[Pages S5806-S5812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Barbara McConnell 
Barrett, of Arizona, to be Secretary of the Air Force.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I mentioned yesterday the contrast 
between our work in the Senate and what is transpiring over in the 
House.
  On this side of the Capitol, we are focused on working for the 
American people. We are overcoming the Democrats' historic delay 
tactics and obstruction to confirm more of the President's impressive 
nominees for the executive branch as well as for the judiciary. Later 
today, we will confirm a new Secretary of the Air Force and will then 
turn to several impressive nominees to district court vacancies in 
order to continue our renewal of the Federal judiciary.
  We will also keep working on the appropriations process and on 
providing the funding our Armed Forces certainly need, and we are 
discussing ways to discourage the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the 
Middle East and ensure the United States continues to provide the 
essential global leadership that has cornered ISIS and other radical 
Islamic terrorists and has kept our Nation safe.
  So what is going on over in the House?
  Those in the House are doubling down on their 3-year-old obsession of 
finding ways to nullify the decision the American people made back in 
2016. Speaker Pelosi's Democrats are blocking the USMCA, which is the 
landmark trade deal that would create 176,000 new jobs for American 
workers. They are dragging their heels on funding the government, which 
is keeping our military commanders in limbo. All of their energy is 
going into this all-consuming impeachment parade that has been rolling 
on for 3 years now--ever searching for a rationale.
  Remember, it was literally on Inauguration Day of January 2017 when 
the Washington Post ran this headline: ``The campaign to impeach 
President Trump has begun.'' Well, the Post got it right. Before 
President Trump even took office, one prominent House Democrat had 
already declared he would not be a legitimate President. Just a few 
months later, another was already promising she would not rest until 
she impeached him.
  From the very beginning of this Presidency, Washington Democrats have 
lived in a state of denial. They have seemed positive that some inside-
the-Beltway maneuver would save them from the consequences of Secretary 
Clinton's defeat. They had hoped Special Counsel Mueller's report would 
have validated their theories about the conspiracy between the Trump 
campaign and the Russians. They used their minority powers in the 
Senate to effectively try to nullify his Presidency by obstructing even 
completely uncontroversial nominees to all kinds of government posts 
simply because this President was the one who nominated them.
  There have been 3 years of this. Now, finally, Speaker Pelosi's 
efforts to hold back her leftwing caucus have officially crumbled, and 
the House has thrown itself into impeachment.
  Given the lip service the House Democrats pay in defending the norms 
and institutions of American Government, you might think they would at 
least run this so-called impeachment inquiry by the book. You might 
think the people who are trying to overrule the American voters and, 
from Washington, cancel out an election would conduct their process by 
the very highest standards of fairness and due process.
  If you thought that, you would be wrong. Our Democratic colleagues 
have had their minds made up since long before this inquiry began. 
Remember, the chairwoman of one of the committees Speaker Pelosi put in 
charge of the process said in April of 2017: ``I'm going to fight every 
day until he's impeached.'' That was back in 2017. So this is not about 
seriously discharging constitutional responsibilities. It is about the 
end result they have had in mind since day one.
  Remember when the campaign to block Justice Kavanaugh began with 
protest signs with a big, empty blank for the name? It was a fill-in-
the-blank protest before they even knew who the nominee was. Now we 
have the sequel with this fill-in-the-blank quest for impeachment. The 
Democrats' process already speaks for itself.
  For the first time ever, Speaker Pelosi has simply ordered the House 
to conduct an inquiry into impeaching a President without a full vote 
of the House. Just yesterday, the Speaker doubled down on this 
unprecedented and undemocratic process by once again refusing to hold a 
vote on an impeachment inquiry.
  Democrats have refused to give Republicans the same rights and fair 
treatment that Republicans afforded Democrats during the Clinton 
impeachment--things like equal subpoena power for the ranking members. 
Likewise, Democrats have refused to give President Trump's counsel the 
same opportunities that Republicans gave to President Clinton--rights 
such as attending all hearings, depositions, offering evidence, and 
cross-examining witnesses.
  We have already seen Chairman Schiff say in public that his committee 
had not been in touch with the whistleblower when they actually had 
been. We have seen Chairman Schiff bizarrely and brazenly fabricate 
what the President actually said to the President of Ukraine during an 
official hearing that he was chairing, only to claim that his 
fabrications were a parody--a parody--when Republicans called him out 
for it.
  The same Democrats who are running this circus turn around and claim 
with a straight face that they are solemnly following the facts and the 
Constitution wherever it leads.
  Give me a break. Give me a break. The entire country can see that 
that is not what is happening here.
  And here is what else the American people can see: The Democrats 
would rather fight with the White House than work with the Republicans 
and the administration to pass legislation.
  We need real solutions, like full-year funding for our Armed Forces 
so our men and women in uniform can receive their pay raise and our 
commanders can engage in long-term planning; real solutions like the 
USMCA, the major victory for American workers and American businesses 
that the Trump administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico but 
which Speaker Pelosi has blocked for months, with 176,000 new American 
jobs hanging in the balance.
  Opportunities are right before us. Senate Republicans have been ready 
and waiting for weeks and months to do our part and actually make law 
on these subjects for the benefit of American families. We just need 
our counterparts across the Capitol to get serious about this.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, just when you think things couldn't get 
any stranger here in Washington, DC, a few weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi 
announced that the House was officially beginning proceedings to 
impeach the President of the United States. While the left has been 
dreaming of impeachment ever since the President was first elected in 
2016, the timing of this was quite a surprise. In fact, last January 
the Speaker led the effort to table an impeachment resolution, and she 
and Chairman Nadler and Chairman Schiff and other House leaders had 
said that they recognized that this would never be successful unless it 
is bipartisan, and I think they were right then and they are wrong now.

