EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 205
(Senate - December 18, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S7126-S7136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in response to the limited set of 
relevant witnesses I proposed for a potential Senate trial earlier this 
week, the Republican leader gave a lengthy speech on the floor 
yesterday and another speech today. In neither of those speeches could 
the Republican leader offer one salient argument as to why the 
witnesses I proposed--all senior Trump administration officials--
shouldn't be allowed to testify. Instead, he made what are, in my view, 
irrelevant and incomplete comparisons to the 1999 Clinton trial.
  When faced with the fact that it is only fair to have these 
witnesses, who were eyewitnesses to the major, major allegations 
against the President and who had not testified before, the leader 
can't talk about 2019. He has to go back to 1999 because he has no good 
argument as to why they shouldn't testify.
  We are not asking to be dilatory. We are not asking for a list of 
4,000 witnesses. We are simply asking that those who know the truth 
best come and talk to us here in the Senate and to the American people.
  There is one fact that is impossible for the Senate to ignore. In the 
two Presidential impeachment trials in the history of this body, the 
Senate heard from witnesses, but Leader McConnell continues to push for 
no witnesses in the Senate trial. I have yet to hear an explanation as 
to why less evidence is better than more evidence, particularly when it 
comes to something as somber, as serious, and as important as 
impeachment of the President of the United States of America.
  Leader McConnell keeps talking about 1999 because he doesn't want to 
talk about 2019. The two situations are not analogous. Rather than 
focus on the past, the Republican leader should focus on the present 
and offer one good reason why relevant witnesses shouldn't testify in 
an impeachment trial of President Trump, particularly in light of the 
fact that we have not

[[Page S7127]]

heard from them. They probably have better evidence than anybody, even 
though the evidence the House has prepared, in the eyes of so many, is 
overwhelming.
  I was disappointed to hear yesterday that Leader McConnell declared 
that he would not be an impartial juror when it comes to the serious 
charges against President Trump. He said it proudly. What kind of 
example does that set for the country, which is looking for fairness 
and impartiality?
  In the event of a trial, every Senator will swear an oath--different 
from our standard oath of office--to do impartial justice, but 
yesterday McConnell told reporters: ``I'm not an impartial juror. This 
is a political process. I'm not impartial about this at all.'' Let me 
repeat that. Let the American people hear it loud and clear. The 
Republican leader said proudly: ``I'm not an impartial juror. . . . I'm 
not impartial about this at all.'' This is an astonishing admission of 
partisanship. The President may demand these public displays of fealty, 
but they are troubling for the leader of an independent branch of our 
government. I hope all Senators will take seriously the oath to do 
impartial justice that we seem likely to take in the near future.
  The House of Representatives, of course, will take a historic vote 
today on the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. If the articles 
of impeachment are passed, the focus will quickly move to the Senate, 
where our Chamber will serve as a court of impeachment. We must, very 
soon, figure out the rules and procedures that will allow the Senate to 
rise to this occasion.
  Despite our disagreements, I do expect to sit down with Leader 
McConnell in the near future to discuss these matters. I have proposed 
a very reasonable structure for a trial based on the grand American 
tradition of a fair and speedy trial. We propose four witnesses--only 
those with direct knowledge of the charges made by the House; only 
those who could provide new, relevant, and potentially illuminating 
testimony--and place strict time limits on each stage of the process to 
prevent the trial from dragging out too long. No one is interested in 
delaying.
  The Senate's goal, above all, should be to conduct a trial with 
dignity, fairness to both sides, and one that examines all the relevant 
facts. There are large partisan divisions these days, but I suspect 
most Senate Republicans would agree with these goals. I suspect that 
even President Trump would agree with these goals--or at least say that 
he did. The President has repeatedly complained about a lack of due 
process and said that he ``would love''--his words--``would love'' for 
aides like Mr. Mulvaney to testify in the Senate.
  Setting aside for the moment that the President has refused to 
participate in the House process despite multiple invitations; setting 
aside for the moment that he has blocked witnesses from appearing and 
documents from being produced--Mr. President, we are offering you the 
due process you sought in your letter last night. Allow your current 
and former aides--Mulvaney, Blair, Duffey, Bolton--to testify on your 
behalf. Turn over all the requested documents and show that you and 
your aides didn't try to use taxpayer money to force a foreign 
government to announce an investigation against your political 
opponent. Let the truth come out.
  Mr. President, we are offering you due process. Due process means the 
right to be heard. Please take it. Don't ask for it and then refuse to 
take advantage of it.
  President Trump, you have a habit of accusing others of the offenses 
that you have, in fact, committed. You accuse the House of affording no 
due process while obstructing the process every step of the way. If you 
truly want due process to present your side of the case, President 
Trump, let your aides testify and turn over the documents we requested.
  We want to conduct a fair trial--fair to both sides. We don't know 
whether the witnesses we propose will incriminate the President or 
exonerate him. They are the appointees of President Donald J. Trump; 
they are hardly biased. We don't know what their testimony will be, but 
we do know one thing: We should hear from them. We just want the 
facts--``Just the facts, ma'am,'' as Detective Friday says--facts that 
will allow Senators to make fully informed decisions about something as 
serious--so serious--as the conviction or acquittal of an impeached 
President.
  Each individual Senator will have the power and will have the 
responsibility to help shape what an impeachment trial looks like. Do 
my Republican colleagues want a fair and honest trial that examines all 
the facts, or do they want to participate in a coverup?


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, now on appropriations, before the week concludes, we 
must pass legislation to keep the government open and provide 
appropriations for the following year. Luckily, over the weekend, an 
agreement was reached between appropriators--House and Senate, 
Democratic and Republican--that would see us achieve that goal.
  I am proud to report that the final appropriations agreements include 
several important Democratic priorities to help American families and 
to help American security.
  Democrats have secured more than $425 million in election security 
grants--nearly double the amount Senate Republicans reluctantly 
supported in earlier legislation. Democrats have secured an increase of 
$550 million in grants to help offset the cost of childcare for low-
income families. Democrats have made progress on several fronts to 
combat climate change, record-level funding for clean energy and energy 
efficiency programs, record-level funding to provide clean, electric 
buses, and increased funding for climate change science and research.
  For the first time in decades, Democrats have secured $25 million in 
gun violence research at the CDC and NIH, breaking through what had 
been a ridiculous ban on fact--another ban on fact now broken because 
we can do gun violence research. Medical research, scientific research, 
environmental protection, and education and housing programs will see 
significant increases in Federal support.
  Of course, we did not achieve everything we wanted. I am particularly 
and strongly disappointed, for one, that the tax agreement included in 
the second package omits critical clean energy tax incentives to fight 
climate change, including incentives for electric vehicles, battery 
storage, and offshore wind and solar energy. This is a fight we have 
been waging and we will continue to wage. It is a fight Democrats 
intend to return to in 2020 when we negotiate the next tax agreement.
  I am also sorely and deeply disappointed that we were unable to reach 
an agreement on the drinking water standard and more resources to clean 
up PFAS contamination--a toxic chemical that has plagued too many 
communities in New York and across the country.
  People on the other side of the aisle should look at these. The 
President, who was against many of these proposals, should reexamine 
them. We need them. Senate Democrats--Senator Leahy, the 
appropriators--have done a lot of hard work on this issue. Our 
disappointment today will in no way diminish our resolve to force 
Congress to take further actions next year, particularly on PFAS and on 
clean energy.
  I yield the floor.


