[Pages S6460-S6465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of William 
Joseph Nardini, of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for 
the Second Circuit.

[[Page S6461]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1994

  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to offer a path 
forward on the SECURE Act--the way that I think we could actually do 
some legislating around here and pass a constructive bill.
  A little brief history, I think, is in order and helpful for context. 
About 3 years ago, the Senate Finance Committee passed a reasonably 
similar legislation out of committee unanimously. It was never 
considered on the Senate floor. The House took up some of these ideas 
and passed their own legislation.
  My own view is that most of the substance of this legislation is very 
constructive. Most of what it does is it makes it easier for middle-
class families to save for their retirement. That is constructive. 
However, the bill that came over from the House is different from the 
bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee and was never 
considered on the Senate floor. The House bill dropped a number of 
provisions that had bipartisan support. They added some provisions that 
had never been vetted by anybody on the Senate side, at least not in a 
procedural way.
  There is a proper way to resolve these kinds of differences, and that 
is to put this bill on the Senate floor, open it up for amendments, and 
allow the Senate to work its will. The Senate will almost certainly 
pass some version--probably very similar to the House bill--and then we 
can iron out whatever little differences there are.
  This is the way we legislate. That is what I am suggesting we do 
today. To do otherwise would be to treat this body as just a 
rubberstamp for the House, and that is not the purpose of having two 
legislative bodies.
  I should also note that our Democratic colleagues have frequently 
criticized Republican leadership and the Republican majority for not 
legislating. Sometimes they have a point. The minority leader has said 
that the Senate is a legislative graveyard. He has criticized Leader 
McConnell for not putting bills on the floor and at one point Senator 
Schumer said:

       We want to debate these other issues. . . . We are not 
     saying our Republican friends are going to think exactly as 
     we do, but let's have a debate and vote.

