EXECUTIVE SESSION; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 38
(Senate - March 04, 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 S1609-S1617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Allison Jones Rushing, 
of North Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth 
Circuit.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                     Nomination of Chad A. Readler

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this week the Senate will vote on another 
of President Trump's hard-right judicial nominees, Chad Readler, of the 
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio.
  Let me just say, anyone who thinks the Republican Party has abandoned 
their embrace of eliminating protections for preexisting conditions 
ought to see how everyone votes on Chad Readler. It will be a surprise 
to no one that this nomination is proceeding over the objection of 
Senator Brown, yet another example of Republicans discarding the blue 
slip. Mr. Readler stands out in his own way. A vote to confirm this 
nomination is a vote to end protections for Americans with preexisting 
conditions.

  Mr. Readler is behind the Trump administration's decision last year 
to side with Texas and 19 other States with Republican attorneys 
general suing to repeal our healthcare law. Mr. Readler was not just 
somebody who worked on the case; he was the lead lawyer, filing the 
Department of Justice brief declaring that the administration refused 
to defend the laws of our country.
  In a brief so outlandish that career Justice Department attorneys 
refused to sign, Mr. Readler argued that protections for people with 
preexisting conditions should be eliminated. Mark my words. When this 
vote is cast, we will see how every Republican feels about preexisting 
conditions, their protestations to the contrary.
  Listen to this, folks. On the very next day after the brief was 
submitted, Mr. Readler was rewarded for his efforts by President Trump 
with a nomination for a lifetime appointment. On day one, Readler files 
the lead suit to eliminate protections for those with preexisting 
conditions, and on day two, he is nominated to the bench--a lifetime 
appointment.
  All 47 of us Senate Democrats are united in opposing this nomination, 
and we urge our Republican colleagues who claim to support protections 
for preexisting conditions to join us in voting to reject his 
nomination.
  He is not just some lawyer who participated. He is the chief cook and 
bottle washer of the case that hurts hundreds of millions of Americans. 
If you have a daughter with cancer, and you can't get insurance, if you 
have a wife or a husband who has a serious condition, and the insurance 
company pulls back, you are losing your protection if Readler has his 
way. Now he is going to get on the bench with a lifetime appointment 
unless our Republican colleagues have the sense and the courage to 
block him.
  On this vote, every Republican will be forced to show their 
constituents and the American people whether they stand for preexisting 
condition protections, for more Americans having healthcare coverage, 
protecting Medicaid, and all insurance plans covering maternity care 
and prescription drugs. Having failed in Congress to repeal these vital 
healthcare protections that American families count on each day, 
President Trump has turned to the courts. The decision by Mr. Readler, 
President Trump, and others in the Trump administration to side with 
Republican attorneys general who have declared our healthcare law 
unconstitutional is the latest example of the

[[Page S1610]]

President and Republicans trying to repeal our healthcare law.
  The Texas lawsuit is working its way through the courts now. If Mr. 
Readler's legal argument prevails in the courts, access to healthcare 
for children with asthma, adults with arthritis, and cancer survivors 
would no longer be guaranteed.
  Mr. Readler argues that preexisting condition protections like these 
are unconstitutional. We Senate Democrats think that is outrageous and 
extreme, which is why we are calling on Republicans to join us in 
opposing his nomination.
  In short, any Republican Senator who supports Mr. Readler's 
nomination is supporting the Trump Republican lawsuit to get rid of 
preexisting condition protections and to take away healthcare from tens 
of millions--if not hundreds of millions--of Americans.


