now we have to sort it out in the 21st century. please join me this thanking ira and molly. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate is about to come in and lawmakers may work on funding the pentagon for the rest of the year. tomorrow, senate democrats have a policy retreat.

and members will recess today from 12:30 to 2:15 eastern and we do hope to bring you leadership briefings and hear more about the plans for the senate. live coverage. u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we fix our minds on you, the author and perfecter of our faith. remind our lawmakers that a heavenly focus

brings joy. give them the wisdom to see that those who have done the most good in this present world often have thought most about the world to come. may our senators permit the diligent focus of their hearts on heaven to preserve the vigor of their work on earth. may your kingdom come. may your will be done on earth even as it is done in heaven. we pray in your strong name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance

to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein with time until 12:00 noon equally

divided between the two leaders or their designees. if no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. mcconnell: we're one day closer to thursday's government

funding deadline. i'm pleased to report that our bipartisan talks are continuing to progress toward an agreement on spending caps and important priorities all of us are eager to address. but as we continue the negotiations, we have the opportunity to make real progress with an immediate step that every senator in the chamber should support, and that is passing a fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations bill. we can vote to remove the uncertainty that is hanging over our armed forces and secure the current--year funding that our service members deserve. funding cuts have fallen disproportionately on our men and women in uniform. current funding levels are not adequate to support secretary mattis' new national defense strategy. and our military leaders have made clear that short-term continuing resolutions are hardly the optimal way for congress to fund our war fighters. senators on both sides of the

aisle say they agree that our war fighters deserve sufficient, stable funding to fulfill the missions and tasks their country assigns them. today each of us will have a chance to back that up with our vote. the senate will take up an uncontroversial measure that passed the house with a comfortable bipartisan majority. it presents an opportunity for us to unite and give our all-volunteer military a full fiscal year of reliable funding while we finalize our talks on other subjects. we should seize the opportunity and not delay any longer securing current year funding for the brave men and women who keep us safe. mr. president, on another matter, we have been talking for weeks about the millions of americans who are already

benefiting from tax reform. already millions of workers have received tax reform bonus, pay increase, or other benefits. i understand that a $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 bonus might not seem like much to our colleagues from new york or san francisco. i understand why people who are already very wealthy might agree with my friends, the house and senate democratic leaders who said that these bonuses and benefits are merely crumbs. but look, i can assure them the working families i represent do not see a permanent raise or a multithousand-dollar bonus as a crumb to sweep off the table. in millions of households, thanks to tax reform, paying the bills has already gotten a little less painful. planning for the future has already gotten a little easier. and this is just the beginning.

soon, millions and millions more americans will see the impact of tax reform in their paychecks. i.r.s. withholding is going down. take-home pay is going up. families everywhere will be keeping more of their hard-earned money. and this is great news for middle-class americans, so why are our democratic friends afraid to acknowledge it? the reason is simple. every single one of them voted against tax reform. every democrat in the house and in the senate voted against these new benefits for american workers. every one of them voted against a pay raise for the 90% of american workers who, according to a treasury department estimate, are about to see their take-home pay go up. i don't envy their position. i don't envy having to explain why they voted to keep more money in washington rather than give their constituents a raise. tax reform bonuses and more

take-home pay aren't the only ways tax reform will help american workers. the bill also includes a creative new solution to directly help the communities that are struggling the most. we all know that too few new jobs are -- were created during the obama years. through heavy taxes and excessive regulation, washington had its foot on the brake of the u.s. economy. job creation and wage growth were weaker than they should have been, but another aspect of this often goes overlooked. of the new jobs that were created from 2010-2016, according to one estimate, three quarters went to major metropolitan areas. let me say that again. of the new jobs that were created between 2010 and 2016, three quarters went to major metropolitan areas. only 3% of those new jobs went to rural america. across the nation, including my home state of kentucky,

particularly the eastern kentucky, many rural areas, small cities, and suburbs were left behind in the obama economy. it's time to change that. that's why my colleague, the junior senator from south carolina, made sure that tax reform included a provision to create opportunity zones across the united states. my republican colleagues and i were proud to support this policy. it allows state governors to designate economically depressed areas with special tax incentives that will make them more attractive places to invest and create jobs. it will empower communities that have been passed over time and time again. in effect, put up big neon signs that say we're open for business. it will help these struggling communities reach their full potential. this congress is determined to reignite an economy that works for everyone. that's why tax reform lets families across the country keep more of what they earn. that's why tax reform makes america a more attractive place

to create jobs and gives our businesses a fairer fight with foreign competitors. and that's why tax reform includes this opportunity zone provision which will help deliver targeted relief to communities that need it the most. to most americans, all this sounds like common sense. republicans in congress thought so, too. we came together to deliver these historic achievements for the american people. it's too bad not one single democrat got on board with any of this, but at least the bigger paychecks, new bonuses, and new investments will continue to roll in. our constituents know exactly who stood up for them. mr. president, i understand there are three bills at the desk due a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time en bloc. the clerk: h.r. 1551, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the credit of

production from advanced nuclear power facilities. h.r. 2372, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to clarify the rules relating to veteran health insurance and eligibility for the premium tax credit. h.r. 2579, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow the premium tax credit with respect to unsubsidized cobra continuation coverage. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the rules, i object to further proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: just a brief note on taxes, in answer to what my friend, the republican leader, has said. the reason that 48 democrats voted against the bill, the reason at this point, despite huge amounts of ads paid for by the wealthiest of americans, that the bill is still unpopular with the american people is very simple. the vast majority of the breaks go to the very wealthy and big, powerful corporations and their lobbyists. that's who wins on this bill more than anybody else. if a bill focused on the middle class, gave 80% of the breaks to the middle class, there would be loads of democrats voting for it, but we don't believe --

we're happy there are a lot of wealthy people in america. god bless them. they don't need the huge tax break, the disproportionate tax break that our republican friends gave them. that's why the bill is unpopular. again, people like the koch brothers and the thousand very, very wealthy, many of them so greedy billionaires who don't want to pay any taxes. they put all these ads on tv. they have a whole propaganda machine. they still can't convince the american people. and our republican colleagues are afraid to talk about what they really mean in the tax bill, trickle-down economics. when they talk among themselves, they say give the wealthy a lot of money, give the big corporations a lot of money, and everyone will do fine. they don't have an honest debate on this because they're afraid to say it, so they act like they aim most of this at the middle class. well, the only way this is aimed at the middle class is trickle down, give the money disproportionately to the wealthy, the big corporations, and the middle class will

benefit. we don't believe that. we would rather give the money directly to the middle class and be sure that they are getting the benefit. now, on the budget. mr. president, as we continue discussions about another extension of government funding, senate negotiators are working on a deal to lift the spending caps for both defense and urgent domestic priorities. from the very beginning of the budget debate, democrats have made our position in these negotiations very clear. we support an increase in funding for our military and our middle class. the two are not mutually exclusive. we don't want to do just one and leave the other behind. the sequester caps have arbitrarily imposed austerity on both sides of the ledger. defense and the nondefense programs that benefit middle-class people like education, infrastructure, medical research. the caps have hamstrung the

pentagon's ability to make reliable investments, no doubt, but they have also cut support harshly and unintelligently from middle-class programs. now, we ought to get out from sequestration entirely because our men and women in uniform deserve the resources they need to keep our country safe, as do our veterans waiting for better health care, as do our young men and women, many of them veterans seeking treatment for opioid addiction, as do rural families waiting for high-speed internet to connect themselves and their kids to the world, as do hardworking pensioners who forewent salary increases and bonuses to secure a pension that's now evaporating before their very eyes. that's why democrats have pushed consistently to increase funding to fight the scourge of opioids, to improve veterans' health care, build rural infrastructure, shore up pensions, deal with child care. these are the kinds of things we

