[Pages S6795-S6800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Eric 
Ross Komitee, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of New York.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 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. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to be on the 
floor today to speak about something of significance, certainly to 
Kansas but to the country.
  We await House action on USMCA--the trade agreement between Canada, 
the United States and Mexico. It is a trade agreement that is 
attempting to replace NAFTA and an agreement that is of significance, 
as I say, to the folks back home in my State.
  For the last 2 years, I have engaged in a campaign to try to elevate 
the importance and to make sure my colleagues, the administration, and 
people here in Congress understand how important exports and trade are 
to the United States' economy.
  In Kansas, we are an export State. What we produce, what we 
manufacture, and what we grow in the fields of our State in many, many 
instances end up someplace else outside the United States.
  I have spoken on the Senate floor before. I have met with the 
President. I have talked to his Cabinet officials. I wrote an open 
letter to U.S. agricultural groups, encouraging them to fully engage in 
support for USMCA approval. I have had speaking engagements in places 
across the country, trying to rally farmers and ranchers and 
manufacturers and others to fight to preserve our trading relationship 
with Canada and Mexico.
  On Saturday, at home in Kansas, I was with the Kansas Farm Bureau at 
a townhall. It kicked off their 101st annual meeting to discuss issues 
facing Kansas agriculture. The topic of trade and its importance to the 
products that we grow was the most important and most discussed topic 
at that townhall meeting.
  USMCA was signed over a year ago. It is time for the House to pass 
this important agreement, and, in order for the House to pass it, the 
Speaker needs to bring it up for a vote.
  Canada and Mexico are Kansas's No. 1 and No. 2 export markets. They 
account for over one-third of exports from our State. Since 2013, 
unfortunately, farm income at home has fallen by 50 percent. So net 
farm income in Kansas is down half in the last 6 years.
  Many producers are struggling. They have struggled to hang on to 
their operations, and when farmers aren't doing well, it means that the 
communities they live in and support aren't doing well. The question is 
often this: What business will we lose when farmers are not having 
financial success? What young men and women who grew up on a farm or 
grew up in that small town will, perhaps, even reluctantly,

[[Page S6796]]

find a job someplace else because the economy is not helpful to them as 
they start their careers?
  USMCA will continue to provide duty-free market access to farm 
commodities, while also expanding trade opportunities for dairy 
producers and leveling the playing field for the wheat we export to 
Canada.
  USMCA is important to manufacturers as well. USMCA will protect the 
integrated North American supply chain that is critical to 
manufacturers in our State.
  Wichita is known as the air capital of the world due to aerospace and 
aviation manufacturing. Kansas is also home to automobile, farm 
equipment, and other manufacturers.
  Twenty-five percent of Kansas manufacturers--mostly, small to medium-
size businesses--export to Canada and Mexico.
  Nearly 25 years after its enactment, NAFTA was due to be modernized 
and to reflect changes in today's economy. USMCA will strengthen the 
rules on intellectual property rights and address digital trade issues. 
This modernized agreement will serve as a template for future trade 
negotiations, putting the United States in the driver's seat for 
setting global trade rules and norms.
  Kansas, as I said, is an export State. If we are not exporting, the 
ability to earn a living, to save a family farm, and to keep our small 
manufacturers across the communities that dot our State disappears. The 
ability to earn a living in Kansas depends upon selling food and 
manufactured goods around the world.
  We must continue the fight for more trade, not less. Again, I ask the 
House of Representatives to quickly consider and please do not let this 
calendar year come to an end without the NAFTA replacement in place.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, as the House of Representatives 
continues to hold hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry into 
President Trump, it is incumbent on all of us here in the Senate to 
review the evidence, keep an open mind, and avoid prejudging the case. 
If impeachment articles are served to the Senate, Senators must act as 
judges and jurors, take an oath to do impartial justice, and see to it 
that the Senate conducts a fair trial.
  So I have been hugely disappointed in the partisan conduct of some of 
my colleagues on the Republican side, who, in their rush to defend the 
President, have attacked career public servants and former members of 
the armed services because they didn't like their testimony, and then 
they spread baseless conspiracy theories and use their powers of a 
congressional office to play defense for the President.
  The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for example, has 
attempted to send the State Department on a wild fishing expedition for 
documents to support an already debunked rightwing conspiracy theory.
  Meanwhile, the State Department is blocking or delaying the 
production of documents related to several legitimate and ongoing 
investigations, many of which were requested months ago.
  I would expect that Senator Graham's request, outlandish as it is, 
would go at the back of the line. It would be another total debasement 
to the process if Secretary Pompeo were to further politicize the 
production of documents to Congress and say it is OK to release the 
documents that Senator Graham wants but not the ones that the House 
committee wanted. Privilege is privilege. I don't believe it applies in 
each case, but it is privilege. You can't do it to one and not the 
other.
  Also, it is appalling that, in recent days, certain Members on the 
other side of the aisle have repeated the lie invented by Vladimir 
Putin's intelligence services that Ukraine was somehow involved in 2016 
election interference.
  I have a simple message for my Republican colleagues: Stop spreading 
Putin's propaganda.
  By spreading the false and unsupported narrative that Ukraine, not 
just Putin, was responsible for interfering in the 2016 elections, 
Republicans are endangering our democracy and empowering Vladimir Putin 
at the same time. Even wondering aloud about the debunked Ukrainian 
interference theory helps Putin muddy the waters and deflect the blame 
away from his country, which our intelligence services have all 
agreed--I think it is 17 of them--that he interfered in the election. 
He is trying to create a diversion, and our Republican colleagues are 
going along.
  Republicans need to stop putting the wind into the sails of Putin's 
propaganda. More than that, Republicans need to forcefully and 
unequivocally refute the lie that Ukraine had anything to do with 
election interference in 2016.


