September 19, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 151 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5584-S5591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Brian 
McGuire, of New York, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             The Judiciary

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week, the Senate confirmed President 
Trump's 150th judge. That is a significant milestone and one that has 
been harder to achieve than it normally would be thanks to the 
Democrats' determination to delay judicial confirmations. Again and 
again, the Democrats have used the time-consuming cloture vote process 
to delay the confirmations of President Trump's nominees--even of 
nominees they ultimately chose to vote for.
  By this point in President Obama's first term, the Republicans had 
required cloture votes on just three of President Obama's judicial 
nominees--three. Compare that to today. As of September 12, the 
Democrats had required cloture votes on a staggering 71.7 percent of 
President Trump's picks for the bench--71 percent. Basically, for more 
than two out of every three judges, the Democrats have required cloture 
votes. That simply means they have filibustered that particular 
nominee. The way you end the filibuster is by invoking cloture.
  When the Republicans were in the minority when President Obama was in 
the White House, at this point in President Obama's first term, the 
Democratic majority had invoked cloture just three times for three 
judges whom the Republicans had tried to block. As I said, right now, 
at the same point in President Trump's first term, we are talking about 
almost 72 percent of all of the nominations combined having been 
filibustered. If you think about that and if you add it up totally, 
cumulatively, it is about 100 now compared to 3 during President 
Obama's first term at the same time in office.
  As I have said, many of these were nominees the Democrats ultimately 
went on to vote to confirm. In other words, it was not that President 
Trump nominated scores of extreme nominees whom the Democrats felt they 
couldn't support. Again and again, the Democrats have delayed a 
nominee, then turned around and voted in favor of him or her.
  In one particularly memorable example, in January of 2018, the 
Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week considering four 
district court judges even though not one single Democrat voted against 
their confirmations--not one single Democrat. These judges could have 
been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice votes. Instead, the 
Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their 
considerations--time that could have been spent on genuinely 
controversial nominees or on some of the many important issues that 
face our country.
  So far this September, the Senate has confirmed six district court 
judges. The Democrats forced cloture votes on four of them despite the 
fact that all four were eventually confirmed by huge bipartisan 
margins. In fact, one was confirmed by a unanimous vote of 94 to 0.
  If the Democrats had had a serious reason for their obstruction of 
the President's judicial nominees, they would not have been repeatedly 
turning around and voting for them. Their obstruction isn't based on 
principle; it is based on partisanship. They don't like this President, 
so they are obstructing his nominees even when they agree they are well 
qualified for their positions. As a result, we are forced to spend 
hours upon hours of Senate floor time on uncontroversial nominations--
time we could be using for other priorities.
  Democratic delays are also not helping the judicial vacancy rate, 
which is still high despite the Republicans' efforts to get judges 
confirmed. High numbers of vacancies result in there being long waits 
to get cases heard, which serves nobody.
  While Democratic obstruction is bad enough, unfortunately, we have a 
lot more to worry about. In recent months, the Democrats have moved 
beyond obstruction and into directly threatening the independence of 
the judiciary. Court-packing--an idea that pretty much everybody 
thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history almost a century 
ago--is enjoying a revival among members of the Democratic Party.
  For anyone who needs a refresher on this concept, the theory of 
court-packing is quite simple. If the Supreme Court is not deciding 
cases to your liking, add more judges to the Court until you start 
getting the decisions you want. It is not hard to see why this is a 
terrible idea, but that hasn't stopped it from gaining traction in the 
Democratic Party. In fact, five prominent Democrats--including a 
Democratic Presidential candidate and the second-

[[Page S5585]]

ranking Democrat in the Senate--recently filed an amicus brief with the 
Supreme Court that threatened the Court if it failed to rule according 
to the Democrats' preference.
  They wrote:

       The Supreme Court is not well, and the people know it. 
     Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands 
     it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of 
     politics.

  Translation: If you don't rule the way we want you to, you will not 
like the consequences.

  Threatening members of the judiciary is within the domain of 
dictators and despots, not Members of the U.S. Congress, and it is 
deeply disturbing that prominent Democrats apparently now see nothing 
wrong with trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.
  Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that there are few lengths to 
which the Democrats will not go in their increasingly desperate 
partisanship. Just this week, we saw the Democrats leap on the 
opportunity to drag Justice Kavanaugh's name through the mud again 
based on yet another vague and unsubstantiated rumor.
  More than one Democratic Presidential candidate instantly cried that 
he should be impeached. What was the basis for such a drastic 
suggestion? It was a New York Times article that was, as the leader 
pointed out, so short on reporting that it ran on the opinion page of 
the New York Times instead of in the news section, not to mention that 
after running this piece, the Times had to quickly issue a correction 
and note a glaring omission in the original story. What was the 
omission? It was the fact that the supposed victim of Justice 
Kavanaugh's supposed behavior declined to be interviewed and that her 
friends said she had no memory of the alleged incident.
  It is not hard to see what is behind the Democrats' relentless 
campaign to smear Justice Kavanaugh's name. They are furious that it 
was a Republican and not a Democratic President who had the opportunity 
to choose a Justice to replace a perceived swing vote on the Supreme 
Court, and they are afraid that Justice Kavanaugh will not issue the 
rulings they want.
  Here we get to the heart of the problem with the Democrats' 
increasingly unhinged leftism and attacks on the judiciary. The 
Democrats aren't looking for judges or a judiciary that will rule 
according to the law; they are looking for a judiciary that will rule 
in accordance with the Democrats' preferred policies whether they have 
anything to do with the law or not, and that is a very dangerous goal.
  Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge who shares your 
political opinions reaches outside the meaning of the statute and rules 
for your preferred outcome. Yet what happens when that same judge 
reaches beyond the law to your detriment? What protection do you have 
if the judge and not the law becomes the highest authority? The only 
way to ensure the protection of individuals' rights is to ensure the 
rule of law, and that means having judges who will make decisions 
according to the law, not according to their personal preferences or 
the principles of a particular political party's.
  In the wake of the Democrats' threat to the Supreme Court, all 53 
Republican Senators sent a letter to the Justices that underscored our 
commitment to protecting the independence of the judiciary. We noted in 
the letter:

