EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Senate - June 07, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 94 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Pages S3270-S3281]
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 consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Kenneth 
L. Marcus, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
Department of Education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from North Carolina.


            Calling for the Release of Pastor Andrew Brunson

  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I wish to speak briefly. I thank the 
Democratic leader for giving me the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes 
to do what I have done every week for the past couple of months and 
what I will do every week until we get a resolution; that is, to talk 
about Pastor Brunson, a Presbyterian minister who has been in prison in 
Turkey since October of 2016.
  As best as we can tell, the only thing Pastor Brunson is guilty of is 
being a missionary who has committed 20 years of his life to working 
with people in Turkey who want to hear the Word of God. That is it. We 
can talk about--I will not today because my time is limited--all the 
trumped-up charges I witnessed when I spent 12 hours in a Turkish 
courtroom a couple of months ago or that I discussed with Pastor 
Brunson about 3 weeks earlier when I visited him in a prison.
  Today what I want to talk about is relevant to the national defense 
authorization and the work we have done in committee to put Turkey on 
notice that this is unacceptable.
  Turkey has been an ally of the United States since 1952. The NATO 
alliance commits every member of NATO to send their men and women in 
uniform into harm's way to defend the national security of a nation of 
the alliance. We have that with Turkey; we have since 1952.
  Over the past month or so, we have seen a would-be adversary in North 
Korea release three prisoners, we have seen Venezuela release a 
prisoner, but in Turkey, since October of 2016, we have seen them hold 
a man for almost a year and a half without charges. Then I saw a man go 
before a court--and I witnessed for a whole day--being subjected to 
some of the most absurd charges possible. Next week, when I have more 
time, I will get into those.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted to put a 
provision in the national defense authorization that really makes us 
wonder whether we have to rethink our relationship with Turkey, 
particularly around the Joint Strike Fighter. The Joint Strike Fighter 
is one of the most sophisticated tactical fighters that has ever flown; 
arguably, the most sophisticated. Turkey is a NATO ally and, as such, 
they have access to that weapons system. In fact, they manufacture a 
lot of the critical parts for it.
  What we offered in the NDAA is an examination of whether that 
relationship makes sense; No. 1, because of the way they are treating 
one of our American citizens, not letting him come back home, he and 
his wife; and No. 2, if that is the behavior of a NATO ally, is that 
really where we should be putting, in our supply chains and in our 
defensive systems, one of the most sophisticated weapons, one of the 
most important weapons in our arsenal. I, for one, think we have to 
look at it.
  Until the Turkish Government recognizes that they are illegally 
holding Pastor Brunson, and a number of others, then I think we have to 
put the spotlight on them and hold them accountable. If I have an 
obligation, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the 
Senate, to defend their integrity, they have an obligation to treat our 
American citizens with respect.
  We have the amendment in the NDAA. We also have another amendment we 
may offer. We need to make Turkey know we believe our alliance with 
them is important, but it is also important to treat American citizens 
who are not guilty of a crime with respect and bring Pastor Brunson 
home.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.


                                 Turkey

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague. I was 
asked by my colleague from North Carolina if I would agree with his 
remarks, and he said he thought so. I definitely do. I think Erdogan is 
doing very bad things to the Turkish people, to our NATO alliance in 
the Middle East. He has had a vehemently anti-Israel position. To allow 
him to get away with all of this stuff without putting maximum pressure 
on him makes no sense. So I thank my colleague from North Carolina.


                  National Defense Authorization Bill

  Madam President, on other subjects, later today the Senate will move 
to the consideration of the John S. McCain National Defense 
Authorization Act. The annual Defense authorization is something our 
friend Senator McCain cares deeply about and has talked to me about 
regularly, and we wish he were here to shepherd it on the floor as we 
have seen him do many times before.
  It is important that we get this done for our military, for our 
broader national security, for Senator McCain, and to ensure that this 
critical authorization bill moves forward on a steady track. Any time 
we say the name or see the name written, ``John S. McCain,'' our hearts 
go pitter-patter a little bit, and we pray for his speedy recovery.
  The NDAA is an opportunity to revise and improve our national 
security to meet the evolving threats of a world that is changing so 
very fast. I just

[[Page S3271]]

want to highlight a few provisions in the bill that are important.
  Just this morning, Secretary Ross announced that the Trump 
administration will relax penalties on Chinese telecom giant 
ZTE. Instead of permanently crippling ZTE, the administration will 
settle for a smaller fine than the company paid in 2017 and a 
reorganization of the company's board. It is essentially a slap on the 
wrist.

  As a reminder, ZTE has been a threat to our national security, and 
that was stated by the Republican-led FCC, Republican-led FBI, and 
Republican-led Pentagon. This is not a partisan issue. ZTE was guilty 
not only of evading U.S. sanctions but lying to U.S. officials about it 
afterward. ZTE has been deemed such a threat to our telecommunications 
networks that the FCC recommended forbidding the sale of any ZTE 
products in the United States.
  But, inexplicably, President Trump, after talking tough, did a total 
reversal. Once again, it seems President Xi has outfoxed President 
Trump. There is absolutely no good reason that ZTE should get a second 
chance, but with this deal, the President has inexplicably thrown him a 
lifeline. President Xi must be laughing all the way to the forbidden 
palace. He has once again taken advantage of President Trump on an 
issue vital to our security.
  Many believe ZTE could be a mechanism for spying on our military and 
on lots of different parts of the United States. China has shown no 
reluctance to do that in the past, and we are just rolling over for no 
reason, having gotten nothing in return. This is a serious mistake, a 
180-degree turn away from the President's promise to be tough on China. 
Donald Trump should be aiming his trade fire at China, but instead he 
inexplicably aims it at allies, such as Canada and Europe. When it 
comes to China, despite his tough talk, this deal with ZTE proves that 
President Trump just shoots blanks. This guy--the art of the deal? He 
has gotten taken to the cleaners by President Xi, and the rest of the 
world is probably laughing at him.
  We cannot allow the damage from this action by Secretary Ross to 
stay. We must undo it. It will be up to Congress to reverse this deal 
if the President goes forward with it, which he has announced this 
morning he will.
  The Banking Committee already adopted an amendment that would 
prohibit the administration from weakening sanctions against the 
Chinese telecoms, including ZTE; however, the President has rushed to 
undo the sanctions before that bill could pass, so it won't affect ZTE 
because the sanctions have just been lifted by the administration.
  Now that the President has rushed to give this company relief, we 
will offer a bipartisan amendment, led by Senators Cotton and Van 
Hollen, that retroactively imposes the sanctions originally leveled 
against ZTE, reversing the consent agreement signed this morning. This 
is a bipartisan bill. Senator Cotton and Senator Van Hollen don't agree 
on much, but thank God, when it comes to national security, they are 
agreeing. This Chamber should overwhelmingly vote for the Cotton-Van 
Hollen amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, as I believe Senator 
Cornyn and others on the other side will do. We must do that. We hope 
Leader McConnell will allow a vote or, at minimum, put it in the 
managers' package. We cannot move forward with this danger to national 
security without doing something about ZTE.
  There is also a provision in the Defense bill to expand the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
States, known as CFIUS, so that the board can review minority-position 
investments and joint ventures in critical technology and 
infrastructure companies.
  Too often, foreign companies--usually Chinese--backed by some hostile 
foreign governments--usually the Chinese Government--and they are 
hostile to us economically, make no mistake about it. That word is not 
too strong. They try to gain controlling or minority positions in 
critical American technology companies to pilfer their intellectual 
property and reproduce it in their own countries. They don't allow us 
to sell the goods; they instead buy minority interests in American 
companies, learn how to do it, produce it in China, and then undercut 
us and sell it here. No wonder we lose millions of jobs to China.
  This must be stopped. Because these foreign companies go to great 
lengths to avoid a CFIUS review and sneak in under the radar, we ought 
to widen the scope of cases that CFIUS can look at, better protecting 
our national security and our economic security, and the Defense bill, 
fortunately, is the first opportunity to do that.
  Now back to ZTE, the ZTE example is perhaps the best example of how 
this administration's trade policies are in shambles. The President has 
talked tough on China. President Trump and I agree very strongly--or we 
had agreed. I don't know where he is now, but in the past, we have 
agreed. We just had a conversation a few weeks ago about the need to 
combat China's rapacious trade practices. Initially, I was hopeful the 
President would follow through. He seemed to do this out of conviction. 
But it seems that even though President Trump roars like a lion on 
China, he behaves like a lamb. Instead of ramping up pressure on China, 
he tells them he is weak. He tells them he will back off. He tells them 
he is not for real. President Trump has directed far too much of the 
administration's energies on trade toward punishing allies such as 
Canada and Europe instead of focusing on the real menace, the No. 1 
menace--China.
  So if President Trump is listening this morning, I tell him: Be 
strong on China. Don't trade away our leverage for anything short of 
real concessions on intellectual property theft and market access--the 
two things that most threaten our long-term economic standing, that 
most threaten the American economy, the American worker, and American 
jobs.