              Election Security and Defense Appropriations

  Madam President, on election security and the NDAA, earlier this 
year, FBI Director Wray, Trump's appointee to run the FBI, said: ``The 
Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our 
elections.'' That is what Mr. Wray said in response to a question from 
the senior Senator from South Carolina. Director Wray went on to say: 
``My view is, until they stop, they haven't been deterred enough.'' As 
a reminder to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Director 
Wray is a Republican and Trump appointee.
  It is the testimony of Director Wray and other national security 
leaders over the past 3 years that has reinforced our commitment on the 
Democratic side to secure passage of legislation that includes tough, 
mandatory, and deterrent sanctions against Putin and against any 
foreign adversary who would seek to interfere with our elections.
  This wasn't a figment of our imagination; this came from our own 
intelligence and security agencies, that Russia interfered and that 
they are going to keep interfering until we stop them. So it is not a 
radical idea; it is a bipartisan idea. It is a part of bipartisan 
legislation introduced by Senators Van Hollen and Menendez and 
supported by Senators Rubio and Graham. This legislation needs to be 
included in the Defense authorization bill. Defending our democracy is 
at the core of our Nation's defense. But at the moment, it is being 
blocked by Republican Leader McConnell and several Republican committee 
chairs.
  I am sure Leader McConnell and his colleagues, rather than explain 
their opposition, will do what they usually do: point their fingers at 
Democrats and say ``They are holding up the Defense bill; we are not.'' 
That is a time-honored Republican tradition, to deflect blame, and it 
just doesn't hold water.
  Just this morning, we heard the Republican leader claim that 
Democrats are not supporting the defense programs needed to counter 
Russia. This is laughable coming from the other side when it is Leader 
McConnell who has fought so often to prevent funding to protect us from 
Russian interference. It is my Republican counterparts who green-lit 
the President's treating the Defense Department as a personal piggy 
bank, including raiding funds from the European Deterrence Initiative--
a program designed to counter Russia--to build the President's wall.
  Democrats are ready to roll up their sleeves and work with our 
Republican colleagues to clear any substantive objections they might 
have to election interference sanctions legislation, as well as any 
other issue they might have with the Defense authorization bill, but we 
need to get serious soon about including these provisions. The annual 
Defense bill might be our last chance to pass significant reforms to 
secure our elections.
  So, Leader McConnell, are you for securing our elections against 
Russia or not? Because if you are for it, we can move this Defense bill 
forward much more quickly.
  What is holding it up, in good part, is Leader McConnell's opposition 
to spending the funds necessary and the legislation and sanctions 
necessary to stop Russia from interfering.