                             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 senior assistant 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 Matthew Walden McFarland, of Ohio, to be United States 
     District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio.
         Rick Scott, Steve Daines, Mike Crapo, Pat Roberts, Marco 
           Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John Boozman, John Hoeven, Roy 
           Blunt, John Thune, John Cornyn, Deb Fischer, Mike 
           Rounds, John Barrasso, James E. Risch, Tim Scott, Mitch 
           McConnell.

  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 Matthew Walden McFarland, of Ohio, to be United States 
District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, shall be brought to a 
close?

[[Page S7128]]

  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are ncessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted---yeas 55, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 401 Ex.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--38

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Booker
     Burr
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Sanders
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
38.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                          Hostage Negotiations

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one of our most 
complicated areas where diplomats have to engage when brutal regimes 
and terror groups seize Americans and use them as hostages, hoping to 
extract concessions from our government. These are situations that are 
infuriating, and they are heartbreaking. At the same time, they are 
immensely complicated. There are no easy solutions when dealing with 
hostage-takers.
  We know what doesn't work. We know that paying ransom for hostages, 
as the Obama administration did with Iran to the tune of billions of 
dollars, only incentivizes more hostage-taking. It is exactly the 
behavior you would expect from hostage-takers, and it is exactly the 
behavior we have seen played out over and over. My colleagues and I, 
along with the Trump administration, have sought other ways of securing 
the release of American hostages.
  Sometimes what is called for is diplomatic pressure. So early in my 
tenure in the Senate, the very first bill that I passed into law was 
legislation that kept Iranian regime figures who had seized American 
hostages in 1979 from receiving diplomatic visas to come into the 
United States.
  I also recently joined with Senator Cotton to introduce the Global 
Hostage Act, a bill that would require the President to impose 
sanctions on foreign government officials responsible for taking 
Americans hostage.
  The Trump administration recently secured the release of Americans 
held hostage in Iran without the need for pallets of cash flown in the 
darkness of night. Nevertheless, all of these solutions are imperfect. 
So it is no surprise that even in countries where we enjoy successes, 
those successes are often heartbreakingly partial, with hostages left 
behind.
  Today, I want to talk about two countries, specifically, where 
Americans from my home State of Texas are languishing today.
  In Syria we have seen some Americans released while others remain 
away from their families. This summer, American Sam Goodwin and 
Canadian Kristian Baxter were released by captors in Syria, which were 
joyful developments on their own and encouraging signs of progress. But 
Austin Tice remains in captivity after more than 7 agonizing years. 
Austin is a Texan and a veteran Marine Corps captain who served our 
country in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was working as a freelance 
journalist to inform Americans about the horror of the Syrian conflict 
when he was captured.
  I have repeatedly had the opportunity to sit down and visit with 
Austin's parents, Marc and Debra. Austin's picture sits on my desk in 
my Senate office, and I remain committed to working with President 
Trump, with the Trump administration, with my colleagues in Congress to 
bring Austin home.
  I joined with 51 Senators, 120 Representatives to write a letter to 
President Trump affirming that ``the Tice family and your own 
administration are confident that Austin is alive'' and calling on 
President Trump to redouble our country's efforts to bring him home. No 
one should doubt the entire U.S. Government's commitment to this task.
  Secondly, in Venezuela, we have also seen partial progress but 
partial progress of a different sort. In the case of the Citgo 6--five 
American citizens and one permanent American resident--they have been 
released from jail, which is a good thing, but they remain under house 
arrest.
  So while Jose Luis Zambrano, Alirio Zambrano, Jorge Toledo, Gustavo 
Cardenas, Tomeu Vadell, and Jose Angel Pereira are no longer under the 
constant threat of dying from abuse and neglect, they are still very 
much held captive and away from their loved ones. Today, here in the 
gallery, are Gabriela and Alirio Rafael, the daughter and the brother 
of Alirio Zambrano.
  These five Texans and one Louisianan are now 2 years into their 
nightmarish journey. They had been summoned to Caracas a week shy of 
Thanksgiving, and upon their arrival, they were summarily detained and 
remained in jail on orders of the Venezuelan military. They would go 
days without food and months without sunlight, but the random 
punishments were nothing if not persistent.
  I have met members of the Citgo 6 families many times. Alexandra 
Forseth, Alirio Zambrano's daughter, shared with me haunting accounts 
that came from her father. He described exactly how harrowing the 
experience has been and the physical toll it has taken.
  These families have left no stones unturned in their efforts to bring 
back their loved ones. They have hired lawyers who have grappled with 
the shifting and inadequate legal institutions in Venezuela, and they 
have found little recourse.
  After years of this literal darkness, just last week the Citgo 6 were 
released to house arrest. This is progress. It is undeniable progress, 
but it is far from enough. Here, too, we must redouble our efforts to 
ensure their full release, to ensure that they can come home to 
America. Every effort must be made to bring them back to the United 
States, to their families, to their children, to their homes.
  Sergio Cardenas, the son of Gustavo Cardenas, was born with a rare 
disease, and at the age of 17, he is battling chronic congestive heart 
failure. The doctors and his family are gravely concerned that he will 
never see his father.
  Jose Toledo's mother is severely handicapped and requires constant 
medical attention and care. Alirio and Jose Luis both have teenage 
daughters currently in high school. These families are waiting for 
their fathers, for their sons, for their husbands to come home.
  Venezuela has a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. If 
human rights means anything, it is that citizens of all countries are 
entitled to speedy due process and that human rights violations must 
have human rights remedies. The Citgo 6 have suffered enough. It is 
past time for them to be released back to their families.
  Finally, let me say I believe that the light of truth--calling 
attention to these human rights atrocities--can overcome the darkness 
of imprisonment. The voices of the families and

[[Page S7129]]

the voices of those who speak out on their behalf resonate and resonate 
loudly. Those who are keeping Americans wrongfully imprisoned, who are 
committing evil, should know that we will not give up. We will not rest 
until these Americans are set free.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                  Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Shooting

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago today, the State of Hawaii was 
in shock as an active shooter took the lives of two workers at Pearl 
Harbor Naval Shipyard and wounded a third worker.
  Located on Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, the shipyard is a pillar 
of our community. It employs over 6,400 workers who labor every day to 
keep our Pacific Fleet ``Fit to Fight.''
  Hawaii is a small place where we have deep connections to one 
another. Almost everyone in Hawaii either is related to or knows 
someone who works on base or in the shipyard. In my State office in 
Honolulu, a member of my staff has a son who is an apprentice at the 
shipyard and who was there that day. These connections are part of the 
reason why the shooting has impacted our State so deeply. Too many 
families were waiting that day for news of their loved ones in harm's 
way.
  The investigation into what happened is ongoing, and there is no easy 
explanation for what happened and why.
  It is clear that no community in our country is immune from the 
tragedy of gun violence. Today, I rise to honor the lives of those we 
lost--Roldan A. Agustin and Vincent J. Kapoi, Jr.
  Mr. Kapoi and Mr. Agustin were both dedicated Department of Defense--
DOD--civilian shipyard workers and members of the International 
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 121.
  Roldan Agustin was 49 years old and lived in Ewa Beach. He was adored 
by his family, who describe him as a ``true American patriot'' who 
dedicated his career to his country. After serving honorably in the 
U.S. Navy, Mr. Agustin also served in the Army National Guard, retiring 
as a staff sergeant, having deployed to Afghanistan and Kuwait.
  At Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, he served as a DOD civilian employee, 
working as a shop planner in nondestructive testing and a metals 
inspector.