  I couldn't agree more. I think we should have a debate. I think we 
should have a series of votes. I think we could bang this out in a day, 
at the end of which we would pass the SECURE Act, preferably after 
considering amendments from both sides. That is what I am proposing. In 
fact, we have been proposing this for weeks.
  We have shared with our Democratic colleagues several amendments that 
the Republican Senators would like to offer. One is mine. I have other 
colleagues who would like to offer them. We have been asking our 
Democratic colleagues for their list of amendments. What things would 
they like to do? What amendments would they like to consider? We have 
restricted our amendments to those which affect the Tax Code. We have 
suggested that they do likewise.
  Amazingly, to me, we haven't heard a single suggestion yet from our 
Democratic colleagues. It is amazing because I have heard plenty of 
criticism about our Tax Code from our Democratic friends, including 
criticism about the limitation we put on State and local tax 
deductions. I know there are Democratic colleagues who would like to 
extend the electric vehicle credit. There are some who have proposed 
new taxes on wealth. Chairman Wyden has a proposal to put a tax on 
unrealized market-to-market gains on assets. There is a long list of 
ideas we have heard from the other side.
  This is the opportunity to have some votes and find out whether there 
is support and to what extent there is support for these things. On our 
side, we are willing to vote. Every Republican Senator is in favor of 
this proposal that I am going to suggest in a few moments, whereby we 
would have specific amendments on our side and allow the Democrats to 
have an equal number on their side. I don't know what could be more 
reasonable than this approach.
  Quickly, my amendment fixes a technical drafting error in our tax 
reform. It is called the QIP. It is the acronym that is used for it. It 
stands for ``qualified improvement property.''
  Here is the problem. Due to a drafting error, businesses are now 
forced to recognize the cost of improvements over a long period of time 
rather than to expense them in the years in which the expenses 
occurred. It was a drafting error. Everybody acknowledges it was a 
drafting error and was unintended.
  Thirteen of my Democratic colleagues are cosponsors of my legislation 
to fix this, and every Republican Senator supports fixing this error. 
Those are 66 Senators right there. I am not asking for a guaranteed 
outcome. I am just asking for a vote. Let's have a vote on it. I have 
other colleagues who would also like to have votes on their amendments. 
As I said, our proposal is that the Democrats pick an equal number of 
items that are important to them, and let's have votes on those. It 
would look a lot like legislating. It would be good to get back to 
legislating. In a moment, I am going to make a unanimous consent 
request to do exactly that.
  Before I do, I yield the floor to my colleague from Texas, Senator 
Cruz, for his thoughts on this.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
his leadership on this issue.
  I think Senator Toomey's proposal is an eminently reasonable, 
commonsense proposal in that we take up the SECURE Act with an equal 
number of amendments from the Republicans and the Democrats and that we 
vote on the amendments on the Senate floor.
  Now, everyone expects, in a few minutes, we are going to see the 
Democrats stand up and object to that proposal and say: No, we don't 
want amendments. We are not willing to vote on amendments. We are going 
to see the Democrats hold the SECURE Act hostage because they are 
unwilling to vote on amendments. We are going to see the Democrats hold 
hostage bipartisan reform that would improve retirement savings and 
also hold hostage tax relief for Gold Star families that should have 
passed a long time ago. It is cynical for the Democrats to hold this 
hostage, but because they are afraid to vote, they are getting ready to 
object and say that Gold Star families don't get their tax relief. The 
Democrats are afraid to have a vote in this body, and they are willing 
to hold the Gold Star families hostage.
  One of the proposals they are afraid to vote on is that of 
commonsense education reform that has bipartisan support. It concerns 
what are called 529 savings plans, which are immensely popular tax 
advantage savings plans. Over 18 million Americans use them right now. 
The vast majority of those who use 529 savings plans are middle-class 
Americans. What 529 savings plans allow is for parents and grandparents 
to save for the educational expenses of their kids.
  In 2017, as part of the tax reform, I introduced an amendment to 
expand 529 savings plans not just to college but to K-12 education. The 
Senate took up that amendment, and it became the only amendment the 
Senate adopted on the floor of the Senate that added anything to the 
tax cut. It passed this body at about 1 o'clock in the morning, by a 
50-50 vote, with the Vice President's having broken the tie.
  It has become the most far-reaching and significant Federal school 
choice legislation that has ever been enacted, benefiting up to 50 
million school kids across this country. That legislation is already 
done, and it is actually not what this fight is about. That fight was 
about expanding 529s to K-12 education. The American people won that 
fight, and the Democratic opposition lost that fight.
  This amendment is, instead, a much more modest amendment that takes 
529 savings plans and expands them to three groups of people.
  No. 1, it allows the parents and grandparents of kids with 
disabilities to use 529s to save for educational therapies for kids 
with disabilities and to save for the additional assistance those kids 
with disabilities need. That is an eminently commonsense proposition.
  No. 2, it allows homeschooling families to participate in 529 savings 
plans. In 2017, the Democrats cruelly carved out of 529s both kids with 
disabilities and homeschooling families. There is no reason kids with 
disabilities should

[[Page S6462]]