are pushing for, in addition, not to the exclusion, in addition to increasing defense. some of our republican colleagues, particularly in the house, think only defense should get the help it needs, not the middle class. we democrats have stood against that for years and will continue to stand against it. house republicans continue marching down a very partisan road, proposing a cromnibus that will raise defense spending but leave everything else behind. and as i have said many times before, a cromnibus will not pass the senate. speaker ryan and house republicans keep running into the same brick wall. when will house republicans learn they must chart a bipartisan course to get a bill through the senate. i don't think a single democrat that i'm aware of at least has been consulted on the republican bill. it's done because speaker ryan's in a pickle. how is he going to pass a bill

with just republican votes? it's not easy, so they come up with this distorted proposal, unfair proposal, unfair to so many people in the middle class who depend on our help. hopefully, they will change their tune in the house, house republicans, because even though a deal has eluded us for months, negotiators are now making significant progress. the republican leader and i have been working together quite productively. of course, there are still some outstanding issues to be resolved, but we are closer to an agreement than we have ever been. and i'd like to express my appreciation to the republican leader in addition for his invitation to address the mcconnell center next week in louisville, which i have accepted. as leaders, the two of us can work together to get things done around here. and the best opportunity to work together is the budget. it's an opportunity not just for

us but for our country, not only to escape the terrible damage of sequestration but to condemn it to the past, and we should seize that opportunity. now, mr. president, a word on the russia investigation. last night, the house intelligence committee voted to release the contents of the schiff memo. now that the house intelligence committee has acted, president trump should move in conjunction with the d.o.j. and the f.b.i. and release the schiff memo to the public. the american people deserve a chance to make their own judgment on the facts of this small piece of the broader case of russia's interference in our election. the president decided the public deserved to see the nunes memo before he had even read it, so he ought to be just as eager for the american people to see this memo, which refutes effectively, devastatingly so much in the nunes memo. given that the schiff memo is based on the underlying

documents, the same underlying documents as the republicans' partisan memo, there should be no question whether or not the president will approve its release. if he decides to keep the american -- sorry. if he decides to keep the democratic memo under wraps, the american people are going to be forced to wonder what is the president trying to hide? what is he afraid of? president trump should release the schiff memo quickly. it will illustrate what a sham the nunes memo is, and then we can all move on and let, as some of my good republican colleagues have had the courage to say -- not enough of them, but some -- let mueller do his investigation unimpeded, and let's see where the results end up. we need to move on. the nunes memo is only the latest in a long line of distractions manufactured by the most extreme elements of the republican party and the conservative media to distract

from the security council's investigation. it started with conspiracies about deep state leaks and unmasking requests, phone taps at trump tower, uranium one. now it's this memo. they don't quit with all these conspiracy theories, with all these ridiculous foe meantation. they won't quit perhaps because a real investigation which mueller is doing and continuing to do will repeal. what the american people want to know are three simple things. one, what did the russians do to interfere in our elections. two, were teleamericans involved? three, what are we doing about this from 2018 and beyond. to that point americans should be more concerned about president trump's tepid response than talking points. any other administration, any other president, i believe,

would have been made punishing putin and protecting our democracy a primary issue in the first term but this president began his career in office by down playing putin's interference. when the administration tried to wiggle out of existing sanctions against russia, congress overwhelmingly and almost unanimously passed legislation strengthening the existing sanctions, adding new ones to address the interference. and we're still waiting for president trump to implement the new round of sanctions. what's he waiting for? why does he refuse to get tough with putin? we look to the president of the united states to stand up for our democracy against all threats. but unfortunately and sadly, bad for america, president trump has abdicated this responsibility when it comes to putin. i yield the floor, and i know my

good friend from illinois will have his usual thoughtful and articulate remarks to give. mr. durbin: mr. president, i don't know if you want to announce the business for the day or if you've already done that. the presiding officer: the senate is in a period of morning business and the assistant democratic leader is recognized. mr. durbin: thanks, mr. president. i come to the floor today to speak of an issue which really defines america. with the exception of native americans who preceded us, with the exception of many african americans who were brought here in bondage, virtually all of the rest of us are the sons and daughters of immigrants to america, immigrants from literally all over the world, who have come to this nation and made us different, different in a positive way. they have given life to this democracy. they have given hope when it

comes to our future. they have inspired us. i'll be the first to admit that i do not come to this debate without strong personal feelings. like millions of americans, i am the son of an immigrant. in 1911, 107 years ago, my grandmother came to this country with three little kids. one of those kids was my mother. she was two years old when they landed, their ship landed in baltimore. my grandmother didn't speak a word of english, but somehow she managed to take those three kids and make her way to join my grandfather in east st. louis, illinois. on the credenza behind my desk here in the capitol is my mother's naturalization certificate. i keep that as a reminder of my heritage. that's my story. that's my family's story. that's america's story.

because of my family history, i really believe in immigration. i believe it has been a positive force in america. i remember going back to the tiny village then -- 1911, then a tiny village in lithuania. and being taken on a tour of my mom's birthplace. she never made it back there, but i was able to see it, the church where she was baptized. they pointed out the well in the town square which people used. and i thought to myself what it must have been like that evening when my grandparents called their friends and relatives together to tell them the news. they were leaving their home in lithuania. they were leaving the church that had served their family for generations. they were leaving all of their friends and relatives. they were leaving behind every stick of furniture, the dogs, the cats, the chickens,

everything, to go to a place where they didn't speak the language. they were going to this place called america. they heard great stories about the land of opportunity and they heard about some lithuanians who had gone to the city of east st. louis, illinois, and that's where they were headed. i'm sure that those friends and relatives walking away from that meeting turned to one another and said whatever got into their mind. they're giving up everything to go to a place where they don't even speak the language. they'll be back. well, they never returned. and like millions and millions of americans, they had the courage to come to america and to weather crisis after crisis in our family and to build a future. i stand here because of that decision. how can you tell when a country is in decline? when immigrants stop wanting to come to that country, when they can't wait to leave that country. many other developed countries

have had this experience and watched their economies decline as a result. that has never been our experience in the history of america. look at our history. in every generation immigrants have come to our shores from around the world and made us a better and stronger nation. immigrants are not a drain on america. immigrants are the future of america. they are hardworking men and women who leave behind everything they know to build a new and better life for themselves and their children here. they breathe new life into our country. they revitalize the american dream. you've heard the stories. they go to silicon valley and take a look at some of the best and brightest when it comes to high tech, and they marvel at the fact of how many of them were immigrants to this country who were finally able to take that great idea and turn it into a great business with a lot of employees well paid, helping this country move forward. it was 17 years ago that i

introduced a bill called the dream act. it was bipartisan legislation that gave a path to citizenship to immigrants who came to the united states as children. these young people have come to be known as dreamers. now i know the president went to a republican retreat last week and mocked the term dreamers. he did the same in his state of the union address. but i will tell you, i'm proud of the term dreamers. before this bill was introduced, if you asked about dreamers and who they were, most people would answer, isn't that a british rock group? well, now today dreamers symbolize something in america, young people brought here who have grown up pledging allegiance to that flag, singing the only national anthem they ever have known, who want to be part of our future. those are dreamers. i sent a letter eight years ago to president obama. dick lugar, republican senator from indiana, joined me in signing that letter. we asked on a bipartisan basis

