December 4, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 193 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S6829-S6836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the 
following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Richard 
Ernest Myers II, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge 
for the Eastern District of North Carolina.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                               Hong Kong

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on Sunday, as we Americans savored the 
holiday weekend and gave thanks for our liberty, the people of Hong 
Kong took to the streets to demand their own. Many waved American 
flags.
  Hongkongers are continuing to speak up for the freedoms and the 
autonomy that Beijing has slowly tried to erode. As long as Beijing 
does not relent, it looks like the people of Hong Kong are not going to 
relent either. In local elections last week that were largely symbolic, 
pro-democracy candidates literally blew away the candidates the Chinese 
Communist Party would have preferred in a literal landslide. Not even 
Beijing's propagandists can credibly blame this massive display of 
popular revulsion at their authoritarianism on the ``black hand'' of 
the West. In spite of China's propaganda, the West should not stay 
silent as Beijing sneaks to snuff out dissent in Hong Kong.
  Just a few days prior, the Congress and President Trump had sent our 
clearest signal yet that, yes, the United States of America stands with 
Hong Kong. The Senate unanimously passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and 
Democracy Act, and the President signed it into law. It delivered 
important updates to the original U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act, which I 
authored back in 1992. Preserving freedom and promoting democracy has 
required constant vigilance with Hongkongers since Communist China 
assumed control of the region.
  I have been proud to stand with that effort. With my original 
legislation, we paved the way for cooperation between Hong Kong and the 
United States, codifying and strengthening economic ties and 
facilitating the robust exchange of ideas and support of greater 
democracy in the autonomous region. We have laid the foundation for a 
U.S.-Hong Kong relationship that has strengthened both their society 
and ours and created leverage to hold Beijing accountable.
  Back in 1992, I observed that democracy was ``finally gaining a 
tenuous foothold in Hong Kong.'' Recent months certainly have reminded 
us just how tenuous that foothold can be when an authoritarian country 
flexes its muscles. They reminded us just how intent Beijing remains on 
exporting its oppressive surveillance state not just within mainland 
China but also into Hong Kong and, frankly, all around the world.

[[Page S6830]]

  The unanimous Senate vote for expanded oversight and firm responses 
to Beijing was welcomed news on the streets of Hong Kong, not because 
the U.S. Senate or international nonprofits or anybody else is ginning 
up these protests, as Beijing wants people to believe, but because 
those speaking out for freedom recognize a friend of freedom when they 
see one.
  It has been funny to see how invested Beijing is in these conspiracy 
theories that this organic protest movement is actually the work of 
shadowy puppeteers. Just a few days ago, the Chinese Communist Party's 
Foreign Ministry took the panicked and laughable step of 
``sanctioning'' several American nonprofits and NGOs, such as the 
International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, 
and the National Endowment for Democracy. Like I said, it is laughable. 
I admire the heck out of these organizations, but they aren't exactly 
in the business of commanding millions of people from Hong Kong to 
Beirut, to Baghdad, to Tehran to take to the streets. They are not that 
good.
  Here is the business they are in: speaking up for the timeless and 
universal principles of basic human freedom. They help keep the torch 
lit. It is the brave souls around the world who want better lives for 
themselves and their children who pick up the ball and run with it for 
themselves.
  The junior varsity tantrum that Beijing is throwing against these 
U.S.-based organizations is literally comical. It puts the Communist 
Party's hypersensitivity on full display. It is the same flailing that 
we see from other regimes from Moscow to Tehran, driven by the same 
aggressive, authoritarian instincts that push social media propaganda, 
street corner surveillance, police violence, and the modern-day gulags 
where China is imprisoning and brutalizing the Uighur people. These are 
the forces history never judges kindly. I am proud of the people of 
Hong Kong. I am proud of the Senate's latest action to support them, 
and I am proud to continue standing alongside them in their journey to 
true self-determination.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, nearly every day I have come to the floor to talk 
about the key pieces of legislation that we will only be able to 
complete with bipartisan cooperation--essential things like funding for 
the entirety of our Federal Government, something we have to do, 
including funding for our men and women in uniform; the money for the 
tools and the training and the weapons that our volunteer 
servicemembers need to complete their missions; things like the 
National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress has passed every 
single year, always on a bipartisan basis, for the last 58 years. This 
is literally the bill that reauthorizes the U.S. military. It could not 
be more basic or fundamental.
  So it is dismaying that my Democratic colleagues have seen fit to 
hold these basic duties hostage for the sake of picking fights with the 
White House, for advancing a partisan domestic agenda. It is 
disappointing that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader have 
abandoned their own written promises that they would not make our 
bipartisan appropriations processes conditioned on poison pills, policy 
riders, or changes to Presidential transfer authorities. All those 
commitments were made in the summer. Even though they put that in 
writing, they have chosen to shoehorn partisan demands right back into 
the process. So we are stalled. We are stalled because the agreement we 
all reached in the summer has not been honored by the other side.
  Today I want to keep this really simple. The Senate's dispensation on 
that Hong Kong legislation proves that we can still work together when 
our core principles and our national interest are at stake. Of course, 
those things are exactly what is at stake with defense funding and the 
NDAA. So it is way past time--we are in December--to get serious.