                   Declaration of National Emergency

  Mr. President, now on the national emergency, over the weekend, Rand 
Paul, the fourth Republican in the Senate, announced his support for 
the resolution to terminate the President's national emergency, giving 
it the needed 51 votes to pass this Chamber.
  It is clear that Members of both parties know there is no actual 
emergency at the border. The President himself made clear, when 
announcing the state of emergency, that he didn't need to do this. When 
the President says ``I don't need to do this,'' he is saying that there 
is no emergency.
  By definition, an emergency is something you need to do; it is an 
emergency. In the President's own words, this is not an emergency. It 
is a political bone and a face-saving device for the President to throw 
to the rightwing, to show he is still fighting for the wall. It goes 
way beyond simply how you feel on the wall, pro or con; it goes to the 
fundamental building blocks of how this country was structured.
  Congress has the power of the purse. Congress is a check on the 
Executive. The Founding Fathers feared--probably above anything else, 
having dealt with King George in the Revolution--that an overreaching 
Executive was one of the greatest dangers to our democracy. That is why 
so many Presidents have respected and done emergencies only in the 
rarest of times.
  The last bunch of emergencies were either a war, 9/11, Desert Storm, 
diseases--real emergencies--things that affect our climate, disasters 
such as hurricanes and tornadoes, in terms of what has happened with 
our weather and our climate.
  If this coequal branch of government allows Presidents--whoever they 
may be, Democrats or Republicans--to just declare an emergency whenever 
they want to achieve a partisan policy goal, it will fundamentally 
alter the balance of power in this country in a way the Founding 
Fathers would be aghast at.
  My guess is if George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or James Madison 
were looking down on this Chamber, they would want us to rise to the 
occasion; that was the democracy they wanted. I don't know if we will.
  The Founders of this Nation gave the Congress one of the greatest 
powers any government has--the power of the purse. President Trump is 
trying to take these powers away, even after Congress rejected--
explicitly rejected several times--the money for his wall.
  We Democrats know this, and now it is clear that a growing number of 
Republicans know it, as well: To allow this emergency to persist is a 
change in the fundamental, necessary, and often exquisite balance of 
power that marks the genius of the American Constitution.
  I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle understand 
that. In fact, if you are a true conservative and not just a Trump 
acolyte, you realize that there shouldn't be too much power centralized 
in any place because conservatism, at its root, believes in maximizing 
the freedom of the individual and minimizing anything that encroaches 
on it, including an overreaching Executive. So to look the other way 
because President Trump wants this and because he is sometimes almost 
in a temper tantrum about this issue is so shortsighted and so 
detrimental to the long-term health, stability, and viability of how 
this balance of power works.
  Let us come together on this issue--Democrats, Republicans, House and 
Senate--and rise to the occasion. If Congress stands up, it will be a 
reaffirmation of our democracy. It will be a day historians will 
proudly note decades from now. It will be a reaffirmation of the 
democracy the Founding Fathers wanted.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, for decades, we have known that climate change is not 
only a major national challenge but an existential threat to our planet 
and to our future.
  Despite the gravity and scale of this challenge, one political party 
in the United States--the Republican Party--has largely denied the 
problem even exists, denied the overwhelming consensus of the 
scientific community, and denied most attempts in Congress to tackle 
climate change.
  Today marks day 18 since I first challenged our Republican leader and 
all of my Republican colleagues to answer these three questions: One, 
is climate change real? Two, is it caused by human activity? And, 
three, should Congress act immediately, strongly, to deal with this 
issue?
  We haven't heard an answer from the leader or from almost every 
Republican in this body. So let me repeat them again.
  Leader McConnell, do you believe that climate change is real? Leader 
McConnell, do you believe that it is caused by human activity? Leader 
McConnell, do you believe that Congress should take immediate action to 
address the crisis of climate change?
  I suppose it is not a surprise that Republicans are fearful to answer 
these questions. They know the public is on our side on this issue, 
overwhelmingly two to one. But the oil industry, which funnels tons of 
money into Republican coffers, much of it dark money, undisclosed--they 
are on the other side. That is why they are afraid to answer the 
question one way or the other.
  Today's Washington Post details how the denial of basic scientific 
facts surrounding climate change is amounting to a political litmus 
test for President Trump. Perhaps Republicans are avoiding answering 
questions I have posed for fear that the President would retaliate for 
siding against him and his radical views. There is no real, rational 
explanation.


