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

[Pages S5691-S5695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              RESOLUTIONS TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
as much time as I consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Ukraine

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
Republican motion to instruct on paid family and medical leave.
  Before I move to the issue at hand, I do want to address the very 
serious allegations against President Trump and the new information we 
are learning from the memo the White House released today.
  It is deeply concerning to learn that President Trump asked Ukrainian 
President Zelensky to work with the United States to investigate Vice 
President Biden. Our democracy is at risk, and President Trump has 
betrayed our country. I support Speaker Pelosi in starting the 
impeachment inquiry she announced yesterday, and the revelations today 
make these investigations even more necessary.


                     Paid Family and Medical Leave

  Mr. President, I now want to talk about an opportunity that we have 
in the Senate today to serve the Nation by guaranteeing paid family and 
medical leave for 2 million Federal workers and their families through 
the Schatz motion.
  Every other industrialized country in the world has some version of 
paid leave, which allows workers to take care of their loved ones when 
a medical emergency arises. Yet the vast majority of our workforce in 
America lacks access to paid leave. That means far too many of our 
workers are unable to take paid time off if they need to care for a new 
child, a sick parent, or their spouse. Sadly, this includes 2 million 
of our Federal employees--and I know the Presiding Officer is aware of 
this, given his own family situation--but we have a chance to fix that 
right now. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Schatz motion.
  However, Senate Republicans have offered an additional motion that 
would block this benefit from every other working American. This is 
nothing short of an attack on all workers' access to affordable and 
accessible paid family and medical leave.
  What my Republican colleagues are suggesting is that our workers 
should work overtime to compensate for family leave. Their motion would 
require workers to shift around their hours and take on more hours in 
order to receive the paid time off they need in an emergency situation 
or when welcoming a new child.
  Let me be very clear. This is not a benefit. It is a cynical plan 
that would erode our American workers' abilities to make ends meet and 
harm their access to real paid leave. It would hurt those who need this 
the most, including women, communities of color, and low-wage workers.
  Most workers living paycheck to paycheck will not be able to take 
extra shifts to earn paid leave. Too many families across the country 
don't even have $400 in savings for emergency expenses. Take Shelby 
Ramirez Martinez, for example. She found herself in the most untenable 
situation when her daughter and her father both had simultaneous 
surgeries scheduled. Shelby is a mom of two, caregiver to her father, 
and a full-time student and security officer. She didn't have access to 
paid leave, so she was forced to take 2 weeks off and forgo her pay. 
She couldn't have planned for that by working overtime and sacrificing 
time with her daughter or with a flex savings account. What Shelby and 
all Americans need is dedicated and extended time off for medical 
emergencies and births.
  The Republican motion to instruct calls for employer tax credits that 
are handouts to large and rich companies like Google, which already 
provide paid leave and leaves taxpayers footing the bill. They are 
false incentives for small businesses that still will not be able to 
afford the leave.
  My bill, the FAMILY Act, would provide 12 weeks of paid family and 
medical leave for all workers. It is the only comprehensive proposal 
that is accessible and affordable for all working Americans. It is 
modeled off of very successful State programs like California's, 
ensuring that working Americans do not have to choose between their 
family and their paycheck.
  It shouldn't be so hard. So many workers around the country have new 
children, sick spouses, or elderly parents, and they need access to 
paid leave. Today, let's stand together and reject fake paid leave by 
voting no on the Ernst motion to instruct, for people like Shelby and 
her family.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                                 Huawei

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to urge 
adoption of two resolutions that are going to be considered by the U.S. 
Senate, instructing the conferees to the NDAA bill, which is the 
Defense authorization bill. One of those motions urges the conferees, 
or directs the conferees, to adopt bipartisan legislation introduced by 
Senator Cotton, who is now the Presiding Officer in the Chair, and me 
and others. It is called the 5G act, and it deals with Defending 
America's 5G Future Act. What it does, very simply, is codify the Trump 
administration's Executive order putting Huawei on what is called the 
entity list and then making sure that before there is a change to this, 
if you wanted to take them off entirely, that would require a 
congressional action. But it also says that if you want to seek waivers 
under that act, you should come to Congress and at least give Congress 
the opportunity to disagree. This is very important to protect our 
security, to protect U.S. technology from theft. I urge my colleagues 
to support that resolution.