  In paying tribute to their lost loved one, Mr. Agustin's family said 
in a statement:

       He was a loving son, brother, uncle, and friend to many. 
     Having grown up in Waipahu, Roldan enjoyed working on cars 
     with his friends and spending time with his family and adored 
     his nieces. We will forever remember Roldan to be humble and 
     honest, and a generous and patient man.

  Vincent Kapoi was 30 years old and lived in Honolulu. He grew up in 
Waianae and graduated from Kamehameha schools. His father, brother, 
sister, and sister-in-law are also civilian employees at the shipyard, 
where he served as a metals inspector apprentice. He was dearly loved 
by his family, which includes his wife, parents, siblings, aunties, 
uncles, grandmother, cousins, and friends.
  His wife offered these loving words:

       I have been through a lot of tragedy in my life, but 
     nothing compares to losing the love of your life. I will miss 
     you truly, and I will always love you Vincent J. Kapoi Jr.

  His sister Theona said in a family statement:

       He will always be that easy going, fun loving, ``let's do 
     this'' man that will remain in our hearts. There are so many 
     unanswered questions. We all have to be honest, it changes 
     nothing because we can't bring him back. What we must do is 
     honor his memory, keep him alive in our hearts.

  I also want to honor Roger Nakamine, who was wounded in the attack. 
Mr. Nakamine was working as a civilian apprentice at the shipyard when 
he was wounded.
  Upon leaving the hospital about a week after the attack, Mr. Nakamine 
said:

       My family and I would like to express our gratitude to the 
     first responders and the expert medical staff at Queen's, as 
     well as to all the friends and extended `ohana who have been 
     reaching out to offer their support physically, emotionally 
     and spiritually. Our deepest condolences go out to the 
     friends and family of Vincent Kapoi Jr. and Roldan Agustin.

  Roldan and Vincent, like thousands of their fellow workers, dedicated 
themselves to the shipyard's critically important mission of repairing, 
maintaining, and modernizing the U.S. Pacific Fleet in defense of our 
country.
  In recognition of their service and in keeping with the words of 
their families, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the 
lives of those we lost: Roldan Agustin and Vincent Kapoi, Jr.
  This is a photograph that depicts the memorial, which was set up the 
day after this tragedy, where friends and family brought lei to honor 
their fallen heroes, their loved ones.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                                   5G

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise briefly today to thank a number of 
my colleagues--first, the senior Senator from Mississippi, Roger 
Wicker, who has offered a bill called the 5G Spectrum Act.
  I have offered a bill pertaining to the 5G spectrum, as well, and my 
two Democratic friends, Senator Schatz and Senator Cantwell, have 
offered a bill on that subject as well.
  We have been working enthusiastically and in good faith for some time 
to try to work out our differences on this legislation so that we could 
pass it this calendar year. I regret that we are not going to be able 
to work out our differences for the moment, but we are going to 
continue our efforts in good faith.
  The good news about all this legislation is that we all agree that 
the FCC should conduct a public auction of the 5G spectrum.
  What does that mean? We all have heard about 5G. It is 
extraordinarily fast internet--100 times faster than we have right now. 
But in order for 5G to work, there is a certain part of our spectrum, 
or our radio waves, if you will, that the telecommunications have to 
use to deliver the 5G service. It is called the C-band.
  Of course, when we communicate between and among each other on the 
internet or by cell phones through wireless technology, all we are 
doing is sending electromagnetic radiation or radio waves from my 
device to your device. It is obviously more complicated than that, but 
at its fundamental level, that is what it is.
  These radio waves and the airwaves through which though radio waves 
travel--this electromagnetic radiation--belong to the American people. 
It is called spectrum, and that is what we mean when we talk about 5G 
spectrum. We can't lose sight of that fact.

  The wireless telecommunication companies provide an extraordinary 
service. They are going to make 5G possible with the help of the U.S. 
Government and our other forms of government, but we cannot lose sight 
of the fact that none of this would be possible without that spectrum, 
and that is owned by the American people. That spectrum is essential.
  As a result of the efforts of some swamp creatures both in and out of 
government, we came that close to having this spectrum, which belongs 
to the American people and is worth as much as $30 billion to $60 
billion, given away in a backroom through a private auction to three 
satellite companies that happen to be domiciled in foreign countries.
  The excuse given was that these three foreign satellite companies can 
conduct an auction themselves and allocate it to the American 
telecommunication companies that need it for 5G faster than the FCC 
can, even though the FCC has only conducted about 100 of these public 
auctions generating about $123 billion for the American people. Why? 
Because the American people own the spectrum that is being auctioned 
off. It is theirs. But there was a proposal that came that close to 
passing the FCC to just give this spectrum to these three companies and 
let them keep the $30 to $60 billion that the spectrum auction would 
have generated and let them decide who was going to get to participate 
in the 5G throughout our country.
  I thank the FCC. Fortunately, the FCC, at the last minute, said no, 
and I want to thank them. Hence, we have the legislation by Senators 
Wicker, Cantwell, Schatz, and myself, and the good news about the 
legislation is that it would require a public auction by the FCC of the 
spectrum that belongs to the American people. The auction

[[Page S7130]]

would be open to anybody who wants to bid. There would be a fair and 
level playing field, and it would be conducted in front of God and 
country in a public meeting. The best way to resist temptation is a 
strong set of values, a proper upbringing, and witnesses. There will be 
witnesses to this auction.
  What we cannot agree on is how much money, if any, to give to the 
foreign satellite companies. You ask: Why should we give them a dime? 
Well, the foreign satellite companies, the three companies to which 
this spectrum was almost given, are currently using this spectrum. They 
don't need all of it. They don't even need close to all of it, but they 
have been using it for a number of years. The FCC just gave it to them. 
They didn't pay a dime for it.
  Now, I am not criticizing. They put it to good use, but they don't 
own it. They don't have a license. They have sort of a 30-day, month-
to-month lease. That is the way I think of it. And the lease agreement 
says that the FCC can take it back any time it wants to.
  Since the satellite companies have been using the spectrum and they 
have customers, we want to be fair to these companies. Certainly, when 
we decide how to allocate the proceeds of the public auction in front 
of God and country, which the FCC is going to conduct, we certainly 
want to consider the satellite companies' interests. But I am not going 
to support giving them half of the money this auction generates because 
this money belongs to the American people. It can be used to extend 5G 
and other forms of broadband to those of us who don't live in major 
cities but happen to live in rural areas and are all still very much 
Americans.
  So I rise today to say thanks to Senator Wicker, and I mean that from 
the bottom of my heart. I learned so much from working with him. I 
thank Senators Cantwell and Schatz. We are going to keep working toward 
a compromise in a way that will allocate this money to everybody fairly 
and efficiently.
  I am going to end as I began--that first and foremost in my mind is 
the American people because the American people own this spectrum.
  I don't own this spectrum. The U.S. Senate doesn't own the spectrum. 
The three foreign satellite companies don't own the spectrum. The FCC 
doesn't own the spectrum. The telecommunications companies, for which 
we are grateful, don't own the spectrum. The American people own the 
spectrum, and the vast majority of the money generated by this public 
auction should go to them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, before I begin my comments about an 
upcoming nominee, I want to say in response to Senator Kennedy that I 
agree 100 percent. Thank you.