[[Page S5807]]

  We know that the announcement of the Speaker came at a time when the 
only thing the public knew was about rumors of a whistleblower 
complaint about a call over which virtually no one knew any details.
  But the facts didn't really matter. This was about grabbing ahold of 
something and using this as a vehicle to do what the left has wanted to 
do since the President was inaugurated.
  Were the initial reports a reason to look into the matter further? 
Absolutely. That is what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
that I have the privilege of serving on did. We had the Acting Director 
of National Intelligence come testify. We had the inspector general 
come testify about his report.
  But that is not the approach that House Democrats have taken. They 
made no honest effort to investigate before deciding to impeach.
  Prior to the Speaker's press conference, in fact, we hadn't seen the 
complaint. We hadn't seen the transcript or heard from the leaders of 
the intelligence community. But regardless of the lack of any evidence 
at the time, they jumped into impeachment feet first. It is almost as 
if they were waiting for anything--any excuse, any reason at all--to do 
what they have wanted to do since day one in opposing President Trump.
  This confirms to me that this is really not about the facts so much 
as it is a search-and-destroy mission.
  Removing a President from office is no small matter. In fact, the 
Senate has never done so in American history. You would think that with 
so much at stake, our House Democrat friends would make every effort to 
lay out a careful, logical, fact-based case for the American people.
  In fact, they said they knew they couldn't be successful unless this 
was a bipartisan effort, but they made zero effort to make it 
bipartisan by laying out the facts, by making it transparent, by 
letting the American people see exactly what was going on.
  Ordinarily, you would expect hearings on every major network, 
witnesses presenting their testimony, subject to questioning by both 
Republicans and Democrats, and detailed reports of investigations. That 
is what you would expect, but that is not what we got.
  Instead, we got secret hearings, secret witnesses, secret interviews, 
and secret meetings. But you know what goes along with that kind of 
secrecy--leaks and more leaks.
  Chairman Schiff and his cohorts in the House have drawn the cloak of 
secrecy around this entire proceeding and then proceeded to drip, drip, 
drip a narrative to the press through leaks that would seem to justify 
their arguments, but that is not fair. That is not fair to the 
President. That is not fair to the 65 million American people who voted 
for President Trump. To try to negate an election through this sort of 
inappropriate process just defies logic and sense.
  We have some idea of whom they are meeting with, but we have no idea 
as to the details they are talking about. That is because, instead of 
going through the Judiciary Committee, which would have been an open 
proceeding, ordinarily, Speaker Pelosi has grabbed this topic from 
Chairman Nadler and given it to Chairman Schiff, the chairman of the 
House Intelligence Committee, so as to have some sort of justification, 
as thin as it may seem, for doing things behind closed doors and in 
secret.
  As I said, I am on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I understand 
that if there is classified information that can't be made public, that 
is a reason to have closed-door hearings, but there should be some 
effort to separate the classified information, if there is any, from 
the nonclassified information and have a public hearing on that part of 
the information the committee is given, not just closing the door, 
locking it, and throwing away the key, and keeping it all secret. This 
is really unjustified.
  Well, we know that they have been busy. Chairman Schiff has been 
busy. We know he has been particularly busy on the TV talk shows and 
giving interviews to the media all day long, every day, and we know 
that there are bits of information being strategically leaked to the 
media, which conveniently align with their overall plan, and that is 
impeachment.

  There have been no real and credible details about what has happened 
behind those closed-door meetings, and I would suggest that every 
American should be concerned. This is entirely contrary to our basic 
concepts of fairness and due process--to have secret witnesses, secret 
interviews, secret hearings, and then use that information to take one 
of the most dramatic actions that the Constitution provides for, and 
that is the removal of a President.
  This is contrary to any concept of fair play and due process, as 
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. You could be 
charged with a traffic offense and get more transparency and more due 
process than what the House Democrats are providing to President Trump, 
because that is what the Constitution requires.
  Because the Speaker made a decision to impeach President Trump based 
at the time solely on rumors and secondhand information, I am left with 
very little optimism for the way this impeachment inquiry so far has 
been handled.
  Now, there have been some silly hearings in the House of 
Representatives this year, but the American people should have the 
benefit of being able to watch these proceedings and draw their own 
conclusions. They don't have to believe what the press tells them based 
on strategic leaks. They don't have to believe what Chairman Schiff and 
Speaker Pelosi say. They can judge the facts for themselves.
  When it comes to impeachment, arguably one of the most serious 
responsibilities under our Constitution for Congress, House Democrats 
have simply drawn the cloak of secrecy around their investigation. Of 
course, you know what the logical questions are to this sort of bizarre 
proceeding--questions like this: What are they hiding? What are they 
afraid of? What is it that they don't want the American people to see?
  Of course, as I said, there are going to be some sensitivities and, 
perhaps, even some classified information, particularly when you are 
talking about foreign policy.
  But the President has already made the key documents public. He has 
declassified the conversation he had with President Zelensky, and we 
have seen the report of the inspector general.
  This secrecy veil seems to be more of a necessary tool to cloak 
information that doesn't align with their narrative. They simply don't 
want people to hear all sides of the story.
  I have no doubt that if the facts were on their side, they would 
allow this process to be in the open. If they actually thought that 
transparency would benefit them, they would throw the doors wide open 
and do it out in public and let the American people judge it for 
themselves, and if facts were on their side, they would then hold a 
vote on the floor of the House of Representatives authorizing this 
impeachment inquiry, which has been done each time in the past. But 
from what we read, Speaker Pelosi is trying to protect her vulnerable 
House Members from being held accountable for their vote, particularly 
those in swing districts that won in 2018. So this is more another part 
of the political calculation at work here.
  Instead, what they are doing is constructing this narrative behind 
closed doors and handpicking which information to leak and which to 
keep secret.
  A true and honest investigation means following the facts where they 
may lead, gathering evidence, and giving the American people access to 
that information at every step, but that is a far cry from what is 
happening today.
  While House Democrats are freely leaking the details of the 
impeachment process to the media, they are being unfair to the American 
people, particularly the 65 million people who voted for President 
Trump in the first place--but not just them. We all understand that in 
elections you win some and you lose some. Even the people who didn't 
vote for President Trump, I believe, would be committed to a fair 
process, particularly when going through something as serious as the 
potential impeachment and removal of a duly elected President of the 
United States.
  What they want to do is to undo the 2016 election, but they should at 
least have the courage to do it out in the open.