                           Emoluments Clause

  Now on another matter, Madam President, today the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments in a case 
concerning the potential violation of the emoluments clause by the 
President of the United States--none other than the President of the 
United States violating this clause. The emoluments clause of the 
Constitution of the United States--written over 200 years ago into the 
Constitution by our Founding Fathers--prohibits any member of our 
government from profiting from their office, accepting any present, 
emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, 
Prince, or foreign state.
  The reason for the emoluments clause is plain: The Framers were 
worried that members of our government could be co-opted or influenced 
by the bribery of foreign capitals and thus prohibited even the 
potential for self-enrichment. They knew then what we know now: We 
don't want double-dealing by our elected officials, and when they have 
private interests, you never know--are they acting in what they believe 
is the national interests or what will help make them a profit?
  With President Trump, we sincerely hope that no such self-enrichment 
is going on, but it remains a great concern to millions of Americans 
that President Trump has maintained a stake in vast business empire 
holdings all over the world. President Trump continues to profit from 
these holdings while he refuses to divest--an appalling departure from 
well-established practices of past Presidents. It shows a degree of 
selfishness that we haven't seen in Presidents. The President still 
refuses to disclose his tax returns and the precise extent of his 
foreign holdings--another radical and disturbing departure from past 
Presidents. This President acts like he is in the swamp, not like he is 
cleaning it up.
  The President's actions certainly present the possibility of exposure 
to violation of the emoluments clause, so I believe it is a good thing 
that the courts are looking at this issue and taking it seriously. That 
is what our Constitution says they should do. It is a good thing the 
courts are taking it seriously. We cannot afford to have the Office of 
the Presidency of the United States corrupted for narrow, selfish 
means.
  President Trump could easily--if you want to be President, you give 
up all the stuff you own. Every President has done it. There are blind 
trusts. There are all kinds of ways to do it. But this President seems 
to think he is measured by a different standard than anyone else. 
Everyone else makes their tax

[[Page S3272]]

returns public; he does not. Everyone else divests themselves of any 
interest in foreign business to avoid even the appearance of conflict; 
he does not. It is a double standard.
  When the President says he wants to clean up the swamp when he goes 
to his rallies and gets cheered, what are those people cheering for? He 
has made the swamp worse than any President I know.


                              Pardon Power

  In other news, Madam President, we have learned that the President is 
very keen on his pardon power. The President went so far as to tweet 
earlier this week that he believes he has the absolute right--his 
words--to pardon himself.
  Let me remind President Trump of a very simple fact: President Trump, 
you do not have the right to pardon yourself. No one--no one--in 
America is above the law, not even the President--especially the 
President. If the President did have the right to pardon himself, he 
could engage in blatant corruption and self-dealing without 
consequence. The President could violate the emoluments clause, for 
example, and simply exonerate himself for taking bribes from foreign 
interests. Surely that is not what our Framers intended. It would turn 
the Presidency into a farce and render American democracy greatly 
defunct.
  When the President says and tweets things like this, we have to be 
very clear about how wrong he is. We cannot allow the morality of this 
government, the shining example the Founding Fathers put together, to 
just recede. President Trump is doing that on almost a daily basis, and 
we need not just Democrats, we need Republicans and Independents to 
stand up when he says things like that.
  I was glad to hear that a number of my Republican colleagues said he 
doesn't have the power to pardon himself. I was proud of Senator 
Grassley, who always speaks his mind--sometimes I like it, sometimes I 
don't, but he always speaks his mind--who talked about how wrong it was 
for the President to say he could pardon himself.
  The idea that the President could pardon anyone, anytime, himself 
included, is antithetical to the very idea of a democracy.
  President Trump, you are not King by another name.
  I hope the President will focus instead on the Nation's business in 
the months ahead.
  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. INHOFE. Madam Present, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a UC?
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to you under almost every 
circumstance.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from New Jersey, I be 
recognized as in morning business for as much time as I shall consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the nomination of Kenneth Marcus to serve as the Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. One of the most 
critical functions of the Department of Education is the role in 
enforcing Federal civil rights and upholding the protection of 
students' civil rights in schools.
  The Office for Civil Rights within the Department of Education is a 
particularly important instrument in enforcing civil rights in schools, 
protecting those precious rights of our children, and ensuring that 
schools provide students with access to equal educational opportunities 
and a nondiscriminatory environment in which to learn. It is an idea we 
have in our country that it is fundamental that we have a level playing 
field and abundant opportunity for all kids, no matter what their 
background is.
  The continued need for this office is clear. In fact, during the 
Obama administration, the Office for Civil Rights and the Department of 
Education handled 76,000 complaints over 8 years and issued dozens of 
policy guidance documents to help schools better protect and preserve 
civil rights of students.
  In the last year alone, or year and a half, we have seen what is 
clearly an abdication of this leadership in the Trump administration 
and what that has meant for the protection of civil rights for our 
country's children and for our country's students. We have seen an 
Office for Civil Rights that has rolled back protections for LGBTQ 
students, an office that has rolled back protections for students with 
disabilities, and an office that is set on gutting the very mission of 
the office itself, which is to protect all of our students from 
discrimination and empower them with equal opportunities to succeed.
  The confirmation of Kenneth Marcus would be another blow to the civil 
rights of our students. Mr. Marcus is someone who, in his record and in 
his testimony to my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee, has 
demonstrated that he possesses at best a disturbing apathy and at worst 
a wanton disregard for the importance, if not urgency, of protecting 
the rights of our kids in school.
  When Mr. Marcus was asked by Senator Murray to name an example of 
something--anything--that Donald Trump had said or done when it comes 
to discrimination or civil rights that he disagrees with, and Mr. 
Marcus could not name any area of disagreement. He couldn't find a 
single disagreement in the way that Donald Trump demeaned Americans 
with disabilities or how the President has spoken about Mexicans or 
even the way the President has issued policies that attack the rights 
of Muslims or the rights of LGBTQ Americans. There was no disagreement 
mentioned whatsoever.
  When he was asked during his confirmation hearing if as Assistant 
Secretary he would intervene in an instance where Black students in a 
school district were receiving lower quality teachers, fewer books, 
fewer AP classes, and fewer educational resources than White students, 
one would expect his answer to have been: Yes, I would intervene. Yes, 
I would stand up for equality. Instead, Mr. Marcus refused to say that 
he would step in in such a hypothetical circumstance.
  When Senator Murphy asked about disparities in school districts that 
were suspending or expelling five times as many Black students for the 
same set of behaviors compared to White students, instead of just 
saying the obvious thing--that this is wrong, that the same behavior 
necessitates the same disciplinary action--instead of saying something 
as simple as that, Mr. Marcus went on to say this:

       ``I believe that disparities of that size are grounds for 
     concern, but my experience says that one needs to approach 
     each compliant, or compliance review, with an open mind and a 
     sense of fairness to find out what the answers are. I will 
     tell you that I have seen what appeared to be inexcusable 
     disparities that were the result of paperwork errors, they 
     just got the numbers wrong.''

  I don't know how much of the data on this issue of disciplinary 
inequality Mr. Marcus has seen, but it is abundantly clear that for 
someone who wants to be in this position, they should understand the 
crisis we have with discipline in this country. The data has shown that 
even in preschool--from the age of 4 years old--Black preschool kids 
are 3.6 times more likely to receive an out-of-school suspension than 
White preschool kids. Again, that is also for the same infraction.

  This is not about getting the numbers wrong. This is about being 
aware of a problem we have in this country that fuels the school-to-
prison pipeline. It is a problem that is so severe that I fought in a 
bipartisan way to get an amendment about school expulsions in the Every 
Student Succeeds Act. This is a problem that is so severe that in 2014 
the Department of Education issued guidance clarifying that schools 
must administer discipline without discrimination on the basis of race, 
color, or national origin. The guidance provided important information 
and support for schools to create a safer, more inclusive environment. 
We know this problem is not going away, because just last month a new 
report from the Government Accountability Office concluded that Black 
students, boys, and