  Chairman Shelby and Chairwoman Lowey have agreed on subcommittee 
allocations. Chairman Inhofe and Senator Reed have made strides on our 
bipartisan NDAA. I would implore my Democratic friends: Please stop 
gambling our national security on the roulette wheel of domestic 
politics. Please stop that. Stop putting political theater ahead of our 
troops.
  We all know this is a heated political moment, but domestic politics 
do not excuse our men and women in uniform from doing their duties. So 
they cannot excuse our Democratic colleagues from doing theirs. Our 
servicemembers need Congress to have their backs. We can only fund the 
government if it is bipartisan. We can only pass an NDAA if it is 
bipartisan.
  The roadmaps are in hand. We have the same traditions that have 
yielded 58 bipartisan NDAAs in a row, and we have the bipartisan 
agreement that everyone signed just a few months ago when Speaker 
Pelosi and the Democratic leader promised in writing they wouldn't 
throw partisan wrenches into appropriations.
  Our country can't afford for the Democrats to obsess over impeachment 
and obstruct everything else. Look, let's use these roadmaps. Let's get 
these things accomplished for the American people.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             5G Technology

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 4G technology is pretty amazing. When I 
talk about 4G technology, that stands for fourth generation. On your 
smartphone, it might say LTE, but it is the fourth generation of 
technology that we have available to us on our wireless devices. We can 
FaceTime with family members across the country, order dinner or 
groceries without leaving our couches, watch a football game on the go 
with our phones, adjust the heat in our houses before we actually get 
home, carry around an entire library on a tablet the size of one small 
book, deposit a check without actually visiting the bank, and the list 
goes on.
  As amazing as 4G technology is, it can't hold a candle to 5G, or 
fifth generation technology. 5G mobile broadband technology will 
deliver speeds that will be up to 100 times faster than what today's 
technology can deliver. Think about that--downloads that will be 100 
times faster than what we have today. It will be vastly more responsive 
than 4G technology. It will be able to connect 100 times the number of 
devices that can be connected with 4G. That is pretty hard to imagine, 
really. Our phones and computers today seem pretty fast and responsive, 
but 5G will be much, much faster.
  While that will make it even easier to do the things we do today, 
like check our email or stream our favorite shows, the biggest benefits 
of 5G will lie in the other technologies it will enable. For example, 
5G will have the potential to pave the way for the widespread adoption 
of precision agriculture, which uses tools like robotics and remote 
monitoring to help farmers manage their fields and boost their crop 
yields. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that precision 
agriculture will reduce farmers' operational costs by up to $25 per 
acre and increase farmers' yields by up to 70 percent by the year 2050.
  5G will pave the way for automated vehicles, which will have the 
potential to dramatically reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. There 
are 37,000 people lost every year on America's highways due to traffic 
accidents. Over 90 percent of those are as a result of human error--
driving while under the influence, driving while distracted. 5G 
technology and the enablement of automated vehicles will go a long way 
toward saving lives on America's highways.
  It will facilitate surgical innovations and new ways to treat chronic 
illnesses or heal injuries and so much more.
  The technology for 5G is already here. Several cities around the 
United States, including my hometown of Sioux Falls, have already 
unveiled limited 5G networks, but there is more work to do before we 
all can start to see the benefits of 5G on our phones.
  The widespread deployment of 5G will require two things: adequate 
spectrum and adequate infrastructure. While 4G relies on traditional 
cell phone towers, 5G technology will also require small antennas 
called small

[[Page S6831]]