                       Tribute to Johnny Isakson

  Madam President, on a bittersweet note, Johnny Isakson--what a fine 
man. Today, Members of this Chamber will hold a bipartisan lunch to say 
goodbye to one of our most beloved colleagues, Johnny Isakson of 
Georgia, who is retiring before the end of the year.
  Over the last few months, there have been numerous tributes to Johnny 
on

[[Page S6797]]

the Senate floor. He has been called ``a real friend,'' ``a mentor,'' 
``more than a colleague,'' ``humble and tenacious,'' ``they don't come 
any better''--and that is just by Democrats. That is one of the reasons 
I suggested to Leader McConnell that we have a lunch for Johnny 
Isakson, which we are having this afternoon.
  Just as there is good reason to praise Johnny Isakson in the ways 
Democrats did, there is good reason that during his chairmanship, 
Isakson's committee passed so many bipartisan bills--57, to be exact--
to help veterans. It is because he treated everyone--Democrat, 
Republican, Independent, newly elected or committee chair--with 
respect. Johnny never let the cynicism of our political times dim his 
faith in our ability to get something done.
  Johnny Isakson didn't have the loudest voice in the room, but it was 
often the most influential. That is because he built years' worth of 
trust. You never doubted his word. He was an honest broker. So whenever 
a chasm seemed to separate the parties on a certain issue, Isakson was 
often the one spanning the divide. I know that from experience, over 
and over again. As an example, when families in New York struggled to 
recover from disasters, like Sandy, only to find that flood insurance 
rates were crushing them with enormous debt, it was Senator Isakson, 
whose State has suffered its fair share of disasters, who worked with 
my office to find a solution.
  We made enormous progress working together to strengthen media shield 
laws, protecting fearless and independent journalism at a time when we 
needed to stand up for a free and open press.
  In this most recent important appropriations process, we worked 
together to help the widows and children impacted by 9/11 gain access 
to a special terror victims' funding. I want to thank him personally 
for that, and more broadly, I want to thank him for the example he set 
for many other Senators.
  There are many fine adjectives that will be used to describe Senator 
Isakson, and all of them will be well-deserved, but one word used to 
describe Senator Isakson is not often found in the Halls of Congress: 
``kind.'' Johnny Isakson is one of the kindest, most thoughtful 
Senators I have known in my time here. He is a true statesman. That is 
why I know that independent of any party or politics, everyone here 
will miss Johnny.
  I will have more to say about our friend at the bipartisan lunch this 
afternoon, but for now, I would like to note for the record Senator 
Isakson's many years of faithful service to his beloved State of 
Georgia and his country. We wish him and Dianne the very best as he 
enters the next chapter of his life.
  I yield the floor.
  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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.