[[Page S3273]]

students with disabilities were still significantly overrepresented in 
disciplinary action.
  What we need is a Department of Education that is going to stand up 
for kids on problems that we know exist. I was stunned that this is a 
candidate who doesn't even acknowledge the urgency in protecting LGBTQ 
kids. And at a time of such crisis, Secretary Betsy DeVos continues to 
fail to protect the rights of all of our students, just this week, she 
called discrimination against LGBTQ students in schools ``an issue for 
Congress and the courts to settle,'' abdicating any responsibility.
  That is unacceptable, and I don't understand. We have children who 
are literally under attack. We face a crisis in this country when it 
comes to LGBTQ youth. This is not an argument over facts. The facts are 
clear: LGBT youths face a stunning level of prejudice and 
discrimination inside and outside of schools, starting at a young age. 
We know that LGBT youths are two times more likely than their 
heterosexual peers to be physically assaulted in school. LGBT youths 
are four times as likely to attempt suicide.
  According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 34 percent of gay and 
lesbian youth students were bullied on school property, and 13 percent 
report not going to school because of fear for their safety. This kind 
of harassment has no place in our classrooms or schools or anywhere in 
the United States. It is far too common, from discriminating 
disciplinary practice to physical violence against our kids, and we 
have work to do in this country to keep all children safe, to treat all 
children equally, to give every kid a fair shot in schools to make it 
and thrive. Yet we are trying to elevate someone to one of the most 
significant positions in our land to protect children who has a 
disregard and an apathy toward the compelling and continuing problems 
in our schools.
  When I think about the role of the Federal Government in protecting 
children, I think about a picture that, as soon as I walk out of my 
office, the picture is there, and it is that picture from Norman 
Rockwell of Ruby Bridges trying to walk to school, at the age of 6, to 
become the first Black child to attend a White elementary school in the 
South. The photo of her--and the famous painting--is jarring when you 
see it. It is a reminder to me every day when I leave my office about 
the roles and responsibilities we have in this body. The hate that was 
being spewed on her--Ruby Bridges--was plainly evident.
  I am telling you, if you visit schools right now and talk to some of 
our children who are being bullied and intimidated, they can speak to 
that kind of hate as well. You can still feel the pain and hatred 
echoing from our past, and you can see it. You can see it echoing in 
our present. She was determined, and, most importantly, she was not 
alone. At the age of 6, walking to school, Ruby Bridges walked not 
alone but, as Norman Rockwell's picture captures, she walked with 
Federal Marshals, and they stood with her. She was not alone. She had 
government folks who said: Your rights are my rights. Your future is my 
future. We pledge an oath to be a nation of liberty and nation not for 
some but for all--that ``injustice anywhere,'' as King said, ``is a 
threat to justice everywhere.''
  The Federal Government alone is not enough to educate our kids. It is 
about local communities that keep them safe. It is about those soccer 
coaches. It is about the drama teacher. It is about the English 
teacher. It is about the love and the kindness and the nurturing 
environment that is the common standard in all of our schools in 
America in every State. We have seen from history that there is a role 
for us to play in keeping folks safe. There are aberrations in our 
country where hatred still thrives, where discrimination still exists, 
where there is a role for us to play, and we can't surrender that role.
  We can't retreat from our vigilance in protecting every child in 
America. That is why the Office for Civil Rights and the Department of 
Education are so critical and must be led by someone who understands 
our history and understands the urgent work that still needs to be 
done. We need a person in this role who is committed to every single 
child no matter who they are and a person who sees within that child 
their truth, their divinity, their limitless potential, their promise, 
and how we as a nation need them to succeed.
  We have a long way to go. There is work still to do. Children in this 
country who are hurting now need champions in positions of high office. 
That is why I oppose the nomination of Mr. Marcus. He is not the 
person, by his own testimony, who sees our children, who will protect 
all of our children, who understands their crises, and hears their 
cries. I will be voting against his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Oklahoma.


                  National Defense Authorization Bill

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, arguably, the most significant bill to be 
introduced and passed every year is the National Defense Authorization 
Act. Yesterday, the leader moved to proceed to that bill, but then 
there was some objection. Senator Reed and I have spent some time and 
have been very concerned about getting this started. We passed this out 
of committee in record time and share the commitment that this bill is 
a matter fitting for the Senate's deliberative process. We want to have 
an amendment process, and we proposed this, but there was some 
objection to it yesterday.
  I think an open legislative process is one of the hallmarks of the 
democracy that we ask our servicemembers to protect and defend. They 
are out there on the line. We owe them everything that is in an annual 
bill. In fact, that bill has actually been passed every year. For the 
past 57 years, we have had a national defense authorization act. What 
we wanted to do this time, which would have been different from the 
last time, was to have had an open amendment process--heard a lot of 
amendments and had a lot of discussion on the floor. We intended to do 
that but were disappointed that there was an objection to that 
yesterday. That is why we have been working on satisfying those 
objections, and I think we have done this.
  I believe, by 12 noon or after the 12:30 vote, we are going to be in 
a position to go ahead and ask that the majority leader restate his 
motion to proceed and that it will be passed without objection. I am 
looking forward to that. I think we need to get started. I don't need 
to go into the arguments, as others are waiting for the floor right 
now, but we want to get this bill started immediately.
  It is not just to make sure we have the pay raises for our kids who 
are out there risking their lives, and it is not just that we have to 
keep up with the commitments we have made. We have gone through some 
dry years over the last 10 years. When I go around the country and talk 
to groups, there is this assumption that America has the best of 
everything, but that is not true anymore. That is one reason there is a 
sense of urgency on this.
  Take artillery, for example. The two things you use to measure the 
artillery capability of a country are those of range and rapid fire, 
and we are out-ranged and out-rapid fired by both Russia and China. 
They have other systems that are better than ours.
  Right now, one of the most modern systems is hypersonic warfare. A 
lot of people are not aware of this, but it allows us to go five times 
the speed of sound with a weapon. We have been developing this for some 
time. However, now we have found out that both Russia and China have 
been ahead of us on this. This bill is going to put us in high gear and 
make sure this development actually happens.
  Our triad system, our nuclear triad, is also one on which we have not 
been doing anything for the last 8 or 10 years, and now Russia and 
China have gotten ahead. This is something we are not going to 
tolerate.
  We have the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2019, and we are going to get to it today. I will mention 
that we are actually hoping for a couple of amendments to take place 
this afternoon. These have to be agreed to and have been agreed to by 
both sides. Boozman amendment No. 2276 is a study to suggest the 
permanent stationing of our troops in Poland. The second one is the 
McCain fellowship amendment, by Senator Reed, amendment No. 2284.
  I, and I am sure Senator Reed--I speak for him too--would like to get

[[Page S3274]]

started on some amendments today instead of waiting around until 
Monday. Doing so will put us a lot further ahead than we otherwise 
would be. Our anticipation is to get this thing done by next week, and 
I think we can do it.
  I thank those who had some objection to moving to this bill. I very 
much appreciate their working with us. I think it will be completed, 
and I anticipate that the majority leader will have a motion that he 
will make after the 12:30 p.m. vote today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                                Tariffs

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to sound the alarm about the 
President's decision to impose steep tariffs on our trading partners.
  Make no mistake, we are not, as some administration officials have 
suggested, in the leisurely early innings of a baseball game. We are in 
the nascent stages of a full-scale trade war. Despite the President's 
statement that this war will be easily won, any student of history 
knows that unlike a baseball game, in which a winner is guaranteed, a 
trade war only guarantees there will be losers.
  Free trade allows the most efficient allocation of labor and capital. 
Protectionism, on the other hand, stifles innovation and reduces 
productivity. Recognition of this philosophy has been as close to a 
consensus as this body has achieved in more than 70 years, and the 
application of these principles has provided the foundation for growth 
and prosperity that was unimagined by previous generations.
  If tariffs aimed at our adversaries produce disastrous results, what 
will happen when we target our allies?
  Imagine claiming that imports from Canada represent a national 
security threat. Well, that is exactly what we are doing. Canada is our 
largest trading partner--a trading partner, coincidentally, with whom 
we enjoy a trade surplus. Just yesterday, we learned of a phone call in 
which Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau challenged the President's 
use of national security as a justification for levying tariffs against 
a steadfast ally. These new tariffs imposed on our allies will not and 
are not going unanswered. A number of them have already introduced 
retaliatory measures.
  In March, when the tariffs on steel and aluminum were first 
announced, I proposed legislation to block their implementation. 
Yesterday, I joined with a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senator 
Corker, in introducing legislation to rein in the President's use of 
section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to justify protectionist 
measures. This bipartisan group includes Senators from coast to coast 
and from across the political spectrum.
  The Constitution grants Congress the preeminent role in regulating 
trade and tariffs. Congress must show leadership on this issue. We are 
elected to be leaders, not followers here. It is not our charge to just 
go along because the President shares our party affiliation, to throw 
out our long-held beliefs just because they might complicate our 
political standing.


                    Protecting the Values of Freedom

  Now, Mr. President, let me speak for a few minutes on our unique 
standing in the world and the opportunities and responsibilities that 
come as a result of that standing.
  From its very creation, the United States of America has played a 
vital role in world leadership. Our Founding Fathers showed how a band 
of colonies could not only break free from a despotic monarchy but 
could build a functional democracy on the sturdy scaffold of life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They entrenched this hallowed 
trio of principles within our Declaration of Independence, making 
America the first country in the world to be born not of accidents of 
geography or of Tribe but of an idea--a powerful idea--the idea of 
freedom.
  More than 100 years later, at the turn of the 20th century, one that 
would come to be called the American Century, President Theodore 
Roosevelt used his inaugural address to highlight America's role: A 
country that had broken free from tyranny had a moral obligation to 
help others do likewise.
  Roosevelt said:

       Much has been given us, and much will rightfully be 
     expected from us. We have duties to others and duties to 
     ourselves; and we can shirk neither. We have become a great 
     nation, forced by the fact of its greatness into relations 
     with other nations of the earth, and we must behave as 
     beseems a people with such responsibilities.