cells that can often be attached to existing infrastructure like 
utility poles or buildings.
  Earlier this year, I introduced legislation called the STREAMLINE Act 
to make it easier for companies to deploy these small cells so that we 
can get the infrastructure in place for 5G technology. I have also 
spent a lot of time focusing on securing adequate spectrum for 5G.
  Last year, the President signed into law my bipartisan bill called 
the MOBILE NOW Act. It was legislation that I introduced to help secure 
adequate spectrum and to facilitate next-generation infrastructure. 
Tomorrow, in my role as chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on 
Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet, I will be 
chairing a hearing looking at the progress that has been made in 
implementing the MOBILE NOW Act. We have a great slate of witnesses 
testifying tomorrow, including Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken, who has 
driven the implementation of advanced mobile broadband technology in 
Sioux Falls, SD.
  The MOBILE NOW Act has helped us make progress toward the deployment 
of 5G, particularly in identifying licensed spectrum that can be used 
to support 5G deployment in more rural areas of the country.
  MOBILE NOW also recognized the critical role that unlicensed spectrum 
plays in the development of 5G and in the larger communications 
landscape. Wi-fi operating on unlicensed spectrum will have an 
increasing role as we continue to connect more devices in the 5G era.
  There is more work to be done, though. While we have made good 
progress on securing low- and high-band spectrum, China and South Korea 
are ahead of us in opening up mid-band spectrum for 5G. We don't want 
to lose out to China and South Korea on 5G, so we need to substantially 
increase the amount of mid-band spectrum available to U.S. companies.
  Senator Wicker and I recently introduced legislation to facilitate 
the rapid acquisition of mid-band spectrum. Our 5G Spectrum Act would 
bring a substantial amount of mid-band spectrum to market for U.S. 
companies ready to deploy robust 5G networks.
  In addition to fostering tremendous technological breakthroughs in 
everything from agriculture to energy, 5G has the potential to add $500 
billion to the economy and to create literally millions of new jobs. 
But in order to achieve those economic benefits, we need to stay at the 
head of the 5G revolution.
  The United States lagged behind other countries in deploying 2G and 
3G technology, which had real economic consequences. Europe, for 
example, took the lead in 2G and cornered most of the market in sales 
of networking equipment and telecom hardware.
  As 4G emerged, however, the U.S. wireless industry stepped forward, 
investing billions in 4G deployment. The government also took steps to 
support the wireless industry, freeing up spectrum and making it easier 
to deploy the necessary infrastructure. That is what we have to do 
again today. If we want to stay at the head of the race to 5G, the 
government needs to make sure that wireless companies have access to 
the necessary spectrum and the ability to efficiently deploy small cell 
infrastructure.
  We are right on the edge of the 5G revolution, and I am confident 
that the United States can lead the world in 5G, just like we did with 
4G. We just need to take the last few steps to enable widespread 5G 
deployment.
  I look forward to talking with individuals on the frontlines of 5G 
deployment at the hearing tomorrow. I will continue to work with my 
colleagues to ensure that both the spectrum and the infrastructure are 
in place for 5G technology.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, the majority on the 
House Intelligence Committee released a report on the evidence it has 
examined thus far in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. The 
report asserted that the inquiry has ``uncovered a months-long effort 
by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign 
interference on his behalf in the 2020 election,'' going on to say that 
the ``President placed his own personal and political interests above 
the national interests of the United States.''
  Those are extremely serious charges, and the conduct they describe is 
undoubtedly worthy of congressional investigation, which is precisely 
what the House impeachment inquiry is designed to do.
  Whatever your party affiliation, it is up to us in Congress--and 
particularly in the Senate--to examine the evidence, remain impartial, 
and treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. But at the 
moment, too many Members of the President's party are stretching the 
bounds of truth in an attempt to defend the President's behavior. 
Certain Members on the other side have parroted the fiction invented by 
Vladimir Putin's intelligence services that Ukraine, not just Putin, 
interfered in the 2016 elections. One Member repeated this falsehood, 
recanted on live television, and then went back to making similar 
comments a few days later.
  Yesterday, Leader McConnell, when asked to set the record straight, 
said that it was a matter for the intelligence committees to look into.
  Well, Leader McConnell, the intelligence committees have looked at 
it. In fact, according to reports, the Republican-led Senate 
Intelligence Committee investigated the allegations that Ukraine 
interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence to support the 
claims. The Republican-led Intelligence Committee found no evidence, 
and Leader McConnell and so many of our Republican friends, in febrile 
obeisance to Donald Trump and his falsehoods and lies, have refused to 
even rebut that.
  It is a dark day for America when a foreign leader who is our enemy 
can spread a false truth and is either defended or there is a lack of 
rebuttal from our Republican colleagues. What the heck is going on here 
in this America?
  David Hale, the No. 3 official at President Trump's State Department, 
was asked by Senator Menendez yesterday whether he was aware of any 
evidence of Ukrainian interference in 2016. He said: I am not. He was 
not aware. Fiona Hill, another Trump appointee and a former NSC 
official, testified under oath that it was ``a fictional narrative.''
  There is no doubt that the idea of Ukrainian interference in 2016 is 
a hoax perpetrated by Putin's intelligence services, echoed by FOX News 
and acolytes of President Trump's, who similarly have shown no regard 
for truth--none.
  The fact that Republican Senators are repeating and amplifying this 
fiction or playing coy about it, as Leader McConnell is, is just wrong 
for America, wrong for the future of our country--a turning point, a 
dark point, in our history. And in my view, it shows the extreme 
depths--the febrile depths--to which certain Members on the other side 
will stoop to provide cover to a President accused of serious 
wrongdoing--a President who almost no American believes is credible any 
longer.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, on another matter where we could use some 
bipartisanship, in 16 days, funding for the government will expire. We 
have several important pieces in place to avoid a shutdown, including 
the recent agreement on allocations known as 302(b)s. Several sticking 
points remain, but overall, this is good news because I believe, left 
to our own devices, Congress could work through the final issues and 
make sure the government stays open.
  However, a report came out yesterday suggesting President Trump may 
refuse to sign any funding agreement without securing funding for his 
border wall first. If all of this seems a little familiar, it is 
because it is. Nearly a

[[Page S6832]]

year ago exactly, the President torpedoed bipartisan negotiations by 
demanding the very same thing--funding for his border wall--and the 
result was the longest government shutdown in history.
  Funding for a border wall was a nonstarter for Democrats then, and it 
remains a nonstarter for Democrats now. The votes did not exist even 
within the President's own party then, and they have not materialized 
now.
  We had hoped the President had learned his lesson, but it appears 
that exactly a year after losing this same battle, the President is 
considering a repeat of history and another Trump shutdown.
  I hope cooler heads will prevail--I believe they will--but I would 
warn President Trump and my Republican colleagues, the last Trump 
shutdown was terrible for the American people and terrible for 
Republicans. It is in all of our interests to keep the President away 
from the appropriations process and avoid another Trump shutdown before 
Christmas.


               Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

  Mr. President, finally, on SNAP, today the Trump administration 
announced it had completed a new rule that would potentially throw 
hundreds of thousands of needy Americans off food assistance.
  Let me repeat. Hundreds of thousands of people who need food and have 
struggled to find employment would be kicked off Federal food 
assistance under a new Trump administration rule.
  Right now, there are about 37 million Americans who receive benefits 
under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The vast majority 
of them work, but they don't earn enough to feed their families, and 
those who don't qualify for assistance for 3 months out of every 3 
years.
  Under the new rule, the Trump administration would trample on States' 
abilities to request waivers to these strict time limits in areas of 
great unemployment. Nearly every State in the Union has requested a 
waiver at one point or another.
  The Trump administration is driving the vulnerable into hunger just 
as the Christmas season approaches. It is heartless, it is cruel, and 
it exposes a deep and shameful cruelness and hypocrisy in this 
administration.
  One of the Trump administration's justifications for these cuts is 
that they will save the government money. Well, 2 years ago this very 
month, the Trump administration blew a more than trillion-dollar hole 
in our deficit with a gargantuan tax cut for corporations and the 
ultra-rich. The Trump administration argued it was money well spent. 
Now, the same administration says we have to pinch pennies when it 
comes to helping the hungry, particularly around Christmastime? This 
makes the Grinch look charitable. The same Trump administration that 
has steered millions of dollars to wealthy agribusinesses and foreign-
owned entities is now saying they need to save money by cutting off 
food aid to poor families who need it. This is jarring hypocrisy, and 
it shows clear as day where this administration's priorities clearly 
lie--with the rich and powerful, not the most vulnerable members of our 
society.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                             National Debt