                     U.S.-China Trade Negotiations

  Mr. President, finally, on China trade, we have seen reports in 
today's newspapers that President Trump is close to cutting a deal with 
China.
  I have given the President credit for bringing China to the table 
with his strong action on tariffs. He has done more to stop China from 
stealing our intellectual property and keeping American businesses out, 
causing tens of millions of Americans to lose income and millions of 
Americans to lose jobs. He has done more than previous Presidents. I 
give him credit.
  But if now--at the end of the day--he sells out, backs out, and just 
looks at trade balances and doesn't deal with the fundamental, 
structural ways China takes advantage of us, it doesn't matter that he 
put in the tariffs in the first place.
  The bottom line is very simple: China is our economic rival, and they 
don't play by the rules. They steal intellectual property by cyber 
theft, even promising that they will not. They don't let American 
companies come in and compete fairly in China, even though their 
companies can come here.
  My late father-in-law, a cabdriver in New York City, just like one of 
those Damon Runyon cabdrivers, said that when it comes to certain 
things, America is not Uncle Sam; we are ``Uncle Sap.'' When it comes 
to China, that is what we are. We have let them take advantage of us 
for two decades--two decades.
  Now President Trump has the opportunity to stop them, and the news 
reports today say that he is going to back off--back off--because China 
will buy some more product.
  China's buying more products will not change the structural problems. 
It will not change the basic erosion of American wealth and jobs as it 
flows to China. It is a temporary salve and nothing more.
  I care about our farmers; we have a lot of them in New York State. I 
care about companies that might be hurt in the short run by this, but 
unless we take some tough action against China, the hurt will be much 
greater and much longer.
  I say to President Trump: You stayed tough in North Korea, and it 
inured to

[[Page S1611]]

your benefit. The Democratic leader of the Senate praised President 
Trump for doing that. Stay tough on China. When it comes to China, 
don't let March be the month when it is said that President Trump went 
in like a lion and went out like a lamb, and President Xi, a darn good 
negotiator, figuratively eats our lunch.
  There is a generational imperative to get this right. The President 
and his folks must not squander the chance to achieve permanent reforms 
to China's economic relations with the world. This chance will not come 
around again for a long time, and American wealth, income, and jobs 
will ebb. This is one of the most important moments in the Trump 
Presidency.
  President Trump, stand tough. China can no longer be allowed to take 
advantage of us.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                    Tornadoes in Alabama and Georgia

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know the entire Senate joins me today 
in offering deep sympathies to the communities affected by yesterday's 
spate of tornadoes in east Alabama and Georgia. As first responders 
continue to search for survivors in the rubble, we know that at least 
23 innocent lives were lost to this disaster all in Lee County, AL. Our 
condolences are especially with their loved ones, and our gratitude is 
with the emergency personnel and local officials who spearheaded 
evacuation and rescue efforts.
  The people of Alabama are all too familiar with the pain caused by 
devastating storms like yesterday's. The entire region has been hit 
hard in recent years, seemingly by one disaster after another. They 
continue to brace against the threat of tornadoes and the flooding that 
so often impacts communities in my State of Kentucky.
  At every step of the way--from response and recovery to resilient 
achievement--Alabama has benefitted from the devoted leadership of 
Senator Richard Shelby. On the specific issue of disaster recovery, his 
hard work and steady hand have helped to lead the charge. When 
supplemental funding for natural disaster relief receives floor time 
here in the Senate, it will be thanks to the hard work of our 
colleagues like Senator Perdue, Senator Isakson, and others, and, 
certainly, Chairman Shelby.
  Of course, this is far from the only area in which Richard Shelby has 
delivered results for his State and for our Nation. For years, he has 
made a personal mission out of restoring and improving our Nation's 
infrastructure. He has brought wise and decisive leadership as our 
chief appropriator, and the State of Alabama bears countless signs of 
Senator Shelby's dedicated service--from supporting the missile defense 
and space exploration programs in Huntsville to helping to establish 
the National Water Center in Tuscaloosa, where researchers forecast 
floods and work to mitigate water-related hazards.
  It is fitting today to praise Senator Shelby's continued service. It 
also happened that, over the weekend, the senior Senator from Alabama 
became the longest serving senator in the history of his State. I 
couldn't be happier to recognize my friend Richard Shelby on this 
occasion, and I know each of our colleagues will join me in 
congratulating him on the years of faithful service to Alabamians that 
have made this recognition possible.


                              Nominations

  Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, this week the Senate 
is considering the nominations of three more well-qualified jurists to 
vacancies on our Nation's Federal courts.
  First is Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to serve on the 
Fourth Circuit. Ms. Rushing is a graduate of Wake Forest University and 
Duke University School of Law with high honors. In the years since, she 
has built a distinguished record in private practice and has held 
prestigious appellate clerkships on two Federal circuit courts and the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  I will have more to say on the state of our nominations process soon, 
but I hope each of our colleagues will begin the week by joining me in 
voting to advance Ms. Rushing's nomination later today.