[[Page S5808]]

  We know what is happening as a result of the Democrats devoting 100 
percent of their time and energy to reversing the results of the 2016 
election by impeaching President Trump. Their constituents sitting at 
home are wondering what it is they are actually going to be able to 
accomplish.
  When we have elections, ordinarily candidates run for office and say: 
If you elect me, I will do this, this, and this. The House Democrats 
have given up on that. Forget their campaign promises. Forget what they 
told their voters in the 2018 election. They are all in on the 
impeachment and removal of the President. The rest of that stuff is 
just talk--at least that is how it appears.
  There are a lot of important things we can and should be doing in 
Washington as opposed to this political side show. We have had many 
productive hearings and efforts on such important items as trying to 
reduce mass violence, which is something we are all concerned about, 
how to bring down costs and increase choice when it comes to our 
healthcare system, how to improve trade so we can sell the things we 
grow and make in America to markets around the world, and how we can 
continue this incredible trend line when it comes to our economy, where 
unemployment is at historically low levels and particularly African-
American and Hispanic unemployment is at historically the lowest level 
in recorded history. Forget all of that. House Democrats are full steam 
ahead on impeachment, which will make it virtually impossible for us to 
pass productive, bipartisan legislation. It will make it virtually 
impossible for them to keep the promises they themselves made to their 
constituents when they ran for election in 2018, and that is a crying 
shame.
  This is the final point I want to make. We are 13 months--13 months--
from a general election. President Trump will be on the ballot. These 
folks, who apparently have never gotten over their loss in 2016, will 
have a chance to cast their votes again. So will the American people. 
We will be able to take a look at the Democratic nominee, along with 
President Trump, the Republican nominee, and we will be able to vote 13 
months from now. But, to me, it says the Democrats are not particularly 
optimistic about the outcome of the 2020 election, given that choice, 
because they are not going to wait for the election to occur; they want 
to divide the country, they want to paralyze Congress, and they want to 
impeach President Trump 13 months before the election.
  I hope cooler heads will prevail. Democrats should work with us to 
pass bipartisan legislation that will actually make our country better 
off rather than pursuing this purely political agenda of impeachment.
  I think it is disgraceful the way the House Democrats have chosen to 
pursue this clandestine impeachment process rather than focus on what 
is best for the American people. Let the voters cast their ballots 13 
months from now rather than put our country through this divisive and 
ultimately futile effort to impeach and remove President Trump.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                   Congratulating the St. Louis Blues