  This declaration alerted Americans that the Nation had arrived at a 
new position of global leadership, and it remains as true today as it 
was then.
  The 20th century saw the United States transition from being merely 
one voice for freedom and liberty to become the preeminent leader of 
that sacred cause across the world. In the 40 years that followed 
Roosevelt's speech, American men and women would twice be called on to 
fight for peace in the face of World War. Hundreds of thousands of 
Americans would selflessly lay down their lives for the freedom of 
others.
  Indeed, nowhere in our national history has that been more clearly 
displayed than 74 years ago yesterday, when, on the beaches of 
Normandy, thousands of Americans paid the ultimate sacrifice to free 
our European allies from the most unspeakable tyranny the world has 
ever known.
  Yet this Nation's transformation into an indispensable nation, a 
necessary nation, was not crafted by military might alone. It was our 
efforts to build up international institutions and norms aimed at 
fostering democratic ideals and free market principles that truly 
secured the global leadership some would now squander.
  I believe President Reagan best described the importance of this 
broader American role when, during an address to the British 
Parliament, in the depth of the Cold War, he said this:

       Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let 
     it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will 
     never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle 
     that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and 
     rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual 
     resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the 
     ideals to which we are dedicated.

  By 1945, the United States had contributed about half of the world's 
entire economic activity, and, in 1991, we emerged from the Cold War as 
the world's sole superpower. The Soviet Union was in a glorious free 
fall, shedding republics by the day. Eastern Europe was squinting out 
into the light of liberation for the first time in 40 years. Free 
markets and free minds were sweeping the world.
  I vividly recall the fall of the Berlin Wall. At the time, I was in 
Africa, assisting in the transition to democracy of the newly 
independent country of Namibia, as it shrugged off the shackles of 
apartheid.
  A continent away, a dissident playwright, Vaclav Havel, emerged from 
a Communist prison to become the President of a liberated 
Czechoslovakia. In appearing before a joint session of our Congress, he 
praised the powerful inspiration of American democracy, and he thanked 
us for liberating Europe, once again, ``from the tyrant's grip.''
  Both 1945 and 1991 were moments of American global success, when this 
Nation could have easily chosen to have turned inward and to have left 
the rest of the community of nations to fend for themselves or we could 
have simply maintained our dominance through sheer economic supremacy 
and military strength. We chose neither.
  Instead, we chose to build the foundations of a global order based on 
the values we venerate, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals we aspire 
to--a world in which leaders must earn the respect of their peers, not 
through the coercive tactics of bluster and threat but through the 
virtues of their actions and the wisdom of their policies.
  Winston Churchill famously opined, ``Democracy is the worst form of 
Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from 
time to time.'' It was a wry acknowledgement that however messy it may 
sometimes seem in practice, democracy's genius lies in its regular 
renewal of the people's mandate, what Thomas Jefferson called the 
``consent of the governed.''
  It is our responsibility to be the premier example of this democratic 
order. This is the golden thread that leads all the way back to our 
Founding Fathers, but today that golden thread of continuity is in 
danger of being snapped.
  Today we appear to be turning our back on this responsibility--a 
responsibility upheld by previous generations--the same generations 
that crafted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and Japan after World 
War II, helping to

[[Page S3275]]

shape our two most aggressive enemies into two of our most stalwart 
allies; the generations who crafted pivotal international organizations 
such as NATO, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization, 
forums for multilateral compromise to take the place of war as the 
primary arbiter of conflict between nations; the generations who 
negotiated nuclear disarmament treaties, pulling us back from the brink 
of atomic Armageddon--but no more.
  Instead we find ourselves today led by those who express admiration 
for authoritarianism in Russia, China, the Philippines, and other 
places that make common cause with bullies and who flirt with tyrants. 
We see a world descending into an atavistic tribalism, a political 
primitivism where dealings between nations are driven by fear and 
antagonism, bullying and threats, taunts and brinkmanship, rather than 
mutual benefit and comity.
  We find ourselves led by those who would fall for isolationist 
instincts and antiquated, preindustrial, protectionist economic 
philosophies--the very same shortsighted nostrums that ushered in the 
Great Depression. Those who would reject the decades-long consensus on 
the virtues of free trade, open markets, international 
interdependence--the policies which have led to the greatest sustained 
growth our world has ever seen.
  What shall our friends make of such erratic behavior? How will they 
respond to such confusing actions? Most importantly, how long will they 
remain our friends if this irrational approach continues?
  Alliances, institutions, and pacts that took generations to patiently 
build, generations more to solidify, that were paid for in both blood 
and treasure, are shattered in an ill-tempered second, an ill-
considered tantrum, a childish taunt here, a bellicose insult there, 
incoherent policy utterances, often as not by tweet, contradicted in 
the space of a single news cycle. Muddled and mercurial, this is not 
grownup leadership. Our allies are left baffled, confused, and often 
appalled.
  Make no mistake, our allies and those who look to American leadership 
will not wait for us to come to our senses. If we abandon our role as a 
leader in the world today, it may very well not be there tomorrow. We 
saw this vividly displayed in the decision to withdraw from the Trans-
Pacific Partnership. After we hastily withdrew from those negotiations, 
the 11 other countries involved did not go home. They did not give up 
on trade or come back to us on bended knee, begging us to rejoin the 
process. They simply shrugged and continued on their own, leaving us 
behind.
  Countries in Southeast Asia that would prefer to be part of the 
American trade orbit will have no other choice than to be sucked into 
China's vortex. This is the same China our President correctly 
acknowledges as America's primary global competitor. Once again, the 
absurdity of protectionist policies is laid bare.
  The question facing us today is this: Do we really want to be the 
generation that finally gave in to the backward, regressive tug of 
American isolationism? Do we want future generations to refer to 
American leadership in the world only in the past tense, with a rueful 
nostalgia? Are we truly ready to abandon this ``shining city on a 
hill'' described by John Winthrop and echoed so eloquently by Ronald 
Reagan? Do we believe the United States of America is still ``the last 
best hope on earth,'' as Abraham Lincoln once proclaimed?
  We are not perfect. We have faltered in our leadership at times; at 
others we have struggled to determine how best to project our national 
values, but it is our leadership as the designated driver of the 
vehicle of world order, the so-called Pax Americana that for more than 
70 years has maintained unprecedented peace and prosperity throughout 
the world. Yes, the world we live in is far from perfect, but I believe 
it is a far better place as a result of American leadership.
  It has been said that the universe abhors a vacuum, and if we do not 
lead, someone else will. Those who are most likely to do so do not 
share our democratic values. We should not wish for future generations 
of Americans to come of age in a world led by someone else.
  ``Freedom,'' as John F. Kennedy once proclaimed, ``is not merely a 
word or an abstract theory, but the most effective instrument for 
advancing the welfare of man.'' We owe it to those generations who have 
come before us, and those who will come after us, to recognize that our 
defense of that freedom, in all its forms--from free speech and free 
thought to free markets and free trade--is not an act of recreation. 
Let us pointedly declare to those who would suggest otherwise that the 
crossroads in which we find ourselves is not the early innings of any 
game but a historic moment in which we will either affirm our 
commitment to the values that have served so well for so long or engage 
in a trade war that will only lead to economic disaster. Let us not 
falter in our mission to promote and protect the values of freedom. Let 
us not turn away from this most noble of responsibilities. Let us 
proudly take the torch passed to us from our parents and our parents' 
parents.
  Let us continue to serve as a beacon of hope, a shining light of 
freedom seen across a volatile world. This light stretches from the 
lanterns in Boston's Old North Church, lit during the ride of Paul 
Revere, to the light that shines above our Capitol today. It is the 
light of freedom, the very spirit of America, and it must never be 
extinguished.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Flake for his comments, 
his willingness to speak out, and for the courage with which he has 
spoken. His beliefs, I think, are admirable, and this Senator wants to 
state that for the record. What he has spoken about does not look down 
the blind alley of partisanship. He is talking about looking at 
America, and this Senator appreciates his remarks.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, I want to talk today about what is happening to the 
coastal communities in Florida. The Presiding Officer represents 
Alaska, the State that has the most coastline. Next to Alaska, my State 
of Florida has more coastline than any other State, and I would venture 
to say that since Alaska has very few beaches, it ought to be very 
clear that the State of Florida has more beaches than any other State. 
That, of course, is an attraction that becomes an economic engine 
because people from all over the world want to come to enjoy the sands 
of Florida's beaches and enjoy the bounty of nature the Lord has 
provided, but we better watch out because we are starting to mess it 
up.
  Yesterday, NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
released data that the contiguous United States had the warmest May on 
record. The entire continent of the United States had the warmest May 
on record. The heat is having real-world impacts.
  NOAA also released its ``2017 State of High Tide Flooding and 2018 
Outlook.'' During 2017, the average high-tide flooding in the United 
States was the highest ever recorded. In 2018, NOAA predicts that high-
tide flooding will be 60 percent more frequent across U.S. coastlines 
than it was 18 years ago in 2000, primarily because of the local sea 
level rise.
  Doesn't this suggest something? In the lower latitudes, our seas are 
rising. It should not surprise us. It doesn't surprise this Senator. We 
got a glimpse of this when 4 years ago I took our Commerce Committee to 
Miami Beach and in fact had a hearing.
  One of the witnesses was a NASA scientist, Dr. Piers Sellers, a 
prestigious scientist and former astronaut who, unfortunately, we lost 
to cancer just recently. At the hearing he said, ``By the end of the 
century, the intensity of hurricanes . . . will increase . . . but even 
if hurricane frequency and intensity do not change, rising sea levels 
and coastal development will likely increase the impact of hurricanes 
and other coastal storms on those coastal communities and 
infrastructure.''
  I would like to show a picture. A picture tells the real story. This 
shows a sunny day in Miami Beach--a sunny day when the king tide is 
flooding Miami Beach. OK. That is obvious, looking at it. This happens 
frequently at high tide.
  What has the city of Miami Beach had to do? Spend tens of millions of