be discriminated against by the Democrats in this body, and there is no 
reason homeschooling families should be discriminated against by the 
Democrats in this body.
  The third group of people it benefits is that of public school 
students. What this amendment says is that the parents and grandparents 
who have kids in public schools can use 529s to pay for additional 
educational expenses. That means they can use 529s to pay for 
standardized test preparation. That means they can use 529s to pay for 
tutoring costs or whatever additional educational expenses they have 
above and beyond their public schooling. This would potentially benefit 
every child in public school today.
  We may see the Democrats suggest that voting on this is somehow 
partisan or divisive. The nice thing is that we know as an absolute 
fact that it is not. Why do we know that? My amendment is for the 
expanding of 529s for kids with disabilities, for homeschoolers, and 
for public school students.
  My amendment was taken up in the House Ways and Means Committee, and 
it was adopted in the House Ways and Means Committee--and this is 
important--unanimously. That means every single Republican on Ways and 
Means voted for it and that every single Democrat on Ways and Means 
voted for it. The Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means 
Committee voted for this 529 reform. It was unanimous, bipartisan, 
commonsense reform. Unfortunately, what happened after that is, when 
the bill left Ways and Means and went to the House floor, some 
political leaders and teachers unions got upset, and Speaker Pelosi 
essentially did a drive-by shooting and, on the floor, took the 
provision out.
  Here is the part that is particularly ironic. Do you know the single 
biggest monetary beneficiary of the 529 reform for which I am asking 
for a vote? The single biggest monetary beneficiary would be the public 
schoolteachers. Why is that? It would allow public school students and 
their parents to have 529 savings accounts in order to pay for 
tutoring. Who do you think those parents are going to hire to tutor 
their kids in public school? They are going to hire other public 
schoolteachers. We are literally talking about millions of dollars for 
public schoolteachers that you are about to see the Democrats block.
  I would speak to the members of the press corps. Just once, I would 
like to see the press corps ask a Democrat: Why are you blocking relief 
for children with disabilities and their parents? Why are you 
discriminating against homeschooled kids, and why are you hurting 
public schoolteachers and stopping public school students from being 
able to get tutoring and test preparation?
  It is worth noting that Senator Toomey's proposal is not even that 
this proposal be adopted. It is simply that we vote on it. Yet the 
cynicism of today's Democratic Party is such that we are about to see 
them object to even having a vote. That is unfortunate and it is wrong.
  I say let's go back to the bipartisan proposal for which every single 
Democrat on the House Ways and Means voted and every single Republican. 
Let's work together, and let's actually serve the people who elected 
us.
  I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague.
  I agree with him. As both my colleagues here know and as my friends 
across the aisle know, I strongly support the underlying legislation.
  I think the legislation is needed right now. Unbelievably, if you are 
in a small business, less than 50 percent of the workers have access to 
retirement plans. Two-thirds of Americans think they will be in trouble 
in retirement because they will not have enough money to take care of 
their retirements. Do you know what? They are right to be worried, for 
we have a huge problem in this country, and that is what the underlying 
bill addresses. It helps small businesses in their ability to offer 
plans, which is where most of the problem is in terms of there being a 
lack of retirement savings and the peace of mind in retirement that all 
of our constituents want.
  The problem is that the legislation that came over from the House was 
never considered here on the Senate floor. In fact, if you go back to 
2016, when it was last considered, it was by the Committee on Finance. 
So I think it is reasonable to say, yes, this underlying bill is good, 
and I strongly support it, but let's have a little debate here on the 
floor. We shouldn't be afraid of that.
  Let me make a point. I support what my colleague from Pennsylvania 
talked about in terms of the qualified improvement property, and I 
support what my colleague from Texas said in terms of the 529 plans. 
Yet we are not asking our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
support these amendments. I don't have an amendment in the mix, and we 
are not asking them to support any of these amendments.
  All we are asking is for them to allow for a process by which we can 
have a vote on their amendments, whatever they are, that relate to 
retirement and to tax policy--because this is a vehicle through which 
we can talk about tax policy--and to vote on our provisions that my 
colleague from Pennsylvania has laid out. Then let's see what happens. 
That is how we are supposed to operate around here. This is supposed to 
be the world's greatest deliberative body, and sometimes we find 
ourselves so tied up in knots that we can't deliberate. We are just 
asking for deliberation.
  My hope is that this will work today--that we will actually open up 
this process and allow for a vote on the SECURE Act, which is so 
important. It came out of the House with a vote of 417 to 3. What an 
incredibly bipartisan vote that was. Let's have a little discussion on 
the floor about retirement policy and about tax policy. Let's vote and 
let the chips fall where they may. Then let's actually send a bill to 
the President that will help the people whom we all represent.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, in reclaiming my time, as in legislative 
session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1994, the Setting Every 
Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, the SECURE Act, 
which is at the desk.
  I further ask that there be a period of general debate on the bill to 
be limited to 10 hours, equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees, and that following the use or yielding back of that 
time, the only amendments in order on the Republican side be the 
amendments to be offered by Senators Toomey, Lee, Burr, Braun, and Cruz 
or their designees, the texts of which are at the desk, and five 
amendments that propose changes to the Internal Revenue Code to be 
determined by the Democratic leader, with the concurrence of the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance.
  I further ask that debate on each amendment be limited to 30 minutes, 
equally divided between proponents and opponents, and that each 
amendment, unless it would be considered germane postcloture, be 
subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold and that following the use 
or yielding back of time on each amendment, the Senate proceed to a 
vote on each amendment.
  Finally, I ask that following the disposition of those specified 
amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and 
that the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, as amended, if 
amended, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, 
earlier this year, the House passed the SECURE Act--a bipartisan 
package--in a nearly unanimous vote of 417 to 3. This bill has 
overwhelming bipartisan support, and it takes many good steps toward 
improving retirement security for families across our country. It would 
help Gold Star families, small businesses, long-term and part-time 
workers, and more.
  With families in our country, nationwide, in the middle of a 
retirement crisis, we should take the opportunity we have right here in 
front of us today to offer them some relief as soon as possible.
  This bill, the SECURE Act, has wide bipartisan support here in the 
Senate,