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk about a very different 
topic, and that is the Stanley Cup. Yesterday at the White House, the 
St. Louis Blues were warmly welcomed by the President in a ceremony 
celebrating their Stanley Cup victory. On June 12, the Blues made 
history when they defeated the Boston Bruins in game 7 of the Stanley 
Cup Final.
  It was hard to imagine at the beginning of this season that the Blues 
could have done this. They were the lowest ranked team in the National 
Hockey League. I think there was a time in the month of January when 
the odds that the Blues would win the Stanley Cup were 150 to 1. I am 
not particularly a betting man, but knowing what I know now, we 
wouldn't have had to put much money on that bet to have won a 
significant amount of money. As it turned out, however, as you and I 
know in what we do here and what we have done in our lives, the odds 
are not really what count; what counts is how you play the season. Just 
like we often say in politics, candidates matter. In hockey, in sports, 
the players matter. How they come together as a team matters. Whether 
or not that team really becomes a team matters, and this one did.
  It was a season for the Blues that was filled with record-breaking 
achievements. Jordan Binnington became the first and only rookie goalie 
to win 16 games in the Stanley Cup playoffs. Ryan O'Reilly set a 
franchise record with 23 points in the playoffs and was named the 
postseason most valuable player. Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final was 
the most watched NHL game in 36 years.
  For the first time in franchise history, the Blues brought the 
Stanley Cup trophy to Missouri to celebrate their achievement as the 
best sports fans in Missouri stepped out. Five hundred thousand people 
were there when the Stanley Cup parade was in St. Louis for the first 
time. Five hundred thousand people--in several States represented on 
the floor, that would be everybody in the State. Five hundred thousand 
is a pretty big crowd anywhere, as it was in St. Louis that day.
  Today, the Stanley Cup trophy will be on display on Capitol Hill so 
that Blues fans in the area can get a chance to see this legendary 
trophy in person. The Stanley Cup has already traveled all over the 
world since the Blues won the Stanley Cup. Ryan O'Reilly brought the 
Cup to Ontario to share it with his 99-year-old grandmother, who is 
probably one of the oldest people to see the Stanley Cup. But for sure 
the youngest baby to be put in the Stanley Cup--the record was broken 
when the trophy was brought to a mother and her newborn child at Mercy 
Hospital in St. Louis, the baby barely born, right there in the Stanley 
Cup, setting the new Stanley Cup ``youngest baby in the Cup'' record.
  We will never forget the image of Laila Anderson. Laila, a young girl 
battling a life-threatening disease, in many ways became the No. 1 fan 
of the team. Laila, by the way, was at the White House in the Rose 
Garden yesterday, and she was called up to stand by the President and 
the Stanley Cup, with the team surrounding both of them. The night they 
won, she was on the ice with the players celebrating as the Stanley Cup 
was passed around at the end of game 7.
  The day after the Blues received their championship rings, two 
players visited Laila to personally deliver her very own ring. I saw 
those rings yesterday, and they are just about as big as Laila's hand. 
They were big rings. Her name was inscribed on the diamond-studded 
championship ring that was given to her, which also included the words 
``Play Gloria,'' which became the theme song, fight song, inspirational 
song for the Blues at the end of the season.
  Blues fans have plenty to be excited about this season. The majority 
of the names of the players that are now etched on the Stanley Cup are 
back this year. The roster is even better with the addition of 
defenseman Justin Faulk.
  We are also proud to say that St. Louis will host the 2020 NHL All-
Star Game in January. That game, of course, brings together the most 
talented players in professional hockey. I know St. Louis is ready to 
welcome them, and we will all be excited to further solidify St. 
Louis's place as one of the great sports cities in America.
  It has been a great year for Blues fans, and I hope the team will 
once again have the opportunity to visit the White House next year. 
This will be the first year of many years where those of us in the 
Missouri delegation will get to host the Stanley Cup in the Capitol.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the House of Representatives continues to 
investigate the circumstances of the President's interaction with 
Ukrainian President Zelensky and whether he used the power of his 
office to pressure

[[Page S5809]]

a foreign leader to intervene in an American election on his behalf. 
The facts that are already in the public domain are so deeply troubling 
and must be taken very seriously. I know that our colleagues in the 
House of Representatives did not run for office to begin an impeachment 
inquiry, but this task was thrust upon them by the President's alleged 
conduct and the demands of the Constitution of our Republic.
  Here in the Senate, our job is even more austere. We are assigned the 
power not only to examine the evidence but to render judgment. We all 
have a solemn duty to follow the facts impartially and let ourselves be 
governed by reason, rather than by passion or by politics. That role 
means that we have a responsibility to behave impartially, in a 
nonpartisan manner from the outset. As my friend Leader McConnell said 
during the 1998 impeachment debate, ``it's been my view that I don't, 
as a potential juror, if it's serious enough to warrant a potential 
impeachment proceeding, I don't think I ought to pre-judge the case.''
  Yet already a few of my Senate Republican colleagues seem determined 
to turn this serious inquiry into another partisan exercise. My friend 
the Republican leader, here on the floor yesterday, made the sadly 
predictable attack of calling the work of the majority in the House 
partisan. Another of my colleagues, Senator Graham, said he was trying 
to organize a letter of Senate Republicans promising they would not 
vote to convict the President before the House even completes its 
inquiry--before any articles of impeachment are even drafted, let alone 
voted on, before a scrap of evidence was considered in the Senate 
trial, if it comes to that. Senator Graham seems to be advocating 
``Alice in Wonderland'' justice--first the verdict, then the trial. I 
hope he will rethink that.
  Over the State work period, the Republican leader ran an 
advertisement in which he declared: ``The way that impeachment stops is 
a Senate majority with me as majority leader.'' That is a far cry from 
what he said in 1998: ``not prejudging the case.''
  We are several steps away from a potential trial in the Senate. The 
House continues to do its work diligently, even handedly, with only the 
facts in mind. So I remind my Republican colleagues in this Chamber 
that committing today to vote not guilty is contrary to their oath to 
do impartial justice. That is their oath. Instead of prejudging, I 
remind my Republican colleagues in this body that you have a 
responsibility to put country over party. Our national security, the 
rule of law, and our democracy are at stake.


