[Pages S6999-S7009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of 
the following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Aurelia 
Skipwith, of Indiana, to be Director of the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service.


                   recognition of the majority leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                       senate legislative agenda

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have spoken at length about the 
serious impact the Democrats' impeachment obsession has had on months' 
worth of important legislative priorities. For months, the Republicans 
have been calling for bipartisan solutions to the NDAA, to the 
appropriations process, and more, but only in the last couple of days, 
here in mid-December, have our Democratic colleagues gotten 
sufficiently serious about these must-pass bills.
  In the meantime, while we have waited on the House Democrats to act, 
the Senate has made good use of our floor time to complete the American 
people's business with respect to nominations. Last week alone, the 
Senate confirmed two executive branch nominations and put eight 
impressive jurists in seats on Federal district courts.
  This week, we have considered yet another slate of the President's 
well-qualified nominees. The Senate will consider today John Sullivan, 
of Maryland, to serve as Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Stephen 
Hahn, of Texas, to serve as Commissioner at the Food and Drug 
Administration, and Aurelia Skipwith, of Indiana, to be Director of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Already this week, we have confirmed two more outstanding jurists to 
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--Patrick Bumatay, of 
California, and Lawrence VanDyke, of Nevada. Mr. Bumatay is a graduate 
of Yale and Harvard Law School. He clerked for the Eastern District of 
New York and the Tenth Circuit, practiced in the private sector, and 
served in a variety of roles with the Department of Justice. Mr. 
VanDyke graduated from Montana State University and Harvard Law School. 
His career has included a clerkship with the DC Circuit, time as a 
State solicitor general, and service as Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General at the Department of Justice. Both of these jurists are well 
qualified, and both have widespread respect from legal peers. Now they 
are the 49th and 50th circuit judges to have been nominated by 
President Trump and confirmed by the Senate in the last 3 years.
  As I have said before, these kinds of milestones are emphatically not 
partisan achievements. It is not one party or the other that benefits 
when our

[[Page S7000]]

Federal courts consist of men and women who understand that a judge's 
job is to follow the law, not to make the law. The entire country 
benefits from that. Our constitutional system benefits from that as 
well. If a judge's applying our laws and our Constitution as they are 
written strikes anybody as a threat to one's particular agenda, it is 
the agenda that needs to change, not the judiciary the Framers 
intended.
  On another matter, as I said, the Democrats' fixation with 
impeachment has pushed critical governing priorities right into the 
eleventh hour. Just yesterday, after months of delays and hostage-
taking, the House Democrats finally approved an NDAA conference report. 
Next week, the Senate will pass it and send this overdue legislation to 
President Trump. Yet, of course, we need to follow up Defense 
authorization with Defense appropriations so that we actually supply 
the funding our servicemembers need to carry out their missions and our 
commanders need to plan for the future.
  It is not just defense funding that has been hampered by the 
Democrats' impeachment obsession and reluctance to do anything 
bipartisan. All Federal funding has been jeopardized by the House's 
procrastination. That includes critical domestic programs with 
implications for every one of our colleagues and all of our 
constituents. Even today, at this late date, the Democratic leadership 
is continuing to delay a bipartisan agreement on appropriations. Even 
now, at the eleventh hour, the Democratic leadership is still 
threatening to potentially tank the whole process and force another 
continuing resolution.
  Look, the story is the same as it has been for months--partisan 
policy demands, poison pills. It is exactly the playbook the Speaker of 
the House and the Democratic leader had explicitly promised months ago, 
in writing, they would not use in order to sabotage appropriations.
  Let me say that again. Last summer, the Speaker of the House and the 
Senate Democratic leader explicitly promised in writing that they would 
not use poison pills or changes to Presidential transfer authorities to 
sabotage the appropriations process. Yet, even in mid-December, they 
are still using those tactics to jeopardize all of our progress.
  It doesn't have to end this way. I know earnest discussions are still 
underway as our colleagues in both Chambers work to fix this. I urge 
the Democratic leadership to let the committees do their work, to let 
the Congress do its work, and to let us pass legislation on a 
bipartisan basis next week.
  On a related matter, while we hold out hope for a breakthrough in 
appropriations, we also know there has been one major casualty of 
Speaker Pelosi's impeachment obsession--Congress's ability to pass the 
President's USMCA this year.
  It was more than a year ago that President Trump first signed the 
draft agreement with the leaders of Canada and Mexico--more than 12 
months ago. That is how long the House Democrats have dragged their 
heels on the USMCA and have kept 176,000 new American jobs on ice. Now, 
at the eleventh hour, Speaker Pelosi has finally realized it would be 
too cynical and too nakedly partisan to allow her conference's 
impeachment obsession to kill the USMCA entirely.
  So after a year of obstruction, she finally gave in to Republican 
pressure and struck a notional deal with the White House. But actions 
have consequences. That entire calendar year that House Democrats 
wasted has consequences. The Speaker's action was so belated that the 
administration is still--still--in the process of writing the actual 
bill. We don't have a bill yet. Once a bill is produced, the House has 
to take it up first, and then, under trade promotion authority that 
exists to protect the deals Presidents negotiate, after House passage, 
the bill spends up to 15 session days in the Senate Finance Committee. 
After that, there are up to 15 session days for the Senate to vote on 
the floor.
  So, unfortunately, the Speaker's 12 months of delay have made it 
literally impossible for the Senate to take up the agreement this year. 
And if House Democrats send us impeachment articles, those have to come 
first in January, so the USMCA will get pushed back yet again.
  Like I said, actions have consequences. There is just no way the 
Senate can make up for 12 months of House Democratic delays in just a 
couple of days. Governing is a question of priorities. Speaker Pelosi 
failed to make this trade deal a priority for the entire year, and we 
are now bound by the time requirements of TPA to protect the agreement 
here in the Senate.
  On one final matter, speaking of priorities, listen to what the House 
Democrats are prioritizing. Listen to what they are doing today while 
all of this crucial legislation goes unfinished: more Judiciary 
Committee hearings on impeaching the President and on the floor, a vote 
on yet another far-left messaging bill with literally no chance of 
becoming law.
  They are spending floor time on their socialist scheme to micromanage 
Americans' prescription drugs and put the Federal Government in charge 
of the medicines so many people rely on. The Speaker wants to take us 
down the road of nationalizing an entire industry and imposing 
Washington's stifling influence on the life sciences sector that 
produces lifesaving cures--never mind the fact that this far-left 
messaging bill has zero chance of passing the Senate and that President 
Trump has already threatened to veto it.
  We know by now that political performance art takes precedence over 
bipartisan legislation where this Democratic House has been concerned. 
I hope these stunts--stunts--come to an end soon. I hope the House 
finds time to finish negotiating the things we actually have to pass--
the funding of the government. I hope we can do that in good faith. I 
hope our Democratic colleagues join Republicans at the table, and let's 
get the American people's business that must be done accomplished.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 China

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, this past Sunday, hundreds of 
thousands of protesters filled the streets of Hong Kong to remind 
Beijing that totalitarianism will no longer go unchallenged.
  I was reading a New York Times article about this protest when I came 
across a particularly striking quote. When asked why she had taken to 
the streets, a 24-year-old biology researcher named Alice said:

       We want Hong Kong to continue being Hong Kong. We don't 
     want to become like China.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record this article on the Hong Kong human rights protest, that 
appeared in the December 9 edition of the New York Times and that 
depicts a beautiful picture of what people will do for the cause of 
freedom.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Dec. 7, 2019]

      Hong Kong Protest, Largest in Weeks, Stretches Several Miles

                 (By Javier C. Hernandez and Elaine Yu)

       Hong Kong.--Hundreds of thousands of protesters, basking in 
     a recent election victory by Hong Kong's pro-democracy camp, 
     poured onto the city's streets on Sunday in one of the 
     largest marches in weeks to pressure the government to meet 
     demands for greater civil liberties.
       The huge turnout was a reminder to China's leader, Xi 
     Jinping, that the monthslong campaign against his 
     authoritarian policies still had broad support in Hong Kong 
     despite a weakening economy and increasingly violent clashes 
     between protesters and the police.
       Tensions in Hong Kong, a semiautonomous territory, had 
     eased somewhat in recent days, after pro-democracy advocates 
     won a stunning victory in local elections two weeks ago, 
     giving new hope to the movement.
       On Sunday, demonstrators returned in force, packing city 
     streets to denounce Mr. Xi's government, rail against police 
     brutality and reiterate demands for greater civil liberties, 
     including universal suffrage. They beat drums, sang protest 
     anthems and chanted, ``Fight for freedom.'' Though the march 
     was largely peaceful, some demonstrators vandalized shops and 
     restaurants and lit a fire outside the high court.