                   Nomination of Daniel Mack Traynor

  Mr. President, later today the Senate will have the opportunity to 
vote on President Trump's second nomination to the U.S. District Court 
for North Dakota. My friend, Dan Traynor, has been nominated and we 
will be voting on his confirmation to be district judge for our 
district.
  I have known Dan for a long time. That is why I was honored to 
recommend him to the President and pleased when the President nominated 
him earlier this year.
  Dan received his bachelor's degree from the University of North 
Dakota and his jurist doctorate from the University of North Dakota 
School of Law. He clerked for the legendary chief justice of the North 
Dakota Supreme Court, Gerald VandeWalle, before heading to Devils Lake, 
ND, where he joined his family's law firm and where he works today.
  Since that time, he has spent a couple of decades in various 
capacities, practicing various types of law, including being the 
assistant city attorney for Devils Lake. His extensive criminal and 
civil experience both as a prosecutor and defender in State and Federal 
courts and also in Tribal court are the main qualifications I think he 
brings to this important position. Again, I am honored to support him.
  He has tried about 80-plus cases to a verdict or judgment or to a 
final decision, which I think is very good experience for somebody who 
is then going to stand in judgment. In addition, the ABA gave him a 
unanimous ``well qualified'' rating. He has also been recognized since 
2015 as a ``super lawyer.'' In 2017 he received Martindale-Hubbell's 
``AV Preeminent Rating.''
  So Dan's academic record, experience, and qualifications are more 
than adequate to be a good district judge. What makes him an exception 
is that Dan and his wife Trish, who is an Air Force veteran, are 
raising a beautiful family and are what we call pillars of their 
community and our State. As for Dan's family, his mom and dad, Jack and 
Jane, I know quite well, and they are what we would call legends in 
their community and in our State.
  The bottom line is that Dan is eminently qualified in every way, 
including possessing the character, demeanor, and temperament, as well 
as the intellectual capacity, to be an excellent judge. I look forward 
to voting for him, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Bipartisan American Miners Act

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something very 
rare in Congress these days. On Monday--on Monday, after 4 long years 
of working hard through many uncertainties, Congress came together--
Democrats and Republicans--to secure healthcare and pensions for our 
Nation's coal miners. We did our job. This confirms to me that we can 
do so much more. This is so important.
  It was the coal miners of America who made us look beyond politics. 
These were hard-working people. They weren't Democrats or Republicans; 
they were hard-working Americans who built America.
  I want to give my sincere thanks to all of my colleagues for putting 
partisan politics aside and for rising above the divisiveness and 
tribalism in order to keep the promise that was made in 1946.
  Over 70 years ago, President Harry Truman recognized the importance 
of the workers who produced the coal for this country. After World War 
II, we had to keep this economy moving, we had to keep it churning, and 
we couldn't do it without the energy. Coal was basically the driver of 
this at that time, and there was a promise that the government would 
guarantee our brave coal miners benefits in return for their services. 
This agreement was a sacred promise between workers and our country, 
and it captured the very best of our American values.
  This week, we kept the promise by including the Bipartisan American 
Miners Act in the end-of-the-year funding bill. We kept our promise to 
13,000 retired coal miners and their families who will not lose their 
healthcare by the end of the year. We kept our promise to the 92,000 
coal miners and their families who will not see their pensions 
drastically reduced starting next year.
  Coal miners are the most patriotic people in America. They have done 
the heavy lifting. They have done everything that has been asked of 
them by this country. They provided the energy that made us the 
greatest country on Earth and the superpower--the only superpower in 
the world today.
  Because of what they have done for our country, we have won two World 
Wars. We have built iconic American cities, and we have a strong middle 
class. They continue to provide the resources that make us the energy 
leader of the world, all while advancing the American dream.
  The journey has not been short, and it sure hasn't been easy. In 
2015, we knew the United Mineworkers of America's 1974 pension plan was 
severely underfunded. Unlike other public and private pension plans, 
the 1974 pension plan was well managed and funded prior to the crash in 
2008--the economic financial crisis we had--which hit at a time when 
the plan was being drawn down more than ever because more people were 
retiring. The mining of coal, with the new automation, was being 
replaced, and a lot of miners were retiring out of it. This was coupled 
with the fact that many of the

[[Page S7131]]

beneficiaries are often retirees whose employers are no longer in the 
coal business--companies would shut down. In fact, there are only 
10,000 active workers for 120,000 retirees. It doesn't take a 
mathematician to figure out that this is not going to work.
  It placed the plan on the road to insolvency, and that was what 
started the collapse. If the plan became insolvent, these coal miners 
would have had their pensions cut, and the government Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation would have had to step in and assume billions of 
dollars in liabilities. That would have started a tumbling effect on 
all of our privately insured and private pension plans. That is what we 
were trying to prevent from happening.
  That is why I wrote the Miners Protection Act and introduced it with 
my fellow Senator from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito, and 
Senators Bob Casey and Sherrod Brown. It was bipartisan from day one.
  I was told to go through the regular order, which I did. In March of 
2016, Cecil Roberts, the President of the UMWA, testified in front of 
the Senate Finance Committee, and the Miners Protection Act was passed 
out of the Finance Committee in September with strong bipartisan 
support and the chairman of the majority.
  A month later, 16,300 retired coal miners and their widows received 
notices that their healthcare would be terminated by the end of that 
year. I knew--I knew we could not let Congress leave for Christmas 
without fixing it. This is a tactic that I haven't used. It is one of 
the rules and one of the privileges as a U.S. Senator that each one of 
us has. In December of 2016, at that time, I said I will shut down the 
government. I will make us go through the process and stay here as long 
as it will take to get this taken care of. I wanted to make sure that 
not one coal miner would lose their healthcare.
  Mitch McConnell would agree to nothing more than a 4-month extension 
on healthcare at that time. So 16,300 coal miners would have been 
forced to sit through the holidays and another 4 months of uncertainty, 
not knowing when it was going to come to an end. You talk about cruel 
and unusual punishment--that was it.
  Things started to look up, though. In January of 2017, I received 
assurances from then-President-elect Donald Trump that he was committed 
to finding a fix, but by March, 22,600 coal miners received letters 
telling them their healthcare would be terminated by the end of April. 
By the end of April, it would be gone.
  In typical fashion, Congress waited until the very last minute, but 
on May 1, we secured a permanent healthcare fix for 22,600 retired coal 
miners and their families.
  Although this was a huge win, we still needed to fulfill other 
obligations and secure the miners' pension because it was in dire need, 
and it was in jeopardy of being cut drastically. Now I was more 
determined than ever. I turned around and immediately introduced the 
America Miners Protection Act with Senator Capito, Congressman 
McKinley, and Congressman Welch to secure pensions for 92,000 coal 
miners. Now it was not only bipartisan; it was bicameral.