                           The Green New Deal

  Mr. President, on one final matter, like many Americans, I have spent 
the past several weeks watching with interest as prominent leaders in 
the Democratic Party have engaged in a political footrace. They are 
sprinting--literally, sprinting--as far left as possible, as quickly as 
possible, trying to outdo one another. The result is that one of our 
two major political parties has begun embracing one radical, half-baked 
socialist proposal after another. It is really a sight to see.
  First came the Democratic Politician Protection Act, a sweeping 
Washington, DC, takeover of what Americans can say about politics and 
how they elect their representatives. Speaker Pelosi and her House 
colleagues were ready with that from day one in this new Congress. They 
chose it as their No. 1 ceremonial first bill of the year, H.R. 1. Let 
me say that this is quite a piece of legislation to hold up as the 
defining product--bear in mind, the defining product--of a new 
Democratic House majority.
  House Democrats are championing an unprecedented takeover of our 
Nation's electoral system--one that would overhaul campaign rules and 
make it harder for private citizens to exercise their right to 
political speech.
  It would replace private money in political campaigns with your tax 
dollars. Let me say that again. They take your private money 
contributed to a candidate of your choice out of the political process 
and replace that with your tax dollars--up to $5 million to any 
candidate that wants it--even, by the way, if it happens to be a 
candidate you disagree with. They are going to take your tax money and 
give it to candidates you don't agree with and swing the partisan 
balance of the Federal Election Commission, which has the final say in 
election regulations.
  Oh, and it all comes under the guise of--you guessed it--this is 
about restoring democracy. Now, of course, this sprawling 622-page 
doorstop is never going to become law. I certainly don't plan to even 
bring it to the floor here in the Senate. There are always improvements 
and reforms to be made, but this certainly isn't it.
  It does give us a useful signal of our Democratic colleagues' real 
goals--what they really want to do. Democrats look out over the 
landscape of America today, and everywhere they look, they see 
opportunity to seize money and power from American families and 
communities and pile it up in their own hands--you guessed it--right 
here in Washington. Taxing more, spending more, and Washington's 
seizing more power away from the people--that is the Democrat's hammer 
of choice. In every part of American life, they see a nail. In every 
part of American life, they see a nail.
  Just look at the Green New Deal. From what we understand, the 
American people can expect a government-mandated overhaul of every 
four-walled structure in America--a government-mandated overhaul of 
every four-walled structure in America--and, if that were not enough, 
an end to American fossil fuel and energy production from nuclear 
powerplants--of course, along with all the jobs that make both of those 
possible.
  According to background documents, there are plans for a government-
guaranteed income. Listen to this: a government-guaranteed income for 
those unwilling to work, all at the low price of an estimated--listen 
to this--$93 trillion.
  Of course, next came the massive one-size-fits-all government-run 
healthcare proposal--``Medicare for none.'' It strips everything from 
our seniors' Medicare Program but the name. It slaps that name on a new 
government-run plan, and they are so confident Americans will love 
their Democratic-designed insurance that they feel the need to outlaw 
competing private insurance altogether, just to make sure there is no 
competition.
  Democrats want to strip existing health plans away from middle-class 
families, even if they are happy with their current coverage, and, 
inevitably,

[[Page S1612]]

hike taxes on those very families to pay for it.
  As I have said, none of these things Democrats have pulled off their 
far-left wish list have a chance of becoming law in 2019. A lot of it 
almost sounds like standup comedy, but the underlying philosophy that 
all of this represents is no laughing matter whatsoever.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Declaration of National Emergency

