of generic drugs and helped advance innovation for patients with rare diseases. he's contributed to the protection of children's health and well-being as well as the rights of americans with disabilities. i know one of his proudest accomplishments is passing the religious freedom restoration act, which protects individual americans' rights to exercise their religion. most recently he had the honor of having the orrin g. hatch bob good let modernization act after him which overhauled music copyright law. we both have a strong touch of the west in our hearts that we express every day in what we do. that's why i wasn't surprised last year when orrin announced he would not be running for another term in the senate. he said, and i quote, i've always been a fighter. i was an amateur boxer in my youth. but every good fighter knows when to hang up the gloves.

i look forward to spending more time with family, especially my sweet wife elaine, whose unwavering love and support made all of this possible. end quote. orrin has been a great source of strength and support for our party, and he will be missed. my wife diana joins me in sending our best wishes and our appreciation to orrin and elaine. we wish them all the best as they have time to spend with those children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. together they have been great examples of the importance of public service, and we wish them the best in whatever adventure they choose to pursue next. orrin, it will be said that it was well done, good and faithful servant. happy trails. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: majority whip.

mr. cornyn: madam president, i've been sitting here listening to all of the accolades being given to our friend, orrin hatch, and i didn't hear a word i disagree with. as a matter of fact, rather than offering my prepared remarks, i'd ask consent that they be made part of the record following my verbal remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: so let me just spend a couple of minutes talking about the orrin hatch that i know. i first met orrin hatch in 1990 when i was a candidate for the texas supreme court. we had an event in dallas, texas, and lo and behold who would be the star attraction? it certainly wasn't me. twold be -- who would be the str attraction at this event? it was senator orrin hatch, famous for his work on the senate judiciary committee having served there for virtually his entire career in

the senate. and of course he lent tremendous gravitas to that event which otherwise would have been forgotten, including by me, in a short, short time. but it was indicative to me of the importance that orrin has always placed in the independent judiciary in our country. and we've heard how many judicial nominations he's participated in, how many supreme court justices he has participated in their confirmation proceedings. but i will always remember that about orrin, his generosity, his kindness, and his faithfulness when it comes to the rule of law and the role of our independent judiciary. recently, madam president, we had a debate in our conference, at one of our lunches. orrin is so famous for

encouraging, as we heard from the senator from oklahoma, senator inhofe and senator lankford, he's famous for being an encourager. and i can't think of any one of us that hasn't had orrin hatch come up to us at some point during the day and say you're doing a great job. keep it up. actually the joke was orrin has told so many of us that he loved us that one of our colleagues said, well, he told me he loves me most, hoping we would be jealous, i guess. but the truth is orrin's got a heart as big as all outdoors. he is at a time when people wonder about the future of our country and the character of the people who serve our country in government. he is a shining example of exactly what should cause them to keep faith for the future of

this country. as long as we have men and women of the character of orrin hatch serving in the united states government, we have nothing to worry about. so let me just say to my friend orrin, thank you for being my friend. thank you for being a great example for all of us to emulate. there is nothing more powerful in life than a good example, as orrin has helped us realize. but we wish you and elaine and your family all the best. as the scripture says, you have fought the good fight. you finished the race and you kept the faith. and we love you for it. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: madam president, i just had the honor of presiding over senator hatch's farewell address to the senate and to the

country, and i think for everybody who saw that in his speech, whether it's our colleagues here on the senate floor or hopefully millions of americans, they saw and heard why not only in his remarks, but in the remarks that have followed from democrats and republicans who have served with him for many years, why he is so revered, revered in this body as a statesman and as an example for all of the senate. and you just heard the accolades, madam president. civility, class, competence, effectiveness, patriot, kind, statesman, we could go on and on and on here, but i just want to thank him for his example. as alaska's senator, i also want to thank him for being such a

great friend to alaska. in my state. in my four years in the senate, as so many others have said, he was always encouraging me but always asking me what can i do to help, dan? what can i do to help alaska? and orrin, i just want to thank you so much for that encouragement, for your exceptional example to all of af us, your exceptional example to america, your exceptional service to not only the people of utah but the entire nation. it has been a great honor to serve with you, sir. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, thank , madam president. we will soon be voting in this chamber on senate resolution 64,

