned when they passed their corporate tax bill. With this deal, we finally restore them.

Now, not everything I wanted was included in this deal. I see my friend from Texas, a member of the leadership. Not everything he wanted is in here. That is why we have a compromise. Nobody gets everything they want, but we are a lot better off than we were.

I worry about the fact that it does not provide protection for our Nation's Dreamers. These are law-abiding strivers who call America home and seek nothing more than to contribute to our society. They are individuals like Dr. Juan Conde of Vermont, who came to the United States as a child and is studying to treat cancer patients at the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont. Do we tell him to leave, a man who might be part of those who find a cure for cancer?

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Vermont. They had talked about the stone carvers in Vermont, and I had talked about one stone carver in my letter. My maternal grandfather emigrated from Italy to Vermont. He was a master stone carver from the Friuli region, near the Aviano Air Base in northern Italy, and he talked about the business he started. My mother was then born in South Ryegate, VT. My great-grandparents came to central Vermont from Ireland, on my paternal grandparents' side. My grandfather, after whom I am named, Patrick Leahy, was also a stone carver. I never knew him because, like so many, he died of silicosis of the lungs when my father was a young teenager, but I am proud to be named after him. My wife Marcelle's parents emigrated from Canada. She was born in Vermont and became a medical surgical nurse.

Now, everybody in these families added to and improved our State of Vermont. We must realize that immigrants bring diversity, strength, and skills to our country and make us greater. So when we talk about the Dreamers, we shouldn't forsake their cause. Their cause is our cause. Their dreams are part of the American dreams of my grandparents and my parents-in-law. Those dreams are a part of our American dreams. So we have to continue to work to get legislation passed to protect them.

Leader McConnell has given his word that he will allow votes on legislation the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers. I can assure you that the American people expect him to keep his word.

I am also disappointed the agreement does not include the CREATES Act, a bipartisan solution to lowering the cost of prescription drugs by prohibiting the anticompetitive behavior that keeps generic drugs from entering the market. We can all agree that high drug prices are a problem, as President Trump noted in his State of the Union Address, and the CREATES Act offers a commonsense, bipartisan way forward. I hope the Senate passes this important legislation soon

As I said, the agreement does not contain everything I would like. Very little I have seen in legislation does contain everything I want. But, on balance, it is a good bill for the American people. It allows us to complete the 2018 appropriations process. Through what we call regular order, we can have a real debate on the fiscal year 2019 bills. We will start working on those next week.

So I thank Senator McConnell, and I thank Senator Schumer for their hard work in coming to this agreement. I work almost daily with both of them. I know how hard it was. Compromise is not always easy. Often, it is not popular. Well, nobody came here thinking everything was going to be easy, and, if they do, they don't belong in the Senate. You should be here to be a legislator.

I encourage all Senators: Help us pass this bipartisan deal. Allow the Senate Appropriations Committee to resume its work, and we will next week. I hope the House will do the same before tonight's midnight deadline.

I will continue, as I have, working with my friend Chairman Cochran in the coming weeks, as I will with all Republicans and all Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee. This agreement will finally let us do the job we are supposed to.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Texas. I yield to him.

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

Madam President, we are now 128 days into the fiscal year. For 128 days, we have failed to fulfill our basic responsibility of funding the government. Congress has not reached a bipartisan budget deal, even though, in past years, we always would have by this time. So the government is on autopilot.

Across America, just as I find in Vermont, around families' kitchen tables, people are asking how to address the opioid crisis. Veterans are asking us why it takes months to get a doctor's appointment at the VA. People are worrying about having to stop working if they can't get quality and affordable childcare. So many have stopped me in the street to talk about how they are struggling to pay off college loans.

Well, it has been 128 days. Instead of saying: We will get to it, the check is in the mail, let's actually get to it, we have had four continuing resolutions. It is about time we get serious about a bipartisan deal and get the budget going. Let's, for once, get past the

sound bites and start dealing with substance.

Madam President, on another matter, last Friday, Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, received approval to release a classified memo that purports to show that a FISA application to conduct surveillance of a Trump campaign aide was politically motivated. Over the weekend, the President, speaking in the third person, told us this memo ``totally vindicates `Trump' '' in the Russia investigation. Following a pattern that has become all too familiar, the President also viciously attacked the FBI in a series of tweets, something we have never seen by any President, either Republican or Democratic--certainly not in my memory.