       There is no greater example of the genius of our 
     Constitution than its creation of an independent judiciary. . 
     . . Time and again, our independent federal courts have 
     protected the constitutional rights of Americans from 
     government overreach even when that overreach was politically 
     popular.

  If we want our courts to continue protecting Americans' 
constitutional rights, then we need to ensure they remain independent.
  The Democrats' interest in having judges who will rule according to 
their preferred outcomes is not new, but in the past, their interest 
has not led them to attempt to bully judges into voting their way. I 
hope the Democrats will think better of their repressive tactics before 
our independent judiciary becomes the victim of their political agenda.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                Authorization for Use of Military Force

  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I could stay here all day, listening 
to the names of the brave men and women whom I was lucky enough to 
serve with in the military. I could stay here all night, telling 
stories about their heroism and courage. I could stay here all week, 
all month, talking about the troops who are serving overseas right now 
and about those who are on their eighth or ninth tours of duty or about 
those teenagers who weren't even alive when the Twin Towers fell, yet 
who are ready to ship off to Afghanistan at this very moment if that is 
what is asked of them. I could go on and on all year if I wanted, and I 
still wouldn't be able to convey the sacrifices they are making because 
they love this country and would do anything to defend her.
  I will not stand idly by and let a single one of them shed blood in 
an avoidable conflict because Donald Trump has abdicated matters of war 
and peace to a despot who regularly flouts basic human rights and 
openly murders journalists. Yet, after tensions spiked between Saudi 
Arabia and Iran this past weekend, that is exactly what he seemed to be 
willing to do. He tweeted that the U.S. was ``locked and loaded'' and 
just waiting for the Crown Prince to tell him how to proceed. We can't 
let that slip by.
  The President--the Commander in Chief of the greatest military of the 
greatest democracy on the face of the Earth--just suggested that he was 
outsourcing the powers of war to a foreign monarch--powers that aren't 
even his to hand over--and he did it in a tweet.
  While Trump may have never read the Constitution, I have, so let me 
direct his attention to article I, which makes it clear that the 
President does not have the authority to declare war. Only Congress has 
that power. We are the ones tasked with deciding when and how Americans 
are sent into combat. We are the ones charged with that most solemn 
duty, not Donald Trump and certainly not Muhammad bin Salman. Yet Trump 
is acting as if article I simply doesn't exist, as if he could just 
usurp this power from the legislative branch and trade it to whomever 
he pleases, as if obeying the Constitution is optional even while he 
tweets that he is willing to obey a foreign prince.
  This should not be a partisan issue. No matter if you are struggling 
to pay rent or if your name is plastered in gold on the front of a 
building on Fifth Avenue, no one can overrule the Constitution. Trump 
doesn't get to mire us in yet another Middle East conflict just because 
he has a bizarre tendency to bow down and kiss up to the world's 
cruelest tyrants.
  Whether you ask constitutional scholars or high school students 
taking U.S. history classes, they will tell you the same thing--that on 
matters of military force, whether they are our allies or our 
adversaries, American Presidents do not get to choose to take orders 
from foreign leaders. They take direction from Congress--full stop.
  I am here to say that we have not authorized him to ensnare us in 
another endless, senseless war.
  We haven't debated and passed a new authorization for the use of 
military force in more than 15 years, and there is just no way that the 
AUMF passed to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 can justify military 
action against Iran nearly two decades later, sending troops overseas 
who may not have even been alive when that AUMF was voted on.
  Listen, it is not just me who believes this. It is not just my fellow 
Democrats in the Senate either. During the confirmation hearing for 
now-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, I asked Trump's own nominee point-
blank whether the existing AUMF gives this administration the right to 
conduct a war with Iran. His answer? His answer was: No. No, they do 
not.
  Even in decades past, when prior Presidents have gotten us entangled 
in bad wars based on bad intelligence, at the very least they made sure 
to loop in the United Nations, but Trump is acting as if he wouldn't 
even do that. He is too busy thumping his chest and catering to the 
whims of autocrats. He is too infatuated with maximum pressure to 
consider even minimum diplomacy, too distracted beating the drums of 
war to even think about how many troops he would be sending into harm's 
way.
  For what? To protect the Saudi oil industry or the Crown Prince's 
personal profits?

