[Pages S6525-S6544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the 
right to yield to Senator Collins at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, polls show a surprising interest of 
Americans in the high cost of prescription drugs. It seems to be an 
issue that unites Americans. I often point out that Washington is an 
island surrounded by reality. Here inside the Beltway, people are 
obsessed with partisan impeachment proceedings. It seems like morning, 
noon, and night, the relentless effort to unseat the President of the 
United States is a toxic strain of Potomac fever infecting Capitol 
Hill.
  Now, if only Congress would channel every waking minute to fix 
problems in the real world, wouldn't that be wonderful? So let me 
provide a reality check. For people living in the real world, 
impeachment inquiry is not what keeps Americans up at night. It is not 
what wakes up moms and dads worried sick about paying for their child's 
insulin. It is not what drains the pocketbooks of seniors and takes a 
big bite out of people's paychecks. The issue that unites Americans 
from Maine, to Iowa, to Oregon is the sky-high prices that Americans 
and the taxpaying public are paying for prescription medicine.
  As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am working in a 
bipartisan way to fix what is broken in our drug supply chain. In 
February, we called the heads of Big Pharma to testify before the 
Finance Committee. Next, we heard from the largest pharmacy benefit 
managers to examine rebates and unravel the pricing supply chain. There 
was an awful lot of finger-pointing between the various interests about 
the soaring drug prices that Americans pay for pharmaceuticals. That 
finger-pointing, we heard in our committee. Finger-pointing doesn't 
decrease drug prices because the real problem is there is too much 
secrecy and not enough accountability in the industry of pricing drugs.
  When drug prices grow by leaps and bounds, year after year, it is 
time to look under the hood. It is time to kick the tires along the 
drug supply chain and check the gauge on the competition. Why in the 
world is insulin, just as an example--a drug that has been on the 
market for nearly 100 years--doubling or tripling in price for patients 
in the United States? It is surely not that way in Europe.
  We have gotten lots of feedback from patient advocates, healthcare 
providers, and free market proponents. The pushback from Big Pharma 
reveals that we are really on to something. Congress needs to take its 
foot off the brake. It is time to deliver real savings, and our bill 
will deliver real savings to consumers and to the taxpayers. It is time 
to pass reforms that will cut prescription drug costs for the American 
people.
  Now, some of my colleagues may require a more blunt call to action so 
I want to use the two-by-four illustration. Join us and score a win for 
the American people. Otherwise, do nothing and risk being on the losing 
side of the ballot box next November.
  At my annual 99 county meetings where I always hold a Q&A with 
whatever groups of constituents gather, I hear the same message from 
people all across the State of Iowa. They have family members and they 
have neighbors who struggle to pay for prescription management, to 
manage chronic health conditions, and to treat diseases. Thanks to 
breakthrough treatments and cures, Americans are living longer and 
healthier lives.
  Many are beating the odds of a diagnosis that would have been a death 
sentence a generation ago. However, if a loved one is diagnosed with MS 
or diabetes or cystic fibrosis, no miracle cure will help if Americans 
can't afford to pay for their medicine. It will not help seniors if 
sky-high prices drain taxpayer-financed health programs like Medicare 
and Medicaid. Soaring drug prices are forcing too many Americans to 
skimp on other necessities or even ration their doses of prescriptions 
that they take.
  Now, I just mentioned, as an example, cystic fibrosis. Last month, 
the FDA approved a promising new treatment for this progressive genetic 
disorder. Cystic fibrosis impacts about 30,000 Americans. There is 
nothing parents will not do to advocate for their child living with 
this condition. That is how I met one family from Iowa a few

[[Page S6526]]

years ago. That is when I launched the bipartisan Senate caucus on 
cystic fibrosis, to add our voices for awareness and advocacy. Now, I 
am told the price tag for the new drug is more than $300,000 per 
patient, per year.
  Without a doubt, this drug raises the roof of hope for tens of 
thousands of families, but it also raises a red flag about drug prices. 
If prices keep going through the roof year after year, how will 
Americans who depend on prescription medicines afford them? America's 
drug pricing regime is broken. It requires reform to sustain fiscal 
sustainability and also to steer incubation and innovation forward. It 
needs more transparency. It needs better incentives. It needs real 
competition to drive down prices. So all 100 of us have our work cut 
out for us.

  Big Pharma doesn't want the pipeline to the Federal Treasury 
tightened at all, and they will spend big money to scare people away 
from reasonable solutions that will deliver real savings and get the 
best deal for the taxpayers. I referred to our working in a bipartisan 
way. So, in July, Ranking Member Wyden and I secured broad, bipartisan 
support in our Finance Committee--19 denying vote.
  Our bill would save taxpayers more than $100 billion. That is not 
this Senate saying that. That is the Congressional Budget Office. The 
bill caps out-of-pocket costs for seniors. The bill saves their 
households more than $30 billion. We fine-tuned and improved our bill 
to gain more momentum and more support. Part of that support and one of 
the outstanding advocates for what we are trying to do doesn't happen 
to be a member of the Finance Committee, but it is my good friend from 
Maine, Senator Collins, right here on the floor. I will yield to her in 
short time.
  She is helping lead the fight to reduce drug prices. We have been 
working together on many issues. I am a former chairman of the Special 
Committee on Aging, and she is the current chair of the Special 
Committee on Aging. We are committed to help older Americans lead 
productive lives. We also share a top priority not to miss a vote. 
While I might have a stronger voting streak, Susan hasn't missed a 
single vote. I hope Maine appreciates a person who has been in the 
Senate since 1997 and hasn't missed a single vote.
  Senator Collins is one of those rare lawmakers who doesn't care who 
gets the credit, as long as we are doing the right thing. The name of 
this bill that I am talking about--and I imagine she will refer to--is 
the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. That will be the right 
thing to do, and it will do the right thing. So it is time for Congress 
to do the right thing.
  Just in case I said anything different about Senator Collins that is 
not accurate, she can feel free to correct me, but I now yield to 
Senator Collins, a strong voice for this piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me first thank and recognize Senator 
Grassley for his farsighted, courageous leadership on this issue of 
vital importance to the American people, the escalating costs of 
prescription drugs.
  Under Senator Grassley's chairmanship, the Finance Committee has held 
numerous hearings on drug pricing. His diligence, his persistence on 
this issue has produced the bipartisan Prescription Drug Price 
Reduction Act, a bold and effective set of proposals that I strongly 
endorse and look forward to seeing signed into law.
  This past century could well be called the age of miracle drugs, from 
insulin and penicillin to pharmaceuticals that treat cancer, HIV, heart 
disease, and so many other serious conditions, modern drugs have been 
proven to improve, extend, and even save lives. In our time, however, 
we might define a miracle drug as one that has not doubled in price 
since the last refill. With prescription drugs among the key factors 
driving up the cost of healthcare, it is essential that we approve 
policies that both encourage innovation and protect consumers, 
particularly our seniors.
  Demonstrating the importance of this challenge, three Senate 
committees--the Senate Finance Committee, ably chaired by Senator 
Grassley, which I mentioned earlier; the Senate HELP Committee, which 
is led by our friend and colleague Senator Lamar Alexander; and the 
Judiciary Committee, which is led by Senator Graham--have advanced 
bills aimed at reforming our broken drug pricing system.
  In addition, the Senate Aging Committee, which I chair, has held 
eight hearings on drug pricing since 2015 and issued a major report in 
2016 on Sudden Price Spikes in Off-Patent Prescription Drugs. Our 
report highlighted the manipulative schemes employed by Martin Shkreli, 
who increased the price of a drug that was more than 63 years old--a 
lifesaving medication--by 5,000 percent in just 1 day.
  To paraphrase his words, he could drive up the price of drugs like 
this one on which he had not spent a dime in the research and 
development because he could. His price gouging caused real hardships 
for patients.

  Some of the most alarming testimony we have heard on the Aging 
Committee has come from patients. They describe the financial impact of 
their prescription drug prices, the depths they have gone to to access 
medications they need, and how this struggle has affected their health 
and their overall quality of life. They are truly choosing between 
paying their electric bill, buying the food they need, and filling 
their prescription drugs.
  An example is a young father from New Gloucester, ME, who discovered 
that the cost of a 90-day supply of insulin for his 13-year-old son who 
has type 1 diabetes had more than tripled to more than $900.
  A woman from Falmouth, ME, saw her out-of-pocket costs for the 
arthritis medication Enbrel that she needs soar from $10 to $3,800 per 
month when she transitioned from her employer-sponsored insurance to 
Medicare when she retired. She had no choice but to switch medications, 
which did not work nearly as well for her, but she simply could not 
afford that out-of-pocket cost.
  I will never forget standing in line at the pharmacy counter in 
Bangor, ME, where I live. The couple ahead of me received their 
prescription drug and the unwelcome news that their prescription copay 
was going to be $111. The husband turned to his wife and said ``Honey, 
we simply cannot afford that,'' and they walked away, leaving that 
needed prescription on the pharmacy counter.
  I asked the pharmacist: How often does this happen?
  His answer: Every day.
  The results of exorbitant increases in the price of drugs are that 
needed prescriptions aren't filled, doses are skipped, and pills are 
cut in half--all harmful to the patient's health. And why? Because the 
patient simply cannot afford the exorbitant costs, the skyrocketing 
costs of these drugs.
  This should not happen. We must join together to combat the 
exorbitant prescription costs that confront more and more Americans 
every day. More than half of all Americans and 90 percent of our 
seniors take at least one prescription drug each month. For many, 
access to these medicines is not only critical to their well-being, but 
it can literally be a matter of life and death.
  For children and adults with type 1 diabetes, insulin is not a luxury 
or something that is nice to have; insulin is essential to their 
ability to survive. Insulin was first isolated nearly a century ago in 
Canada. Yet its cost has soared in recent years.
  Another chairman in the Senate who has worked very hard on this 
issue, along with Senator Grassley, is Senator Lamar Alexander. He has 
made it a strong priority of the HELP Committee, on which I serve, to 
increase transparency and competition in the prescription drug market.
  I don't think there is any product that we buy in this country where 
there is less transparency in the price than the price of prescription 
drugs and where the supply chain is more rife with conflicts of 
interest.
  Last year, in response to my experience listening to this couple in 
Bangor, ME, I authored a bill to block pharmacy gag clauses. Under 
these contractual gag clauses, pharmacists were actually prohibited 
from volunteering to a consumer that it might well be less expensive to 
pay out-of-pocket rather than use their insurance. A recent study 
published by the Journal of the American Medicine Association found

[[Page S6527]]

that this new law could help Americans save money in nearly one out of 
four prescription transactions in a pharmacy.
  Another bill I authored in 2017 to promote more competition from 
lower price but equally effective generic drugs is also showing 
results. To date, the FDA has granted nearly 200 application requests 
under the new expedited pathway established by this law, with 12 
approvals. That is a much faster pace than in the past.
  In June, the HELP Committee reported out the Lower Healthcare Costs 
Act, which incorporates more than 14 measures to increase drug price 
competition. I am pleased to say that it includes major portions of the 
Biologic Patent Transparency Act that I authored with Senator Kaine, 
and that is cosponsored by Senators Braun, Hawley, Portman, Shaheen, 
Stabenow, Paul, and Murkowski. It is intended to prevent drug 
manufacturers from gaming the patent system. It requires earlier and 
greater disclosure of the web of patents held by biologic 
manufacturers, thus making it easier for biosimilar competitors to 
develop more affordable alternatives without being stymied by the 
filing of last-minute patents.
  According to former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, if all of the 
biosimilars that have been approved by the FDA were successfully 
marketed in the United States in a timely fashion, Americans would have 
saved more than $4.5 billion in 2017.
  The fact that a biosimilar version of HUMIRA--the best selling drug 
in the world--has been on the market in Europe for more than a year 
while American patients must wait until 2023 is a clear example that 
the biosimilar market is not working as it should.
  The Lower Healthcare Costs Act also includes the CREATES Act--a bill 
that I know Senator Grassley has been very involved in. It addresses 
the anti-competitive practices of companies that delay or even block 
access to a sufficient quantity of the brand-name drug needed to 
conduct the bioequivalency test required by the FDA as part of the 
generic drug approval process. This addresses one of the major problems 
identified by the Aging Committee when we looked at this issue starting 
in 2016, examining the explosion in prices of prescription drugs for 
which there is no generic equivalent. I am pleased that we are on the 
verge of taking action to combat and stop this unfair practice.
  The HELP Committee bill also requires significantly more disclosure 
on the costs, fees, and rebate information associated with PBM 
contracts; that is, prescription benefit managers. I know the Finance 
Committee bill does as well.
  As I mentioned previously, the Finance Committee passed the 
Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act--landmark legislation that 
would save taxpayers more than $100 billion and save seniors more than 
$30 billion in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. I strongly 
support this bill because it strikes the right balance between reducing 
out-of-pocket costs for consumers without hindering innovation and 
investment in the next lifesaving medications.
  The Finance Committee bill also makes crucial improvements to 
Medicare Part D, such as protecting seniors with an out-of-pocket 
spending cap--another long overdue change that would ensure that 
patients with high-cost conditions, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, 
and rheumatoid arthritis, can get the medications they need. 
Furthermore, the bill would protect taxpayers from higher than 
inflation increases in drug prices, while reducing government spending, 
premiums, and overall out-of-pocket costs.
  The Judiciary Committee has also advanced proposals that would 
empower the Federal Trade Commission to take more aggressive action on 
anti-competitive behaviors.
  These are three worthwhile pieces of legislation that should be 
brought to the Senate floor. The work of the Finance Committee, the 
HELP Committee, and the Judiciary Committee is a tremendous 
breakthrough that would make such a difference to the American people.
  As we continue to find further consensus and a path forward on each 
of these bipartisan bills, I hope we can also look for additional 
improvements. For example, as cochairs of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, 
Senator Shaheen and I, along with Senators Cramer and Carper, have 
introduced legislation to address flaws in the system that have allowed 
pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers to implement what are truly 
unscrupulous price increases on lifesaving insulin. I also support a 
measure introduced by Senators Klobuchar and Grassley to prohibit 
brand-name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to 
delay the entry of a less costly but equally effective generic into the 
market. That is referred to as ``pay for delay.'' I am amazed that it 
is not already illegal under our anti-trust laws. This bill would make 
it clear that this tactic is no longer permitted.
  Congress has a tremendous opportunity to deliver a decisive victory 
in both lowering healthcare costs and improving healthcare for the 
people in my State of Maine and throughout America. If we want new 
medicines to reach consumers who need them, the companies that invest 
in research and take the risks necessary must see a fair return on 
their investment, but at the same time, we can no longer allow the 
price manipulation and the market distortions to continue at the 
expense of the most vulnerable Americans and their families and 
ultimately at the expense of every American taxpayer.
  We can act to make a real difference in the lives of Americans whose 
health depends on affordable prescription drugs. The required policy 
solutions will not come in the form of a miracle but through hard work 
and continued bipartisan cooperation.
  Let us come together. I urge all of my colleagues to join in 
supporting the measures we have worked so hard on and that the HELP 
Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Judiciary Committee have all 
reported, on a bipartisan basis, recognizing the hardships imposed on 
the American people. Let us bring these bills to the Senate floor 
expeditiously.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I come down to the Chamber today to talk a 
little bit and highlight the vast differences in the priorities between 
the two Chambers in the U.S. Congress today.
  Several of my colleagues will be down here a little later today to 
talk about and to encourage the passage of the National Defense 
Authorization Act--a bill, by the way, that passed the Senate in a very 
strong bipartisan way, reflective of strong bipartisan input, in a vote 
of 86 to 8. The House also passed their version of the National Defense 
Authorization Act on more of a party-line vote.
  The point being, both Chambers have passed it; the reconciliation of 
the two bills has begun; the negotiations have begun, but they have 
been stalled. I think it is a strong reflection of the differences 
between the two Chambers.
  First, I will talk a little bit about why it is important that we do 
this job. First of all, there have been 58 years in a row that the NDAA 
has passed the House and the Senate and signed into law. Why? Well, 
because it is the highest priority of the government--of all the bills 
we do every year, apart from and very close to appropriations, would be 
authorization of our national defense programs. That is why it has 
happened 58 years in a row.
  It is important for a number of reasons. One of the things that both 
the House version and the Senate version of the NDAA does is highlight 
the importance of space with the creation of a Space Force, as we call 
it the Senate, and Space Corps, as they call it in the House. 
Nonetheless, it is similar, and it represents and recognizes the 
importance of space domain as a warfighting domain going forward, a 
priority that our near-peer allies have already recognized in their 
policies.
  Without NDAA passing, that goes by the wayside for at least another 
year. It also fully funds several national priorities, not the least of 
which is, of course, the largest pay increase in 10 years for our men 
and women who wear the uniform.
  On a more local level for me, it authorizes the modernization of our 
nuclear fleet, including the ground-based missiles known as the ICBMs 
that we have 150 of in North Dakota at Minot.