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, despite what you hear inside the beltway, 
the challenges along our southwest border are real, and the people of 
Texas feel that impact every day along the 1,200-mile common border we 
have with Mexico.
  Last week, for example, the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley 
Sector arrested 1,300 illegal immigrants in a single day--the second 
time in 2 weeks they exceeded that number. In the same time period, the 
Laredo port of entry seized $2.3 million worth of cocaine and 
marijuana. Sadly, a father and son traveling from Guatemala nearly 
drowned while attempting to cross the Rio Grande but were saved thanks 
to the efforts of the Border Patrol. In a small town just north of 
Eagle Pass, a group of 90 undocumented immigrants--many of whom were 
women and children between the ages of 1 and 17--were apprehended after 
crossing the Rio Grande River. That was all in Texas last week.
  Last year alone, 400,000 people were detained coming across our 
southwestern border--400,000. Tens of thousands of unaccompanied 
children and family units were detained as well.
  These stories have become so common, somehow we have become 
anesthetized to the human emergency and crisis occurring along the 
border. Frankly, I do not understand why our Democratic friends have 
become completely apathetic when it comes to border security or dealing 
with what President Obama himself called a humanitarian crisis.
  A few weeks ago, we know President Trump declared a national 
emergency over this crisis, which would allow some funding to be 
shifted from other areas to support our Border Patrol missions. This 
decision was met with a great deal of pushback, some of which I believe 
is warranted and some of which I believe is not. I would like to 
explain what I think is warranted and what I think is not.
  For those, like some of our colleagues across the Capitol, including 
some of the Texas Democratic delegation--they call this a fake 
emergency. I couldn't disagree more. Just ask the folks who live along 
the border and deal with this each day. The scenes I describe are not 
isolated incidents; they are happening daily, weekly, monthly, and at a 
scale and volume that, frankly, are overwhelming the ability of 
officials and people along the border to deal with.
  Let's rewind to 2014. I alluded to this a moment ago. When President 
Obama was President, we saw an unprecedented number of Central 
Americans coming across the border claiming asylum. That year, 68,000 
family units were apprehended at the southern border--``family units'' 
meaning at least one adult and at least one child. That is what 
President Obama called a humanitarian crisis.
  Today, not much has changed except for the numbers, and it has gotten 
worse, not better. In the last 4 months alone, there have been nearly 
100,000 family units apprehended at the border. These are people 
arriving en masse by the thousands, sometimes called a caravan. We know 
there are dangerous drugs that come in at the same time every day, 
young women and children are being trafficked into sex slavery, and 
migrants are being abandoned by coyotes and left to die in the desert.
  So I don't see a lot of difference between what President Obama 
called a humanitarian crisis in 2014 and what President Trump in 2019 
calls an emergency.
  While I agree that there is a crisis at our border and that more 
needs to be done, I have been consistent in my concerns about the means 
by which this funding is being provided.
  This whole episode is completely contrived by the fact that the 
Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi--despite the fact that we had 
bipartisan support for the Secure Fence Act in 2006 and 2008, she all 
of a sudden decided, because the politics suited her, that building any 
additional physical barrier was immoral. The Democratic leader here in 
the Senate said that not one dollar was going to be spent for physical 
barriers along the border. We saw an impasse that resulted in the 
Federal Government or at least 25 percent of the government being shut 
down for 35 days. This was completely unnecessary and contrived. This 
was all about politics and certainly not about trying to find solutions 
to the problem.
  I have said before and I will say again that where we are now was not 
anybody's first choice--certainly not mine. We know that many 
legitimate concerns have been raised about the clear definitions of the 
role of the legislative and executive branches. It is clear under the 
separation of powers that Congress holds the checkbook. No matter who 
the President is or what they want funding for, it must be authorized 
by Congress. But when Democrats refuse to engage in a problem-solving 
process, as they have done over the last few months, it makes things 
much more complicated.
  We heard the Speaker of the House, as I said, refuse to provide more 
than one dollar for border security. The minority leader said that no 
additional money would be provided for barriers. The reason they made 
these statements isn't because Democrats are all of a sudden opposed to 
improved border security. As we have seen in the past, Democrats have 
supported those physical barriers. In 2006, the Democratic leader 
himself and a number of our current colleagues and then-colleagues, 
such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, supported the Secure Fence 
Act, but today, somehow things are different.
  Democrats refuse to come to the negotiating table, not because they 
are against border security, presumably, but because their political 
base dislikes the man sitting behind the Resolute Desk. This is not 
about the facts or the problem presented; this is about whether 
President Trump will be defeated in his attempts to get additional 
money for border security. As the President found out, it is pretty 
tough to find a compromise when your negotiating partners--the Speaker 
and the Democratic leader of the Senate--refuse to come to the table at 
all. So the President found himself negotiating against himself.
  I believe the regular appropriations process should always be the 
approved method, but, of course, Congress--and this should be a wake-up 
call to each of us--Congress has approved emergency powers as an 
exception to the normal process by which money is appropriated.
  While some are trying to make this seem like a constitutional crisis 
and some groundbreaking breach of power by President Trump, I don't 
believe that is true, because he is using the power that was delegated 
to the executive branch by Congress. In other words, he is not making 
this up out of whole cloth, like President Obama did when he provided 
deferred action for childhood arrivals. He said more than 20 times that 
he didn't have authority to do it, that there was no statute to 
authorize it, but he did it anyway. It continues to be litigated--now 
up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Here is what I found when this controversy arose, when we did some 
research. We found that Congress has granted the Presidency emergency 
powers under 123 statutes. This marks the 60th time the emergency 
powers have been invoked under the National Emergencies Act since 1978. 
So Congress is responsible for providing this exception to the normal 
appropriations process. Congress has done that 123 times, and 
Presidents have used those powers 60 times. That ought to put what is 
happening today in some larger context. Previous Presidents have used 
them for things like prohibiting the importation of blood diamonds from 
Sierra Leone or prohibiting new investment in Burma.
  Because the President's emergency declaration fits into the confines 
of the