                               DETER Act

  Mr. President, I am also here to urge my colleagues to support 
another resolution. This one is directing the conferees to the Defense 
authorization bill to support a motion and resolutions put forward by 
Senator Rubio and me and others--again, a bipartisan resolution, making 
it clear that we should deter foreign interference in U.S. elections. 
It is based on the principles of bipartisan legislation, a bipartisan 
act that we have introduced called the DETER Act. The idea is very 
simple, which is this: We want to say up front that our intelligence 
communities, or others in the administration, should inform Congress 
immediately if there has been interference in our elections. If the 
answer is yes, that would trigger immediate and stiff sanctions on 
whatever foreign government is acting to interfere in our elections.
  We can spend a lot of money and resources protecting our election 
infrastructure and our election systems, and we should do that. We can 
urge all of the social media companies to improve their platforms and 
make it more difficult for foreign governments and adversaries to use 
those platforms to influence and impact our elections.
  None of those measures actually impose a big cost on a foreign 
government

[[Page S5692]]

like Russia for interfering in our elections. All those things do is 
make it harder, and we should make it harder. In this case, the best 
defense is a good offense, meaning the best defense to having a foreign 
government interfering in our elections is to discourage and deter them 
from doing that in the first place.
  Right now, what we have learned is there is no cost to Vladimir Putin 
and the Russians for interfering in our elections. In fact, they assess 
that they get a significant benefit from creating division within the 
United States. If you are Vladimir Putin and you are doing a cost 
benefit analysis--should I interfere in the U.S. elections or not?--you 
conclude: Hey, I am going to gain something by creating this kind of 
division and confusion within the United States. What we should be 
doing is saying in advance and up front to Vladimir Putin and Russia or 
any other foreign leader or government, if we catch you interfering in 
our elections, you will definitely pay a price in the form of sanctions 
against some of your financial institutions or key aspects of your 
economic sector. We need to spell that out in advance.
  This resolution requires that Congress be notified after the election 
as to whether we have detected foreign interference. Next time, someone 
like Vladimir Putin will know in advance that if we catch them, there 
will be a price to pay, a penalty to pay. That will, of course, 
discourage the activity in the first place.
  It doesn't cost us a dime to do this. Yes, we should continue to 
spend money, as I said, to harden our systems at home and better defend 
ourselves. For goodness' sake, we should at least take the position 
that we are going to let foreign powers know in advance, if we catch 
you--and by the way, we will catch you if you interfere in our 
elections--there will be an immediate and severe price to pay.
  I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this resolution. It is 
appropriate that we are directing the conferees to the National Defense 
Authorization Act to include this provision because, after all, the 
reason we invest in our defense is to protect our country and to 
protect our democracy. That bill should include a provision telling 
foreign powers: If you mess around and interfere in our Democratic 
elections, you will pay a price. That will make it less likely they 
will do so to begin with.
  I urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Vote on S. Res. 330

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Van Hollen 
resolution to instruct.
  The resolution (S. Res. 330) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted 
Resolutions.")


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

  
  On page S5692, September 25, 2019, second column, the following 
appears: The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 
Van Hollen resolution to instruct. The resolution (S. Res. 330) 
was agreed to.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The PRESIDING 
OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Van Hollen resolution 
to instruct. The resolution (S. Res. 330) was agreed to. (The 
resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted 
Resolutions.")


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


                          Vote on S. Res. 331

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the resolution 
to instruct.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.


                              S. Res. 331

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about our 
resolution, which is to instruct the conferees to adopt the bipartisan 
Defending America's 5G Future Act into the conference report.
  Huawei is no ordinary telecom company. It is the eyes and ears of the 
Chinese Communist Party. That is why the administration earlier this 
year put it on the Commerce Department's blacklist. It is a rare action 
that both Republicans and Democrats can support.
  Our legislation, to a large extent, codifies that decision to keep 
Huawei on the blacklist and to ensure that Congress has a say on any 
exclusion, say for a small rural telecom that needs time to transition. 
We might pass a resolution of disapproval if we oppose that action. 
But, most importantly, it is to ensure that Congress affirmatively acts 
to pass a resolution of approval to remove Huawei from the blacklist, 
because that is where Huawei belongs and where they should stay without 
a decision of the people's representatives in Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the Senator 
from Arkansas, in this bipartisan motion to instruct.
  Huawei is a menace. It is a menace to our national security. It is a 
menace to our economic growth. It is a menace to the future of America 
in many ways. If we are not tough with Huawei, whom are we going to be 
tough with? If we are not tough with Huawei, what are we going to do 
when China continues to take advantage of us in ways that are unfair--
whether it be economic, national security, cyber, or whatever.
  This resolution will ensure that the conferees know that the Senate 
is strongly in support of being tough with Huawei on national security 
grounds, on economic grounds, and, basically, on ensuring that America 
stays No. 1 in many of the leading technologies that we will need to 
create job growth, wealth, and prosperity in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution 
to instruct.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 Florida (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 (Mrs. Blackburn). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

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

                                NAYS--4

     Crapo
     Enzi
     Paul
     Risch

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Harris
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Warren
  The resolution (S. Res. 331) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted 
Resolutions.")