                            Turkey and Syria

  Mr. President, we are witnessing in realtime the collapse of American 
foreign policy in the Middle East. Five years of hard fighting in Syria 
to first destabilize and then to degrade ISIS has potentially been 
undone in one phone call. The President's abrupt decision to withdraw 
U.S. forces has abandoned the field to our enemies--ISIS, Iran, Putin, 
and Bashar al-Assad--and it has put our friends in danger, including 
two of the closest friends we have in the Middle East, the Syrian Kurds 
and Israel.
  I want to be very clear. The President's decision poses a threat to 
our national security here in the United States. By green-lighting 
President Erdogan's operation and abandoning the Syrian Kurds to face 
the onslaught on their own, the President has made an already fragile 
situation in northern Syria more dangerous and handed a ``get out of 
jail free'' card to potentially more than 10,000 ISIS fighters. ISIS 
has threatened the United States and our allies repeatedly, taken 
Americans hostages and executed them, and will undoubtedly continue to 
threaten our security if they experience a resurgence.
  We New Yorkers know best, unfortunately, how a small group of 
fanatics half a world away can do incredible damage and kill thousands 
of Americans here on our soil. Now, with ISIS prisoners escaping, 
unfortunately, the chances of that are increasing, not just according 
to me but to an expert like General Mattis.
  Make no mistake. The President's incompetence has put American lives 
in danger. Today, the House of Representatives will consider a 
resolution that condemns the President's decision and demands that he 
reverse course. It should pass with bipartisan support and should be 
the first order of business for us here in the Senate--the first order 
of business. Sanctions against Erdogan are fine and good. President 
Erdogan should be punished for his military adventurism and his 
aggression, but sanctions alone are insufficient, and they are 
particularly insufficient in regard to ISIS. Sanctions will not put 
ISIS fighters back on the run or back in their cells. They will not 
stop Iran and Putin's growing influence in the region, nor will they 
undo America's betrayal of our partners and allies. Sanctions can be an 
effective tool, but they are not the only tool, especially when the 
crisis in this case is of the President's own making. The simplest and 
most effective remedy would be for the President to admit his mistake 
and correct course.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. President, earlier this summer, both Houses of Congress and the 
White House arrived at a budget agreement that gave us a blueprint for 
funding the government, but in September, Republicans unilaterally 
walked away from our agreement and proposed taking $12 billion from 
domestic programs--including Head Start, HHS, and even the Pentagon--to 
fund the President's border wall. This is a nonstarter. There aren't 
enough votes in the Chamber to pass it.
  As we look to get the appropriations back on track, I was 
disappointed that Senate Republicans let the entire State work period 
pass without responding to Democratic offers. Instead of spending that 
time negotiating with House Democrats on allocations, Senate 
Republicans have sat on their hands, and now we are back in session 
this week at the same impasse. Republicans are insisting on the same 
thing they unsuccessfully shut down the government for last year: $12 
billion for a border wall that President Trump promised Mexico would 
pay for.
  If Senate Republicans don't wake up and resume good-faith 
negotiations with Democrats, I fear we are headed down the same road.


                                Pensions

  Mr. President, for decades, millions of Americans labored in 
construction and mining and truck driving and other industries with the 
promise of a secure retirement when they reached old age through their 
pension. But through no fault of their own, forces like a financial 
crisis, a dwindling labor force, and inaction on the part of the 
Federal Government, their pension plans are now at risk of becoming 
insolvent within a decade. This is an immediate problem. It is going to 
destroy the security of millions of retirees--people who worked all 
their lives. They put a little bit of money away that they could have 
spent when they needed it, but they put it in for their retirement 
hoping that the day they retire they wouldn't become rich, but at least 
they could live decently. Now that may be vanished--vanished. Congress 
has the power to stop this problem dead in its tracks. Just 2 months 
ago, the House passed the Butch Lewis Act, which would provide 
immediate relief to ``critical and declining'' pension plans so we can 
keep our promise to our workers. Leader McConnell and Senate 
Republicans, once again, inexplicably, have refused to take action on 
this bipartisan legislation. Senate Republicans blocked us from even 
debating it last night. So in a short time, I will join my colleagues, 
including Senators Brown, Stabenow, Manchin, Murray, and Wyden to 
demand that Leader McConnell allow us a vote on legislation to protect 
these millions of workers and secure the retirements they have earned.

  President Trump often claims to be looking out for the American 
worker, but his policies set them further and further adrift. This one 
is notorious. Retirement, a decent retirement, is part of the American 
dream and part of the American way. Here is a chance for President 
Trump to actually defend American workers instead of hurting them.
  If President Trump is truly the champion of the American worker, he 
will prevail on our Republican colleagues to start working with 
Democrats to make sure--make sure--we protect the pensions that 
millions of families rely on for their security and have paid for.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S5810]]

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Nomination of Barbara McConnell Barrett

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote to 
confirm Barbara Barrett as Secretary of the Air Force. I have come to 
the floor directly from a meeting with her this morning.
  Ambassador Barrett has had an impressive career both inside and 
outside of government. Among other things, she has served as U.S. 
Ambassador to Finland, Deputy Administrator of the FAA, and as a member 
of the Civil Aeronautics Board. Most importantly, she has a deep 
understanding of the U.S. Air Force, thanks to her work as a civilian 
adviser to the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs.
  As a member of the Defense Advisory Committee on women in the 
services, she fought to expand opportunities for women in the military. 
She became the first civilian woman to land an F-18 on an aircraft 
carrier, which was part of a mission to demonstrate women's fitness to 
fly in combat. Thanks, in part, to her work in 1993, the military 
changed its regulations to allow women to fly combat aircraft.
  I am always particularly interested in making sure we have an 
outstanding Air Force Secretary because my State of South Dakota is 
lucky enough to play host to Ellsworth Air Force Base, home of the 28th 
Bomb Wing and future home of the B-21 bomber.
  Over the State work period in October, I was able to visit Ellsworth 
to sit down with the new commander of the 28th Bomb Wing, Col. David 
Doss, as well as CCM Rochelle Hemingway. We had a great discussion, and 
we had a chance to talk about the needs of the base going forward, 
including what will be needed as Ellsworth prepares to serve as the 
first home of the B-21.
  Ensuring that the base has the necessary resources and infrastructure 
to fully support the B-21 mission will be a priority of mine not just 
as we await the mission but for decades to come.
  Since I came to Congress, I have worked with the base and the Greater 
Rapid City community to build up Ellsworth. We have gone from fighting 
to keep the base open, to adding an MQ-9 Reaper mission and supporting 
the B-1 as a workhorse of the bomber fleet, to hosting the largest 
training airspace in the continental United States, and to being chosen 
to host both the B-21 training mission and first operational squadron.
  I am incredibly proud of all that Ellsworth airmen have accomplished, 
and I am looking forward to seeing everything the team at the base will 
be able to do in the future.