[[Page S6528]]

It modernizes this system, which is several decades old. If we need 
anything, we need to modernize our weapons systems again to keep pace 
with our near-peer adversaries.
  It also authorizes millions of dollars in funds to the national 
Global Hawk mission, which is headquartered in Grand Forks, another 
very important Air Force base in my State. It authorizes funds for the 
MQ-9 program. MQ-9s are flown by North Dakota Air National Guardsmen in 
Fargo's Happy Hooligans. It also advances the mission of the Cavalier 
Air Force Station in Cavalier, ND, one of the very few space radar 
stations, and it ensures that the needs of all our Guard operations are 
met.
  The House bill, by the way, also does something that is very 
important to me. It is a bill I have introduced, along with my 
colleagues from New York, that honors the 74 sailors who lost their 
lives in the Frank E. Evans 50 years ago during the Vietnam war. These 
sailors' names have been left off the Vietnam Memorial Wall over a 
minor technicality, a technicality that probably shouldn't be in the 
rules to begin with, but certainly it has been waived in many other 
circumstances and needs to be waived in this NDAA. I would love to get 
that House language into the final bill.
  None of these priorities are going to be met if House Democrats--and 
I focus on House Democrats--if they don't come to the table and act in 
good faith and negotiate in good faith. Senate Democrats have had a 
major part in this, and I welcome every bit of involvement they 
provide.
  One of the joys of being on the Armed Services Committee for me has 
been being able to see a functioning committee that works well across 
party lines. Obviously, Senate Republicans are all on board. House 
Republicans are all on board. For some reason, the House leadership on 
the Democratic side is focused on other priorities, and the contrast 
could not be more clear.
  While we have been working hard in the Senate on appropriations, as 
well as the Defense authorization, our chairman has used his voice--
Chairman Inhofe--and used his incredible work ethic and his wisdom in 
working with Senator Reed, the ranking Democrat, on getting these 
priorities to the forefront. I can't think of a better tandem than 
those two gentlemen.
  Chairman Inhofe is truly one of the hardest working, most decent, and 
honorable people I have ever worked with. Chairman Smith, the chairman 
in the House committee, could learn a few things from him.
  Again, while we passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, 
the House bill was a much more partisan exercise. We want to prevent a 
government shutdown. We want to prevent a continuing resolution. So 
along with the NDAA, of course, is the Defense appropriations bill, and 
we have to get both of them done. We want to give our military a win-
win situation, where they get the pay raises, where they get the 
modernization they need, where new programs can be launched, and where 
we can provide long-term certainty.
  While we are trying to provide at least a win for our military, 
Democrats in the House are focused on trying to win the 2016 
Presidential election, not even thinking so much about the next one. 
They are involved in a kangaroo court over there. I watched a half hour 
of it today, and I could hardly believe what I was seeing. Today's 
political theater in the House is unnecessary, and 3 years into it, it 
is an outward demonstration of the inward motivation of a party that is 
trying to undo the Presidency of Donald Trump.
  Instead of prioritizing our constitutional responsibilities, they are 
engaged in political theater in a kangaroo court. I am pleading, once 
again, with my colleagues across the aisle and especially across the 
Capitol, in these last couple of days, while the negotiators are 
together trying to figure out a path forward, please come to the table, 
please act in good conscience. Please, please, please look for 
opportunities where we can compromise, and, for Pete's sake, let's at 
least pass the things we all agree on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Nominations

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, earlier today, we were asked to vote on 
the confirmation of Chad Wolf to serve as the Under Secretary for 
Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. 
Wolf has been serving in that role on an acting basis since February.
  Because of the way the Trump administration functions, or fails to 
function, what we were really being asked to do today was to confirm 
Mr. Wolf to a position so the President can then promote him to Acting 
DHS Secretary. This comes on top of most appointed positions at the 
agency going unfilled or only filled with similarly temporary acting 
roles.
  Before we all throw our hands up in the air and simply add this vote 
to the growing list of broken norms and incompetent actions on the part 
of the Trump White House, I would like us to consider what is at stake 
in this particular case. I beg us to take seriously the human toll that 
has been incurred because of this administration's willful chaos at the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  The Department of Homeland Security is the Nation's third largest 
Federal agency, behind only the Pentagon and the VA. The agency 
oversees disaster relief, transportation safety, counterterrorism, and 
immigration and border security. According to a report in the 
Washington Post, Mr. Wolf is the favored pick of senior Trump adviser 
Stephen Miller to take over as Acting Homeland Security Secretary. That 
should tell us about everything we need to know.
  Stephen Miller has been the lead architect of the White House's 
immoral and anti-immigration policies over the last 3 years. The Senate 
should have taken this vote as a reason to examine how this 
administration has spent the last 3 years flouting our Nation's laws 
and our Nation's values through its intentional chaos at the Department 
of Homeland Security.
  We should do our jobs and give an honest accounting of this 
administration's inhumane and, frankly, ineffective policies--policies, 
it should be said, that Mr. Wolf has been right in the middle of each 
step of the way. Instead, the Senate voted to confirm Mr. Wolf in this 
sham process to a position we weren't even sure he will serve in. This 
is shameful.
  Now that the Senate has confirmed Mr. Wolf to the Under Secretary 
position and as we anticipate Mr. Trump moving him into the Acting 
Secretary role, I ask my colleagues to please consider his record. We 
know Mr. Wolf played a central role in authoring and implementing the 
family separation policy. We don't fully understand how much he did to 
implement President Trump's other harmful immigration policies because 
the Department of Homeland Security has stonewalled and refused to 
provide key documents to the Senate on his tenure before we took the 
vote this morning.
  However, given his major role with Secretary Nielsen, it seems safe 
to assume that Mr. Wolf was involved in many of the administration's 
policy failures. Under these policies, thousands of children, as young 
as infants and toddlers, arriving at our Nation's southern border have 
been separated from their families. We have seen migrant families and 
children held in appalling, overcrowded, some say prisonlike--I would 
say prison facilities--immigration detention facilities like those in 
Clint, TX, that we saw in the media.
  The Trump administration has also throttled major ports of entry 
where refugees present themselves for asylum as is actually dictated by 
current U.S. law. This has resulted in huge groups going instead to 
remote and dangerous stretches of the southern border. We have 
tragically seen that result in the deaths of several children in New 
Mexico near some of our remote ports of entry that lack even the most 
basic medical infrastructure.
  We have seen President Trump play politics with the lives of 
thousands of refugees and asylum seekers, mothers, fathers, and 
children who are desperately seeking refuge and the prospect of a 
better life in this country.
  We have seen the President even go so far as shutting down the 
government and stealing billions of dollars of

[[Page S6529]]

congressionally appropriated funds from the military to pay for his 
wasteful and candidly ineffective border wall.
  Finally, President Trump's decision to terminate the Deferred Action 
for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA, has thrown Dreamers across 
this country deep into fear and uncertainty. The stakes of that 
decision have been shown in oral arguments before the Supreme Court 
this very week.
  Dreamers are among our best and brightest--our best and brightest 
students, teachers, and even veterans. They only know this Nation as 
their home in many cases, and today I am meeting with a Dreamer named 
Samuel, who lives in Las Cruces, NM.
  Samuel came to the United States from Mexico with his family when he 
was 11 years old. He has called Las Cruces his hometown for the last 13 
years. As a DACA recipient, Samuel was able to study accounting at New 
Mexico State University and help provide for his family.
  Dreamers like Samuel want to give back to their communities and the 
only Nation they know as home. They are American in every way except on 
paper, and because of President Trump, Dreamers like Samuel face a 
deeply fearful future.

  Whenever we debate immigration, frankly, it becomes a little personal 
for me, and that is because, like most--all of us in this Nation of 
immigrants--my family's story in America began with a search for a 
better life. My father came to the United States with his family from 
Germany as a young boy. They were fleeing the government of a racist, 
populist dictator who was first elected democratically and then used 
race and scapegoating to cement his grip on power. I always wonder how 
different my own life would be if America had turned my father away or 
separated him from his family.
  This is not some abstract question for the mothers, fathers, and 
children who are desperately seeking refuge and the prospect of a 
better life in America today. I know that so many Americans watching 
this administration's immigration policies know in their hearts what 
America truly stands for as a nation built by many generations of 
immigrants like my father. That includes local officials, first 
responders, and volunteers in communities like Deming, Las Cruces, and 
Albuquerque, NM, who over the last year provided shelter, food, and 
help to asylum seekers who had nowhere else to turn. It includes the 
thousands of Americans who marched in the streets and demanded an end 
to family separation, and it includes millions of Americans who want 
our leaders in Washington to finally affirm the incredible value that 
immigrants provide for our country.
  I want all of you to know that I stand with you. You are on the right 
and just side of history.
  I will keep calling on us to hold this administration accountable to 
our American values, and I will keep calling on Congress to uphold our 
end of the bargain and finally act to reform our broken immigration 
system. That should start by passing the Dream Act.
  We also need to address the root causes of migration from Central 
America, including extreme poverty, criminal gangs, and violence. We 
must make smart investments in real border security and economic 
development in our border communities. We need to provide the necessary 
medical and humanitarian resources to our border region, particularly 
for the rugged, back-country terrain we have in my State.
  I will never stop fighting for policies that respect the dignity of 
immigrants, recognize the real needs of our vibrant border communities, 
and live up to our true American values.
  Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever have a productive path 
forward on any of these urgent matters with this President and his 
administration. That is true no matter who President Trump ultimately 
shuffles into the role of Acting Homeland Security Secretary, but it is 
especially true if the President chooses Chad Wolf.
  When Senator Rosen questioned Mr. Wolf in the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee about the role he played in family 
separation and other cruel immigration policies, Mr. Wolf said: ``My 
job wasn't to determine if it was the right or wrong policy.'' In other 
words, folks, he was just following orders.
  I think it is clear that the Trump administration has shown an 
appalling disregard for basic human dignity. Now the Senate has 
confirmed someone who will simply rubberstamp the continued failures of 
this administration.
  I should also note that the current pending vote on the floor is for 
a judicial nominee, Steven Menashi, who has also played a role in the 
administration's shameful immigration policies. As a counsel in the 
Trump administration, Mr. Menashi has acknowledged that he advised 
Stephen Miller on immigration policy, and he has a long record of 
opposing the basic human and civil rights of people of color, women, 
LGBTQ Americans, and immigrants.
  As the general counsel at the Department of Education under Betsy 
DeVos, he played a leading role in trying to deny debt relief to 
students defrauded by for-profit colleges.
  I can't believe that we as the Senate can allow these types of 
appointments to keep going forward. We should not let this go on. This 
is not who we are as a country, and this is not the America that I know 
and love.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we just celebrated Veterans Day here in 
the Senate, back home, and across our great country in the States that 
all of us represent. Everybody was celebrating our troops, our 
military, and supporting their families.
  You hear that word ``support'' a lot when it comes to Veterans Day 
and our military and their families, but I am going to talk a little 
bit about that rhetoric. That is great. Senators talk a lot. But that 
is very disconnected from what actually is going on in the Senate right 
now and what is happening in terms of the action of supporting our 
troops.
  I came to the floor a couple of weeks ago to talk about this. I was 
pretty fired up. I am someone who is very collegial with my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, but the one thing I have noticed is that 
there is talk on supporting troops and then there is action. The 
rhetoric, particularly with my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, doesn't always match what is actually happening.

  I would like to explain to my constituents at home, the American 
people, and anyone watching what is happening right now with regard to 
supporting our troops--the action, not rhetoric--the action. Two weeks 
ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered the 
Defense appropriations bill. That is the bill that funds our troops. We 
had a big budget deal. We all agreed to it.
  It is hard to vote for it. I voted for it because it actually 
supports rebuilding our military pretty significantly after the Obama-
era cuts. I voted for that.
  We are starting to bring up these minibus appropriations. We had one 
a couple of weeks ago. We debated and voted on it. The plan was to 
bring up the Defense approps bill. What did my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle do? They filibustered it. It was the ninth time since 
I have been in the Senate that my colleagues decided to filibuster the 
spending for our troops. There is no other bill in the body of the 
Senate that the Democrats filibuster more than the bill that funds our 
troops. They don't want you to know that. They don't go home and brag 
about it because they should be ashamed about it, but that is what they 
did.
  Despite this budget deal and despite all of this great support for 
our troops, right now, my colleagues, for the ninth time since I have 
been a Senator, which is 5 years--nine times they filibustered the 
spending for the men and women who serve in the military. I ask the 
leaders to come out and explain that to the American people. Explain 
that to the press. Explain that to the people watching on TV. They 
don't. I think most of my colleagues don't want to do it, but they are 
told to do it because their leadership wants another priority. That is 
what is happening.
  They talk about supporting our troops, but then the action is that we