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we have a debt issue in America. For 
some reason, we are losing track of that. The economy is so good right 
now. Unemployment is at historic numbers. The inflation numbers have 
stayed down. More Americans are bringing home more take-home pay, which 
means they can buy more stuff. More job opportunities are out there. In 
fact, we literally have 1.5 million more job openings in America than 
we have people looking for work in America.
  With the economy going so well right now, everyone is losing track of 
the debt and deficit, which are not going well right now. Last year, 
the Federal Treasury received more tax revenues than it has ever 
received in the history of the United States, which is surprising to 
some folks I have talked to who said that there was a big tax cut in 
2017, so that would mean tax revenue would go down. It didn't. It went 
up.
  When that tax cut occurred, more people were able to bring home more 
money and to spend more, which created more jobs. There was more 
investment, and the economy charged up. So we actually have more 
revenue coming in now than we used to have, but we still have a 
trillion-dollar deficit. That is the amount of overspending in a single 
year. We have the highest amount of revenue we have ever had. Yet we 
have epic levels of deficit spending, adding to $23 trillion in total 
debt as a nation--$23 trillion. It is a number none of us can even 
fathom.
  We are approaching a time when it would take the income of every 
single American for the entire year to be collected as taxes to pay off 
our debt. We are at 95 percent total debt to GDP. These kinds of 
numbers can't be sustained, and everyone quietly knows it in the back 
of their mind, but dealing with debt and deficit seem to be something 
we will deal with in the future--someday, someday, someday.
  I am here to encourage this body to say that we should be taking on 
the issues of debt and deficit now. The two things that have to occur 
in order to get on top of our debt and deficit are to get a growing 
economy with growing revenues--we have that now--and then we have to 
deal with Federal spending.
  What would it take to manage Federal spending? We are so far out of 
balance. A trillion dollars--literally we could shut down the entire 
Department of Defense, the Department of Education, the State 
Department--we could close down every single one of those, and we still 
wouldn't balance in a year. And no one would propose doing that. There 
is no 1-year fix to trying to get on top of our deficit; this will be a 
multiyear process.
  Just to state how bad it has become, if we chipped away at our 
deficit for the next 10 years--for 10 years, chipped away at our 
deficit to get us back to just balance--and then we had a $100 billion 
surplus the next year, which would be an enormous surplus, with a $100 
billion surplus--it would take us 230 years in a row of having a $100 
billion surplus in our Treasury just to deal with our debt. It would 
take 230 years in a row of $100 billion surpluses.
  Again, we are not just out of balance; we are way out of balance. 
There is no one secret thing we can do to get us back on track, but we 
do need to get started. That is why our team puts out something we call 
``Federal Fumbles.'' The ``Federal Fumbles'' guide is something we put 
out every single year. It is just a group of ideas. It is no magic 
bullet. It is just something our office puts out that looks at areas of 
inefficiency across the Federal Government and ask: Why is this 
happening the way it is happening, and what would happen if we continue 
doing the same things we are doing? Are there areas where we can save 
money and that we would be OK with as a group?
  We are not trying to put out partisan ideas; we are just putting out 
ideas. Quite frankly, the ``Federal Fumbles'' guide is not a 
confrontation for this body; it is the opening salvo in a conversation. 
We are bringing our ideas. You may have different ideas. Great. Bring 
yours. Let's try to figure out how to solve this together because this 
last year, we paid $371 billion just in interest payments on our debt. 
This fiscal year, we paid $423 billion just in interest. That is $423 
billion that is not going to healthcare, transportation, the basic 
structure of our government, or the national defense. It is $423 
billion spent on interest payments, and it just goes away.
  We are asking questions as we put out this Federal Fumbles guide. How 
do we solve this? What are some ideas?
  We have simple questions such as, why did the Social Security office 
pay $11.6 million to deceased beneficiaries in Puerto Rico?
  We ask questions such as, why did the government pay almost half a 
billion dollars last year on temporary tents--not buying them, renting 
temporary tents--along our southern border? Was there a better way that 
could have been done other than half a billion dollars in cost?
  We have some questions about the 21 government shutdowns that have 
occurred in the last 40 years, including the one earlier this year. 
That shutdown cost the Federal taxpayer over $4 billion.
  We ask straightforward questions about things like tax credits. If 
you like the Tesla that you pull up next to

[[Page S6833]]