[[Page S7001]]

       ``We want Hong Kong to continue being Hong Kong,'' said 
     Alice Wong, 24, a biology researcher who stood among 
     protesters gathered at Victoria Park. ``We don't want to 
     become like China.''
       As many as 800,000 people attended the march, according to 
     Civil Human Rights Front, an advocacy group that organized 
     the gathering.
       The mood at the march was relaxed, with people taking 
     selfies against a backdrop of the vast crowds. Children, some 
     dressed in black, marched with their parents, holding hands 
     as they shouted, ``Stand with Hong Kong!''
       A sea of protesters, spread across several miles, filled 
     major thoroughfares as they moved between towering 
     skyscrapers. In some areas, there were so many people that 
     the crowds moved at a snail's pace and spilled into adjacent 
     alleys. Some small businesses encouraged the turnout by 
     promising giveaways if more than one million people joined 
     the march.
       The protesters said they intended to remain peaceful on 
     Sunday, but some vowed to use more aggressive tactics if the 
     police cracked down. In the evening, the police readied 
     canisters of tear gas as they stood opposite crowds of 
     protesters who had barricaded a street downtown in a briefly 
     tense moment.
       The large turnout could further embolden the movement's 
     confrontational front-line protesters, who said they planned 
     to disrupt the city's roads and public transportation system 
     on Monday. The call for further action seemed to resonate 
     among some protesters on Sunday.
       ``If the government still refuses to acknowledge our 
     demands after today, we should and will escalate our 
     protests,'' said Tamara Wong, 33, an office worker who wore a 
     black mask as she stood among the crowd gathered at Victoria 
     Park.
       The protesters have demanded amnesty for activists who were 
     arrested and accused of rioting, as well as an independent 
     investigation of police conduct during the demonstrations.
       Despite the show of strength on Sunday, it is unlikely that 
     the protesters will win further concessions from Beijing, 
     which has worked to portray demonstrators as rioters 
     colluding with foreign governments to topple the governing 
     Communist Party.
       Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a professor of political science at 
     Hong Kong Baptist University, said that even though Sunday's 
     march showed the protest movement remained strong and 
     unified, Beijing was unlikely to listen to its demands.
       ``Hong Kong is condemned to live in a permanent political 
     crisis as long as China is ruled by the Communist Party,'' 
     Professor Cabestan said.
       Mr. Xi, who has cultivated an image as a hard-line leader, 
     has demanded ``unswerving efforts to stop and punish violent 
     activities'' in Hong Kong. He has publicly endorsed the 
     city's beleaguered leader, Carrie Lam, and her efforts to 
     bring an end to the unrest.
       Chinese officials have suggested that the United States is 
     responsible for helping fuel unrest in Hong Kong, pointing to 
     statements by American officials in support of the protests. 
     Last month, President Trump signed tough legislation that 
     authorizes sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials 
     responsible for rights abuses in Hong Kong. The move was 
     welcomed by many protesters but also seen as exacerbating 
     tensions between the two countries.
       In a possible sign of increased scrutiny of American 
     citizens working in Hong Kong, two leaders of the American 
     Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong said on Saturday that they 
     had been denied entry to Macau, a semiautonomous Chinese 
     city. Mr. Xi is expected to visit Macau this month to mark 
     the 20th anniversary of the former Portuguese colony's return 
     to China.
       Tara Joseph and Robert Grieves, the president and the 
     chairman of the American business group, said they had 
     planned to attend an annual ball put on by the chamber's 
     Macau branch.
       ``We hope that this is just an overreaction to current 
     events and that international business can constructively 
     forge ahead,'' Ms. Joseph said.
       The protests, which began in June in opposition to a bill 
     that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China, have 
     hurt the tourism and retail sectors, pushing the city's 
     economy into recession.
       In recent weeks, the violence has escalated, with 
     protesters intensifying their efforts to vandalize businesses 
     they associate with hostility to the movement. The police 
     shot an antigovernment protester last month, inflaming 
     tensions. Then, in some of the worst violence, universities 
     became battlefields, with black-clad students hurling 
     gasoline bombs, throwing bricks and aiming arrows at the riot 
     police, who shot rubber bullets and fired tear gas in return.
       Many demonstrators acknowledge that a compromise with the 
     government is unlikely, despite recent victories. Mrs. Lam, 
     the city's leader, who is under pressure from Beijing to 
     restore order without weakening the government's position, 
     has brushed aside their demands and has warned that the 
     mayhem could ``take Hong Kong to the road of ruin.''
       Government officials have cast the demonstrations as 
     primarily centered on economic issues, arguing that vast 
     inequality in Hong Kong has exacerbated anger among the 
     city's youth. They rolled out emergency measures recently to 
     counter the effects of the turmoil on the economy, including 
     providing electricity subsidies to businesses and expanding 
     job training for young people.
       The authorities have justified their efforts to crack down 
     on the movement by saying that protesters are endangering 
     public safety. On Sunday, the police said they had found a 9-
     millimeter semiautomatic pistol, five magazines, 105 bullets 
     and two ballistic vests, as well as fireworks, among other 
     items, during a series of early morning raids.
       Senior Superintendent Steve Li of the Hong Kong Police said 
     early in the day that officers had received information that 
     the firearm and fireworks would have been used on Sunday to 
     create chaos.
       The police have in recent months banned many protests and 
     rallies in Hong Kong, citing safety concerns. But the 
     government granted a rare approval for the march on Sunday, 
     which was held to mark the United Nations' Human Rights Day.
       Demonstrators said they believed that the turnout sent a 
     strong message: The protest movement would not back down.
       ``If the government thinks that we will give up,'' said 
     Adam Wong, 23, a university student who was waving a black 
     flag, ``today's turnout will prove them delusional.''

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, Alice's statement is loaded with 
historical context and correctly implies that what we are seeing now is 
the culmination of a slow but sure violation of the laws and norms that 
once defined Hong Kong's semiautonomous relationship with mainland 
China. These protests erupted after what Beijing argued was a simple 
proposed change to existing extradition laws, but the people saw it for 
what it was--a thinly veiled threat to Hong Kong's relative autonomy. 
It wasn't a takeover. It was just that foot in the door, and China is 
nearly unparalleled in its ability to turn a foot in the door into a 
permanent existing condition.
  Sometimes their power plays are very obvious, and sometimes they are 
not. On my recent trip to Djibouti, I saw firsthand the influence of 
China's debt-trap diplomacy.
  Here is what debt-trap diplomacy is. It is a fancy way of saying that 
China has increased its influence around the world by offering to 
struggling nations that they are going to hold their debt in exchange 
for preferential treatment on trade or maybe a physical presence such 
as a port or other sweetheart deals.
  In Djibouti City, I saw this tactic run wild. Now China would say 
that what they have done is to help the Djiboutians create a ``smart 
city'' in the Horn of Africa, but in reality they have negotiated their 
way into creating a full-blown surveillance state.
  Cameras are everywhere--on every corner and every street, with 24/7 
footage--and guess where that footage lands. Beijing. They have even 
tried to point one of those cameras at our military base, right at the 
entrance to Camp Lemonnier.
  Debt-trap diplomacy is bold. It is obvious. If that is all you see of 
China, it is easy to assume that all of their tactics are that bold and 
obvious. As I said, they will go after you in obvious areas and also in 
areas that are not as obvious.
  Even domestically, China's surveillance state is notoriously the 
opposite of covert. Their domestic ``smart city'' program has outpaced 
that of every other country on the face of the Earth and the majority 
of their $70-plus billion budget for that project has been spent not on 
intelligent power grids or traffic management systems or on clean air 
or clean water, but it is being spent on surveilling their own 
citizens.
  The greatest danger China has created by engaging in brash and at 
times absurd surveillance and suppression is that it has created a 
false sense of security here in the West when we don't see the evidence 
of what they are doing. In the United States we are not particularly 
vulnerable to their debt trap, but we are vulnerable to less obvious 
attempts to get that foot in the door.
  In some form or another, most Americans have allowed Big Tech to take 
hold of a portion of their lives. Smartphones and cloud storage once 
were very novel, but now we assume that even simple transactions come 
predicated by an additional condition. Everything is free as long as 
the app or the service has access to--guess what--your data. They want 
to own your virtual you.
  Popular apps like TikTok, whose parent company is based in China, 
have left me with more questions than answers about the platform's 
business practices, privacy protections, and ideological loyalty to the 
Communist