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

  
  On page S5692, September 25, 2019, third column, the following 
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 331) was agreed to.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S. 
Res. 331) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's 
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")


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


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Vote on S. Res. 332

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the Jones 
resolution to instruct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Colleagues, today we are about to vote on a resolution 
that will correct a long-held injustice--one that has been on the books 
for decades; one that has caused significant pain to military spouses 
who have given so

[[Page S5693]]

much for our country. It is an elimination of the military widow's tax. 
It has been voted on in this body for over 18 years and has never 
gotten across the finish line. Now is the time. This is our time to 
make sure that we tell our veterans that we are supportive but we show 
it with our actions, not just with our words. I urge everyone to please 
vote to instruct the conferees to eliminate the military widow's tax.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I agree with the comments made by the 
Senator from Alabama. There is one problem with this, and that is, it 
is not paid for. I am supporting it. I am actually a cosponsor of the 
bill and was a cosponsor of the bill long before this year, but we are 
going to have to really get busy to figure out how to pay for this. It 
is very expensive. But I do encourage people to vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the Jones 
resolution.
  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Booker
     Burr
     Harris
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Warren
  The resolution (S. Res. 332) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted 
Resolutions.")


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

  
  On page S5693, September 25, 2019, second column, the following 
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 332) was agreed to.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S. 
Res. 332) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's 
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")


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


                          Vote on S. Res. 333

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to the vote on the Schatz resolution.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, this resolution urges the inclusion of 
the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act in the final conference agreement 
on the NDAA. This resolution provides 12 weeks of paid family leave for 
Federal employees in all situations already covered under the FMLA.
  Too many of our Federal employees have to make the impossible choice 
of getting a paycheck or looking after a sick child, caring for an 
aging parent, or recovering from a health condition. As a result, many 
have been forced to leave their jobs and obtain other employment.
  Paid family leave is not only the right thing to do for Federal 
workers, but it is the smart thing to do for our Federal workforce. 
This is the most practical and fiscally responsible way to provide 
family leave for Federal workers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
  All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Schatz resolution.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 Florida (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  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. Cramer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 305 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Harris
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Warren
  The resolution (S. Res. 333) was rejected.


                          Vote on S. Res. 334

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the Peters 
resolution to instruct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, let me be frank. Today, our water and our 
health is at risk from highly fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS. 
These chemicals have been widely used commercially, and they are also 
concentrated in firefighting foams used by the Department of Defense. 
They are toxic, and they have been linked to serious health issues in 
those who are exposed to them.
  High levels of PFAS contamination exist at the former Wurtsmith Air 
Force Base in Oscoda, MI, and at military sites all across our country.
  My resolution would retain the Senate language prohibiting the 
Department of Defense from using firefighting foams containing PFAS 
chemicals to the end of 2023.
  PFAS-free foams are already widely used internationally by military 
services and at major hub airports, such as Heathrow and Dubai.
  We must protect our troops, our firefighters, our communities, and 
our water.
  I urge my colleagues to support my resolution.
  I yield back all remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
  The resolution (S. Res. 334) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted 
Resolutions.")


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

  
  On page S5693, September 25, 2019, third column, the following 
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 334) was agreed to.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S. 
Res. 334) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's 
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")


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



[[Page S5694]]


  