[[Page S5586]]

  Once again, the Trump foreign policy doctrine has proven reckless, 
senseless, and dangerous, full of gaslighting and bluster, a doctrine 
in which fact and fiction are one in the same.
  It is shameful. It is terrifying that we have a Commander in Chief 
who comes to military decisions by virtue of temper tantrum and then 
announces them via tweet, a President who doesn't seem to care that if 
he keeps on the path of fire and fury he has been treading, our own 
homeland will be in greater danger, more wounded warriors will be sent 
to Walter Reed, and more fallen heroes will be laid to rest in the 
hallowed grounds of Arlington.
  Donald Trump may never have deigned to put on our Nation's uniform, 
so he probably doesn't know that the commander's greatest 
responsibility is to safeguard the troops so they are able to carry out 
the mission. That means we do not send them into harm's way recklessly 
and without full support both logistically and legally.
  As a former unit commander, I ran for Congress so that when the drums 
of war sounded, I would be in a position to make sure our elected 
officials fully consider the true costs of war, not just in dollars and 
cents but in the sacrifices of our troops and their families. That was 
the vow I made to my buddies that I deployed with and all those who 
have served since I hung up my uniform.
  Now, as the drums of war are pounding once again, I am here today to 
keep my promise to do our troops justice and to make sure Donald Trump 
does not outsource overseas yet another American job--Congress's job to 
declare war. If the Trump administration wants to go to war, they must 
bring their case to Congress and give the American people a say through 
their elected representatives. They must respect our servicemembers 
enough to prove why war with Iran is worth turning more moms and dads 
into Gold Star parents. They must testify about what the end state in 
Iran actually looks like.
  Then, when their case has been made, when Congress's debate is done, 
we should vote. It is our duty. It is the least we owe to the troops we 
would be sending into harm's way. If the vote to authorize military 
force passes, then I will be the first person to volunteer to deploy. I 
am ready to pack my rucksack, to dust off my uniform. I am ready to fly 
helicopters, take on the grunt work, do whatever else it takes to 
uphold that oath that all servicemembers and veterans have sworn: to 
protect and defend this Nation we love, no matter what.
  It would be nice if we had a President willing to do the same instead 
of one who thinks he looks tough by pushing us to the brink of a 
needless conflict.
  Listen, Trump may think he comes off as strong by using phrases like 
``locked and loaded'' and by spewing threats 280 characters at a time, 
but he has never seemed weaker to me. A real Commander in Chief would 
not dole out matters of war to the highest bidder. A true leader would 
not bend to the whims of despots just because of the size of their bank 
accounts. A strong President would not care more about keeping tyrants 
happy than safeguarding our most precious resource: the brave men and 
women willing to lay down their lives to defend our Nation. Yet, day 
after day, Donald Trump wraps himself in the flag in the morning and 
then abandons our servicemembers and our democratic norms by the 
afternoon.
  While he may have already shirked his duty as an elected official, I 
refuse to abandon mine. So as many times as is necessary, I am going to 
keep coming back to this Chamber, keep raising my voice under this 
great Capitol dome, and keep demanding what is actually in our Nation's 
best interest because, you see, I don't take my orders from war 
criminals or dictators or princes or monarchs. I don't serve foreign 
regimes. I serve the American people. Trump would do well to try that 
sometime.
  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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate failed to advance 
a motion to proceed to a package of appropriations bills, demonstrating 
something that Leader McConnell already knew: There are not enough 
votes in the Senate for the President's wall.
  The Senate refuses to fund the border wall that the President 
promised Mexico would pay for, especially not at the expense of our 
troops and their families and important public health programs like 
childcare and Head Start. Just yesterday, the Pentagon warned of dire 
outcomes if the money to fund the military is not provided.
  Read today's Washington Post. Our military people are upset with 
this. Now, their chain of command is not going to publicly say it, but 
we know it. Over 120 military projects stand to lose funding, and we 
aren't talking about fixing parking lots. We are talking about military 
readiness. We are talking about medical facilities for troops in North 
Carolina. We are talking about schools for military families in 
Kentucky. We are talking about explosives stored in unsafe conditions. 
We are talking about a very important engineering lab at West Point to 
train our future soldiers. Even hurricane recovery projects in Florida 
are at risk.
  The Defense Department was very clear that without this funding, 
lives would be at risk, but that is what Republicans on the 
Appropriations Committee proposed. The Senate rightly rejected that 
idea.
  The Republican leader is saying we are hurting the military? Give me 
a break. We are defending the military. How much bull does the majority 
leader think the American public will swallow? They are taking money 
out of the military to put it in the wall, and he says that we are 
hurting the military? Oh, no. Leader McConnell is hurting the military, 
and we defended them. We defended them because we want the money to go 
to the military, not to the wall.
  By the way, in that regard, Leader McConnell did not stick with the 
agreement. The agreement was not only on the 302(a)s but there would be 
bipartisan agreement on where the money on the defense side and the 
nondefense side would be distributed.
  Instead of consulting Democrats, they tried to jam something down our 
throats, taking money out of defense, out of Head Start and other 
programs in the health and human services budget and put it into the 
wall. Well, that wasn't going to stand, it isn't going to stand, and it 
will not stand.
  I hope Leader McConnell has learned his lesson. Shutting down the 
government or trying to eyeball for the wall isn't going to work. Let's 
roll up our sleeves and work together.
  My friend the Republican leader and Chairman Shelby have now shown 
the President that they tried again to fund his wall. They have seen, 
once again, that the votes are not there. They have seen, once again, 
that when the Senate Republicans do the President's bidding and refuse 
to engage the Democrats, the only thing they accomplish is wasted time.
  The pattern repeats itself far too frequently. The same impulse to do 
the President's bidding--they are so afraid of this President--and that 
is what led to the 35-day Trump shutdown earlier this year. Let's not 
repeat that, Republicans. Let's learn our lessons.
  The same impulse led Republicans to deny for months disaster aid to 
Puerto Rico. In each case, whether it be taking money out of needed 
places like the military and putting it into the wall or not being fair 
to Puerto Rico when it came to aid, they had to relent and work with 
Democrats. I am glad they did for the good of the country.
  So enough time has been wasted this work period. Leader McConnell, 
Chairman Shelby, let's sit down. It is time for you to sit down and 
negotiate with Democrats on the way forward.
  (Mr. SCOTT of Florida assumed the chair.)