                            Turkey and Syria

  Madam President, as I reflect on the critical role our military plays 
in the world, I want to take a moment to talk about what is happening 
in Syria right now and the U.S. response.
  This is a complex situation. Given its proximity to several fronts of 
conflict and unrest, Turkey is facing immense pressure to address 
security concerns and is straining to support a huge number of 
refugees.
  Turkey also has an understandable interest in rooting out terrorists 
within its country and stemming any factions that support them, but the 
Kurdish militias the United States has backed in Syria are not the same 
as the group Turkey has struggled to contain in its own country.
  Turkey's decision to attack Kurdish forces in Syria will do nothing 
but exacerbate the humanitarian crisis on the border. It will also 
strengthen the Assad regime and foster greater influence in the region 
by Russia and Iran. Most alarmingly, Turkey's incursion will force the 
Kurds to pull resources that would otherwise be committed to keeping 
ISIS fighters imprisoned. It is deeply concerning that the withdrawal 
of U.S. forces has set this into motion.
  As you know, a major reason for ISIS's rise was President Obama's 
decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq on a timetable that he 
announced to our enemies and before the security situation was stable. 
The departure of U.S. forces created a vacuum in the region that ISIS 
quickly stepped in to fill. It is important that we don't allow history 
to repeat itself.
  U.S. and Kurdish forces have been working together against ISIS for 
years now and have succeeded in drastically shrinking ISIS's territory 
and weakening this terrorist organization. Thanks to their work, in 
many respects ISIS can be said to be on the run, but this achievement 
could quickly be undone by a U.S. withdrawal from the country.
  I hope we will be able to have some fruitful discussions here in 
Washington this week about the need to maintain our strategic gains 
against ISIS and avoid creating a vacuum for our enemies to fill, and I 
hope our NATO ally Turkey is listening closely.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Immigration

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today on the Senate floor to 
address an issue that is really fundamental to who we are as Americans. 
It is the issue of immigration.
  We just celebrated, this past week, a day dedicated to Christopher 
Columbus, who, supposedly, discovered America. Of course, we know 
better. Native Americans were here and discovered it before him, but he 
was the first European to discover America and really triggered an 
immigration to this part of the world that has really changed America 
and the world forever.
  This immigration from all over the world has created one of the most 
diverse nations on Earth. I am a beneficiary of that immigration. My 
mother was an immigrant to America in 1911, coming here from Lithuania 
to East St. Louis, IL, where she was raised and where I had the chance 
to grow up, as well.
  Today, her son--this immigrant mother's son--has been serving as a 
U.S. Senator from Illinois with humility and pride. It is an indication 
of our family's story, but it is also America's story--how immigrants 
came from far and wide to America and made lives and great futures and 
built families that continue to serve this Nation to this day.
  You would think, since immigration is such a central part of who we 
are as Americans, that there would be a general consensus about the 
issue, but it turns out to be one of the most hotly contested and 
debated issues almost since the arrival of the Mayflower.
  How many people should be allowed to come to this country? Where are 
they going to come from? What will they do when they come here? What 
impact will they have on those of us who are already here? All of these 
questions of national security have led us into an ongoing national 
debate about immigration.
  Today, this morning, I come to the floor to discuss one aspect of it. 
This last Sunday morning, I was back in Illinois and was invited to a 
Democratic Party event in Schaumburg, IL. It was a fairly routine 
breakfast meeting of the Democratic township organization. I have been 
to many of them. It is great to see old friends.
  When I arrived at the event, I was surprised to see demonstrators, 
protesters--perhaps 200 of them--holding signs with my name on them. It 
is not exactly the way you want to start a Sunday morning, greeting 200 
people with signs about this fellow named Durbin. I had a chance to 
talk to them. I didn't run away from them because I wanted to find out 
who they were and why they were there.
  By and large, they were people from India who are currently living in 
the United States and want to become legal citizens here. Most of them 
came to the United States bringing special skills that were needed. 
Many of them are in the Silicon Valley high-tech industries--engineers 
who came to the United States once companies certified that they 
couldn't find an American to fill the job, which is a requirement. 
Having been unable to find an American, these companies asked 
permission to bring in these highly skilled people from India to serve 
as engineers in the United States.