                                 China

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the New York Times has recently obtained a 
secret trove of documents from the highest ranks of the Chinese 
Communist Party. Those documents reveal some chilling, terrifying 
details about Beijing's campaign to stamp out all dissent and religious 
diversity in Xinjiang Province in the north, where the party has 
concentrated more than 1 million Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other minorities 
in reeducation camps.
  These documents bring to mind George Orwell's famous novel ``1984,'' 
not as the cautionary tale as he meant it, but as an instruction manual 
for the totalitarian government in Beijing. This reign of terror began 
in 2014, after a string of terror attacks in Xinjiang Province. But 
instead of bringing those terrorists to justice, the Chinese Communist 
Party used the attacks as an opportunity to eradicate all dissent--all 
wrong-think, if you will--from a province with 25 million residents. It 
would be as if you tried to turn the State of Texas into a 
concentration camp.
  These secret documents reveal a stunning order from General Secretary 
Xi Jinping. He said, ``We must be as harsh as them and show them 
absolutely no mercy.'' So to beat these terrorists, Beijing chose to 
adopt the tactics of terror. Every Uighur and dissenter in the province 
is suffering as a result.
  Secretary Xi tapped one of the most notorious enforcers to execute 
this mission, a man named Chen, who climbed the ranks of the Communist 
Party first by crushing dissent and religious diversity in the 
southwestern Chinese province of Tibet. The techniques that they 
perfected in Tibet, the Chinese Communist party took to Xinjiang. They 
have turned the province into a garrison state with ruthless and 
pitiless competence. Chen's order to the police? ``Round up everyone 
who should be rounded up.''
  Uighurs, young and old, were loaded on into buses and taken to 
concentration camps with thick concrete walls and razor-sharp barbed 
wire. The police informed anxious relatives that these were schools and 
that their loved ones were being ``reeducated.'' And, no, they were not 
free to leave the school, nor would there be any recess or field trips.
  A secret manual obtained by Western journalists reveals that these 
facilities operate more like maximum security prisons than like 
schools. The manual's very first section deals with preventing escapes 
through the use of guard posts, patrols, internal separation, video 
surveillance, and double locks on dormitory and hallway doors. The 
manual even advocates the use of ``secret forces'' to infiltrate the 
detainee population to prevent them from joining forces or planning an 
escape.
  Beijing now holds--let me say it again--more than 1 million people in 
these reeducation camps, supposedly for reasons of national security, 
but the truth is a lot more chilling. The Chinese Communists, like all 
totalitarians, are paranoid about their own survival--and rightly so--
as a conspiracy of greedy, power-mad princelings with no democratic 
legitimacy whatsoever.
  Like all totalitarian rulers, the Chinese Communist Party is also a 
very jealous master. Every attachment, every conviction, every 
loyalty--whether to one's family, one's culture, even one's creator--
must be sacrificed on the altar of the Party. According to the Chinese 
Communist Party, everything must bow before it, and every tongue must 
profess the slogans of Xi and Mao. That means the Uighurs and also 
Hongkongers, Tibetans, Taiwanese, and others.
  The paranoid Communist Party will not limit itself to one province or 
one people, nor will it ultimately limit itself to its own land. It 
will extend its tyrannical reach to every corner that it views as its 
own, creeping ever outward until it demands the deference of all the 
world, until it ``deals with'' the rebellious billions who have not yet 
learned to love the Chinese Big Brother.
  The Chinese Communist Party is running concentration camps today, but 
make no mistake, its appetite for expansion is far greater, its methods 
of control applicable to anyone anywhere. The Free World must confront 
this threat in plain view and act now to avert such a dark and chilling 
future.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                  For-Profit Colleges and Universities

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a few years ago, a woman who works in my 
office in Chicago--who actually cleans up the office in the evenings--
was so excited when she learned that her daughter had been accepted to 
college. It was a dream come true for a woman who had immigrated to the 
United States, taken some of the hardest, most menial manual jobs in 
the hopes that her daughter, one day, would have a better life.
  She sat down with my chief of staff in Chicago to tell her about the 
details, and immediately, we knew there was much more to the story. Her 
daughter had been accepted not just to another

[[Page S6798]]