                         Continuing Resolution

  Mr. President, let's talk about the short-term CR, which was released 
last night. The continuing resolution is an important measure to keep 
the government open until late November and

[[Page S5587]]

allow appropriators to get a bipartisan agreement for fiscal year 2020.
  One program that has not received enough attention is the 
agricultural relief program known commonly as the Commodity Credit 
Corporation. This is an important program that should help all farmers 
suffering from certain exigencies of the market, like price declines 
and natural disasters.
  Unfortunately, over the past year, the President turned this 
important agricultural relief program that we all support into a giant 
slush fund. The relief payments have gotten political. Crops in red 
States have received outsized subsidies, while crops in blue States 
were shortchanged. Cotton, for example, has gotten a huge subsidy, 
compared to dairy and specialty crops, fruits and vegetables. The 
payments were not matched to the damage caused to each crop. Even 
soybeans, the supposed reason for this at the beginning, were greatly 
shortchanged for cotton, and even now cotton is being treated better.
  In addition--and just as bad, if not worse--there have been huge 
amounts of waste and abuse in the program. Large agribusinesses, 
including some foreign agribusinesses, like a Brazilian beef 
corporation, are receiving funding through this program while American 
dairy farmers are passed over.
  There are limits on the CCC program. If you make over $900,000, you 
shouldn't get any money. The most any farm can get is $250,000 if there 
are two farmers in the family, a husband and a wife. Those don't seem 
to abate either.
  We are very pleased that Republicans acceded to our wish. Democrats 
were able to inject some transparency into the agricultural relief 
program.
  In this short-term CR, we require reporting on whether the funding is 
going to foreign sources and justification for why money went where it 
did. We are going to look at this report before we move to the full 
appropriations bill in a month or two to make sure the money is going 
to our American farmers who need it--not foreigners, not wealthy 
agribusiness, not all slanted to one product like cotton when there are 
so many other needs.
  This is a good victory for Democrats in a day of some victories for 
Democrats.


                           Election Security

  Mr. President, there is another bright spot, election security. This 
morning, after months and months of Republican resistance and months of 
insistent Democratic pressure, Senate Republicans have finally agreed 
to support our Democratic request for additional election security 
funding in advance of the 2020 elections.
  This is similar to an amendment Democrats offered during last year's 
appropriations process to help States harden their election 
infrastructure to protect against Russian or Chinese or Iranian 
interference.
  A year ago, our Republican friends, unfortunately and shortsightedly, 
rejected this amendment. Maybe, just maybe, Republicans are starting to 
come around to our view that election security is necessary; that if 
Americans don't believe their elections are on the up and up, woe is us 
as a country and as a democracy.
  It is not all the money we requested and doesn't include a single 
solitary reform that virtually everyone knows we need, but it is a 
start. Leader McConnell kept saying that we don't need the money. I 
made umpteen speeches here, in this chair, and the Republican leader 
denied the need. But now, thank God, he has seen the light. We need 
more money for election security; ask election officials, Democrat or 
Republican, throughout the country. I hope today's vote means Senate 
Republicans are beginning to see the light on election security.
  While this funding is important, it is not the only thing we need to 
do to secure our elections from Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or any other 
foreign country's interference. There are multiple bipartisan pieces of 
legislation awaiting action on the floor that would counter foreign 
influence operations against our democracy, safeguard our elections, 
and deter foreign adversaries from even attempting to interfere.
  We have been warned time and again by our national security leaders--
nearly all of them Republicans appointed by President Trump--that China 
and, of course, Russia are potential threats in 2020. We cannot sit on 
our hands while our adversaries try to replicate and outdo what Putin 
accomplished in 2016.
  Leader McConnell should bring the bipartisan bills. We are getting 
the money in approps, but we need more legislation to refine where the 
dollars are.
  Leader McConnell, now that you have seen the light on the money, go 
one step further: Bring the bipartisan bills--the Defending American 
Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, the Secure Elections Act, and the 
DETER Act--to the floor for a debate and a vote. Otherwise, the job 
will remain incomplete and our democracy vulnerable.