[[Page S5811]]

  They come in on what is known as H-1B visas, by and large, and that 
allows them to work in the United States for several years and to renew 
that work status on a recurring basis. But there reached a point where 
they wanted to stay here. They have lived here awhile. They bring their 
families and raise their families here, and they want to become part of 
America's future. They apply for what is known as an employment-based 
immigrant visa, which leads to a green card. A green card is the ticket 
to legal, permanent residency, which can lead to citizenship.
  So these people from India, who were waiting to see me and say a few 
words to me, stated the fact that the waiting list for those in this 
category from India has now passed 520,000. There are 520,000 who are 
seeking permanent status in our country.
  I met one of them from my hometown of Springfield, IL, a young Indian 
physician who is serving at one of our hospitals in Springfield. He 
brought with him his daughter. His daughter is 12 years old. He is 
worried because if he, the physician who came here to work from India, 
is not allowed to legally stay in this country and his daughter reaches 
the age of 21, her status changes. She is no longer his dependent. She 
now has her own immigration status, and she is not technically, 
legally, beyond the age of 21, allowed to stay in this country.
  So he says to me: Here is my daughter, who has been here for 10 
years. This is the country she knows and loves and wants to be a part 
of, and if I don't get approval to stay as a doctor in this country, 
she is technically undocumented at that point, and we run into problems 
with the future.
  For example, it is no surprise that this doctor wants to see his 
daughter go to college. Well, his daughter, undocumented, will not 
qualify for any assistance in the United States by way of Pell grants 
or loans. How is she going to pay for college? Where would she go? Our 
immigration system says, at that point, if her father doesn't reach 
this green card status, she would return to India, a place she maybe 
never remembers and that was part of her infancy in her early time here 
on Earth.

  So it is a complicated situation. There is a debate under way here 
about how to stop this backlog of people who are waiting in line 10 
years, 20 years, and more to reach green card status. You can imagine 
the uncertainty in their lives, the uncertainty for their children, and 
why they are looking for some relief.
  I came to this issue never dreaming that I would end up being in the 
middle of most debates in the Senate on immigration, but I welcome it 
because it is such an important issue and because I have strong 
feelings myself about America's immigration policy.
  I serve as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Border Security 
and Immigration for the Senate Judiciary Committee. As I have said, my 
own personal family and life experience have really made me warm to the 
subject, and I try to learn as much as I can about a complex field. 
Make no mistake, the immigration system of the United States of America 
is badly, badly broken. How to fix it is hotly debated here in the 
Senate and in the House and across the Nation.
  Last night, when I was watching the Presidential debates, groups were 
running ads on a regular basis on the issue of immigration. Many 
believe that it is going to be a hot topic in the 2020 election. It is 
quite possible that it will be. We know that in State legislatures and 
city halls, on cable news and social media, and almost everywhere, 
there is a debate under way about immigration. But there is one place 
where there is no debate about immigration--here in the U.S. Senate.
  This year, we had one hearing in the Border Security and Immigration 
Subcommittee. And the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on only one 
immigration bill. The chairman limited debate to only one hour and 
didn't allow any amendments, and we have not had any debates on the 
floor of the Senate.
  I look to the Galleries and the people who come to the Senate and 
expect to see a debate on an issue--an important issue. Here is one: 
immigration. But all they have is a speech from this Senator and a few 
others, instead of addressing the issue of immigration.
  Senator Kennedy has come to the floor, and I am going to make a 
unanimous consent request in just a few minutes. He is a member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, too, and I think he appreciates, as I do, 
what a great honor it is to serve on this storied committee. But the 
fact is that to have the titles of Judiciary Committee and Border 
Security and Immigration Subcommittee and to do nothing, I think, is a 
dereliction of duty.
  We are supposed to step up and debate these things and come to the 
best bipartisan conclusion we can to solve problems in this country. 
Here is a problem we are not solving: how to deal with a backlog of 
people, highly skilled and important people, like the doctor from my 
hometown of Springfield, from India, who wants to have a green card, 
giving him an opportunity to become an American citizen.
  Do you know what? I want that doctor to become an American citizen. I 
want him to get a green card. We need him in my hometown and many more 
just like him, and I want his family to be there with him so that his 
life is complete as he pursues his professional responsibilities.
  Now, in recent weeks, there has been an effort to pass a bill to 
address this issue. The bill is S. 386. It is known as the Fairness for 
High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Unfortunately, there was an effort to pass 
it without any debate or a chance to even offer an amendment.
  Now, this bill makes significant changes in our immigration laws, but 
there has never been a hearing on the bill or a vote in the committee. 
The lead sponsor of the legislation is Mike Lee, who is the senior 
Senator from Utah and a personal friend. He has negotiated several 
amendments in private with his Republican Senators, but there has been 
no conversation with myself or any other Democratic Senators about 
these negotiations.
  That is not how the Senate should work. I believe I have seen the 
Senate at its best, and, unfortunately, it was 7 years ago. We 
decided--eight of us in the Senate, four Democrats and four 
Republicans--to actually sit down and try to fix the immigration 
system. It is a pretty ambitious task, but we had some pretty talented 
people engaged in it. Leading on the Republican side was John McCain 
from Arizona. Next to him was Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, Jeff 
Flake from Arizona, and Marco Rubio from Florida.
  On our side, I was engaged with Senator Chuck Schumer, who is now the 
Democrat Senate leader, as well as Bob Menendez, of course, a Hispanic 
Senator from the State of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet from Colorado.
  So the eight of us came together. We did what I think the Senate is 
supposed to do. We sat down and took our time and spent months, every 
single week, sometimes several evenings each week, going through a 
different section of our immigration law and trying to make it work, 
reform it, and change it. It took us months--some 6 months of meetings. 
That is what we are elected to do.
  We produced a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was 
supported by virtually everyone. Groups of business leaders, as well as 
groups of labor leaders, the church community, and all sorts of people 
from the conservative side of politics to the liberal side of politics 
said that this was a good, fair, bipartisan compromise.
  So in 2013, we reported this bill to the floor, after our Democratic 
Judiciary Committee chairman at that time, Patrick Leahy from Vermont, 
had a lengthy hearing. We considered over 100 amendments--amendments 
offered by those who were voting against the bill, like Jeff Sessions 
from Alabama, and amendments offered by those supporting the bill, like 
Mazie Hirono from Hawaii. Each person offered an amendment, debated it, 
and we voted. It sounded like the U.S. Senate; didn't it? We were 
actually voting on amendments on a critically important bill. Thanks to 
Chairman Leahy's skill and patience, I might add, after hundreds of 
amendments were considered, the bill was reported out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, came to the floor of the Senate in 2013, and we 
called for a vote. It passed 68 to 32. After all that work, on a 
bipartisan basis, we finally got it right. I thought we did, and I 
voted for it.