[[Page S7002]]

Party. Consider that the U.S. Army has barred soldiers from using 
TikTok. Everybody needs to understand this. The U.S. Army has said: You 
cannot use TikTok. This very body has expressed our concerns on a 
bipartisan basis with the platform's censorship and data handling 
practices.
  It is no wonder that TikTok's chief executive officer canceled this 
week's scheduled meetings here in DC with Members of this body. The 
fact that millions of Americans, especially our American children, 
continue to offer their personal data to TikTok is beyond disturbing, 
but we will not be able to roll back the creeping surveillance state 
without setting our own standards for what is acceptable from both 
foreign and domestic companies.
  When I introduced the BROWSER Act earlier this year, I did so not 
only to give Big Tech solid guidelines regarding data privacy and 
content but to set a new standard for what consumers expect from Big 
Tech. Our problem here in this country is pretty much one of awareness 
and of understanding that the exact same philosophy drives China's 
surveillance programs and their less obvious but much more personal 
individual monitoring schemes--their surveillance state scheme.
  China's Communist Party is after more than just ad revenue and more 
complete data sets. Their goal, as those Hong Kong protesters put it, 
is to trick other countries in becoming more like China, which is not 
tilting toward freedom but tilting away from freedom.
  My goal with the BROWSER Act and with my focus on what has become the 
surveillance state is to do the exact opposite--to enable freedom, to 
encourage freedom, not only here but around the globe--and to make 
certain that consumers here decide how much of their data they want to 
be able to share. We must make certain that we continue to support the 
cause of freedom wherever human beings show up to protect the freedoms 
they have.
  I yield the floor.


                     Recognition of Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                          Jersey City Shooting

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I learned yesterday that two of the 
innocent victims in the shooting in Jersey City earlier this week are 
from my hometown, my home borough, the great borough of Brooklyn--Moshe 
Deutsch and Mindy Ferencz--and that the kosher deli where they were all 
killed in all likelihood was targeted as part of a hate crime.
  This morning, I stand in solidarity with the Jewish communities of 
New Jersey and New York as they confront the anti-Semitic poison that 
motivated that horrible attack, and I stand in sorrow at the loss of 
innocent lives from my community. May their memory be a blessing.
  I also salute the great police officer, as well, who fell in the line 
of duty trying to apprehend these brutal thugs.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on impeachment, the House Judiciary 
Committee will continue today its markup of Articles of Impeachment 
against Donald Trump.
  The articles charge that President Trump abused the Office of the 
Presidency by soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our 
elections to benefit himself personally. The articles also charge him 
with obstruction of justice in the investigation into those matters.
  Those articles were drafted after a months-long investigation into 
the President's dealings with Ukraine, which included scores of fact 
witnesses and expert testimony. Throughout that time, and still today, 
the White House refuses to participate in the House process. It has 
blocked key witnesses. It has withheld relevant documents. It has 
instructed members of the administration to defy congressional 
subpoenas and not to testify. Those that did testify did so bravely 
against the wishes of the White House.
  What is the President hiding? What do these witnesses know? What do 
these documents show?
  Those are fair questions that every American could ask and, because 
neither the President nor Republican Congress Members have presented 
any refutation of the facts in the impeachment charges or any 
exculpatory evidence other than grand conspiracy theories, the American 
people have a right to say the President must be hiding something.
  If there are documents or witnesses the President believes could 
provide exculpatory evidence, nothing is stopping the witnesses from 
testifying and the documents from being sent over, except the President 
of the United States, who in all likelihood is afraid of what they show 
because they confirm and corroborate the lengthy factual basis that the 
House compiled to come up with the Articles of Impeachment. The fact 
that President Trump is blocking witnesses from testifying and blocking 
documents from release means that, more likely than not, those 
witnesses and documents do not and cannot refute the charges against 
the President.
  When someone who might be guilty of a crime says he doesn't want 
witnesses of the crime to come forward, what do you think that means?
  Why haven't the President and his allies presented exculpatory 
evidence--evidence that says this is not true? Why, instead, have they 
created these bobbles, these objects far away, saying: There is a 
conspiracy here. There is a conspiracy there.
  It is the old lawyer saying: When you have the facts, argue the 
facts. When you have the law, argue the law. When you have neither, 
pound the table.
  In this case, pounding the table means coming up with diversionary 
conspiratorial theories.
  House Republicans, rather than mount a vigorous defense of the 
President on the merits, have attacked the process. If House 
Republicans could focus on the merits, could find evidence that said: 
No, this is not true; that is not true; he did not try to influence 
Ukraine to help his campaign, they would have presented it.
  Why has no evidence been presented directly refuting the core of the 
charge against the President? Because there probably isn't any.
  In the Senate we have several Members who are swimming in the murky 
waters of conspiracy to divert attention from the fact that they don't 
have the facts and the law on their side. The only way they can defend 
the President's comments is to come up with crazy, out-of-line 
conspiracy theories that are not based on any evidence.
  Some Senate Republicans find it so difficult to argue the President's 
defense on the facts that they resort to fiction. For instance, in the 
past few weeks, certain Republicans have actually helped spread 
disinformation invented by Putin's intelligence services. He said that 
Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the election. No one believes it. 
There is no factual basis of it. Of course, Putin would say he wants to 
divert attention from Russia, but it is amazing that Senators would 
traffic in those theories, totally made up, not one bit of fact. It is 
a low moment for the Senate when their blind obeisance to President 
Trump overshadows any need to find truth and to defend rule of law. 
That is not what a democracy is about. That is the edges of 
dictatorship.

  Chairman Graham conducted an entire hearing yesterday to give public 
viewing to the now completely debunked conspiracy theory that the FBI 
investigation into the Trump campaign began with political motives. 
Inspector General Horowitz, to his credit, stuck to the findings in the 
report. He found no evidence of bias. So Senator Graham, as he tends to 
do these days, put on a big show, a lot of ranting, a lot of raving--no 
refutation of the fact of what the IG found.
  So it is just like Ukraine where certain Members are so unable to 
defend what the President did with Ukraine, they latch on to Russian 
propaganda, or they come up with these histrionics, again, to try to 
divert attention, a shiny object to take the American people's 
attention away from the wrongdoing that the House is accusing him of. 
In fact, the deputy counsel of the FBI actually said that the 
department ``would be derelict in its responsibility'' if it did not 
open an investigation into Trump. She is not a political person. She is 
a law enforcement officer.
  If you think President Trump is above the law, go right ahead, but 
that is not what George Washington or Benjamin Franklin or Thompson 
Jefferson

[[Page S7003]]

or Alexander Hamilton thought this Nation was about; that is not what 
generations of Americans who fought and died for our country thought it 
was about. We have reached a low moment in American history and a very 
low moment for the Republican Party now that it has been taken over by 
Donald Trump. This is not the Republican Party of the last 150 years.
  All of this is a backdrop to the impending trial of President Trump, 
where two lines of argument may be presented in a court of impeachment. 
One line of argument--accusations against the President--has relied on 
facts, public record, and the sworn testimony of dozens of officials 
with knowledge of the events. The other line of argument--the defense 
of the President--has so far relied on conspiracy, innuendo, 
hyperventilation about the process, with no refutation of the specific 
facts that the House has found.
  The American people will be savvy enough over the next several months 
to tell the difference.


