September 24, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 154 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5636-S5642]
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 Joseph 
Cella, of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
of the United States of America to the Republic of Fiji, and to serve 
concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to 
the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, 
and Tuvalu.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, in just a few days, we will mark the 1-
year anniversary of the President's concluding negotiations on the 
United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. It is time for 
Congress to ratify this agreement now.
  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will benefit pretty much 
every sector of the U.S. economy: the automobile industry, textiles, 
digital trade and e-commerce, services, manufacturing, and yes, of 
course, agriculture.
  As the representative of a State whose lifeblood is agriculture, 
farmers and ranchers are always at the top of my mind, and a huge focus 
of mine right now is helping our struggling agricultural economy.
  Low commodity and livestock prices, natural disasters, and protracted 
trade disputes have made a tough few years for our Nation's farmers. 
One of the most important things we can do to help our agricultural 
economy recover is to open new markets for American agricultural 
products.
  During August, I spent a lot of time talking to farmers back home in 
my State of South Dakota. Again and again, they emphasized that they 
need action on trade from Washington. With so many trade deals 
currently up in the air, farmers and ranchers are struggling with a 
lack of certainty about what international markets are going to look 
like.
  While they share the President's goal of addressing trade imbalances 
and securing more favorable conditions for American products, they also 
believe that we need to conclude the agreements that we are negotiating 
as soon as possible. The longer negotiations drag on, the tougher their 
situation gets. That is why I have repeatedly stressed the need to 
bring these agreements to a swift conclusion, and I emphasize that 
point to the President nearly every time I talk to him.
  However, there is one deal we don't need to wait for, and that is the 
United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. As I said earlier, 
negotiations on this agreement concluded a year ago, and it is high 
time for Congress to take it up and pass it so that farmers and 
ranchers can start seeing the benefits.
  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is a big win for farmers 
and ranchers. Of particular interest to South Dakota are the 
agreement's dairy provisions. Dairy is an important and rapidly growing 
industry in South Dakota. Drive the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, 
SD, and you can see firsthand the massive dairy expansion that we have 
experienced over the past several years.
  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve U.S. dairy 
farmers' role as a key dairy supplier to Mexico, and it will 
substantially expand market access in Canada, where

[[Page S5637]]

U.S. dairy sales have been restricted. The U.S. International Trade 
Commission estimates that the agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports 
by more than $277 million.
  The agreement will also expand market access for U.S. poultry and egg 
producers, and it will make it easier for U.S. producers to export 
wheat to Canada, and so much more.
  Above all, this agreement will provide farmers and ranchers with 
certainty about what the Canadian and Mexican markets are going to look 
like going forward. American farmers depend upon these markets to sell 
their products, and it is vital that farmers have a clear idea of what 
these markets are going to look like in the future.
  Republicans in the Senate are ready to take action on the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement at any point. I hope House Democrats 
will quickly work out their remaining issues and indicate their 
willingness to vote on this deal. The administration has made 
addressing Democrats' concerns a priority throughout the negotiation 
process, and it is time for Democrats to bring this process to a swift 
conclusion.
  As I mentioned, we are almost a year now past the time when the 
President signed this agreement, and it has been available for 
consideration by the House of Representatives for that entire time. It 
is high time that we act on this trade deal and get it over here to the 
Senate, where we can vote on it and get it to the President for his 
signature.
  Last week, seven former U.S. Agriculture Secretaries, from both 
Democratic and Republican administrations, sent a letter to House and 
Senate leadership stating their strong support for the United States-
Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
  The Secretaries noted:

       With farmers facing one of the lowest net farm incomes in 
     the last decade, USMCA would create enhanced export 
     opportunities and help fully capitalize on increased global 
     demand for food products. Furthermore, USMCA would 
     significantly boost farm incomes and create jobs both on and 
     off the farm in rural communities.

  Again, that is from seven former U.S. Agriculture Secretaries, 
serving both Republican and Democrat Presidents.
  Life hasn't been easy for our Nation's farmers and ranchers over the 
past few years, and I can certainly attest to that, as I have looked at 
what the economy in South Dakota has been like in these last several 
years. The surest way that we can stabilize and boost farm income and 
help farm country is to conclude agreements like the USMCA. I urge my 
Democrat colleagues in the House of Representatives to make getting 
this deal done in the House, over to the Senate, and across the finish 
line their No. 1 priority.
  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.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we continue to read reports containing 
additional information about the nature of President Trump's phone 
calls with Ukrainian President Zelensky and his administration's 
conduct in the weeks and months before and after those communications.
  Ignoring for a moment the political reporting, we know that someone 
inside the intelligence community found the President's conduct 
alarming enough to warrant an official whistleblower complaint. The 
complaint was so alarming that the inspector general of the 
intelligence community, appointed by President Trump, said that it was 
credible and urgent and a complaint that by law must be submitted to 
Congress. This is not one of those discretionary moments; the law says 
this must be transmitted to Congress.
  We still have not received the whistleblower complaint, and Congress 
has been advised in writing by the inspector general of the 
intelligence community that the Trump administration is preventing us 
from getting this report. So later today, I will request the unanimous 
consent of the Senate to pass a resolution calling for the 
whistleblower complaint to be provided to the Senate and House 
Intelligence Committees, as prescribed by law. Let me repeat that. 
Later today, I will request the unanimous consent of the Senate to pass 
a resolution calling for the whistleblower complaint to be provided to 
the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, as prescribed by law.
  It is our job in the Congress to provide the necessary oversight of 
the executive branch, to take these matters--matters of foreign policy, 
national security, and constitutional integrity--with the utmost 
gravity, to seek the facts, and then grapple with them.
  I made several requests of the majority leader yesterday in an effort 
to collect the facts, to which I have received no response. Today, I 
will seek approval for a simple resolution calling for the 
whistleblower complaint to be transmitted to the relevant committees in 
Congress. I hope the majority leader and Senate Republicans will not 
block it. I hope they will rise to the occasion and realize that this 
is their constitutional duty and realize that this involves the 
security of the United States.
  I will have more to say on the matter before requesting my 
colleagues' consent to pass this resolution later today.


                   Declaration of National Emergency

  Madam President, on the national emergency--another issue that 
involves rule of law and the President's overreach--this week, as early 
as tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether to terminate the 
President's national emergency declaration, which he has used to steal 
from our military to build the border wall--a wall President Trump 
promised over and over again that Mexico would pay for; not American 
taxpayers, not American troops, not their families--Mexico. That was 
the President's promise to the American people. It is a promise he 
broke. But that is what it has come to.
  If my Republican friends choose to stand with President Trump on this 
vote, they will be supporting the President's taking money from our 
military and their families to fund a border wall. I imagine that even 
many of those who support the wall--and that is not a majority or close 
to a majority of Americans--would not want the money to come from the 
military.
  Later this morning, Democrats will have a press conference where we 
will talk about this. We will remind people that the consequences of 
the President's emergency declaration are far-reaching. He is taking 
money away from military readiness, military families, and the children 
of servicemembers. He is taking money from military medical facilities 
in North Carolina and hurricane recovery projects in Florida, money 
from programs we use to combat Russian cyber aggression and money to 
upgrade storage facilities that are decrepit and pose a risk because of 
the munitions that are stored there.
  What the heck are we doing here? Congress appropriated these funds 
with a specific purpose. In our Constitution, the President doesn't get 
to decide where the money goes; we do. He gets veto power. He tried to 
shut down the government and failed. If he can get around the 
constitutionally sanctioned balance of power--that is what a dictator 
does, not someone who believes in democracy and rule of law.
  What he has done here far exceeds any overreach that my Republican 
colleagues complain about that President Obama did. But, remarkably, 
too many are silent. Too many are willing to go along. The fear of this 
President, who many of my colleagues know privately does not have the 
honor, morality, honesty, and actually competence to do this job--they 
know that, but they go along with just about everything he does.
  On a policy basis, you can shrug your shoulders. That is the 
differences between the parties. But when it comes to defending the 
Constitution and rule of law and not letting the Executive overreach--
the No. 1 fear of the Founding Fathers--we are above that. Where are 
our Republican colleagues?

[[Page S5638]]

  I am sure if the shoe were on the other foot and a Democrat were 
President and declared an emergency to reappropriate funds, my 
Republican colleagues would be up in arms. As I mentioned, when 
President Obama did far less, they were screaming bloody murder. But 
now they are remarkably silent.
  So it is about time our Senate Republicans stand up for the rule of 
law, stand up for our Constitution, and stand up to the President when 
he is wrong. It is time to reassert the powers of the legislative 
branch, the people's branch of government. Senate Republicans will have 
that opportunity this week, likely tomorrow, and the American people 
will clearly be able to see whose side each Republican is on--the 
people's side, the Constitution's side, or the President's side.


                   Nomination of Daniel Habib Jorjani

  Madam President, finally, on the Jorjani nomination, later today, the 
Senate will vote on the confirmation of Daniel Jorjani to serve as 
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. By all rights, Leader 
McConnell should withdraw this vote from the floor. Mr. Jorjani's 
career is out of step with the agency's mission, and it has come to 
light that Mr. Jorjani likely lied to Congress about his role in the 
Department's adherence to transparency laws.
  Under President Trump, the Interior Department has been mired in 
several investigations about the ethical conduct of its political 
appointees, including former Secretary Zinke. It is obvious that the 
Interior Department sorely needs transparency and public 
accountability, especially when the stewardship of our public lands is 
at stake. But at the Department of the Interior, political appointees 
have instituted policies to stonewall and squash transparency. It is 
likely that Mr. Jorjani played a key role in shaping these policies and 
is at this moment one of the subjects of an Interior Department 
inspector general investigation.
  Despite his sworn testimony claiming no role in reviewing public 
records requests, public documentation has shown that Mr. Jorjani was 
regularly made aware of FOIA requests involving high-level political 
appointees. If confirmed, Mr. Jorjani would play an even larger role in 
overseeing the Interior Department's public releases.
  The President said he would clean the swamp. Nomination after 
nomination that he makes, makes the swamp even filthier, stinkier. He 
seems to have no morality. He seems to have no honor. This is a man who 
is loaded with conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, and is likely 
an ideologue opposed to the very missions of the agency to which he is 
nominated. Mr. Jorjani is another bright red example of the lack of 
honor, of decency, of morality, and of honesty in Trump appointees. I 
urge Senate Republicans to join Democrats in voting to reject this 
sordid nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Election Security

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there are certain elements of this 
responsibility of serving in the Senate that have been tested from time 
to time in our history.
  As Members of the Senate, each of us stands in the well right over in 
that corner, raises our right hand, and swears to uphold and defend the 
Constitution of the United States. Those words are almost a cliche 
because they are used so often. Yet here today we are being called on 
to really reflect on that responsibility. We are called on to reflect 
on it because of things that have happened that have come to light in 
the last several days that raise serious constitutional questions.
  I will say that in the 2\1/2\ to 3 years that Donald Trump has been 
President of the United States, I think our Nation has been rocked by 
this President's approach to the highest office in the land. He has 
said things and done things no other President has ever done.
  Members of his own political party have been uncharacteristically 
silent when it comes to criticizing this President for his wrongdoing. 
The litany of things he has done is long and troubling. But there is 
one thing that we, as both political parties, need to maintain as the 
bedrock of this democracy, the bedrock of our commitment to this 
Constitution; that is, that in this Nation of the United States, the 
people govern.
  Ultimately, the people of the United States have the last word--in 
our elections. In those elections, they make their choices, whether you 
like them or not. I wasn't particularly enamored with the Presidential 
choice in 2016, but I accepted it as the constitutional verdict of the 
American people. It really is the bedrock of who we are and what we 
are. That is why the notion that some other nation would interfere in 
our election is so repugnant.
  The thought that the American people would not have the last word, 
that there would be other factors and other people, other countries 
engaged in our election, is as reprehensible under our Constitution as 
any concept I can think of.
  We are sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against 
all enemies, foreign and domestic--another group of words we have heard 
over and over again. But reflecting on those for a moment--sworn to 
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic--is a nation that tries to interfere in our 
political process an enemy of the United States? Of course. That is 
obvious on its face. Those who would encourage a nation to be engaged 
in our political process, to try to tip the scales one way or the 
other, are they enemies of the United States? Well, they are certainly 
not acting consistent with that constitutional principle.
  This seems like a pretty straightforward constitutional 
interpretation. You don't need a Ph.D. or a law degree to understand, 
if a foreign country tries to interfere in the U.S. election process, 
that foreign country is an enemy in that action. Those who would 
encourage a foreign country or foreign agents to engage in our 
election, they, too, have crossed the line.
  As I consider the revelations that President Trump is using his 
office to extort Ukraine to support his political reelection campaign, 
I wonder why there is so much silence on the other side of the aisle. 
This is an outrageous development.
  Months before the 2016 election, our Nation's top intelligence 
officials told key congressional leaders about the efforts of Russia to 
interfere in the 2016 election, the election where the American people 
were choosing the President. Our top intelligence officials were 
understandably concerned. At that time, President Obama asked our 
congressional leaders for a bipartisan message condemning Vladimir 
Putin's efforts on behalf of Russia. President Obama wanted to make 
sure it was bipartisan before that 2016 election and showed a unified 
resistance to the interference by any foreign country in America's 
election process.
  What was the response of the Republican majority leader, Senator 
McConnell, after hearing this bombshell, this threat from a former 
Communist KGB official, Vladimir Putin, against America's democratic 
process of election? He answered that he didn't want to get involved, 
and he didn't.
  Then, for months after the election, not a single Republican Senator 
spoke on the Senate floor about the mounting and devastating evidence 
of Russia's attack on our election in 2016. I know that, personally, 
because the first casualty in that attack was the voter file of my 
State of Illinois. The Russians found a way, through their trolls, to 
get into the voter file of my home State, into the voting records of 
70,000 or more Americans who live in Illinois. What did they do with 
that information? It appears little or nothing, but they could have 
changed it, and they could have had a dramatic impact on the right of 
these American citizens to make their legitimate constitutional choice 
in the election.
  For months, the silence was deafening as well, as President Trump 
defended Vladimir Putin's brazen denials of these attacks. President 
Trump took the word of Vladimir Putin over that of his own American 
intelligence professionals. Senate Republicans blocked election 
security measure after election security measure, and despite finally 
relenting last week when Senator McConnell said we could come up with 
$250 million for election security grants, they still continue to block 
substantive legislation, despite ongoing attacks and U.S. 
vulnerability.
  The country spent much of the Trump Presidency asking serious, 
necessary questions about Candidate

[[Page S5639]]

Trump's open solicitation of Russian help in his Presidential campaign 
and if such cooperation actually ran deeper. While unable to establish 
a formal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians, in 
nearly 200 pages, the Mueller report described ``numerous links between 
the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.''
  The Mueller report also laid out, in detail, how the Russians 
brazenly and systematically interfered in our election in 2016 and 
tried to shape the outcome. You would think that after such a sobering 
set of findings, any American President would take the matter seriously 
and reassure the Nation that he really does put America, not a foreign 
power, first when it comes to our electoral process, but, no, shortly 
after the Mueller report was released, President Trump told ABC's 
George Stephanopoulos he would still accept a foreign government's 
offer to share damaging information about a political rival, echoing 
similar remarks he made in his original Presidential campaign.
  In short, President Trump learned nothing from the experience of the 
2016 election. The silence of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle seems to indicate the same.
  Now we have reports that President Trump is at it again, trying to 
strong-arm the leader of Ukraine to join him in attacking one of 
President Trump's political rivals, Joe Biden. It is not to advance 
American interests, not to serve the American people, not to help an 
ally in Ukraine, not to uphold American values but to serve the 
President's own reelection campaign interest.
  Last week, I offered an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to 
address $250 million which had been appropriated by Congress to help 
protect Ukraine from Russian aggression and was never released. Last 
Thursday, I had this amendment coming before the committee, and it 
basically said to the administration: If you don't release the money we 
have appropriated, you are going to pay a price for it.
  Occasionally, that is all you can do as a Member of Congress to get 
money spent that was appropriated and approved by the President. It was 
a curiosity. Why in the world were we holding back $250 million that 
was supposed to help the Ukrainian people stop the aggression of 
Vladimir Putin?
  I went to the committee hearing on Thursday morning. Before it 
started, one of my staff members said: Oh, the Trump administration 
released the money last night.
  Last night? Why did they wait until 2 weeks before the end of the 
fiscal year to release the money?
  Oh, they were reviewing this to determine whether there was any 
problem with releasing the money to Ukraine.
  It was a curious answer. It didn't make much sense. The President had 
signed this appropriations bill.
  For months, as President Trump, through his personal attorney Rudy 
Giuliani, tried to pressure Ukrainian President Zelensky to further his 
political agenda, the money that was supposed to go to Ukraine was 
withheld.
  We learned in this morning's Washington Post the President had 
instructed his Chief of Staff to notify the appropriate agencies to 
withhold the money while he bargained with Zelensky over salacious, 
negative information about Joseph Biden and his family.

  Now we are learning there was a whistleblower complaint, reportedly 
about the same issue. Apparently, someone in the administration who 
learned what President Trump was trying to do in strong-arming 
Ukrainian President Zelensky decided it overstepped the bounds and 
needed to be reported on officially. The congressional Intelligence 
Committees that get access to the information provided by this 
whistleblower are still waiting for that information--information the 
Trump-appointed inspector general for the intelligence community, 
Michael Atkinson, a Trump appointee, has determined to be credible and 
urgent. In other words, something happened at the highest levels of our 
government which led a professional in the intelligence agency, the 
inspector general, to make a whistleblower complaint for the record.
  The law requires that complaint to be shared with committees of 
Congress. It wasn't. It turns out that the Attorney General of the 
United States, William Barr, may have played some role in diverting 
that from its ordinary statutory course. The President may not want 
anyone to see it, but the law is clear and must be respected: This 
information in the whistleblower complaint must be transmitted to 
Congress.
  Is there anyone in the Senate, anyone who took the oath to protect 
the Nation against enemies foreign and domestic, who thinks any of us, 
regardless of political party, should solicit help from a foreign power 
to make sure we get elected or reelected?
  This abdication of responsibility by the other party is remarkable. I 
want to salute one Senator, and I hesitate to mention any direct 
reference to him, but one Senator on the Republican side who has spoken 
out. He understands the gravity of the situation, the constitutional 
issues at stake in this debate, and the fact that, ultimately, history 
must stand in judgment of all of us of whether we have spoken up.
  If this President of the United States can attempt to extort a 
foreign leader to withhold security funds that would have been given by 
the United States to his country in order to pursue and promote his own 
political agenda, we have reached a new low in the United States. If 
this whistleblower's claim goes into detail, it is only right and 
appropriate, under the statute, that this information be shared with 
the appropriate committees of the U.S. Senate and House. The 
whistleblower's claim needs to be released to the appropriate 
congressional committees and evaluated according to the law, and 
congressional Republicans--House and Senate--need to make it clear once 
and for all that no President--not this President, no President--can 
solicit or strong-arm a foreign country to further his own campaign. 
That is unacceptable under the Constitution of the United States, which 
I remind my colleagues we are sworn to uphold and defend.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from 
Hawaii.


                   Nomination of Daniel Habib Jorjani

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, over the past 2\1/2\ years, we have seen a 
remarkable pattern emerge in the types of people Donald Trump nominates 
to serve in his administration. His nominees have extensive conflicts 
of interest. They work to advance the interest of foreign clients, 
financial patrons, or other special interests. In doing so, they are 
actively hostile to the very departments in which they have been 
nominated to serve.
  Daniel Jorjani--the President's nominee to serve as Solicitor of the 
Department of the Interior--is a classic example of this pattern. The 
DOI Solicitor is a critically important position in the Department. In 
addition to being the chief legal adviser to the Secretary, the 
Solicitor is intimately involved in developing the legal justifications 
for Department policies, defending DOI positions in court, and 
overseeing compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.
  Given the influence the Department's Solicitor has on issues, such as 
the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, stewardship of public 
lands, and holding companies accountable for their impacts on the 
environment, it is essential that whoever occupies this job can execute 
his or her duties in a manner that upholds the public trust.
  With the nomination of Daniel Jorjani, Donald Trump has once again 
shown that he prioritizes exploiting our environment for the benefit of 
fossil fuel companies over the very real interests of the American 
people and protecting our environment.
  Prior to joining the Trump administration, Mr. Jorjani spent 7 years 
working in organizations throughout the Koch brothers' sprawling 
empire. In positions such as the general counsel of Freedom Partners, 
Mr. Jorjani assisted the Koch brothers in pursuing a relentlessly pro-
fossil fuel agenda. He fought against the Obama administration's 
actions to combat climate change and protect the environment.
  It was with precisely this experience in mind that Donald Trump 
appointed Mr. Jorjani as the Principal Deputy Solicitor and Acting 
Solicitor of DOI in 2017. During his tenure in these roles,

[[Page S5640]]

which did not require Senate confirmation, Mr. Jorjani wasted little 
time before mounting a full frontal assault on Obama-era environmental 
regulations, to the delight of his former patrons. Of the eight 
Solicitor's legal opinions that Mr. Jorjani authored, seven roll back 
Obama-era environmental regulations.
  Let me focus on one example that certainly sticks out. In a stunning 
reversal of a 2017 opinion issued by then-Solicitor Hilary Tompkins, 
Mr. Jorjani pushed to shield companies from liability for killing birds 
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as long as it was not the 
company's intended action.
  That is like saying BP shouldn't have to pay to clean up the 
Deepwater Horizon oilspill because they didn't intend to release nearly 
5 million barrels--200 million gallons--of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. 
Clearly, companies should not be shielded from their negligence.
  Mr. Jorjani's reversal of the opinion overturned existing Department 
enforcement practices that had been in place for the past 40 years. The 
oil and gas industry had been complaining about this rule for years 
precisely because it held them accountable for their actions.
  When I asked Mr. Jorjani directly at his confirmation hearing about 
which industry benefited most from this reversal decision of his, he 
claimed: ``I'm not aware of any particular industry that benefits from 
this.''
  Who is he trying to kid? My reaction to Mr. Jorjani's shibai--or BS--
answer is that the oil and gas industries are the biggest 
beneficiaries. He knew it, and I knew it.
  Mr. Jorjani's actions are particularly alarming in light of a new 
study that found that North America has lost 3 billion birds--nearly 30 
percent of our total bird population--in the past 50 years.
  In normal times, we expect leaders of the Interior Department to 
pursue policies to mitigate the harm being done to our ecosystems and 
environment, not to do things that will actually make big problems even 
worse. But these are not normal times.
  Instead, we have yet another Trump nominee with extensive conflicts 
of interest, pursuing policies that help his former employers in a 
manner that is fundamentally hostile to the Department in which he or 
she serves.
  Fitting the Trump administration's normal pattern of corruption 
should be more than enough to deny him confirmation to this critical 
job, but Mr. Jorjani--just like his boss, Interior Secretary David 
Bernhardt--is also currently under investigation by the DOI inspector 
general.
  Mr. Jorjani is under investigation for potential misconduct related 
to his management of the Department's compliance with the Freedom of 
Information Act, or FOIA, and its so-called supplemental review policy.
  Under this policy, political appointees at the Department are 
notified about the public release of any documents containing their 
names or email addresses. This policy can be problematic even in normal 
times. It could result in political interference in the FOIA process to 
delay the release of potentially damaging information, but DOI 
allegedly has an additional internal review policy that goes even 
further. It allows Mr. Jorjani and the Department's Deputy Chief of 
Staff 5 days before release to review requested records that involve 
senior staff in the Secretary's office. This review process not only 
opens up the possibility for inappropriate delays but also allows for 
willful and blatant withholding of important information the public has 
requested.
  In response to questions at his confirmation hearing and questions 
for the record, Mr. Jorjani asserted that he ``typically did not review 
records prior to their release under the FOIA.'' However, internal 
documents released by the DOI paint a very different picture, one in 
which Mr. Jorjani was regularly involved in reviewing FOIA documents.
  At best, Mr. Jorjani was not forthcoming or candid. In fact, it 
appeared that he lied under oath.
  With a position as important as this one, the American people 
deserve, at the very least, an ethical Solicitor devoted to the mission 
of the Department, one who is not compromised by or catering to the 
narrow interests of his former employers or one who doesn't tell his 
staff, as Mr. Jorjani told his staff, that ``at the end of the day our 
job is to protect the Secretary.'' Protecting the Secretary is nowhere 
in Mr. Jorjani's job description. He is yet another Trump nominee who 
should not be confirmed by the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I recognize the Senator from Oregon.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous 
consent request. I think colleagues know we have run a little bit 
behind. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be 
recognized next for her remarks and that I be recognized to close the 
debate on Mr. Jorjani and be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes. I 
think we would end up being about 10 minutes late or thereabouts, 
between 20 of and quarter of.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 15 minutes 
after the Senator from Iowa has finished her remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my colleague 
from Oregon. I appreciate that very much.


   No Budget No Recess Act and End-of-Year Fiscal Responsibility Act

  Mr. President, `tis the season in Washington. Government agencies are 
going on their ``Christmas in September, use-it-or-lose-it'' shopping 
spree. If not spent by midnight on September 30, leftover dollars 
expire and can no longer be used.
  Rather than returning the money to taxpayers, binge-buying 
bureaucrats are wasting billions of taxpayer dollars needlessly. 
Frankly, folks, this is Washington's most notorious tradition at the 
end of our fiscal year.
  Let me tell you, folks, Iowans and hard-working folks across the 
country really should be appalled by many of the last-minute purchases 
our tax dollars are paying for. I will just give you some examples.
  There was $4.6 million spent on lobster tail and crab; $2.1 million 
spent on games, toys, and wheeled goods; over $53,000 on china and 
tableware; more than $40,000 on clocks; and nearly $12,000 for a 
commercial foosball table. Yes, that is right, folks, a commercial 
foosball table, 12,000 of your dollars.
  What are we, as Congress, doing about this wasteful spending? Nada, 
nothing. Congress is sitting idly by, letting Washington bureaucrats 
waste the hard-earned dollars of folks in my home State of Iowa.
  Failing to pass the bills necessary to fund the government on time 
makes it difficult for agencies to thoughtfully plan and allocate 
billions of dollars. That is why I fought hard to make sure Congress 
completes its job of appropriating and budgeting on time.
  Through my No Budget No Recess Act, Members of Congress would be 
prohibited from leaving Washington if we fail to pass a budget by April 
15 or if we fail to approve regular spending bills by August 1.
  The way we are doing business is incentivizing Federal agencies to 
rush and spend the rest of their money as quickly as possible, and it 
makes it all the more likely that they will waste money on unnecessary 
goods and services.
  As Iowa taxpayers know, it is never smart to rush into a big 
purchase. Unfortunately, it seems Washington bureaucrats don't agree, 
especially when it is the tax dollars of hard-working Americans that 
they are dealing with.
  Washington's spending disorder gets more expensive every year. The 
$97 billion rung up in September 2018 is 15 percent more than was spent 
the same month the previous year and a staggering 39 percent more than 
that time in 2015. But if the Federal agencies followed the President's 
directive to trim their budgets by 5 percent, an easy place to start is 
simply by cutting the dollars they have been unable to spend.
  Federal agencies end every year with leftover money in their budgets. 
This year, it is estimated the government will end up with more than 
$825 billion in unspent funds that have not been committed by contract 
or otherwise obligated to be spent. Last year's $804 billion budget 
deficit could have been wiped out and turned into a surplus if the 
unobligated balance being held in the Federal coffers had been 
canceled.

[[Page S5641]]

Instead, Federal agencies ordered lobster tail and tons of--get this--
tater tots--tons of tater tots, as Washington amassed its largest 
shortfall since 2012.
  Folks, we have to put an end to this madness. Seriously, someone has 
to be the Grinch on behalf of our taxpayers. That is why earlier this 
year I introduced the End-of-Year Fiscal Responsibility Act.
  My bill would limit an agency's spending in the last 2 months of the 
year to no more than the average of the previous 10 months. This bill 
will not end all wasteful spending, but it will force agencies to put 
more thought into long-term planning and curtail the bad habit of out-
of-control impulsive spending.
  Folks, Washington spending is out of control. With our national debt 
now surpassing $22 trillion, Washington should be looking for ways to 
save by canceling or delaying unnecessary expenses rather than 
splurging on end-of-the-year wish lists.
  I would like to recognize the great work of the nonpartisan group 
OpenTheBooks, which is working to put every dime the government spends 
online in real time to hold Washington accountable. The group issued a 
report on this very subject in March.
  I would also like to note that Iowans sent me to the Senate with a 
specific mission: Cut wasteful spending, and make Washington squeal. To 
prevent buyer's remorse, I am giving everyone in Washington fair 
warning. My office will be reviewing your last-minute purchases and 
asking you to justify them to the taxpayers.
  It is time to put an end to this reckless behavior. Billion-dollar 
binge buying is no way to budget.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                   Nomination of Daniel Habib Jorjani

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there is a job opening at the Interior 
Department, and that can mean only one thing: another Trump nominee 
who, incredibly, is already under investigation for misconduct, even 
before his first day on the job. This time, it is Daniel Jorjani, a 
long-serving Trump Interior official who is up for a powerful role as 
the Department's Solicitor.
  I say to the Presiding Officer and colleagues, I have put a hold on 
this nominee. If anything, the case for withholding action on this 
nominee has gotten greater in the last few days. Just in the last few 
days, the Department's inspector general has made it clear that this is 
an individual he is going to investigate. I will tell my colleagues 
that, if you are putting somebody already under investigation on a fast 
track to the Interior Department corruption hall of fame, right up 
there with Ryan Zinke, I believe that is a mistake the Senate is going 
to regret.
  It probably doesn't take an inspector general investigation to 
uncover why this is a mistake. I am going to explain it this morning, 
briefly.
  First, I believe it is important to start with an honest assessment 
of what Donald Trump appointees have done at the Interior Department. 
Under this President, it is often difficult for one agency's corruption 
to stand out above the rest, but somehow Interior Department officials 
manage to do that again and again.
  Mr. Jorjani, a former industry adviser for Koch Industries, is an 
example of just this type of behavior. The Office of the Interior 
Solicitor is in charge of legal issues and ethics for the Department. 
It is a big team with a lot of power. Mr. Jorjani has been a key member 
of the Solicitor's office.
  His own words indicate that he doesn't believe that his primary 
function at Interior is to protect public lands and uphold ethical 
standards. We have already heard discussion earlier this morning that 
he wrote to agency colleagues--and we have been quoting it--saying 
``our job is to protect the Secretary.'' Those are his words, not the 
words of anybody here in the Senate. What Senators may not know is that 
Mr. Jorjani was talking about Ryan Zinke, who brought on a category 5 
ethical hurricane during his brief time as Interior Secretary.
  In the same email, Mr. Jorjani boasted about having impeded inspector 
general investigations into the misuse of taxpayer funds for travel. It 
wasn't just talk. The record shows that covering up dirty ethics and 
potential lawbreaking is routine for Mr. Jorjani. By my count, there 
are at least four investigations into wrongdoing at the Interior 
Department that were closed or found inconclusive due to a lack of 
cooperation or records production on Mr. Jorjani's watch.
  These investigations covered a multitude of issues, from the 
potential misuse of expensive chartered travel to a halted study on the 
crucial health impacts of potentially dangerous Interior Department 
energy policies.
  Then there is the issue of the Interior Department's new policy under 
the Trump administration with respect to the Freedom of Information 
Act. The new policy--and again, this is a retreat from public interest 
standards--gives political appointees unprecedented control over the 
Department's response to Freedom of Information Act requests. In my 
view, it looks like an effort to conceal the fact that Trump Interior 
officials are spending their days doing the bidding of a host of 
special interests.
  There is clear evidence that this new secretive Freedom of 
Information Act policy was implemented under the Trump administration, 
that Mr. Jorjani knew about it, and that he was up to his eyeballs in 
putting this in motion.
  When I asked Mr. Jorjani about the Freedom of Information Act policy 
during an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Mr. Jorjani 
actually claimed it didn't exist. He later told one of our colleagues, 
the distinguished Senator from Maine, Mr. King, that he had no 
involvement in Freedom of Information Act responses.
  I want it understood that I believe Mr. Jorjani lied to the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee and perjured himself to that body.
  Colleagues, I know that Members on both sides are concerned about 
what has happened with the Freedom of Information Act under this 
administration. I want to commend the several Republican Senators who 
have said that they are troubled about what this administration is 
doing with the Freedom of Information Act--the so-called ``awareness 
reviews'' by appointees that really aren't hard to figure out. It is 
about secretive political interference.
  What we are seeing with the Freedom of Information Act is 
inconsistent with the intent of Congress, and it is wrong. The 
importance of government openness and honesty with the American people 
ought to be a bipartisan proposition. It is in the interest of 
everyone--Democrats and Republicans--to protect the Freedom of 
Information Act from evasion and protect it from abuse. That is part of 
why this new Interior policy on the Freedom of Information Act is so 
troubling.
  As I mentioned, on Friday, the Interior inspector general confirmed 
to me that Mr. Jorjani is currently under investigation for his role in 
this Freedom of Information Act policy. For colleagues who may be 
following this, let's just understand what is going on: We are getting 
ready to vote on whether to advance somebody who is under a formal 
inspector general investigation. The fact that the inspector general is 
investigating such a serious matter ought to be enough all by itself to 
stop this nomination from going forward.
  Certainly, Mr. Jorjani's own words about how he views the job--not 
about protecting the public but about protecting someone like Ryan 
Zinke--ought to be disqualifying. If Mr. Jorjani is confirmed, the 
person who will be in charge of ethics at the Interior Department told 
colleagues his job was to protect a crook. That is what he said.
  Colleagues, this administration in too many instances has made deceit 
and unethical conduct the norm at the Interior Department. Trump 
officials have sidelined the Department's core purpose, which is to 
protect our treasured public lands on behalf of all Americans. Too 
often, it seems, they side with special interests that will pollute 
America's air, poison the drinking water, fuel climate change, and 
destroy the treasures that Americans all love.
  At some point the U.S. Senate ought to draw the line. I think the 
Jorjani nomination is such a place.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting no.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S5642]]

  



                             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 Joseph Cella, of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
     and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
     Republic of Fiji, and to serve concurrently and without 
     additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and 
     Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
     Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of 
     Tonga, and Tuvalu.
         Mitch McConnell, David Perdue, John Cornyn, John 
           Barrasso, Mike Crapo, John Thune, Tim Scott, John 
           Hoeven, Shelley Moore Capito, Kevin Cramer, John 
           Boozman, Steve Daines, Richard Burr, James E. Risch, 
           Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis, Martha McSally.

  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 Joseph Cella, of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of 
Fiji, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as 
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America to the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom 
of Tonga, and Tuvalu, 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) and the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Tillis).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Jones), 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 55, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 295 Ex.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--37

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Booker
     Graham
     Harris
     Jones
     Sanders
     Tillis
     Warren
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
37.
  The motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________