for president obama to find a way to protect the dreamers. the president rep spopbded to our -- responded to our request. he established the deferred action for childhood arrivals, better known as daca. daca provides temporary legal status to dreamers if they step up, identify themselves, register with the government, pay a $500 filing fee, and submit themselves to a criminal background check, then a national security background check. and if they pass all of those things, under daca they were given temporary renewable two-year protection to stay in the united states, not be deported, and have the legal right to work. daca has been an extraordinary success. almost 800,000 dreamers have come forward and saoefrd -- received daca protection. it's allowed them to contribute

more to this country that they love as teachers and nurses and engineers and first responders and members of our military. yes, these daca individuals have stepped up, even though they do not have the legal rights of citizenship, raise their hand and sworn to put their life on the line for america. how many of us have done that? we should admire them for their commitment to this country. but instead on september 5, attorney general jeff sessions announced the trump administration was putting an end to this daca program. that same day the president called on congress to, quote, legalize daca, close quote. now the deportation clock is literally ticking on these young people. as we gather here today, more than 18,000 of these young people have lost their protection under daca. and beginning in less than a month, on march 5 of this year,

every day for the next two years 1,000 dreamers will lose their work permits and be subject to deportation because of president trump's decision. the administration itself has warned us that if we do come up with a legalization of daca, they need time, maybe as long as six months, to make it work. so what has congress done in response to this challenge, in response to the fact that thousands of young people are losing this protection? the answer is one word: nothing. nothing. not a single bill has passed the senate or the house in response to the president's challenge, despite the fact that 122 of these dreamers every single day, because of president trump's decision, lose the protection of daca. teachers, almost 20,000 of them nationwide who are daca

recipients, are going to be in a situation where they have to leave behind their classrooms and their students. nurses forced to leave behind their patients because of president trump's decision. first responders who have written an enviable record of courage in serving their communities will be forced to leave those posts. soldiers willing to die for america forced to leave the army. forced to leave the army they have volunteered to serve. this isn't just a looming humanitarian crisis. it's an economic crisis as well. more than 91% of daca dreamers are gainfully employed and paying taxes to our government. the nonpartisan institute on taxation and economic policy reports that daca-eligible individuals contribute an estimated $2 billion a year in state and local taxes. and the cato institute, a

conservative think tank, estimates that ending daca and deporting daca recipients will cost $60 billion and result in a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade. are the daca protectees a drain on society? not according to this conservative cato institute. they are a plus for america, a plus for our economy. poll after poll shows that overwhelming -- there's overwhelming bipartisan support for the dreamers. even fox news, no liberal media outlet, found that 79% of americans support a path to citizenship for dreamers. that includes 63% of those who identify as trump voters. when the trump administration shut down the daca program, the president called on congress to legalize the program. we have done nothing. the day after repealing daca,

president trump reached a tentative agreement on daca and border security with senator schumer, the senate democratic leader, and nancy pelosi, the house democratic leader. president trump said, and i quote, chuck and nancy would like to see something happen, and so do i. close quote, said the president. but very quickly president trump walked away from those words. in october the white house released seven pages of what they call immigration principles. their wish list when it came to immigration. it was a list of hard-line, anti-immigrant proposals. many of which have been opposed by both political parties in congress. then four weeks ago i was invited to a meeting on january 9 at the white house to sit next to president trump and about two dozen members of congress. the president said at that meeting, broadcast on live television, he wanted to protect

daca recipients. and he would sign any bipartisan bill that congress sent to him. the president said send me a bill, and i will sign it and i'll take the political heat. i heard it. so did america. he also said that congress should first pass daca legislation and that other immigration issues should wait for, quote, phase 2, which would be comprehensive, close quote. good news for me. good news for senator lindsey graham, republican from south carolina. we had been working for four months on a bipartisan plan. we came back to the hill after that meeting on january 9. that evening and the next day we hammered out an agreement. six senators -- three democrats and three republicans -- and we called the president on january 11. i personally called him to tell him we had a bill, a bipartisan bill. i wanted him to hear about it,

to know the details, and i hoped that it would solve the problem and challenge that we faced. it was a real compromise. the day after we finalized that agreement after the house meeting, we addressed all the priorities that the president had laid before us. including protection for the dreamers and a significant multibillion-dollar down payment on our border security. the president said he looked forward to senator graham briefing him on that plan and would be back in touch with me. then i received word within minutes the president wanted me to join senator graham coming to the white house. two hours later, senator lindsey graham and i were at the white house hoping that the president might embrace our bipartisan plan, but we are surprised and disappointed when we entered the oval office. in a matter of an hour and a half, five of the congressional hardliners on immigration had been invited in to shoot down

our plan. the president's views in a matter of less than two hours had changed radically. during our meeting, the president demanded $20 billion to build a wall on our southern border. he kept saying over and over, give me $20 billion, i'll build this wall in one year. the president reacted negatively to the agreement that we had reached. in terms of protecting immigrants from haiti from deportation and ensuring that immigrants from africa would be permitted to come to our country. what i heard at that meeting had nothing to do with security and the american jobs. it was a sad commentary by the president on his vision of immigration. then two weeks ago senator schumer, our democratic leader, made another good-faith attempt to work at the white house. he made a generous offer to president trump to fund the border wall. but after a promising meeting, within two hours the president called and withdrew any offer.

that was the third time senate democrats had offered to fund president trump's wall in exchange for the dream act. in other words, we've been willing to support a broadly unpopular and partisan proposal, the wall, in exchange for a broadly popular and bipartisan proposal, the dream act. but the president will not take yes for an answer. it's no wonder that senator schumer has said that trying to reach an immigration agreement with the president is, quote, like trying to negotiate with jello. two weeks ago the white house released a one-page framework on immigration reform and border security. the white house claims this is a compromise because it includes a path to citizenship for some dreamers. i might add an issue that is supported by the overwhelming majority of american people. but the plan would put the administration's entire hardline immigration agenda on the backs of these young people.

for example, the white house wants to dramatically reduce legal immigration, legal immigration by prohibiting american citizens from sponsoring their parents, siblings, and adult or married children as immigrants. we're talking about literally millions of relatives of american citizens who've done the right thing, followed our ilgraition laws, -- immigration laws, and have been waiting patiently in line as much as 20 years to come to the united states. listen to what the cato institute says about the proposal. i quote. in the most likely scenario, the new plan would cut the number of legal immigrants by up to 44% or half a million immigrants annually. the largest policy-driven, legal immigration cut since the 1920's. compared to current law, it would exclude the president -- the president's proposal would exclude nearly 22 million people from the opportunity to

immigrate legally to the united states over the next 50 years. this proposal would gut the 1965 immigration and nationality act which established our current immigration system with its focus on reuniting families. when you think about the bedrock principles of america, faith, family, love of country, why would we assault this effort to unify and strengthen our families in america, those who are following this process in a legal manner? the 1965 law which this would change dramatically replaced the strict national origin quotas of the 1924 immigration law. the 1924 immigration law was written to specifically exclude people whom the congress and president in those days thought should not be part of america's future. they were focusing on people from my part of the world.

