September 23, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 153 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5620-S5626]
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 Brian 
McGuire, of New York, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I just listened to the majority leader 
come to the floor and tell Members of the Senate that they should close 
their eyes and box their ears to the current scandal that is engulfing 
the White House and the Trump administration. I heard the majority 
leader accuse Democrats of ``politicizing'' President Trump's demand 
that the Government of Ukraine interfere in the 2020 election. That is 
a laughable charge, and it is not going to silence us on this matter of 
grave importance.
  First of all, I have no idea what it means to politicize something 
these days. News flash: We are politicians. We practice politics. That 
is our job. I get told very often that I am politicizing gun violence 
when I suggest that maybe we should pass laws in order to change the 
daily trajectory of violence in this country. Yet the very reason we 
are here is to protect the safety of our constituents and to protect 
the sanctity of our democracy.
  What we are standing up for right now is the rule of law, and I hope, 
over the course of this week, my Republican colleagues will join us in 
that basic responsibility that Members of the Senate and House of 
Representatives have.
  We see the rule of law slipping away from us right now. We see our 
Nation being turned into a banana republic where the President can do 
anything he wants and turn the organs of state into his permanent 
political machine--his means of crushing his opponents. Today we see 
that many of my Republican colleagues are not just letting it happen 
but facilitating it.
  There has to be a line that the President cannot cross. There has to 
be a moment when we all stand up and say: This has gone too far.
  The President has admitted this weekend to asking a foreign leader to 
open an investigation into one of his political opponents as a means of 
advancing himself politically. That is not allowed in a democracy. That 
fundamentally corrupts the foreign policy of our Nation. It makes us 
all less safe when foreign governments now wonder whether they are 
going to be enlisted into the political operation of the President of 
the United States. This has always been a no-go area for Democratic and 
Republican administrations because we understand the vast power the 
Presidency has. If the President chooses to use that power and the 
leverage he has over people in this country and in other countries to 
do his political bidding, then there is nothing to protect any of us 
from the executive branch.
  The idea that the President can openly admit that he is asking a 
foreign government to get involved in his political reelection 
campaign--and believe that he will get away with it--suggests a belief 
in the impunity surrounding his office. We should all be concerned 
about that.
  At the very least, if my Republican colleagues don't share my grave 
alarm at the disclosures of the last 48 hours, then we should at least 
agree that the whistleblower complaint needs to come before the 
Congress unredacted. There is no fuzzy penumbra around this law. It is 
clear as day. If a whistleblower makes a complaint that is deemed 
urgent in nature, it must be presented to the Congress. The President 
cannot hold it back; the executive branch cannot make it a secret.
  What makes it worse is that the President seems to be playing a game 
with this whistleblower complaint. He seems to be teasing out little 
bits of information that are contained in it here and there in order to 
play to his political advantage. It is even worse than holding back the 
complaint from us. He is now using pieces of it to try to gain 
advantage over his political opponents.
  At the very least, over the next 24 hours, we need to come to a 
conclusion that the law needs to be followed. If the President can 
withhold from us whistleblower complaints that are not flattering to 
him--that potentially implicate him--then what is the point of having a 
whistleblower law? What is the point of having a process to protect 
people who are uncovering corruption in the administration if the 
administration can keep those complaints secret?
  Let's just be honest. If this President gets away with it, the next 
Democratic President can get away with it, and the next Republican 
President can get away with it. We will have lost all of our power to 
see into the wrongdoing of an administration. There will be a day when 
Republicans want to see into potential wrongdoing of an administration 
of the opposite party, but that will be all gone if we don't, at the 
very least, come to the conclusion that we need to see it as the law 
states.
  That is just the beginning because I think--as the President has 
advertised--that complaint is going to show he did, indeed, try to 
pressure a foreign government to conduct investigations into one of his 
political opponents. I think this is a really serious moment for the 
country. I think it is a really serious moment for the prerogatives of 
the article I branch.
  I understand that my Republican colleagues may not be ready to talk 
about consequences for the administration for their wrongdoing, but, at 
the very least, we need to come together and make sure we have all of 
the information necessary.
  By the way, it doesn't end with the whistleblower complaint because 
the whistleblower complaint is likely going to raise even more 
questions that we are going to have to answer. We have a duty to then 
go out and find additional information.
  For many, the President's admission of guilt may be enough to make a 
determination about what the next steps are. But for those who aren't 
persuaded that there have to be consequences for the President's 
admission of corruption, then we should use the organs at our disposal 
to try to figure out the rest of the details surrounding this incident 
or series of incidents. What kinds of contacts have the President's 
representatives been having with the Ukrainian Government? Has the 
State Department been involved in trying to do the President's 
political bidding in and around Ukraine? How many people in the 
administration knew about this? Who tried to stop it? Who has been 
involved in keeping the whistleblower complaint from us? There are so 
many questions that need to be answered here, and it should be our 
responsibility to get to the bottom of all of them.
  I think this is a really serious moment for this country. I think the 
minute the President is able to turn the foreign policy of this Nation 
into a vehicle for his own political advancement is the day that 
democracy, as we know it, slips away from us. If we aren't ready to 
have a bipartisan conversation about consequences and remedies this 
week, then let's at least have

[[Page S5621]]

some bipartisan consensus in the way that this place used to have all 
the time, making sure that we have all of the information necessary to 
move forward.
  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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we have heard some deeply disturbing 
revelations in recent days about President Trump's efforts to tie 
congressionally appropriated security funding for Ukraine hostage to 
its government's willingness to investigate his political opponents 
here at home. The alleged threat by President Trump to withhold vital 
security funding from Ukraine came out last week in press reports about 
a whistleblower complaint from a U.S. intelligence official. These 
revelations suggest a gross abuse of power unlike anything I have ever 
seen during my 27 years of working on U.S. foreign policy. They also 
show Donald Trump once again welcoming a foreign power to influence our 
elections, this time using the power of the White House.
  As of today, the Acting Director of National Intelligence has refused 
to comply with the law that requires him to share this whistleblower 
complaint with Congress. Yet that hasn't stopped multiple members of 
the President's inner circle from all but confirming that the President 
pushed Ukrainian President Zelensky to open an investigation into 
former Vice President Joe Biden. They have, together, engaged in a 
disturbing effort to convince the American people that this sort of 
behavior is somehow normal.
  We first watched the President's personal lawyer admit on CNN that he 
had raised this issue of investigating Biden on the President's behalf. 
Then, yesterday, we saw Secretary Pompeo sink to a new low when he 
defended this behavior on national TV. Then it was the President 
himself who admitted it to reporters--the President himself. I am not 
sure what more evidence we need, folks.
  Where are my Republican colleagues? Where are those supposed 
defenders of democracy and freedom? Where are the advocates for a 
strong relationship with Ukraine? They are silent, shamefully silent.
  For more than 2 months, the President held up $391 million in 
urgently needed security assistance for Ukraine--assistance that was 
appropriated by the Senate with broad bipartisan support. Congress 
didn't pass this funding so that the President could sit on it. We 
didn't pass this funding so that the President could use it as leverage 
to get Ukraine to investigate his political opponents. We passed this 
funding because Ukraine needs our support against relentless Russian 
aggression and because providing that support is in the interest of our 
own national security goals.
  Many of us were certainly not surprised to see this administration 
delay assistance to Ukraine given the President's repeated cowering to 
Moscow on the international stage. Yet, for 2 months, we wondered 
exactly why this money was being held from Ukraine. Now we know. The 
President withheld this money all in the hopes that the Ukrainian 
Government would open a bogus investigation into Vice President Biden's 
son. How is that not an abuse of power?
  I welcome efforts in the House to fully investigate the role of the 
President's personal lawyer in pressuring a foreign country to 
investigate the family of a potential political opponent. I urge the 
Senate to follow suit because a legitimate President would never allow 
his lawyer to override bipartisan support for Ukraine. A legitimate 
President would not let his personal lawyer compel foreign powers to 
interfere in our political process. A legitimate President would not 
withhold congressionally appropriated funding to Ukraine to advance his 
reelection prospects. So I am calling for a series of measures today to 
get to the bottom of this.
  First, I call upon the inspector general of the State Department to 
review the withholding of security assistance for Ukraine. This review 
must include the extent to which the Department was aware of or was 
part of the decision to withhold these funds and whether our foreign 
assistance laws were broken. The inspector general must also examine 
whether the State Department knew why the administration was 
withholding these funds and highlight any communications between the 
White House and the State Department on this matter.
  Second, I call upon the State Department to provide all details and 
records about any support in any form provided from the Department for 
the President's personal lawyer's efforts in Ukraine. We, likewise, 
need to know about any briefings the President's personal lawyer 
provided to Department personnel and his interactions with Ukrainian 
officials.
  Third, I call on the Office of Management and Budget to tell Congress 
why it sat on Ukraine's security assistance for more than 2 months. It 
typically takes the OMB just 5 days to review notifications from the 
implementing agencies. To sit on a notification for more than 2 months 
is unorthodox, unprecedented, and unacceptable.
  Fourth, I call upon the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations, 
Appropriations, Armed Services, and the Select Committee on 
Intelligence to immediately hold hearings on the President's purported 
use of security assistance to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation 
into a political opponent. I urge Chairman Risch to fulfill his 
commitments to hold a hearing on Russia and a markup on Russia 
sanctions soon.
  If President Trump had used money to coerce another person to perform 
some corrupt action on his behalf, we would call it out for what it 
was--extortion. Are we just going to let the President of the United 
States extort foreign leaders? Are we going to let him reshape American 
foreign policy to advance his own personal and political goals? Is this 
not a gross abuse of Presidential power? If not, then what is? These 
committees have a responsibility to ask these questions, and they have 
a constitutional responsibility to do their jobs.
  The Senate, as a whole, has an obligation to get to the bottom of 
this. Do my Republican colleagues really think it is OK to ask a 
foreign power to pursue unfounded allegations against a political 
opponent? Is this the new normal? I hope not. This is behavior that we 
have never seen from an American President. Unfortunately, it is 
behavior that fits into President Trump's broader pattern of 
surrendering to his patrons in Moscow.

  I wish I could say that extorting Ukraine were the only way Donald 
Trump corrupted our national security over the course of the summer, 
but that is just not the case. Last month, President Trump also 
redirected funding for the European Deterrence Initiative to his 
ridiculous border wall. Funding for the European Deterrence Initiative 
helps our allies counter the kind of Russian malign influence that was 
deployed by Putin against our democracy in 2016.
  It is well known by now that President Trump was lying when he said 
that Mexico would pay for the wall. To this day, he refuses to own up 
to this lie, so much so that he is willing to siphon dollars away from 
our military and abandon our most vital democratic allies in Europe to 
pursue a medieval vanity project. It is yet another example of his 
selling out our national security to curry favor with his political 
base.
  Over the past few weeks, my office has heard from several European 
Embassies that are now stuck holding the bill for Trump's wall. While 
you won't hear it from them publicly because they, too, fear a backlash 
from this President, they are offended and angry about this decision. 
It is simply astounding. We are talking about the allies that Americans 
fought and died for in order to defend democracy, worked so hard to 
rebuild after World War II, and continued to protect during the Cold 
War.
  I am sure the Kremlin couldn't be happier. To Putin, this must be a

[[Page S5622]]

stroke of genius. Trump is killing two birds with one stone by 
redirecting these funds. He is dividing us from our European allies in 
the face of Russian aggression and dividing the American people with 
his politics of hate. I have said it before, and I will say it again: 
Investing in Donald Trump's candidacy was the best decision Putin ever 
made. His patron at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will stop at nothing to 
repay the debt. It might indeed be the only debt businessman Donald 
Trump has ever worked so hard to repay.
  My friends, we have witnessed a real summer of love between Trump and 
Putin. Consider the G7 meeting in France last month. So clearly was the 
United States not the leading voice at the table. So tragically have we 
lost the confidence of our closest allies, and so predictably did our 
President once again make an appeal on behalf of his patron in Moscow 
by repeatedly calling for the expansion of the G7 to include Russia.
  Sometimes I wonder: Does President Trump actually think that Russia 
is a democracy? Does he think that the Russian people live in freedom? 
Does he see Russia as an advanced economy? Does he believe Russia 
shares America's interests?
  I have to say that little surprises me these days, but even I was 
taken aback to see him blame President Obama for Russia's behavior--on 
foreign soil, no less.
  There is only one country responsible for Russia's removal from the 
G8 in 2014, and that is Russia. The Russian Federation was suspended 
from the G8 by its fellow countries because of its invasion and illegal 
occupation of Crimea, which is the territory of the sovereign nation 
Ukraine. Five years later, more than 10,000 Ukrainian patriots are 
dead. That is why Russia does not belong in the G8.
  What has the Kremlin done since 2014 that could possibly justify an 
expansion of the G7? Has it suspended its illegal occupation? Has it 
behaved like a responsible member of the international community? Has 
it respected the sovereignty of other nations? The answers are no, no, 
and no.
  Let's review Russia's behavior since 2014.
  First--and on the top of mind for many of us--was Russia's sweeping 
and systematic interference in our 2016 Presidential election on behalf 
of then-Candidate Donald Trump, as is documented in the special 
counsel's sobering report. Spreading propaganda, manipulating social 
media, and spying on American election infrastructure is not the 
behavior of a G7 country.
  Second was the Kremlin's chemical weapons attack on British soil--a 
blatant assassination attempt against a Putin opponent and his 
daughter. One British citizen was killed, and others required medical 
attention. This is not an isolated case. Just last month, a Russian 
citizen was gunned down in a park in Berlin at the suspected hand of 
the Russian authorities.
  This is not the behavior of a G7 country.
  Third is the Kremlin's complicity in Bashar al-Assad's war crimes in 
Syria. An untold number of Syrian civilians have been killed by Russian 
airstrikes launched in support of Assad. Those responsible should be 
tried in The Hague on war crimes charges. This is not the behavior of a 
G7 country.
  Fourth, in recent weeks, Russian forces have ramped up their pressure 
on the country of Georgia. More than 11 years after Russia's invasion, 
the Georgian people suffer under its ongoing aggression. That is not 
the behavior of a G7 country.
  Fifth is the recent Russian crackdown on demonstrators exercising 
their basic political rights. Throughout the summer, Putin oversaw the 
brutal beatings of children, women, and men and subjected everyday 
Russian citizens to arbitrary arrest and detention. What was their ask? 
What was their plea? That they be able to register their own local 
candidates for their own local elections.
  The Kremlin's ongoing and too often violent oppression of the Russian 
people is not the behavior of a G7 country. No country in the G7 acts 
this way. This behavior is destabilizing, it is aggressive, it is 
authoritarian, and it does not belong at the table of democracies.
  It is truly a disgrace that any American President would so easily 
discount all of what I have just described to win favor with his patron 
and pal.
  Of course, these aren't the only gifts bestowed by President Trump 
during this summer of love.
  Let's not forget how the President has delayed sanctions on Turkey 
over its purchase of the Russian S-400 system. Congress passed these 
sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions 
Act, or CAATSA, in response to Russia's attack on our elections in 
2016. We have these sanctions for a reason. They advance America's 
national security interests. They starve the Russian defense sector of 
much needed international business. By not imposing them, this 
President is both failing to hold Russia accountable and sending a 
dangerous message to other countries that they can buy Russian weapon 
systems without consequence. From the moment we passed CAATSA, this 
administration has resisted every step of the way.
  So let's imagine, for a moment, what a legitimate American President, 
a President who is not a Putin puppet, would do in this situation. How 
would that person protect our country?
  First, a legitimate President would not endanger the relationship 
with a key ally in order to gain political advantage at home. They 
would show solidarity with our democratic allies by providing all 
appropriated security assistance to Ukraine and funding for European 
efforts to counter Russian aggression.
  Second, I am sure they would not welcome Russia back into the G7.
  Third, they would impose CAATSA sanctions on Turkey and send a clear 
message to the world that the United States is serious about imposing 
pressure on the Russian defense industry.
  So let me close. The United States of America must always stand on 
the side of democracy, human rights, freedom, and the rule of law. That 
is why we must secure our elections from the threat of foreign 
interference at home and defend democracies in the face of Russian 
aggression abroad.
  That is why we must demand that security funding appropriated by 
Congress is actually delivered and that the sanctions we craft to 
counter our adversaries are imposed.
  That is why we cannot be silent when an American President extorts 
foreign countries into influencing our elections or welcomes an 
authoritarian strongman's return to the G7.
  I implore my colleagues to use the powers of Article I of the 
Constitution. We have to get to the bottom of these very issues and 
preserve the critical checks and balances we have in our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Brian McGuire, of New York, to be a Deputy Under Secretary 
     of the Treasury.
         Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Roger F. Wicker, Rob 
           Portman, John Thune, Kevin Cramer, John Barrasso, James 
           E. Risch, Richard Burr, James M. Inhofe, Lindsey 
           Graham, Rick Scott, John Boozman, Mike Crapo, Tim 
           Scott, John Hoeven, Deb Fischer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Brian McGuire, of New York, to be a Deputy Under 
Secretary of the Treasury, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas 
(Mr. Roberts), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

[[Page S5623]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California 
(Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 Ex.]

                                YEAS--82

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

                                NAYS--6

     Brown
     Casey
     Gillibrand
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bennet
     Booker
     Graham
     Harris
     Isakson
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warren
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are 6.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The senior Senator from Tennessee.


                      Ken Burns' ``Country Music''

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Ken Burns told me last year that his 8-
part, 16-hour ``Country Music'' film, which concludes on PBS this week, 
could be more popular than his Civil War film. After watching the first 
episodes, I suspect he might be right. His new film plumbs the depths 
of the American soul, using the one tool--music--that is the most 
likely to touch the largest number of us.
  As a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, I will confess my bias. The first 2 
hours of ``Country Music'' a week ago Sunday were about the recordings 
of hillbilly music in 1927 at the birthplace of country music in 
Bristol, where the Tennessee-Virginia State line runs down the middle 
of Main Street. Two years ago, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, 
and I, played a little concert--I on the keyboard and he on the 
harmonica--at the end of that Main Street, at a fiddler's festival that 
they had. The rest of the Ken Burns episode winds through a community 
called Boogertown in Eastern Tennessee, in the Smoky Mountains, where 
Dolly Parton was born, to the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville and to Beale 
Street in Memphis.

  We like to say that the whole world sings with Tennessee, but country 
music is more than Tennessee music. It is more than Appalachian music. 
It is more than the music of poor white Americans. It comes from the 
heart.
  As Burns' and Duncan's storytelling reminds us, every one of us has a 
heart. There is no better evidence of this than paying less than $20 to 
sit at a table at the Bluebird Cafe in Nashville. There you listen to 
three songwriters tell the stories behind their songs and play them for 
a small audience who doesn't even whisper during their performances.
  I sat at the Bluebird on a Saturday in 2013, listening to a young 
songwriter, Jessi Alexander, sing her song, ``I Drive Your Truck.'' One 
of her cowriters, Connie Harrington, had heard the story on NPR. It was 
the story of Jared Monti, an American soldier killed in Afghanistan 
trying to save another soldier. He won a Congressional Medal of Honor 
for that. To remember his son, his father, Paul, drives Jared's Dodge 
Ram truck because, the father says, ``I am alone, in the truck, with 
him.'' When Jessi Alexander finished singing, everyone in the Bluebird 
was weeping. I said to the person next to me, ``That has to be the song 
of the year,'' and it was.
  Last week, I attended the Annual Nashville Songwriter Awards show. I 
looked through the program listing all of the previous songs of the 
year. In 2012, it was Dolly Parton's farewell song to Porter Wagoner, 
``I Will Always Love You.'' Dolly Parton is a great songwriter too. In 
2003, it was ``Three Wooden Crosses.'' In 1972, it was ``Old Dogs, 
Children, and Watermelon Wine,'' by Tom T. Hall. Then, in 1969, it was 
``Okie from Muskogee,'' by Merle Haggard. ``Three chords and the 
truth'' is how songwriter Harlan Howard defines country music.
  Ken Burns has become America's storyteller, a skill much more 
difficult than it would seem. He tackles the subjects that divide us, 
like the Civil War and Vietnam, and he presents them in a form that 
allows us to travel through those wrenching experiences, gathering the 
information we need to form our own opinions.
  One could argue that Ken Burns is our most effective teacher of U.S. 
history, a subject woefully undertaught in our schools. The lowest 
scores on high school Advanced Placement tests are not in math and 
science. They are in American history. So I am glad to know that there 
is more of Ken Burns' work to come.
  According to a New Yorker article in 2017, during the next decade 
Burns plans to produce films about the Mayo Clinic, Muhammad Ali, 
Ernest Hemingway, the American Revolution, Lyndon B. Johnson, Barack 
Obama, Winston Churchill, the American criminal justice system, and 
African-American history from the Civil War to the Great Migration.
  Producing these films must cost a lot of money, but, in my view, 
every penny that the Public Broadcasting System and private 
contributors have spent has been worth it. If I had the money, I would 
ask Burns how much time he will spend raising funds to pay for these 
next films and I would give him the amount of money that it would take 
so that he could spend that time producing an extra three or four more 
films before he hangs it up. Since I don't have the money, maybe 
someone else will do that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record an 
op-ed that was in the New York Times, ``Country Music Is More Diverse 
Than You Think,'' by Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 13, 2019]

              Country Music Is More Diverse Than You Think


Common stereotypes overlook the roles that blacks and women have played 
                  in shaping a uniquely American genre

                    (By Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan)

       This spring the rapper Lil Nas X, who is black, released 
     ``Old Town Road,'' a twang-inflected song that rocketed to 
     the top of the country music charts--even though Billboard 
     temporarily removed it from the list, saying it wasn't 
     sufficiently ``country.''
       A few months later, when the Country Music Association 
     announced that three women--Dolly Parton, Reba McEntire and 
     Carrie Underwood--would host its annual awards show, some 
     people criticized the choice as political correctness, as if 
     ``real'' country music was restricted to good old boys.
       Both controversies reflect the stereotypes that chronically 
     surround country music. They overlook its diverse roots, its 
     porous boundaries and the central role that women and people 
     of color have played in its history.
       Such narrow views would astonish the two foundational acts 
     of the genre--Jimmie Rodgers and the Carter Family--who 
     contributed to country music's early commercial success in 
     the 1920s. They knew firsthand that what has made American 
     music so uniquely American has been its constant mixing of 
     styles and influences.
       It all began when the fiddle, which came from Europe, met 
     the banjo, which came from Africa--bringing together ballads 
     and hymns from the British Isles with the syncopations and 
     sensibilities of enslaved blacks. That mix, that ``rub,'' 
     which occurred principally in the South, set off a chain 
     reaction that has reverberated in our music ever since.
       The earliest country recordings were known as ``hillbilly'' 
     music, just as African-American recordings were categorized 
     as ``race'' music. The names echoed a prevailing prejudice 
     that each genre (and its artists and its fans) was somehow 
     beneath consideration from society's upper rungs--and that 
     each one was unrelated to the other.
       In truth, as the two of us learned during the eight years 
     we spent exploring the music and its history, they were 
     always intertwined. The music constantly crossed the racial 
     divide that a segregated nation tried to enforce.

[[Page S5624]]

       Before his career took off, Rodgers worked as a water boy 
     in Mississippi for the mostly black crews laying railroad 
     track. The men he met, and their music, shaped his own 
     emerging style--the songs he made popular as an adult were 
     essentially the blues, to which he added a distinctive yodel. 
     In 1930, at the height of his popularity, he recorded with 
     Louis Armstrong, the protean jazz artist.
       When A.P. Carter collected songs for the Carter Family, he 
     brought along Lesley Riddle, a black slide guitar player, to 
     help him remember the melodies. Riddle also taught the 
     Carters a hymn from his church, ``When the World's on Fire,'' 
     which they recorded. They then used the same melody for 
     another song, ``Little Darling, Pal of Mine.'' Years later 
     Woody Guthrie, a fan of the Carters, borrowed the melody for 
     his classic ``This Land Is Your Land.'' That one song's 
     journey encapsulates the real, interconnected story of 
     American music.
       Bill Monroe, the father of bluegrass, was mentored by an 
     African-American fiddle player. Hank Williams, the great 
     honky-tonk singer, credited Tee-Tot Payne, a black street 
     musician in Alabama, for ``all the music training I ever 
     had.'' Bob Wills created Western swing by adapting jazz's 
     big-band sound to fiddles and steel guitars.
       In Memphis in the 1950s, when rhythm and blues and gospel 
     and hillbilly music began swirling together in the eddies of 
     the Mississippi, Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash and 
     others pioneered rockabilly, a precursor to rock 'n' roll.
       The cross-fertilization went in both directions. Charley 
     Pride--the first postwar black artist to have a No. 1 country 
     hit, and the first artist of any color to win the Country 
     Music Association's male vocalist award two years in a row--
     was discovered in a bar in Montana, singing Hank Williams's 
     ``Lovesick Blues.'' He had grown up listening to the ``Grand 
     Ole Opry'' show on the radio.
       When the rhythm and blues star Ray Charles was given 
     creative control of an album for the first time, he chose to 
     record a selection of country songs. ``You take country 
     music, you take black music,'' Charles said, and ``you got 
     the same goddamn thing exactly.'' The album was a sales 
     sensation.
       ``There's a truth in the music,'' the jazz musician and 
     composer Wynton Marsalis told us, that ``the musicians 
     accepted at a time when the culture did not accept. And it's 
     too bad that we, as a culture, have not been able to address 
     that truth. The art tells more of the tale of us coming 
     together.''
       Likewise, the history of country music is filled with 
     strong and talented women in ways the common stereotype seems 
     (or chooses) to overlook. From Patsy Montana to Patsy Cline, 
     Kitty Wells to Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris to Rosanne Cash 
     to Reba McEntire, women have created some of country music's 
     most enduring art.
       In 1926, A.P. Carter and his wife, Sara, had been turned 
     down by a record label on the theory that a woman singing 
     lead could never be popular. Instead, the Carters added 
     Sara's cousin Maybelle to the group and went on to make 
     history, centered on Sara's remarkable voice and Maybelle's 
     innovative guitar playing, ``the Carter scratch,'' which has 
     influenced generations of guitarists.
       Jimmie Rodgers relied on his sister-in-law, Elsie 
     McWilliams, as the writer of more than a third of his songs. 
     (He couldn't read musical notations, so she came to his 
     recording sessions to teach her new compositions to him in 
     person.)
       In 1966, the same year that the National Organization for 
     Women was founded and the phrase ``women's liberation'' was 
     first used, Loretta Lynn wrote and recorded ``Don't Come Home 
     A Drinkin' (With Lovin' on Your Mind),'' a statement that 
     dealt with spousal abuse and alcoholism and a woman's right 
     to her own body, with a bluntness no other musical genre 
     dared make at the time. Her label later held back her song 
     ``The Pill'' because it seemed too controversial; when it was 
     released, some stations refused to play it--until her fans 
     made it a Top-5 country hit and crossed it over to the pop 
     charts.
       ``If you write the truth and you're writing about your 
     life,'' Ms. Lynn told us, ``it's going to be country.''
       At its best, country music has never been confined to one 
     simple category or convenient stereotype. It sprang from many 
     roots and then sprouted many new branches through the 20th 
     century, creating a complicated chorus of American voices 
     joining together to tell a complicated American story, one 
     song at a time.
       Country deals with the most basic, universal human emotions 
     and experiences--love and loss, hardship and dreams, failure 
     and the hope of redemption--and turns them into songs. The 
     songwriter Harlan Howard once defined country music as 
     ``three chords and the truth.'' Three chords imply 
     simplicity. But the truth part is always much more complex. 
     And more profound.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                 Honoring Captain Vincent Liberto, Jr.

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor 
the life of Mandeville police officer Captain Vincent ``Vinnie'' 
Liberto, Jr., who was killed in the line of duty last week. Captain 
Liberto will be remembered for his life of service to the community and 
country.
  After graduating from Brother Martin High School in New Orleans, he 
joined the U.S. Marine Corps, where he ultimately served 10 years as 
sergeant.
  Captain Liberto had a combined 30 years of law enforcement service, 5 
with the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Department and 25 years with the 
Mandeville Police Department, where he was recognized as officer of the 
year.
  The captain had a brilliant mind for law enforcement. He graduated 
from the FBI National Academy and ran the Mandeville Police 
Department's Criminal Investigations Division, where he worked as a 
polygraphist and was responsible for the Department's enforcement 
functions.
  Those who knew him best describe him as a gentle giant, polite, 
upbeat, reasonable, and fairminded--all qualities that make a great 
police officer.
  In his yard flies the Marine Corps flag, and mounted on the front 
door are twin wreaths, one for the marines and one for the police.
  Captain Liberto is survived by his wife, Tracey, and seven children. 
He was 58 years old.
  His passion for service was so strong that he inspired several of his 
children to follow in their dad's footsteps by entering the military 
and law enforcement. That is the definition of setting a great example 
for children.
  Captain Liberto's death is a painful reminder that our law 
enforcement officers put their lives on the line to keep our community 
safe. He died during a gunfire exchange when a routine traffic stop 
turned into a tragedy. The other officer, Ben Cato, was also injured 
but thankfully has returned to work.
  Like Captain Liberto and Officer Cato, our law enforcement officers 
report to work every day knowing that they might not come home at 
night. They do it for us all, and for that we should always be 
grateful.
  I ask those who are listening to say a prayer for Tracey, their kids, 
and the officers of the Mandeville Police Department, and for their 
entire community that is grieving the loss of one of their own.
  Vincent Liberto made Louisiana a better place and our country a 
better place, and he will be sorely missed.
  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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 China

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I don't know of any topic that is more 
important for our country than the relationship between the United 
States and China.
  I am a big fan of history. I love to read about history. I think one 
of the best ways to understand the future is to understand the past. It 
strikes me that, at some point in the future, someone will write a book 
about the 21st century, and I think that book will have mention of a 
number of the things that consumed our time in political debate. I 
believe the central issue globally that will define the 21st century is 
the relationship between the United States and China, in which 
direction it heads.
  Let me say at the outset that China is destined to be what it already 
is becoming: a rich, important, and powerful nation. That in and of 
itself should not be threatening. It is a reality. It is one that I 
think holds promise, to the extent that a rich and powerful China is a 
responsible stakeholder in the affairs of the world.
  I think there is another truth, and that is, what is developing today 
is an incredibly serious imbalance between the United States and China 
on trade and commerce, increasingly on diplomacy, and potentially--
eventually--militarily and geopolitical.
  So when I come today to speak about China, it is not simply in the 
context of our current trade tensions, which is a part of a much 
broader issue. The fact of the matter is that this is the way we should 
view it because this is the way the Communist Party of China views it. 
The truth is that they view our trade tensions as an inevitable blip in 
their long-term plan to supplant the

[[Page S5625]]

United States of America as the world's dominant political, military, 
and economic power.
  Now, it is understandable why many Americans would feel uneasy at the 
prospect of being supplanted by China. First of all, they have seen so 
many of our industries that once thrived in our towns and cities 
weakened or leave altogether, and they have read about the grotesque 
violation of human rights and dignity of people and China's Communist 
Party's persecution of Christians, Muslims, and other religious 
minorities.
  The sad fact is that we have come to this realization far too late in 
this city. For many years, many of the policy elites across the 
political spectrum turned a blind eye to this growing threat. There was 
this notion that, once China became rich and prosperous, they would 
become like us. It is as if somehow economic prosperity, in the sense 
and in the way China is achieving it, automatically leads to supporting 
values such as the ones that we hold dear. But the fact is that we can 
no longer ignore the reality that this is not the direction that China 
is headed, and it has implications for our country and the world.
  Our country, our workers, and families can no longer afford elected 
officials in this city who turn a blind eye to the seriousness of this 
challenge. At this point, given all the information before us and the 
trends that have clearly emerged, ignorance on this matter is no longer 
an excuse, and, frankly, the Communist Party of China is no longer 
hiding its ambition about what this is all about.
  I am not asking you to believe my words on this. I just ask that you 
believe them, that you take their words seriously. That is why I come 
here to point to a speech last week by Huang Qifan, who is a former 
Central Committee member and recently retired as the vice chair of the 
National People's Congress Financial and Economic Affairs Committee. He 
showed us, by the way, what passes as modernization within the Chinese 
Communist Party.
  In the speech he gave, he didn't speak in the typical Communist 
jargon. He doesn't invoke abstract theories or laws of history or in 
any way hold back. He speaks with a frankness that we should actually 
be grateful for because it enlightens us and hopefully propels us to 
take action. To Huang, as he makes very clear, the trade war that is 
ongoing is a fight to the death, an inevitable outcome in a fight 
between two systems.
  Paraphrasing Mao Zedong, he urged Chinese businesspeople to shed 
their illusions and prepare for struggle. China is the rising power. 
The United States is the aging hegemon, and China's rise will be 
sustained.
  Huang declared, ``At this time, the socialist road with Chinese 
characteristics is obviously more competitive. . . . than the U.S. 
economic system.'' Such confident words are not just his; they emanate 
from the very top. Just after gaining power, their current President, 
apparently for life, Xi Jinping, told the party it is ``inevitable that 
the superiority of our socialist system will be increasingly 
apparent.''
  The United States, according to Huang in his speech, cannot make 
partners and cannot make space for others in the world. Rather, we are 
stuck. We are stuck in a situation in which China must fight the United 
States either economically or militarily to find its place in the 
world.
  Throughout his speech, by the way, he points to various events in the 
U.S. and the Western world that is evidence of the claims that he 
makes. He points to the financial crisis, to the ballooning deficits, 
and to what he terms political instability. In very clear language, he 
says that these are problems that ``capitalism can't avoid''--that is 
his quote--but the Chinese system can through central guidance. ``This 
is our institutional advantage,'' he argues.
  Embedded in his speech, there are two themes. The first is a 
confidence in the inevitability of China's rise and its conflict with 
the United States. Closely related to it is a second theme, and that is 
an appeal to the rest of the world to follow in the Chinese 
authoritarian model, or, as they call it, socialism with Chinese 
characteristics. In their telling, it is clearly a superior model to 
ours.
  The time has come for America and our allies, who value freedom and 
liberty and free enterprise, democracy, human rights, and the dignity 
of all people--the time has come for us to eagerly confront this 
assertion. Unfortunately, there are too many in the Western world and 
in the free world that refuse to see the challenges, indeed, the threat 
that is posed by the Communist Party and China's vision of the world in 
the future.
  Rather than discuss the technical threat posed by an entity like 
Huawei, I want to articulate the threat in China's Communist Party's 
words, the threat in their own words, as Qifan said last week: ``Our 
currency will become the world currency.''
  Understand the implications of this stated goal. China's aim is to 
use economic power to displace the United States of America and the 
role it has played in the world since the end of the Second World War. 
China's message to the world is that its industries, its workers, and 
its politics will be more productive than ours. The Chinese Communist 
Party says to foreign countries, to investors, and to businesses that 
the long-term play to keep their economies growing is by partnering 
with them, not partnering with us.
  Some may say, What is the big deal about that? Let's just take care 
of our own problems. Here is the big deal. Here is what it would mean 
for Americans in real terms. If the world heads in the direction they 
advocate, it would mean lower wages for you, it would mean homes and 
mortgages that are unaffordable, and it would mean a world where what 
you can say and do abroad but also at home is increasingly dictated by 
the Chinese Communist Party and its benefactors in the United States 
and elsewhere.
  If you don't believe me, just realize that already major motion 
pictures produced in Hollywood are censored--censored, even as they are 
played in the United States because those movies will not have access 
to Chinese movie theaters. We have already seen multiple American 
companies have to apologize, take content off the internet, and change 
T-shirts that they sell at stores because they offend the Communist 
Party of China and are going to be cut off from selling to that market. 
It is already happening. It will happen at a much more accelerated 
pace.
  By the way, we have also seen news outlets in some places have to cut 
back and censor what they say. We have had a television program in a 
major American network take out content from a program for fear of 
being censored in the vast Chinese market. Beyond that, the new 
companies, the new technologies, the improved standards of living, 
which the United States has always relied on to prove the superiority 
of our way of life, will also no longer exist.
  Indeed, some of these predictions are already happening. The economic 
growth, the prosperity, and the stability that marks Americans' shared 
memory of the last century appear to be increasingly absent from this 
one. Simply put, the Chinese Communist Party believes that the 20th 
century, which was termed the American Century, was an anomaly, and 
they believe that they alone have mastered the scientific laws of 
history, so democracy must stand aside and give way.
  We should clearly understand that the Communist Party of China's 
mission, a mission they term ``national rejuvenation'' of Chinese power 
and China's prominent place on the world stage, means supplanting our 
values and our way of life. As Xi Jinping explained 2 years ago, this 
goal is the original aspiration and mission of the party.
  What is our model? Well, it is incumbent upon us as Americans and as 
leaders and our democratic allies around the world to make the case 
that our model is the superior. It is incumbent upon us to make the 
case on behalf of our model just as aggressively as an authoritarian 
China is making their case for socialism with Chinese characteristics. 
Our leadership must also be one that respects human dignity, that 
defends our interests and religious liberty, democracy and human 
rights, and the rule of law, which means consistently sticking up for 
nations committed to these same ideals and standing with people who are 
fighting for these and being crushed by totalitarianism anywhere in the 
world.
  By the way, in the 20th century and the 21st century, American 
leadership

[[Page S5626]]

brought peace. After the carnage of the first half of the last century, 
the United States has led the world to avoid open great power conflict, 
and it meant historically little bloodshed and deep international 
stability compared to previous eras.
  The international system that America helped craft and lead comes 
with a promise of multilateral security, and that is why we must remain 
wholly committed to protecting our allies. We spared no cost to help 
them rebuild to defend themselves and to protect the dignity of their 
citizens. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, cannot 
conceive of a world that is not driven by status and hierarchy. They 
are not partners, and they view no one as partners. They view them as 
vassal states. So this progress, even to someone like Huang Qifan, is a 
hidden plot to suppress others.
  Such cynicism, by the way, reveals more about the Chinese Communist 
Party than it does about us or the failure of American efforts to offer 
a helping hand to China in exchange for modernization. To the Chinese 
Communist Party, power serves no purpose but to strengthen the party's 
rule and to spread its influence around the world.
  And for them, those who deviate from the party's expectations deserve 
to be sent to forced labor camps where they toil on the party's behalf 
and where mass surveillance is a necessary safeguard against deviants 
whose only crime is to want a private civic life.
  As part of making the case for our model, we must continue to make 
the case as to why China is an untrustworthy partner in any endeavor, 
whether it is a nation-state project, in an industrial capacity, or 
financial integration. They have a neocolonial project, the Belt and 
Road Initiative, which follows a very consistent playbook: Approach 
nations with promises of lucrative state projects, exploit corruption, 
bleed those nations dry, and then hijack their domestic infrastructure. 
In Sri Lanka, what it meant was the de facto takeover of wide swathes 
of their political system after a project sputtered and Beijing seized 
the port.
  Beijing is ultimately an untrustworthy partner in international 
commitments. We have seen this repeatedly in the Asia-Pacific where 
they have flagrantly violated international agreements and obligations 
in Hong Kong and Taiwan. We see it right off the coast of Vietnam and 
the Philippines, where Beijing is literally building artificial islands 
to substantiate ludicrous territorial claims.
  Chinese leaders have long claimed to never seek hegemony, and yet the 
bullying of their neighbors, they justify it, and they justify it on 
the grounds that China deserves respect because of its power and 
position. Doing business in China is not just like here or anywhere 
else. It is not business between two private companies. It means doing 
business with companies backed by, sponsored by, and protected by the 
Chinese Communist Party.
  Their economy is purposely opaque, and Chinese companies, many of 
which are state-owned or state-directed, are tools used by the Chinese 
Communist Party to further their mercantilist goals.
  The telecommunications company that we have heard of so often, 
Huawei, is just one example. Nations that have naively partnered with 
Huawei on 5G have exposed vital technological infrastructure to 
Beijing's surveillance state, a partnership that Beijing has shown it 
will readily exploit.
  The bottom line is that China, no matter what, will continue to play 
a prominent role in the future of our world; and frankly, we should 
welcome a growing, thriving China, but one that plays by the rules.
  Today's China, governed by the Chinese Communist Party, is not 
playing by any rules. It is a predatory state in nature, and it 
actively seeks to supplant not just the United States but a world order 
committed to democracy, human rights, and the dignity of all.
  Since their induction into the World Trade Organization in 2001, 
China has shown itself to be anything but a responsible global partner. 
This is a dangerous recipe for conflict, and that is what China's 
leaders are preparing for. Xi put the party on notice in 2013, saying 
that China ``must diligently prepare for a long period of cooperation 
and of conflict'' with capitalist democracies.
  If anything, the intervening years have strengthened this conviction. 
Huang told business leaders that Americans ``want your life.'' He calls 
it an illusion that ``some small amount of money'' would resolve the 
trade war.
  ``We do not want to fight but are not afraid to fight,'' Huang 
concluded, once again quoting Mao.
  China clearly sees this moment--these decades, really--as their 
opportunity to supplant America from its global leadership role. 
Conflict, armed or otherwise, is an inevitable byproduct of that 
progression.
  America, as Huang noted, has been the ``world's leader for decades,'' 
and we have used that power to build an international system that 
prioritizes fundamental human rights, open democratic governance, and 
liberal economies, all the things that the Communist Party of China 
believes represents weakness.
  So we must be absolutely clear as to what that means. If China 
becomes the world's dominant economic power, they will become the 
world's dominant military power; they will become the world's dominant 
financial power; and they will become the world's dominant cultural 
power. Given their critique--and I would say disdain--of our system, we 
can expect that a future such as that will look much different than the 
reality we live in now.
  If China supplants America in the West, the world that our children 
will inherit will be nothing like the one we grew up in and know. 
Instead of exploiting China's brand of authoritarianism country by 
country, as they do now, China will be positioned to reorient the 
entire globe, the application of the party's governance at home applied 
on a global scale to the way countries interact with one another.
  Let me close with the prophetic words of a Chinese dissident, Wei 
Jingsheng. In his testimony before Congress in the year 2000, against 
and in opposition to China's ascension to the WTO, he said:

       If the United States will not fight the world's largest 
     tyranny politically, then inevitably it will have to fight it 
     economically, and eventually, militarily. Therefore, the only 
     way to preserve peace and freedom begins by comprehending 
     democracy's greatest enemy, and countering it effectively.

  Blissful ignorance is no longer an option. We cannot overlook the 
obvious signs in favor of near-term economic gains. The world has 
reached a crossroads, one in which our inability to act will usher in a 
Chinese century, and that will have disastrous consequences.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions for the Cella, Jorjani, 
and Black nominations ripen at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 24; I 
further ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, following 
the cloture vote on the Black nomination, that the Senate resume 
consideration of the McGuire nomination, and that at 3:30 p.m., all 
postcloture time on the McGuire, Cella, Jorjani, and Black nominations 
be considered expired; finally, I ask unanimous consent that if any of 
the nominations are confirmed, that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________