[[Page S6530]]

are actually not supporting our troops at all. We are keeping funding 
away from them because we are trying to leverage the desire to support 
our military and a Defense appropriations bill for other political 
goals. This has happened nine times.
  There is no other bill since I have been elected to the Senate that 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibuster more. When they 
want leverage on a nonmilitary issue, they filibuster spending for the 
troops. I would welcome some of my colleagues to come and explain why 
they do that. That is one issue.
  Another issue is not my colleagues in the Senate, but it is certainly 
the Democrats on the other side of Capitol Hill. We are now debating 
the National Defense Authorization Act--the NDAA, as we call it. This 
is the heartbeat of the Congress. Why? It has passed this body 58 years 
in a row. That is the closest thing we have to a guarantee in this 
body. Members--Democrats and Republicans--come together, and we set 
forward--coming out of the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit--
the NDAA, which oversees, reforms, and authorizes important programs 
for our national defense and sets spending authorization for the entire 
military. Again, this process is normally very bipartisan, and it has 
been and continues to be in the Senate.
  I give Chairman Inhofe, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
my good friend from Oklahoma, and Senator Reed from Rhode Island, the 
ranking member, enormous credit for getting a bill that came out of 
committee 25 to 2. That is very bipartisan. Then, when it came to the 
Senate floor, it was 86 to 8. OK. That is the Senate saying: Hey, this 
is really important. We are going to take care of our military. We are 
going to lay out the policies and the topline numbers for rebuilding 
our military after the massive cuts from 2010 to 2015. So that is 
positive.
  Why am I complaining about it? Well, that bill right now on the House 
side, as we have gone into conference, is stuck. It is stuck. Many of 
the more extreme Members on the House side, who really aren't big 
supporters of the military--let's call a spade a spade--are now not 
allowing us to move forward on any kind of compromise in the broader 
NDAA as we move into conference.
  There are provisions that are very important to the military that 
this body strongly supported in a bipartisan way, but right now, 
because of what is going on in the House--the leadership in the House, 
which seems to be a lot more focused on other issues and not the 
national security of our Nation, is not moving forward on any 
compromise. Who does this benefit? Well, it certainly doesn't help our 
troops. It certainly doesn't help our military. It certainly doesn't 
help their families. I can guarantee you, whether it is our adversaries 
or potential adversaries--Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran--as they 
are watching the stalemate on the NDAA, they are very pleased.
  This is something we need to come together and address. I am asking 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee over on the House side, 
Chairman Adam Smith, and others to work with the Senate, work with 
Chairman Inhofe, work with Senator Reed on getting to the compromises 
we all know we need to move this bill for the fifth year in a row to 
support our military. We think that should be based on the Senate bill.
  When you have 86 Senators vote for something--a superbipartisan 
majority--that should be the basis for compromise. But it is stalled. 
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Inhofe, has done 
a great job. He is a very patient man. He and Senator Reed, the ranking 
member on the Armed Services Committee, are frustrated. We are 
frustrated. The troops are frustrated. We don't have much time to 
waste.
  Again, I would like to conclude by saying that there is a lot of 
rhetoric here. There is a lot of rhetoric about supporting our troops. 
But what we need is action. By the way, I think a lot of times my 
colleagues are like, well, you know the men and women in the military 
are not really watching this. They don't really know that my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have filibustered the funding for what 
they need nine times in the last 4\1/2\ years--nine times. It is 
disgraceful, in my view. People think, well, they are not really 
watching what is going on with the NDAA, how the extreme elements of 
the Democratic Party and the House side are making sure there is no 
compromise so that we can't move this bill. Guess what. They are 
watching. They know this.
  When they don't get support from the Congress of the United States, 
it is a problem for our military, not just in terms of the resources 
they need but in terms of morale. I am going to ask my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle: The next time you go home and give speeches 
about supporting our troops, supporting our families, do me a favor. 
Don't come back to this body and filibuster their spending or, for the 
Members of the House, don't stake out such obstinate positions that you 
know there is going to be no compromise on an NDAA bill that is really 
important to our military and has strong bipartisan support in this 
body.
  I know some of my other colleagues are going to be on the floor 
talking about this NDAA issue, talking about the Defense appropriations 
issue. Again, let's match the rhetoric we all talked about with regard 
to Veterans Day--about supporting our troops--with action on the floor, 
not just hot air and words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the topic of 
healthcare, but while my friend from Alaska is on the floor, I hope we 
can bridge the policy disagreements we have right now over the Defense 
appropriations bill, the appropriations process and the authorization 
bill.
  I have been in Congress long enough to have heard this argument be 
trotted out over and over again that if you vote against a defense 
bill, then you aren't supporting the troops, even if you have a 
legitimate policy disagreement you are trying to work out. I have heard 
that enough to know that it just doesn't match up with reality.
  I was told that because I opposed the Iraq war, I didn't support the 
troops. People in the 1970s were told that if they didn't support the 
Vietnam war, they were opposing the troops. The fact is, we have a 
legitimate policy disagreement that we are trying to figure out. 
Democrats don't think we should be taking money from defense 
construction projects that are housing and protecting our troops to be 
used to build a border wall with Mexico that doesn't do anything, in 
our opinion, to protect the United States compared to the benefit of 
the spending on military construction projects. We think that, 
ultimately, we are serving our troops by making sure those military 
construction projects get funded instead of this wall that doesn't make 
sense if not for the President's campaign speeches.
  So we have some policy disagreements over the budget. I would hope 
that my colleagues wouldn't try to use this tired argument that if 
anyone here ever votes against a defense budget, then they somehow are 
opposing the troops. That is just irresponsible and disingenuous 
rhetoric.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, I am here to talk about a few patients from 
Connecticut. We on the Democratic side are trying to put a face to this 
campaign that the President is engaged in to try to weaken and 
ultimately eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Right now there is a 
court case proceeding through the appellate courts that, if successful, 
would immediately end the Affordable Care Act, which provides insurance 
to 20 million Americans and makes sure that everybody in this country 
with a preexisting condition doesn't get charged more. The President 
has weighed in on behalf of that lawsuit. He hopes it will succeed.
  If it does succeed, we are going to have a humanitarian catastrophe 
in this country if 20 million people lose their insurance and, once 
again, insurance companies are allowed to charge you more if you have a 
sickness or a sick child. We want to make sure we put a face on who is 
going to be affected if President Trump's sabotage campaign against the 
Affordable Care Act succeeds.
  I know my colleagues have remarks and are lined up to speak, so let 
me be as brief as I can. I want to tell you the story of just a couple 
of patients from Connecticut. I am going to cheat and

[[Page S6531]]

make this ``Patients of the Day.'' These are folks who reached out to 
my office to tell me their story.
  Jason is from South Windsor, CT. He says:

       I am 54 years old and I have been purchasing insurance 
     since I entered the workforce at 22 years old. I have 
     arthritis that is manageable with medication. Without that 
     medication and care from my physician, I would not be able to 
     function. I would have difficulty with simple tasks like 
     walking and shaking hands.
       There is no question that I rely on my insurance. If I were 
     denied coverage because of my preexisting condition, it would 
     be devastating.

  Jason is one of the tens of millions of Americans who, without the 
protections from the Affordable Care Act, would likely not be able to 
get insurance. He is perhaps months away from that reality.
  Lisa, from New Britain, writes on behalf of her grandkids. Because 
some young kids can't speak for themselves, their parents and 
grandparents speak for them. Lisa is the proud grandmother of two 
little girls who were born with cystic fibrosis. She worried that if 
her son ever had to switch jobs and change insurance plans or if the 
preexisting condition clause was struck down by the courts, he would be 
denied coverage because of their preexisting condition. She says:

       The girls are doing so well and thriving with the current 
     treatment and medicine they are on. People with cystic 
     fibrosis are now living longer than ever because of medicine 
     available to them. We've worked so hard in keeping them 
     healthy. If this policy of allowing insurance companies to 
     deny people with preexisting conditions or capping lifetime 
     maximums is allowed, you would be taking the lives of our 
     family members.

  Finally, Giuseppina, who is a concerned sister in Bridgeport writes:

       My youngest brother was born 2.5 months premature in 1977. 
     He spent two months in the hospital and reached his lifetime 
     limit from my father's employer-provided insurance before he 
     left the hospital! In January of 1978, he was diagnosed with 
     hydrocephalus due to underdevelopment or birth trauma.
       Due to the massive medical debt accrued from his multiple 
     surgeries and hospital stays, my family had to receive public 
     assistance. . . . My father used to cry when he went food 
     shopping.

  I want you to remember that reality. Remember the reality of millions 
of families who went bankrupt, who lost all their savings, who went on 
public assistance because they had massive medical debt due to the fact 
that they lost coverage because of a preexisting condition or lifetime 
or annual caps.
  All of that can come back if the Affordable Care Act is struck down. 
It is important for us to come down to the floor and remind folks about 
the human face of healthcare repeal and the consequences if we don't 
stand together and at least try to make a plan for what will happen if 
the lawsuit is successful and the Affordable Care Act is struck down by 
the court system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, on that topic, of course, all Members of 
the Senate have said they are preserving the coverage of preexisting 
conditions. It is sort of like the same speech our friend from 
Connecticut said he was tired of hearing about supporting the troops 
when you don't do everything you can to pass the Defense bill. It is at 
least as old as that--maybe older--and often as tiring.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. President, in the shadow of Veterans Day, we are here on our side 
of the aisle to talk about why we are not doing what we need to be 
doing to fund the military. In my following Senator Sullivan, there are 
multiple Dan Sullivans who are in politics in Alaska. The first time 
Senator Dan Sullivan was on my radar, how could I tell them apart? This 
one is Afghan Dan. There is Afghan Dan because he was willing to serve 
just like the Presiding Officer was willing to leave law school and not 
go to the JAG Corps but to go to the Active, fighting forces of the 
country. We are grateful for that. Both of them speak with authority on 
these issues, but the whole Senate and the whole Congress would have a 
chance to speak with authority on these issues if we would just decide 
to do our jobs.
  The way communities decide they are going to honor Veterans Day, I 
think, is unique among them. I had a couple of events scheduled on 
Monday. One was in Hartville, MO. Those in Hartville were creating a 
wall of people over the history of the country who died in service. If 
you are in elementary school in Hartville today and you look at that 
wall, I am confident you will see some of the same last names of the 
kids in your school.
  I was at a high school event in Camdenton at which we had about 20 
World War II veterans on the stage. I represent 500,000 veterans. My 
guess is the chances of finding 20 in 1 county in 1 State is fairly 
hard to do these days, but they were all there. We were also talking 
about the beginning of a new Junior ROTC Program at that high school 
that will start in January. There are 82 high school students who are 
signed up to be part of that Junior ROTC Program, which they have spent 
10 years trying to put in place.
  For those who have served and for those who are willing to serve, the 
one thing we can do in Congress is to pass the two pieces of 
legislation that are necessary to support that service. Unlike in World 
War II and unlike in many past conflicts, fewer than one-half of 1 
percent of the population today serves in the military. The other 99.5 
percent needs to stand up and do what it can to be sure our military is 
the best supported military in the world. We never want an American 
soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or a person in the Coast Guard, in the 
National Guard, or in the Reserves to be in a fair fight. We always 
want them to be in an unfair fight, wherein they have advantages in 
that fight.
  The only way you can be sure they will have those advantages is to 
have the training dollars, to have the equipment dollars, and to have 
the command structure that allows that to happen. For 59 straight 
years, the Senate has passed the National Defense Authorization Act. 
This is the act that defines what Congress believes should be the 
guiding principles for the military for that year--the places in which 
money should be invested, the equipment that should be bought, and the 
other changes that need to be made.
  The other bill we passed is the appropriations bill that takes that 
authorization bill and really puts the money by it that allows it to 
happen. For 59 straight years, it is the only authorization act we have 
passed every year. I think we could have a really good debate as to why 
it is the most important of what we do and is the most important thing 
the Federal Government does. We have done it, but we can't seem to get 
it done this year. The bill that will have the biggest pay raise in a 
decade for the people in the military has somehow been negotiated 
since, roughly, June 27 of this year. It should have been a 1-week 
effort, not a weeks' and months' effort. When somebody is assigned to a 
new base, this bill will have the money in it to encourage spouses to 
go to work and do what they do as quickly as they can possibly do it by 
the bill's facilitating and expediting State certification.
  In January, we had our first military spouse sworn in as a member of 
the Missouri bar. Her husband had come to take a command position at 
Fort Leonard Wood. During the first week she was in Missouri, she was 
able to be sworn in to the Missouri bar and go to work. Whether as a 
therapist, a teacher, a truckdriver, an electrician, an engineer, or a 
welder, if you have those skills and if you have followed your spouse 
to a new assignment, we should make that a top priority.
  That is what happens in this bill. It supports the readiness center 
in Springfield, MO. It supports the vehicle maintenance facility at 
Whiteman Air Force Base and the C-130 flight simulator facility at the 
Rosecrans Air National Guard Base. As a Senate, we decided all of those 
things needed to happen. Now we need to decide as a Senate and a 
Congress how to make them happen. Whether they be 24 F/A-18 Super 
Hornets that the Navy wants that will be built in St. Louis, MO, or 15 
F-15s for the Air Force, these things will not happen unless they are 
authorized. Let's get them authorized. Let's appropriate the money. We 
are already weeks late. We don't need to be months late. It is better 
to have the money the day you are supposed to have it if you are going 
to spend it as wisely as we would hope you would be able to spend it.
  I join my colleagues and, I know, the Presiding Officer in saying we 
need to get this work done. It is critical. It is

[[Page S6532]]

a priority. I am glad to join my colleagues on the floor in fighting 
for those who fight for us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Missouri, the 
Senator from Alaska, and the other Senators in calling for the passage 
of the National Defense Authorization Act.
  This bill is the last of a breed. It is a bill we have passed with a 
large bipartisan majority in Congress every single year for 58 straight 
years. It hasn't been derailed by petty, partisan politics or 
grievances between the parties. It has gotten large bipartisan 
majorities because Congress has understood that for those 58 years, the 
national defense must come before politics. It is the definition of a 
must-pass act, but time is short to get it right, unfortunately, 
because of those very kinds of petty, partisan politics.
  This bill is an opportunity for us to continue rebuilding our 
military after 8 years of stagnation and cuts by the last 
administration. The bill would increase funding to our troops by $22 
billion--money that would be spent on cutting-edge technologies, like 
new vertical-lift jet engines, to give our troops an edge in future 
conflicts.
  This kind of investment is essential, especially as storm clouds brew 
in the Western Pacific from a rising China. The Communist Party of 
China is not derailed by petty, partisan politics; therefore, it is 
investing huge sums to transform its military into a world-class force 
that will be capable of rivaling and, it hopes, ultimately, of 
defeating our own military. At the same time, China is pursuing an 
aggressive technology strategy to dominate the next generation of 
military hardware. Beijing's ultimate goal, of course, is to replace us 
not just as the most powerful country in the Western Pacific but in the 
entire world. So we must invest in our military right now or else we 
will reap that whirlwind in the future.
  There are many other important measures that have been included in 
this year's Defense bill that will not pass--that will not even see the 
light of day--on the Senate floor if we fail to pass the bill.
  There is the Fentanyl Sanctions Act, which is my bipartisan 
legislation, that would crack down on foreign criminals--mostly 
Chinese--who smuggle deadly poisons across our border. Synthetic 
opioids kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, and that toll 
will continue to rise if we don't start to bust up the criminal 
networks that originate in China and then come through Mexico to poison 
our communities. Let's pass the Defense bill to give law enforcement 
the tools of the Fentanyl Sanctions Act.
  There is also the PCS Act, which is my legislation that would help 
military spouses transfer their occupational licenses across State 
lines. When your husband or your wife is in the military, you follow 
his or her career, and if you are a lawyer or a nurse or a teacher or 
any of the other hundreds of jobs that require an occupational license 
in this country, you face barriers to working and putting food on the 
table for your family. This bill would allow military spouses to 
continue to pursue their careers uninterrupted, which would therefore 
allow their military servicemembers to focus on their own missions and 
not worry about their spouses' jobs.
  There is also our legislation to honor the 241 American victims of 
the Beirut marine barracks bombing that was perpetrated by an Iranian 
suicide bomber 36 years ago last month. The Defense bill would 
designate the anniversary of that bombing as a national day of 
remembrance and strengthen our resolve to fight the terrorist forces 
that carried it out and that threaten our security to this day.
  There is also the opportunity to strengthen trade restrictions on 
Huawei by including in the Defense bill the Defending America's 5G 
Future Act. Huawei is the eyes and ears overseas of the Communist Party 
of China, so we must deny it access to our sensitive networks and the 
networks of our allies. There are 91 Senators who voted to instruct the 
conference committee to include that legislation in the Defense bill. 
They still hope it will be included, but, first, we will have to pass 
the Defense bill. If we don't, then China's spy company stands to gain.
  This is far from an exhaustive list of the reforms that are or could 
be included in this year's Defense bill. It is just a sample of the 
many valuable and bipartisan measures that are under consideration. 
They also underscore the importance of passing the Defense bill in the 
first place.
  Consider the alternative to passing the National Defense 
Authorization Act--that being a terrible stopgap spending measure that 
would include zero reforms and that would degrade, even as we face 
rising threats from China and Russia every day, the fighting capability 
of our military. A stopgap spending measure would freeze defense 
spending at last year's levels. That is not to say that business would 
go on as usual. No. Inflation would continue to erode the purchasing 
power of last year's funding levels, and the military would have to 
tear up and renegotiate many of its multiyear contracts with defense 
companies. Renegotiating those contracts would cost billions in 
administrative expenses that would otherwise go to the pay and benefits 
of our fighting men and women, to a new aircraft, to new ships, to new 
guns, or to new munitions. This so-called spending freeze would, in 
fact, cost taxpayers an arm and a leg.
  This is all the more reason for Congress to act, once again, to pass 
the National Defense Authorization Act, as we have for 58 years, 
without being divided by petty, partisan politics.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside their partisan objections on issues 
that are really not even related to our military. I urge them to make 
the hard compromises necessary in order to pass this bill and give our 
troops what they need.
  I yield the floor.
  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. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, the world is more dangerous today than at 
any time in my lifetime. We face five threats across five domains: 
China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and terrorism. The domains have 
gotten very complicated--air, land, sea. Now we have to deal with cyber 
and space.
  But in that background, three times over the last 50 years, this 
government, under the leadership of three different Presidents, has 
disinvested its military significantly--under President Carter, under 
President Clinton, and indeed under President Obama. They cut the 
military by 25 percent at least in each one of those administrations.
  The last one was extremely draconian. We saw the impact of that on 
our readiness, the fact that our modernization program had been killed, 
and we found ourselves falling behind what we ought to now call near-
peer competitors. I would say they are peer competitors now. When you 
look at the money China is spending on their military, when adjusted 
for purchasing power parity, it is exactly the same as we are spending. 
And they don't have the regulatory overhang and they don't have the 
legacy costs we have here in the United States, so they can get things 
done quicker and cheaper. In the meantime, the world continues to 
become very dangerous.
  Yet here we are in the second month of our fiscal year under a 
continuing resolution. As we now are becoming educated about, this is 
devastating our military and has been. This is the 187th time since the 
1974 Budget Act was put into place that we have executed a continuing 
resolution. It sounds really easy. Well, we can't get agreement on how 
much to spend for the next year, so we will just keep spending at the 
same level. Some businesses do that, but in this case with the U.S. 
military, it is devastating because it locks them into existing 
programs.
  For example, we did an audit last year. It was the first audit in the 
history of the United States of the Department of Defense--the third 
largest line item on our expense sheet. We did an audit. In that audit 
was found and identified by the Department of Defense $4 billion of 
obsolete programs that nobody really wanted to keep and continue 
spending on--$4 billion a year. So right now, under this continuing