my family came from the baltics. they focused on the baltics and eastern european countries to restrict their immigration to this country. lucky for me my family got over before the 1924 law. they also wanted to exclude italians in the belief that we had enough from that country and they wanted to exclude jews. that's what that 1924 national security act was about. when president lyndon johnson signed the 1965 law he said and i quote, it corrects a cruel and enduring wrong. for over four decades, the immigration policy of the united states has been twisted and distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system. end of quote. listen to what president calvin coolidge said when he signed the 1924 law, the last major reduction in legal immigration in america. listen to what he said. there are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside,

president coolidge said. biological law tell us that certain people will not mix or blend. the nordics promulgate themselves successfully. with other races the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. i can't understand why attorney general sessions at one point praised that 1924 law and said it was, quote, good for america, close quote. the president's immigration framework also would fast-track deportation of women and children who come to our border fleeing gang and sexual violence. since our tragic failure during world war ii to aid jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust, the united states has led the world since then in providing safe haven to people fleeing war and terrorism and persecution. now we're in the midst of the worst refugee crisis on record. 65 million people worldwide

forcibly displaced, including child refugees from central america, the northern triangle fleeing horrific violence. consider the opinion of general john kelly, the current white house chief of staff back in 2015 when he headed the u.s. southern command. general kelly said then the children from central america are arriving on the u.s.-mexico border are, quote, the direct result of our drug consumption, close quote, in the united states. general kelly said, and i quote, in many ways, parents are trying to save their children from the violence in their own countries. general kelly was right in 2015. in the past democrats have supported some of the president's proposals, like changes in our family immigration system and eliminating the diversity of visa lottery but i might remind my colleagues, that was all part of a significantly comprehensive immigration reform bill. i was part of the gang of eight

that drafted the original bill for republicans -- four republicans, four democrats. we brought that bill to this floor in 2013 and won a vote 68-32. the bill was a product of months of negotiations and compromise. unfortunately, the republican leadership and the house of representatives refused to even consider it. now we're being asked to accept this administration's proposals with no conditions and no give and take. if the administration wants to reform our legal immigration system, we have some priorities that we care for as well. if we're talking about protecting national security, why aren't we closing the loopholes in the visa waiver program? 20 million people from 38 nations travel to america every year on the visa waiver program, one-third of all the visitors to the united states. they arrive at american airports without undergoing biometric checks or consular interviews.

zacarias moussaoui, the so-called hijacker of 9/11 tried to enter through the visa program. so did richard reed, the shoe bomber. we should strengthen the visa waiver program by acquiring biometric checks of travelers before they land in america so we know who they are before they board the airplane. if you're really sincere about the security of our nation, this is an obvious need. and congress should also close the loophole that let's people who enter the u.s. through the visa waiver program -- remember, 20 million a year. we allow them to buy guns, even assault weapons, even if they're on the f.b.i. terrorist watch list. when it comes to security, that's an obvious loophole that needs to be closed. with the president failing to lead, the responsibility to fix the daca crisis falls on our shoulders here in congress. i see my colleague from texas, senator cornyn. he and i have talked extensively

about this. i still hold out hope that we may be able to find some way to resolve this in a bipartisan fashion. we have to do it because to date congress, the senate and the house, have done nothing. three weeks ago a bipartisan group of senate republicans and democrats finally persuaded senator mcconnell, the republican leader, to commit to addressing daca. i salute him for doing that. he made a statement on the floor twice unequivocally that we would bring this measure up if we hadn't reached an agreement by this friday. and that we would consider starting with what he called a level playing field, amendments on both sides of the issue of immigration and daca. we haven't seen that kind of debate on the floor of the united states senate in over one year. if it comes to that, i look forward to it. i'd like to see the senate work its will. and i hope that we come up with a positive and constructive compromise. we only have three days from today for that process to start

and i hope that we can make some progress in those three days. bipartisan legislation to protect dreamers has been pending in congress and has overwhelming support from the people we represent, including president trump's own voters. it would pass on a strong bipartisan vote in both the house and the senate if republican leaders would bring it to a vote. i look forward to that debate and i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, yesterday i spoke about the deadline we have coming up in two days. the question is, are we going to fund the federal government, are we going to keep the lights on, the parks open, the military protecting us, border patrol

protecting our borders? or are we going to shut down the government again over an unrelated issue? now, i listened to my friend, the senator from illinois, talk at some length about daca, and i do want to respond to that. but there is no reason why we have to do daca first because we are engamed in good -- engaged in good-faith negotiations and, indeed, the majority leader has promised he would take up a bill on the floor of the senate failing an agreement. but the fact of the matter is our friends across the aisle have basically shut down the government and now threatening to hold hostage a number of very important measures that i'll talk about momentarily over this issue that's unrelated to the funding of the government or

these other matters. and so what have we had to do? well, we've had to pass short-term continuing resolutions. we've had five of them since september alone. now, the impact of these continuing resolutions was brought home to me again yesterday. usually i thought -- i'd think about our military and general mattis who has pleaded with us to help provide the additional resources necessary to make sure that our military is ready, is trained, has the equipment that they need in order to fight and win wars but hopefully to maintain our strength so we never will have to fight a war. that's how ronald reagan viewed it and i agree with general mattis. peace through strength is the right formula. but when our adversaries look at us with our military, just a

pail reflection of what it used to be in terms of readiness because of the lack of funding we provided, that's a provocation or at least an invitation for others to step in and fill the void and it leads to a more dangerous world. but these continuing resolutions, as i said, the harm caused by them was brought home to me again yesterday when i had a number of people with the texas association of community health centers come visit. these community health centers are a vital link and safety net for many texans and many americans who don't otherwise have a place they can go for their medical care. they treat people based on a sliding scale based on the ability to pay. so they're accessible to virtually everybody. but what my constituents with the texas association of community health centers told me is because of the funding cliff

with the continuing resolutions, they don't know how to plan. they don't know their doctors and their medical assistants and others, support staff, they don't know if they're going to have a job after thursday, february 8, when the current continuing resolution expires. they don't know whether the patients they treat will actually have a place to go to get that treatment. this is a miserable way for congress to do business, and it should not continue. we need to provide more certainty and predictability. general mattis himself said that this basically wastes money because we have to plan to shut down portions of our activities if, in fact, government does shut down, and so then you have

to restart it again and stop it, start it. it's a waste. it's inefficient. it's unnecessary. our friends across the aisle need to release another hostage, too, in addition to the spending caps agreement and the funding needed for our military and the funding needed for community health centers and all the other important functions that are served by the federal government. they need to release the hostage of disaster relief. in december, the house passed an $81 billion relief package, but so far our democratic colleagues have refused to allow us to bring that disaster relief bill up. again, why? because of daca, this unrelated immigration issue that they think is more important than all the people that were hurt by hurricane maria, hurricane harvey, and the wildfires out west.

we do need to address daca, and we will, but why hurt the victims of these natural disasters in the interim by holding this disaster relief hostage? well, it's time we stand up in a bipartisan fashion and show these folks in texas, florida, the virgin islands, and puerto rico and out west that we remember and we're going to help them. why should they have to wait any further? there is no good answer to that question, but i think it's important that somebody come out here on the floor of the united states senate and ask the question. i said i wanted to talk about the issue that our democratic colleagues shut down the government over last month, and that issue is immigration and the path forward on daca.

daca, again, is deferred action for childhood arrivals. this is something president obama did unilaterally, circumventing congress, assuring in a new administration that it would be called into question, not only in the courts but also by the new administration. and so president trump recognizing that the courts had effectively said that what president obama tried to do was illegal, he basically continued it for a time to give congress a chance to try to respond, and he's given us a deadline of march 5. but i heard my friend from illinois blame president obama for trying to fix the problem that was caused by an overreach by the previous administration. don't take my word for it. take the courts who struck down the daca program.