[[Page S3276]]

dollars on big pumps and raising the level of the road to try to 
alleviate this problem. This is happening with some frequency in South 
Florida. Dr. Sellers testified back in 2014 that not projections or 
forecasts but actual measurements showed the sea had risen over the 
last four decades 5 to 8 inches.
  Let's take another look at other flooding. That photo was Miami 
Beach, which is down at the southeast part of the peninsula of Florida. 
This photo was taken in downtown Sarasota. Sarasota is on the Gulf 
Coast and is closer to the middle of the peninsula; in other words, 
about 150 miles north of the latitude of Miami Beach. The vice mayor 
brought me these pictures of Sarasota. Look at this car on the street. 
Pictures don't tell the full story.
  We held another field hearing in West Palm Beach a year ago, and the 
Broward County resilience officer came to Palm Beach County for that 
hearing and showed a video of a man biking along the city of Fort 
Lauderdale, where the sidewalk is submerged in water. In other words, 
what has happened in Miami Beach is happening in the Las Olas section 
of Fort Lauderdale.
  Then we took the committee to St. Petersburg, which is on the 
opposite coast, the gulf coast, where the city has designed its new 
pier out of floating docks to accommodate the rising sea as they rise 
up and down in Tampa Bay.
  Or how about St. Augustine, where the public works department is 
seeing nuisance flooding from high tides that are overwhelming their 
storm water system.
  All of these are examples of how sea level rise affects coastal 
Florida on sunny days, not rainstorm days. The NASA scientist at our 
hearing was talking about how climate could exacerbate damage from 
hurricanes. Why? Because if the water is warmer, that is the fuel for a 
hurricane, and that is what is sucked up into that vortex as the 
hurricane feeds itself. The hotter the water it is over, the more 
ferocious--and likely frequent--those storms will be. Warmer ocean 
water fuels hurricanes, making them more intense, and the sea level 
rise compounds the storm surge and the rain-induced flooding.
  Let me show you another image. Here is an image that shows what 
Florida's coastal communities face when the Sun is not shining. This is 
during a rainstorm. Here is flooding in Jacksonville. Where is 
Jacksonville? It is at the north end of the peninsula. It is almost 
right next to the Georgia line. You can see a sign that says ``no 
skateboarding'' is almost completely engulfed by the rising water.
  Then you think: What about a place further south on the latitudes, 
Puerto Rico? Hurricane Maria absolutely ravaged that island, and it is 
not an exaggeration to say that climate change and sea level rise are 
putting people's lives and their property at risk. It is the reality.
  I am going to continue to extend an invitation to our colleagues. I 
want you to come with me to Florida, and I want to show you these 
impacts. I have had the privilege of taking several of our colleagues 
to the Florida Everglades, where alligators are plentiful, to see this 
unusual ecosystem as we travel about in an airboat. I want you to come 
and see what is happening as a result of the rising water, and the real 
question is, What are we going to do about it?
  There are two pieces to the solution. One is that we are going to 
have to stop putting so many greenhouse gasses into the air. 
CO2, which is carbon dioxide, and methane are the two big 
culprits. Part of the solution is climate mitigation, which means we 
must invest in new technology, in the economy of the future--things 
like wind, solar, electric vehicles, and more efficient buildings. We 
are going to have to make our communities more resilient to the 
greenhouse gasses and the warming that they already have caused in the 
system. This is called climate change adaptation.
  You don't have to agree with climate science to know that it makes 
sense; it makes dollars and cents to do this. We are talking about 
strengthening our building codes to withstand wind events. We are 
talking about restoring the function of the floodplains so that when 2 
to 3 feet of rainwater suddenly gets dumped in one place, it can absorb 
and gradually recede. We are talking about rebuilding natural flood 
protection, like sand dunes and beaches. In the Commerce Committee we 
have heard countless stories from local government officials that if 
they could have invested before the natural catastrophe that hit them, 
they would have saved the Federal Government a lot of money by avoiding 
the enormous cost of the disaster response and relief itself, not to 
mention reducing the risk to human life.
  The proof is in front of our very eyes. The photos we have shown--
let's show the rest of them here--don't lie. Yet here we are upon 
another hurricane season. Of course, we hope the big storms don't come, 
but the likelihood is that they will. Remember, they don't necessarily 
go just to Florida. Remember Hurricane Sandy? Look what it did to the 
Northeast.
  We hope we don't see any more of these harrowing images. But, as we 
hope, we are going to have to act because what we have shown here in 
these photos today is not about projections; it is about real-time 
observation. Let's quit ignoring the obvious.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


             Accomplishments of the Republican-Led Congress

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, sometimes when I am traveling across 
Tennessee, someone will come up to me and say: Why don't you guys in 
the U.S. Senate ever do anything? So I have taken to carrying around a 
little card that I keep in my pocket. I hand it to them and I say: 
Well, I can read this to you in about 30 seconds, and this is what has 
happened in the last 18 months: the best economy in 18 years; lower 
taxes; biggest reforms in 31 years; biggest increase in financial 
support for the military in 15 years; biggest pay raise in 8 years for 
the military; more repeal of regulations than anyone can remember; a 
Supreme Court Justice; 21 conservative appeals court judges; Alaska 
energy, which took 38 years, and the Presiding Officer knows all about 
that; a new National Labor Relations Board, which could be the most 
important change of all; repealed the ObamaCare individual mandate; the 
Dodd-Frank mortgage rules are gone; Veterans Choice, which the 
President signed yesterday; Iran, Russia, and North Korea sanctions.
  All of that would not have happened without a Republican President, 
and it would not have happened without Republican majorities in the 
U.S. Congress. It took both.
  The person who asks me ``When are you guys ever going to do 
anything?'' will often say ``Well, I didn't know that; I hadn't 
realized that.''
  So I am very proud of that record; that is in 18 months. I think if 
you like a conservative government, a center-right government, you 
would have to agree that those are the most accomplishments in at least 
30 years in this country. The President should be justly proud of that, 
and so should the Congress.


                                Tariffs

  Mr. President, despite the fact that I agree with President Trump on 
taxes, judges, regulations, and the list I just read, there is one area 
in which I have been supremely ineffective in persuading him, and that 
is in the area of tariffs.
  I care about tariffs, especially because Tennessee has become, in 
many ways, the No. 1 auto state. I have spent a lot of time over the 
last 40 years watching the auto industry in Tennessee grow--ever since 
I helped to recruit the Nissan plant to Tennessee in 1980 as Governor 
at a time when we had literally no auto jobs--and suddenly today, one-
third of our manufacturing jobs are auto jobs. They are not only in 
three big auto plants, like Nissan, General Motors, and Volkswagen, but 
they are in over 900 different auto suppliers in 88 of Tennessee's 95 
counties.
  Let me say that again: We have over 900 auto suppliers in 88 of 95 of 
Tennessee's counties--one-third of all of our manufacturing jobs. 
Nothing has done more in the last 40 years to move us from the third 
poorest State in average family incomes up toward the middle and 
heading toward the top. It has been the greatest source of benefit for 
Tennessee families of anything that has happened, so you can see why I 
become concerned when anything threatens that.