[[Page S6533]]

resolution, not only are we not able to give a 3.5-percent pay raise--
the largest in 10 years--to our military, not only are we not able to 
improve their housing, but right now we are obliged to keep spending $4 
billion a year on obsolete programs that the Defense Department doesn't 
even want. This is ludicrous.
  Right now, I would say we are in gridlock. We had 88 votes here in 
this Senate where we voted to approve the National Defense 
Authorization Act several weeks ago--very bipartisan, negotiating in 
committee. I was on the Armed Services Committee, and we took this very 
seriously. We debated, and it was a definite fight, but we reached 
compromise. We reached bipartisan agreement to support and defend our 
military and to make sure they are able to do the things they want to 
do to make us competitive and defend our country. Yet here we are, 6 
weeks into this fiscal year, and we still don't have this year funded. 
We are under a continuing resolution that devastates the military. For 
six decades--58 years--each year we have been able to do that. Yet, 
this year, we can't seem to come to an agreement because the House and 
the Senate can't get together in conference and agree on exactly what 
it is they want to do.
  That is all window dressing. It is no more complicated than this: The 
Democratic brethren in this body and in the House simply do not want to 
allow this President to spend another dime on building a wall around 
our southern border.
  Let's put this in perspective. First of all, we have seen on this 
floor just in the last 2 hours two different comments: Well, we all 
know that building a border wall doesn't really work. It doesn't change 
anything.
  Well, that is absolute propaganda. Barack Obama built 135 miles of 
wall. This body approved that. And wherever that wall was built, 
illegal crossings at the southern border went down 95 percent. That is 
not propaganda; that is fact. It is another example of the 
obstructionism we have been witnessing here since the day this 
President was sworn in.
  On Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017, the headline of the Washington 
Post was ``The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.'' Since 
day one, they have been obstructing this President. We saw that in the 
confirmation process here. For the first time in 230 years, we saw the 
minority party not waive the 30-hour debate rule and allow this 
President to get his nominees confirmed. It has been the slowest ever.
  So we sit here today not being able to build the space force that 
both sides have agreed on. Eighty-eight people in this body agreed that 
we need to go ahead and start spending money and doing that. We can't 
do that. We can't put in the building blocks for the Advanced Battle 
Management System, which is so important to deal with the modern fight. 
We can't rebuild our nuclear triad, which is in absolutely critical 
shape. We can't seem to get at our readiness right now because of the 
lock we have, under this continuing resolution, on the existing 
contracts out there. As was just mentioned a few minutes ago, we have 
to go in and renegotiate all these contracts.
  Last year was the first time we did not have a continuing resolution, 
and there was such a sigh of relief inside our military because it was 
the first time in a long time--over a decade--that they didn't have 
that for the first quarter of the year.
  This is devastating. It has become habit, and we have to stop it. It 
is absolutely insidious. It is killing our military and keeping us from 
doing the things that both sides want to do because of petty politics.
  We need to modernize our force, and we need to do it right now. This 
NDAA allows us to do that. We need to rationalize our expenditures to 
make sure that every time we are spending on our military, it is 
exactly what we should be spending it on.
  We have a Volunteer Force, and we can never take that for granted. We 
have to take care of our people in uniform wherever they are in the 
world. That means working on their mental health, their physical 
health, and their housing.
  I come from a State that has nine military installations. We take 
national defense very seriously in Georgia and always have.
  People are concerned that this gridlock is endangering our country. 
It is time that we get together, pass this NDAA, move on the 
appropriations bill, and get this done. People back home are watching, 
the people in our military are watching, and more importantly, our 
potential adversaries are watching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues today and 
speak on the importance of passing the fiscal year 2020 Defense 
authorization bill.
  As others have mentioned, the process of negotiating the national 
defense bill is one that has a long history on Capitol Hill. For the 
past 58 years, the Congress has found a way to come together and unite 
behind a bipartisan bill that supports our servicemembers and enables 
the defense of this Nation. We must continue this tradition, and that 
means recommitting to the principles of bipartisanship and compromise 
upon which it is built.
  Thanks in large part to the hard work and the leadership of Chairman 
Jim Inhofe and Ranking Member Jack Reed and the members of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, the Senate passed an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan version of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. 
The House of Representatives, however, passed a very different bill. 
The conference process is ultimately about finding the best solution 
that supports our men and women in uniform, but we have to be willing 
to compromise and find consensus. We cannot resort to political 
brinksmanship.
  As the chairman said last week and as some of my colleagues have 
mentioned here today, we are running out of time. It is essential that 
our colleagues in the House come to the table to pass the fiscal year 
2020 NDAA.
  We live in a rapidly changing world and unfortunately one that 
contains a growing number of threats and challenges that our military 
must face head-on. These threats demand that we be ready, and our 
military can effectively confront those threats only if we provide our 
servicemembers with the support they need to execute the missions, 
defeat the enemies of freedom, and safeguard the Nation.
  Providing for the common defense is the highest responsibility this 
body has, and that is why it is so essential that we pass this 
legislation in a timely manner.
  As I said before, for 58 years the NDAA has been the subject of a 
bipartisan consensus in Congress despite all of our other 
disagreements. No matter what other issues arise, the one area in which 
we must forge agreement is in authorizing the resources our men and 
women in uniform need.
  Time and again, we have heard from our senior military leaders that 
their greatest obstacle is budget uncertainty and unpredictable 
funding. If we do not come together and pass this year's NDAA soon, we 
are at risk of damaging our military capabilities and jeopardizing our 
ability to confront threats from China, Russia, and other malign 
actors.
  It is essential that we work swiftly to secure an agreement so that 
we do not fail to provide the Department of Defense with the 
predictable funding they need. We must do our part and honor the 
service of all our men and women in uniform by moving this process 
forward and passing the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Fischer for 
all of her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee and in so many 
other areas. I am here to talk about the same subject, the National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  It may be difficult to understand the difference between 
appropriating and authorizing. We have two different sorts of 
committees here. One focuses on the resources funding their use, but 
they can't be used unless they are authorized. So every year for 58 
years, we have come into the committee, we have heard differing 
opinions on priorities, but at the end of the day, the amazing thing 
about the Senate Armed Services Committee when it comes to

[[Page S6534]]

the National Defense Authorization Act is that we always reach a 
bipartisan agreement. It passed out of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee with I believe unanimous support, and then it got passed out 
of the Senate.
  Normally, this happens in the June timeframe, maybe the July 
timeframe. Now here we are in November. Not only have we not passed the 
National Defense Authorization Act, but we are at risk of not passing 
anything. Now what we are hearing about is a so-called skinny bill that 
would just be the basic authorities while we are leaving everything 
else on the table.
  I am going to talk a little bit about the Personnel Subcommittee, 
which I chair, but what do authorities mean? It means research on new 
weapons systems. It means research for men and women in a dangerous 
situation to make sure the best possible technology and training is 
available to make it as safe as it can be in an unsafe environment. 
There are hundreds of authorizations in the National Defense 
Authorization Act that are at risk of sliding another year for the 
first time in 58 years.
  Now what I want to talk about is what is at stake if we can't reach 
an agreement with Speaker Pelosi specifically in the Personnel 
Subcommittee.
  I actually requested the Personnel Subcommittee because I wanted to 
focus on the business of the Department of Defense, and I wanted to 
focus on military families and on the soldiers' health and safety.
  If we do not pass provisions that passed out of my subcommittee and 
that are in the National Defense Authorization Act that passed out of 
the Senate, here is what is at stake:
  There is a pay raise for every soldier, sailor, and marine--a 3.1-
percent pay raise that they could lose this year as a result of not 
gaining agreement.
  We have a lot of provisions in there for military housing. I am from 
North Carolina, and we have two very large installations in North 
Carolina--Fort Bragg, the home of the Global Response Force, and Camp 
Lejeune, home to a bigger population of marines than any military 
installation in the world.
  They are in housing today that needs to be outfitted. They are in 
housing that, quite honestly, is unsafe. This National Defense 
Authorization Act makes progress to make sure that the families that 
are housed on bases are in safe, clean settings, and quite honestly, in 
some cases, they are not today, which is why we have bipartisan support 
for the provisions we put into our subcommittee mark.
  Another thing that we are working on--it is very difficult for one 
who doesn't come from a military background to understand how 
challenging it is for a spouse to get a job for the brief period of 
time that they may be in one military installation or another. This 
mark has provisions in it to make sure that military spouses get 
employment opportunities as quickly as possible and to cut through a 
lot of the red tape that they are dealing with today. That provision is 
at risk.
  We have also taken major steps and tried to prevent or reduce 
military sexual assault. Provisions in this bill, I am convinced, 
because they were voted out on a bipartisan basis, are at risk because 
we can't seem to get agreement with Speaker Pelosi's House.
  Another very important area is in places like North Carolina. In 
North Carolina, Camp Lejeune alone experienced over $3.5 billion in 
damages as the result of the most recent hurricane, and Fort Bragg is 
still trying to recover from a hurricane that happened about 2 and a 
half years ago. There are authorities in there to make sure that we can 
rebuild these facilities. Military housing, as well as offices and 
other training facilities at Camp Lejeune, could slip another year if 
we allow what I think right now is the impasse between the House and 
the Senate to move forward.
  These are all very, very important provisions in the National Defense 
Authorization Act. These are all provisions that got bipartisan support 
from this body. If you all have been watching Congress, you know that 
we can have our disagreements. There are certain things that we just 
simply aren't going to see eye to eye on, but we see eye to eye on the 
National Defense Authorization Act. That is why I do not understand how 
the House would not come to the table and pass something that we have 
successfully passed for every year of my life.
  I am 59 years old. This could be the first time in 58 years that we 
run the risk of not showing the respect that I think the men and women 
in the military, in uniform, deserve, to give them the authority to be 
trained properly, to not run the risk of working with old authorities 
that could diminish training and readiness and capabilities. This is 
about these folks that have sworn to defend the Constitution and our 
freedom, and we can't take the time to bridge the gap and eliminate the 
other reasons that divide us and at least come together on something 
for 58 years we have seen our way clear to passing and making progress, 
for men and women in uniform, for soldiers, sailors, and marines and 
for their families.
  So I am for the Speaker of the House and the Members of the House to 
come to terms and pass what we have done successfully for decades. We 
owe it to the men and women in uniform, and we owe it to every American 
to understand what is at stake if we all of a sudden slide for a year 
while our adversaries continue to gain ground.
  I hope that my colleagues will continue to come together and pass 
this bipartisan legislation. It is within reach and absolutely an 
expectation, I think, of every Member of Congress to show our men and 
women in uniform respect by doing our job.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Nomination of Steven J. Menashi

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the confirmation 
of Steven Menashi to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit. We have grown accustomed to the violations of 
norms around here, kind of a dumbing down of the institution. So by all 
of those standards, I would ordinarily be opposing Mr. Menashi.
  We have disposed of the blue slip convention for Circuit Court 
nominees. I just warn my colleagues, again, that there is a price to be 
paid for that. The blue slip for Circuit Court nominees is the thing 
that connects a Circuit Court nominee to a particular State so that an 
Arkansas judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals or the Rhode Island 
judge on our Circuit Court of Appeals or the Montana judge on their 
Circuit Court of Appeals only is the Arkansas judge or the Rhode Island 
judge or the Montana judge because we honor that blue slip.
  In another Presidency, when the shoe is on the other foot, I don't 
want to hear any of my colleagues who have thrown this Circuit Court 
blue slip out complain when somebody who is not even from their State 
gets appointed to the so-called State seat on the Circuit Court.
  In addition, we have dealt with a lot of unqualified candidates. I 
think this administration has set the record for ABA-designated 
unqualified candidates. This guy has never tried a case, never taken a 
deposition. He effectively has not practiced law. When he has tried to 
practice law, it has been a disaster. He has been the counsel for the 
Department of Education and managed to have various programs that he 
advised on all thrown out in court and his Secretary held in contempt--
so not a guy who, when you get a mere legal decision, comes up with a 
real winning record.
  Moreover, he refused, extremely arrogantly, to answer really basic 
questions, even to the point of frustrating Republican members of the 
committee when he was a witness before us, and has refused to answer 
related questions for the record as well.
  So, for all of those reasons, this is a pretty undesirable candidate 
for the Federal bench, but it gets way, way worse. If you look at what 
Mr. Menashi has said over the years, it is quite an astonishing window 
into his mind. With respect to affirmative action, he has compared 
universities--I am quoting him here--he has compared universities 
cataloging students according to race on college applications