president trump has continued it long enough to give congress a chance to fix it. that's the appropriate response. but it's not helpful just to engage in the blame game. we actually need to step up and not just give speeches on the floor of the senate. we actually need to enter into a good-faith negotiation. to date, president trump has issued a reasonable framework that would not only give protection to those who were brought here illegally by their parents as children, but also fix other gaps in our broken immigration system, border security, the diversity lottery vis and ensure that -- advice a and ensure that people who are waiting in line patiently could be unified with their family. by narrowing the scope of family-based immigration in the future, that's prospective only, but then one proposal has been to plow those additional green

cards into accelerating the passage of people who are patiently waiting in line, some as many as 10 and 20 years. but president trump has done something that president obama never did. he's offered 1.8 million young adults who are currently daca recipients and daca eligible an opportunity to get on a pathway to american citizenship. that's three times more than the young adults who were addressed by the deferred action for childhood arrivals that president obama did unilaterally. that's an incredibly generous offer. what has the president requested in return or in addition? he said, well, secondly, i want to secure our borders and i want to address legal loopholes in the current law.

that's important because we have to protect our citizens and regain the public trust, one of the very reasons why this president was elected is because people are angry that the federal government has failed them when it comes to securing our borders and enforcing our laws. and i believe the second pillar of what president trump has talked about, border security, which is really a system of physical infrastructure, fenced walls, barriers, but also technologies and personnel, that those are the three essential ingredients in border security. we have to ensure that people don't flout the law and enter the country illegally. we all know that a porous border is an opportunity for drug traffickers and human traffickers and other criminals to exploit our porous border. but as i said, it's not union i dimensional. it's not just -- not

unidimensional. it's not about a wall or fence or barrier. it's about technology, personnel, and physical infrastructure as well. and the president has acknowledged as much. now, i have heard our colleagues across the aisle bridle at what the president has requested in terms of not only a plan for border security but also for the funding. he said he wants $25 billion to make sure that the federal government finally steps up and lives up to its responsibility on the border. well, it wasn't that long ago when the gang of eight, senator durbin, my friend from illinois, was one of the gang members, they proposed and the senate passed a bill by 68 votes that provided $50 billion for border security. it had other problems, but they were more than generous in providing for border security,

and now today they chafe and resist and refuse basically to negotiate on this item when they voted for double that amount in the so-called gang of eight bill just a few years ago. the president's third pillar relates to what's known as the diversity lottery visa. many, including the president, have questioned whether it makes sense to just give out 50,000 green cards a year based on a lottery, a game of chance. they have suggested and the president has proposed that we use those green cards to reward skill and merit. i mean, we ought to look at immigration as a way for us to attract the best and brightest, the people who have skills, talents, education, things to offer their new country when they come here. we don't have to end the diversity part, but we can add

to it. the skill that would help make our country better and allow these new citizens to contribute in a substantial way to their adopted country. the fourth pillar addresses family unification. i say family unification because i think the recently adopted alternative term of chain migration has become a pejorative and oversimplifies a very complex area of the law. what the president has proposed is that in the future, we allow people to to immigrate to the country based on family relationships, and we confine that to the nuclear family, mom, dad, and the kids. but one suggestion has been that green cards that you would save by not allowing collateral family members to come in, married adult children, aunts,

uncles, cousins, and the like based strictly on the family relationship, is that we could plow those green cards back into the backlog because there are people who have been playing by the rules and waiting patiently in line, some for 10 or 20 years because of the caps that we put on country immigration. why doesn't it make sense to let them reunite with their family members even faster than that so they don't have to wait so long? i think that makes an awful lot of sense. and during the time that that backlog clears, there really wouldn't be any reduction in legal immigration. i don't know what the right number is for legal immigration. we have naturalized almost, well, roughly about a million people a year. i support legal immigration. i think it makes our country better, but i'm not sure exactly what the right number is, and i'm not sure exactly what the

right formula is. a number of countries like australia and canada look at the skills or merit-based system in addition to family relationships. i think that makes a lot of sense to me. so while we continue to have this discussion about what should be the long-term rate of legal immigration, it makes sense to plow these additional green cards that will not be used prospectively by collateral family members based on that family relationship back into the backlog and unify those families who have been waiting for their loved one who has been in line waiting to immigrate legally into the united states. one thing i really appreciate about the president's proposal is it addresses shortcomings with the so-called gang of eight bill that was considered back in 2013. this is where i differ from -- again, from my colleague from illinois. he celebrates the fact that they

were able to get 68 votes in the senate, but it didn't pass the house and it never got to the president. i'm not sure that's a cause of celebration. what i would actually like to see is us take the president's four pillars and actually get a presidential signature on a law that passes not only the senate but the house and that the president will sign. i thought that is the goal. not just to go through some futile gesture or to pass one branch of the legislature only to fail in the house. well, the reason why the gang of eight bill failed in the house is because it had some serious problems. it had no real objective metrics to determine where technology and infrastructure would be the most effective. it didn't require the department of homeland security to achieve 24/7 situational awareness and

100% operational control of the border. it didn't adequately address the personnel and infrastructure improvements that we know are desperately needed at our northern borders. and our ports of entry. finally, even though the gang of eight bill contains some provisions to address criminal banks, drunk drivers, and aggravated felons, it also had generous waivers and still allowed some criminals to qualify for legal status. that didn't make any sense to me then, and it makes no sense to me now. why would we allow people with criminal records to immigrate into the united states? worse, the gang of eight bill didn't end catch and release of criminal aliens, and it did nothing to deter the influx of people who are exploiting a loophole in the law relating to unaccompanied minors.

by way of contrast, the new white house proposal addresses these concerns in ways that the flawed gang of eight bill did not, and i predict that if we would embrace the president's four pillars and pass a bill that reflects those requirements, that the house of representatives could pass it and the president would sign it, which would actually then provide a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young people. i don't know how some of our friends can look these young people in the face and say we had the chance. you had the opportunity to receive one of the greatest gifts a human being could possibly accept, and that is a pathway to american citizenship. but we turned it down, or because we mystical congratulated and we figured

maybe we could get it to the senate but we can't get it to the house, we can't get a presidential signature, sorry, we ended up empty-handed, and you remain in the same box you were in in the first place. how is that helping these young people? it's not. well, the white house proposal closes loopholes in the current law that's being exploited by criminal gangs and human traffickers. let me explain. under the current law, if somebody is under 18 years of age and shows up at the border, the border patrol processes them. then they are given to the health and human services. and if they make a claim of some immigration benefit, they're given a notice to appear before an immigration judge. the backlog there is so great that it could be years down the

road. and then they are placed with a sponsor. but here's the problem. first of all, there's no adequate monitoring of these individuals to make sure they actually show up for their court hearing. current law allows them to be placed with a sponsor that's not legally present in the country in the first place. there's no criminal background checks. we don't know whether these unaccompanied children are being placed with people who would abuse them or traffic them or recruit them into criminal gangs. in 2017 alone, the department of homeland security apprehended 41,000 unaccompanied minors who crossed the southern border. 37% were between the ages of 15 and 16 and another 32% were 17 years old. so we're not talking about young

children. we're talking about by and large, grown young men. as i mentioned earlier, this number has increased significantly with more than 11,000 unaccompanied minors being apprehended in the last four months alone. they have figured this out. the transnational criminal organizations that traffic in human beings and drugs and weapons and anything else that's worth a buck, they figured this out. they got a loophole in the u.s. law which allowed them to charge a fee to bring in these young men who may or may not be a member of msn -- ms-13 one of the most violate criminal -- most violent criminal gangs and

now there is no way to keep them out, even under current law. i don't know how our colleagues who refuse to take up this issue and to address it justify it. i just can't understand it. in my opinion, we have a real problem that our colleagues either don't want to fix or they're deliberately ignoring. we can't solve these problems by just putting our head in the sand and hoping that the problem goes away. it won't. this is just one example of the loophole which a border security bill that i introduced months ago called the building america's trust act would fix. if our colleagues are serious about providing a solution and providing a lifeline to these young adults who are daca recipients -- indeed everyone who is daca eligible, they need