[[Page S3277]]

  A 25-percent tariff on steel and a 10-percent tariff on aluminum 
threatens that because almost every one of those auto parts suppliers 
in Tennessee uses aluminum and steel in making their parts for cars and 
trucks that will be sold in the United States and exported around the 
world.
  If your price goes up, what usually happens is your profits go down, 
your sales go down, and your wages don't go up as fast or jobs might 
disappear. That is what happened when President George W. Bush did 
something similar at the beginning of his term. I had just come to the 
U.S. Senate in 2003, and President Bush tried to protect the steel 
companies, but what he did was hurt everyone else more than the steel 
companies. There were more jobs lost in the companies that used steel 
than in the companies that produced steel.
  Already, I am hearing stories all across our State about the effects 
of tariffs, and I was hearing stories about the potential effects of 
tariffs even before they were imposed. For example, not just auto parts 
but Electrolux--a big home appliance manufacturer planning a $250 
million new plant to make home appliances in Springfield, TN--buys 100 
percent of its steel in the United States. But as soon as the steel 
tariffs were announced, it put that expansion on hold because when you 
raise the price of steel coming into the United States, then all the 
domestic suppliers raise their prices. Electrolux said that even though 
it bought all of its steel from U.S. suppliers, it couldn't be 
competitive in the marketplace with tariffs on imported steel. That is 
one example.
  Here is a different kind of example. Bush Brothers in East Tennessee, 
in Newport, has a remarkable operation. They can one-third of all the 
beans in the United States. You have probably bought Bush Brothers 
beans. Well, the cans have a certain kind of steel that is mostly 
imported because not enough of it is made in the United States. Bush 
Brothers estimates that the tariff on steel will reduce their revenues 
by 8.5 percent. They are a big company. That is one-third of all beans 
in the United States. These aren't served in country clubs. These are 
people who are in ordinary homes around the country buying cans of 
baked beans. Their prices go up, and the revenues go down, profits go 
down, employees go down, jobs go down, and wages don't go up in 
Newport, TN.
  Then we have two big tire companies in Tennessee. Bridgestone is one 
of them. All tires have a strengthening kind of steel to make them 
stronger. None of that is produced in the United States. All of it is 
imported. So when you put a 25-percent tax on that strengthening steel 
coming in for the tires there at Bridgestone and at Hankook, in 
Clarksville, TN, up goes the price for American consumers who buy 
tires, and down go the profits for Bridgestone and Hankook, and down go 
the revenues, and down go the opportunities for increased wages and 
jobs.
  So think about the impact of a 25-percent increase on the materials 
you use to make parts in the companies that employ one-third of all the 
manufacturing jobs in Tennessee. We have a big, strong auto industry in 
the Southeastern United States. We think a lot about the Midwest, and 
we are proud of that. While the Midwest lost 3.6 million jobs in the 
last 20 years in the auto industry, the Southeast gained 3.6 million 
jobs. We have a good, strong auto industry in Tennessee, and we don't 
want to see it hurt.
  That is why I have respectfully said to President Trump--I saw him in 
Nashville last week, and I said: Mr. President, as you know, I agree 
with you, and I am proud of what has happened with the best economy in 
the last 18 years with lower taxes, with fewer regulations, and all of 
those things. These are the most significant accomplishments in at 
least 30 years by a conservative government. I would like to persuade 
you to change your mind on tariffs. Our State is likely to be hurt more 
than any other State because, in many ways, we are the No. 1 auto 
State. What I would suggest, respectfully, is a focus shift from 
tariffs to reciprocity; in other words, say to every country: Please do 
for us what we do for you. We are going to insist on that. And then we 
have various tools and weapons--maybe including tariffs in some cases--
to enforce that. But the goal should be, you do for us what we do for 
you.

  Mexico and Canada can do that. That shouldn't be a problem. The trade 
deficit is not the right indicator with Mexico and Canada. We produce 
nearly 24 percent of all the money in the world in the United States. 
Mexico produces about 1 percent. So they spend 25 percent of their 
money buying stuff from us, and we spend one-fifth of 1 percent buying 
stuff from them.
  Let's not focus on the trade deficit. Let's not start with tariffs. 
Say to other countries: Do for us what we do for you. Go country by 
country and enforce that. That would be consistent with all the other 
accomplishments that happened in the last 18 months. That would be 
consistent with the lower taxes and the fewer regulations and the other 
actions that have increased the best economy in the last 18 years. It 
is my hope that I can become more persuasive on that. Article I, 
section 8, gives Congress the specific right to deal with tariffs and 
trade, and I hope we do.
  Madam President, if I may say one more thing about the vote we will 
be having at 12:30. Today the Senate is finally voting to confirm Ken 
Marcus, a well-qualified nominee, to serve as Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights at the Department of Education.
  I worked to get a time agreement for this vote because Mr. Marcus did 
not deserve to be the subject of the Democrats' unreasonable and 
unnecessary obstruction and delays. I want to thank Senator Murray from 
Washington and the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, for helping to 
bring these delays to a conclusion today.
  For example, Mr. Marcus was nominated on October 30, 2017--220 days 
ago. He has been pending on the floor since the HELP Committee approved 
his nomination on January 18, 2018--140 days ago. To compare, President 
Obama's two nominees to this position, Russlynn Ali and Catherine 
Lhamon, were confirmed in 45 and 52 days, and both were confirmed by a 
voice vote. That doesn't mean that every Republican supported these 
nominees, but it means we knew that students would be better served 
when the Department of Education had a confirmed civil rights official 
in place even if Republicans might disagree with that person.
  I would remind my colleagues that when President Obama proposed to 
have John King serve as Acting Secretary of Education for 1 year, I 
said: Mr. President, the country is better served and we are better 
served if you send us a nomination and let us confirm Mr. King, even 
though we disagree with him. The President did that. I made sure he was 
confirmed within a month. That is what should happen when a President 
makes nominations.
  It is time to confirm Mr. Marcus and give Secretary DeVos and our 
country an Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Mr. Marcus has a deep 
understanding of civil rights law. He founded the Louis D. Brandeis 
Center for Human Rights Under Law and served as Staff Director for the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for four years. He effectively served 
in this position before. When he worked in the Department of Education 
under President George W. Bush, he was delegated the authority of 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. In that position, he was charged 
with enforcing civil rights laws, such as Title IX, and he issued 
guidance reminding schools of their obligation, established in 
regulation, to have in place Title IX coordinators and procedures for 
when there was an alleged Title IX violation.
  Mr. Marcus enjoys wide support. Sixty-eight organizations signed 
letters supporting his nomination, including Hillel International, the 
largest Jewish campus organization in the world, which had this to say:

       ``Mr. Marcus has been a longtime champion for civil rights 
     and for college students. We have worked personally with him 
     on several campuses across the country in response to 
     specific issues of bigotry and discrimination, and we have 
     found him to be extremely skilled and knowledgeable in Civil 
     Rights laws.''

  As Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Mr. Marcus will lead a very 
important office. The Office for Civil Rights has the responsibility of 
ensuring that Title IX and other civil rights laws, and the protections 
they provide to all students, are fully enforced. When Mr. Marcus is 
confirmed, he will get to work enforcing these laws so that all 
students feel safe at school.

[[Page S3278]]