[[Page S6535]]

and official documents, which you obviously do as part of any 
affirmative action program, he has compared that to the Nuremberg laws.
  If you look at the issue of sexual violence, he has made fun of Take 
Back the Night marches and described women who are active and concerned 
about sexual violence as--his words here--``campus gynocentrics''--
maybe he pronounced it gynocentrics, I do not know--campus 
gynocentrics. When you are talking about sexual violence, that is not 
just a normal word to use. When you are talking about affirmative 
action, reference to Nazi Nuremberg laws is just not normal.
  He has argued that gun regulations are ``pointless''--I am quoting 
him here--``pointless and self-defeating because guns reduce crime.'' 
Really? Ask the victims of the firearms massacres happening at such a 
horrifying rate in this country how guns reduce crime.
  With respect to the rights that have been enshrined in our 
Constitution and recognized in Roe v. Wade, giving women the right, to 
some degree, of self-determination about when to have children, he 
described the rights codified in Roe v. Wade--I quote him here--as 
``radical abortion rights advocated by campus feminists.'' Good luck, 
on an issue related to a woman's right to choose, getting a fair 
hearing from this character once he is enrobed.
  He mocked the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, which he said 
incessantly exploited the slaying of Matthew Shepard for both financial 
and political benefit. We engage in some pretty acid rhetoric around 
here, but about a young man who was murdered about being gay, that is 
just appalling. If you are in his court on an issue in which the rights 
of LGBT folks are involved, there is almost no way that you could 
believe that a judge that has thought or said anything as vile as that 
could ever give you a fair hearing.
  With respect to the question of diversity, which many of us consider 
to be one of America's greatest traits, social scientists, he said, 
have found that greater ethnic heterogeneity, i.e., social diversity, 
is associated with lower social trust. Ethnically heterogenetic 
societies exhibit less political and civic engagement, less effective 
government institutions, and fewer public goods.
  First of all, I don't think that is true. I don't think that stands 
to scrutiny. But, second of all, it is just kind of a creepy thing to 
be saying, that we would be a better country if we marshaled ourselves 
together into our ethnic enclaves, which ``provide the groundwork for 
social trust and political solidarity''--not in my world, not in Rhode 
Island. That is not the way we work. I don't think that is the way 
America works.
  So whether you are looking at diversity, whether you are looking at 
gay rights, whether you are looking at a woman's right to choose, 
whether you are looking at safe regulation of guns, whether you are 
looking at sexual violence against women, whether you are looking at 
affirmative action in colleges, you can find something truly creepy 
that this individual has said. That, on top of all the other 
disqualifying factors, makes him perhaps the worst candidate that 
Donald Trump has tried to put on the Federal bench--by the way, that is 
in a crop of doozies.
  The problem here is that people are going to come into these courts 
and they are going to have a feeling that no American litigant should 
have and that is that I have got a judge who is predisposed against me, 
that it doesn't matter what my cause is. It matters who I am.
  And, sadly, I don't think this is the bug in these Trump judicial 
appointments; I think this is the feature. I think it is the intention 
of the dark money fueled apparatus that has got this assembly line of 
unusual and peculiar judges cranked on to our courts to actually make 
sure that our courts are more likely to rule for certain people than 
others, that they are more likely to rule for polluters, that they are 
more likely to rule for gun companies, that they are more likely to 
rule for dark money political operators.
  There are essentially, at this point, with this nominee to a Circuit 
Court of Appeals, no standards left--no standards left. I can't imagine 
anybody much worse.
  It is a sad day.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Kansas.


                                S. 2330

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, today in the Commerce Committee, 
following an in-depth 18-month investigation to examine cultural and 
systemic issues regarding abuse in the Olympic movement, Senator 
Blumenthal and I introduced bipartisan legislation, the Empowering 
Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019. It was accompanied by an 
investigative report, findings, and, recommendations. I am pleased that 
the Commerce Committee approved that legislation today. This marks a 
significant step forward to improving the protections and 
representations provided to our amateur athletes.
  The subcommittee that I chair exercises jurisdiction over the U.S. 
Olympic Committee and amateur sports at large, and I remain fully 
committed to ensuring the health and safety of all American athletes. 
Our Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act would enact reforms to 
the U.S. Olympic system by strengthening legal liability and 
accountability mechanisms, restoring a culture of putting athletes 
first, and fortifying the independence and capacity of the U.S. Center 
for Safe Sports.
  Our investigation, which led to the foundation of the provisions in 
this bill, included four subcommittee hearings, interviews with Olympic 
athletes and survivors, and the retrieval of 70,000 pages of documents. 
This was also made possible by the supportive leadership of the 
committee--the chairman and ranking member, Senator Wicker and Senator 
Cantwell--and the contributions of the committee staff, including the 
contributions of my staff and those of former Chairman Thune and 
Ranking Member Nelson.
  Also, I want to take this moment to thank Mr. Grassley, the Senator 
from Iowa and the chairman now of the Finance Committee. For a portion 
of the time we were dealing with this issue, he was the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee. He, too, made contributions to our legislation, 
and his continued leadership on this issue in general has helped to 
move this bill forward and out of the committee today.
  During our investigation, Senator Grassley indicated an interest in 
working together to protect amateur athletes. After we introduced the 
legislation, I am pleased we were able to include provisions from his 
legislation that was just introduced yesterday here in the Senate. 
Specifically, the substitute amendment included funding accountability 
language for safe sports, clarification on mandatory reporting parties 
related to child abuse, and new reporting requirements to improve 
transparency. Senator Grassley was also successful in working with 
Senator Peters to include whistleblower protection language in the bill 
during today's markup.
  Again, I thank Senator Grassley for his leadership and commitment to 
the health and safety of our amateur athletes.
  Additionally, there were thoughtful contributions to our 
legislation--most recently, in the form of our substitute amendment--
from other members of the Commerce Committee, including Senator Gardner 
of Colorado.
  I also thank my colleague Senator Blumenthal, the ranking member of 
the subcommittee, for his steadfast and ongoing support and leadership 
that he has shown throughout this long process.
  This investigation and legislative process started out as a 
bipartisan effort to provide substantive policy protections to amateur 
athletes and has remained as such. That bipartisanship has continued 
and will continue to be prioritized as we push for timely consideration 
of this legislation on the Senate floor.
  Finally, I would be remiss not to express my sincere and humble 
thanks to the survivors for their bravery in guiding our policymaking 
with their testimonies and ongoing input throughout the process. Their 
willingness to recount and relive their traumatic experiences played a 
vital role in informing Congress as it seeks to address key reporting, 
governance, and resource issues within the Olympic system. This 
critical legislation would not have happened without their active 
involvement.
  I will never forget the question that was asked of me by one of the 
survivors

[[Page S6536]]

as we were gathered together in the Russell Senate Office Building. The 
question was this: Why was there more than one? It is a question we 
would always hope to answer. There should never be a victim or survivor 
of sexual abuse. And if there is one, there should never be a second.
  The sad thing about this circumstance in which we found ourselves and 
in which the athletes found themselves was that not only was there one, 
but there were many more. We should be able to take that call--why was 
there ever more than one?--and make certain that we do everything to 
keep it from ever happening again.
  I thank my colleagues in the Commerce Committee for their support on 
this critical legislation. I look forward to working with the leader 
and my Senate colleagues as we push to enact these necessary reforms.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, before I get into my comments on Agent 
Orange, I just want to thank Senator Moran and Senator Blumenthal for 
leading the charge on making sure that our Olympic athletes are 
protected. There are some who say that government has no business in 
this realm; I couldn't disagree with them more. The fact is, this is a 
wrong that I think Senator Moran and Senator Blumenthal have tried to 
right. I just want to thank them for their leadership.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the Senator.


                              Agent Orange

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I stand here today because the Trump 
administration continues to turn its back on our Nation's veterans, 
many who are suffering from illnesses relating to Agent Orange.
  Agent Orange is a very toxic defoliant that was used in Vietnam. 
Everybody who was there was exposed to it because it was used in such 
great volume.
  By denying eligibility to the folks who have suffered from that 
exposure the benefits and care they need, they are not doing right by 
our veterans. The fact is, there is no logical reason behind it except 
for the fact that they don't want to pay for it. They don't think the 
exposure to these toxic chemicals in Vietnam are a cost of war. Well, 
they are.
  Today, we are telling Acting Chief of Staff and Acting Office of 
Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and other White House 
officials to do their jobs and make sure these veterans are taken care 
of.
  It is time for this White House to do right by the 83,000 veterans--
that is 83,000--who are currently suffering and dying from significant 
health conditions associated with Agent Orange exposure. This 
administration--the Trump administration--needs to stop ignoring the 
overwhelming scientific evidence put forth by medical experts, 
scientists, and veterans.
  Internal documents obtained by a veteran through the Freedom of 
Information Act revealed that in 2017 President Trump's first VA 
Secretary, Dr. David Shulkin, tried to do right by these veterans. At 
that time, the VA proposed to expand the list of presumptive health 
conditions associated with this toxic herbicide to include bladder 
cancer, Parkinson's-like symptoms, and hypothyroidism so that these 
veterans could become eligible for the benefits they earned if they had 
these conditions, but Mick Mulvaney and the White House objected. They 
didn't want to spend the money. They said they wanted more studies--
studies that would have effectively run out the clock as more and more 
of these veterans suffered and died.
  Since then, the National Academy of Medicine found evidence that 
hypertension has even greater evidence of association to Agent Orange 
exposure than the conditions Dr. Shulkin attempted to address. Yet the 
White House still refuses to take care of these veterans. They refuse 
to expand the list to include these four conditions: parkinsonism, 
bladder cancer, hypertension, and hypothyroidism.
  More have suffered and more have died. These are Vietnam veterans who 
are in their sixties, seventies, and eighties. But this 
administration--the same folks who are quick to beg for nearly $20 
billion for an ineffective border wall that Mexico was supposed to pay 
for and who are happy to put a $1.5 trillion tax bill on the 
government's credit card--refuses to recognize that this is a cost of 
war and that they need to do right by the Vietnam veterans--veterans 
who have already waited decades for the benefits and the care they 
desperately need.
  It is pretty simple. Do the right thing. If you claim to be an 
advocate for the veterans, no more excuses and end the wait for these 
veterans and their families. These veterans and their families have 
already sacrificed greatly, and they should not be forced to wait 1 
minute longer. This issue needs to be dealt with, and it needs to be 
dealt with today.
  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. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          National Homeless Children and Youth Awareness Month

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a resolution 
that I have introduced with my fellow Senator from Maine, Susan 
Collins, and 11 other fellow Senators from both sides of the aisle--
truly bipartisan--to designate November 2019 as National Homeless 
Children and Youth Awareness Month.
  Specifically, this resolution highlights the issue of children and 
youth homelessness and supports the efforts of businesses, 
organizations, educators, and volunteers who are dedicated to meeting 
the needs of homeless children and youth.
  In the 2016-to-2017 school year, there were 1.3 million children and 
youth--I repeat, 1.3 million children and youth--who experienced 
homelessness in the United States.
  In West Virginia alone, our schools have identified more than 10,500 
students experiencing homelessness. This is simply unacceptable, and we 
must do more to support our future generations. That is why I am a firm 
believer that there are five promises--five promises--we, as adults, 
should make to every child.
  No. 1 is every child must have an unconditionally loving and caring 
adult in their life. That is the first. Every child must know that 
someone loves them unconditionally. No matter what you do and no matter 
what mistakes you make, at the end of the day, that person loves you. 
It could be your mom or dad; it could be a grandma or grandpa; it could 
be an aunt or uncle; or it could be a neighbor, someone who knows they 
have your back no matter what.
  No. 2 is every child must have a safe place to call home where harm 
cannot enter. I would hope it is the home they live in. Sometimes it is 
not always the case. Sometimes it might be a school. It might be an 
after-school program. It could be a church. It could be a neighbor's 
home. Every child growing up has to have somewhere safe in their life 
where harm cannot enter and they are protected.
  No. 3 is every child must have a healthy start and access to a 
nutritious diet. I think that is why you have seen in our school 
systems that we have expanded our nutrition programs from breakfasts to 
lunches. When I went to school way back when in rural areas, we had no 
cafeterias and no lunches, but for some reason, I could always tell 
when my mom or other parents had put an extra sandwich in the lunch 
pail knowing that we couldn't eat it but somebody could. There were 
always those who kind of stepped in and helped others.
  Now we have that. Every child has to have a healthy start and access 
to a nutritious diet if they are going to grow and be engaged and, 
basically, be productive.
  No. 4 is every child should be taught a livable skill so that they 
can make their own way through life. Primary and secondary education is 
free in America. It makes us different from every other country in the 
world. We commit to every child that they can get an education to be 
literate--every child. That is why education should be held to a higher 
standard to make sure that they have a skill set.
  There should be no child graduating from high school who is not ready 
to

[[Page S6537]]

work or ready to learn more. We should be able to identify in 7th, 8th, 
or 9th grade what their interests are going to be, whether they are 
going to be skill-set driven or whether they are going to be 
academically driven. Both are needed, and we should not make them feel 
like failures if they don't go to college because a lot of people 
aren't desiring to go to college. A lot of them want to work with their 
hands. They want the skill sets; they have that ability, and we should 
identify that very early.
  No. 5 is the hardest promise because you cannot teach it. You can't 
teach this promise that you should keep to every child--that that child 
should grow to be a loving, caring adult and give something back. They 
can learn that fifth one only by how you conduct your life, how that 
special adult in their life--mom, dad, aunt, uncle, cousin, neighbor, 
after-hours group, school--someone in their life has given them hope: 
Hey, I can be that person; I can give something back; and I can help 
somebody like me.
  Those are the five promises. If we can't keep those, then God help us 
all. We owe that to every generation. To have one child homeless in 
this country is wrong. Homelessness means you have no stability; you 
have no functional family; and you have no biological mom or dad to go 
home to. You are either couch surfing or basically living with another 
relative--whatever it may be--and this is something we have to 
intervene in and make sure we can correct.
  We must keep these promises to our children so that our future 
generations will grow up to be the best they possibly can and meet all 
their expectations. We expect our children and youth to care about 
their education, but if they don't have a roof over their head or a 
place to sleep, if they don't have adequate nutrition and meals, they 
can't focus on learning as they should be able to.
  I heard one child say: I am just trying to survive. I am just trying 
to make it through the day and survive. I would love to get the 
education you want me to get, but when it becomes basically survival 
tactics or educational tactics, survival will kick in first.
  That is what they are dealing with. This crisis is affecting not just 
these students in their homes, but it affects their school life, too, 
and we must do better to ensure that they can learn and give back to 
their communities.
  Speaking of doing more, there is a lot of great work being done in my 
State of West Virginia and nationally and, I am sure, in all the 
States. One wonderful example is the Children's Home Society in West 
Virginia. I know they are watching and are gathered for their annual 
conference today. I want to thank them for the incredible work they 
have been doing. They have been strong leaders in helping children and 
families who experience homelessness in West Virginia. We truly 
appreciate their leadership on this issue in our State and hope that 
their work can be used as a standard for the other States to combat 
this issue.
  Recently, I visited South Charleston Middle School to see the work 
they are doing to address the child and youth homelessness crisis 
facing our State from the perspective of a student's life, much of 
which is spent at school. They use Federal funding to help correctly 
identify students who are homeless so that they can provide services to 
those who need them.
  I hope my resolution will help raise awareness on this issue so that 
more schools can use the funds available to support the students who 
are experiencing homelessness. In West Virginia, the child and youth 
homelessness crisis is intensified by the opioid crisis that has 
ravaged our State. The lasting effects of the epidemic on our children 
and future generations are terrible, from the increase in children and 
youth homelessness to a rise in youth substance use disorder.
  This crisis will continue to affect communities like those all across 
West Virginia for decades to come, which is why we must begin to combat 
and address issues like child and youth homelessness now.
  In the middle of this crisis, there are success stories, too, like 
Hannah's. Hannah's parents could not care for her because of substance 
use issues, so she went to live with a family friend, who subsequently 
removed all support. A high school counselor referred Hannah to the 
Youth Services System Transitional Living Program, which helped her 
finish high school and go on to college. She is a recipient of the YSS 
Ronald Mulholland Futures Scholarship and attends West Virginia 
University, where she is now a junior studying chemistry. Last summer, 
she completed an internship in Tennessee.
  The Youth Services System is a wonderful national organization that 
works to provide shelter for children and youth across America. 
Organizations like the Youth Services System and the Children's Home 
Society deserve recognition for their incredible work because, without 
them, success stories like Hannah's and so many others wouldn't even 
exist. This is why we must raise awareness of this issue so that we can 
support the wonderful work being done across the United States every 
day.