to work with us. they need to recognize the reality that president trump has laid out a pathway for that to happen. but they can't just cherry pick and pick the parts that they like and ignore the rest and expect that we're going to get an outcome. again, the basic failure in the gang of eight bill was, yeah, they got 68 votes in the senate, including$50 billion for border security, but they couldn't get it through the house and couldn't get it to the president for signature. i don't know how to sugar coat, but that's failure. that's not success. success is to get a bill through both houses and get the president to sign it. and president trump has given all of us a map, a pathway to how to do that. to my knowledge, there's never been a counter offer that

addresses the four fill lars that the president -- the four pillars that is president has proposed. never. again, i think the people with the most to lose out of this proposition, in addition to the great american people, are these young adults who would benefit from a stability and predictability and a path forward and to receive a gift, as i said, which would be the greatest gift any human being could possibly aspire to. and that is the gift of american citizenship eventually. but it's going to be squandered. the president's generous offer will be squandered because our colleagues don't like his proposal. but they're unwilling to come up with a counter offer so we can actually have a negotiation. the president, i'm sure, would

welcome that counteroffer. we would too. and we'd welcome an opportunity to actually get a result here, to make a law. not just go through a political exercise. not just an exercise that's destined to end in failure and then become a political issue in the next election. that's not what we should be about here. so i hope that reality will set in. president trump has offered a proposal. our colleagues on the other side who don't like the proposal have not offered a counter offer that meet the four pillars. they don't want to even pay attention to the last two -- the diversity visa issue or the so-called family unification,

sometimes called chain migration. they want to act like that that doesn't exist. i just don't get it, mr. president. i come from a state of 28 million people. 38 roughly percent hispanic origin. we have a 1,200 mile common border with mexico. texas taxpayers pay for the border security that the federal government fails to fund and facilitate. i want to see a solution. i'm happy to vote in favor of a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million people, but i can't go back home and look my constituents in the face unless i tell them that this is the last time we're going to have to do this, because we fixed the underlying problem. border insecurity, gaps which

are exploited by criminal gang members, and the transnational criminal organizations that traffic in them, and these other issues that the president has put on the table. so i hope reality does set in, because i really would like to get a bill that we could pass in the house and senate and get to the president for his signature and move on to these other important issues. how do we fund our military? how do we fund the community health centers? how do we provide some predictability to the rest of america that's being held hostage to this issue? mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today to discuss something extremely important to each one

of us in this wonderful body which is called civility and trust. civility and trust. and i rise to discuss them because they have been lost in washington. and i look around and we're all friends, but for some reason we lost the trust of each other, and we don't seem to spend enough time with each other. i can remember senator robert c. byrd, the longest serving senator, i think, in the history of the united states senate. and he always told me what a place this was. he said the senate is something special. he even wrote a book about it, about how the senate is to operate, the founding fathers, what the intent was for the bipartisan, bicameral body that george washington explained so eloquently, and what our role was as the most deliberative body in the world and the whole world kind of depends on us cooling things off and making things work. but as we've seen, it hasn't done what it's supposed to do, and it's not the blame of one person or the other or one party

or the other. i guess we can all say it's all of our fault for letting it denigrate to this point. several years ago i took a personal pledge. i just knew something was wrong. when i first got here and i looked around and i saw we were all expected to make phone calls, raising money every day to our respective parties, and that money would be used for a couple of purposes. the purpose of basically setting an agenda or explaining your priorities and your policies. but a lot of that money was directed towards the feeding colleagues -- towards defeating colleagues on the other side. me being in the democrat caucus and the democrat money was supposed to be raised, and if any one of my friends, any one of my friends on the republican side was up in cycle, that money was supposed to be used against them. i thought that was wrong, and i know my republican friends, i know a lot of them feel the same way, that they're supposed to be making phone calls to raise money to be used against me and

everybody else that's up in cycle. i'm sure they feel the same as i do. i've often said that this -- that i come to work in a hostile work environment, and i tried to explain that in the terms of how we in west virginia would look upon this. if you go to work every day in my state of west virginia and your colleague or some person that you're working with is trying to undermine and undercut you and get you fired, and every day you go to work they are nice to your face but behind the scenes they're doing all they can to denigrate your work or make your supervisors believe you're not doing your job, back home in west virginia, sooner or later they're going to want a little talk. they'll say can we talk in the parking lot? can we have this disagreement worked out? and that's the way it would be settled. maybe that's the way it should be settled here too. i don't know. i don't think so. i've met too many wonderful people that i've been serving with for the last seven years

that are bright, that are extremely capable and intelligent, that have a wealth of experience. and i would put them up against any people that i met anywhere in any occupation in the country. but for some reason we're all blocked from doing the right thing, what we know is right, sitting down and not accusing each other, not working and conspiring against each other, and not getting basically to the point that it's so visceral that someone might be talking with me one day but then that weekend they might be in my state campaigning against me. and then we come back on monday and tuesday and we're supposed to sit down and work through our problems and differences for the betterment of our country. i just think human nature doesn't let that happen. and it won't produce good results. i've always looked forward to working with everybody, and i am probably one of the most centrist as far as being on more pieces of legislation in a

bipartisan way. i've never looked at a republican or a democrat problem. i just looked at a problem that we had, and i always said this: the best form of government is the best policies and the best form of politics, if you want to play hard-core politics, is good government. everyone can take credit for doing something good. i assure you, we do something wrong or we don't fix things, we all get blamed. nobody looks good when we sit and don't work on our differences. we all get credit when we try to work together. we face a lot of challenges right now and when we do things that basically shun the other side because we don't want to share the glory with somebody else if we think there is some good in a piece of legislation. every piece of legislation we voted for or against has some good in it. every piece of legislation has something good, worthwhile in it. what happens is there are ways we can make it better, and

that's where our differences. if you can make something better, i need to work with you because i don't have all the answers but we both have the desire to make the best piece of policy we can in legislation, so we should be working together. i should be open to saying that looks good to me let's see if we can amend this and fix it. but it seems we get set in our ways. the place robert byrd talked about many years ago was the place where people stayed, spent more time in washington -- they didn't come in on monday night and leave thursday afternoon. they stayed and work. on the weekends they would get together and have dinners together. families would do things together during the days on the weekends, and they became friends. it's hard to say no to your friend. it's hard. if all of us had been in situations that it's very hurtful that a friend that you disagreed with, you would try to find the most delicate way to see if there is a path forward

without hurting your friend, it meant that much to us. that's the way it should be here too. but if you don't have that working relationship, as a former governor i have my dear friend from south dakota, who is my dear friend, we're going to look for a way to stay together and be friends. we're not going to look for a way to disagree and diverse from that friendship we built. we built that during our terms working as governors. our n.g.a., national governors association, when you had a medicaid problem, when you had an infrastructure problem, when you had a senior citizens problem, a veterans problem, you looked around and looked at a state that found a pathway to fix that and you never hesitated to call them and, hey, mike, what did you think about this. i tried this. i'll send someone out and we'll are work together. that's what i was used to doing

as far as getting things done and that's what i want to do again. i think the place is right for it. we want our states to have a bipartisan pathway forward to work together. i know the people of west virginia want to see us get things accomplished. i've got a wonderful little state that has given its all. i tell the children, when someone asks you are where you are from, i want you to puff your chest and say i come from a wonderful state, we have more veterans per capita, we have fought in more wars, shed more blood, lost more lives for the cause of freedom than any other state. we have done the heavy lifting. we mined the coal and built the ships that defend our country every day. our country has blessed us with one of the greatest went views you will ever see. my state is called west

virginia. we hope you come and visit and maybe you will even stay. we all have that pride. whether it's n indiana -- it's indiana or wherever it may be. we have pride in our state. i don't see anybody in public service that's willing to put their name on the ballot as an enemy. if you're willing to take the heat that comes with these jobs, then let's make sure that we get the results that these jobs should produce. these jobs should produce results that america is the right place to solve the families we all have and lift us up and be the hope of the world. so with that i'm pledging to the people of west virginia and to the american people that i will not campaign against a sitting colleague. i will not direct fundraise against them. i will not distribute any direct maim against them. i will not appear or endorse any advertisements directed at them.