at a stoplight and you gaze at its beauty and think that is a beautiful 
car, well, great, I am glad you like it because you helped pay for it. 
All of those Teslas that are on the road--$7,500 of the cost of that 
Tesla was paid by you, the Federal taxpayer. So what you should do at a 
stoplight is roll down your window and say to the person driving the 
Tesla: It is my turn. I helped pay for the car. Why don't you let me 
drive it for the rest of the day?
  We ask questions about grants for such things as sea lions in Russia 
because the U.S. taxpayer gave almost $2 million to study sea lions in 
Russia last year. We spent $600,000 doing a documentary on Joseph 
Stalin. We spent a big chunk of money actually studying the Russian flu 
in 1889. Why did we do that?
  Some of these things are small, and some of them are large.
  We laid out a proposal dealing with prescription drugs because the 
way the tiering is done on prescription drugs now costs the Federal 
taxpayer $22 billion. That is because generic drugs were placed on a 
higher cost branded tier, so the Federal taxpayer and the consumer end 
up paying not the generic price but the more expensive branded price 
when they could have paid the lower price. That is a cost of $22 
billion for just that one piece.
  We laid out a whole set of ideas and said: Let's just look at them 
together.
  This Congress passed $380 million that was sent out to the States to 
help with election security. After the Russians were clearly trying to 
interfere with our elections in 2016, we decided to do something about 
it to help our States. So $380 million was sent out to the States to do 
the work that was needed to be done to upgrade election security 
equipment and to be prepared for 2020.
  As of this last July, of the $380 million sent to the States, the 
States have only spent a little over $100 million. They have literally 
banked the other $250 million and just saved it and said: We will use 
it sometime. The 2020 elections are coming. The money was allocated, 
but it has not actually been spent and used for election security.
  We want to highlight issues and find ways to solve them. We didn't 
try to bring partisan ideas; we just brought ideas.
  This is our fifth volume. We have had other editions that dealt with 
other issues that need to be resolved. In the back of the book, we 
actually put out what we call the ``Touchdowns'' and the forward 
progress. These are some of the things we listed in previous versions 
that we actually looked at and can say we have made some progress on 
these things in trying to actually solve them. That is because at times 
we complain about what is happening in government, but we don't 
identify the good things, and there are a lot of good things that are 
actually happening.
  This Senate passed the GREAT Act. The GREAT Act dramatically 
increases the way we handle data on grants. About $600 billion a year 
in the Federal Government is spent just on grants. We think there needs 
to be greater oversight on that, and this Senate has agreed. This 
Senate has sent the GREAT Act over to the House and has said: Let's try 
to resolve how we can be more effective in how we do grants and be more 
transparent in the process and streamline the data itself to make it 
easier on those requesting a grant, as well as allowing for more 
transparency in where the Federal dollars are going. We don't want to 
just complain about the way grants are done; we want to try to actually 
fix it.
  We highlight multiple other areas where we have made real progress in 
the past year tackling some of the things we have listed in previous 
versions of ``Federal Fumbles.''
  But I do want to remind this body that while we talk about some of 
these hard issues, we often break into Republican-Democratic fights 
over hard issues. America is more than an economy, and while the 
economy is extremely important, we are Americans. We are Americans 
together. While we struggle to deal with hard issues, such as debt and 
deficit and what is going to be done to resolve this, we just can't 
conveniently go into our corners and make speeches and say that we have 
tried; we have to sit down and do hard things and do hard things 
together.
  That is why we are opening this conversation. That is why we keep 
this conversation going, because I do believe that while the economy is 
important, who we are and how we value each other is just as important 
because we have the responsibility to solve this. Again, other offices 
may have other ideas on how to resolve it. Great. Let's bring all those 
ideas together. Let's get 100 books like this, and everyone bring their 
ideas. Then let's actually do the work to solve this in the future.
  We are Americans. We do hard things. This one is going to be hard, 
and it is going to take a long time, but it doesn't get easier if we 
don't start, and it doesn't get done until we begin. So I am 
challenging us today to begin. Let's deal with the ways we have fumbled 
the ball in the past, and let's solve our debt and deficit together 
over the years into the future.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to urge the U.S. 
Congress to do the right thing, and that is to allow a vote on this new 
agreement between Mexico and Canada and the United States.
  Unbelievably, this agreement was negotiated a year ago--they signed 
it at the end of November last year--and yet for a year now, Congress 
has refused to take it up. It has got to go to the House of 
Representatives first, and Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats who 
control that body have not been willing to at least take it to the 
floor for a vote.
  The agreement is such a big improvement over the status quo. The 
status quo is the NAFTA agreement, which is 25 years old. The new 
agreement, which was negotiated a year ago, gives something that Canada 
wants, Mexico wants, and the United States wants. We want it because it 
is really important to us.
  It is particularly important to my home State of Ohio. I will tell 
you our No. 1 trading partner by far is Canada. We send about 40 
percent of our exports to one country: Canada. So to have a better 
agreement with our biggest trading partner--and our second biggest 
trading partner, which is Mexico--is really important. Alongside 
Mexico, our trade with Canada accounts for about $28 billion a year.
  I am hearing a lot about it. I am hearing from Ohio farmers. They 
have had a tough time. A combination of bad weather, a combination of 
shrinking markets for them in China, and a combination of low commodity 
prices going in to the bad weather period last year has made it really 
tough for farmers. A lot of them are having a very difficult time 
making ends meet this year.
  They see the USMCA for what it is, an expansion of their market. They 
can sell more stuff to Canada and to Mexico, and that will help them 
improve their prices and help them to be able to get through this tough 
period, so for them, it is a light at the end of the tunnel. If we can 
get this new trade agreement passed, it means expanded markets for 
dairy products, for pork, for corn and soybeans, and other commodities. 
Get those prices up, and give our farmers a chance to compete on a 
level playing field. This is a good thing. That is why they are all for 
it.
  Businesses really want the USMCA passed. By the way, I hear mostly 
from small businesses about this because they increasingly have looked 
to markets overseas--particularly Canada and Mexico in the State of 
Ohio--and they are concerned that if we do not put this agreement 
forward, we are going to have a lot of uncertainty out there, and they 
are going to sell less stuff, rather than more stuff, to these 
countries.
  So a lot of small manufacturers in particular sell a lot from Ohio to 
Canada and to Mexico, and they tell me they want this agreement 
passed--and passed now--because it will really help them. My colleagues 
here in the Senate

[[Page S6834]]

have to be hearing the same thing. When they go home, they have to be 
hearing from these same people because all around the country, when 
people look at this agreement, they say: Of course, this is better than 
the status quo for my business. Workers, farmers, service providers 
will all benefit.
  Taken together, our neighbors in Canada and Mexico now make up the 
biggest foreign market for U.S. goods anywhere, so these two countries 
together combined are the biggest market anywhere in the world. One-
third of all American exports in 2019 have gone to Canada or Mexico, 
way ahead of all foreign markets. It is about 12 million jobs, so 12 
million jobs nationally depend on trade with Canada and Mexico.
  I am a former trade lawyer myself--a recovering trade lawyer--and I 
do not practice it today, but I did at one time. I am also a former 
member of the trade committee in the House of Representatives, called 
the Ways and Means Committee, and today, I am a member of the Senate 
Finance Committee, which is the trade committee over here. In the 
interim, I was U.S. Trade Representative for President George W. Bush. 
I will tell you, from all the experiences that I have had in trade, I 
have learned one lesson, which is, yes, it is complicated, trade has a 
lot of nuances, it is politically difficult, but it is really important 
to our economy.
  Why? Because we have got about 5 percent of the world's population 
and about 25 percent of the economy here, so it is in our interest to 
access that other 95 percent of consumers outside of America in order 
to keep America as a prosperous country.
  That is what these trade agreements tend to do. The problem with the 
NAFTA agreement, the current one, is that it is 25 years old, and it 
needs to be updated. You know, it is one of the oldest trade agreements 
we have, and it is one that is fraught with problems right now, some of 
which are fixed in this USMCA.
  The USMCA, the successor to it, is a lot better. It creates a more 
balanced and more healthy trade relationship with Mexico and Canada for 
us. Again, for the workers and farmers and service providers that I 
represent and other people that this body represents, the level playing 
field is important because, while trade works if it is done properly 
and fairly, it does not work well when you have big trade deficits, 
when other countries cheat, when they do not play by the rules. 
Everything in this agreement helps to level that playing field.