There are more than a few problems with this, the most disturbing of which go well beyond this highly flawed and misleading memo. In case anyone believes this memo represents a serious attempt to address serious problems within the FBI or within our FISA surveillance authorities, I want to raise a few points they might consider because if they think it actually addresses serious problems, they either haven't read it or they don't understand the serious problems.

For years, I have been leading calls in the Senate to protect our civil liberties and reform our surveillance authorities under FISA. I am appreciative of the number of Republicans and Democrats who have joined me in that cause. This memo, however, has absolutely nothing to do with improving FISA. Nor does this partisan memo have anything to do with serious oversight of FISA authorities more broadly.

Instead, whether intentional or not, this memo represents a direct attack on rank-and-file professionals in both our law enforcement and our national security agencies. The memo deliberately distorts a multilayered process that is required to obtain and renew a judicial warrant for a suspected foreign agent. This meticulous process to obtain or renew a judicial warrant is conducted by career, nonpartisan professionals. In this case, the process led to a warrant, approved by a Federal judge and was renewed three times, for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Carter Page is an individual who bragged about his ties to Russia. He even claimed at one point publicly to be an adviser to the Kremlin. He was also targeted for recruitment by known Russian spies beginning in 2013. Both of these facts are conveniently left out of the Nunes memo.

But the Nunes memo was not about capturing relevant facts or conducting actual oversight. If it were, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman would have read the underlying intelligence that purported to form the basis of the memo. He did not. If it were about actual oversight, he would have granted the FBI Director's request to brief his Committee prior to releasing the memo. He did not. If it were about transparency, he would have allowed the Democratic response memo to be released at the same time. He did not.

Instead, his Committee voted along party lines last week to block the Democratic response. We will learn later this evening if they are going to change course and allow its release.

I have been here since the beginning of both the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees. I have never seen anything as partisan as this.

Proponents of this memo claim it proves that the FISA warrant of Carter Page was politically motivated. They claim that the so-called Steele dossier was the reason why a FISA warrant was granted and that the dossier could not be relied on because it was indirectly funded by Democratic interests. What it ignores is that this document was only one part of the lengthy FISA application establishing probable cause. The judge had to look at all of it.

Never mind that the judge was explicitly informed of the likelihood of a political motivation behind the dossier. The Republican memo conveniently leaves that out. By leaving it out, it undermines its central claim that the FBI hid the ball on the dossier's political origins. And never mind that the dossier was originally funded by a conservative newspaper, or that its author had previously been assessed by the FBI to be a reliable source.

One can disregard all of those facts and still see the memo for what it is: a complete and utter dud. The memo itself just disproves its own premise. Because of its reference to the controversial Steele dossier, President Trump and his allies paint this FISA application as the Russia investigation's original sin. They ignore the fact that the memo also reveals that an entirely separate source unrelated to the Steele dossier provided information to the FBI that triggered the opening of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Oddly enough, that is something we did not see in President Trump's tweets over the weekend.

What we knew about the memo leads to one and only one conclusion: The FBI did its job. Rank-and-file professionals within the FBI and DOJ acted appropriately when obtaining a FISA warrant of Carter Page. Frankly, the President's attacks on these career professionals for obtaining the FISA warrant are entirely without merit.

I have been here with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, eight Presidents in all, and I have never seen anybody make such unwarranted attacks on career professionals. These professionals, I suppose, if we really look, are Republicans, Democrats, and some are apolitical. All of them are professional. What the Republican memo from the House reveals is nothing about abuses in the FISA process, but it does reveal a lot about both the President and the House Republicans who released it. It represents yet another desperate, hyperpartisan attempt to smear key Justice Department officials and undermine the Russia investigation.

Again, in my 40-some-odd years in the Senate, I have never seen this under either Republican or Democratic leadership or either a Republican or Democratic President.

Let's remember what is at stake. This is not about a Republican memo, which is nothing more than a sloppy, bad-faith attempt to distract from the special counsel's Russia investigation, nor is it about the Steele dossier. That represents an almost irrelevant side story. The only thing that matters here is that a foreign adversary attacked our democracy in 2016, suffered no consequences, and is poised to do it again. The President is not willing to address this threat. He is not even willing to implement sanctions on Russia that were overwhelmingly approved by the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress. The only thing this President has done in response to this threat is disparage the very people who defend our country from such foreign attacks--our dedicated law enforcement and intelligence professionals. I am afraid that for the President, it is Trump first and America second.