and i will not use or endorse social media campaigns that attack them. washington will be dysfunctional until we all draw the line of truth and say we're here for the same reason. we swear to the same constitution, take the same oath, on a bible that he will uphold. since that civility has broken down because the system has changed, we're not here, we don't know our spouses, we don't know our children, we better control ourselves through the -- hopefully through the rules that we could change and the ethic laws that we should live by to treat each other in the manner we would want to be treated. with that, i'm going to sign this pledge, and i would hope that all of my colleagues will consider signing the pledge the same way. we're the only ones that can change it. the power has changed. the pressure that comes from within has changed. this place has changed.

and the only way to make a difference is to stop attacking and denigrating each other. with that, i will sign the pledge. it says, pledge to return to an era of bipartisan cooperation and agreement in order to bring back civility to the united states, we must pledge to have a bipartisan cooperation an agreement. i, joe manchin, pledge to the people of west virginia, and to the american people that i will not campaign against a sitting colleague, not directly fundraise against him, not distribute direct mail against him, not pay peer, endorse advertisements directed at them, and not use or endorse social media campaign that attacks them. i would hope that each one of you all would consider this. i think we have to take this in our own hands right now and make sure that we look at each other with sincerity.

we might disagree, but we can work through this. remember our purpose of being here. the people want us to succeed. they depend on us to succeed. that's the policy they need whether it's indiana, south dakota, or west virginia. they want the same. they want america to be the hope of the world. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. rounds: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you, mr. president. let me just respond to my colleague and good friend from west virginia. he and i served as governors at the same time. we had a friendship that has lasted more than a decade now, and a lot of what the senator has indicated i feel as well in terms of the reason why we came here and the focus that we should have. and, in fact, i think one of the most important things we can do

as members of this institution, members of this body, is it to -- is to show respect for one another and defend one another in our responsibility to try to find a way forward. and until we have that respect for one another, it is very difficult to expect others to have that same respect for ourselves or for this institution. and so i most certainly appreciate the sentiments expressed by my colleague from west virginia, and i appreciate him bringing it to the floor today. it is in that spirit that i bring this message to my -- to my fellow members of the united states senate. because i rise today to ask for support for the defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2018. i'd like to start by thanking the majority leader for bringing the defense appropriations bill to the floor. now, just because the majority

leader brings it to the floor doesn't mean we'll necessarily even get an opportunity to debate it. it it requires either unanimous consent of all the members or at least 60 members agreeing to have that debate. it's one of the reasons why we haven't had any appropriation measures on the floor. it takes 60 members, republicans and democrats, just to begin the debate of each one of these 12 separate appropriation bills which makes up what we normally vote on during the year. this is part of the process that has been broken for 44 years because it only worked four times in 44 years, but you have to start explais. providing -- some place. providing long-term stability to our armed forces is vital for them to maintain the force. in particular, under short-term stop-gap funding measures known as continuing resolutions, which we're operating under right now,

the defense department is restricted from starting new programs. these new programs are ones we have authorized through the national defense authorization on a bipartisan basis for 2018. we just don't appropriate the money yet so they can actually do the programs that we've already agreed as a body are important to have in place. this is very concerning to me because in today's rapidly changing thread environment, these programs were designed to protect our nation against those new threats. if we are to adequately recover readiness levels that were lost over the last aitd years, really -- eight years, really due in many cases to sequestration, as well as help our armed forces in this complex world, we must give them the funding, stability and certainty that creations -- continuing resolutions fail to provide.

the subcommit held two hearings on the yesterdayiness posturing. to put that in nond.c. terms, what their conditions are now and their need for modernization. i would like to address a few readiness issues addressing our force. the first are the issues plaguing our navy. and the need to not only fund our navy, but all branches of our armed forces. the first issue concerns the f- 18 hornet aircraft. this is the one people see on a regular basis on film clips showing them taking off for the carriers. this is the primary navy attack aircraft. this is the one we use for air-to-air combat, we also use this to do the attacks in iraq and syria as well.

the first issue is plaguing our navy, and what they do is demonstrate the need to adequately fund not only our navy, but as i said once again, all of the different branches. so this is it not -- this is not just the navy only, this is all of the branches which need assistance. vice chief of operations william moran said that our legacy fa-18 and d hornets take longer for repair and maintenance. he stated that on a typical day in the navy about 25% to 30% of our jets and our airplanes are in some kind of depot maintenance. that's the end of his quote. overall, just about half are unavailable for operations today. it's not just the fa-18 hornet, it's all of the aircraft in need of upgrade.

to sum up the admiral's comments, the navy is putting in twice the navy man hours to maintain a fleet that is he's will he -- that is less than 50% available. in a crisis situation, the vice chief said, and i quote, we can and do put airplanes and ready plane crews forward, but there's no depth on the bench behind them if we had to search forces. in other words, all of the aircraft that are available right now, we have on the front lines. these are the ones serving overseas. we don't have the backups in case they go down. the marine corps is also experiencing seriousness readiness issues with its f-18 fleet. there's a human cost. on december 8, 2016, the marine corps announced another pilot had been killed as a result of the training accident in the fa-18 hornet. this was the third marine corps

fa-18 hornet class a mishap, which is defined as an accident resulting as -- in a death or complete loss of aircraft over a month and a half time period. in the previous 22 months, the marine corps had experienced seven class a mishaps flying legacy fa-18 hornets. sadly, some or all of these mishaps might have been avoided with the additional training and maintenance that would have been forthcoming with the additional funding that had been recommended in the national defense authorization, which this body, on a bipartisan basis, has already voted on. returning to the navy, its maintenance-related readiness concern extends to the attack submarine fleet. admiral moran said that attack submarines are sent to provide shipyards for maintenance

because government shipyards are already at capacity with higher priority work, especially, and specifically, on aircraft carriers and ballistic missle submarines. but the private shipyards do not have the capacity to take on extra repair work. this lack of shipyard capacity is severely impacting our attack submarine fleet. for example, the u.s.s. albany, which is an attack submarine, sent 48 months in the repair yard due to repeated delays as the workforce focused its attention on aircraft carriers and on ballistic missle submarines, meaning an entire crew spent years waiting for a deployment that never came. worse still, the u.s.s. boise attack submarine was not -- that was last summer -- they didn't put it in the shipyard because

the shipyard workload was so far over workforce capacity. as a result that boat is currently sitting in norfolk, virginia, and not certified to dive while it awaits maintenance. this is a taxpayer access -- asset not being worked on and right now it is so out of shape it is not even allowed to dive. the boise will not be able to rejoin the fleet until 2020 or later. that means that this vital navy asset will be unavailable for at least another 48 months. in fact, the maintenance backlog has docked 15 nuclear impact submarines for 77 months, or 15 years, in which those attack submarines have not been available for the protection of our country. while p i'm discussing some --

while i'm discussing serious readiness challenges. air force secretary heather wilson said, and i quote, the fiscal year 2018 resolution is dlailg our efforts to increase the readiness of the force and risks accumulate over time. we are stretching the force to the limit. and we need to start turning the corner on readiness. end of quote. with the shortage of nearly 2,000 pilots out of about 20,000 total, secretary wilson went on to say that current active duty pilots were burning up because the air force was too small for what the nation is asking. our biggest need right now is for a higher and stable budget to provide security and solvency for the nation, she went on to say. according to defense secretary james mattis operating under a