[[Page S1613]]

authorities Congress has given him, this is not a constitutional 
crisis, in my view, as some people are painting it to be, but I am 
concerned about the process for a few reasons.
  One, as a number of our colleagues have pointed out over the last few 
weeks, it does set a precedent. A use of these powers in circumstances 
under which a conference committee has already come up with a dollar 
amount for border security that was ultimately signed by the President 
and he declared a national emergency on top of that in order to gain 
access to additional money--I do worry that this sets a precedent 
whereby a future President could abuse this authority.
  These 123 congressional grants of authority to Presidents--any 
President--are broad, and they cover everything from the military, to 
public health, to Federal pay schedules. Some are pretty unremarkable, 
such as the one that allows the Secretary of Transportation to waive 
vehicle weight limits on a stretch of Interstate 95 in Maine. That is 
one of the congressional delegations of authority. Others are more 
alarming, such as the one that would authorize the President to suspend 
a law prohibiting the testing of chemical and biological weapons on 
human subjects.
  What I find most concerning is that the definition of an 
``emergency'' is very vague and subjective, which means it is going to 
end up being the subject of litigation. Yes, lawsuits have already been 
filed in the Federal district court challenging this declaration of an 
emergency under these circumstances. This gets to my basic problem, 
which is that this is not a very productive way to actually accomplish 
the goal if you know that what you are going to do is going to be tied 
up in litigation for the next 6 months or a year.
  But I have to ask the question: Under these broad grants of authority 
that Congress has previously given to a President or any President, 
what would stop a future President from declaring a national emergency 
over climate change or global warming? I am concerned that we are going 
to see these emergency powers used as a failsafe for policies favored 
by the Executive--one who takes it further for a purely ideological 
goal that in no way comes close to a crisis or emergency.
  Yes, I also worry that some of the money that will be accessed under 
this declaration of national emergency is for military construction 
projects, many of which are located at military bases in Texas. This is 
not a case of, do we need border security, or do we need to provide the 
housing and infrastructure for our military--we need both. So the 
President and Congress should not try to rob from Peter to pay Paul.
  I, along with my colleagues, have fought for these appropriations for 
military construction because they are important to the ability to 
recruit and retain men and women who volunteer for the military, and 
their families. They are important for our national security. I have 
and I will continue to push the administration to not let these 
critical projects get caught in the crosshairs in this dispute over 
adequate border security funds.
  Third and finally, I suggest that Congress needs to look in the 
mirror when it comes to the situation in which we find ourselves. The 
only reason President Trump had the authority to do what he did is 
because Congress delegated it to him, just like it is delegated to 
future Presidents and has been to past Presidents under these 123 
separate grants of authority. I worry that Congress has delegated too 
much of its power to the executive branch.
  In the 1944 case Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld 
the internment of Japanese Americans--something unimaginable today, but 
in 1944, during the throes of the Second World War, it was something 
that was the official policy of the government. It went all the way to 
the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Robert Jackson--one of 
the three dissenters--said that each emergency power ``lies about like 
a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring 
forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.'' I agree with Justice 
Jackson's warning.
  If our Democratic colleagues are concerned about how this President 
or any other President will utilize the powers this body has given him, 
perhaps we should reexamine those powers rather than fault the 
President for using authorities Congress has already given to him.
  Despite these concerns, I believe the President is operating within 
the authority Congress has delegated to him. It is strictly because of 
the dysfunction in the Congress and our inability to work together to 
come up with solutions when it comes to border security or immigration 
that the President is desperate to find access to the funds he believes 
are necessary for the national security of our country.
  As I said, I think this situation reflects more on the dysfunction in 
Washington these days and the inability of Congress to work with the 
President to find bipartisan, commonsense solutions. I think we ought 
to return to those bipartisan, commonsense solutions rather than engage 
in some of the drama associated with this particular declaration under 
these sets of circumstances.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Declaration of National Emergency