which is a congressional review act looking at a treasury department rule change to promote -- that i believe will promote dark money in politics. now since the supreme court's decision in citizens united, our political system has been flooded, absolutely flooded with money from special interest groups. according to the center for responsive politics, independent expenditures on campaigns went from $203 million in 2010 to less than ten years later, in 2016, $1.48 billion. from $203 million in 2010, after the citizens united decision, to $1.48 billion in 2016. this is a massive influx of money into our elections that undermines the confidence of the american people in our political system. it creates an environment that

is ripe for corruption and inappropriate influence. and it sows further disenchantment among the electorate. it allows voters to believe that their voices are less important than businesses with a bigger checkbook. that's why it is so important that we ensure transparency and accountability in campaign financing through robust disclosure requirements and oversight. now unfortunately, instead of making it easier to identify individuals and organizations who are funding campaigns, the treasury department has issued a rule that will increase the amount of dark money in the political process. that's money that comes in and we have no idea where it comes from and who's behind it. this ill-advised rule change from the treasury department will eliminate the requirement that social welfare

organizations, 501-c-40's and business leagues, 501-c-6's report donor information to the i.r.s. that basically gives a blank check for anyone to come in and spend any amount of money, and we're not going to know who it is or who's behind the money. the change risks i am exceeding law enforcement efforts -- impeding law enforcement efforts to track money laundering and it makes it more likely that foreign money will illegally influence our elections. under this new rule, organizations that made over $197 in independent expenditures during the 2016 election cycle would not be exempt, totally exempt from disclosing who those donors were to the i.r.s. the door will now be open to hundreds of millions more in dark money from secret groups with hidden agendas trying to buy an election with money and influence. these dark money groups have

increased in size and scope since the citizens united decision as they recognize the opportunity to influence elections with no accountability. malicious actors at home and abroad will likely exploit the increased secrecy in this process and the proliferation of these dark money groups will further influence our political system. this congress has a duty to ensure the integrity and security of our electoral process. we've got to eliminate dark money contributions as we do this. dark money has a corrosive influence in our democratic process because it erodes trust in our institutions. it distorts the motives of our elected representatives. and perhaps most important, the american people have a right to know that the candidates they choose to represent them are supported by foreign groups and shady special interests. for these reasons, i strongly

support attempts to stop the trump administration's misguiding, misguided attempt to allow more dark money into our political process, and i urge my colleagues to support the resolution that will be coming up shortly. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to complete my remarks and are senator tester be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. johnson: madam president, before i begin addressing my opposition to the c.r.a., i want to spend a brief moment also agreeing with all the tributes, all the accolades for senator hatch. i wasn't able to get down here on the floor because i couldn't get down in time -- you started a little bit earlier -- but i watched the entire speech from my office. it just showed the integrity, the patriotism, the goodwill of this good man. like so many of my other

colleagues, i don't know another senator who offers more encouragement and more kind words to all of us than senator hatch. again, i wish him and elaine well in their retirement, wish them the best. just god bless senator hatch for all of his faithful service. now, madam president, i rise to discuss the congressional review act challenge put forward by the senior senators from oregon and montana. the c.r.a. has been proposed in response to guidance on a revenue procedure recently announced by the internal revenue service. as the chairman of the senate committee on homeland security and governmental affairs, i've written to the i.r.s. twice asking them to take the very actions this c.r.a. seeks to overturn. let me begin by reviewing some basic facts about the guidance. facts are irrefutable. the facts that are apparently being ignored by those who are supporting this measure. first, i want to make it clear that the guidance in question

mirrors a proax that was crafted under the obama administration. that proposal was never fully implemented, the fact that it was first proposed by the obama administration proves its bipartisan nature. essentially, the guidance makes clear that personal eye dentfying information of -- identifying information for donors for certain organizations does not need to be filed on a form with the i.r.s. however, these organizations will still be required to keep that donor information on file. simply put, the guidance is merely a change in where the information is warehoused. in the past, it was kept on a form at the i.r.s. as well as in the records of each organization. now it will only be kept in the records of each organization. it's important to note that the officials in the obama administration said that, quote, the reporting of such information is no longer

necessary for the efficient administration of the internal revenue laws. i'm not sure it ever was required. the one change being implemented that differs from the obama proposal is that the i.r.s. also included in its new guidance needed privacy protections in response to recent government leaks and breaches. in order to protect taxpayer privacy under this new guidance, the donor information in question is prohibited from being made public by the government, no matter where it is warehoused. so let me summarize. if the donor information in question is not used by the i.r.s. for efficient administration of the internal revenue laws as was noted by the previous administration. the information is required to be kept on file and on the books of the organization available to the i.r.s. or law enforcement if needed, also as proposed by the previous administration.