                           Background Checks

  Mr. President, finally on guns, yesterday, according to reports, 
Attorney General Barr came to Capitol Hill to discuss a one-page 
proposal on gun legislation that he had put together. It became clear 
soon after that the White House, seemingly out of fear of reprisal by 
the NRA, was unwilling to embrace its own Attorney General's proposal. 
Once again, the White House refused to take a stand on what they 
propose to do on the question of gun violence.
  President Trump and Senate Republicans are trying to find a way to 
have their cake and eat it too--searching for a plan that the public 
will accept and won't offend the NRA. It is a fool's errand.
  Leader McConnell, President Trump, you can't please the NRA and at 
the same time do good gun legislation that will save lives. You cannot 
please the NRA unless you do something that is either regressive or, at 
the very best, toothless. Get it through your heads. That is how it is.
  If you want to do something real on gun legislation and save lives, 
you have to reject the NRA's ministrations. The NRA is wildly out of 
step with the views of the American public. Its policies are 
reactionary; its leadership, recalcitrant and divided.
  Look no further than the universal background check bill. Ninety-
three percent of Americans, the great majority of gun owners, and 80 
percent of Republicans support the idea. But not the NRA. As for 
yesterday's plan floated by the Republican Attorney General, a plan 
that would only modestly expand background checks, representatives of 
the NRA called it a nonstarter.
  The views of the NRA and the views of the American public are 
fundamentally incompatible. President Trump, Leader McConnell, Senate 
Republicans, which side are you on? Are you with the NRA or are you 
with the American people?
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today Speaker Pelosi unveiled the House's 
plan to try to lower out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. This, 
of course, has been a priority for many of us in Washington, including 
the Presiding Officer.
  We have been working on it really hard here in the Senate. Actually, 
three standing committees of the Senate have now reported out 
legislation dealing with this issue: the Judiciary Committee, the 
Finance Committee, and the HELP Committee, or the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee. All are working together to try to come 
with up bipartisan packages to lower prescription drug costs.
  These bills, of course, include ideas from Republicans and Democrats.
  Mr. President, apparently, we have some technical difficulties here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I can hear you better now.
  Mr. CORNYN. It sounds like we have fixed that. Thank you.
  As I was saying, while these bills include ideas from both 
Republicans and Democrats, it shouldn't surprise people that in an area 
as complex as this, there are going to be some disagreements along the 
way. But that is what we do here: We work through those disagreements 
and try to build consensus.
  While I know that it is only a bipartisan bill that has any chance at 
all to

[[Page S5588]]

make its way to the President's desk for his signature, Speaker Pelosi 
appears to have a different approach. House Democrats want to replace 
our free-market healthcare system with the heavyhanded government 
approach that puts us on a path to socialized medicine. They want to 
allow the government to set prices and put bureaucrats at the center of 
our healthcare system, instead of patients.
  The Speaker's plan is just the latest example of a partisan messaging 
document masquerading as legislation, and it has absolutely no chance--
zero, zip, nada--of passing the Senate or becoming law.
  In contrast, the ideas we have been working on would lower out-of-
pocket costs by increasing competition and transparency, while stopping 
the bad actors who try to game the system. Unlike the House, we have 
been considering bills that have broad bipartisan support, as I said, 
which means they have the potential to actually become law, to get 
something done.
  Speaker Pelosi should take note that we in the Senate have done the 
hard work of finding consensus with our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. I encourage our friends in the House of Representatives to stop 
wasting time and, instead, start working in a bipartisan fashion and 
work on legislation that can actually become law. Only then will the 
American people see the benefit of a reduction in out-of-pocket costs 
for their prescription drugs.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, on another matter, with the end of the fiscal year 
just a week and a half way, we know the clock is running out for us to 
pass funding bills. After the longest government shutdown in history 
earlier this year, I thought there was bipartisan support to get the 
regular appropriations process back on track. Both parties knew there 
was a funding crisis at stake this fall if we couldn't come together 
and reach a compromise.
  So that is exactly what we did before the August break. Our 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, led by the chairman, 
Senator Shelby, worked day and night to reach an agreement that was 
acceptable to both parties in both Chambers, as well as earning the 
support of the President. That is not easy to do. That was the 2-year 
budget caps agreement. But they got it done. That is until the August 
recess occurred, and, apparently, memories faded about what exactly had 
been agreed to, or people reconsidered their previous agreement and 
decided to withdraw their consent.
  We knew this caps deal, as imperfect as it was, would lay the 
foundation for the appropriations process this fall and get us out of 
this reoccurring movie called the looming shutdown.
  At the end of July, we passed a 2-year budget agreement. It was a 
fair compromise, considering everybody's interests. While there are 
still details to be hashed out in the individual appropriations bills, 
it was a strong start. We thought we had made it past this shutdown 
movie and scenario.
  We agreed to top-line defense spending and nondefense spending. There 
was a promise not to derail the appropriations process with poison pill 
policy riders, and we got it done with plenty of time to spare.
  Now it appears that our Democratic friends are backing down from 
their commitments, which is a serious mistake on their part. If we 
can't work together in good faith and trust that our colleagues will 
actually stick to their word and keep their commitments, then, that is 
going to do nothing but further erode our ability to function on behalf 
of the American people.
  Imagine my surprise when, yesterday, the Senate voted to begin debate 
on the first batch of funding bills and Democrats blocked it. They 
stopped it dead in its tracks. Even though they had agreed to the 
spending caps and a process to go forward, they blocked it. They voted 
to deny our troops the largest pay raise in a decade. They voted to 
withhold vital funding from our military at a time when we face growing 
threats around the world. They voted to derail the very process they 
had agreed to before August. In so doing, they once again put partisan 
politics above our responsibilities to the American people.
  What is the reason for this? A disagreement over funding allocations 
of 0.003 percent of the total budget--0.003 percent of the total 
budget. That is like robbing a bank in order to steal the change from 
the gumball machine. I am really disappointed. We are better than that, 
and I hope our colleagues will reconsider.
  Our national security is on the line. If there is one thing we ought 
to do above all else, it is to provide for the defense and to make sure 
that the American people are safe and that those who put themselves in 
harm's way and who volunteer to wear the uniform of the U.S. military 
are treated with respect and fairness. It is inappropriate and it is 
just wrong to play games with national security or with our military, 
as our Democratic colleagues appear to be doing.