college or university; she had been accepted to a for-profit college in 
the Chicagoland area. The for-profit colleges and universities are 
notorious. The numbers tell the story, two separate numbers: 9 percent 
of all postsecondary students go attend for-profit colleges and 
universities--University of Phoenix, DeVry, very well-known names--9 
percent of students go to those schools, but 33 percent of all of the 
federal student loan defaults are students from for-profit colleges and 
universities.
  Why? Why is this one category of higher education so notorious for 
students starting and ending up deeply in debt to the point where they 
cannot pay it back? Well, the reasons are simple and very obvious. They 
overcharge the students, and they undereducate them. They make promises 
that are wild and cannot be kept. They give them courses of doubtful 
value and do not tell them that any credits that they have earned at 
these for-profit schools cannot be transferred to city colleges, 
community colleges, or universities.
  So the students are stuck. At some point, some will quit piling on 
the debt and just basically walk away. All the promises and all the 
jobs and careers that were supposed to come from this are never going 
to materialize. It is a classic fraud, and sadly, our government is 
part of that fraud. You see, we recognize the accreditation of those 
schools. We tell that cleaning lady and her family that these are good 
schools and universities. The Federal Government does that and offers 
Federal loans to these students to go to these schools.
  Is it any wonder that the students and their families think they are 
doing the right thing for their future? The Federal Government gave a 
stamp of approval. Well, what happens when those schools reach the end 
of the line? What happens when those same for-profit colleges and 
universities go bankrupt? The students are in a terrible position, 
deeply in debt with courses that are meaningless, with their lives 
compromised, and nowhere to turn.
  We decided long ago to create an opportunity for these students to 
get out of this dilemma--one that we share in by accrediting these 
schools--something called the ``borrower defense,'' which allows these 
students, if they were defrauded, to discharge their federal student 
loans and get on with their lives.
  Today, hundreds of thousands of students--who were defrauded by their 
for-profit colleges--are desperately waiting for Secretary of Education 
Betsy DeVos to discharge their Federal student loans under a provision 
in Federal law known as borrower defense. Congress created the borrower 
defense provision to ensure students' lives are not ruined by their 
schools' misconduct and deception.
  In 2014, for-profit Corinthian Colleges collapsed. It left more than 
70,000 students nationwide with worthless credits they could not 
transfer and mounds of student debt. The students had been lured into 
those Corinthian schools with false promises, inflated placement rates 
and income projections. We know that for a fact. We have the data to 
show they were lying to the students about what graduation from 
Corinthian could mean in their lives.
  Over the last 5 or 6 years, nearly every other major for-profit 
college, nearly every one of these have faced Federal or State lawsuits 
and investigations for predatory practices similar to Corinthian 
Colleges. The result has been hundreds of thousands of defrauded 
students across America who are seeking discharges to which we say they 
are entitled under Federal law.
  Secretary Betsy DeVos has allowed more than 200,000 borrower defense 
applications to pile up at the Department, nearly 11,000 from my own 
State of Illinois. But listen to this, Secretary DeVos has not approved 
a single claim for more than a year, 200,000 applications stacking up 
at the Department of Education, not one approved.
  So who are some of these borrowers that are languishing? What is 
their story? Let me tell you about two of them.
  One is Jessica from Tucson, AZ. Jessica attended the Art Institute of 
Tucson from 2009 to 2012. It was owned by the failed for-profit 
Education Management Corporation, EDMC. Heartbreakingly, Jessica says: 
``I have experienced unbelievable amounts of stress and depression due 
to this situation. I have been placed on anti-depressants and anti-
anxiety medication over the years and been through therapy . . . I have 
self-harmed and contemplated suicide, because I feel so trapped and 
unable to recover or move forward. I have a general feeling of 
worthlessness, because I feel like my potential has been squandered.''
  She went to the Art Institute of Tucson, and her experience has led 
her to this desperate situation. She tried to harm herself. Instead of 
a bright future, she is left with a mountain of debt and nothing to 
show for it but deep financial and psychological pain. She says, 
``Every aspect of her life has been affected.''
  And so, is Secretary Betsy DeVos trying to help Jessica? No. 
Secretary DeVos is making it worse. Jessica submitted her borrower 
defense application almost 4 years ago in 2016. She has waited for this 
period of time to hear anything from the Department of Education. What 
is their excuse? I mean, if someone writes a letter to my office and 
does not get a reply and they come back to me and say, Are you going to 
answer this, Durbin, we send a reply. We try to do it promptly with 
everybody.
  How can Secretary DeVos be holding these things up for years, while 
the students see the mountain of debt growing? As she waits, Jessica's 
loans are in forbearance, where they continue to gather interest, 
meaning that the total amount owed continues to grow. She is just 1 of 
4,518 borrowers from Arizona who are stuck waiting for Secretary DeVos 
to use the authority that Congress gave her to discharge fraudulent 
loans
  I also want to tell you about Jonathan from Colorado--3,600 defrauded 
borrowers are waiting for relief. Jonathan from Westminster, CO, 
attended DeVry University--sadly a Chicago-based for-profit school--
studying to be an electronics engineer.
  He is a father and a husband who was trying to provide more for his 
family, so he took out student loans that sounded like an investment. 
He currently owes almost $100,000 in outstanding Federal student loans 
from attending DeVry, twice what he was told his education would cost.
  Of his debt, Jonathan says, ``My credit has been destroyed. I 
couldn't repay these loans in two lifetimes, even if my degree had any 
value to employers.'' Sadly, it doesn't. Employers don't even recognize 
his degree.