and finally, the information, no matter where it is housed, shall not be made public by the government. these are clear and concise reasons for a simple change that was made, and let me reemphasize this point. in order to protect taxpayer privacy. unfortunately, such protection is necessary. madam president, because when the i.r.s. required that donor information be reported on a form to the i.r.s., there had been numerous times where the returns of tax-exempt organizations were inappropriately and possibly illegally disclosed, whether through administrative sloppiness, carelessness, breaches, or other potentially nefarious or partisan reasons. the reason donors to tax-exempt organizations may wish to remain anonymous was best illustrated in the 1958 supreme court case naacp versus the state of

alabama. the state of alabama was attempting to force disclosure of members of the naacp. the concern those members had in having their names revealed should be obvious. now, fortunately, the supreme court decided unanimously to protect the identity of the naacp members. today, tax-exempt organizations have spanned the political spectrum and supporters of those organizations deserve the same consideration and protection as the naacp. they deserve to remain anonymous so they cannot be targeted by their political opponents. a similar threat does exist today from the compelled disclosure of donor information held by tax-exempt organizations, including 501-c-4 social welfare groups. if information about donors to these groups becomes publicly available, the information could be used in a way that would chill future speech and association, basic first

amendment rights. donor information is also susceptible to abuse by the federal government itself. in one egregious example in 2010, the i.r.s. sent 1.1 million pages of tax-exempt return information, including donor information in some cases, to the justice department for potential prosecutions relating to political speech. more recently, some states have sought to compel the disclosure of donor information from schedule b. the disclosure of donor information has led to the harassment of donors in some very well-documented cases. in a court we filed in january, 2017, in americans for prosperity foundation versus sarah, the naacp warned against disclosure of donor information. i quote, forcing organizations to release membership or donor list not only divulsion the first-amendment activities of individual members and donors

but may also deter such activities in the first place. specifically, individuals may legitimately fear any number of negative consequences from disclosure, including harassment by the public, adverse government action, and reprisals by unions for employers. this potential harm exists across the political spectrum, regardless of donors' ideological beliefs. madam president, needless to say, the congressional review act challenge to the recent i.r.s. guidance on where to house private donor information is troubling and its motivation is highly suspect. for anyone who truly cares about privacy and ensuring that the federal government does not use the tax system as a little targeting machine, a vote against the congressional review act challenge is the obvious choice. i urge my colleagues to vote no. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. look, before i start my

comments, i, too, want to thank senator hatch for his decades of service to this body and wish him well in retirement. look, this c.r.a. is about one thing -- transparency, sunlight, making sure people know what's going on with their government. and so today i rise on behalf of millions of americans who are tired of seeing their democracy undermined by megadonors as they hide in the shadows. as my friend from maine said, it would be like going to a public meeting with a bag over your head. that's what this is about. take the bag off. take them out of the shadows. since the supreme court ruling in 2010 in a case called citizens united, we have had our democracy and our elections for sale. over the past eight years, billions of dollars have been spent to influence our elections. nobody knows where this money comes from. it could be coming from foreign countries. just three years after the

unpopular citizens united decision, these wealthy families once again use the supreme court to chip away at our democracy with the mccutcheon rule. a handful of our nation's wealthiest families have used this court ruling to height behind political action committees with stoic names so they can build a pipeline of cash to push their own agendas. while we're still tallying the totals from this past election five weeks ago, we know that dark money groups in 2016 spent $1.4 billion, billion dollars in that single election. if we don't take an aggressive approach, more dark money is going to flood our elections. it's going to mislead voters and turn people away from our elections, our democracy, and quite frankly put our democracy at risk. this is a very important resolution. it's not the first time we have been here. during the gilded era of the