  In February of 2018, I was appointed to the bipartisan, bicameral 
Joint Select Committee. I had the task of solving the country's pension 
crisis, including our coal miners, with all of our other pensioners in 
our Central States who are in dire need of our help too.
  The United Mine Workers pension fund was the first fund in jeopardy. 
So I made it very clear during that--I said: If this starts tumbling, 
if this goes down, we will have to count on the PBGC, which basically 
is Federal Government funded, and if that happens, we are going to put 
that in insolvency. Then everything starts tumbling at a much faster 
rate, and it would be an absolute financial calamity for this country.
  Things came to a head in October of this year. Murray Energy declared 
bankruptcy just this October. The largest coal producer we have for 
union workers was the Murray coal company. They declared bankruptcy. 
Basically, that significantly sped up the deadline for pensions and 
truly put us in a debt spiral.
  Instead of going insolvent in 2022, which is what was predicted, the 
UMWA pension fund would now expedite--speed up to insolvency by 2020, 
next year. Not only that, but in between the time of securing 
healthcare and now three coal companies had gone bankrupt, putting 
another 13,000 more coal miners in jeopardy of losing their healthcare, 
1,000 would have lost theirs at the end of this month and another 
12,000 at the end of March.
  This bankruptcy, in particular, got the attention of many of my 
colleagues. I appreciate all of you so much, knowing how difficult this 
was going to be on so many people and their families.
  It was a call to action for Congress to step up to the plate and 
honor the promises made to our miners. In 1946, that was the only 
pension system in America that had the silver approval of Congress and 
the President of the United States--the only one.
  In November, I was proud to partner with a bipartisan group of my 
colleagues again, including the majority leader this time, which I am 
so appreciative of. It is an act that would introduce the Bipartisan 
American Miners Act that would secure pensions for 92,000 coal miners 
and their families and 13,000 coal miners and their families who would 
get healthcare. Even though that was good news, we still weren't over 
the finish line.
  On December 11, for the first time since I have been here--9 years--I 
put a hold on all Senate legislation. I said there is no way I am going 
to go home or anyone else is going to go home and enjoy Christmas with 
their family and New Year's when you have this many people in dire 
straits in jeopardy--people who built America. If we can't stand up for 
them, whom do we stand up for? So I said: This is what we are going to 
do. I was very clear. I telegraphed it by December 11. There were no 
surprises.
  After many negotiations with the House of Representatives and the 
White House, we finally secured a permanent fix in the spending deal, 
ensuring retired coal miners will not lose their healthcare or 
pensions.
  Throughout all of these years, thousands of retired coal miners from 
all across the country have come to Congress. I know you have seen them 
walking around. They have their shirts on, their proud green shirts, if 
they are working. They are walking the halls, meeting with every person 
in Congress they possibly can to tell their stories and meeting with 
every Member. The reason for that is, these are people who have truly 
given their heart and soul, their blood, and their sweat to this 
country, and they are just saying: This is something we negotiated. We 
didn't take the money home. We basically invested this money into our 
pension and our healthcare, and now because of a bankruptcy loophole, 
we are the last in line, and we lose everything. Something is wrong. It 
is not who we are as Americans.
  So we worked through all of this. They walked the halls tirelessly, 
fighting for what they earned, for what they paid for, and truly for 
what they deserved.
  This would have never happened without their relentless dedication. I 
have said this. They dedicated themselves religiously, for almost 4 
years, day in and day out, coming here--coming here at their expense. 
It has been the honor of my life to fight alongside them. I can't be 
more proud of anything I have been able to do in public service than to 
stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who have made America great. 
I feel so honored to have had that opportunity.
  I thank all of my colleagues, current and former Members of this 
body, who have stood with them throughout the years, even when the 
going got extremely tough.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of all 
of those who have cosponsored these bills.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Senate Cosponsors of Senator Manchin's Miners Pensions and Healthcare 
                                 Bills


    S.2788--Bipartisan American Miners Act of 2019 (116th Congress)

       1. Capito
       2. McConnell
       3. Jones
       4. Kaine
       5. Duckworth
       6. Brown
       7. Casey
       8. Durbin
       9. Warner

[[Page S7132]]

  

       10. Portman
       11. Sinema
       12. Van Hollen
       13. Reed
       14. Carper


    S. 27 as Amendment to NDAA--American Miners Act (116th Congress)

       Entire Democratic Caucus


              S. 27--American Miners Act (116th Congress)

       1. Kaine
       2. Warner
       3. Brown
       4. Jones
       5. Casey
       6. Durbin
       7. Sanders
       8. Warren
       9. Van Hollen
       10. Blumenthal
       11. Harris
       12. Gillibrand
        13. Markey
       14. Sinema
       15. Duckworth


        S. 1105--Miners Pension Protection Act (115th Congress)

       1. Capito
       2. Brown
       3. Casey
       4. Warner
       5. Franken
       6. McCaskill
       7. Nelson
       8. Warren
       9. Murray
       10. Kaine
       11. Donnelly
       12. Heitkamp
       13. Portman
       14. Whitehouse
       15. Durbin
       16. Heinrich
       17. Burr
       18. Sanders
       19. Booker
       20. Duckworth
       21. Wyden


         S. 175--Miners Protection Act of 2017 (115th Congress)

       1. Capito
       2. Casey
       3. Brown
       4. Kaine
       5. Warner
       6. Portman
       7. Tester
       8. Murray
       9. Sanders
       10. Durbin
       11. Franken
       12. Booker
       13. Donnelly
       14. Heinrich
       15. McCaskill
       16. Heitkamp
       17. Nelson
       18. Burr
       19. Sullivan
       20. Whitehouse
       21. Murkowski
       22. Warren
       23. Risch
       24. Duckworth
       25. Cotton
       26. Udall
       27. Harris