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, on Thursday, I suggested that 
President Trump has sufficient congressional authority to spend the 
$5.7 billion he asked for in his January 6 letter to the Senate 
Appropriations Committee chairman to build 234 miles of border wall 
without resort to a dangerous national emergency precedent that could 
upset the constitutional separation of powers that goes to the heart of 
our freedom.
  I believe the President has clear authority to transfer up to $4 
billion among accounts within the over $600 billion defense budget in 
order to counter drug activities and to block drug smuggling corridors 
across international borders.
  On February 15, the President said that he plans to use $2.5 billion 
of this same transfer authority to build the 234 miles of wall along 
the southern border that he asked for in his January 6 letter. If he 
increases the transfer from $2.5 billion to $3.7 billion, along with 
the other existing funding authority that he has, he will have the full 
$5.7 billion that he said he needed.
  William E. Nelson, of New York University School of Law--one of 
America's foremost scholars of legal history--wrote an excellent op-ed 
last week that explained why it is so important that the President and 
the Congress should not, in Professor Nelson's words, ``invert the 
entire constitutional order where Congress appropriates and the 
President spends.''
  I ask unanimous consent that Professor Nelson's article be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

The Conversation: Trump vs. Congress: The Emergency Declaration Should 
                        Not Be Resolved in Court

  (Oped by: William E. Nelson, New York University February 28, 2019)

       President Donald Trump's emergency declaration to build a 
     border wall has provoked a constitutional confrontation with 
     Congress.
       Here is the background for understanding what's at stake--
     beginning more than two centuries ago.
       A major problem for the framers at the Constitutional 
     Convention in 1787 was how to create a presidency powerful 
     enough to protect the nation, yet constrained enough to 
     prevent a president from becoming a dictator.
       Ultimately, the president was given power to enforce the 
     law, conduct foreign relations and command the armed forces. 
     Congress retained most other key powers, including the power 
     of the purse and the power to declare war.
       The framers knew they could not predict all that the future 
     would bring. So they left the precise boundaries between 
     presidential and congressional power unclear. This 
     imprecision in our checks and balances has served the nation 
     well for 230 years because it provides the flexibility to 
     govern while preventing tyranny.
       As scholars of constitutional law and history, we believe 
     that President Trump's assertion of a national emergency to 
     build a wall along the Mexican border and the lawsuits filed 
     in response together threaten the very imprecision that has 
     helped maintain constitutional checks and balances for more 
     than two centuries.

[[Page S1614]]

       To best maintain that balance, this confrontation should be 
     resolved in the political realm, not in the courts.


                         The National Emergency

       But the lawsuits over the emergency declaration will 
     probably reach the Supreme Court, and the court might well 
     hold Trump's emergency declaration unconstitutional.
       That would set a precedent that would unduly limit national 
     emergency power that some future president may need.
       Alternatively, the court could decide the lawsuits in 
     Trump's favor. That would invert the entire constitutional 
     order, where Congress appropriates and the president spends. 
     It would undercut the checks and balances provided by the 
     framers and lead to an incredibly powerful presidency.
       Either result the court reaches would set a bad precedent.
       Congress can avert this problem.
       The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives Congress power to 
     invalidate a president's declaration of emergency by a 
     resolution passed by simple majorities of both houses.
       The House voted 245-182 on Tuesday to overturn President 
     Trump's national emergency declaration. Democrats were joined 
     by more than a dozen Republicans in the vote. The Senate will 
     now take up the measure, though a vote has not been 
     scheduled.
       White House adviser Stephen Miller has already suggested 
     that Trump would veto any such resolution.
       ``He's going to protect his national emergency declaration. 
     Guaranteed,'' Miller said on Fox News. Both the House and the 
     Senate would then need two-thirds majorities to override his 
     veto.
       We believe that for Congress to protect the constitutional 
     order, its members must muster the necessary two-thirds 
     majority.