copper kings, this nation's wealthy exercised their power over our democracy, once again tried to buy it. in fact, in my home state of montana, copper king william clark's solicitation for bribes during his campaign for the u.s. senate was so blatant that mark twain called him, and i quote, as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag. today i'm concerned the guys of the copper kings have returned. it is being ushered in in part by policies from this administration, because back in july, the treasury department and the i.r.s. took an unprecedented step and eliminated requirements for certain tax-exempt organizations to report their identities of major donors to the i.r.s. i will say one thing about the senator from wisconsin's remarka administration's view on this was that they opposed it because it would constrain the i.r.s. in enforcing their tax laws.

the policy that this administration did through the treasury, through the i.r.s. created another safe haven for this country's wealthiest donors to hide in the shadows while they pull the levers of power in our democracy, and just like ordinary americans, took control of our government, at the end of the day where senate seats are openly for sale back in the days of the copper king, they acted. we have to act today. today's vote will overturn that rule and shed more light on the folks who are trying to buy our elections. over the past two years during my reelection campaign, over $40 million of outside money was spent to influence just 500,000 votes. we'll never know who these folks were. these are out-of-state fat cats that don't know the state of montana. they just want to write the large checks to try to influence and buy our state, just like the copper kings did 100 years ago. i guarantee that a lot of these daughters came from the same

dark money groups that are opposing this vote here today. they don't want to see this resolution pass because it undermines their efforts to anonymously influence our elections, once again taking away from the transparency of our government. in addition to these wealthy few who are trying to buy our elections, these dark money policies open the door to foreign contribution to house, senate, and presidential campaigns. of course, it is illegal for a foreign national to contribute to our federal candidates for office, but when you don't know who is contributing the money, how do we know that it's not the russians, that it's not the saudis, or other nations that are infiltrating our elections? our adversaries are always looking for the weakest link to try to destroy our country and destroy our democracy. today one of our weak links is our broken campaign finance system. it is time to pass this bill, to shore up the election

infrastructure and take a step forward to eliminate the ability of our enemies to choose leaders in washington, d.c. i want to thank the senior senator from oregon for his leadership and for helping to force a vote on this important legislation. senator wyden and more than 30 members of this body cosigned our discharge petition, and 35 members of this body cosponsored this resolution of disapproval under the congressional review act to force today's vote. the public needs to know where the senators stand. do they stand on the side of transparency and accountability or do they side with the dark money special interests who flood our elections with television ads and mailboxes with misleading ads? it is time, it is past time to wrestle our country back from the wealthy few who are fighting to drown out the voices of regular folks. i urge support of this resolution of disapproval to help take our country back, and

i will close with one thing, and then i will be quiet, and thank you for your tolerance. this is about transparency. tell me one time, tell me one time where transparency isn't a good thing. it's the antiseptic for good government. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 630, s.j. res. 64, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of the united states code of the rules submitted by the department of the treasury relating to returns by exempt organizations and returns by certain nonexempt organizations. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on passage of the joint resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the

nays are 49. the joint resolution is passed. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak, i have two u.c. requests. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of both the minority leader and majority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. grassley: as the 115th congress winds down, i'd like to reflect on the enactment of the historic texas legislation -- tax legislation that passed last year and what's ahead for us in the new year. in december 2017, congress

passed and the president signed into law the most comprehensive reform to the nation's tax laws in more than three decades. for years both sides of the aisle have talked about the need for tax reform that would provide tax simplification, sax fairness and increase america's economic competitiveness. with the enactment of the law that's called the tax cut and jobs act, we finally made all three of those goals a reality. significant simplification was achieved for individuals by nearly doubling the standard deduction. this means people will be able to pay less and avoid the tedious task of itemizing their taxes. overall, roughly 90% of taxpayers will file their taxes

by simply taking the standard deduction. moreover, thanks to a significantly higher alternative minimum tax, what we refer to around here as the a.m.t. -- and that is an exemption -- millions of middle-class taxpayers will no longer be faced with figuring out their tax liability two times. one time to calculate the regular tax liability and the second time to calculate their tax liability under the alternative minimum tax. it also provided tax fairness by reducing taxes across every income group. in fact, middle-income families experienced the largest tax cut by percentage. additionally, pentagon reforms