        S. 1714--Miners Protection Act of 2015 (114th Congress)

       1. Capito
       2. Casey
       3. Brown
       4. Kaine
       5. Warner
       6. Roberts
       7. Cotton
       8. Risch
       9. Rounds
       10. Burr
       11. Durbin
       12. Tester
       13. Kirk
       14. Portman
       15. Murray
       16. Sanders
       17. Boxer
       18. Franken
       19. Moran
       20. Sullivan
       21. Murkowski
       22. Booker
       23. Donnelly
       24. Heinrich
       25. Coons
       26. McCaskill
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, they have all recognized, just like 
President Truman, that our country would not be where it is today 
without them and that we needed to get this done--and we did.
  I want to give you a little bit of a background and history of why 
this is so near and dear to me.
  My grandfather came to this country--this wonderful country, the 
United States of America--in 1900 as a baby. He started working in the 
coal mines at 9 years of age. So he was able to get a fourth grade 
education before he had to go help support his family.
  In 1927, he and my grandmother had four children, and my grandmother 
was pregnant with my uncle. So she would have had four and three-
fourths of a child at that time. My grandfather would always tell me: 
Joey, we couldn't pay the bills at the end of the month. He said: I 
never did see any money because it was all script, and it went to the 
company house or the company store. So the old song lyrics, ``I owe my 
soul to the company store''--he truly did. He just said: We can't make 
it.
  He would go out, and he would tell people: We have to do better than 
this. We have no healthcare. We have nothing to look forward to and we 
can't pay our bills and we are working 6 days like dogs. He had a mule. 
Poppa had a mule; he had a buggy; and he had a carbide light.
  He would go in and have to do everything. He would have to, as he 
would say--he loved to say: Fire in the hole. He would always tell me 
that. Basically, what he meant by that is, he would have to go back 
into the mine. He would have to get a block of coal he was assigned to, 
and he would have to drill it. He would have to tamp it and put the 
dynamite in it, and he would pack it. Then he had to go back, and he 
would fire it. Then everything would blast away, and he had to get all 
the coal and load it by hand. This is what he did from 9 years of age.
  He was trying to improve the quality of life for all coal miners. He 
said: This is not right. Well, he fought for those rights of coal 
miners. It is engrained in my family history.
  The rest of the story is, in 1927--with those four children and being 
pregnant with Uncle Jimmy, because he was talking about improving the 
quality of life for the people who did this unbelievable work for this 
great country, at a time when this country needed it, and the 
industrial age was coming--on Christmas Eve, they came to the company 
house where he lived and rented, took all of their furniture and threw 
it in the middle of the street. They threw them out because they said 
he was an organizer.
  Papa was a survivor. He was just trying to survive, and he wanted 
other people to have the same quality of opportunity to survive. I know 
this is ingrained in me. Let me just tell you, when you saw these 
miners and you saw the fight they had in them, that is why. There is 
still more that we have to do. We have to do much more.
  If you want to stop this from continuing and repeating itself in so 
many different professions, we have to change the bankruptcy laws in 
America. We cannot allow the bankruptcy laws in this country that put 
hard-working people--that take money out of the paychecks of hard-
working people and let people from Wall Street come in and take over--
through hedge funds or whatever they do--and rob them and put them at 
the back of the line.
  Every working person in America who pays in out of their paychecks 
and their sweat and their blood and their hard work should be at the 
front of the line getting equal treatment, not just the financial 
institutions. That is why I am asking in a bipartisan way that we make 
sure we protect the people who continue to make this country go and 
make this economy turn. We can do that in this body and nowhere else.
  In January, when we get back from recess, I will be working with my 
colleagues to move this legislation through Congress because if we 
cannot continue to stand for American workers ahead of the almighty 
dollar and Wall Street greed, what in the world are we here for? What 
is our purpose? How do you go home and look at people? ``So sorry you 
lost everything. I wish we could do more.'' Well, we can do more. We 
just showed them we can do more for the miners. Let's make sure every 
working person is protected.
  I have always said that we must set our priorities based on our 
values. If you can't set your priorities based on your values, you 
better check the box in the morning before you go to work. We have done 
that with the fight for our coal miners, and we will continue to do 
that for all American workers.
  By working together across party lines since 2016, we have been able 
to secure lifetime healthcare benefits for 36,000 coal miners and their 
families. We have also secured pensions for 92,000 miners and their 
families. Most of these pensions are going to widows. Their husbands 
have passed away. Do you know what the average pension for a coal 
miner's widow is today? It is less than $600. She doesn't have a 
portfolio. She doesn't have investments in the

[[Page S7133]]

stock market. She has Social Security and that $590 pension, and they 
want to take that away.
  That is what we fought for. That is why every one of us should be 
proud, Democrats and Republicans. We did our job because we stood here 
as Americans. We stood here representing America, not representing our 
parties and our tribal interests and not condemning each other. We did 
this working together, and we can continue to do a lot more.
  Again, I thank all of my colleagues. I thank Cecil Roberts, president 
of the United Mine Workers, for being shoulder to shoulder all the way 
with us. I thank all the coal miners and their families, my colleagues 
in the House and the Senate, and President Trump for coming together to 
keep the promise that we have all made and that we should continue to 
make and keep.
  I thank you all very much from the bottom of my heart. Merry 
Christmas to all, and to all, a good night. This has been very 
emotional, as you can tell. I know what this place can do. I have been 
here long enough that I have heard enough.
  When I was Governor of the State and Bob Burr was sitting in his seat 
over there, I saw the good that came from him. It was basically all of 
us. Everybody in here has good in them or they wouldn't be here. 
Everybody came here for the right reason or they wouldn't have gotten 
here. This is not an easy place to get to, and by golly, when we get 
here, we try to do the right thing, and we did it. I can go home and 
you can go home, and we can be proud of what we did here. We finally 
did the job we were asked to do, and I want to continue doing that with 
you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                    Recognizing Government Employees

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I start by thanking my friend and 
colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, for his remarks and for 
his steadfast support for workers throughout the United States of 
America and for working to try to bring us together in a bipartisan 
manner to get things done in the United States.
  I rise today to give thanks to all who serve our country in uniform 
and as civilians. Even as partisan division and anger seem to reach new 
depths every day, Democrats and Republicans have remained united in our 
support and our high regard for our fellow Americans who honorably 
serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Those who serve have earned every 
measure of gratitude shown to them by friends and neighbors and by all 
of us here in the Congress.
  Other public servants deserve our thanks as well, but unfortunately, 
support for them is not nearly as unanimous or as universal. I will 
focus the remainder of my remarks on them. While they do not go into 
combat, they share the same dedication and love of country as those who 
do. Many of them also go into harm's way--law enforcement officers, 
diplomats in war-torn lands, smokejumpers fighting forest fires--and 
all of them swear an oath to our Constitution, just like our troops and 
just like Members of Congress.
  I am talking about Federal civil servants. These dedicated public 
servants, men and women, are not normally public figures, but the 
Nation saw their strength and their character at the witness table in 
last month's House impeachment hearings, Americans like Laura Cooper, 
David Hale, George Kent, Bill Taylor, Jennifer Williams, Marie 
Yovanovitch, all of whom have served in nonpolitical positions for all 
or most of their careers. All of them testified before Congress under 
subpoena.
  These are just a few of the 2.1 million Americans who make up the 
Federal civil service and the Foreign Service. They work together here 
at home and abroad in every field of endeavor and on behalf of all of 
us. For example, budding entrepreneurs can call on Small Business 
Administration loan officers for help accessing capital and foreign 
commercial service officers to help sell their inventions to the world. 
Farmers know that the Natural Resources Conservation Service employees 
can help them keep their land productive for the long term. Foreign 
agricultural service diplomats help American farmers make a living 
feeding the world.