                               Tax Reform

  Madam President, now, on taxes, this month marks 2 years since 
President Trump and the congressional Republicans passed a trillion-
dollar tax cut for large corporations and the richest Americans. 
Republicans make many promises to sell this legislation as a boom for 
jobs and middle class. They were outlandish at the time, and now, 
recent history has proven them even crazier. Two years later, these 
phony promises have not come close to living up to their billing.
  President Trump promised the tax bill would benefit middle-class 
America, creating a $4,000 raise for every American family. No way. Ask 
the average American family. The rich Americans will say yes. The top 1 
percent will say yes, but, of course, they received a tax cut 64 times 
the size of the one given to the middle class. President Trump and 
Republicans promised the bill would prompt businesses to increase 
investments into their companies, leading to job growth and higher 
wages. This, too, has proved a fantasy. Less than 5 percent of all 
workers in America were ultimately promised pay increases or bonuses as 
a result of the tax cut.
  Out of 5.9 million employers, only 413 announced bonuses to workers 
or wage hikes. Do you want to know where the lion's share of that 
Republican tax cut went? Shareholders, not workers. In the 2 years 
since the tax bill, the annual total of corporate stock buybacks have 
shattered records over $1 trillion in 2018.
  It is impossible to look at the last 2 years with a straight face and 
say that the Republican tax cut was designed or is helping middle-class 
families. If anything, the Republican tax bill exacerbated the already 
staggering inequalities of work and wealth in our country. We need to 
start moving the needle in a completely opposite direction. Next year, 
voters will have a chance to make that happen by voting for a change in 
the Senate leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Nomination of Lawrence VanDyke

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Republican majority leader was on 
the floor a little earlier, and he talked about the business of the 
Senate and how busy we are in the Senate. I would like to state for the 
record, so far in the calendar year 2019, on the floor of this U.S. 
Senate, where the greatest deliberative body meets and considers the 
lofty issues of our time, in the year 2019--currently this year--we 
have considered 22 amendments in the entire year--22 amendments.
  Madam President, six of them were offered by the junior Senator from 
Kentucky. One Senator had six amendments: Senator Rand Paul. They were 
all defeated. Then some 16 other amendments were offered.
  To put that into perspective, on a good day in the Senate, when the 
Senate was the Senate, there would be 10 amendments; bills would come 
to the floor; we would debate; amendments would be adopted. Some would 
lose. People would give speeches. We would pass legislation, send it 
over to the House, go to a conference. We don't do that anymore.
  Under Senator McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate, we do 
not do that anymore. There were 22 amendments in the course of the 
entire year. If we were paid for the actual piecework that we do, we 
would not get a paycheck this year because we haven't done anything.
  I will take that back. What we have done is to fill as many Federal 
court vacancies as possible with some of the most unqualified people 
ever offered by a President of the United States. This week, a man 
named VanDyke is being named to the court in Nevada. He has such a 
limited connection with Nevada that both Nevada Senators refuse to 
approve him for this court appointment. He has no connection to their 
State, but he was chosen by the White House.
  He went through a background check by the American Bar Association, 
and they concluded unanimously that he was unqualified to be a Federal 
judge--unqualified. He is not the first. Under this President, we have 
had nine different court nominees found unqualified by the American Bar 
Association. You say, Well, that is going to happen, lawyers disagree.
  Do you know how many were found unqualified under the Obama 
administration in 8 years? None, not one. There are nine unqualified 
men and women now with lifetime appointments on the Federal bench 
because, for Senator McConnell, that is his priority: Fill the bench 
with people of his political stripe at any cost.
  Take up legislation? No. The Democratically-controlled House of 
Representatives has sent us over 200 different measures to consider on 
the floor of the Senate. Senator McConnell has refused. He will not 
take up any legislation. He is very proud of it. To his credit, he is 
not ashamed or embarrassed. He says to call himself the Grim Reaper 
when it comes to measures coming over from the House. He is here to 
kill them, and he has done a pretty good job of that, if that is his 
goal in what he wants to achieve. When I hear him come to the floor and 
say we are not doing enough in the Senate--22 amendments in 1 year. I 
say to Senator McConnell, you have been in the Senate for a long time. 
You know that that number tells the whole story.


                  For-Profit Colleges and Universities

  Madam President, it is the holiday season, and many families are 
gathering at special meals, giving gifts, with a lot of fond memories, 
but instead of celebrating, hundreds of thousands of people across 
America who have been defrauded by for-profit colleges and universities 
are just trying to get by. There will not be many presents that they 
will be able to give or probably receive. They have been waiting day in 
and day out for one person to make a decision. Her name is Betsy DeVos. 
She is the Secretary of Education. She can provide them relief from 
their federal student loans that they desperately need, but she refuses 
to do it.
  After being lured with false promises, these people I am talking 
about ended up in programs at for-profit colleges and universities. Who 
were the for-profits? See if these names ring a bell: Corinthian, ITT 
Tech, Westwood, DeVry, University of Phoenix, Dream Center. These are 
for-profit colleges and universities, and these student borrowers were 
left with mountains of debt, worthless credits, and diplomas that 
employers laugh at when it was all said and done. Now, Secretary DeVos 
refuses to provide these students with relief from their student loan 
debt to which they are entitled under the borrower defense provision of 
the Higher Education Act.
  Take Rachel from Missouri who attended Corinthian's Everest College. 
She says, ``I am not able to buy my children clothes or shoes.''
  Pamela from South Carolina owes $140,000 after attending the corrupt 
ITT Tech for-profit school. Here is what she says: ``I have an autistic 
daughter that depends on me, and I can't afford to get a decent place 
to live or buy the things she needs.'' Is that any surprise with 
$140,000 in debt from one of these corrupt for-profit colleges?
  Jennifer, who attended the Illinois Institute of Art--not to be mixed 
up

[[Page S7004]]