  As an example, right now, our trade agreement with Canada and Mexico 
does not have a lot of things you would expect in a modern agreement, 
like provisions relating to the digital economy. So much of our economy 
now operates on the Internet, yet there is nothing in the NAFTA 
agreement that protects data from tariffs, for example.
  Another one would be labor and environmental standards which are weak 
and unenforceable under the current NAFTA. All of our new trade 
agreements have labor and environmental agreements, and they are 
enforceable. Well, guess what, USMCA does too. It includes a lot of the 
modern provisions that we have in our more recent trade agreements. I 
have got a handy chart here to talk about some of the specific changes 
between USMCA and NAFTA. First, the USMCA means more jobs. The 
independent International Trade Commission said it will add 176,000 new 
jobs. New jobs? USMCA, yes; NAFTA, no.
  By the way, from my home State of Ohio, which is a big auto State, 
thousands of those jobs are going to be created in the auto industry, 
which is a great opportunity for us in America to help to bolster our 
manufacturing--176,000 new jobs is significant, 20,000 in the auto 
industry.
  In fact, it is going to grow our economy by double the gross domestic 
product of that which was projected in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 
That was the agreement that was done with countries in the Pacific 
region, Asia, and Latin America. It is an agreement that many Democrats 
have praised and a few years back criticized the administration for not 
going into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But as much as they thought 
that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was going to be good for our 
economy, this is even better for our economy. Again, it more than 
doubles the GDP growth, the economic growth, as compared to the Trans-
Pacific Partnership.
  Second, the agreement does level the playing field we were talking 
about. It has enforceable labor and environmental standards--USMCA, 
yes; NAFTA, no--so another big difference. By the way, these standards 
are one reason why we have lost so many jobs to Mexico over the years.
  Third, the USMCA, like I said, it has new rules for the Internet 
economy. Those new rules of the road are really important, particularly 
to small businesses in Ohio and around the country that rely on 
Internet sales for their businesses.
  Unlike all our modern trade agreements, right now, there is no 
chapter in NAFTA--none at all--as it relates to the digital economy. 
Fortunately for Ohio online businesses, the USMCA has these 
protections. As an example, small businesses that rely on access to 
Canada and Mexico are going to have an easing of their customs burden 
for small values of their products, so both countries have agreed to 
raise their cap. I frankly wish they had agreed to raise it even more. 
But this is important both for small businesses that are in the 
Internet economy to save some money from customs and tariffs, but also 
it simplifies their business, which is fair because the United States 
has a higher cap.
  The USMCA also prohibits requirements that data be localized in 
Mexico and Canada. This is a big concern around the world. The country 
says: Okay, you can do it, but you have to localize your data here. In 
other words, you have to have your servers and your data here in our 
country. That is not required now. Under USMCA, that can be huge for 
our small businesses, and USMCA helps.
  If I may, it does prohibit tariffs on data, which NAFTA does not do. 
So these are key provisions to keep the modern economy moving. And 
voting against USMCA--or not allowing it to come up, which is what is 
happening right now--really means that you believe these burdens and 
uncertainties should continue for our small businesses.
  Fourth, USMCA goes further than any agreement we have toward leveling 
the playing field on steel. Steel production in this country is an 
incredibly important manufacturing sector. In Ohio, we are big steel 
producers. We are proud of that. It is one of the core industries we 
need to keep in this country. USMCA requires that 70 percent of the 
steel in vehicles that are produced under NAFTA in North America has to 
be steel from North America--so USMCA, 70 percent requirement; NAFTA, 
nothing, nothing.
  Fifth, there is also an unprecedented requirement in the USMCA that 
is not in any other agreement in the world and that helps to level the 
playing field considerably by saying that between 40 and 45 percent of 
vehicles have to be made in NAFTA countries by workers earning at least 
$16 an hour. We have heard a lot about, well, it is not fair in our 
dealings with Mexico in particular because they have lower wage rates. 
Well, this is being addressed very directly in a way that it has never 
been addressed in any previous agreement.
  Democrats have been talking about this for years. They should hail 
this as a great breakthrough and allow the NAFTA agreement to end and 
the USMCA to take its place because this is better.
  Voting for USMCA will also help to level the playing field on labor 
costs between the United States and Mexico because this new agreement 
requires that USMCA-compliant autos and auto parts have a higher 
percentage of U.S. and American content.
  Under the NAFTA agreement, that requirement for content is 62.5 
percent. So if you want a car within the NAFTA agreement that gets the 
advantages of NAFTA and that gets to come into the United States at a 
lower tariff from Canada or Mexico, 62.5 percent of it has to be from 
NAFTA countries. Under USMCA, we raised that 62.5 percent up to 75 
percent. This means more autos and more auto parts are going to be made 
here in the United States and you have fewer imports and fewer jobs in 
other countries, like China or Japan or Germany. So this is good for 
us.
  By the way, that 75 percent is the highest content requirement of any 
trade agreement we have. That is in USMCA.