  I am so proud to be here today to advocate for those 1.3 million 
children and youth across our Nation who need our help and deserve our 
help. We must do better for them, and I believe strongly that this 
resolution is the beginning to work toward solving this major crisis 
our Nation has with broad bipartisan support. If there is one thing 
that brings us together, it is the children. It is not a Democrat or 
Republican problem. It is a problem for all of us. It is an American 
problem, and we have to face it.
  With the support of 23 national organizations, I hope this resolution 
will pass quickly. I look forward to working with my colleagues who 
have signed on to this resolution and those on both sides of the aisle 
to bring us back together to combat child and youth homelessness.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                             5G Technology

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will talk for a few minutes today 
about 5G technology and taxpayer money. We have all heard the term 
``5G.'' 5G stands for fifth generation--fifth generation technology. In 
short, what 5G means is incredibly fast data transmission--data going 
from my cell phone to the President's cell phone, my internet to your 
internet, and the ability to connect a lot of different devices at the 
same time.
  Through 5G technology, which is wireless technology, we will be able 
not only to transmit data very quickly, but we will also be able to 
transmit huge amounts of data--almost breathtaking amounts--and it is 
going to have a huge impact on American society. It is going to have a 
huge impact on the world.
  In some respects, it is going to change the world. If technology has 
changed the world thus far--and indeed it has; among other things, it 
has made the world smaller--5G is going to change it even more. For 
example, you will be able to use your smartphone to open your garage 
door. You will be able to use your smartphone and be a mile away but 
turn on your coffee maker. We will be able to do surgery by internet. 
Surgeons will be able to be in one place 1,000 miles away from a 
patient, and that surgeon, through robotics and other means, will be 
able to transmit the data to operate on that patient.
  Driverless cars are going to change the world dramatically--not only 
the way we get around. It is going to change our need for roads; it is 
going to change our tax base; and it is going to change the insurance 
market.
  5G is going to allow farmers to be prewarned about encroaching 
diseases. Farmers will not have to wait to see their crops attacked by 
certain diseases; through 5G technology, they will be able to know and 
predict that those diseases are coming. It is going to help us feed the 
world.
  5G technology is going to allow our young people to have virtual 
apprenticeships. If you are a young woman or a young man and you are 
right out of school and you are offered an apprenticeship or an 
internship, let's say in San Francisco, and you are living in Duluth--
say you are a student and you say ``I don't have the money to move to 
San Francisco, and I don't have the money to live in San Francisco,'' 
you will be able to do an internship through technology.
  It is going to be 100 times faster. In terms of the amount of data, I 
don't know how to quantify that, but it is going to have an 
extraordinary impact on wireless technology.

[[Page S6538]]

  What are we talking about here? When my phone calls the President's 
phone, what are we talking about? Really, we are just talking about 
radio waves. We are talking about radio waves. A radio wave is nothing 
more than electromagnetic radiation. I don't want to get off the 
subject here. When my phone talks to the President's phone, we are just 
sending radio waves through the air. Sometimes you might have heard 
that referred to as a spectrum. That is basically how a cell phone and 
the internet works, except with 5G, the speed with which that data is 
transmitted and the amount of data will be substantially larger.
  Who owns those radio waves and the air through which those radio 
waves travel? According to Federal law--the Federal Communications Act 
of 1934--we do. We all do. The American people do.
  The Federal Government, through the Federal Communications Commission 
and other agencies, including but not limited to Congress, regulates 
those radio waves going through the air, which we call spectrum, but 
those radio waves and the air through which they pass are owned by the 
American people. Just like a national park, just like the oil and gas 
offshore in Federal waters, just like the Rocky Mountains, they are 
owned by us, the American people.

  Now there are certain types of radio waves that are owned by the 
American people that are perfect for 5G technology. These radio waves 
and this spectrum, if you will--I will use the term ``spectrum,'' but 
remember, I am just referring to radio waves moving through the air. 
This particular spectrum that is perfect for 5G technology is called 
the C-band. I don't know why they call it that, but that is what they 
call it. It is between 3.7 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz. Don't worry 
about what that means; just know that this part of the overall spectrum 
is perfect for 5G. It is perfect because it strikes a balance between 
coverage and capacity. And this C-band, if you will, is not too hot, 
not too cold. It is just right for 5G. It is critical to our 
development of 5G technology.
  Since the American people own this C-band and since many of our 
wireless companies want to develop and offer 5G technology to the 
American people, given those facts, the FCC is going to play an 
integral part. The FCC licenses spectrum to companies that want to use 
it. In other words, if you are a wireless company and you want to use a 
portion of the spectrum--the radio waves going through the air that are 
owned by the American people--you go to the FCC and say: I want to 
license that spectrum, and I want to pay for it.
  By law--not by custom; by law--the FCC says: OK. To be fair, we are 
going to hold an auction, and everybody who wants to bid on this 
portion of the spectrum can submit a bid.
  In the last 25 years, the FCC has done an extraordinary job, by the 
way, of getting spectrum out to the private sector and getting the 
American taxpayer paid for its property interest. In the last 25 years, 
the FCC has conducted over 100 of these auctions. The FCC has brought 
in $123 billion for the American people--billion. That is nine zeros. I 
have met with folks at the FCC who handle the public auctions. They are 
incredibly experienced. They know what they are doing.
  Let me get back to the C-band. When we left off, we were talking 
about the C-band being perfect for 5G. We have a lot of wireless 
companies that want to lease it, if you will--want to license it--and 
the FCC is there in the middle. You would expect that what we would do 
in this instance is what we always do--we hold a public auction.
  It has been estimated that if we hold a public auction, if the FCC 
holds a public auction and tells all the wireless companies that want 
to bid to come on down and bid, it will bring in $60 billion for the 
American people--$60 billion. Do you know what we could do with $60 
billion? With $60 billion, we could put 1 million kids through college 
for all 4 years. With $60 billion, we could hire 1 million new cops for 
a year. With $60 billion, we could build 7,000 miles of interstate. 
With $60 billion, we could make sure that broadband reaches every 
crevice and corner of America because right now it doesn't.
  If you are in a rural area right now--I don't want to overstate my 
case, but in many instances, if you are in a rural area, you don't have 
the same broadband both in terms of reach and coverage and speed that 
people have in a large city, and that is true even before we get to 5G.
  We could even give the money back to people. We have 140 million 
taxpayers in America. If we gave $60 billion back to 140 million 
taxpayers, that is about $430 for every taxpayer in America. I am not 
suggesting we do that. That is above my pay grade, making that 
decision. For a lot of people, $430 isn't that much money, but I have a 
lot of friends who would say $430 is a lot of money.
  But in the middle of what I just described, we have a hair on the 
biscuit. We have three companies--and I am not disparaging them. Two of 
them are headquartered in Luxembourg, and one is out of Canada. They 
are foreign satellite companies. They have gone to the FCC and they 
have said: Look, we are going to make you a deal. We know we need to 
get this 5G, this C-band spectrum, into the market as quickly as 
possible. We will do the auction for you.

  It doesn't matter that the FCC has already done 100 auctions and 
brought in $123 billion. These three foreign companies have gone to the 
FCC and said: Let us do the auction for you because we can do it better 
and quicker even though we have never done a public auction.
  Then they told the FCC: By the way, we want to keep the money. We can 
do it faster than you, FCC. Even though you have done 100-plus auctions 
and we have never done one, just trust us. We can do it faster than 
you, and we want you to give us the spectrum and let us keep the $60 
billion.
  The FCC is considering doing it.
  My State has a lot of oil and gas. The Federal Government--the 
American taxpayer--owns the seabed of much of the Gulf of Mexico. 
Periodically, on behalf of the American people, the Federal Government 
leases that seabed to oil and gas companies to explore for oil and gas. 
When the Federal Government leases the land, the Federal Government 
takes an upfront cash payment and a portion of any oil and gas that is 
found.
  Can you imagine what would happen if I went to the Federal Government 
and said: Even though I have never done an oil and gas auction, I can 
do it faster than the Federal Government even though the Federal 
Government has done thousands of them. So I want you to give me all the 
minerals in the gulf and let me do the auction and keep the money.
  Can you imagine the reaction if I approached the Federal Government? 
The people in charge of those oil and gas leases would do one of two 
things. I would end up in either handcuffs or a straitjacket. But that 
is what is being proposed here, and for the life of me, I do not 
understand why the FCC is taking this seriously.
  An article just came out a couple of days ago. I will read the first 
sentence of it. It came out of a periodical called Market Watch on 
November 11, just a few days ago.
  It starts: ``A big step in the U.S. deployment of 5G wireless could 
take place by year's end as the Federal Communications Commission is 
expected to back a plan from the satellite industry for auctioning off 
radio spectrum.''
  They called a couple of investment bankers. One investment bank group 
is called Height Capital Markets, and another one is called Beacon 
Policy Advisors. I don't know where they are getting their information, 
but they are saying that the FCC has already agreed not to do a public 
auction but to let these foreign companies have the spectrum and get 
the $60 billion.
  The article goes on to explain that these three companies--these 
three foreign companies, the two Luxembourg companies and the Canadian 
company--spent $515,000 lobbying regulators and lawmakers on its 
auction plan.
  Then I go back and I look at another article that came out not too 
long ago, and it talks about one FCC Commissioner. It sounds like he is 
already sold. He was asked about the idea of just giving the spectrum 
to these foreign companies and letting them keep the money.
  Here is what he said: ``Most of the criticism of what is known as the 
CBA proposal''--that is the proposal by the private companies--``shows 
a lack of

[[Page S6539]]

understanding of how the Internal Commission works. . . . [D]on't let 
anyone try to lecture me on the commission's . . . efficiency and 
timeliness.
  This Commissioner goes on to say:

       If someone or some entities make a profit for being at the 
     right place at the right time, I will live with that outcome. 
     In the grand scheme of things, if it is a contest between 
     speed and government trying to extract a significant piece of 
     the transaction through a lengthy process, I'll take the 
     speedy resolution.''

  Are you kidding me? What planet did he just parachute in from? This 
is a current member of the FCC. Somebody needs to tell him about the 
President's Executive order, right here: ``Buy American and Hire 
American.'' It doesn't say ``hire Luxembourg companies.'' I have 
nothing against Luxembourg companies; I just prefer American companies. 
It doesn't say ``buy Canadian companies and hire Canadian.''
  I can tell you what is going to happen if the FCC does this. First of 
all, the American people are going to lose $60 billion. No. 2, they are 
going to get sued. They say they can do it faster--I don't believe 
them--but I know this much: I know a little something about litigation. 
I used to do it for a living. They are going to be tied up in court for 
about 10 years--I can tell you that--because the Federal Communications 
Act requires a public auction.
  I can tell you what else is going to happen. The people who live in 
rural communities are going to get the little end of nothing because we 
won't be able to control who gets this C-band. I will bet you that the 
companies that end up with it start--and I hope I am wrong--and remain 
in the cities. So if you live in the country, where I was raised, you 
won't get the benefit of 5G.
  Also, if we give it to these three foreign companies and they get to 
decide who gets the C-band, how do we control who ends up with our 
spectrum? What if they give it to Huawei? What if they give it to a 
company that violates our national security and our national 
intelligence?
  This is a really bad idea, folks. There is a bill that has been 
offered. It is a bipartisan bill in the House. I am going to sponsor it 
in the Senate. It is offered by two Republicans and two Democrats. The 
bill is very simple. It says: Do the right thing. This spectrum belongs 
to the American people. This C-band belongs to the American people. 
That $60 billion belongs to the American people. I am asking my friends 
at the FCC to do the right thing. Do what you have done 100 times 
already, and let everybody bid. Let everybody bid. Take the $60 billion 
that you get from the American people, and let's spend it on something 
the American people need.

  I thank you for your time and attention.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--S.R. 420

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, earlier this week, we celebrated Veterans 
Day, a day we honor the sacrifice and the service of those who fought 
in Normandy and Pearl Harbor and Inchon, at Khe Sanh, Somalia, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Kandahar, Mosul, and everywhere else where veterans work 
to protect our country. We owe them and their families a debt that we 
often fall short in repaying. That is what this is about today.
  For years, the VA has been presented with scientific information from 
the National Academy of Sciences making it clear that the list of the 
conditions stemming from Agent Orange exposure is extensive. It 
includes hyperthyroidism, bladder cancer, Parkinson's-like symptoms, 
and hypertension. In the late iteration of the Veterans and Agent 
Orange Exposure Update 11, published a year ago, the National Academies 
recognized that those illnesses--hypothyroidism, bladder cancer, 
Parkinson's-like symptoms, and hypertension--all have suggestive or 
sufficient evidence associated with Agent Orange.
  Historically, the VA added illnesses in those two categories to the 
list of presumptive medical conditions associated with Agent Orange 
exposure. On a bipartisan basis, this Congress has done the right thing 
time after time. We are all on the same side when it comes to helping 
veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam.
  We recently found out that former VA Secretary Shulkin decided to add 
three of these conditions to the list of presumptive medical conditions 
associated with that exposure only to have OMB--the Trump 
administration--block his decision. In an email to Director Mulvaney, 
Secretary Shulkin said adding these conditions was ``imperative.'' Yet 
no action took place. There are 83,000 veterans living with at least 1 
of the presumptive medical conditions--83,000. They are in Tennessee. 
They are in Georgia. They are in South Dakota. They are in Ohio. In a 
discussion with blue water Navy veterans last week, I learned that 
since the Department put a stay on adjudicating their Agent Orange 
claims earlier this year, 12 veterans have died. Time is running out. 
Some might accuse this body of waiting until they all die. As hard as 
it is to say that and hear that, we are waiting until they all die 
before we move.
  For whatever political reason the administration seems to place on 
this, we need to ensure that veterans receive the healthcare and the 
compensation they earned. They shouldn't have to fight these one at a 
time when there are sick men and women veterans of Vietnam. We did this 
to them. The American Government decided to spray Agent Orange. We knew 
it was harmful. We know it is harmful. We knew it then, and we know it 
now. The chemical companies knew and the government knew. Why does the 
administration now think it is OK to abandon our commitment to these 
veterans? If you are exposed to poison while serving our country, there 
should be no question that you deserve the benefits you earned. Period. 
No exception.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 420, 
encouraging the President to expand the list of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs of presumptive medical conditions associated with 
exposure to Agent Orange to include parkinsonism, bladder cancer, 
hypertension, hypothyroidism, which was submitted earlier today; I 
further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed 
to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Reserving the right to object, I want to say to my 
committee member how much I appreciate his dedicated work. In the 
committee, we work on a lot of things, including the diseases in here, 
getting presumptive conclusions done so we can cover as much as 
possible, but medicine is not exact. Diseases are not exact. 
Circumstances are not exact. When you make a decision to include a 
benefit for our veterans, you are making a commitment to spend that 
money from the taxpayers of the United States of America.
  In the committee--and the Senator is part of it, and he knows this 
because I helped him a lot--we just approved blue water Navy funds, 
which is going to be one of the largest increases in the history of 
benefits going to our veterans. We are circumventing into that some of 
the due diligence--which you really ought to do before you make a 
presumption of the diseases caused in all cases.
  I am an alumni of the Georgia Air National Guard and a veteran. I am 
chairman of the committee. I think the world of the Senator from Ohio. 
What he is trying to do is great and right, just as he wanted to lead 
us to help get us where we got to on the blue water Navy funds, but I 
object to this motion as one who would benefit because I have 
Parkinson's. I went into service during the 1960s, during a year that 
would be considered the Vietnam era. I didn't serve in Vietnam, but I 
served in that era, so I would have consideration if I got Parkinson's 
disease--which I have Parkinson's. Then they can use that as a 
conclusion to find out if it