with the Illinois Art Institute, a reputable institution--but the 
Illinois Institute of Art where she attended, she owes $67,800 in 
Federal student loans, and she says, ``The stress and anxiety of 
working 3 jobs to make a living to pay off these loans, feed my kids, 
and keep a roof over my head, is exhausting.''
  For borrowers like Rachel, Pamela, and Jennifer, Secretary DeVos 
might as well be Secretary Scrooge this holiday season. She continues 
to deny them a fresh start. She continues to refuse to apply the 
borrowed defense provision which would allow the discharge of their 
federal student debt. More than 200,000 borrowers find themselves in 
similar positions, while Secretary DeVos lets claims back up at the 
Department. She has failed to approve a single claim in more than a 
year, not one for all these hundreds of thousands of students facing 
this fraudulent debt.
  Why we should give them a break? Why should they have any forgiveness 
for student debt? Let me tell you why. It is because it starts with the 
U.S. Federal Government Department of Education recognizing the 
accreditation of these institutions--these worthless institutions. That 
accreditation says to students applying there: This is a real college.
  Well, it turns out that they weren't real colleges and universities. 
But they were real when it came to costs. Some of the most expensive 
places to attend higher education in America are these for-profit 
colleges and universities.
  What kind of record do they have? Well, consider this: just nine 
percent of all postsecondary students in America go to these for-profit 
colleges and universities--nine percent. This will be on the final, for 
the students who are listening. Nine percent go to for-profit colleges 
and universities. Thirty-three percent of all the federal student loan 
defaults are from students at for-profit colleges and universities. 
What does that tell you? Well, if I go to one of these schools, I am 
going to rack up a lot of debt. Maybe I will not be able to find a job; 
maybe I will not even be able to finish school; and then I learn my 
credits aren't even transferable from a for-profit school to a real 
college or university.
  It all started with the U.S. Federal Government recognizing the 
accreditation of these schools, saying ``These are real schools,'' with 
the students depending on that accreditation. Then they backed it up, 
saying: Oh, incidentally, you can borrow money from the Federal 
Government to go to these real schools. Then, when these schools went 
bankrupt, when they defrauded everyone in sight, when they were sued by 
the State attorneys general and other federal agencies, when it turned 
out they were big frauds and the students saw the schools crumble in 
front of them, the students ended up with the debt.
  We say, under the law, that the Federal Government has some 
responsibility. We should have done a better job of overseeing these 
schools.
  That isn't the way Secretary DeVos sees it. As far as she is 
concerned, these kids are on their own. They are not kids anymore. They 
have been hanging on to their student debt for so long, they don't know 
which way to turn.
  Despite Secretary DeVos's excuses, the reality is that nothing is 
legally preventing her from providing borrower defense discharges to 
these students for the loans they took out at these for-profit colleges 
and universities. She could do it tomorrow. She could clear the backlog 
quickly, if she wanted to.
  We know using her legal authority to provide relief to defrauded 
borrowers gives her ``extreme displeasure''. We know that because she 
wrote that in an order she issued for the Department. She was extremely 
displeased to discharge the student loans of these students who had 
been defrauded by for-profit schools.
  Well, I am not surprised. She surrounded herself at the Department of 
Education with people from that industry who believe that the industry 
has done no wrong. We know better.
  We also know from her previous statements that Secretary DeVos thinks 
many borrowers got some value from their experience, even though they 
were defrauded into massive debt. She thinks these borrowers are just 
after ``free money,'' and they don't deserve a full discharge.
  Yesterday, National Public Radio released a series of internal 
Department memos showing that the facts don't back up Secretary DeVos's 
claims.
  Back in 2017, the Department staff concluded that ``the value of an 
ITT [Tech] education--like Corinthian--is likely either negligible or 
nonexistent.''
  This was a school whose accreditation was recognized by our Federal 
Government, Secretary DeVos, and it has turned out to be worthless. The 
memo went on to conclude, ``Accordingly, it is appropriate, for the 
Department to award eligible borrowers full relief.'' I agree. It is 
reasonable for the Department of Education to try to make amends for 
this miserable failure of oversight of these schools and to give these 
student borrowers a chance.
  Nonetheless, this week, Secretary DeVos announced a new scheme to use 
something called gainful employment earnings data to deny defrauded 
student borrowers full discharges. Remember, that the gainful 
employment rule was meant to ensure that programs were actually 
preparing students for jobs after graduation. But Secretary DeVos 
delayed and then eliminated the rule. Now, instead of using gainful 
employment data to hold poor-performing programs accountable, she wants 
to use it to punish defrauded student borrowers. She has already tried 
it once, only to be told by a Federal judge that what she did was 
illegal.
  While it is unclear if this slightly tweaked version of the scheme 
will pass legal muster, the result for the borrowers would be the same: 
ultimate denial in terms of full relief from their student loans from 
miserable for-profit schools.
  Not only is Secretary DeVos delaying and denying relief for 
previously defrauded borrowers, she is rewriting the rules to make it 
almost impossible for future defrauded borrowers to get relief. She 
continues to recognize the accreditation of these unworthy 
institutions. She continues to say to the United States and the world: 
These are perfectly good schools. Then, when it turns out they are 
perfectly awful, she wants to accept no responsibility.
  She released a new version of the borrower defense rule just a few 
months ago that places unreasonable burdens on borrowers, way beyond 
their capacity to detect the fraud being perpetrated at the time. The 
net result is this: According to The Institute for College Access and 
Success, the new DeVos rule will cancel just 3 percent of all loans 
associated with misconduct. She is going to cancel 3 percent.
  In September, I introduced a resolution in the Senate to overturn the 
DeVos borrower defense rule. Forty-two of my colleagues have joined me. 
I plan to bring it to a vote on the Senate floor, where it needs a 
simple majority to pass.
  Just this week, 57 student, veteran, and consumer organizations 
released a letter supporting the resolution. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 December 9, 2019.
     Senator Dick Durbin,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Susie Lee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin and Representative Lee: As 57 
     organizations representing and advocating for students, 
     families, taxpayers, veterans and service members, faculty 
     and staff, civil rights and consumers, we write in support of 
     your efforts to disapprove the 2019 Borrower Defense to 
     Repayment rule pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
       The purpose of the borrower defense rule as defined by the 
     Higher Education Act is to protect students and taxpayers 
     from fraud, deception, and other illegal misconduct by 
     unscrupulous colleges. A well-designed rule will both provide 
     relief to students who have been lied to and cheated, and 
     deter illegal conduct by colleges.
       However, the final rule issued by the Department of 
     Education on September 23, 2019, would accomplish neither of 
     these goals. An analysis of the Department's own calculations 
     estimates that only 3 percent of the loans that result from 
     school misconduct would be cancelled under the new rule. 
     Schools would be held accountable for reimbursing taxpayers 
     for just 1 percent of these loans.
       The DeVos Borrower Defense rule issued in September imposes 
     unreasonable time limits on student borrowers who have been 
     deceived and misled by their schools. It requires applicants 
     to meet thresholds that make it almost impossible for wronged 
     borrowers to obtain loan cancellation.

[[Page S7005]]

       The rule eliminates the ability of groups of borrowers to 
     be granted relief, even in cases where there is substantial 
     compelling evidence of widespread wrongdoing. It prohibits 
     the filing of claims after three years even when evidence of 
     wrongdoing emerges at a later date. It requires borrowers to 
     prove schools intended to deceive them or acted recklessly, 
     although students have no ability to access evidence that 
     might show this intent. And the rule stipulates that student 
     loans taken by students under false pretenses are 
     insufficient evidence of financial harm to allow the loans to 
     be cancelled.
       Additionally, the 2019 rule eliminates the promise of 
     automatic loan relief to eligible students whose school 
     closed before they could graduate. Instead, the Department 
     would force each eligible student impacted by a school 
     closure to individually find out about their statutory right 
     to relief, apply, and navigate the government's bureaucracy 
     to have their loans cancelled.
       Many of us wrote to the Department in August 2018 in 
     response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and offered 
     carefully considered recommendations. However, the Department 
     rejected our recommendations that would have provided a fair 
     process that protects students and taxpayer dollars. Instead, 
     the new rule would do little to provide relief to students 
     who have been lied to, and even less to dissuade colleges 
     from systematically engaging in deceptive and illegal 
     recruitment tactics. Moreover, a borrower defense rule that 
     fails to adequately protect students harms the most 
     vulnerable students, including first-generation college 
     students, Black and Latino students, and military-connected 
     students, who are targeted by and disproportionately enroll 
     in predatory for-profit colleges.
       Meanwhile, the Department refuses to take action on a 
     massive backlog of over 200,000 pending borrower defense 
     claims, having failed to approve or deny a single claim in 
     over a year. We fully support your effort to repeal the 2019 
     borrower defense rule, and look forward to restoration of the 
     2016 rule, which took major steps to provide a path to loan 
     forgiveness for the hundreds of thousands of students who 
     attended schools where misconduct has already been well 
     documented.
           Signed,
       AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Allied Progress, American Association of 
     University Professors, American Federation of Teachers, 
     Americans for Financial Reform, Association of Young 
     Americans (AYA), Campaign for America's Future, Center for 
     Public Interest Law, Center for Responsible Lending, 
     Children's Advocacy Institute, CLASP, Clearinghouse on 
     Women's Issues, Consumer Action, Consumer Advocacy and 
     Protection Society (CAPS) at Berkeley Law.
       Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Federation of 
     California, Demos, Duke Consumer Rights Project, East Bay 
     Community Law Center, Economic Mobility Pathways (EMPath), 
     The Education Trust, Empire Justice Center, Feminist Majority 
     Foundation, Government Accountability Project, Higher 
     Education Loan Coalition (HELC), Hildreth Institute, Housing 
     and Economic Rights Advocates, The Institute for College 
     Access & Success (TICAS), Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition.
       NAACP, National Association for College Admission 
     Counseling, National Association of Consumer Advocates, 
     National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys 
     (NACBA), National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-
     income clients), National Education Association, National 
     Urban League, New America Higher Education Program, New 
     Jersey Citizen Action, One Wisconsin Now, PHENOM (Public 
     Higher Education Network of Massachusetts), Project on 
     Predatory Student Lending, Public Citizen, Public Counsel, 
     Public Good Law Center.
       Public Law Center, Service Employees International Union 
     (SEIU), Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), 
     Student Debt Crisis, Student Defense, Student Veterans of 
     America, Third Way, U.S. Public Interest Research Group 
     (PIRG), UnidosUS, Veterans Education Success, Veterans for 
     Common Sense, Young Invincibles.