[[Page S6835]]

  All of these things are going to ensure that we have more 
manufacturing jobs in Ohio and across the country.
  Frankly, the Trump administration, and particularly U.S. Trade 
Representative Bob Lighthizer, has listened to Democrats' concerns--
listened very carefully--and then incorporated these concerns into this 
agreement.
  Some of the concerns have also been raised by Republicans over the 
years, but, frankly, when I was U.S. Trade Representative, it was 
Democrats who mostly raised these concerns about the labor standards 
being enforceable and ensuring that you had something like the minimum 
wage that is now in this agreement.
  These are provisions that Democrats have demanded for years. Yet now 
we can't get a vote. They will not even let it be voted on. How does 
that make sense? How do you explain it? I don't believe any Democrat 
thinks the status quo, NAFTA, is better than the USMCA. If they do, I 
would challenge them to explain to the American people why they think 
the status quo, NAFTA, is better than USMCA.
  Blocking this trade agreement hurts so many sectors of our economy, 
as I have talked about. It hurts our auto industry and the hard-working 
men and women who are on the assembly lines. It hurts our farmers. They 
aren't going to be able to gain new access to markets in Canada and 
Mexico. That is why nearly 1,000 farm groups from our country have now 
come out strongly to support USMCA. Blocking USMCA means blocking our 
farmers out of these markets.
  With all of these new requirements and all of these new improvements, 
it should be clear to everyone that this is not an effort to rebrand 
NAFTA. This is new. It is different. It is not your father's 
Oldsmobile. They are big and meaningful changes that will benefit all 
of us.
  In short, USMCA is good for jobs. It is good for small businesses. It 
is good for our farmers. It is good for workers, and it is good for the 
economy.
  This is a rare opportunity, my colleagues, to do something that is 
good for America and to do it in a bipartisan way. It can have such a 
positive impact at a time when our country needs to have us come 
together and do something that is good for everybody.
  To Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats: The ball is in your court. 
We realize that. Under the rules up here in Congress as to how you deal 
with trade agreements, this has to start in the House of 
Representatives. If it were to come to the floor here in the Senate, I 
believe it would pass and pass with a good bipartisan margin because it 
just makes so much sense. But it has to go through the House first.
  If that agreement did come to the House floor, I believe logic would 
prevail, and it would pass there, as well, because I believe Members 
would say: Here is my choice, and it is a binary choice: Do I go with 
the status quo, NAFTA, that I have been complaining about for years, or 
do I go with the new and improved USMCA? I think that is a pretty easy 
vote for a lot of Members who look at this objectively and with the 
interests of their constituents in mind.
  A vote for USMCA, quite simply, is a vote for improved market access, 
more U.S. manufacturing, and a more level playing field for American 
workers, farmers, and service providers.
  A vote against USMCA and blocking it from coming to the floor is a 
vote to keep NAFTA. It is as simple as that. A vote against USMCA is a 
vote for the status quo, which is NAFTA.
  Supporting NAFTA today means supporting unenforceable labor and 
environmental standards, nonexistent digital economy provisions, and 
outdated rules of origin provisions that allow more automobiles and 
auto parts to be manufactured overseas rather than in America. We have 
a chance to fix all of this by passing USMCA.
  I am confident that this new agreement will pass if we can get it up 
for a vote because the American people will demand it. There is plenty 
of time for politics between now and the 2020 election. Right now, 
let's focus on what is best for the American people. Let's work 
together and put them first, and, by doing so, let's pass USMCA.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Utah.


                     Nomination of David B. Barlow

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss my 
friend, my former colleague, and soon-to-be confirmed Federal District 
Judge David Barlow.
  Last night, the Senate voted to invoke cloture as to Mr. Barlow's 
nomination. We will be voting later today to confirm him. Based on the 
support we have, I expect the vote to be overwhelming, and with really 
good reason.
  David Barlow is someone I have known for a long time. He is someone I 
have known, in fact, for more than 30 years.
  David Barlow and I first met when we were both in high school. Oddly 
enough, we met in Washington, DC, while we were both participating in 
an event known as American Legion Boys Nation. We had both attended 
Boys State in our respective States--I in Utah and he in Idaho--and we 
were both selected to go to Boys Nation to represent our respective 
Boys States.
  Shortly after we convened as Boys Nation senators, David Barlow was 
elected to be the President pro temp of the Boys Nation senate. As a 
result, when we visited the White House a few days later, it was David 
Barlow who got to stand right next to Ronald Reagan as he greeted us in 
the Rose Garden and addressed Boys Nation.
  David Barlow was someone who seemed to have been born for public 
service, and he was born for public service for all of the right 
reasons, in all of the right ways. He had a certain enthusiasm about 
the workings of government--not in a partisan way, not in a self-
interested way but in a way that was infectious and made all around him 
want to build a better country, want to find common ground, and want to 
come to know more about our country's rich histories and tradition.
  Mr. Barlow and I became reacquainted about a year after we first met, 
when we first enrolled as freshmen students at Brigham Young University 
in the fall of 1989. David Barlow was there on a full academic 
scholarship and did not disappoint with his academic performance. As I 
recall, he graduated with a 4.0 grade point average from Brigham Young 
University with highest honors. Here again, David was smart but in a 
way that didn't make other people feel less smart. He made other people 
feel smart and eager to learn more, eager to be more enthusiastic about 
the academic process. He isn't someone who would have ever talked to 
other people about his outstanding grades or about his wonderful 
accomplishments.
  A few years later, we both graduated from BYU. He graduated in 1995 
from Brigham Young University and enrolled at Yale Law School, where he 
received his jurist doctorate degree in 1998.
  After he graduated, David Barlow started his legal career as an 
associate at the law firm then known as Lord, Bissell & Brook in the 
firm's Chicago office. Just a couple of years later, David joined 
Sidley and Austin LLP as an associate in the firm's Chicago office. He 
later became a partner starting, I believe, in 2006, and he remained a 
partner at Sidley up until 2010.
  During much of that time, I was an associate at Sidley and Austin in 
the firm's Washington, DC, office. I got to know David again through 
this process, this time as a lawyer, as a professional. Although we 
worked in different offices, as part of the same firm, we knew the same 
people.
  The network of lawyers with whom I worked quickly identified David 
Barlow as one of the lawyers in the firm who could be trusted with 
everything, one of the lawyers in the firm who, even as a young 
associate, could be given any task, and any lawyer giving him that 
responsibility could do so with the full assurance that the client 
would be well served, that no ball would be dropped, and that every 
stone would be turned over in an effort to properly handle the case.
  Mr. Barlow worked on a wide variety of litigation matters, including 
complex civil litigation, class actions, and products liability cases. 
He also handled a number of domestic violence cases on a pro bono 
basis.
  Among many of his clients, David Barlow became known as Dr. Barlow. 
It was a name assigned to him by some of his clients when he was 
working on some liability cases involving the medical field. He became 
so immersed in the subject matter of the litigation