[[Page S6463]]

and Democrats are ready to pass it today as is. But now we have a few 
Republican Senators who want to sidetrack it with last-minute 
amendments, including proposals that are not in the interest of working 
families and will kill any chance this bill has of becoming law. For 
example, one of the amendments strips out an important provision the 
House made sure to include, while another one tries to jam back in a 
proposal that the House took out before it passed it so it could pass 
by an overwhelming margin.
  Well, let me be clear. Democrats don't think families relying on this 
relief should have to wait while Republicans try to chip away at it. We 
want to pass this bill today as it is, which is why I would like to ask 
the Senator from Pennsylvania to modify his unanimous consent request; 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1994, 
which is at the desk, the SECURE Act, the bipartisan House bill; and 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion 
to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania so modify 
his request?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just 
will say briefly that this is very disappointing. What we are hearing 
from our Democratic colleagues is that the Senate is supposed to be a 
rubberstamp for what the House has done. We are not supposed to 
consider and deliberate ourselves as a body. We are not supposed to, 
apparently, entertain amendments--equal numbers from both sides--to 
attempt to reflect our constituents' interests and get to a legislative 
solution that would inevitably have broad bipartisan support. I am very 
disappointed.
  Of course, I would reiterate, no Republican has ever asked for a 
guaranteed outcome on any amendment. All we are asking for is a vote, 
and apparently that is asking too much, according to our Democratic 
colleagues. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there an objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it is very disappointing on this side 
that there is an objection to this bill that addresses so many 
important issues. It has broad bipartisan support. Instead of working 
to pass this bill in front of us today, some Senators have focused on 
tacking on amendments that don't help families and do not make this a 
better bill; therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the impeachment 
inquiry currently underway in the House.
  First, I want to recognize the courageous public servants who have 
testified in the House in recent weeks in defense of U.S. national 
security and in defense of the rule of law and our democratic 
institutions. I will cite just four: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, 
Ambassador Yovanovitch, Ambassador Taylor, and Ambassador McKinley.
  Despite the two decades of military service by Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman and the Purple Heart he earned for his sacrifice for our 
country in Iraq, his character has faced brutal attacks from cable news 
and from some current and former Members of Congress.
  As former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul put it in a 
Washington Post column last week, ``Such smear tactics are revolting 
and un-American. [Lt. Col.] Vindman has served our country with honor 
and distinction, both on and off the battlefield. . . . And he is a 
patriot--as you would expect from someone with his outstanding 
resume.''
  So said former Ambassador McFaul, and I agree with him. I think most 
Americans would agree with him.
  Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is just one of the many brave patriots who 
have testified as part of this impeachment inquiry.
  Ambassador Yovanovitch has dedicated over 30 years to U.S. foreign 
service. She has rightfully earned the respect and credibility that she 
has within the U.S. national security community for her anti-corruption 
efforts in Ukraine and for her unwavering commitment to U.S. national 
security interests.
  Ambassador McKinley has served this country as Senior Advisor to the 
Secretary of State and Ambassador to Brazil, Afghanistan, Colombia, and 
Peru. He has demonstrated fierce loyalty to his colleagues in the State 
Department and to the United States itself.
  Ambassador Taylor's life has been marked by his service to our 
Nation, from West Point to the 101st Airborne in Vietnam, to his work 
as Ambassador to Ukraine and other significant foreign policy roles.
  We should all be inspired by these and countless other public 
servants who work to protect and serve the United States every day. 
When I reflect upon their service to our country and their integrity, I 
am reminded of one of the lines from ``America the Beautiful": ``Oh, 
beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years.'' That is what 
these patriots are doing--trying to understand and deliberate about 
what their actions should be now that will help America over time, to 
see beyond the years. That is part of the dream of a patriot, and these 
individuals have demonstrated that. They have a care and a concern 
about our institutions, our government, our democracy, our 
Constitution, and, of course, a concern about what their actions mean 
for the future.
  Over the past week, the House committees leading the impeachment 
inquiry regarding President Trump's, in my judgment, abuse of power 
have publicly released the first full transcripts from several of their 
interviews with State officials and diplomats. The transcripts explain 
in rich detail how the President employed Rudy Giuliani, his personal 
attorney, to manage a shadow diplomacy agenda focused on personal 
vendettas and unfounded--and that is an understatement--conspiracy 
theories in Ukraine.
  Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that there was a ``concerted 
campaign'' to have her removed as Ambassador to Ukraine and repeatedly 
discussed the threatening and bullying behavior of the President and 
Mr. Giuliani because of her disagreements with Mr. Giuliani. The 
Ambassador explained that a senior Ukrainian official expressed 
significant concerns regarding Mr. Giuliani's behavior and told the 
Ambassador that she ``really needed to watch her back.''
  When asked whether she felt threatened after President Trump told the 
Ukrainian President that she was ``going to go through some things,'' 
Ambassador Yovanovitch responded unequivocally ``yes,'' meaning yes, 
she felt threatened.
  And she indicated some of her friends were ``very concerned'' about 
her personal safety.
  Just imagine that. Imagine that. A U.S. Ambassador concerned about 
what would happen to her next. Even those around her were concerned 
about her personal safety because of what a President was saying and 
doing--and those around him.
  Later in her testimony, Ambassador Yovanovitch discussed the 
influence of Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine. When asked whether anyone at the 
State Department tried to stop Giuliani's efforts, she explained as 
follows:

       I don't think so. I don't think they felt they could.

  Now, let's turn to Ambassador Taylor. He described similar concerns 
about Mr. Giuliani. Referencing the investigations President Trump 
wanted Ukraine to pursue into his political opponent--in this case, 
former Vice President Joe Biden--Ambassador Taylor described that the 
``irregular channel'' of Ukraine policy directed by Mr. Giuliani was 
focused on ``one or two specific cases, irrespective of whether it 
helped solve the corruption problem'' in Ukraine.
  Ambassador Taylor further explained that it was his ``clear 
understanding'' that ``security assistance money'' for Ukraine would 
not be delivered until President Zelensky ``committed to pursue the 
investigation.''
  Ambassador McKinley, a former senior adviser to Secretary of State 
Pompeo, confirmed that he resigned because of his concerns about the 
President's shadow diplomacy efforts

[[Page S6464]]

with Mr. Giuliani. When the chairman asked Mr. McKinley whether he 
resigned in part because of efforts to use the State Department to dig 
up dirt on a political opponent, Mr. McKinley responded:

       That is fair. And if I can underscore, in 37 years in the 
     Foreign Service and different parts of the globe and working 
     on many controversial issues, working 10 years back in 
     Washington, I had never seen that.

  As the Washington Post reported on September 21, the President's 
behavior related to this Ukraine matter has revealed--in the opinion of 
this journalist at the Post, a reporter who has covered the President 
very closely--No. 1, ``a President convinced of his own invincibility--
apparently willing and even eager to wield the vast powers of the 
United States to taint a political foe and confident that no one could 
hold him back.''
  Let me move to the whistleblower protections. Armed with this sense 
of invincibility, the President has directed some of his most pointed 
criticisms at the brave whistleblower who came forward to expose the 
President's call with the Ukrainian President.
  On Twitter, the President has demanded to meet the whistleblower 
face-to-face, despite laws that clearly protect the whistleblower's 
right to anonymity.
  Just the other day, the whistleblower's attorney confirmed that his 
client offered to answer written questions under oath from House 
Republicans as long as the questions did not compromise the 
individual's identity.
  House Republicans immediately denounced the offer, and the President 
tweeted that ``[w]ritten answers are not acceptable,'' despite the fact 
that President Trump refused--refused to be interviewed by Special 
Counsel Mueller's team and only answered written questions during the 
special counsel's investigation into election interference.
  Despite his own unwillingness to answer live questioning, the 
President has persisted in his desire to ``out'' the whistleblower by 
tweeting that ``we must determine the Whistleblower's identity'' and 
arguing that the press would be ``doing the public a service'' if it 
outed the whistleblower.
  Nothing--nothing the President has done or said in his more than 2\1/
2\ years as President convinces me that he has any understanding of 
public service or doing the public a service, depending on how you look 
at it.
  President Trump has even demanded to know who provided the 
information to the whistleblower and suggested that the source was ``a 
spy'' who would have been executed ``in the old days.''
  These comments follow the testimony of Acting Director of National 
Intelligence Joseph Maguire--a former Navy SEAL with 36 years of 
military experience and a Presidential Appointee--before the House of 
Representatives in September.
  Mr. Maguire said the following:

       [W]e must protect those who demonstrate courage to report 
     alleged wrongdoing. . . . The Inspector General is properly 
     protecting the complainant's identity and will not permit the 
     complainant to be subject to any retaliation or adverse 
     consequences for communicating the complaint to the Inspector 
     General.

  Yesterday, in floor remarks, the junior Senator from Kentucky 
compared the whistleblower to Edward Snowden and argued that the 
current concerns about the safety of the whistleblower are nothing more 
than ``selective outrage.''
  To be clear, Edward Snowden broke the law. He abused his security 
clearance and position of trust to leak classified information to the 
press. He sought safe haven in Russia, and we are unaware of any other 
information he may have shared that could further jeopardize national 
security.
  The current whistleblower has strictly followed the appropriate 
channels of reporting, as confirmed by Director Maguire, and the 
individual deserves the full protection under the law.
  The Senator from Kentucky referenced Edward Snowden in a conversation 
about blowing the whistle on President Trump's abuse of power. I hope 
that anyone would not make a comparison between the two cases. 
Threatening a witness or retaliating against a whistleblower is 
illegal. We know that. The President's public attacks on the 
whistleblower only add to the record of impeachable conduct.
  His careless and extreme rhetoric not only places the whistleblower's 
personal safety in jeopardy, it undermines the entire whistleblower 
program of the intelligence community and across the government.
  The intelligence community and Congress must continue to do all we 
can to protect the current whistleblower's identity and personal 
safety. The current legal protections for whistleblowers are 
insufficient to fully protect those who are courageous enough to come 
forward and report wrongdoing.
  Of course, the reason we need the additional protections is the 
President's conduct in threatening the whistleblower. No other 
President has ever done this.
  Congress must consider more ways to protect whistleblowers, including 
criminalizing the disclosure of the whistleblower's identity. It should 
be clear that should be a crime, if the statutes do not provide for it 
now.
  We must use this experience to ensure that whistleblowers will be 
protected from threatening rhetoric and from actions by a President or 
any other public official meant to intimidate whistleblowers. If you 
are threatening a whistleblower, if you are trying to ``out'' them, 
that is always--always wrong. We do not have to worry about whether a 
specific statutory provision made it a crime. It is always wrong. Until 
this President, that was well understood by people in both parties, 
both Houses, and both branches.
  This inquiry is not simply about President Trump's clear abuse of 
power. This inquiry is about our democracy and the values our Founders 
agreed should guide our Nation.
  We owe the whistleblower, Lt. Col. Vindman, Ambassadors Yovanovitch, 
Taylor, and McKinley, as well as others, our deepest gratitude and our 
appreciation for their integrity and commitment to American values. 
They are real American heroes who, despite the President's bullying and 
harassment, have stood up in defense of our democratic institutions and 
the values the Founders fought to guide our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
scheduled for 1:45 p.m. start at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Nardini Nomination

  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Nardini 
nomination?
  Ms. COLLINS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Perdue).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) 
would have voted ``Yea'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would 
have voted ``Yea''.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from California 
(Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from 
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 352 Ex.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King

[[Page S6465]]


     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Gillibrand
     Markey
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Booker
     Braun
     Cardin
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Menendez
     Moran
     Perdue
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action with 
respect to the nominations confirmed here in today's session of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________