  Yet, too many of our colleagues, including many on the other side of 
the aisle, have defamed public servants and now accuse those who 
testified in the House of attacking the President. That accusation has 
it exactly backward. The modern civil service was created after an 
attack on a President in order to prevent future attacks on Presidents. 
Yes, President Garfield was assassinated in 1883 by a disgruntled job 
seeker.
  In those days, each President handed out most of the Federal jobs, 
often based on political allegiance more than skill. Imagine if that 
system still existed today--small business loans going only to campaign 
aides, law enforcement protecting only certain communities that voted 
for the President, and farm assistance being denied to those who backed 
the wrong Presidential candidate. Countries today with corrupt systems 
like that are among the poorest on Earth. None of this came to pass in 
America because the President who came after Garfield, Chester A. 
Arthur, signed a law creating the modern civil service.
  Today, the President still has the authority to make political 
appointments to the most senior positions in the executive branch, but 
the overwhelming majority of positions are career civil servants who 
are hired based on merit, not political connections. The diplomatic 
corps was similarly professionalized in the decades that followed.
  Put simply, that swamp was drained. Now other swamps have arisen, and 
actions like campaign finance reform are badly needed to address them, 
but professional civil servants are not the problem. In fact, since the 
civil service and Foreign Service were created, they have risen to 
every challenge. They mobilized America's resources to protect the 
public health and to beat back the Great Depression and wage war on 
fascism and on poverty.
  Over the last half century, as the number of Americans they are 
serving has grown by more than 120 million, the number of civil 
servants has remained flat. That is doing a lot more with less.
  If problems arise in the conception or execution of Federal programs, 
they must always be acknowledged and they must be fixed. Congress works 
hard to do that, often with the help of whistleblowers who raise the 
alarm about great fraud, waste, and abuse.
  But some of my colleagues and our predecessors have made the terrible 
mistake over the last 40 years of systematically disparaging all 
``bureaucrats.'' This causes incalculable harm by turning good people 
away from public service and demoralizing those who are there. It hurts 
dedicated public servants to hear ``bureaucrat'' spat out as some kind 
of insult when the Senator or candidate doing so was probably more 
upset by the policies they were directed to implement than the civil 
servants implementing those policies.
  Of course, the attacks and criticism leveled against Federal 
employees in the past were a lovefest compared to the hostility 
demonstrated by this administration and this President--assaulting them 
with name calling, assaulting bargaining rights, and even moving 
offices 1,000 miles away to get people to quit.
  A new report by the Partnership for Public Service finds plummeting 
morale at the U.S. Department of Agriculture driven by a huge decline 
in scores at the USDA's Economic Research Service and the National 
Institute of Food and Agriculture. The Trump administration did not 
like the reports that those researchers at those agencies were 
publishing, and they punished them by suddenly moving their jobs 
halfway across the country and in the process lost hundreds of 
experienced, knowledgeable Federal employees in the area of 
agriculture. The vast majority of staff at those agencies lost their 
jobs when they decided not to move, and many of their jobs now remain 
unfilled. This has needlessly caused an upheaval that is delaying all 
sorts of reports on which those in the farming economy rely.
  This administration's hostile atmosphere has been cited as 
contributing to a 61-percent increase in civil servants resigning 
during the first 18 months of this administration, including almost 
1,600 leaving the EPA. Nearly half of our most senior Foreign Service 
officers left the government during President Trump's first 2 years, 
along with

[[Page S7134]]

many midcareer diplomats. Applications to the Foreign Service are at a 
10-year low during this Presidency--a hollowing out at every level. It 
will take a generation to recover.
  But as vicious as the attacks on Federal employees have been during 
the first 3 years of this administration, in recent months, we faced an 
even more insidious threat from a President who incites his followers 
to violence in one breath or tweet and spews venom against individual--
individual--public servants by name in the next. These verbal assaults 
have led to harassment of government employees, like those who appeared 
as witnesses in the House. The President's supporters have acted, in 
many cases, on his incitements. There have been at least 29 criminal 
attacks or threats prosecuted in our courts where the attacker was 
echoing the President's rhetoric, according to one analysis.
  This need to maintain support for our Federal employees is going to 
be especially important in the next several months when events will 
unfold that are sure to evoke strong passions across the political 
spectrum and around the country.
  First, the election season is heating up, as will, no doubt, the 
President's criticisms of those with whom he disagrees, and we are 
going to consider the question in this body of impeachment, as they are 
doing so today in the House.
  I know it is hard, but I ask my fellow Americans to set aside for a 
moment how they feel about the impeachment case. Set that aside, and 
think about the particular individuals who testified, what they did and 
what they did not say. Think about Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kemp, who 
learned four languages, not to seek personal wealth or personal glory 
but to advocate for our country. Think about being raised on stories of 
Nazi and Soviet oppression of your parents, like Marie Yovanovitch. No 
one could have faulted her for seeking a more comfortable life here. 
Instead, she ventured back out to some of the most dangerous parts of 
the world and sometimes at significant personal risk to herself. She 
went abroad to extend the American people's hand of friendship and to 
pursue our interests. She went as the direct, chosen representative of 
three Presidents.
  These public servants don't have the luxury of choosing the policies 
they pursue or of just speaking their own minds at any time. Setting 
aside the personal beliefs they may hold, all the public servants I 
have spoken to so far served America under both administrations of both 
parties. Even last month, they did not have the luxury of speaking 
their minds on subjects of their choice or at a time of their choosing, 
as we do right here in the U.S. Senate. No, congressional subpoenas and 
their duty to our constitutional laws compelled them to testify, not to 
opinions but to facts.
  The witnesses spoke about their love of country and pride in serving 
it. They did not speak about political affiliations or show any desire 
to undermine, let alone overthrow, this or any other President. They 
honored their oath of office, just as other dedicated civil servants 
and Foreign Service Officers do every day, striving to accomplish what 
Congress, the President, and their agency leaders ask of them.
  Nobody--nobody--who swears the same oath to the Constitution, as we 
do in this Chamber, should criticize them for honoring their oath.
  Far from a nefarious deep state, the depth of knowledge, the 
expertise, and the diligence of public servants show the depth of our 
agencies of government, the depth of our state. They are the ballast 
that keeps the ship of state on course.
  We believe that America's strength springs not only from the 
undisputed benefits of a free people pursuing their ambitions and 
dreams but also from sometimes harnessing those talents for important 
national purposes.
  We believe that America's greatness has resulted not only from a 
collection of individuals acting alone but from our capacity to work 
together for the common good. We should not see government as the enemy 
but as the imperfect instrument by which we can accomplish together, as 
a people, what no individual or corporation can accomplish alone.
  I ask my colleagues to stop, to think about what we have built in 
this country--a system of government that has helped eradicate many 
diseases, sent mankind to the Moon, built the infrastructure to connect 
the continent, and so much more. American ingenuity, harnessed to 
common purpose through government, powered these achievements.
  As we look to the future, let's consider what it will take to 
maintain our momentum and maintain our greatness as a united country. 
It takes people. It takes skilled people, and it takes, among others 
working in our free society, a dedicated public service. We will lose 
those public servants, as we are already seeing, if people keep 
attacking them.
  Let's ask ourselves a simple question. What kind of country do we 
want to be--a country that embraces all who serve, in uniform and out 
of uniform, or a country that retreats even further into tribalism and 
political echo chambers?
  I am proud to stand with our civil servants. In 2017, Senator 
Sullivan and I cofounded the Foreign Service Caucus to support our 
diplomats, a bipartisan start toward turning the tide.
  This week, we have taken additional steps forward with the passage of 
paid parental leave for Federal employees, and we will pass a well-
deserved pay raise shortly. There is so much more we can do. Senators 
can start right now and take personal responsibility for ushering in a 
new era of respect for all of our public servants. I ask my colleagues 
on both sides of the Capitol to stop the insults, stop the verbal 
assaults, and stop questioning the patriotism of these fine Americans.
  We can fight over programs; we can fight over budgets; but let's not 
speak ill of civilians who serve. Let's not hurl the term 
``bureaucrat'' as a slur. Let's not call people in certain government 
agencies ``scum.'' Let's disagree with witnesses without questioning 
their patriotism.
  Let's remember that those who join the Federal service do so out of a 
desire to help their fellow Americans and that they deserve our respect 
and our thanks. If we want to know what is really going on with the 
Federal program, we should be talking to our civil servants to get 
ideas about what is working and what needs to be fixed. They are always 
willing to offer their opinions for those purposes. If you want to root 
out waste, fraud, and abuse, let's keep open the lines of communication 
with Federal employees and whistleblowers. Remember that Federal 
employees cannot bargain for wages or benefits, so, instead, they 
bargain for a workplace that works better for the American people.