continuing resolution for 2018 runs 9 risk -- the risk of delaying vital projects and increasing their cost, including 37 navy project, 16 air force projects, and 38 army projects. the projects could be impacted include progress on new trainer aircraft, weapons systems, and important training programs. the most important things that congress can do to solve these problems are provide funding stability and avoid arbitrary budget caps that constrain defense spending below that which is required to protect our nation. this bill that's before us now does both. more specifically, only by removing these caps can we avoid the department of defense having to make difficult choices that are so devastating for our armed forces. in particular, we must avoid their having to make the false choice of paying for readiness

while assuming risk for modernization or vice versa. the american people expect us to adequately defend america next year and for every year to come. this requires us to put an end to continuing resolutions and remove arbitrary budget caps and the threat of sequestration. only by doing so can congress fulfill its number one responsibility, keeping americans safe. i conclude by again thanking the majority leader for bringing the fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations bill to the floor. he can't do it alone. he needs our cooperation. he needs our understanding as to just how critical this is. if there is not unanimous consent to move forward, it will require at least 60 of us to agree it's time to bring this bill to the floor for full debate and passage. i ask all of my colleagues to

support it. get it to the president's desk as soon as possible. and finally bring an end to the defense component of a c.r. or continuing resolution that with arbitrary budget caps is so severely impacting the readiness of our armed forces. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand the senate has received a message from the house to accompany h.r. 695. the presiding officer: the leader is correct. mr. mcconnell: i move that the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany h.r. 695. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the

message. the clerk: resolved, that the house agreed to the amendment of the senate to the title of the bill h.r. 695 entitled an act to amend the national child protection act of 1993 and so forth and for other purposes and be it further resolved that the house agree to the amendment of the senate to the text of the aforementioned bill with an amendment. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 695 and i send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to concur. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 695, a bill to amend the national child protection act of 1993 to establish a voluntary national criminal history background

check system and criminal history review program for certain individuals who related to their employment have access to children, the elderly or individuals with disabilities and for other purposes signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to refer the house message on h.r. 695 to the committee on appropriations to report back forthwith with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, moves to refer the house message on h.r. 695 to the committee on appropriations to report back forthwith with instructions being amendment numbered 1922. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 1923 to the instructions of the

motion to refer. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 1924 to amendment numbered 1923. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: are we currently in quorum call? we are. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i join my colleagues, both republican and democrat, in raising the alarm about a decision i believe represents politicized policy making at its very worst. just a few weeks ago, we were notified that the trump administration's interior department seeks to open up 90%, 90% of america's waters to oil and gas drilling. this was startling news for americans everywhere, but particularly those of us who come from states along the atlantic and pacific coastline who had no expectation that our

coastal waters were about to be subjected to the search for oil and gas. the objections to the trump administration's decision came swiftly from elected officials in both parties, republicans and democrats, because protecting america's fragile coastlines isn't or shouldn't be a partisan issue. this decision by president trump and secretary of the interior zinke was not rooted in public input or scientific analysis. this decision was not based on concerns about community safety or economic prosperity. this decision was our administration putting their, quote-unquote, energy dominance goals above all else. i know several of my colleagues have already spoken out to discuss what this means for their states and how it will impact their constituents, but i'm here today to raise my voice for mine, to fight for delaware, and in delaware, our coasts are critical to our local environment and our robust

economy delaware has 28 miles of atlantic coastline, some of the most pristine, most beautiful beaches in the entire country, and as you can see in this graphic of our boardwalk at rehoboth beach, delaware, our 2% of our total state work force. that's a remarkable amount of economic activity in a very small space. our coastline generates $6.9 billion in economic activity every year and hosts thousands of acres of protected land. it includes on our bay shore side two national wildlife refuges that serve as critical habitat for bald eagles, white-tailed deer and striped bass. the future of our economy depends on recreational access with tourism that are potentially at risk because of this ill-advised decision to open the coastline off of

delaware and the rest of the mid-atlantic to potential oil and gas exploration and production. my colleagues here know that i make an effort to promote pragmatic and bipartisan ideas. it's one of my top priorities day in and day out to work across the aisle and do what's right for our constituents and for the united states, so let me be clear. my view is not based in an antioil or -- anti-oil or natural gas message. i support an all of the above energy strategy, and advance legislation that would embrace an all of the above energy strategy, and i acknowledge there are many places in the united states where we can and do safely produce these resources, both on shore and offshore. but what if we happen to face a spill of the scale in size of deepwater horizon? this is an overlay of the footprint of the 2010 oil disaster at deepwater horizon and how it spread to impact the gulf coastline. it's perhaps a little hard to see here, but the state of

delaware and new jersey and its fragile coastline are underneath that footprint, and it suggests how we might end up facing dramatic impacts, negative impacts on tourism and fishing that depend on clean coastlines to support tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity in my home state. if we're going to think seriously about doing this, we need to think about the impacts. we need to ask whether the costs outweigh the benefits. and when it comes to the trump zinke plan to drill off the coast of delaware, i'm here to tell you that the potential costs dramatically outweigh the benefits. as you can see in this graphic, a spill the size of the deepwater horizon one could devastate all of our beach communities and protected wildlife areas in delaware and the region. and again, mr. president, protecting our coastlines, an idea supported by scientists and coastal residents alike, should

not be a partisan issue. in delaware alone, multiple city councils all up and down our coasts, have openly opposed offshore drilling through letters and resolutions they have sent to me and the rest of our congressional delegation. coastal lawmakers from both parties have opposed offshore drilling, and i know for a fact the same is happening virtually in every other coastal state potentially impacted by this unwise decision. these are the people we should be listening to, the people who don't just visit the coast for a week in the summer but who live on it, who rely on it, who built their lives and their local economy around it. instead, as this decision shows, the trump administration is prioritizing the oil and gas industry and partisan politics over those of independent scientists, coastal residents, and the elected officials who speak for our coastal communities. that was made painfully clear when the republican governor of florida, a close ally of the president, petitioned to shield just florida from potential oil

and gas exploration and production. sure enough, florida promptly got a public promise from secretary zinke that its coastlines would be spared. i'm sure florida's coastline is beautiful. in fact, i visited florida's coastline and i can tell you it's beautiful. but guess what? so is delaware's. we deserve to be able to protect our coastline just as much as floridians do. so i invite secretary zinke to once again come to delaware but to instead see the coastline and see these fragile resources and see what they have to offer. for wildlife, for conservation, for fishing, for hunting, and for tourism. secretary zinke promising to exempt florida is the trump administration deciding which states have to deal with oil and gas drilling based purely on partisan political consideration. i think the state of our coastal communities and local economies shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder or shouldn't be subject to partisan politics. instead, they should be able to be protected based on science

and based on the views of coastal communities. so i'm here today to voice my profound disappointment in this plate ant neglect of local voices and the well-being of individual states and coastal communities. i came to the floor to fight for my state and to raise the local voices i have heard from our coastal communities. mr. president, our coastlines are just too fragile and too vital and too important to let partisan politics get in the way of their future. thank you. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. coons: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until >> we hope to bring new leadership briefing before 2:15 p.m. eastern to resume debate on a defense fund bill. democrats begin a policy retreat tomorrow. government funding expires this coming thursday and congress is working on an extension. the house will take up the bill today at approximately 2:00 p.m. and you can watch the debate live on our companion network c-span. you can follow the debate and briefing on the c-span networks