[[Page S6540]]

was presumptively caused or not by the exposure I had.
  I am just telling you as one who, if I wanted to, could take a 
benefit from this end run. I am not going to do it because I think it 
is time, as chairman of the committee--that it is time we make sure 
that every benefit we promise veterans, that we have the money to do it 
so we don't spend too much money on other benefits and leave ourselves 
short for theirs.
  I object to the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Senator Isakson knows this is no sort of false kind of 
flattery. He knows how much I think of him. He runs the most bipartisan 
committee in the Senate. I have been honored to be on it my entire 13 
years in this body. No Ohioan ever served on this committee as long as 
I have. I consider that a privilege, No. 1, and an opportunity to pay 
people back.
  I didn't serve in the military. I know Senator Isakson did. President 
Trump had deferments from Vietnam. He didn't serve in the military. I 
think that maybe perhaps, because I didn't serve in the military, I 
should work a little bit harder to make sure those people, most of whom 
are older than I by a little bit, during the Vietnam war--that they be 
treated better than they were by the country and by the public upon 
their return from Vietnam; that they, in this case, get the benefit of 
the doubt and the history of what happened with Agent Orange.
  You may remember years and years ago, veterans--people who had fought 
in Vietnam and had been exposed to Agent Orange--had to prove, 
initially, case by case, why they got sick, which was darn near 
impossible, especially when you are sick, trying to do that and go 
through that pain.
  Congress, on a bipartisan basis, did the right thing back then. They 
put a list of these illnesses together that exposure to Agent Orange 
was likely responsible for. If you had one of these illnesses and you 
were boots on the ground in Vietnam, you automatically qualified. You 
didn't have to fight in court. You didn't have to get lawyers or do any 
of that. That was then.
  Now, even though Secretary Shulkin--and I don't know how many 
Secretaries have come and gone. The President can't seem to keep 
Secretaries of the VA or staff of the VA because of the erratic policy 
he follows with veterans. The President of the United States goes to 
New York and makes a great speech about veterans, and we all applaud 
that, but then he is not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. 
These are four illnesses Secretary Shulkin thought--you heard the term 
I used earlier, which is the term he used--he used the term about these 
conditions that it was ``imperative'' that we do something.
  I understand as well as anybody how important it is to protect 
taxpayers. I also remember less than 2 years ago that Congress gave a 
tax cut--hundreds of billions of dollars, and 70 percent of it went to 
the richest 1 percent of people in this country--and we can't come up 
with a few billion dollars to help veterans who are dying from these 
four illnesses? We can't expand this list and give them healthcare as 
we try to comfort them at the VA in Cleveland and Dayton and Cincinnati 
and Columbus and in Atlanta--all over? This is no end run around 
process. These aren't four illnesses I heard somebody talk about in 
Steubenville or Cleveland that ought to be covered. These are four 
illnesses the VA has looked at, the scientific community has looked at, 
the medical community has looked at, and Secretary Shulkin--who served 
as Secretary of the VA, appointed by President Trump, initially was 
acting under President Obama--we can't give them the benefit of the 
doubt? This is no end run. We can't give them the benefit of the doubt 
and say, yes, we should cover this. I hope the chairman of the 
Veterans' Committee--that at some point we can sit down and talk and he 
can reconsider.
  Why do we think we need to protect President Trump, who, like me, 
didn't serve in the military? For me, it--I will not get into that. But 
why can't we help these veterans and give them the benefit of the 
doubt, cover these illnesses, and move forward with the VA taking care 
of people the way we should?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, it has now been 13 months since the 
administration concluded negotiations on the United States-Mexico-
Canada Free Trade Agreement. It has been 13 months of uncertainty for 
U.S. farmers and ranchers, manufacturers, small businesses, digital 
firms, financial institutions, and many others. It has been 13 months 
of wondering what the rules of the road on trade are going to look like 
going forward.

  We should have passed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 
months ago. The Republicans in the Senate have been ready to take up 
this agreement for a long time, but trade agreements have to be 
considered by the House of Representatives first, and the House of 
Representatives is controlled by the Democratic Party, which is far 
more interested in partisan pursuits than in actually doing any 
meaningful legislating.
  While the House Democrats are happy to consider far-left messaging 
bills that have no chance of going anywhere, they have no interest in 
working with the Republicans to actually get something signed into law. 
Why? The Democrats have convinced themselves that partisan posturing is 
more important than securing a bipartisan legislative victory, like a 
strong, new trade deal that will benefit the American economy. So they 
are currently opposing a trade agreement that would benefit millions of 
American workers.
  Let's be very clear. The Democrats' decision to prioritize partisan 
politics is having real consequences for the American people. Right 
now, the members of our military are unable to fund new priorities 
because the Senate Democrats are blocking the consideration of Defense 
appropriations. Farmers and ranchers in my home State of South Dakota 
and around the country are struggling, but the House Democrats refuse 
to move forward on a trade deal--the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement--that would bring them relief.
  Thanks to low commodity and livestock prices, natural disasters, and 
protracted trade disputes, farmers and ranchers have had a tough few 
years, and one of the biggest things we can do to help them is to take 
action on trade. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers depend on trade.
  When I talk to farmers and ranchers at home in South Dakota, they 
emphasize that the most important thing Washington can do to boost our 
agricultural economy is to take action on trade agreements. Farmers and 
ranchers need access to new and expanded markets for their products, 
and, just as importantly, they need certainty about what international 
markets are going to look like going forward.
  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement would help to meet those 
needs. It would preserve and expand farmers' access to two critical 
export markets, and it would give farmers certainty about what these 
markets will look like long term.
  I am particularly pleased with the improvements the agreement makes 
for dairy producers. South Dakota has experienced a major dairy 
expansion over the past few years, and this agreement will benefit U.S. 
dairy producers by substantially expanding market access in Canada, 
where U.S. dairy sales have been restricted. In fact, the U.S. 
International Trade Commission estimates the agreement will boost U.S. 
dairy exports by more than $277 million.
  The agreement will expand market access for U.S. poultry and egg 
producers, and it will make it easier for U.S. producers to export 
wheat to Canada.
  Of course, the benefits for the agricultural industry are just one 
part of this agreement. From manufacturing to digital services, to the 
automotive industry, virtually every sector of our economy will benefit 
from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The USMCA breaks new 
ground by including a chapter specifically focused on small and medium-
sized businesses. It is the first time that a U.S. trade agreement has 
ever included a dedicated chapter on this topic. Roughly, 120,000 small 
and medium-sized businesses around our country export goods and 
services to Mexico and to Canada. The USMCA will make it easier for 
these businesses to successfully export their products.

[[Page S6541]]

  It would be nice if the House Democrats woke up tomorrow and decided 
that 13 months was long enough to make America's farmers and ranchers 
and manufacturers and small business men wait for the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement, but my hopes of seeing action from the House 
grow dimmer each day.
  The Democrats in the House should be addressing the American people's 
priorities. American workers shouldn't be sacrificed for the Democrats' 
partisan political goals. I hope that enough of my Democratic 
colleagues in the House of Representatives will urge their House 
leadership to bring up the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in the 
very near future. Americans have waited long enough.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Thune's comments about 
the USMCA. Some might call it NAFTA 1.6. It just doesn't do very much. 
I was not in this body when NAFTA passed. I was down the hall in the 
House of Representatives. I voted against it.
  I saw what NAFTA did to my State and what it did to our country in 
the number of lost manufacturing jobs. States in the industrial Midwest 
still have not recovered from that legislation, from that trade 
agreement--the North American Free Trade Agreement. During the Clinton 
administration, I opposed the President of my own party on this. In the 
Bush administration, the other party pushed the one for Central 
America. There was one after another after another of these trade 
agreements, and we see the lost jobs. President Trump made a huge 
campaign promise that he was going to do something about it, and this 
agreement simply doesn't do it.
  We have talked to the U.S. Trade Representative repeatedly about 
enforcing labor standards. The whole point of fixing this agreement is 
so that companies will not shut down in Mansfield, in Zanesville, and 
in Lima, OH, and move to Mexico to build plants there and sell the 
products back to the United States. Yet do you know what is happening? 
Even the USMCA has no language in it that is going to stop the 
outsourcing of jobs. So, if this Congress moves on the USMCA, you can 
bet that month after month after month, we are going to lose 
manufacturing jobs, that the business plan of shutting down production 
in Ohio, in Rhode Island, in North or South Dakota, or in Montana will 
continue, and that the USMCA will not do anything about it.
  This is the same President who went to Youngstown, OH, as Lordstown 
was about to shut down, and said: Don't sell your homes. We are going 
to bring those jobs back.
  No, we aren't. GM moved more and more jobs to Mexico at the same time 
it shut down the GM plant in Lordstown, OH. There were 4,500 jobs lost. 
This USMCA is simply a wallpapering over of an agreement. It doesn't do 
what you have to do to stop the outsourcing of jobs.
  I look at trade agreements in one way. Does it mean more jobs in our 
country or does it mean fewer jobs? The USMCA will do nothing to stem 
the tide of jobs that are moving to Mexico. That is why we should go 
back to the table and include the Brown-Wyden amendment on labor 
enforcement--language that will, in fact, mean there will be more 
prosperity in both countries.
  I thank Senator Whitehouse for yielding the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am not going to be that long. I ask 
unanimous consent to speak for up to half an hour as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Adena Leibman

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today is my 258th ``Time to Wake Up'' 
speech, and I want to use this occasion to take us back to our oceans.
  Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I note that this will 
be the last ``Time to Wake Up'' speech during which Adena Leibman will 
be with me. She has been closely involved in all of my office's oceans 
work. She has, indeed, led it. She came to my office as a Knauss 
fellow.
  We loved Dean Knauss in Rhode Island. He was the dean of the Graduate 
School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island. In working 
with Senator Pell, he helped to launch NOAA, helped to start the Sea 
Grant Program, and was extremely significant in the ocean work of our 
government. So one being a Knauss fellow--one of the Knauss legacies--
is a really big deal and is a particularly big deal in Rhode Island.
  Adena has been coordinating the oceans work now for 4 years and has 
also been coordinating our appropriations work. In the time that Adena 
has been working on this, the bipartisan Oceans Caucus, which Senator 
Murkowski and I established, has grown to 40 Members. It is very 
bipartisan. It is very effective. We set it up as a working caucus, and 
it is working.
  Adena helped us get the Coastal Resilience Fund passed into law. It 
is now producing tens of millions of dollars in grants for coastal 
communities that need the support as sea levels rise.
  She helped to get the Save Our Seas Act passed. That was a unanimous 
effort. Dan Sullivan, of Alaska, was a remarkable partner in all of 
that. The participants in that included leaders from landlocked States. 
Senator Inhofe was a real leader on that bill. We had such a good time 
with it that we are now working on Save Our Seas 2.0, which today came 
through the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee after 
having passed the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously and the 
Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously. We are hoping that 
soon we will be able to organize the floor consideration of it and, 
perhaps, pass it by unanimous consent in the way we did with the Save 
Our Seas Act. The work of all of that progress in those committees and 
the negotiating of Save Our Seas 2.0 was led by Adena.
  Lastly, this week, I started going around to collect cosponsors for 
Senator Murkowski's and my BLUE GLOBE Act, which is the ocean data 
monitoring bill that we have worked on and are now ready to launch. An 
enormous amount of preparatory work goes into getting that ready--
getting supporters lined up and doing all of the work of cross-
referencing the different points of view--and getting a bill that we 
also hope stands a good chance of passing this body by unanimous 
consent. So I give the speech with gratitude to Adena for her work.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, the oceans send a clear and consistent signal about 
climate change, and it is a signal that has been untainted by fossil 
fuel industry propaganda attacks that have been problematic in other 
areas. The signals are untainted for good reason, because it is hard to 
dispute sea level rise measured with tide gauges all around the 
country. It is hard to dispute acidification that is measured with the 
kind of pH test kit that a middle school science classroom has, and it 
is hard to dispute rising ocean temperatures that are measured with 
that complex, analytical device--the thermometer. Even the fossil fuel 
industry has trouble fouling the climate signals from our oceans.
  The recent ``Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing 
Climate'' confirms through grim data that the health of our oceans is 
in rapid decline, and it confirms that these changes are caused not by 
nature but by man. Headlines extracted from the report are pretty 
alarming.
  These are quotes: ``The global ocean . . . has taken up more than 90 
percent of the excess heat in the climate system.''
  `` . . . the rate of ocean warming has more than doubled.''
  ``Marine heatwaves . . . are increasing in intensity.''
  `` . . . the ocean has undergone increasing ocean acidification.''
  `` . . . mean sea level is rising. . . . ''
  ``Increases in tropical cyclone winds and rainfall . . . increases in 
extreme waves . . . extreme sea level events and coastal hazards.''
  `` . . . multiple climate-related hazards. . . . ''
  As if that is not enough, ``the ocean is projected to transition to 
unprecedented conditions.''
  It is a grim warning.
  Look at acidification. Ocean acidification is a chemical phenomenon. 
It is not deniable. You can replicate it in a middle school science 
lab. You can demonstrate it with your breath and a