  I am glad we are having this vote today. I support the nomination, 
and I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Marcus as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I oppose the confirmation of Kenneth 
Marcus to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of 
Education. Mr. Marcus has a long record of targeting First Amendment-
protected speech and scholarship of people with whom he disagrees. His 
history also reflects a hostility towards civil rights, including 
making racially charged accusations and opposing affirmative action. In 
addition, Mr. Marcus has not publicly committed to upholding the civil 
rights protections of every student in the country, without regard to 
LGBTQI status, race, home language, gender, religion, disability, or 
immigration status.
  I am particularly concerned with Mr. Marcus's nomination, given the 
important role that the Office of Civil Rights--OCR--plays in 
protecting students from discrimination in schools and on campuses, as 
well as holding schools accountable for their sexual assault prevention 
policies. As we are all aware, Secretary DeVos and Acting OCR Director 
Candice Jackson have already taken very concerning steps to roll back 
guidance and investigations of potential civil rights violations. Given 
his testimony before the Senate HELP committee, I fear Mr. Marcus will 
likely contribute to this troubling pattern of neglect at the 
Department.
  According to a joint statement by UnidosUS and National Urban League: 
``Kenneth Marcus' troubling record with regard to enforcing the rights 
of immigrant students and English learners, and past attempts to 
undermine critical policies aimed at remedying racial discrimination, 
including affirmative action. Mr. Marcus [also] has a demonstrated 
history of hostility toward affirmative action and all race-based 
remedies to discrimination. He lacks a commitment to enforcing civil 
rights protections for students of color, and does not believe in 
disparate-impact or unintentional discrimination. J Street released a 
statement expressing its concerns with Kenneth Marcus' nomination, 
stating that ``[s]tudents deserve an assistant secretary who will 
uphold all of our community's values and priorities--including support 
for the fight against sexual violence and all forms of discrimination. 
We need government officials who will defend women and all those 
impacted by sexual violence, and who will fight this epidemic on 
college campuses and in our society. It's evident that Marcus would be 
an obstacle and not an ally in this work. His record shows that he is 
not prepared to take a stand against the many forms of discrimination 
based on gender, race, sexual identity and disability that harm 
students today.''
  In addition, the following various education, civil and disability 
rights groups oppose the nomination: American Association of University 
Women, AAUW; American Federation of Teachers; American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee; Americans for Peace Now; Arab American 
Institute; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Autistic Self Advocacy 
Network; Center for Law and Social Policy, CLASP; Disability Rights 
Education & Defense Fund; End Rape on Campus; Feminist Majority 
Foundation; Hispanic Federation; Human Rights Campaign; J Street; 
Jewish Voices for Peace; Lambda Legal; Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
Rights Under Law; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; 
League of United Latin American Citizens; Middle East Studies 
Association of North America; Muslim Advocates; NAACP; NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund; National Alliance for Partnerships in 
Equity, NAPE; National Bar Association; National Center for Lesbian 
Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of 
Jewish Women; National Education Association; National Urban League; 
National Women's Law Center; Know Your IX; People for American Way; 
Policy Link; Poverty & Race Research Action Council; Southeast Asia 
Resource Action Center; Southern Poverty Law Center; TASH; UnidosUS, 
formerly NCLR; and YWCA USA.
  Given the widespread opposition to Mr. Marcus's nomination, his 
troubling testimony in support of his confirmation, I cannot support 
his nomination. I urge my colleagues to likewise oppose it.
  (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the 
nomination of Kenneth L. Marcus, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights, Department of Education.
  The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, was 
established to address discrimination that prevents all students from 
receiving an equal opportunity to learn. No student should experience 
harmful discrimination because of their race, gender, disability, 
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
  Based on Mr. Marcus's record and performance during his confirmation 
process, I have no confidence that he is ready to effectively lead OCR 
and robustly enforce civil rights protections throughout the country. 
Mr. Marcus's demonstrated lack of commitment to the mission of OCR and 
his failure to understand that all children, regardless of citizenship 
status, have a right to attend public schools, are warning signs that 
the nominee is not the right person to lead OCR.
  Students in Illinois and across the Nation deserve a leader of OCR 
who will actively investigate and enforce civil rights protections, 
particularly in cases where there is evidence of systemic 
discrimination. An unwillingness or inability to address comprehensive, 
systemic discrimination in education is disqualifying, and I must 
oppose Mr. Marcus's confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Kansas.


                  National Defense Authorization Bill

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I want to speak briefly about the 
National Defense Authorization Act, which will soon be our topic of 
business.
  I compliment the Armed Services Committee for their diligence and 
their efforts to authorize appropriations for our Armed Forces in a 
very thoughtful and deliberative manner.
  I have submitted several amendments. I want to talk about a 
particular one to that underlying bill, amendment No. 2269, which is 
cosponsored by the senior Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, as well as 
Senator Gillibrand from New York and the Democratic leader, Senator 
Schumer from New York.
  Our amendment takes the same approach that the committee takes by 
addressing the Army's internal process on force structure--to 
thoughtfully deliberate how and where the Army makes smart investments, 
which includes the stationing decisions for soldiers and families that 
have a consequence not only on those soldiers and families but also on 
the cost of defending our country for decades to come.
  Fortunately, both the Department of Defense and the Army are now 
experiencing a much-needed period of time in which there is growth--
opportunities for us to spend additional dollars to defend our Nation. 
Our Armed Forces are modernizing, and they are increasing their 
readiness and lethality to be in a position to better deter, confront, 
and defeat adversaries in a security environment more complex and 
volatile than possibly anytime in our country's history, certainly 
within recent time. During this moment of growth, the Army ought not 
miss the opportunity to conduct due diligence in all of their decisions 
and invest wisely to pay down the cost in the future.
  The Army is focusing on reform and seeking to maximize the value of 
every dollar, to operate transparently, and to appropriately use the 
resources that the Congress has entrusted to them. They are taxpayer 
dollars. With this focus on reform, transparency, and on using every 
dollar wisely, this amendment No. 2269 helps the Army maximize the 
value of every dollar, operate transparently with Congress, and 
appropriately use the resources entrusted to them.
  I have been working with Army staff and senior leadership since 
February of this year to better understand their process, and I thank 
them for their efforts and the straightforward conversations we have 
had during this process.
  Based upon our conversations and testimony, my amendment codifies the 
transparency they are seeking and updates to the Army's stationing 
process that will better ensure that the Army

[[Page S3279]]

is making wiser decisions, more cost-effective decisions, and are 
making decisions that are beneficial in the long term.
  Stationing decisions are long-term decisions. They will impact the 
Army for many years to come. If we have learned anything from recent 
budget cycles, as the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Neller, 
said before our Appropriations Defense Subcommittee several times, it 
is that the only certainty is uncertainty.
  The Army has the benefit of a growing budget right now, but in future 
years, there will surely be periods of fiscal stress and uncertainty 
where smart investments today will be paid forward.
  Our intent with the amendment is to support the Army in making 
decisions based on fair, open, and comprehensive data--particularly 
long-term cost factors--that will help the Army save dollars in future 
years. Those savings can be put where they are desperately needed--
toward training, supporting our soldiers and their families, sustaining 
our weapons, and increasing the Army's readiness and lethality.
  I appreciate the help I have had from the Armed Services Committee, 
and I appreciate the chairman, Senator McCain, and his staff. I also 
appreciate very much my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, for 
his efforts in this regard. I appreciate their interest in my 
amendment.
  I will be happy to respond to any questions my colleagues may have on 
the merits of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                   China and the Student Visa Program

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kansas.
  I want to talk a little bit about a hearing I chaired yesterday, a 
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration hearing that was called 
``Student Visa Integrity: Protecting Educational Opportunity and 
National Security.'' The point of the hearing was to raise awareness 
about a very serious issue and to hear from the Federal agencies 
responsible for our national security, visa policy, and the vetting of 
foreign nationals studying in the United States.
  We hoped to shed light on policies and procedures that are in place, 
what should be in place but is not, and to address what has become a 
growing source of concern; that is, foreign countries taking advantage 
of their international students studying in the United States and 
turning them into intelligence assets or otherwise using them to gain 
information that will help other countries grow their economy and their 
military in a way that undermines U.S. leadership in both of those 
areas.
  That issue relates primarily to China's aggressive plan to surpass 
the United States on all fronts--militarily, economically, and 
technologically--and to do so by whatever means necessary. We already 
know that China is perhaps the No. 1 abuser of cyber space to steal 
intellectual property and to use that to advance its economy or its 
military. They have been very public about their ultimate goal; that 
is, to use whatever means they need in order to advance their economy 
or their military.
  It is important to remember that China is not a democracy like ours. 
China is a Communist country guided by a doctrine that does not 
recognize the human rights or individual rights that we take for 
granted here in the United States and in other democracies.
  They made it very clear what they intend to do. For example, in its 
``Made in China 2025'' strategy, which is something that has been 
published--you can read it yourself--China is accelerating its efforts 
to acquire U.S. intellectual property and sensitive research. That is 
where our universities in particular come in.
  Billions of Federal tax dollars--I think it is $178 billion in the 
Omnibus appropriations bill alone--are given to universities to conduct 
research to benefit the American people and hopefully all of humankind. 
Some of that research is sensitive because it is classified research. 
We had, for example, the head of security at the Texas A&M University 
System talk about the steps they have taken to protect that from prying 
eyes because of the sensitivity of some of that research.
  Universities are ground zero in this threat. This past February, 
Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Intelligence 
Committee in an open hearing about the security risk posed by certain 
Chinese students, visiting scientists, and scholars at American 
colleges and universities. His remarks were brief, and because of the 
sensitive and classified aspects of some part of what he said, he 
couldn't provide the full context and breadth in that open setting, but 
what he did say publicly was alarming. He said that the FBI is 
``watching warily'' and that ``naivete'' was exacerbating the problem. 
What I think he meant by that is that people were simply unaware and 
thus unprepared for what was happening. He also made very clear that 
the Chinese Government was intent on doing whatever it needed to do--
whether it is placing intelligence officers or other agents of the 
Chinese Government on campuses--to get the information they want.
  We are fortunate to have the world's top universities and colleges, 
and they are known for their open research, which fosters collaboration 
and innovation across a broad array of industry sectors and academic 
disciplines. One of the crown jewels of our country is our colleges and 
universities and the research they do, but our openness is also a 
vulnerability when being exploited by other countries for their own 
purposes.
  What is happening now, Director Wray says, is that foreign actors 
have taken advantage of that open environment and are using it to 
study, learn, and acquire sensitive information to the detriment of 
U.S. national security--and that is what we are primarily talking about 
here.
  It is not an isolated problem. Director Wray said that the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation is actively monitoring universities in all of 
its 56 field offices across the country, not just in major cities. 
Nearly all students and visiting scholars come for legitimate reasons. 
I take that as a given. We are not talking about everybody; we are 
talking about the isolated few. But the danger still remains. Most are 
here to learn and share our culture and to contribute their talents to 
America.
  I tend to think that our colleges and universities are the best 
elements of our soft power as a nation. When people come here and learn 
more about us and where we share values, perhaps even take those values 
back to their home country and serve as someone we can talk to and work 
with in the future, it promotes world peace, promotes mutual 
understanding, and, as I said, I think it is one of the most important 
elements of our soft power as a country.
  I am not here suggesting that we ought to conflate Chinese Communist 
Party influence on all students and academics--far from it. Students 
from across the world are certainly welcome; we welcome them with open 
arms to come to study at our colleges and universities, and I encourage 
them to explore opportunities to do so.
  What yesterday's hearing was actually about was not them but a small 
subset of people we should be concerned about--security risks, those 
who are here to steal and exploit our intellectual property and our 
national security and economic advantages, people who don't respect the 
rule of law as we do when it comes to intellectual property rights.
  As the FBI Director said, we can't be naive. This theft is occurring. 
It has been well documented, and we have to take the necessary 
preventive measures to ensure that it doesn't continue.
  By the way, I have mentioned one country, China, but certainly these 
concerns are not limited to China. There are more than 5,000 Russian 
students studying in the United States. There are other countries, 
including state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, that have foreign 
students here, actively working to steal U.S. technology and bypass 
expensive research and development and exploit the student visa program 
to gain information that will benefit their countries.
  I will just pause for a moment to say that we spend untold amounts of 
money in this country--taxpayers' hard-earned money--to research and 
develop the newest, most innovative products. That is true in the 
military sector and in the nonmilitary sector.