  Jonathan says:

       My student loans are the millstone around my family. The 
     debt I owe has made my kids not want to attend college at 
     all. They see no value in it; their own father has an 
     engineering degree but he can't get hired anywhere because 
     his school was a scam.

  Those are the words of Jonathan from Colorado.
  So not only has this fraudulent school taken away his future by 
burdening him with a worthless degree and piles of debt; in many ways, 
it affects his children's future.
  Jonathan applied for a borrower defense discharge in 2017, nearly 3 
years ago. He has been waiting to hear from Secretary Betsy DeVos. 
Secretary DeVos's failure to provide him with relief, he says, ``has 
caused [him] to lose faith that the government will actually protect 
students like [him].''
  Secretary DeVos has cruelly ignored defrauded borrowers like Jessica 
and Jonathan, but what is more is that she is trying to make it almost 
impossible for future borrowers like them to secure the relief that 
Congress intended by rewriting the rules.
  In August, Secretary DeVos released a new version of the borrower 
defense rule that places unreasonable burdens on borrowers to attain 
relief. The result is that the Department estimates the DeVos rule will 
deny nearly $11 billion in relief to borrowers compared to the current 
rule.
  In September, I introduced a resolution in the Senate to overturn the 
DeVos borrower defense rule. Forty-two of my colleagues have joined me 
in cosponsoring it. I plan to bring the resolution to a vote on the 
Senate floor where it only needs a simple majority to pass. At that 
time, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will have a choice: Will 
they stand with Secretary DeVos's actions--or, I should say, lack of 
actions for 3 or 4 years--will they deny help to defrauded students, or 
will

[[Page S6799]]

they stand with young people like Jessica and Jonathan, trying to get 
their lives back together and trying to get Congress to implement the 
one law it passed that could help them? It is a choice that seems 
pretty easy for most American people when they hear this scenario 
described to them.
  A recent opinion piece in the Anchorage Daily News criticized 
Secretary DeVos for siding with ``for-profit colleges that have 
defrauded students'' and ``illegally [denying] student loan debt relief 
to thousands of students.'' Even in Alaska, hundreds of borrowers are 
waiting for borrower defense discharges.
  Nationally, Americans agree that these defrauded borrowers deserve 
relief. In a 2016 New America poll, 78 percent of Americans said that 
students should have their Federal student loan debt discharged if 
their school deceived them. That is pretty basic, isn't it? If you were 
cheated, you ought to be taken care of.
  When you break the numbers down by party, 87 percent of Democrats and 
71 percent of Republicans--vast majorities--supported relief for these 
students. So when it comes time to vote on my resolution to overturn 
the DeVos borrower defense rule denying relief to defrauded borrowers, 
I hope my colleagues will stand with students and the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                                Abortion