made the -- additionally, the reforms made the tax code more progressive, with taxpayers earning more than $1 million shouldering a larger share of the tax burden than they did under the previous law. in addition to nearly doubling the standard deduction, the tax relief was targeted at middle-class families by doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. it also reduces the previously 15% tax bracket to 12% and the 25% tax bracket to 22%. so, as a result, the typical family of four earning $59,000 a year will see a tax cut of more than $1,600 in the year 2018. now, a key motivation for tax

reform was to boost economic growth and increase america's global competitiveness. america's tax code should favor american jobs, american workers, and american businesses. that means leveling the playing field so that we're not put at an economic disadvantage with other countries competing with us. so the tax cut and jobs act brought the corporate and international tax systems really into the 21st century, and you can tell that it's already working because other countries are looking at lowering their tax rates to compete with us. and, of course, what we did included lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% down to 21%.

in one fell swoop, we went from a tax rate that was the highest in the developed world to below the world's average of 23%. so how can you be competitive if you're a country at 35% and the average is 23%? so this means that global corporations will be more inclined to create jobs here rather than in other countries. we also modernized america's international tax system. we were one of the very last countries -- we were one of the last major countries to tax businesses on a worldwide basis. by moving towards a more territorial system, we freed up

more than $2 trillion for investment here at home that american companies were holding offshore. these changes to the international tax rules don't just help u.s. companies that operate globally to compete in the worldwide marketplace but also help those companies grow their businesses here at home with more jobs, better wages, and increased investment. just as important, we worked to ensure small businesses and pass-through businesses -- i guess we call them pass-through entities -- receiving more equitable treatment compared to what a corporation gets. so we have a new 25% qualified business deduction benefiting pass-through businesses of all

sizes down to the smallest family farmer or corner bakery. enhanced expensing rules were included to help all businesses, spurring investments in new equipment and machinery. our efforts have contributed to a strong and growing economy. the unemployment rate is at a half-a-century low. wages are rising at the fastest rate in nearly a decade. and workers, employers, and small business owners are all very optimistic about the future and more optimistic than for a long, long time. america is working again. as we look forward to a new year in 2019 with a new congress and

a new majority in the house, it's my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to build upon this economic success i just described. i'll be doing my part as the incoming chairman of the senate finance committee, and i see plenty -- plenty of opportunity. unfortunately, i hear increasing calls from the incoming house majority pledging to erase the progress made with the tax cuts and the tax reforms that i've just outlined. the proof of tax reform's success is in today's economy. obvious to most people, it's in the best shape it's been in for a long time. why would we want to go

backwards towards stagnation, pessimism, and obviously joblessness? of course, no major piece of legislation is perfect. to the extent there are legitimate efforts to perfect the law, then i want people to know that i'm all ears. but to the extent these efforts would undermine the strength of the american economy for the sake of ideology and that ideology would be hiking taxes and undoing important reforms to modernize the tax system and increase america's global competitiveness, then they'll be met with stiff opposition from this senator. instead of playing politics, we should be focused on examining how the law is affecting individuals, families, and

businesses in our respective states and districts. and, where necessary, we should work together to take action and ensure the law is fulfilling its full potential. we should also work towards providing tax certainty for individuals and small businesses. this would include making permanent marginal tax rate cuts for individuals and families, making permanent the doubling of the child tax credit from $is1,0 to $2,000. also making permanent the innovative 20% deduction for small business, to provide certainty that's needed to make investment. and to encourage that investment. and also to encourage hiring decisions. and, lastly, the ability of businesses to recover the cost of investment in property and equipment faster.