  Mr. DURBIN. Among the organizations supporting the resolution are the 
American Federation of Teachers, the Center for Responsible Lending, 
the Consumer Federation of America, the Education Trust, the National 
Association of College Admission Counseling, the NAACP, the National 
Education Association, the Student Veterans of America, and the 
American Legion on behalf of American veterans who have been victims of 
this fraud as well.
  When our resolution comes to the floor, I hope a handful of my 
Republican colleagues will take a look at it and realize that we have 
to give these students a second chance at their lives. We misled them 
into attending for-profit schools that were worthless. The schools 
defrauded them. They ended up with a debt to our government, and under 
the provisions of the Higher Education Act, that debt can be forgiven. 
Let's give these defrauded student borrowers a second chance. 
Ultimately, they deserve an opportunity from our government to have a 
better holiday coming before them and a better life ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from Ohio.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor several 
times over the past year to talk about the importance of passing the 
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. This is the successor agreement to the 
25-year-old NAFTA accord.
  Yes, it has been a year; in fact, it has been over a year since that 
agreement was negotiated between Canada and Mexico, and then Congress 
was meant to take it up. It has been too long.
  However, I am happy to report today that now we are at the end of 
that long process. I am told that the legislation is actually going to 
be voted on in the House of Representatives probably next week and then 
here in the U.S. Senate right after the holidays.
  We will have a chance, finally, to pass this agreement that is so 
good for the farmers, for the workers, for the manufacturers, and for 
the small businesses that I represent.
  I am really pleased that the President of the United States and his 
chief trade negotiator, Bob Lighthizer, had the persistence to get this 
done. I am not sure I would have had the same patience.
  I also want to congratulate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for making the 
decision to move forward with it. This is one of these situations in 
which, under our law, the agreement has to be voted on first by the 
House. So the Speaker of the House had an unusual role here, where it 
couldn't go forward without her approval. Again, finally, we are there.
  The agreement, which was negotiated over a year ago and languished--
specific language was sent up here in May of last year--is pretty much 
the same. About 99 percent of it is the same agreement. It is a good 
agreement because it opens up more markets for us. What has changed is 
there are new provisions, different provisions, as it relates to 
enforcing the labor standards that are already in the agreement.
  In the agreement, what Mexico and Canada were asked to do, in 
addition to the United States, in terms of higher labor standards, was 
negotiated over a year ago, but what has happened over, really, the 
past several months is now there is a mechanism to enforce it that is a 
little different.
  I think it will make it easier to enforce potential violations of the 
agreement we have reached, particularly with regard to Mexico. It 
doesn't really come back against the United States at all. We can 
explain this in more detail as we see the exact language that is coming 
up in the next couple of days.
  The bottom line is, for a U.S. company, the labor standards that are 
established are the ones we already have in our law. For Mexico or 
Canada to file an objection to us potentially not following that 
agreement is simply after there has been a U.S. law processed, which 
would involve the National Labor Relations Board and our existing law, 
so it really shouldn't affect us at all.
  By the way, Secretary Scalia, who is the Secretary of Labor, was very 
involved in ensuring that it wouldn't come back on U.S. companies, on 
U.S. workers, and on our economy.
  At the end of the day, although it took way too long to get there, we 
have ended up with a very good result--an agreement that does expand 
trade, and that is the whole idea.
  We have talked a lot on the floor as to why this is so important. I 
will tell you, in my home State of Ohio, we send more than half of our 
exports to two countries, Canada and Mexico. By far, the No. 1 trading 
partner is Mexico, and No. 2 is Canada.
  This is really important because these jobs are really important. It 
is about $28 billion a year. These are jobs that pay higher wages and 
better benefits--export jobs. For our farmers, this is really 
important. For manufacturers and workers, it is really important 
because this lets them be able to do what we do best, which is 
efficiently and productively make things and produce things that could 
be sold to other markets.
  Remember, in America, we are only about 5 percent of the global 
economy--five percent of the people--so our

[[Page S7006]]

population is only about 5 percent, but we are about 25 percent of the 
GDP of the world. We are a relatively small country by population, but 
we have this big economy. To access that 95 percent of consumers 
outside of America to sell our products is absolutely essential to our 
prosperity here, to our jobs here.
  As I mentioned earlier, those export jobs tend to be better jobs and 
higher paying jobs with better benefits.
  What does this agreement do? First of all, it creates a bunch of new 
jobs. This chart has 176,000-plus new jobs. That is because the 
International Trade Commission--which is the independent body that 
analyzes these things--gave us a range. The GDP increased. It increased 
our economy. The number of jobs is huge, by the way--greater than any 
other trade agreement we have entered into, greater on the economic 
growth side than the Trans-Pacific Partnership that many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle thought was something we 
should have entered into and was so important. This is even bigger.
  Obviously, it is so big because Canada and Mexico are such big 
trading partners with us. So even relatively small changes to open up 
new markets have a big impact. These are going to be welcome jobs and, 
again, higher paying jobs.
  Second, it really helps us with regard to online sales. One of our 
advantages as a country is we do a lot of commerce over the internet. 
When the original NAFTA agreement was written and was currently 
enforced--the status quo--there really were not any significant online 
sales--virtually none. So there were no provisions in there. Every 
modern trade agreement has provisions for online sales or for sales 
over the internet. Now we have them with regard to Mexico and Canada, 
which we would not have had under the old NAFTA. So that is a big 
improvement. For Ohio, that is a lot of small companies because 
entrepreneurs--some of these new startups are online companies--really 
like these provisions.
  By the way, it says a number of things. It says you can't require 
localization of data. In other words, Canada and Mexico can't say: Hey, 
you have to have your servers in our country if you are going to do 
business with us. That is really important to our American online 
industry.
  Second, it says that you can't put tariffs on data online. Again, it 
is very important to establish that, not just for Canada and Mexico but 
as a precedent for other trade agreements going forward.
  Third, it actually raises the de minimis level. In other words, to 
apply customs duties on stuff going to Canada and Mexico, they have a 
very low level. We have a relatively high level here. That level has 
increased for Canada and Mexico. That is an administrative burden that 
is lifted off of a lot of these small businesses but also a costsaver 
because they don't have to pay customs duty on a relatively small 
product that goes to another country.
  These are all good things for American jobs. Again, we have a 
comparative advantage here because we do a lot of online sales.
  Third is more U.S.-made steel and auto parts. This is really 
important to Ohio but also to our country. Manufacturing is now finally 
on the upswing. Manufacturing jobs are actually increasing in this 
country for the first time in years, and we are getting back on our 
feet in terms of what has always made America great, which is that we 
produce things; we make things. So this agreement helps.
  It says, as an example, that 70 percent of the steel that goes into 
automobiles--and the automobile industry is a big deal for Canada and 
Mexico and the United States--has to be from North America. That helps 
U.S. steel mills and steel mills in Ohio, as opposed to steel coming in 
from China, for example, from Brazil, and from other countries.
  Second, it changes the rules of origin--how much stuff can go into an 
automobile that comes from other countries. It is 62\1/2\ percent now, 
and it would take it up to 75 percent in this agreement. That is the 
highest level of any agreement we have with anybody.
  Why is that important? Well, think about it. We have agreed with 
Canada and Mexico that we are going to have this agreement that lowers 
the tariffs in all these countries and lowers the trade barriers 
generally. In other words, it gives them an advantage in our market. We 
get an advantage in their market. That is the idea. If you don't have a 
rule of origin where you say stuff can't come in from other countries 
and take advantage of that, then you have basically free riders.
  As an example, China can send a bunch of their auto parts to Mexico 
and produce a car that is a Mexican car that therefore gets the benefit 
of the NAFTA agreement. China has not opened its market at all; it has 
only provided this product to Mexico. But then the product gets the 
advantage of the lower tariffs and lower trade barriers generally. That 
is not fair. Raising it from 62\1/2\ percent to 75 percent is really 
significant. Again, it is the highest number of any trade agreement we 
have, and it avoids this problem.
  Some of us say: Gee, that sounds protectionist. I don't think it is. 
I think what it says to China, Japan, Brazil, or other countries is 
that if you want to get the advantage of the U.S. market that Canada 
and Mexico are getting and that we get reciprocally from them, then 
enter into a trade agreement with us.
  Let's have more trade agreements. Let's lower the barriers for 
everybody. That actually will expand trade. But we ought not to allow 
them to do it without that. This is a big deal.
  It also is true that in this agreement, there is something 
unprecedented with regard to leveling the playing field. Remember, a 
basic concept of our trade laws is that you want to have a balanced 
trade law where you have imports and exports because that makes sense--
keeps consumer prices down and allows us to have good jobs here--but 
you want it to be reciprocal and balanced. You don't want to have a 
situation where a country, because of its low wage rates and lack of 
labor standards or lack of environmental standards, where it is 
polluting a lot, can take advantage by having lower cost goods coming 
into America.
  In this agreement, we do say that there is a minimum wage for between 
40 and 45 percent of the auto production. It is $16 an hour. That will 
end up benefiting us because wages are relatively higher in America and 
Canada than they are in Mexico. That will be good for auto jobs here 
and help to level the playing field. This is why you might have seen 
that some of the labor unions are supporting this agreement and some of 
the U.S. manufacturers are supporting this agreement. They have a lot 
of facilities here in America, and they like that part of it as well.
  There are new markets for farmers. I mean, this is kind of a no-
brainer that has made it, for me, frustrating over the last year 
because we haven't been able to move forward on this agreement while 
farmers have really been suffering because of a few different things.
  One is weather. We have had some lousy weather, particularly in my 
State and across the Midwest, where it is too wet to plant and too dry 
for the crops to grow properly for a harvest, and that has hit us hard. 
We couldn't plant in Ohio in a number of cases this last year because 
of the weather being too wet, and so farmers have been hit by that.
  The second is that prices have been relatively low--not just recently 
but really over the last several years for different commodities such 
as corn, soybeans, and wheat. Part of that is because of the global 
markets.
  Part of it is because of the third issue, which is China. Because of 
our ongoing negotiation with China and disputes with China over what 
they are doing on intellectual property, stealing our technology, and 
other issues, they have bought less of our farm products. For Ohio, as 
an example, our No. 1 market overseas for soybeans is China, and one 
out of every three acres planted in Ohio is planted for export. Think 
about how that affects your prices if you lose that big market share 
and that big customer.
  I am pleased to say that we seem to be making some progress with 
China right now, incidentally, as an aside. It is great to have this 
agreement done. The next agreement I hope we get done is with China and 
get them to play by the rules and open those markets more. This week, 
they started to buy more soybeans, and that is good.
  In the meantime, our farmers are desperate for more markets, and in 
this