[[Page S6542]]

glass of water and an aquarium bubbler and a pH strip, as I have done 
from this desk.
  The oceans absorb around 30 percent of our excess CO<inf>2</inf> 
emissions in a chemical interaction that takes up the CO<inf>2</inf> 
but acidifies the seawater. Off our west coast, the humble pteropod is 
a building block in the oceanic food chain. Studies show the pteropod 
suffering ``severe shell damage,'' worsened by acidification. It is 
hard to make and maintain a shell in acidifying seas. Coral reefs are 
dying from acidification. The great ocean die-offs in geologic eras 
before humans existed were signaled by ocean acidification. So that is 
serious.
  Look at heat. The oceans absorb over 90 percent of the excess 
atmospheric heat--not 30 percent like the CO<inf>2</inf>--that we have 
trapped in our atmosphere with greenhouse gas emissions.
  So think about it. All the terrestrial effects that we are already 
seeing from climate change come from less than one-tenth of the excess 
heat that we have trapped. The heat going into the oceans is sparing us 
humans a real catastrophe, but all that heat is changing the oceans. It 
is four Hiroshima-size bombs' worth of heat energy added to our oceans 
every second--four Hiroshima explosions worth of heat energy per second 
is the rate of ocean heating. The rate of this ocean heating has 
already doubled, and the ocean is projected to absorb from five to 
seven times more heat by 2100. So it is heating at the rate at which 
its heating is accelerating.
  What does that mean? Well, warming seas expand--that is a basic law 
of physics--and along with melting glaciers and ice sheets, that means 
seas rise: so far, about 6 inches globally; on Rhode Island shores, 
already nearly a foot. On our current trajectory, that is more than 3 
feet globally by 2100 and more than 6 feet along our shores in Rhode 
Island.
  This is northern Rhode Island. This is Narragansett Bay, and all of 
these areas that you see that are blue are land now. They are peoples' 
homes. They are peoples' businesses. There are roads and 
infrastructure--all projected to disappear, all projected to be 
swallowed by rising seas by the end of the century if we keep fiddling 
around here and not paying attention.
  The First Street Foundation calculates that coastal communities like 
these along our east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico States have 
already lost more than $15 billion in relative property values as the 
insurance and mortgage markets start to look at sea level rise and 
flooding, and it affects housing prices.
  In Rhode Island alone, they estimate about $45 million in relative 
property value lost. Predicted ahead is a coastal property values 
crash. That is not coming from an environmental organization. That is 
coming from Freddie Mac, the great American mortgage corporation.
  And it is global. The New York Times recently reported new research 
``that some 150 million people are now living on land that will be 
below the high-tide line by mid-century''--150 million people.
  A UK study warns global sea level rise could cost $14 trillion 
annually by 2100.
  This is what Freddie Mac has to say about this coastal property 
values crash: ``The economic losses and social disruption of the 
coastal property values crash may happen gradually, but they are likely 
to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and 
Great Recession.'' For those of us who lived through the 2008 meltdown, 
we don't want to go there again. Freddie Mac is forecasting that it is 
going to happen because of coastal property values.
  Look here to the Pacific. A new Climate Central study shows that 
``chronic coastal flooding or permanent inundation threatens areas 
occupied by more than 10 percent of the current population of nations 
including Bangladesh, Vietnam, and many small island developing 
states.''
  Here is the southern part of Vietnam, swallowed up by high tide in 
2050. That was the projection just a few years ago with the flooding 
that was going to come into the Vietnam delta area, up here, in Ho Chi 
Minh City, or Saigon. This is the new projection for 2050--all of it 
under water, including a good part of Saigon City.
  As one of the authors of the report said, ``most sea level rise here 
between now and 2050 is already baked in.'' Decades more of sea level 
rise means the fate of many coastal communities here and around the 
world is already sealed, which may explain the 2013 warning by the 
commander of our U.S. forces in the Pacific that upheaval related to 
climate change ``is probably the most likely thing that is going to 
happen . . . that will cripple the security environment.'' He said:

       You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant 
     future of nations displaced by rising sea level. . . . If it 
     goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of 
     people displaced and then security will start to crumble 
     pretty quickly.

  Well, here it is, as predicted by our Navy in 2013.
  Thankfully, countries around the globe are awakening to the problems 
in our oceans. In 2015, I fought to protect a mention--a mention--of 
oceans in the Paris climate agreement. This year's original host, 
Chile, christened the entire upcoming climate meeting a ``Blue COP'' 
with a blue vision of repairing ocean health.
  I attended, as a U.S. congressional delegation of one, this year's 
international Our Ocean conference in Oslo, where advocates, 
corporations, and governments from around the world, even the helpless 
Trump administration, made national and corporate and regional ocean 
commitments.
  Norway leads a panel of 14 nations--14 heads of state and the United 
Nations Special Envoy for the Ocean, advised by people like our own 
former NOAA Administrator, Jane Lubchenko. A recent panel report 
outlined five major ocean initiatives that could reduce 20 percent of 
global emissions by 2050.
  The United Nations also declared the 2020s the ``Decade of Ocean 
Science for Sustainable Development.'' The world has turned toward 
action on oceans.
  Now, usually, in confronting threats of this magnitude, the United 
States sets an example of leadership. We are abandoning that tradition. 
In conversations about climate change and ocean challenges, the United 
States is, at best, absent. At worst, we are the obstruction. That is a 
mistake. The United States should not lose its place as an 
international leader, not if we care about our vaunted role as the 
indispensable Nation and not if we care about the security and 
prosperity of our democracy.
  It doesn't have to be this way. Other ocean threats have prompted 
Congress to do what is right. We passed international fisheries 
treaties and the Port States Measures enforcement law. We did it 
unanimously here in the Senate, and now satellites are seeking out and 
tracking pirate fishing ships to bring them to justice.
  We passed our first marine plastics legislation unanimously, and a 
bigger, better marine plastics bill is moving in the Senate right.
  Now Senator Murkowski and I are moving the biggest ocean data bill 
since NOAA was founded through our bipartisan Oceans Caucus.
  So, yes, we can do better, and we must.
  Henry Kissinger once told me that the great revolutions of the world 
have come about from what he called a confluence of resentments. Well, 
the poorest--those who depend most closely on the oceans, those who 
lead subsistence lives--will suffer most the brunt of the coming 
crisis, and they will resent it.
  Look at fisheries. The poorest starve when their fisheries collapse. 
Others are distressed when fisheries collapse but have the resources to 
migrate or find alternative food sources. For wealthy nations, like 
ours, the fish in our air-conditioned supermarkets may cost a bit more, 
but our lives aren't seriously affected. But when the poor and 
distressed are hurt like that, they will resent it. That is human 
nature, and if you turn the pain up high enough, well, good luck 
defending to them the systems of parliamentary democracy and market 
capitalism that countenanced their suffering.

  Years ago, Daniel Webster described the work of our Founders as 
having set the world an example. He went on to say that ``the last 
hopes of mankind, therefore, rest with us.'' From Jonathan Winthrop to 
Ronald Reagan, we have called America ``a city on a hill,'' set high 
for the world to witness. President Clinton argued that ``people . . . 
have always been more impressed by

[[Page S6543]]

the power of our example than the example of our power.''
  We still tout our system of democracy and capitalism as a beacon of 
success and progress, but we have aided and abetted the failure of our 
system to address the climate and oceans crisis. Worst of all is the 
reason for it--the fossil fuel industry's menacing climate denial 
apparatus. That apparatus may have won the day influencing Congress for 
now, but it will surely fail the test of time. History will judge 
harshly an American generation that let its democracy be corrupted by 
this industry.
  The voice of the oceans is more lasting than the greed and folly of 
man, and it warns of consequences driven by laws of chemistry, physics, 
and biology. These stern natural laws cannot be repealed or vetoed. 
Propaganda can manipulate people, passions, and politics, but 
propaganda cannot change the immutable laws of nature. The data are the 
voice of the oceans, and if data could scream, the oceans would now be 
screaming.
  So to paraphrase a poem, let us be the ``voice the sea would have if 
it had not a better one: as it lifts . . . its rumbling, deep-
structured roar.'' Let us wake up and get to our duty.
  ``Slap Nature,'' Pope Francis said, ``and she will slap you back.'' 
We have a hell of a slap coming if we don't get ahead of this, and we 
better wake up to it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                    Nomination of Steven J. Menashi

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come here before to call out 
Senate Republicans and their unwavering support for President Trump's 
efforts to pack our courts with partisan and ideologically driven 
picks, but the nominee I am speaking against today is truly uniquely 
unfit to serve a lifetime appointment--a lifetime appointment--on a 
Federal court: Steven Menashi.
  Mr. Menashi has a deeply disturbing history of disparaging comments 
against women, communities of color, immigrants, and the LGBTQI 
community.
  He unabashedly helped to roll back protections for vulnerable 
communities. He defiantly refused to answer basic questions from U.S. 
Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, about the policies he worked 
on while advising the President. He has time and again put extremism 
and ideology ahead of the rule of law, and he has proven himself 
incapable of serving as a fair and impartial judge.
  As if his record of extremism and partisanship wasn't bad enough, we 
now know that Steven Menashi not only helped but was the key architect 
in Secretary DeVos's efforts to illegally deny relief to student 
borrows who were cheated by predatory for-profit colleges. These 
policies that Mr. Menashi provided ``legal advice'' for were 
subsequently ruled to be in violation of Federal law.
  Secretary DeVos's policy on borrower defense led to her being held in 
contempt of court. Whether Mr. Menashi did not understand Federal law 
or whether he advised the Secretary of Education to blatantly ignore it 
at the expense of students, the fact is that this latest revelation 
undoubtedly and unequivocally disqualifies him from serving a lifetime 
appointment on a Federal court--or, at least, it should.
  Tomorrow, the Senate will take a critical vote. This is a vote on 
whether the Senate once again rubberstamps President Trump's 
unprecedented effort to remake the Federal judiciary on a partisan 
ideological basis. It is a vote that shows whether Republicans are 
willing to support a judicial nominee whose actions--his own actions--
have been found to violate the law as recently as just a few weeks ago.
  I implore my Republican colleagues to consider not just Mr. Menashi's 
record of bigotry and the harm he helped cause to cheated and defrauded 
students, but also his blatant disregard of the rule of law.
  When casting their vote, I ask my colleagues not to worry about what 
the President might say on Twitter, but to worry about the rule of law 
and to worry about the idea yet another partisan nominee getting a 
lifetime on the Federal bench who doesn't. It is that simple.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


          Survivors' Bill of Rights in the States Act of 2019

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Mr. Grassley from 
Iowa on the floor today to talk about important legislation that we are 
cosponsoring that built upon previous efforts that both of us were 
engaged in to protect survivors of sexual assault in the criminal 
justice system. The efforts to extend rights to sexual assault 
survivors across the country is critically important, and I am hopeful 
that, once our legislation is known to our colleagues, that they will 
join us in passing this important bipartisan bill.
  Amanda Nguyen of the Rise organization initially contacted our office 
in 2015. I know she also worked with Senator Grassley. When she came to 
us and detailed her harrowing story of sexual assault, she was raped, 
and then she felt like she was raped again by a criminal justice system 
that was not responsive to the challenges of survivors of sexual 
assault. Amanda described the system that further traumatized survivors 
and provided scarce protections for their rights.
  Evidence of assault was being destroyed without survivors' consent, 
and survivors were forced to periodically follow up with law 
enforcement to preserve that evidence. The broken process that 
survivors were forced to endure resulted in a system where they were 
often re-victimized. Instead of a process that helped them move forward 
with their lives as they pursued justice, survivors were confronted 
with the trauma of reliving their attack each time they sought to 
preserve evidence or gather information about their case.
  Well, because of Amanda's efforts, the Sexual Assault Survivors' 
Rights Act was created. It was legislation that provided for the first 
legally recognized set of rights for survivors that could be enforced 
in a court of law. Senator Grassley took that legislation, he included 
it in the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, and it was signed into law. 
It has provided survivors with greater protections in Federal cases 
because of focus on notice, on access to evidence, and on the 
preservation of sexual assault evidence collection kits.
  By creating this set of court enforceable rights at the Federal 
level, Congress established a model for the States to adopt similar 
legislation to protect the rights of survivors. So far, 21 States, 
including my home State of New Hampshire, have adopted that legislation 
to guarantee survivors certain basic rights in the criminal justice 
system.
  Now, unfortunately, we are trying to figure out how to encourage 
other States to follow the lead of Congress, States that have not yet 
adopted legislation protecting survivors. That is why the bill that 
Senator Grassley and I are here to discuss today is so critically 
important. The Survivors' Bill of Rights in the States Act, the 
legislation we are cosponsoring, would establish a grant program 
accessible to States that have in place a law which guarantees the 
rights contained in the Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights Act.
  The grand amount would be a percentage of the funding that the State 
receives under the Stop Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program. 
States could then use the funds to implement survivor rights, preserve 
sexual assault evidence collection kits, reduce the backlog of kits, 
and provide support for victim services.
  Congress has previously passed legislation using the Stop Formula 
Grants to incentivize States to adopt legislation, and this is the 
perfect example of why that kind of an approach would be successful. No 
survivor should be compelled to bear the indignity of petitioning law 
enforcement merely to ensure that they are given a fair shake in the 
criminal justice process. It is my hope that this legislation will lead 
to an increase in States passing bills to protect survivors' rights.
  I think it is important that Congress again show survivors that we 
are behind them, that we will stand up with them for their rights. The 
Survivors' Bill of Rights in the States Act would do just that.
  I am so pleased to be joining Senator Grassley in this effort. I 
think, with this bipartisan support, we can get support from all of our 
colleagues to enact this follow-on legislation into law and provide the 
additional support that survivors need.

[[Page S6544]]

  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield to my colleague, Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, it is a pleasure to work 
with Senator Shaheen on this bill. I am very happy to work together. We 
have the same goals in mind. For the cynical people outside of 
Washington, DC, that say there is never any Republican or Democratic 
cooperation, there is kind of a rule around here that Senator Shaheen 
and I are examples of, but it applies to all 100 Senators.
  If you really want to get something done, you have to seek 
bipartisanship in this body. I can quantify that in this way. There are 
53 Republicans. There are 47 Democrats. But if there were 53 Democrats 
and 47 Republicans, the same rule would apply.
  About 99 percent of the legislation that gets done around here has to 
have 60 votes to stop debate before you can even vote on the bill. So 
obviously, even if all 53 Republicans were voting together--and that 
doesn't happen very often--you still wouldn't get the 60 votes to pass 
a piece of legislation. So that is why almost every major piece of 
legislation that gets through here--and this example of Shaheen-
Grassley is just another example--it is because you seek 
bipartisanship, and it is just nice that it has to be that way.
  So addressing this issue, I can say I associate myself with the 
remarks of Senator Shaheen and sit down, but there is kind of a rule 
around the Senate. Everything that has been said on this bill has been 
said, but I haven't said it yet, and I am going to say it.
  I recently introduced S. 2770, known as the Survivors' Bill of Rights 
in the States Act of 2019, with Senator Shaheen and Senator Tillis. 
This measure is a companion to what Congresswoman Speier developed and 
introduced in the other Chamber. It builds on legislation entitled the 
Survivors' Bill of Rights Act that we adopted in 2016.
  As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the last Congress, I 
worked closely with a young woman, Amanda Nguyen, on the development of 
that 2016 measure prior to its introduction. Amanda, a survivor of 
sexual assault, found and leads the nonprofit organization known as 
Rise, R-I-S-E.
  She also worked with Senator Shaheen on the same legislation, 
introducing the final version in this Chamber. We incorporated that 
2016 package of rights into an amendment that I offered to another 
measure before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In May 2016, that 
legislation passed this Chamber 89 to 0. In October 2016, the House 
version, which was introduced later, was signed by the President.
  The bills that we introduced this month on the 2016 Survivors' Bill 
of Rights, it makes each State eligible to receive a Federal grant to 
implement a similar package of rights for victims of sex crimes at the 
State level. Such rights include, for example, the right to know the 
results of your forensic exam, the right to have evidence preserved for 
a certain period, and the right to notice before your forensic kit is 
destroyed.
  A State also may use its Justice Department grants to preserve sexual 
assault evidence kits, reduce the number of kits awaiting testing, and 
extend additional assistance to crime victims under our legislation. 
Finally, the measure we introduced authorizes 20 million annually for 
each of the fiscal years 2021 through 2024 to support the 
implementation of the new grant program established by this bill. I 
urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Survivors' Bill of 
Rights in the States Act of 2019.
  I thank Senator Shaheen for joining in this effort and leading this 
bill and, most importantly, to compliment her over a long period of 
time in the Senate--and probably even before she came to the Senate--
her commitment to working with me and with people generally on the 
issue of increased protection for victims of sexual assault.
  Again, I thank Congresswoman Speier and her staff for initiating this 
measure in the House and for working so hard to develop a bicameral, 
bipartisan measure, and I thank Senator Shaheen once again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________