                          Vote on S. Res. 335

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the McSally 
resolution.
  Mr. DURBIN: Mr. President this week, the Senate will vote again on 
whether or not the President was right in using a phony emergency 
declaration in order to take money meant for our military and put it 
toward his medieval wall on the southern border.
  In March, we voted overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, to repeal 
this declaration. I hope we can do so again. We may also vote on a 
resolution offered by the junior Senator from Arizona which calls on 
Congress to ``backfill'' $3.6 billion in cancelled military 
construction projects. This means should we give the President $3.6 
billion to replace the $3.6 billion that he stole for his wall.
  There are no protections attached to this backfill, meaning there is 
nothing ensuring that he can't steal from our military again. It is 
said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and 
over and expecting a different result. We should not vote to hand over 
more money without a guarantee that it will actually go to our military 
this time. The McSally resolution contains no such protection, so I 
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Maybe you doubt that the President would repeat his border tricks. 
Well, a senior administration official admitted that he actually did 
plan to do it again in the Washington Post on Friday. The headline 
reads, ``Trump officials considering plan to divert billions of dollars 
in additional funds for border barrier.''
  Yes, the President has already made our military pay $6.1 billion for 
his wall, but apparently that was just round one. Talking about the 
bills before Congress for fiscal year 2020, an unnamed official told 
the Post, ``The plan is to sell it as replenishment money to the 
Defense Department for the $3.6 billion they took this year. Then once 
they got it from Congress, they would take it again.''
  It is a breathtaking statement. The question for this Chamber is, Are 
we really going to continue to play along? Remember, this $3.6 billion 
taken from military construction projects will cause direct harm to our 
military personnel, their families, and our Nation's security posture 
around the world. Don't forget, that came after the White House took 
$2.5 billion last spring from our military, funds which should have 
gone to other military priorities were instead diverted to a political 
promise.
  What were some of these 127 cancelled military construction projects 
in 26 States and Territories and on U.S. bases around the world? The 
Pentagon prioritized rebuilding National Guard facilities and a school 
for military children in Puerto Rico. Congress agreed and provided $400 
million, but the President took it away a few weeks ago, and their hope 
is gone.
  Joint Base Andrews in Maryland needed a new childcare facility, to 
replace one filled with mold and overcrowded rooms. Congress agreed. 
But the President took it away with his decision. Similarly, Fort 
Campbell, KY, lost a new school for military children. U.S. bases in 
Europe lost projects meant to reassure our allies and deter Putin's 
Russia. U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan lost projects meant to 
deter North Korea and China. All of it and more was labeled a top 
priority by the Pentagon and cancelled by the President anyway. This 
puts our men and women at real risk.
  The Air Force notes that without one of the cancelled projects its 
base would be, ``vulnerable to hostile penetration in the midst of 
contingency operations and an increased terrorist threat.'' Another 
cancelled project to upgrade a munitions side would make it difficult 
for U.S. fighter and bomber aircraft to operate properly.
  Congress should reject the President's phony declaration and reject 
the idea that Congress should throw good money after bad. Congress must 
reassert its powers with these votes this week.
  Mr. THUNE. All time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 306 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Booker
     Burr
     Harris
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Warren
  The resolution (S. Res. 335) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted 
Resolutions.")


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

  
  On page S5694, September 25, 2019, third column, the following 
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 335) was agreed to.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S. 
Res. 335) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's 
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")


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


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
disposition of the resolutions to instruct on S. 1790, the Senate 
proceed to executive session and vote on the motions to invoke cloture 
on the Hyten and Scalia nominations in the order filed; further, that 
the mandatory quorum calls be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Vote on S. Res. 336

  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to the vote on the Ernst resolution to instruct.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution to ensure that Congress is working toward commonsense, 
effective family leave solutions. It is well past time we made paid 
parental leave a reality in this country. Affording all moms and dads 
the flexibility to spend time with their new baby is something 
Americans want to see happen.
  While I appreciate the resolution by my colleague from the State of 
Hawaii, putting Washington insiders and Federal employees first doesn't 
add up as the right first step. I believe we need to think more broadly 
about this issue and how it impacts hard-working families in Iowa and 
across the country.
  We all recognize there are significant barriers for new, working 
parents to spend time with their baby during those critical and 
precious first few months. That is why I am working with Senator Mike 
Lee on a proposal to offer paid parental leave to all new parents in a 
way that is both budget neutral and flexible. In fact, a number of 
Republicans and Democrats are working on potential pathways forward.
  At the heart of all of it, we simply cannot lose sight of the fact 
that we need solutions that work for all American families, not just 
those fortunate enough to have a government job. If we are serious 
about enacting paid family leave policies, instead of scoring political 
wins, we will support the resolution before us.

[[Page S5695]]

  Families are the bedrock of our society. Let's look for solutions 
that all Americans can embrace.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment because, as it is written, it really rewards only companies 
that are very wealthy and successful with additional tax credits to do 
something they are already doing. By that measure, it will leave most 
American workers without basic access to leave.
  The other potential idea is about shifting hours and suggesting that 
workers have to work overtime to be able to have paid leave. Every 
parent in America, every person in America, will have a time when they 
have a family crisis--whether it is a dying parent, whether it is a 
sick spouse, whether it is a new child--and we are still the only 
industrialized country in the world that doesn't have access to 
national paid leave. We should be able to come together around this 
commonsense solution that Senator Schatz has offered to create at least 
the first step to make sure our Federal workers aren't 
disproportionately harmed because they can't compete with the private 
sector.
  I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Ernst 
resolution.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 307 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Booker
     Burr
     Harris
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Warren
  The resolution (S. Res. 336) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted 
Resolutions.")


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

  
  On page S5695, September 25, 2019, second column, the following 
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 336) was agreed to.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S. 
Res. 336) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's 
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")


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




                          ____________________