i hope my colleagues in the house of representatives join me in these efforts. i have yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't make these and other tax relief measures permanent. it's the right thing to do for the economy. it's the right thing to do for job creation, and the right thing to do for wage growth. i would also like to see us continue working on other important issues that we started in this congress. this includes improving retirement savings, bringing the i.r.s. into the 21st century, protecting taxpayers' rights, enhancing the competitiveness of u.s. businesses and encouraging research, development, and innovation. i also hope that there would be plenty of opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis on tax issues involving everything from education to renewable and alternative energy to

consumer-directed health care options. i've heard a lot about the desire of the new house majority to engage in oversight of the current administration. i will put my record of oversight up against anyone's record. however, i want my colleagues to know that i do not intend to engage in political fishing expedition. i think a person like me that's had an equal opportunity of oversight, treating republican administrations the same at democrat administrations speaks for itself. so i will not go along with efforts to weaponize the authority of tax writing committees to access tax returns for political purposes. such an action would be unprecedented. but if democrats are interested in doing nonpartisan,

good-government oversight, count me in. i hope they will join me in my efforts to hold the i.r.s. accountable to the taxpayers, ensure the nonprofit sectors living up to the pumps -- purposes of its tax-exempt status, that they will also help me stand up for tax whistle-blowers who expose tax cheats, and track down, expose, and address tax shelters. i hope -- my hope is that in the new congress we will be able to work to address important tax matters in a bipartisan fashion. i'm proud of my strong record of bipartisanship on the finance and judiciary committees. i intend to continue my good working relationships with my colleagues across the aisle and hope to forge a few new ones not

only in the senate, but also with the new majority in the house of representatives. and senator wyden, who will be the ranking democrat on the finance committee, we've had a good working relationship on so many different issues over a long period of time, i think that we will be able to work together as well, and we've already started communication along that line. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: it will be. mr. leahy: mr. president, it occurs to me that if americans had any doubt that president trump is fixiated on wasting billions of tax dollars to wall off our 2,000 mile southern border, all they had to do was watch his jaw-dropping press conference yesterday where he demanded another $5 million of american's hard-earned tax project about a pet project that he gave his solemn word mexico

would pay for it. now, i've been here during a time of eight different presidents. i have never ever heard the words i heard from our president yesterday. i never thought that any of the presidents, republican or democrat, would use them. president trump boasted he would be proud to shut down the government if congress doesn't bow to his spending demands. i had to play this back watching this two or three times to make sure that is what he said, but he was very proud of it. i must say it's one of the most reckless statements i ever heard uttered by a he president -- by a president of the united states of either party. the president job, like yours and mine, all of us, is to keep

the federal government operating for the hundreds of millions of americans who depend on government services every day, from our national parks, our housing services for the elderly, the disabled, veterans, to assistance to our nation's farmers. just yesterday we passed a bipartisan farm bill. i praised senator roberts and senator stabenow. they came together and passed a bipartisan farm bill by an overwhelming margin. a lot of work went into that to protect our farmers. if the president shuts the government down, there's not going to be anybody in the local usda, local agriculture departments to answer questions from farmers about what the law means for them just as farmers

are making their plans for next year's planting season. they can't just turn it on and turn it off. they have to plan months in advance. now, when i first came to the senate 44 years ago, the idea of threatening to shut down the federal government as a negotiating tactic was unheard of. now it seems like we go through this every year, and neither party blamed us, but prior to president trump no one bragged about it. no one seemed to relish it. no one was foolish enough to call it good for the country no matter what party they are from. no one treated shutting down the government as if it was some kind of reality show, some kind of gain without the slightest concern of the consequences for the american people and hundreds of thousands of federal workers and their families over the

holidays or the huge amount of money to be wasted as a result. taxpayers' money. president trump's performance yesterday amounted to throwing a temper tantrum on live national television. he's either oblivious to what he's doing, doesn't know what he's doing or he simply doesn't care about the real-world consequences of a shut down, including hundreds of thousands of federal employees furloughed or working without pay three days before christmas and millions of americans cut off from critical government service. instead the president eagerly offered to take the mantle for shutting down the government over his pet project, a wall

which we don't need. and what could be driving his fixation with a medieval wall along our southern border. maybe he has begun to believe his own fearmongering about migrants, after vilifying migrants, perhaps president trump's own demagoguery has finally gotten to him. maybe he's actually believing the things he's been saying. only that a self-made alternate reality where vulnerable women and children have transformed into terrorists could explain for the rational explanation to