[[Page S7007]]

agreement, that is exactly what they get. So if you are an Ohio 
farmer--and we are No. 2 in the country on eggs--you can now have 
access to these markets in Canada and Mexico, on eggs, that you never 
had before.
  On dairy, Canada in particular has some very protectionist provisions 
in place with regard to dairy products--think milk and cheese.
  If you are an Ohio dairy farmer, you can sell stuff into Canada you 
couldn't sell before--also pork, beef, wheat, and other products. This 
is good for our farmers. This is why over 1,000 farm groups around the 
country have supported this agreement. I mean, I don't know a farm 
group in Ohio that doesn't support it strongly. Again, part of it is 
that this is a great agreement for them, and part of it is that they 
are hurting, and this gives them some light at the end of the tunnel, 
an opportunity to see new markets and therefore see some prices 
increase in our ag community.
  This is a good agreement that is good for jobs, good for small 
business, as we talked about, good for farmers, good for workers, and 
good for our economy. It is important that we get it done. I am glad 
the House is going to go ahead and vote on it in the next week. I wish 
we could vote here in the Senate right away, too, but under the process 
called trade promotion authority, we do have some processes we need to 
go through. It is probably best to have it happen after the holidays. 
Right after the holidays, my hope is that here on the floor of the 
Senate, Members will look at this for what it is. This is not a 
Democratic or a Republican victory; this is an American victory.
  Again, I appreciate the efforts of President Donald Trump because he 
was persistent and tough on the negotiations, and then he was 
persistent and patient in working with the U.S. Congress. There were a 
lot of people saying: Go ahead and send the agreement up and try to jam 
the Democrats into doing the right thing. He didn't do that. He waited 
to figure out a way to come up with an agreement, particularly on the 
labor enforcement provisions we talked about, and as a result, we now 
have the ability on a bipartisan basis to get this done. I hope the 
vote in the House will reflect that; likewise, here in the Senate.
  I know there are some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who 
think this agreement is not perfect. No agreement is perfect; I will 
just say that. I am a former U.S. Trade Representative. I am a former 
trade lawyer. I am a former member of the Ways and Means Committee, 
which is the trade committee over there. I am now on the trade 
committee here, the Finance Committee. No agreement is ever perfect. It 
is not the agreement exactly that you would write or I would write, 
but, boy, this is a good agreement.
  To make perfect the enemy of the good would hurt the farmers and the 
workers and the small businesses that we represent that want this 
agreement badly because they know it is going to help them.
  The other thing I would say is that it also helps our relationships 
with our two biggest trading partners in Ohio, Canada and Mexico, and 
also our neighbors.
  For North America's future, this is a good idea--to have the 
certainty and predictability that comes with an agreement we have all 
been able to coalesce around and improve the status quo. NAFTA was 
negotiated 25 years ago. A lot has happened in the last 25 years. We 
talked about how the digital economy has transformed our economy, and 
we have a competitive and comparative advantage in that. That is one 
small example. So many things have changed.
  We have better protections for intellectual property in this 
agreement, as an example. We have these new trade-opening opportunities 
in agriculture. We have these opportunities in manufacturing to do more 
here in North America and specifically in the United States.
  A vote against this new agreement is a vote for NAFTA, which is this 
25-year-old agreement that has these flaws because that is the status 
quo. My hope is that the next time I come to this floor to talk about 
this, it will be to ask my colleagues in short order to support a vote, 
that it will have come out of the Finance Committee with a strong 
bipartisan vote, that it will have come to the floor with a strong vote 
from the House, and that we can get this done. Then President Trump can 
sign it, and the people we represent will be better off, our community 
of nations here in North America will be better off, and the United 
States of America will have another victory.
  I yield back.
  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. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Appropriations

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor this morning to 
address what has been an alarming and inaccurate information campaign 
that is being spread about the international family planning amendment 
included in this year's State and Foreign Operations appropriations 
bill.
  I would note that while this amendment is referred to as the 
``Shaheen amendment'' in alarmist and inaccurate blog posts, it is 
actually bipartisan language that was agreed to by both the 
subcommittee and full committee chairs of the Appropriations Committee 
and ultimately approved unanimously by Republicans and Democrats in the 
committee. Yet articles and op-eds online have condemned the amendment 
as pro-abortion. I was surprised to hear this given that, despite my 
objections, the amendment does not address the Mexico City policy--or 
the global gag rule, as it is known--abortion services, or information. 
In fact, this is the first time in 18 years--I am going to say that 
again. It is the first time in 18 years that members of the 
Appropriations Committee were prevented from offering a bipartisan 
amendment that would strip the bill of the Mexico City provision.
  Instead of allowing the established committee process to amend the 
SFOPs bill with this provision, the entire bill was pulled from 
consideration. In response to that, in an effort to ensure the bill 
wasn't endangered, I worked with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine 
and Senator Murkowski of Alaska and with Republican leadership to limit 
the scope of the amendment so we could allow the appropriations bill to 
go forward.
  It is false--absolutely, positively false--to say this amendment 
funds abortions abroad. In fact, it is wrong to say, and inaccurate to 
say, that any U.S. assistance goes to funding abortions at home or 
abroad. In compliance with U.S. law, family planning funding does not 
and never has gone to abortion services. I hope everyone is clear about 
that. Under our law, family planning funding does not go to support 
abortion services.
  Now that I have outlined what this amendment does not do, let me 
discuss what it does do. It provides an increase of $57.5 million for a 
total of $632.5 million for existing international family planning 
accounts. This money funds programs and services that provide modern 
contraceptives, which 214 million women around the world who want to 
avoid pregnancy are not able to access.
  Again, I don't know when the debate around abortion came to include 
contraceptives and family planning. It also would allow for the healthy 
timing and spacing of births, which is very important to the health of 
infants and it is important to the health of women to be able to space 
the births of their children to recover between births. It provides 
education information and counseling about family planning issues. It 
ensures access to antenatal and postnatal care for a healthy mother and 
baby. It provides for HPV vaccination and prevention, something very 
important to the health of children.
  These are a few of the critical services the assistance provides. The 
impact of these services is very real.
  According to the Guttmacher Institute, with each additional $10 
million the U.S. dedicates to family planning and reproductive health 
programs, 400,000 more women and couples receive contraceptives 
services and supplies. With the $57.5 million increase provided for in 
this amendment, more than 2.2 million women and couples