The fact is, we are under constant attacks on our political system by Russia. Which countries did the President single out in the State of the Union Address as countries that pose grave threats to the United States? Venezuela and Cuba. No. It is the second largest nuclear power in the world that is a threat, a power that has shown, by anybody's analysis or efforts--many of them successful--to undermine the electoral system not only of our country but of others.

It is more important than ever that the Special Counsel be able to complete his investigation without interference from either the President or any misguided allies in Congress. We need to know first how Russia interfered in our election, and whether anyone in the President's circle aided that effort or tried to cover it up.

I have been in the Senate for more than 43 years. I have never been as concerned as I am today for the institutions in our country and for our ability to stay united in the face of a true, unprecedented threat. I don't say this lightly.

Madam President, I have walked back and forth the dirt road in front of my home in Vermont. I have paced the floor and thought about it. I have gone back through notes I have taken through Presidents going back to Gerald Ford when I first came here, notes I took as a young, 34- year-old U.S. Senator. I have never been as concerned as

I am now. I have never been as concerned about this great country having the ability to stay united in the face of a true, unprecedented threat. Russia will be back, and many say Russia has never left. Enough with the partisan distractions. It is past time we faced this threat standing together. The American people deserve that much.

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

Mr. President, I cannot help but note that the fiscal year began October 1 last year. Four months have passed. That is 122 days since the start of the fiscal year, and we still don't have a budget deal to allow us to finish the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills. That is 122 days, and the Congress has not done their job.

Recently, President Trump has taken to Twitter. He has accused Democrats of holding up funding for our troops. Well, the idea that Democrats are holding up defense spending doesn't pass the laugh test. I mean, last July--7 months ago--I called for bipartisan budget negotiations, something we have always done in the past. As the vice chairman of Appropriations, I put forward a proposal that would increase defense spending by $54 billion and would increase nondefense spending by an equal amount of $54 billion. Basically, what we did when Senator Murray and then-Congressman Ryan worked out the budget agreement. We did that years ago based on parity. The proposal was responsible, it was reasonable, and it was based on parity. It was something we have done for years. It would have fully funded President Trump's budget request for our military, but it would also have provided much needed relief from the damaging effects of sequestration that we have seen on both sides of the ledger, defense and nondefense.

But instead of trying to reach a bipartisan budget deal to allow us to finish our spending bills on time, the Republican leadership, which controls the agenda, had other priorities. They spent the last 7 months trying to repeal healthcare for millions of Americans and rolling back important consumer protections. They cut environmental and workplace protections, protections for women in the workplace, and they passed budget-busting tax cuts that primarily benefit big corporations and the wealthiest Americans. As a result of doing that, the funding for our troops, as well as for key domestic priorities, has been left to limp along under four continuing resolutions.

Yesterday, the Trump administration--and I wonder if they have actually looked at the President's budget--accused Democrats of holding defense spending hostage over arbitrary demands for lower priority domestic programs.

I am curious. What are the domestic programs the Trump administration considers a lower priority? Do they consider the services for our veterans that are lacking around this country--do they think helping our veterans is a lower priority? What about the funding to combat the opioid epidemic? Every single State represented by every single Senator here, Republican and Democrat alike, in every corner of our country, has been hurt by the opioid epidemic. Is the Trump administration saying that is a lower priority? How about investments in education for our Nation's children? Is that a lower priority? Is disaster relief for our communities that have been devastated by hurricanes--there are so many--a lower priority? What about replacing our crumbling bridges all across the country before people start dying in record numbers? Is that a lower priority?

The President puts before us a false choice, and it makes me wonder if he is actually seeing the budget his administration proposes. There is no reason we

can't fight for and fund both our military and other domestic programs. It is not an either/or choice. It has never been an either/or choice, whether we have had a Democratic or Republican administration.

One thing we do know is that operating under four continuing resolutions is no way to govern. I think it is time to get serious about reaching a deal.