                            Debbie Smith Act

  Finally, Mr. President, 4 months ago, the Senate passed a bipartisan 
bill that I introduced with the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein, to reauthorize what has arguably been the single greatest 
driver behind our progress to reduce the rape kit backlog.
  The Debbie Smith Act was first passed in 2004 to provide State and 
local crime labs with the resources they need to end the backlog of 
unsolved crimes. At one point, we learned there were perhaps as many as 
400,000 forensic kits, or rape kits, sitting either in evidence lockers 
or in labs that had been untested--400,000. In each one of those kits 
is the evidence needed to identify the assailant in a sexual assault 
or, conversely, to rule out somebody in a sexual assault.
  Also, as a result of uploading of this information, if it is tested, 
into the FBI system, or the CODIS system, it can help to solve a myriad 
of crimes, not just sexual assault cases.
  The Debbie Smith Act is one of those rare cases where there has 
always been bipartisan and bicameral support. More than $1 billion has 
been provided to forensic labs because of this law, enabling them to 
get untested evidence off the shelf so we can provide victims with 
answers and we can take these assailants, which, characteristically, 
don't just do it one time--they do it multiple times until they are 
ultimately caught--off the street.
  As I said, while the primary goal of the legislation was to reduce 
the rape kit backlog, under the Debbie Smith Act, this has provided an 
abundance of DNA evidence that has been used to solve other numerous 
crimes. That is because once the evidence is tested, it is uploaded in 
the FBI's DNA database, called CODIS. Similar to the fingerprint 
databases, this DNA database can help to identify and convict people 
who commit any type of crime that is under investigation.
  For example, if a criminal commits a burglary in one State, DNA from 
that burglary case can later be used to connect this criminal to an 
unsolved rape case in other States. It is that powerful.
  According to the National Institute of Justice, 42 percent of the 
hits in the FBI's DNA database system are the direct result of Debbie 
Smith Act funding--42 percent.
  Last month, I visited a living community in Grapevine, TX, called The 
Gatehouse. This is a place where women and children who have been 
victimized by domestic violence find the care and resources they need 
to restart their lives. I spoke with survivors of sexual assault, 
advocates, and law enforcement about the impact of the Debbie Smith Act 
and the need to reauthorize this critical program before it expires at 
the end of the month.
  Here is the thing that completely confounds me. The Debbie Smith Act 
is not partisan. It is not even controversial. It is not divisive. The 
last time we voted on it, not a single Senator voted no. So there is no 
reason for the House to stall on this critical legislation. If the 
House doesn't act by the end of the month, it will expire.
  Once again, I urge Speaker Pelosi to allow this bill to go to the 
floor of the House without further delay. It would be simply shameful 
to allow this program to expire, especially when she has a bipartisan 
bill in her hand and all she has to do is allow it to go to the floor 
of the House for a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S5589]]

  

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Background Checks

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, in February of this year, the House of 
Representatives passed what is known as the universal background check 
in regard to gun sales. Since that time, the Senate has had no action 
whatsoever on gun safety issues. Leader McConnell could bring this bill 
to the floor, and I am confident we have the support to pass it.
  I do hear from many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that we are waiting for the President, and unless the President signs 
off on a bill, they are not interested in bringing it up. The last time 
I checked the Constitution of the United States, the first article of 
the Constitution provides for the legislative branch of government, and 
that is us. We make the laws, not the President of the United States. 
It is up to us to deliver and consider legislation and pass 
legislation. Yet there is no action from the floor of the Senate. 
Leader McConnell will not bring up gun safety legislation.
  Every day we wait--every single day--100 people in America die from 
gun violence. That is why many of us are frequently speaking on the 
floor of the Senate about the need to consider gun safety legislation.
  It has been over 200 days since the House took bipartisan action on 
the universal background checks. Since that time, we have seen many 
mass shootings, including on August 3 in El Paso, August 4 in Dayton, 
and August 31 in Odessa. There is no action on the floor of the Senate. 
Every day, there are people dying in our communities and in our homes 
from gun violence. Yet there is no action on the floor of the Senate.
  The United States is an outlier among the developed nations in the 
world. We have 10 times, 20 times, 30 times more instances of gun 
violence than in developed countries in the world. We have more guns in 
private ownership than the people of developed worlds, more suicides, 
more mass shootings, more gun violence. Yet there is no action on the 
floor of the Senate.
  The issue is kind of simple. Inaction is not an answer to gun 
violence in America. Americans are expecting us--the Members of the 
Senate--to consider gun safety legislation. We want the majority leader 
to bring that bill to the floor today before another 100 people die. 
Let us take action.
  I mentioned several times the bill that passed the House of 
Representatives over 200 days ago, the universal background checks. Let 
me just talk a moment about why that bill needs to be considered and 
passed as soon as possible. In 1993, we passed the Brady Handgun 
Violence Prevention Act. It provides for a presale check as to whether 
an individual is entitled to own a handgun. As I am sure my colleagues 
are aware, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that 
the Second Amendment is not absolute. If you have been convicted of a 
violent crime, if you have mental issues, you are not entitled to have 
a handgun. The Brady presale check determines whether you fall into 
those categories, and they will deny you the right to buy a handgun if 
you do.

  Since its inception in 1993, 3 million sales have been stopped. It 
works. It is compliant with the Supreme Court, and it doesn't interfere 
with legitimate Second Amendment rights. It was passed in 1993. It is 
now 2019. Sellers of handguns have figured out a way to get around the 
1993 law with private sales, gun shows, and internet sales. We didn't 
have internet gun sales in 1993. We need to close those loopholes.
  Here is the situation. Some States have done this. In the States that 
have done it, we see that the results are favorable. There is less gun 
violence in those States that have passed universal background checks. 
However, let me just tell you about the State of Maryland. Of the guns 
that are recovered from crime scenes in Maryland, 53 percent are guns 
that were acquired in a State outside of Maryland. We need universal 
background checks in order to provide the types of results that can 
keep our communities safer by keeping guns out of the hands of people 
who are not entitled to have guns.
  How do the American people feel about this? There are 90-plus percent 
who believe that we should have universal background checks. Yet there 
has been no action on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The Republican 
leader will not bring the bill to the floor. This is a bill that should 
have been passed a long time ago. Every day that we delay, there are 
another 100 deaths from gun violence.
  We shouldn't stop there. We should deal with assault-style military 
weapons. When someone has one of these assault weapons, within a matter 
of seconds, he can shoot off multiple rounds and kill multiple numbers 
of people. Even if you have those who come to the rescue--if law 
enforcement is on the scene or people are able to deal with the 
circumstances--in a matter of seconds, you can already have multiple 
casualties. We need to get rid of these military-style weapons in 
private ownership.
  When you talk to law enforcement officers and ask them what they fear 
the most when they go into a situation in which someone is armed, it is 
the assault weapons they fear. It is not fair to our law enforcement 
officers, who put their lives on the line for us and who rush into 
harm's way, to allow for these types of weapons to be available to the 
general public.
  We can do something about it. Let us take up legislation that 
restricts the private ownership of assault-style weapons. There has 
been no action, though, on the floor of the Senate. The Republican 
leader will not bring up any issues on gun safety.
  I could add legislation with regard to the large-capacity magazines. 
We see that. They are used in mass shootings because you can shoot off 
multiple rounds without reloading. Again, as we have seen in mass 
shooting circumstances, it has added to the number of deaths. It is not 
inconveniencing the public to restrict that type of capacity from being 
out there, which is known to cause harm by those who want to create a 
situation of mass casualties. Again, there has been no action on the 
floor of the Senate by the Republican leader.
  We have bipartisan legislation that would identify those individuals 
who pose extreme risks so that there is a red flag placed on those 
individuals that prevents them from being able to purchase handguns--
bipartisan legislation. Our States are acting, but there has been no 
action on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The Republican leader will not 
even bring that up.
  We could go over a whole host of other issues, such as mental health 
and earlier identification--those types of services. There are a lot of 
things we can do. I would hope that the one option that would be off 
the table would be that of doing nothing, but that seems to be the 
Republican leader's preferred option--to let this issue rest without 
there being any action taken by the Senate. It has been over 200 days 
since the House of Representatives acted, but there has been no action 
here on the floor of the Senate.
  I urge all of my colleagues to impress upon the Republican leader 
that it is well past time for us to consider gun safety legislation. 
Let us bring these bills to the floor. Let us not wait for the 
President of the United States. We are the legislative branch of 
government. Let us act and do the right thing to keep our communities 
and our homes safer.
  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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me join the Senator from Maryland in 
expressing my frustration. Many of us worked long and hard to be 
elected to the U.S. Senate, not just to represent our States but to 
respond to the challenges that face us in the United States. The 
challenge of gun safety faces everyone. Thank you to the Senator from 
Maryland for making that point on the floor of the Senate.
  Many people come to the Senate Galleries, sit in the chairs, and wait 
for the Senate to act. It is a long waiting game because, 
unfortunately, the Senate does little or nothing under the

[[Page S5590]]

leadership of Senator McConnell. I don't know why this Senator has not 
accepted the fact that the U.S. Senate has an important role to play. 
We speak for people not only in Illinois and in Maryland but for those 
all across the United States, and they are very concerned.
  In the recent trip home over the recess, I visited some of the areas 
around Chicago and in the city, and there were many conversations about 
the gun violence that we see across America. That gun violence has been 
punctuated by the horrible events in El Paso and Odessa, TX, and in 
other communities that have been affected by these mass killings. We 
have become numb, I am afraid, to the reality of gun violence in 
America. We have decided, I am afraid, that the Second Amendment to the 
Constitution is somehow holding us back--binding us and restraining 
us--from even doing the most basic things.
  Overwhelmingly, the people of America, by a factor of over 90 
percent--Democrats and Republicans--believe that we should have 
background checks. We believe that the people who have been convicted 
of violent felonies shouldn't own guns--period. We believe, as well, 
that when it comes to those who have serious mental instability, they 
should also be precluded from gun ownership. The laws do not allow us 
to adequately ask the question or to test whether the buyer has been 
convicted of a felony or has such a background.
  In the city of Chicago, hardly a weekend goes by without there being 
dozens shot and 9 or 10 or more losing their lives. Most of them are 
young people, but not exclusively. Older people, as well, are caught in 
the crossfire.
  People say: Well, I thought Chicago had these tough gun laws. What is 
going on there? Why do you have so many gun deaths?
  The answer is obvious for those of us who spend time in that great 
city. We are about 20 minutes away from northwestern Indiana and from 
the gun shows that are held there, where people don't ask questions 
when they sell firearms. All you need to do is to have the money and 
the open trunk of your car to fill it up with guns and drive them back 
to the city of Chicago. That is why no State can solve this problem. We 
need Federal legislation.
  As I talk to people across this country, they tell me the 
heartbreaking stories of sitting down with their children who have gone 
through some drill or program at school to forewarn them of what would 
happen if an active shooter were to come onto the premises. As we know, 
that reality is not beyond reach. In Connecticut, we saw a beautiful 
first grade class that was attacked by a killer with a weapon who took 
the lives of those children. If that scandalous massacre of children in 
a first grade classroom didn't move this Congress and this President to 
act, what will?
  The President said to me in a conversation several weeks ago that we 
are going to have a background check bill and that it will be the best 
in the history of the world. Well, I was skeptical when he said it. I 
am even more skeptical today. I knew what would happen. When the 
President had a choice between the public interest of gun safety and 
the special interest of the National Rifle Association, the National 
Rifle Association prevailed.
  This President refuses to come forward with any proposal, and Senator 
McConnell believes his hands are tied and cannot bring this issue to 
the floor of the Senate. He cannot run the risk that his Members would 
have to be on the record as having taken a vote, as they were elected 
to do, on an issue of this importance.


                                 S. 386

  Madam President, this is not the only issue that we are ignoring--the 
only issue that is, frankly, not even being considered on the floor of 
the Senate. There is another one that is equally important to me and to 
most people across this country, and that is dealing with the challenge 
of immigration.
  A few years ago, a bipartisan group of Senators--eight of us--I, 
Senator McCain, Senator Schumer, and others--sat down and wrote a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill. It was months of Republicans and 
Democrats sitting down, face-to-face, night after night, going through 
every section of our immigration code to come up with a comprehensive 
bill to deal with the obvious shortcomings, but we did it. We brought 
it to the floor of the Senate and it received 68 votes. There were 14 
Republicans who joined the Democrats to pass this comprehensive 
immigration reform. We sent it to the Republican House of 
Representatives, and Speaker Boehner refused to even consider it. So 
all of our effort and all of our work was really for nothing.
  We continue to face the challenge of immigration. We know what it is 
like at the border. Under this President, we have seen the worst border 
situation in modern times. His refusal to acknowledge the three Central 
American countries that are sending all of these immigrants to the 
United States has led to some horrible circumstances.
  Recently, the inspector general of Health and Human Services came 
forward with a report on the Trump administration's response to this 
border crisis. It was a report on the policy of zero tolerance. I am 
sure you will remember it. It was under Attorney General Sessions, and 
he somehow found a quotation in the Bible to justify forcibly removing 
children from their parents. We removed 2,880 children from their 
parents at the border under this zero tolerance policy before there was 
an uprising in the United States against it and before the President 
backed off of it.
  I commend the inspector general's report on what happened to those 
children--to every American. I saw it firsthand. I witnessed these 
children as they were being removed from their parents and the trauma 
they went through as a result.
  So why aren't we debating the immigration policy on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate? I am told that perhaps, later today, the junior Senator 
from Utah--at this point, I think he is the senior Senator from Utah--
will come forward with a unanimous consent request to consider fixing 
one part of the immigration problem. I want to fix that problem and 
many more.


                             The DREAM Act

  Madam President, I want to make sure that when we come to the floor 
to discuss immigration, as we should, that we take up the issue of the 
DREAM Act.
  The DREAM Act was a bill that I introduced in the Senate 18 years 
ago. It states, if you were brought to the United States as a child and 
are undocumented in this country but you have gone through school and 
have had no criminal record of any serious consequence, you deserve a 
chance to be able to earn your way to legal status and citizenship. I 
introduced this bill 18 years ago. It passed in the Senate in 1 year 
and passed in the House in another, but it has never come up with the 
60 votes--the supermajority requirement--in the Senate.
  President Obama was a cosponsor when he was in the Senate, and when 
he had the White House under his control, I asked him to consider an 
Executive order to achieve the same goal, and he did. He created a 
program called DACA. There were 790,000 young people across America who 
paid the filing fee, who went through the criminal background checks, 
and who then received the protection to stay in this country and work 
legally.
  Of course, in September of 2017, President Trump abolished this 
program. It took away the protection these young people had. He was 
challenged in court, and the court said we are going to continue this 
program until it is resolved at the highest levels of our Federal 
judiciary as to whether President Trump has this authority.
  On November 12, across the street, the U.S. Supreme Court will 
consider that case--790,000 lives and more, for that matter, hang in 
the balance of how the Justices will make this decision on their 
future.
  This should be debated on the floor of the Senate. It is why we are 
here. It is why we were elected. I think we can find bipartisan answers 
to many of these questions, but we need the Senate majority leader, the 
Republican leader, to really accept the reality of the Senate actually 
going to work. Instead of speeches by individual Senators on the floor, 
as impressive as they may be, we might actually pass a law. Think of 
that--a bill coming to the floor, subject to amendment, and actual 
debate in the Senate Chamber. We would fill the Galleries. It is such a 
novelty. It doesn't happen anymore.

[[Page S5591]]

  Unfortunately for America, many issues, whether it is gun safety or 
sensible immigration policy, are the victims of our inaction in the 
U.S. Senate. We can do better, and we should. Ultimately, the American 
people have the last word as to whether this Senate will act on issues 
like gun safety and immigration. The last word is your vote. In the 
next election, I hope more and more Americans will vote for a Senate 
that responds to the challenges of our day and doesn't avoid our 
responsibility under the Constitution.
  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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________