[[Page S7008]]

will have that access. That will result in 654,500 fewer unintended 
pregnancies, 291,500 fewer unplanned births, 280,500 fewer induced 
abortions. If you care about abortion and you don't believe that is the 
right alternative, then you should support family planning because that 
gives families and couples an option to ensure they can have the 
children they want, and it would provide for 1,320 fewer deaths of 
women.
  While these numbers are stark, the transformative effect of simply 
having access to family planning information and services on the lives 
of women and their families should not be underestimated.
  The most vulnerable women who are reached by family planning programs 
report that learning about family planning options, receiving services 
to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and ensuring that wanted pregnancies 
are healthy and happy so the babies they want to have are healthy and 
happy gives them some control over their lives. Many women are making 
healthcare choices for themselves and their families for the very first 
time with help from these programs.
  These critical programs change lives, and our partners who implement 
these programs are indispensable. In October, USAID Administrator Mark 
Green said he could not ``imagine an effective development Agency that 
doesn't partner with the community of faith.'' Luckily, he doesn't have 
to. For those people who were worried that family planning programs are 
not going to be implemented by our faith community, that is just wrong.
  The family planning account goes to a range of program implementers, 
including healthcare providers, international NGOs, and faith-based 
organizations alike. All of these organizations have the goal of saving 
women's lives and saving the lives of their children. They need more 
resources, not fewer, to do this work.
  What else does the international family planning amendment do? It 
includes an additional $33 million to USAID's family planning account 
for money that is rerouted away from the U.N. Population Fund.
  Again, unlike what the blogs are mistakenly saying, this is not money 
that currently goes to UNFPA's lifesaving operations. Instead, it will 
be redirected back into the family planning account and contribute to 
the programs I just outlined.
  Third, the amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to 
produce a report that evaluates the efficacy of family planning 
programs and their structure. Again, this was another bipartisan effort 
with my Republican colleagues to ensure that our U.S. dollars are most 
effective and they contribute to programs and services that are most 
effective. Again, if you have a concern about how family planning 
dollars are being spent, then you should support this amendment because 
it is going to give us data and information to show what is effective 
and what isn't.
  Finally, the amendment includes language to reaffirm an existing 
nondiscrimination policy within USAID. This is an existing 
nondiscrimination policy. This is not a new policy. That policy within 
USAID ensures the services funded by these accounts reach all segments 
of the population.
  As I said, this is not a new policy. The anti-discrimination policy 
has existed for several years, and it is not targeted toward faith-
based organizations, despite what some of the blogs mistakenly are 
putting out there. In fact, the complaints I have heard in my office 
about single women being rejected for services didn't touch on work 
that faith-based organizations are doing.
  I hope all of our colleagues in the Senate will not allow 
misinformation about the family planning dollars that are in the State 
and Foreign Operations bill to dismantle what has been a very important 
bipartisan achievement. Its impact is too great and its programs are 
too important to let them be killed by a campaign to try and mislead 
people about what is in the amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                     NOMINATION OF AURELIA SKIPWITH

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to share with the Senate my reasons 
for opposing the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to serve as the 
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Let me begin by saying that I am disappointed to find myself in this 
position. When I had the privilege of serving as Governor of Delaware, 
I was able to assemble my own leadership team, so I appreciate how 
important it is that people in executive positions, including 
Presidents, have that same ability.
  However, in article II of the Constitution, our Founders set up a 
system in which the President would nominate individuals to the top 
posts in our government and Senators would provide ``advice and 
consent'' on those nominees.
  In order for the Senate to fulfill that constitutional role, those 
nominated individuals must cooperate with the confirmation process. 
And, unfortunately, Ms. Skipwith has not provided information requested 
by the Democrats during the nomination process.
  Despite my repeated requests for the nominee to be more forthcoming--
requests made twice in writing and twice in person. during her 
nomination process--Ms. Skipwith has refused. Instead, she has given me 
the impression that she does not take this confirmation process 
seriously.
  Her lack of candor has elevated questions that already existed about 
her qualifications, her commitment to environmental conservation and 
whether she can ethically lead the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Therefore, I cannot support this nomination.
  Ms. Skipwith first joined the Trump administration in April 2017. 
when she was appointed as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Fish and 
Wildlife and Parks, a non-Senate-confirmed political appointment at the 
Department of the Interior.
  During her tenure there, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed and 
finalized controversial regulations that drastically altered 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
  The Service has also issued a legal opinion that changes the way the 
Department of the Interior enforces the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 
Former senior Interior officials from every administration since the 
early 1970s, both Republican and Democrat, have strongly opposed this 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act legal opinion. At her confirmation hearing, 
Ms. Skipwith vehemently defended it.
  Prior to her controversial tenure at the Interior Department, Ms. 
Skipwith had no previous work experience related to conservation or 
wildlife management--none.
  By contrast, the 16 individuals who previously served as Fish and 
Wildlife Service Directors for both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents had an estimated average of 12 years of experience at the 
Fish and Wildlife Service before taking on the Director role. They also 
have an estimated average of more than 22 years of professional 
experience in fields related to wildlife or fisheries management.
  Ms. Skipwith has also not seemed to make up for her lack of previous 
experience while on the job. At her confirmation hearing, when asked to 
name the conservation scientist who had most influenced her career and 
her approach to wildlife and fisheries management, Ms. Skipwith 
struggled to name any conservation scientist. Ultimately, she named a 
former Monsanto vice president with whom she used to work, but she 
misremembered his name.
  This was not an insignificant misstep. To me, it was revealing. Ms. 
Skipwith's response to my simple question represented a clear lack of 
familiarity with the basics of wildlife management, a troubling quality 
for a Fish and Wildlife Director nominee.
  By contrast, Ms. Skipwith does have significant experience in the 
agribusiness industry. Before joining the Trump administration, she 
worked for Monsanto, one of the world's largest agrochemical firms. 
Monsanto regularly has business interests before the Interior 
Department. She also worked for Alltech, a Kentucky-based agricultural 
products company.
  She also co-founded AVC Global, an agribusiness-technology start up, 
and was employed by Gage International, a Washington, DC, based 
lobbying firm founded by her fiance.
  That is why even before her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. 
Skipwith some basic questions about how these companies operate and

[[Page S7009]]

whether Ms. Skipwith has recused herself from working on those issues. 
Unfortunately, Ms. Skipwith has refused to answer those questions.
  She has repeatedly refused to provide her calendars with the 
appointments she has had as a Department of the Interior official. This 
information could be made available to any member of the public under 
the Freedom of Information Act, but she has refused to provide it to me 
for months within the confirmation process.
  This information is important because Ms. Skipwith's former employer, 
Gage International, has represented water utilities that have lobbied 
Congress to weaken Western water policy and the Endangered Species Act.
  Unanswered questions also remain about Ms. Skipwith's role in the 
development of a controversial repeal of an existing ban on using 
pesticides that have been shown to harm birds and bees in national 
wildlife refuges. And one of the largest producers of these pesticides 
is Monsanto, another one of Ms. Skipwith's former employers.
  Yet when Senator Gillibrand asked Ms. Skipwith about her role in the 
ban's repeal, Ms. Skipwith defended the reversal but denied any role in 
the decision. This answer does not appear to be consistent with some of 
the email records that have been obtained under Freedom of Information 
Act, which show that she expressed interest in the matter and received 
materials on the issue from career staff.
  If Ms. Skipwith was indeed involved with the decision to reverse the 
pesticides ban, it would constitute a violation of the ethics pledge 
she signed when she joined the Department. An examination of Ms. 
Skipwith's calendar entries could clear up these outstanding questions, 
but her lack of cooperation makes that impossible.
  This lack of being forthcoming is troubling, not only because it 
undermines the Senate's advice and consent role for Presidential 
nominees, but it also because it demonstrates the nominee's may not be 
cooperative when it comes to congressional oversight.
  I have found that, when a nominee is unwilling to provide information 
as part of their confirmation process, they almost always prove to be 
even more defiant to congressional oversight requests after they are 
confirmed.
  I urge my colleagues. especially my Republican colleagues, to take 
this matter seriously. In fact, I would urge my Republican colleagues 
to remember these words spoken by my friend, former Congressman Trey 
Gowdy of South Carolina.
  In June 2012, during the House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee contempt proceedings against Attorney General Holder, then 
Congressman Gowdy said: ``The notion that you can withhold information 
and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in 
power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean 
something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.''
  Eventually, whether it is in 1 year or in 4 years or in 8, we will 
eventually have another Democratic administration. And when that time 
comes, Republicans in Congress will want officials in that Democratic 
administration to answer questions and respond to congressional 
oversight requests.
  I fear that my Senate colleagues will find the process completely 
broken by then if we continue undermining our duty as Senators to both 
provide advice and consent on Presidential nomination and to conduct 
congressional oversight.
  This clear defiance of our sworn constitutional duty and 
congressional oversight role diminishes the Senate, weakens our 
intricate system of checks and balances, and undermines the trust of 
the American people.
  Beyond her lack of qualifications and her questionable role in some 
of this administration's major conservation policies, there are too 
many troubling concerns and questions about this nominee that remain 
unaddressed or unanswered.
  Therefore, I will be opposing this nomination, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
that was going to start at 11:45 a.m. start now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Skipwith 
nomination?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Shelby).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 395 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--39

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Booker
     Burr
     Duckworth
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Paul
     Sanders
     Shelby
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________