[[Page S6836]]

that over time he acquired more knowledge in some cases than some of 
the doctors who were consulting with the client on that same matter. To 
this day, I occasionally refer to him as Dr. Barlow just for fun.
  In 2011, shortly after I had been elected to the U.S. Senate, David 
Barlow joined my team as my chief counsel and chief staffer on the 
Judiciary Committee. He is someone who had never worked in the U.S. 
Senate prior to that time but, literally, within a matter of weeks, had 
learned the ropes of this body to a degree sufficient that no one would 
have been able to discern the difference between Mr. Barlow and 
somebody who had worked in the Senate for many, many years.
  He quickly became a favorite within my office. David Barlow was 
someone who we could always turn to in a moment if someone had a 
question. In a moment of crisis, he would figure out how to solve it. 
In a moment where we needed an answer to a legal question, he either 
knew the answer or, if he didn't know the answer, he could find it in a 
short period of time, and we could proceed with the correct 
understanding that, when he gave us an answer, it was right and we 
could rely on it.
  The fact that he was so beloved within my office extended far beyond 
his legal acumen or his professional abilities. He is also just a 
delight to be around. He is really funny, and he is equally conversive 
in a wide variety of material, from Shakespeare to Chaucer, from the 
Old Testament to old episodes of ``30 Rock'' and Saturday Night Live.'' 
He had a sophisticated sense of humor that managed to be outrageously 
funny, while never inappropriate. That is a skill that we in Utah 
particularly strive to attain and very few are able to achieve.
  Later in 2011, President Obama chose David Barlow to serve as the 
U.S. attorney for the District of Utah. This was a bittersweet moment 
for me and my staff, having learned to rely on his skill, but we were 
very happy for David and especially happy for the people of Utah, who 
were the beneficiaries of his outstanding service as the U.S. 
attorney. Having previously worked in that U.S. Attorney's Office 
myself as an assistant U.S. attorney, I stayed in contact with many of 
my former colleagues, all of whom came to absolutely love this 
outstanding public servant.

  David served as U.S. attorney through 2014, at which point he 
returned to his partnership at Sidley Austin and worked in the firm's 
Washington, DC, office. In 2017, he joined Walmart as vice president 
over compliance for the company's health and wellness business. I still 
remember the moment when someone reviewing him for that position, prior 
to the time he had been offered the job, called to ask me what I 
thought about his qualifications for that job. I explained at the 
outset to this reviewer that my comments regarding David Barlow would 
be so overwhelmingly positive that she would think I was joking. I was, 
in fact, not.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to deliver my remarks to an 
extent not to exceed 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, needless to say, he got the job. He 
flourished there as he has everywhere else.
  Then, in 2018, David Barlow, to the great happiness of many of us in 
Utah who know and love him, decided to return to Utah, and he joined 
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, as a partner in the firm's Salt Lake City 
office. For the past several years, David Barlow has had a practice 
that has focused on handling government enforcement actions and 
internal investigations, which have typically been large 
multijurisdictional matters. He is someone who knows how to handle 
complex litigation.
  I would also like to note that since I first met David Barlow, I have 
also gotten to know David Barlow's family. They are extraordinary 
people--David's wife Crystal and their children. David's parents, Bruce 
and Emily Barlow, in fact, used to live just a couple of doors down 
from me in Utah. They are as kind and decent a people as you could ever 
hope to meet. While one's parents certainly can't independently qualify 
one for service in a lifetime article III judicial appointment, if ever 
one could qualify through that route, that would probably qualify him 
here simply because Bruce and Emily Barlow are perhaps the most kind 
and decent people I have ever met and the warmest and loveliest 
neighbors anyone could ever hope to have.
  For all these reasons, and based on Mr. Barlow's mastery of the law, 
his professionalism, his kindness, his demeanor, his collegiality, 
which I have never heard questioned or in any way called into question, 
David Barlow is qualified to be a U.S. district judge, and I am 
grateful that he will be serving once he is confirmed as judge on the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
  I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation and look forward to 
voting for him later today.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Richard Ernest Myers II, of North Carolina, to be United 
     States District Judge for the Eastern District of North 
     Carolina.
          Mitch McConnell, John Boozman, Richard Burr, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, John Barrasso, 
           Roy Blunt, John Thune, Steve Daines, Thom Tillis, Kevin 
           Cramer, Chuck Grassley, Tom Cotton, Rand Paul, Roger F. 
           Wicker, Cindy Hyde-Smith.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Richard Ernest Myers II, of North Carolina, to be United 
States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Rounds).
  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. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 375 Ex.]

                                YEAS--72

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--22

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cortez Masto
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Booker
     Harris
     Murkowski
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 72, the nays are 
22.
  The motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________