Later today, the House is going to pass another Defense appropriations bill that will exceed the budget caps by $73 billion, and they don't even know where it will be spent. But if you don't have a budget deal to raise the caps, this would be a false promise to our military because that funding level would trigger a sequester. It would force a 13-percent across-the-board cut on defense programs. It is not a serious bill; it is a messaging bill.

There are those who are going to tout it on the floor of the House, saying: Look what we are doing to raise it. Will they at least take a moment to say that it actually cuts our defense programs 13 percent across the board? I asked the Secretary of Defense what he thinks about that. He says it would be a disaster.

What we are doing is we have been substituting sound bites for substance. I think we are past the time for that kind of messaging.

The budget and the appropriations process are where we set our priorities as a nation and where we put those priorities into action. That has been our policy here in the Senate under Democratic and under Republican leadership for decades. Instead of doing this basic job, Congress and the President have put the Federal budget on perpetual autopilot, so it never gets done. It comes up, we talk about it, and it doesn't get done. It comes up again, we talk about it, and it doesn't get done. The can has been kicked down the road over and over again.

It makes me think of ``Groundhog Day.'' We are coming up on Groundhog Day. Well, it is ``Groundhog Day,'' plus a sequel, plus another sequel, plus another sequel and yet another sequel. Well, that may have been a funny movie, but this is real life for over 300 million Americans, and 100 Americans are entrusted to make their lives better.

Kicking the can down the road and playing ``Groundhog Day'' is corrosive and damaging to our Nation and to the American people in countless ways.

Certainly, my experience with a Republican administration and a Democratic administration, many times in the majority in this body and many times in the minority in this body--one thing I have learned, and many of my Republican colleagues tell me the same thing, is that you can't govern by continuing resolution. It is easy. It means you don't have to do your work. But neither the military nor our country can properly function under sequestration. They can't function if we don't do our jobs.

This week, we are taking another recess after this afternoon. I wish we would just stay here and get these bills passed. I am willing to. Vermont is a very nice place to be this time of year--great skiing, lovely place. I have kids and grandkids there, but I will stay here if it means we can get the appropriations bills passed, get us off this corrosive, wasteful continuation of a continuing resolution and sequestration.

The continuing resolution expires on February 8. That is 9 days from today. It is up to the Republican leadership in both Chambers to get serious about striking a bipartisan budget deal. I believe there is something we can do. Talking with both Republican and Democratic Senators, I think we could have a budget deal that would get 60 votes in the Senate. We could raise the caps. We could take care of defense but also take care of a lot of priorities we hear about when we walk down Main Street in the towns and cities we represent. These aren't people who have a partisan attitude; they just want to see the government work.

The States that have suffered from hurricanes and flooding want to see us help them as a nation. If their community is devastated by opioids, they want to see us do something about it. They would like to see the Federal Government do something about stopping the millions of opioids flooding into this country illegally from China. They are not coming across the wall; they are coming from China through the mail, through the post offices we all have in our communities.

Let's start to look at the real threats to America. You don't do it by sound bites; you do it by substance and hard work. There are many Senators on both sides of the aisle who are willing to do that hard work. We have unbelievably talented staff from both Republicans and Democrats who have been working very hard to get us there. Let's start doing that. Let's stop looking for the sound bite. Let's start looking for the substance. I am ready to. I have talked with key Members of both parties about this. It can be done.

I felt honored the other day when Senator Robert Dole, one the titans of this body--a Republican, a conservative Republican--asked me to be one of the two Senators to speak when he received the Congressional Gold Medal. We had a chance to chat first about how we used to do it. Without sounding like the old-timer talking about the good old days, what we would do is the Republicans and Democrats--key Members of both parties--would sit down and we would work something out because we could take each other's word for it. We set aside political posturing, and we did what was best for the country.

Senator Dole joined with Senator Moynihan--a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat--and they saved Social Security. Senator Dole joined with Senator George McGovern--again, a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat. As a result, millions of children were fed, others were fed, hungry people were fed in this country and in other countries. What a great humanitarian gesture. Both Senator Dole and Senator McGovern fought in World War II. Both had a distinguished military career. Senator Dole was severely injured. Senator McGovern volunteered to fly many, many missions beyond the number he was required to, even though so many planes in those missions were being shot down. But they came back and said: OK. We did that. Now what are we doing for the people we fought to save?

We should listen to people like that. We should listen to them. We would be a better Senate, we would be a better country if we did.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.