[[Page S3280]]

But when the American taxpayer pays to produce the necessary weapons 
and necessary infrastructure to protect us and our security, and other 
countries are actively trying to steal it and don't have to pay that 
research and development cost, we can see the obvious problem.
  Yesterday's hearing exposed a bigger problem, and that is the issue 
of competing global visions. Communist China makes no secret of the 
fact that Karl Marx is, in effect, their national hero. There was a 
week-long celebration in China just last month, which included a 
mandatory study session, led by President Xi, of Marx's famous work, 
``The Communist Manifesto.'' Events like this show that China, while a 
rival, in some ways could be a wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes 
to its most aggressive tactics, which I mentioned just a moment ago. 
When it tries to present itself as a westernizing economy and a friend 
of the global community of nations, China conveniently ignores facts 
about its alternative development model and its state-controlled 
economy, the fact that it respects no law in pursuit of those policies. 
It also disguises and downplays its geopolitical aims--to rewrite the 
rules of our world order and recreate them in China's own image.
  Whether it is China's increasing belligerence in places like the 
South China Sea, its crushing of internal political dissent, its 
flagrant human rights violations, or its population controls--like the 
one-child policy, which I understand has now been relaxed, but parents 
are not free to have all the children they want. It is controlled by 
the government; you have to ask the government's permission--China has 
repeatedly shown itself as a power-hungry authoritarian country, 
willing and able to violate the rights of its own people and dismissive 
and contemptuous of international norms and international law.
  I don't intend to sound hyperbolic about this, but this is the truth. 
So let's not deceive ourselves into believing otherwise. That is what 
Director Christopher Wray of the FBI calls naivete. Let's not be naive. 
Let's be wary when China tries to just blend in internationally. Its 
rosy rhetoric and misleading narrative of cooperation are often 
camouflaged for its true and more troubling aims.
  We know that there are high-level negotiations between the United 
States and the Chinese Government on the issue of trade, and that is a 
good thing.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining for the majority.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for one minute 
to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I joined a number of other Senators, 27 
Senators, to talk about ongoing trade negotiations with China. The main 
point of the letter was to emphasize that there is no question that 
China is actively seeking to surpass the United States economically and 
militarily. It is imperative that neither the Federal Government nor 
private U.S. companies abet that effort either deliberately or 
inadvertently.
  When it comes to China, national security isn't just a pretext for 
economic protectionism. It should not be. I, like many of my 
colleagues, believe strongly in free trade, and we shouldn't use 
national security as a pretext for economic protection. But the 
national security concerns are indeed real, for example, in the ZTE 
matter, which is a subject of some debate--as it should be--and 
discussion here in the Congress following the negotiation by Secretary 
Ross of a deal that he is proposing.
  For those of us who serve on the Intelligence Committee and on the 
Armed Services Committee, I assure you, the threat China poses is real, 
and the dangers we worry about are already taking effect. Our inaction 
could have only negative consequences, and we need to aim to prevent 
any future negative consequences for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak on 
the nomination of Kenneth Marcus to lead the Department of Education's 
Office for Civil Rights, a nomination we are going to vote on in just a 
few minutes.
  First of all, I want to say that I am pleased President Trump and 
Secretary DeVos have moved away from their original choice for this 
position. I believe the current Acting Assistant Secretary, Candice 
Jackson, is unfit for this role and should be removed from her current 
position, not just because of the callous, insensitive, and egregious 
comments she made regarding sexual assault on college campuses but also 
because of the way she has worked to narrow the role of this office and 
back away from enforcing transgender students' rights and take away the 
tools and resources it has as an office to protect our students and 
actually move it away from its core mission. So as I have said before, 
I am very glad President Trump and Secretary DeVos decided to nominate 
someone else to replace Ms. Jackson.
  Secondly, I want to thank this nominee, Kenneth Marcus, for his 
service over the years and for his commitment to the goal of halting 
discrimination on our college campuses, which is certainly an issue the 
OCR will face in light of incidents of hateful rhetoric and violence 
occurring on our campuses and in schools.
  I respect Mr. Marcus's commitment, but right now, in this 
administration, it is not enough. We are now just a bit more than 500 
days into President Trump's term, and when it comes to his record and 
his rhetoric on civil rights, I haven't been surprised once.
  I want to start with his rhetoric. This is a President who kicked off 
his campaign by calling Mexicans criminals, who has called for a ban on 
all Muslims coming to America, who has openly ridiculed a journalist 
with a disability, who has openly demeaned women, who defended White 
supremacists rallying in Charlottesville by saying there were ``many 
fine people'' among them, who compared immigrants to ``animals'' and 
referred to entire countries with an expletive I will not repeat on the 
Senate floor. Sadly, I can go on.
  It goes beyond his hateful rhetoric. President Trump has tried to 
implement that Muslim ban. He has actually rolled back guidance on 
enforcing transgender students' rights. He revoked title IX guidance, 
which protects women and helps bring perpetrators of sexual assault to 
justice, halted investigations into systemic discrimination, and has 
pushed his administration to engage in appalling behavior on our 
border, dehumanizing immigrants and separating kids from their 
families. That list goes on.
  I feel very confident in saying that when it comes to civil rights, 
when it comes to the rights and safety of women, of people of color, of 
LGBTQ people, of people with disabilities, this President has 
purposefully fanned the flames of racism, ableism, bigotry, and sexism 
in ways that we have not seen in a generation, and anyone who cares 
about civil rights in America should be able to point that out.
  That is why I was so disappointed that President Trump's nominee to 
lead the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights could not 
answer one of my questions at his hearing. When I asked Mr. Marcus to 
name a single example of something President Trump has said or done 
that he disagrees with when it comes to discrimination or women's 
rights or civil rights, he couldn't say one--not a single example, and 
that is all I was looking for.
  He could have talked about how President Trump has stoked hatred and 
division of Muslims and Latinos; maybe he disagreed with that. He could 
have talked about how President Trump has downplayed hate crimes 
against minority communities here in America; maybe he could have said 
he disagreed with that. He could have talked about how President Trump 
nominated Jeff Sessions to lead his Justice Department, someone with a 
record of opposing civil rights protections; maybe he disagreed with 
that. He could have talked about how President Trump named someone 
hostile to LGBTQ rights to lead the Office for Civil Rights in the 
Department of Health and Human Services; maybe he could have disagreed 
with that. He could have talked about any of the ways President Trump 
has tried to weaken and has actually weakened the office Mr. Marcus is 
nominated to lead; maybe he disagreed with that. Unfortunately, in this 
administration, there is

[[Page S3281]]

almost no end to the options Mr. Marcus had when I asked him a simple 
question, but we do not know where he stands because he wouldn't name a 
single thing--not one.
  He said: ``I really couldn't say, Senator.'' That was his response to 
my question.
  There are reasons to oppose this nomination, but for me, this 
nonresponse to what should be an easy question was enough for me. We 
have to have someone in this position who is not only able to say that 
he disagrees with President Trump when it comes to civil rights; we 
need someone who is prepared to stand up to him. We need someone who is 
not only able to say they stand on the side of civil rights in the face 
of constant attacks; we need someone who is actually willing to 
disagree with their bosses--President Trump and Secretary DeVos--when 
civil rights are being threatened. But Mr. Marcus could not commit to 
me that he would do either, and that is something I simply cannot 
support.
  I will be opposing this nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Thank you.
  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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Marcus 
nomination?
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Blumenthal), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Blumenthal
     Coons
     Duckworth
     McCain
  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.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________