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, my hope is that each of us in this 
Chamber and their families enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving time, being 
grateful for all of the blessings that we in this country have.
  I know I certainly had a wonderful week. I had the opportunity to 
spend some time across the great State of Tennessee and to talk with 
Tennesseans about what was on their minds.
  I will tell you this. In my opinion and experience, as diverse as 
Tennesseans are, there is one thing in common that I heard repeatedly, 
and that is that they are through with trying to guess where 
politicians in Washington, DC, stand on issues. This is something I 
think all of us need to hear and probably don't want to hear, but our 
fellow Americans, and certainly Tennesseans, have no idea what their 
elected representatives believe. Instead, all they see up here is this 
endless cycle of political in-fighting and failed legislation. They 
consistently say: We want you to focus on things that are important to 
us. We want you to focus on things that are important to the country. I 
will tell you that it is no wonder that our country's discourse is 
plagued by what is a marked cynicism for even our most earnest efforts.
  As I thought about this during the week and the visits that I had 
across the State, I thought: You need look no further for an example of 
where they see this fighting as being unnecessary than an issue that 
has become a magnet for derision, and that is the issue of protecting 
life--more specifically, the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the 
abortion procedures.
  In poll after poll, after poll, a majority of Americans have 
indicated that they oppose public funding of abortion. The numbers on 
this are not even close.
  As early as this summer, self-identified Democrats' support for 
taxpayer-funded abortion struggled to even break out of single digits. 
The data is clear, and it is convincing. The American taxpayer does not 
want their tax dollar being used to fund abortion procedures.
  So how is it, then, that my friends in the minority insist upon 
loopholes and work-arounds that make taxpayers complicit in the 
slaughter of the unborn?
  Their cause has been frustrated, of course, by President Trump's 
aggressively pro-life agenda. Last year, he proposed the ``protect life 
rule,'' which cut taxpayer funding under the title X program for any 
facility that performs abortions or that refers their clients to those 
facilities that perform abortions.
  This rule closely mirrored my Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition 
Act. That was the first bill I filed when I came to the Senate. It is 
something that is very important to me.
  But this year, this body's liberal faction once again seized an 
opportunity to undercut the pro-life agenda via a legislative trick 
known around this Chamber and Capitol Hill as a poison pill. You see, 
they found a way to hold hostage millions of dollars attached to the 
fiscal year 2020 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. That 
was done via an amendment that funnels family planning dollars to 
domestic organizations that support abortions overseas.
  Do you see what they are doing?
  It is an amendment that funnels family planning dollars to domestic--
U.S.--organizations, but those organizations are supporting abortions 
overseas. It also uses Obama-era gender policies to define sex--a clear 
red herring to get people arguing about gender identity so they will 
ignore the Democratic Party's leftward swing on the issue of abortion.
  You could chalk all this up to politics, were it not for the 
existence of the bipartisan budget agreement that both parties agreed 
to ahead of our work on appropriations. That agreement included a ban 
on poison pill riders like the Shaheen amendment, as well as assurances 
that any poison pills would be swiftly removed. We thought we had taken 
care of that issue with the bipartisan budget agreement, but oh, no, 
here we go.
  Yet in order to ``empower women overseas'' Democrats have indicated 
that they are willing to throw away $847 million for maternal and child 
health, $100 million for global health security programs, $150 million 
for nutrition assistance, and $6.2 billion for global HIV and AIDS 
assistance. They are doing this, throwing all that money away, so they 
can make a political point.
  This is an interesting development coming from the party that once 
deployed their support for abortion in only the most extraordinary 
circumstances. The party of ``safe, legal, and rare''--their 
terminology--has become the party that hedges their bets with 
infanticide and prioritizes convenience over human life.
  Just across the river in Virginia, Ralph Northam and his cohorts were 
allowed to set a new reprehensible standard for what left-leaning 
America is willing to condone in the name of soulless politicking.
  Tennesseans told me they want to see their representatives speaking 
up. They want to see women speaking up on behalf of life, families, and 
the unborn. They see clearly that if protecting life is the hallmark of 
the conservative movement, then, destroying life is the hallmark of a 
more liberal approach. They want us to draw a line in the sand and 
declare once and for all that loopholes and legislative tricks will no 
longer be tolerated because, for them, abortion is not up for casual 
discussion. They see how clearly and how easily the left trifles with 
the lives of children, and they are repulsed by it. What they want us 
to do is to focus on getting things done that are important to them. 
And, yes, to Tennesseans, being able to say the right to life, liberty, 
and pursuit of happiness is something that has a deep meaning.
  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.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Komitee 
nomination?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  (Mr. CRUZ assumed the Chair.)
  (Mr. CRAMER assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the 
Senator

[[Page S6800]]

from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 369 Ex.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--4

     Cantwell
     Heinrich
     Markey
     Murray

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bennet
     Booker
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Klobuchar
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Scott (SC)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________