have a wall. only in an alternate reality would act as though tear gassing little children in diapers makes sense. the president may not be able to tell fact from fiction or he may be purposely blurring the line between them, but as vice chairman of the senate appropriations committee, it's my duty to ensure that taxpayer dollars goes towards solving problems we know to exist. so let's talk about the facts. it's firearm a reality check. president trump justifying a litany of anti-immigrant policies has repeatedly claimed there is a crisis at our southern border with a drastic surge of undocumented migrants flooding into our country. that is false. the truth is, the illegal border

crossings are at historic low. at the end of 2017, the number of people attempting to drop the u.s. illegally has dropped the most since 2001. between 2000 and 2018, border apprehensions fell sharply -- to approximately a 75% drop. we will all agree that illegal immigration is a serious problem. we should all address it. but saying we're experiencing a crisis-level surge of illegal crossings at the border is pure fiction and for the life of me, i cannot understand why the president would use pure fiction as a scare tactic. there isn't a true crisis to point to so the president is manufacturing one. even the reality -- of the

reality tv showman, he optioned to focus america's attention on images and videos of a caravan of migrants marching toward the southern border. in the leadup to the elections, he pointed to the migrants, who were thousands of miles away from the border, president trump said that they were imminent invaders and an assault on our country and national emergency. conveniently for our president these people were thousands of miles away from our border, well thousands of them are defenseless women and children. most americans just don't think of the word invaders when they see bare foot toddlers being pushed in strollers by their

mother. many of these people are looking for sanctuary. they not coming to perpetuate violence, they are running away from violence. they are not bringing violence, they are trying to escape violence, violence against their children, violence against their families. and then when the pictures on tv actually began to be shown defying the president's narrative, he changed course and began maying the course that -- made -- he said that there were unknown east earner -- easterners. as proof, he has none. in fact, to quote the president's own words about the composition of the migrant

caravan, quote, there is no -- yesterday president trump claimed we needed the wall because we captured ten terrorists over a very short period of time. the statement and fact checkers, actually people within his own administration scratching their head because nobody could figure out what he was talking about. homeland security official claimed that president trump was referring to a government statistic indicating that ten people suspected of terrorist ties are prevented from entering the united states every day by air, sea, or land. now, what a wall -- a multibillion-dollar wall along our southern border would do to prevent a suspected terrorist

from flying into the j.f.k. airport i can't figure out. but then president trump does not seem to know or care about the difference. the conservative center of immigration studies issued a report last month concluding that only 15 suspected terrorists have been apprehended at the u.s.-mexico border since 2001, and a suspected terrorist includes anyone coming from a handful of specific countries like syria. it does not mean that they are in fact terrorists or have a connection to terrorists. so president trump's unsubstantiated vit i have tree aal is matched by his wall. the largest component of fencing that congress has funded, a 25-mile barrier in the rio

grande valley has ballooned in cost from $445 million to $ 787 million. that's $31.50 per mile. we american taxpayers paid for that. despite the claims that additional wall funding is in urgent need, the trump administration spent 6% of the $ 1.7 billion congress appropriated to build a fence on the southern border. now, facts matter. the $5 billion he is clamoring for would be better for homeland security, grants to nonprofit churches an synagogues to secure themselves against shootings like those in pittsburgh and southernland spring, more custom

personnel in technology to stop the fentanyl that is killing our citizens. let's remember, fentanyl is mostly coming through our legal points of entry and mail facilities, not between the ports where the president wants to build his wall. now, perhaps in president trump's alternate reality where migrants are invading our territory, and terrorists are slipping past patrol agents every day, the need for a giant concrete wall seems like an urgent necessity. but, if like everybody here, you live in a real world where facts and statistics means something, his obsession of building a wall is exposed for with a it is, a desperate attempt to please his base, protect his ego, and make

us forget that he gave his word, he gave his word, he gave his word that mexico was going to pay for it and now we know that was a flat out mistruth. the stories of american taxpayers' hard-earned money, we in congress have a responsibility to not throw away billions of dollars on a project that is built on the foundation of fact-it free fearmongering. to conclude, this is not the way we appropriate money. this is certainly not the way that we fund and run the united states government. if the president wants to shut down the government because he can't muster the votes to fund his shiny object, as he says he does, the american people seem to care more about his misguided campaign promises and misstatements than he does about doing his job, the job of making the government work for the american people. madam president , i yield the

floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: