September 25, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 155 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5674-S5681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

RELATING TO A NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT ON FEBRUARY 
                                15, 2019

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session.
  S.J. Res. 54 is discharged, and the Senate will proceed to the 
consideration of the joint resolution, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 54) relating to a national 
     emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.

  Thereupon, the Committee on Armed Services was discharged, and the 
Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, readers of Forbes might have seen an 
article earlier this month entitled ``Russian Navy To Be First To Field 
Hypersonic Cruise Missiles on Submarines.'' Articles like this are a 
timely reminder of the ever-present need to invest in our military.
  It can be easy to take U.S. military superiority for granted, but our 
military preeminence did not come out of nowhere. Our military is 
strong as a result of sustained investment and commitment. If we don't 
stay committed to maintaining our military strength and advantage, we 
will lose them.
  Meanwhile, as the Forbes article reminds us, other countries are busy 
investing in their militaries. Great powers with aggressive military 
tendencies are building up their armed forces and investing in the 
weapons and equipment of the future. We need to ensure that our 
military is not falling behind.
  Later today, we will vote on additional measures related to the 
National Defense Authorization Act--legislation that we take up every 
year to authorize funding for our military and our national defense. 
Both the House and

[[Page S5675]]

Senate passed versions of this legislation this summer. Now Members 
from both Houses are working on reconciling the House and Senate 
versions of the bill. The Senate-passed National Defense Authorization 
Act was a strong bill, and I hope the final bill will look a lot like 
it.
  Right now, our military is rebuilding after years of underfunding and 
the strains of the global War on Terror.
  In November 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission 
released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to the point 
where we might struggle to win a war against a major power like Russia 
or China, and the Commission noted that we would be especially 
vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts.
  Here in the Senate, Members of both parties have been working 
together to address the military's rebuilding needs and ensure that we 
are prepared to meet any threat.
  The bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act that we passed in 
the Senate in June authorizes funding for our military's current needs 
and for the equipment and technology of the future. It invests in 
ships, combat vehicles, and planes--including development of the future 
B-21 bomber, which will be based at Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home 
State of South Dakota--and continued procurement of the F-35 Joint 
Strike Fighter, which I hope will someday soon be based at Joe Foss 
Field in Sioux Falls. It authorizes funding for research and 
development and advanced technology. It authorizes funds to modernize 
our nuclear arsenal to maximize our deterrence capabilities. It focuses 
on ensuring that we are equipped to meet threats on new fronts, 
including in the space and cyber domains.
  Of course, while up-to-date weapons, equipment, and technology are 
essential, the greatest strength of our military is our men and women 
in uniform. Both the Senate and House versions of the National Defense 
Authorization Act authorize a 3.1-percent pay increase for our troops--
the largest increase in a decade. This is not only something our troops 
have earned, it is also an important way to retain troops in our All-
Volunteer Force when the economy is as strong as it is. Both the House 
and Senate bills also focus on addressing the recent significant health 
and safety issues faced by many families with private on-base housing.
  I hope House and Senate conferees will produce a strong bill and that 
both Houses will be able to pass this legislation in the near future.
  In a 1793 address to Congress, President George Washington noted:

       If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; 
     if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful 
     instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that 
     we are at all times ready for war.

  The surest way of preserving peace is to be strong militarily. 
Weakness is a tempting target for aggressive regimes and evil men. 
Strength, on the other hand, can and does restrain those who might 
otherwise pursue war with the United States or our allies. Maintaining 
our military strength helps ensure the security of our country and her 
inhabitants, and it also helps promote peace around the world.
  We can't change the fact that there will always be bad actors who 
will threaten our freedom and security, but we can ensure that we are 
always prepared to meet any threat.
  I look forward to passing a strong National Defense Authorization Act 
in the very near future.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last night, Speaker Nancy Pelosi 
announced that the House of Representatives would begin a formal 
impeachment inquiry of President Trump. I have spoken to her many times 
over the past few days. I know she did not make this decision lightly 
and took no pleasure in making it. It is her carefully considered 
judgment that it is now in the best interest of our country and our 
Constitution to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.
  I strongly support Speaker Pelosi's decision. If we don't reckon with 
President Trump's persistent transgressions, the very foundation of 
this great Republic will be at risk. The President kept pushing and 
pushing and pushing the constitutional envelope. Finally, the 
President's conduct made an impeachment inquiry unavoidable.
  The events of recent days have brought sharply into focus the 
question of whether President Trump abused the powers of his office and 
betrayed the public trust for personal political gain. In open defiance 
of the law, his administration has thus far sought to block the 
transmission of an official whistleblower complaint to Congress. The 
nature of that whistleblower complaint has been deemed both credible 
and urgent by one of President Trump's own senior-level appointees--the 
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
  According to public reports, this complaint may detail how the 
President of the United States corrupted America's foreign policy by 
pressuring the leader of a foreign nation to damage a leading political 
rival--an offense the President may have committed, whether or not 
there was an explicit quid pro quo. The President went on to admit on 
live television that he spoke to the President of Ukraine about his 
political rival and about military aid to the country.
  The timeline of events that led to the whistleblower complaint must 
be scrutinized. The nature of President Trump's communications with 
President Putin, as well as Ukrainian President Zelensky, should be 
requested and provided, with special focus on the phone call that took 
place with Mr. Putin a few days after the Zelensky call on July 25.
  The timing of the departures of the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and 
the former Director of National Intelligence and his Principal Deputy 
must be investigated, as well as the movements of President Trump's 
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, the correspondence between him and 
the White House, and his interactions with foreign governments. We must 
learn what actions President Trump or his aides took to withhold 
congressionally directed security aid to Ukraine and why and more 
besides.
  The answers to these questions and others can be pursued by the House 
committees involved in the impeachment inquiry, and that is precisely 
what the inquiry is for. The release of the transcript of one of 
President Trump's calls with President Zelensky that just came out will 
not assuage our concerns or the public's concerns. Based on early 
reports, it may heighten them. We must remember that the President was 
reported to have had several calls with President Zelensky over the 
summer, and his administration has a well-earned reputation for 
dishonesty, altered facts, and incomplete disclosure in public 
releases.
  We need to see the complete, unredacted whistleblower complaint 
without further delay. The whistleblower must be allowed to testify 
without fear of intimidation, and then we must pursue the many relevant 
avenues of inquiry that I just described.
  Yesterday afternoon, the entire Senate--all 47 Democrats and 53 
Republicans--agreed to my resolution calling for the whistleblower 
complaint to be transmitted immediately to Congress--a reflection of 
the seriousness with which these events are viewed on both sides of the 
aisle. This was unexpected. In the past, when we have asked to look 
into President Trump, our Republican colleagues have stonewalled. But 
to their credit, they realized the seriousness of this situation and 
unanimously agreed to support our resolution. I hope, I pray it is a 
harbinger of things to come, where we can look at the facts, not the 
politics, and come to conclusions because, without doubt, the White 
House and the President's congressional allies will rush to call this 
effort a partisan witch hunt no matter how serious the allegations or 
how evenhanded the inquiry. I would remind everyone that just 
yesterday, every Senate Republican agreed that the White House's 
decision to block the whistleblower complaint from Congress was wrong. 
There was unanimous, bipartisan agreement in the Senate on that point. 
Not a single Senator objected. Let me be clear, nonetheless, because I 
know accusations of partisanship are already being written. This 
inquiry was not taken up for partisan reasons, and it does not prejudge 
an outcome.

[[Page S5676]]

  Our Framers, in their wisdom, assigned to one Chamber of Congress the 
right to accuse and to the other the right to judge. The House of 
Representatives will investigate and determine whether sufficient 
evidence exists to accuse the President of an impeachable offense or 
impeachable offenses. If it comes to that, the Senate will be the scene 
of the trial, Senators the jurors.
  We must take our responsibility with the utmost gravity. Our 
Framers--not trusting our liberty to one branch of government alone, 
afraid of the ever-present danger of tyranny of an overreaching 
Executive--provided a remedy to Congress should the Executive attempt 
to subvert or violate the Constitution of the United States.
  We are not yet at the stage where any judgments can be made one way 
or the other, but I remind my colleagues today that if the day should 
come when we are called upon to carry out our constitutional duty, 
history will judge whether we did so faithfully or not. History will 
judge if each of us acted as a solemn juror of democracy, who placed 
fidelity to the Constitution and our system of government above the 
narrow considerations of partisan politics.


                   Declaration of National Emergency

  Mr. President, on another issue, not directly related but with the 
same cause, with the same worry, and with the same concern, an 
overreaching Executive--the emergency declaration.
  The commencing of the impeachment inquiry in the House, while 
significant, is not the only significant action Congress will take 
today, nor is it the only action dealing with the President's 
overreach.
  Today the Senate will vote on President Trump's national emergency 
declaration, which he is using to steal money from our military in 
order to fund a border wall. Rather than accept the reality that a 
bipartisan majority has repeatedly rejected this idea, and after 
dragging the country through the longest government shutdown in 
American history when he didn't get his way, President Trump 
deliberately circumvented Congress.
  Democrats universally opposed the President's outrageous decision to 
declare a national emergency, so let me direct my remarks this morning 
to my Republican colleagues.
  There are two crucial reasons for my Republican colleagues to vote to 
terminate this emergency.
  First, the vote today is the surest and likely the only way to 
restore funding the President has stolen from our troops and military 
projects across the country. President Trump promised Mexico would pay 
for the wall, not American taxpayers, and certainly not the military--
the men and women and their families involved in keeping our Nation 
secure. President Trump broke that promise, and now over 120 military 
projects hang in the balance: a middle school for military families in 
Kentucky, medical facilities in North Carolina, a hurricane relief 
project in Florida, an Air Force Base in Colorado, a fire station in 
South Carolina, and construction projects in Indiana, Louisiana, 
Georgia, and more. These were all carefully considered by the military 
and Department of Defense and put in the budget because they were very 
much needed. These are not frivolous projects at all. A vote for the 
President today is a vote in favor of cutting funding for our military 
and slashing support for critical military projects in red States as 
well as blue.
  Second, and maybe even more importantly, my Republican colleagues 
should vote to terminate the emergency declaration today on 
constitutional grounds. Under the Constitution, the power of the purse 
lies with Congress not the President. By declaring a national 
emergency, the President has trampled on that authority and is 
violating the constitutional separation of powers. We know what an 
emergency is--soldiers at risk, the risk of war. Of course, the 
President should have flexibility then but not on a policy decision 
where there is great dispute in the Congress and in the country and 
when the President lost in the legislative battle that ensued. By 
voting to endorse the President's emergency--this expansive and 
political stretching of the word ``emergency'' in a way it has never 
been stretched before--Republican Senators will set a dangerous 
precedent that could embolden not just this President but future 
Presidents to ignore congressional authority.
  So today my Republican colleagues face a choice of whether or not to 
defend our troops, whether or not to defend their States, whether or 
not to defend this Chamber's undeniable constitutional powers.
  Last time we held this vote, 12 Republican colleagues joined us in 
voting to undo the emergency. I hope more do so this time because this 
isn't about Republicans and Democrats. We don't want any President, 
Democratic or Republican, to overreach and use the word ``emergency'' 
to overcome congressional will. This is about checks and balances, not 
about Republicans and Democrats, and the need for the Senate to rein in 
an out-of-control Executive.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Trump Administration

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, yesterday evening I had the 
opportunity to invite 100,000 of our fellow Tennesseans to join me in a 
telephone townhall. We have found this is something Tennesseans like. 
Instead of having to drive to a location, they are able to just pick up 
the phone, and as they are doing homework with children or preparing 
dinner, they are able to jump on the phone and talk about issues that 
are important to them.
  We covered a wide range of topics yesterday evening. We talked about 
nuclear power and gun rights and healthcare for our veterans. We even 
talked a little bit about an invasive fish species, Asian carp, and how 
that is affecting our beautiful rivers.
  There was one thing that continued to come out through the course of 
this telephone townhall, and I bet you can guess what the topic was 
that people continued to talk about.
  Now, bear in mind that Tennesseans are, by and large, very dismissive 
of what I call the DC shining object story of the day. Tennesseans are 
much more interested in the story of their lives, but yesterday's 
news--that breathless race to make news--really had Tennesseans 
talking.
  Yesterday, House Democrats, supported by their friends in the Senate, 
gathered to announce their intention to begin formal impeachment 
inquiries against President Donald Trump. As you can imagine, this 
struck a chord with my fellow Tennesseans. They may be far outside the 
beltway bubble, but they have been keeping a close eye on what the 
Democrats have been up to for the past 3 years when it comes to 
President Donald Trump.
  Let me tell you, they are not very impressed with what has been 
happening. From their perspective, yesterday's announcement was the 
culmination of a 3-year witch hunt born of a grudge they have been 
holding against the President since their chosen candidate failed to 
win the 2016 election.
  Before the President had taken his oath of office--bear in mind, he 
was President-elect at that time--in December of 2016, Vanity Fair 
published an article entitled ``Democrats are Paving the Way to Impeach 
Donald Trump.'' Believe it or not, this was not just click bait. This 
was a published article in a major magazine in December 2016.
  The article details a bill Senate Democrats wanted to use to exploit 
allegations of conflicts of interest between President-Elect Trump's 
business dealings and President Trump's duties as President. Bear in 
mind, the bill was tailor-made to transform conflict allegations into 
impeachable crimes. And bear in mind, this was conceived before 
President Trump became President Trump. He was still President-elect. 
He had not been sworn into office, and they were already writing 
legislation that would move to impeachment. It was the beginning of 
their mission toward impeachment, even if they had to fabricate the 
means to get there.
  Let me tell you, they were determined to make it happen. The proof is 
in black and white. In 2017, a group of House Democrats failed to 
muster enough political will within their own

[[Page S5677]]

party to support a resolution to impeach President Trump. The same 
effort failed again in 2018, and it failed again in 2019. Their efforts 
to use the Mueller report to whip the Nation into an impeachment frenzy 
failed. How frustrating that must have been for a party and a movement 
that all but promised they would find a way to impeach the President 
because they absolutely could not believe he won that election in 2016.
  It is important to remember and to note the American people chose 
President Trump and not the Democratic candidate. That didn't matter. 
Democrats vowed to take him down anyway. They were going to make him 
pay a very heavy price by making him the victim of a campaign of 
personal destruction.
  Now, conveniently, a year before the election, here they go again. 
They are indicating they think they have cracked the case.
  In November 2018, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a statement to the 
Associated Press saying: ``We shouldn't impeach the president for 
political reasons and we shouldn't not impeach the president for 
political reasons.''
  Let me tell you, for the West Tennesseans participating in the 
telephone townhall I mentioned earlier, it was painfully obvious that 
congressional Democrats had finally given up and embraced politics as 
usual. They see this for what it is: vitriol, anger, jealousy, spite. 
They know that President Trump and a Republican-led House and Senate 
delivered much needed tax and regulatory relief, which was exactly what 
the American people wanted and precisely what Tennesseans were telling 
us: Get government off our backs. Get government off our land. Get 
government out of our pocketbooks.
  We are a nation built on the rule of law and a nation that believes 
in adhering to that law. Tennesseans, and the American people, want 
fairness. They want equal treatment. They want justice. And they know 
injustice when they see it. What they do not want is a breathless 
revenge scheme orchestrated by a political party.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 54

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is going to be voting on 
the motion to instruct conferees for the National Defense Authorization 
Act to backfill the military construction money the President stole 
from our troops to pay for his wall--a wall that he gave his word 
Mexico would pay for.
  This is very, very troublesome. I say this as both dean of the Senate 
and as President pro tempore emeritus. In that role, I have arguably 
supported and voted for more funding for our military and their 
families than any Senator--Republican or Democrat--in this Chamber, but 
on this one, I will urge a ``no'' vote.
  As Members of the Senate--there are only 100 of us to represent 350 
million Americans--we have a profound responsibility to support those 
who sacrifice everything for our country. We should not let this be a 
partisan issue. As I said, I voted for more funding for our troops than 
any Member of this body. From the soldier we have sent across the globe 
to the military family left at home, we--all 100 of us--have a 
responsibility to these men and women, regardless of our politics and 
our ideology. It is that responsibility that has drawn me to the Senate 
floor today. I cannot and will not support this motion.
  There is $6.1 billion. Let me say that again. There is $6.1 billion--
that is $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense and $3.6 billion 
from military construction projects--that President Trump has stolen 
from the men and women of our military in fiscal year 2019 alone, just 
that one year, to pay for his ineffective, vanity wall--a wall that he 
boasted to the press last week was the ``Rolls-Royce'' of walls.
  But just like every Rolls-Royce in the middle of the desert, Trump's 
wall is nothing more than outrageously expensive and completely 
useless. Experts agree that a wall will do nothing to address the 
humanitarian crisis along our southern border.
  Families fleeing violence in their home countries--fleeing murder, 
rape, and other crimes--are openly turning themselves over to Border 
Patrol officials. They are not trying to sneak across the border. It is 
a lot different than absconding across the border in the middle of the 
night.
  What has $6.1 billion in stolen funds purchased for the American 
taxpayers?
  Here is the money that was taken away from our military: Children 
continuing to go to a middle school in Kentucky every day that Pentagon 
officials have described as ``deficient, inadequate, and undersized''--
we took money from that to pay for the wall. Buildings that do not meet 
the military standards for fire safety or management of explosives, 
putting American lives at risk--we took money from correcting that to 
pay for the wall. And there are numerous cases of infrastructure 
problems that are detrimental to our military's readiness and DOD's 
national security mission. That is not even mentioning the military 
housing with mold issues, inadequate daycare facilities for the 
children of military families, and all the 127 military construction 
projects President Trump canceled--not delayed but canceled--to pay for 
his Rolls-Royce of a wall in the middle of the desert.
  The $6.1 billion for a Rolls-Royce in the middle of the desert is an 
even heavier burden for our military families to bear. Outrage does not 
even begin to describe how I feel about President Trump's actions.
  Today, we are being asked to somehow cover up his theft, cover up the 
fact that he broke his word about Mexico, and cover up the fact that 
this is a vanity project. We are being asked to give our constitutional 
blessing to President Trump's contorting the law beyond recognition.
  I believe that the Senate is the conscience of the Nation. Contorting 
the law to undo congressional funding decisions by fiat is not 
following our conscience, and I will not stand for that.
  We are being asked to take the first step to approve $3.6 billion in 
emergency spending to replace part of what the President stole. Let's 
make another thing clear. This spending is on top of the discretionary 
caps agreed to by Congress and the President. So we are being asked to 
finance this coverup on our children and grandchildren through deficit 
spending.
  I would say this to the President: I believe you said that Mexico was 
going to pay for your wall, not our troops, not their families, and not 
future generations of American citizens.
  If this were not troubling enough, last week, the press reported in 
the Washington Post that the Trump administration does not even intend 
to use this funding to replace what they stole. ``The plan is to sell 
it as replenishment money for the Defense Department for the $3.6 
billion they took this year,'' said one administration official. 
``Then, once they got it from Congress, they would take it again.''
  What is the saying? Fool Congress once, shame on you. Fool Congress 
twice, well, shame on us. Congress got fooled once. Are we just going 
to stand by idly and allow Congress to be fooled again?
  I have heard a lot of speeches on this floor, and politicians often 
wax poetic about their love of our troops. Yet this body--100 Members 
of this Senate, the body that should be the conscience of our Nation--
has done nothing to constrain this President's ability to continue to 
steal from those troops. We have done little more than shrug at this 
abuse of our constitutional authority. We have just looked away from 
the egregious treatment of our troops as a little more than a piggy 
bank for the President's political pet project. I don't stand for that. 
I am not going to support that. I will not abandon our profound 
responsibility to support those who sacrifice everything for our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5678]]

  



                          Trump Administration

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, our friends in the House, led by Speaker 
Pelosi, have adopted a new strategy for handling allegations of 
wrongdoing. It is a dangerous approach, one in which opinions count for 
more than the facts and politics trumps everything else, including the 
law.
  Yesterday evening, Speaker Pelosi announced that the House is now 
moving full steam toward impeaching President Trump. When the 
announcement was made, the only information they had in their hands was 
press reports--no report of the transcript, no facts, no evidence, no 
nothing--and that is really all they needed. Any hook, any angle, any 
straw they might be able to grasp in order to justify this 
unjustifiable action was good enough for them--hearsay and press 
reports.
  House Democrats began this process of impeaching the President based 
on a so-called whistleblower complaint they hadn't even read, which 
detailed a call they hadn't seen a transcript of. Meanwhile, we know 
the media eagerly reported that the ``whistleblower'' didn't even have 
firsthand knowledge of the situation--something we now know to be true. 
In other words, the alleged whistleblower doesn't legally qualify as a 
whistleblower because he or she wasn't there when the conversation took 
place but, rather, reported something that somebody told somebody 
else--otherwise known as hearsay. Forget obtaining the evidence, giving 
people an opportunity to be heard, and the facts considered. Rather 
than looking into that, they decided on a result they wanted to achieve 
and were looking at trying to backfill a justification or something 
that is unjustified based on the facts we know now.
  Of course, we know what this is. This is a continuation of the 
election in 2016 where our Democratic friends can't believe that 
Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump. We know that after 
that, they claimed: Well, Hillary Clinton actually won the popular 
vote.
  Forget the Constitution and the role of the electoral college. 
Because of the constitutional requirement that the electoral college 
vote and whoever wins the majority becomes President--they said: Forget 
the Constitution.
  Then there was the former FBI Director, Comey, who leaked memos to a 
buddy of his and then asked him to leak them to the press because he 
wanted to make sure that a special counsel was appointed to investigate 
and potentially prosecute President Trump. We know this investigation 
went on for years and cost millions of dollars and ended up with the 
conclusion of no obstruction and no collusion. You can imagine the 
disappointment of our friends in the media who had written about this 
assuming that President Trump would be indicted, maybe convicted of 
some offense, only to find out there was no collusion, no obstruction, 
and no charges.
  So now we know that the Speaker and her colleagues in the House have 
grabbed hold of this straw without knowing the facts and without even 
waiting for the evidence to be revealed. The Speaker's decision to 
impeach the President says everything you need to know about their 
intentions. It doesn't matter what was said or what was not said; it is 
about relitigating the 2016 election--something our Democratic 
colleagues have never ever been able to accept. They are trying to defy 
the voters who voted for President Trump in 2016.
  Does a whistleblower complaint deserve to be examined and taken 
seriously? Absolutely. In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee, on 
which I and the Presiding Officer sit, will do just that. We are in the 
process of doing that. Before the Speaker's announcement yesterday, the 
President had agreed to release the full, unredacted transcript of the 
call, and this morning, he did. Tomorrow, the Senate Intelligence 
Committee will hear from Acting Director of National Intelligence 
Joseph Maguire, as well as the Inspector General for the Intelligence 
Community, Michael Atkinson, to learn more about their role in this 
process. That is exactly how this matter should be handled--with care, 
by the rules, I would say by the book, and make sure that everybody's 
rights are protected before people begin to cast unjustified and 
slanderous allegations.

  Our friends in the House, the House Democrats, aren't just fanning 
flames here; they have been pouring gasoline out for months through 
their baseless oversight hearings and all-out obsession with the 
Mueller investigation, which ended up with a big belly flop.
  Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi lit the match, and there is no turning back 
now. The American people have made abundantly clear that this sort of 
partisan exercise is not what they want, especially when it comes at 
the expense of other important work that we are not going to be able to 
accomplish because of this obsession with eliminating President Trump. 
In a poll this summer, only 34 percent of Texans supported impeachment.
  While so much remains in the air, this move has made one thing clear: 
Our House colleagues have zero interest in doing the jobs they were 
elected to do in 2018, and given the fact that the voters gave them the 
majority, they show zero interest in governing and in passing 
legislation. Instead of working with both sides of the aisle to pass 
bipartisan legislation to lower drug costs, to try to address the 
concern about mass shootings, to ratify the trade agreement known as 
the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and otherwise try to make life better 
for the American people--that is not the route they have chosen. They 
have chosen a partisan, political path, which will absolutely suck all 
the oxygen out of Washington. It will be an obsession of the media and 
the American people until it is concluded, crowding out anything and 
everything else that we might do that might improve the lives of 
regular Americans.
  The Democrats' decision to move forward with impeachment and toward 
removing the President from office will make solving these big 
challenges facing our country nearly impossible. House Democrats aren't 
doing what is right and what is best for our country; they are driving 
an even bigger wedge between the American people to serve their 
partisan political interests and using the Constitution to hedge a 
political fight.
  Now, make no mistake about it--when Special Counsel Mueller was doing 
his investigation, it was an investigation to see whether crimes had 
been committed and if they had been, to present that evidence to a 
grand jury and indict those who were more likely than not to have 
committed those offenses and then to try the case to a conclusion in a 
court. That is not what impeachment is. Impeachment is solely a 
political exercise, and it is a political exercise to defeat President 
Trump even though the American people voted for him as the President of 
the United States.
  Notwithstanding the gasoline that House Democrats have been pouring 
on this issue and the fact that Speaker Pelosi decided to light the 
match and to ignite it yesterday, one thing is sure, and that is that 
cooler heads will prevail here in the Senate. We know bipartisan 
oversight is already under way. House Democrats' obsession with the 
2016 election has gone too far, and in fact, they should be embarrassed 
by what they have done. Meanwhile, we will carefully examine the 
record, root out the evidence, and follow that evidence wherever it may 
lead. It is important to have a fair trial before you decide to hand 
out punishment, not hand out the punishment and then somehow look for 
justification for an already reached conclusion.


                        Debbie Smith Act of 2019

  Mr. President, on another matter, it has been 4 months since we 
passed the Debbie Smith Act of 2019. This legislation sailed through 
the Senate without any Senator voting against it. And why would they? 
It is as bipartisan--you might even say nonpartisan--as they come.
  The Debbie Smith Act, as Members know, sends vital funding to State 
and local crime labs to test DNA evidence. It authorizes training for 
law enforcement and forensic nurses and enables law enforcement to 
identify violent criminals and get them off the streets.
  The benefit of the Debbie Smith Act is wide-ranging, but it continues 
to deliver on the initial goal of reducing the national rape kit 
backlog. That is right--at one point, there were as many as 400,000 
untested rape kits sitting in labs or on evidence shelves in police 
lockers, and each one of those forensic rape kits held the keys to 
identifying a person who had committed a sexual assault or some other 
crime.

[[Page S5679]]

  In Texas alone, the Debbie Smith Act has helped us reduce the backlog 
of untested rape kits by approximately 90 percent. Since 2001, we have 
gone from roughly around 20,000 untested rape kits to 2,000. That is 
still too many; we need to test all of them. We have made serious 
progress, and I won't be satisfied until that untested rape kit number 
gets to zero, but to do that, Congress needs to reauthorize the Debbie 
Smith Act.
  It should be obvious, but I will say it anyway. This program 
transcends politics or party. Allowing it to expire is a disservice to 
the victims and the advocates who have championed this legislation 
since it was first enacted 15 years ago.
  I introduced the Debbie Smith Act of 2019 in the Senate with my 
friend and colleague from California, a Democrat, Senator Dianne 
Feinstein, which just demonstrates bipartisan support from Republicans, 
Democrats, victims' rights groups, law enforcement, you name it. But 
despite all that, Speaker Pelosi has refused to bring this legislation 
to the House floor for a vote, and unless they pass it soon, this 
critical program will expire for the first time in a week.
  There was absolutely no problem reauthorizing this critical program 
in 2008 or 2014, but clearly times have changed. Our House Democratic 
colleagues aren't above politicizing something as noncontroversial as 
reducing the rape kit backlog.
  If House Democrats allow this to expire, funds could soon be taken 
away from crucial activities like prosecuting cold cases, reducing the 
backlog, or capacity enhancing efforts. It is simply inexcusable and 
shameful that Speaker Pelosi and the House would allow the Debbie Smith 
Act to expire when they have had a bipartisan bill in their hands for 4 
months.
  Well, just when you think you have seen it all around here--we have 
seen a lot of partisan antics in the House this year, but this one 
really takes the cake.
  I urge our colleagues in the House to quit the games and pass this 
critical legislation to support victims of sexual assault without 
further delay.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Election Security

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am here today because our elections are 
still not secured against the threat of foreign interference.
  After 3 years of our intelligence community, our congressional 
committees, and some of our closest allies sounding the alarm about 
foreign election interference, we are right back here where we started 
because this body has failed to act. To me, it is pretty remarkable.
  No one in this body would think that the appropriate protections 
against foreign interference into our power grid should be a partisan 
issue. No one would advance a theory that protecting our financial 
system against foreign cyber attacks should be a partisan issue. So why 
would anyone think or allow the basic protections of the machinery and 
system of our most essential component of our democracy, our voting 
system, in any way to become a partisan issue? My hope is we can avoid 
that.
  Some may point to the fact that additional money has been 
appropriated for State and local election authorities, funds that have 
been used to upgrade part of our election infrastructure. I am proud to 
have been part of the initial efforts to secure these funds ahead of 
the 2018 elections, and I am genuinely supportive of additional funding 
to secure the 2020 elections. But we need to make one thing absolutely 
clear. Additional funding for election security is a necessary part of 
securing our elections, but it is not a sufficient defense against 
foreign attacks on our democracy. Money alone will not solve this 
problem.
  Moreover, the funding we are talking about in the CR comes with no 
guidance or direction for State and local election officials. Listen, I 
have no interest in trying to federalize what has traditionally been a 
State and local function, but it is absolutely a tradition that this 
body sometimes makes voluntary Federal funding available only to 
jurisdictions that meet certain criteria or guidelines. The truth is, 
right now, with no guidelines, if a State or locality wants to use 
these so-called election security funds to upgrade their machines or 
systems to the latest, more secure models, they can do that. But they 
can also buy machinery and equipment that lacks proper security 
features--that could lack a paper ballot backup. Heck, they could even 
use these funds to buy the ``vote here'' signs and those stickers we 
all proudly wear on election day.
  The truth, unfortunately, is that the problem is not with our State 
and local election officials. In fact, the decentralized nature of our 
local elections system is actually one of our best defenses against 
election interference.
  The problem is not a lack of policy solutions. Frankly, I think a lot 
of us on both sides of the aisle, including very good work by folks 
like the Presiding Officer, know exactly what we need to do to secure 
our election infrastructure.
  We need a voter-verified paper trail for every vote. Everyone should 
have the confidence that no matter where they vote in America--God 
forbid, if there were ever a hack into a machine or a machine doesn't 
work--there is a paper ballot backup so that every vote will be 
accurately counted.
  We need to make sure, as well, just as in any major operation, that 
we have postelection audits.
  We can and must do more to secure our voter registration systems. 
None of this is Democrat, and none of this is Republican; it is about 
the integrity and mechanics of how Americans vote. The problem is the 
lack of political will in the U.S. Senate and the lack of interest from 
the White House to actually secure our elections.
  The truth is, until the majority leader allows this kind of 
bipartisan election security legislation to proceed, our elections will 
remain vulnerable to manipulation by foreign actors. I also firmly 
believe that these bipartisan bills--which, for example, Senator 
Lankford has been one of the leaders on--would get 75 or 80 votes even 
in our divided Senate.
  You don't have to take my word on the nature of the threat. Every one 
of our intelligence agencies is continuing to warn us that Russia will 
be back in 2020, and we are running out of time to do something about 
it. As a matter of fact, Robert Mueller, who led the special counsel's 
investigation efforts, testified under oath that Russia is attempting 
to undermine the 2020 elections ``as we sit here.''
  For almost 3 years, Senators from both parties have worked on 
legislation to make sure we are ready for the threats our democracy 
will face in 2020--both from Russia, and unfortunately from other bad 
actors who are adapting Russia's playbook because they saw how 
successful Russia was in 2016. They were both successful in a 
relatively inexpensive way to disrupt our system and, in many ways, to 
pit us against each other. Yet the Senate has not brought up a single 
piece of election security legislation--not a single vote, not a single 
markup.
  (Mr. LANKFORD assumed the Chair.)
  The bills we are proposing are largely bipartisan. We are talking 
about straightforward, low-hanging fruit that in normal times would 
have overwhelming, if not unanimous, support. We need to pass 
legislation that secures our election infrastructure with the tools I 
just laid out: paper ballots, post-election audits, and enhanced cyber 
security for election systems.
  We are saying that the Department of Homeland Security and local 
election officials should be able to talk to each other in a classified 
setting so they can know the threats they are facing. We are saying 
that if local election officials have reason to suspect that a serious 
cyber security incident has occurred, they need to alert the 
appropriate Federal officials and, if true, appropriate congressional 
officials need to know as well.
  I also believe we need online ads to follow the same rules as TV, 
radio, and print advertisement. If you are seeing an election ad that 
was produced or bought in St. Petersburg and paid for in rubles, I 
think Americans have a right to know. We are saying that if

[[Page S5680]]

Russia attacks our elections again--or any other foreign power--they 
should immediately face sanctions. Of all things, you would think the 
President would be willing to punch back against an attack on the 
sovereignty and integrity of the U.S. electoral system.
  Finally, we are saying that if a foreign party reaches out to your 
campaign offering dirt on a fellow American, the appropriate response 
is not to say thank you; the appropriate response is to call the FBI. 
The DHS motto, ``If you see something, say something,'' needs to apply 
in terms of interference in our Presidential elections.
  The truth is, what happened in 2016 will happen again in 2020 if we 
are not prepared. That is why we cannot allow election security to 
become a partisan issue. I spent a lot of time working with my 
Republican colleagues on these bills. I want to particularly recognize 
the Presiding Officer, who has really been one of if not the leading 
voice on these bipartisan efforts to secure elections. I know he has 
been working relentlessly to find a way to help get this legislation to 
the floor, and I thank him because these are commonsense, substantive 
proposals that will make our democracy more secure against foreign 
attack.
  We should hold hearings, if necessary, offer amendments, and vote on 
this critical legislation while we still have time. That is what we 
were sent here to do, and that is what we must do if we are going to 
secure our democracy in 2020.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, I want to turn to protections for people with 
preexisting medical conditions because these protections are under 
threat by this President.
  Under the pretext of so-called short-term plans, the Trump 
administration is pushing healthcare plans that, once again, allow 
insurance companies to discriminate against Americans based on their 
medical history. These skinny plans--or I refer to them as ``junk 
plans''--also undermine the Affordable Care Act's requirements that 
insurance cover things like emergency room visits, maternity care, and 
other essential benefits.
  Let me be clear. The reason this market has suddenly been flooded 
with these junk plans--in many cases advertising in low-income markets 
that these are ACA or ObamaCare plans--is not because Congress passed 
any law. The President tried and failed twice to pass legislation 
ending these protections for folks with preexisting conditions. Since 
they couldn't get their way in Congress, now they are using Executive 
action to try to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
  I have introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act 
which would stop this deliberative effort to destabilize the health 
insurance market and weaken protections that Americans count on. Today 
I am filing a discharge petition so that it will bring this resolution 
to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote. The truth is, every Member 
of this body knows someone--either in their family or close relatives--
with a preexisting condition. The fact is, many Members themselves have 
preexisting conditions. In Virginia alone, more than 1 million people 
live with preexisting conditions.
  Before the Affordable Care Act, an insurance company had every right 
to deny these individuals coverage, charge them unaffordable premiums, 
or when they got that condition, terminate their plan. I think we all 
agree we can't go back to those days. The administration knows 
perfectly well that these junk plans don't offer real benefits. They 
have been warned repeatedly by hundreds of patient groups, physicians, 
hospitals, and insurance, including the American Heart Association, 
AARP, the American Academy of Pediatrics--just to name a few of the 
organizations that have come out against these plans. All of these 
stakeholders are telling us the same thing: The Trump administration's 
plan will weaken consumer protections and disproportionately hurt sick 
and older Americans.

  My Republican colleagues insist that they actually support 
protections for folks with preexisting conditions. OK. With this CRA, I 
think there is a chance to prove it. This resolution we are introducing 
today will force an up-or-down vote on these junk plans that explicitly 
undermine protections for preexisting conditions. If my colleagues 
truly support these protections, they should vote yes. It is that 
simple. Instead of abiding or going along with the administration's 
effort to undermine the stability of the healthcare market, let's not 
do that. Let's go back to the ACA. Let's look at fixes where there were 
mistakes made. Let's look at how we can work together on better access 
to Affordable Care Act. I serve on the committee, and I know the 
Finance Committee has taken, I think, at least a first step--I hope 
there will be more--in terms of putting some reasonable constraints on 
drug prices. It is not fair or right that Americans pay more for drugs 
than anyone else in the world and, in a sense, subsidize the R&D for 
the whole world.
  There are a host of areas where we can find agreement. Let's make 
sure the one part of the ACA that I think everyone agreed to was this 
notion that folks with preexisting conditions should not be 
discriminated against. I think the CRA would allow the Senate to go on 
record on this critically important issue. I look forward to the 
opportunity to have this voted on and debated when we come back from 
the break.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have a brief statement. I ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to complete my statement before the vote 
begins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 54

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution to 
terminate the emergency declaration. I want to thank Senator Udall, the 
Senator from New Mexico, for his leadership.
  The question presented by this resolution is not whether you are for 
a border wall or against a border wall. The question is not whether you 
believe the security at our southern border is sufficient or it should 
be strengthened. Instead, the question is a far more fundamental and 
significant one. The question is simply this: Should the Congress of 
the United States of America yield its constitutionally prescribed 
power of the purse to the President?
  The answer to that question, regardless of who is in the White House 
and who is controlling Congress, should be no.
  Congress alone is empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws 
directing money to be spent from the U.S. Treasury. We must stand up 
and defend our role that the Framers very clearly set forth in the 
Constitution. Congress must do that even when to do so goes against the 
outcome that we might prefer.
  I have consistently supported funding for the construction of 
physical barriers and for strengthening security on our southern 
border. I will continue to support those efforts and believe and 
understand they are important, but I cannot support the President's 
unilaterally deciding to take money that has been appropriated for one 
purpose and diverting those billions of dollars for another purpose no 
matter how important or worthy that goal may be.
  My colleagues, irrespective of whether you support or oppose a border 
wall, I urge you today to support this resolution and stand up for the 
separation of powers laid out in our Constitution. In doing so, you are 
standing up for our Constitution.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page S5681]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Floria (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     McConnell
     McSally
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Harris
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Warren
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 54) was passed.
  (The joint resolution, S.J. Res. 54, is printed in the Record of 
September 26, 2019.)


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S5681, September 25, 2019, first column, the following 
appears: The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 54) was passed.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The joint 
resolution (S.J. Res. 54) was passed. (The joint resolution, S.J. 
Res. 54, is printed in the Record of September 26, 2019.)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 




                          ____________________