  Sadly, that bill was sent across the Rotunda, over to the House of 
Representatives, as the Constitution requires, and, unfortunately, the 
Republican Speaker, John Boehner, refused

[[Page S5812]]

to call the bill or debate an alternative to it. It literally died from 
lack of any effort to deal with the issue in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  So one would ask--that was more than 6 years ago--what has happened 
since? The answer is nothing--virtually nothing--except decisions by 
the Trump administration, for example, to eliminate some aspects of our 
immigration law, like the DACA provision.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. In light of an attempt to pass the Fairness for High-
Skilled Immigrants Act without hearings or debate, I come to the floor 
today to present an alternative. I am introducing the Resolving 
Extended Limbo for Immigrant Employees and Families Act, known as the 
RELIEF Act, which will treat all immigrants fairly by eliminating 
immigrant visa backlogs.
  One of the most serious problems of our immigration system is that 
there are not enough immigrant visas, known as green cards. As a 
result, immigrants are stuck in crippling backlogs for decades. Close 
to 4 million future Americans, many of whom already live and work in 
the United States, are on the State Department's immigrant visa waiting 
list. However, under current law, only 226,000 family green cards and 
140,000 employee green cards are available each year. Children and 
spouses of lawful permanent residents, known as LPRs, count against 
these caps, which further limit the number of available green cards.
  The backlogs are a tremendous hardship on families caught in this 
situation. Children of parents waiting to become LPRs often age out, as 
I described earlier, because they are no longer children by the time 
the green cards are available for them. The solution is clear: increase 
the number of green cards.
  Let's be clear. Lifting green card country caps alone, without 
increasing green cards, as the bill that Senator Lee is sponsoring 
would do, will not eliminate the backlog for Indian immigrants, the 
nationality with the most people in the employment backlog, and it will 
dramatically increase backlogs for the rest of the world.
  Mr. Ira Kurzban, who is the Nation's expert on immigration laws, has 
said that we are virtually trying to solve the problem with Senator 
Lee's bill for Indian immigrants at the expense of everyone else in the 
world. He says:

       From 2023 until well into the 2030s, there will be zero EB-
     2 visas for the rest of the world. None for China, South 
     Korea, Philippines, Britain, Canada, Mexico, every country in 
     the [European Union] and all of Africa. Zero.

  It would also choke off green cards for every important profession 
that isn't in the information technology field.
  More than 20 national organizations have now rallied against the Lee 
legislation and have said things such as that the bill offers a ``zero-
sum approach,'' pitting one group of immigrants against another to 
fight the broken immigration system.
  The RELIEF Act, which I am introducing today, is a solution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2603

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his extra 3 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am making a unanimous consent request.
  As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2603, introduced earlier 
today; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed 
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, no one 
in this Chamber has more respect for the senior Senator from Illinois 
and the Democratic whip than I do. I share much of his frustration. I 
also share, and I believe what the Senator also believes, that 
immigration is an extraordinarily important subject that this body 
should be addressing. We are a nation of immigrants. The American 
people support legal immigration. I know the senior Senator from 
Illinois supports it. I certainly support it.
  I am rising to object because a number of my colleagues--and I don't 
want to simply put it on them; I join with them in this--would like a 
little additional time to study this bill. Equally important, if not 
more important, many of my colleagues' sentiment is that we should take 
this bill up first in the Judiciary Committee.
  I commit to the minority whip that I will join with him in trying to 
get our esteemed chairman to take this bill up. I don't think we ought 
to be afraid of this issue. I don't think we ought to be reluctant to 
take difficult votes. That is why we are here in the U.S. Senate. I 
also cannot think of a subject that is more important for this body to 
address than the subject of immigration, including but not limited to 
legal and illegal immigration.
  The fact of the matter is that the American people deserve an 
immigration system that looks like somebody designed it on purpose.
  For the reasons I just expressed, Madam President, I respectfully 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Louisiana. We have worked on 
things together, and I hope we will continue to do so in the future.
  This is controversial, but it is so timely and important. The 
hundreds of people who demonstrated against this Senator last Sunday 
were people I welcomed into this country and believe will be an 
important part of our future. I am willing to find a solution to the 
problem, and I am willing to work on a bipartisan basis to do it. Your 
help will be invaluable.

                          ____________________