  On April 19, we will mark 25 years since the bombing of the Alfred P. 
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City--America's deadliest domestic 
terror attack, where 168 people perished, many of them Federal workers. 
As we honor all those who were killed that day, we must come together, 
across the aisle. We must reject the idea of politically motivated 
violence. And we must do it every day, not just on the anniversary of 
that tragedy.
  We can do this. I have confidence we can do it because we have done 
something like it before. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks our 
universal respect for our fellow citizens and aspiring citizens who 
serve in the military. But it wasn't always universally so.
  During the war in Vietnam, many of us remember how polarized and 
divided our country was and how in some cases disagreement over the war 
morphed, for some, into directing anger at our troops. This country 
learned from that mistake. We turned the tide. We came together. Now we 
have nearly universal agreement that it is wrong to blame 
servicemembers for carrying out decisions to go to war that they had no 
part in making themselves; that you can disagree with the war but still 
embrace the warrior.
  For too many of our colleagues, especially as we witness what is 
happening on the other side of the Capitol, that fallacy is playing out 
again today; people are blaming and attacking public servants for 
following the laws they are sworn to uphold, for obeying lawful 
subpoenas, and for doing their duty to tell the truth.
  I am an optimist, and I believe today's critics will learn from our 
past mistakes and correct our approach in the future, just as we 
learned after the

[[Page S7135]]

Vietnam war that it was wrong to criticize or focus our anger on our 
soldiers, even if we disagreed with the war they were deployed to 
undertake and fight.
  I hope we will take that same approach with respect to our civil 
servants; that we will understand and honor their service. I hope we 
will all then jointly proclaim that alongside the greatest military in 
the world, we have the greatest civil service and the greatest Foreign 
Service the world has ever seen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                       FIRST STEP Act Anniversary

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today to commemorate and 
celebrate the 1-year anniversary of a groundbreaking achievement. On 
December 18, 2018, the Senate passed the FIRST STEP Act. Three days 
later, President Trump signed this far-reaching legislation into law. 
The FIRST STEP Act is the most significant criminal justice reform law 
in a generation.
  I am proud of the work we accomplished 1 year ago on the Senate floor 
by voting it out of this Chamber with a rollcall vote of 87 to 12. This 
historic vote means a lot to this Senator, who then was chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee. In fact, in one of the conference rooms in my 
office in Washington, I have the official tally sheet from this bill's 
vote framed and hung on a wall. Now Iowans, advocates, and those who 
visit my office can see this piece of history.
  Our criminal justice system is based on the rule of law. That means 
when you commit a crime, you should be punished. But the punishment 
should fit the crime. If the penalty is too harsh, it doesn't do any 
more to deter criminal activity, and it is a bad value for our 
taxpayers when you keep people in prison if it doesn't do any good to 
have them there.
  Overly harsh penalties can also make it harder for prisoners who are 
trying to change their lives to turn over a new leaf. It is worth 
noting that almost all criminals are eventually released from prison.
  Our criminal justice system must do much more than punish and deter. 
It should rehabilitate and prepare prisoners to reenter society. That 
is exactly what the FIRST STEP Act does. It gives nonviolent prisoners 
an incentive to participate in programs in prison, such as job 
training, drug treatment programs, and counseling, which have been 
shown to reduce recidivism.
  The FIRST STEP Act also makes sentencing more fair. It leaves tough 
penalties in place for the worst criminals, but it reduces mandatory 
minimum sentences, giving judges the ability to tailor punishment to 
fit the crime.
  Today marks a very happy occasion and a time of reflection. However, 
we must remain focused on the future and implementation of that law. 
With vigilant and consistent oversight into the implementation of the 
FIRST STEP Act, we can ensure these goals of reducing recidivism and 
improving our criminal justice system are met.
  I have had the opportunity to meet with dozens of former prisoners 
who have been released because of the reforms in the FIRST STEP Act, 
and I also had a chance to meet with some of the families. These former 
prisoners are inspiring. They are finding jobs. They are taking care of 
their families. They are paying their taxes and contributing to their 
communities. They have told me that the FIRST STEP Act gave them 
hope. It reminded them that the rest of the country had not forgotten 
about them but wanted them to succeed.

  The FIRST STEP Act gives former prisoners a better chance at changing 
their lives. Every day, there are more success stories. No doubt, there 
will be some prisoners who don't learn a lesson and return to a life of 
crime, but the reforms we put into place have been shown at the State 
level to reduce crime by reducing recidivism. It is the right thing to 
do for people in the criminal justice system, but it is a good value 
for the taxpayers, as well, because it costs tens of thousands of 
dollars to keep people in prisons.
  As we commemorate the FIRST STEP Act, it is important to acknowledge 
that this was a bipartisan effort. A lot of people didn't think it was 
even possible, but we did it by working together and finding a way to 
work out a reasonable compromise.
  First and foremost, I want to acknowledge Senator Durbin. I guess you 
would call the two of us partners in crime. There is no better advocate 
for criminal justice reform than Senator Durbin, and this bill would 
never have passed without his hard work and willingness to forge this 
bipartisan compromise.
  I point especially to Senator Lee because he knows the criminal 
justice code inside out, and when we needed people to tell us what we 
could or could not do, what was reasonable, he had an answer. So I want 
to thank Senator Lee.
  I also thank Senators Cornyn, Scott, Whitehouse, Booker, and Leahy, 
among others.
  I also want to recognize President Trump and give a sincere thank-you 
to him and his team, particularly Jared Kushner, for the support and 
leadership in this space.
  Today, December 18, will always be an important day for me as a 
legislator. I look forward to making sure that this law is implemented 
successfully and to finding additional ways to improve our criminal 
justice system.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the McFarland 
nomination?
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), 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 56, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 402 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--38

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     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
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Sanders
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect 
to the McFarland nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered 
made

[[Page S7136]]

and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________