                              To the court

       If Congress does not override the president's veto, the 
     lawsuits will probably go to the Supreme Court. The court's 
     decision has strong potential to do harm to the historic 
     constitutional balance.
       That balance was upheld by the Supreme Court in a crucial 
     decision more than 50 years ago.
       On April 9, 1952, President Truman declared a national 
     emergency. In the midst of the Korean War, he seized the 
     country's steel mills on the eve of a nationwide strike 
     because steel was necessary to make weapons. weapons. The 
     steel companies immediately brought a lawsuit against the 
     seizure in federal court.
       Recognizing the importance of the issue, the Supreme Court 
     heard arguments on May 12, and handed down its decision on 
     June 2.
       The court, in Youngstown Company v. Sawyer, rejected the 
     president's claim by a 6-3 majority.
       Justice Robert Jackson wrote an opinion proclaiming a 
     general approach to the balance of powers between Congress 
     and the president, rather than a fixed rule.
       Jackson declared that ``when the President acts pursuant to 
     an express or implied authorization of Congress, his 
     authority is at its maximum.''
       The president's power, Jackson wrote, is in a ``zone of 
     twilight'' when Congress has not spoken. When ``the President 
     takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied 
     will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb.''


                       President Against Congress

       President Trump is acting contrary to Congress's will by 
     appropriating money Congress has refused to appropriate. He 
     signed a carefully constructed compromise budget bill passed 
     by more than veto-proof two-thirds majorities in both houses. 
     He accepted the U.S. $1.375 billion that the bill gave him 
     for a border wall.
       He then broke the deal by declaring a national emergency to 
     allocate an additional $6.7 billion to pay for border wall 
     construction.
       In two important cases, the Supreme Court has broadly 
     prohibited Congress from giving any of its appropriations 
     authority or responsibility to the president--even 
     voluntarily.
       Congress's adoption of a joint resolution seeking to 
     invalidate Trump's emergency declaration--an explicit 
     statement of congressional will--would provide conclusive 
     evidence that would only strengthen the argument that the 
     president is acting contrary to Congress's will.


                 Preserving the Constitutional Balance

       If the case gets to the Supreme Court, the president's 
     lawyers might argue that for Congress to decisively oppose an 
     emergency declaration of the president, lawmakers must 
     override his veto by a two-thirds vote.
       Imposing such a veto override requirement, however, would 
     eliminate the court's role. That's because a presidential 
     declaration of emergency is immediately invalid if Congress 
     overrides a presidential veto.
       Two-thirds overrides are historically unlikely by Congress. 
     And requiring a two-thirds vote would give a president who 
     declares a national emergency virtually unlimited power to 
     appropriate money to his or her heart's content--perhaps 
     hundreds of billions of dollars to address, for example, 
     climate change by subsidizing construction of wind farms.
       Requiring Congress to override a presidential veto that 
     protects a presidential appropriation would turn the 
     appropriations power and the Constitution's checks and 
     balances inside out.
       Congress has already spoken through passing the spending 
     bill and will be considering a resolution to invalidate the 
     president's declaration of emergency.
       Such a resolution, even if vetoed by the president, places 
     President Trump's declaration in Justice Jackson's category 
     where presidential power ``is at its lowest ebb.''
       It also preserves the historic flexibility by allowing the 
     court's decision to give deference to the votes of Congress 
     in cases of claimed emergencies.
       This story has been updated to reflect the House vote on 
     Feb. 26, 2019, on the resolution to overturn President 
     Trump's national emergency declaration.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Rushing 
nomination.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Boris Nemtsov

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, on Sunday, February 24, thousands of 
people marched in Moscow and in cities across Russia to remember Boris 
Nemtsov, a Russian statesman and friend of freedom who was gunned down 
in sight of the Kremlin walls 4 years ago.
  These people were honoring a Russian patriot who stood for a better 
future--a man who, after leaving the pinnacle of government, chose a 
courageous path of service to his country and his fellow Russians. 
Boris Nemtsov was a man who walked the walk. When others were silent 
out of fear or complicity, he stood up for a future in which the 
Russian people need not risk jail or worse for simply wanting a say in 
how their country is run.
  Sadly, since Mr. Nemtsov's assassination, the risks of standing up 
for what is right have grown in Russia. With every passing month, 
ordinary citizens there become political prisoners for doing what we 
take for granted here in the United States--associating with a 
political cause or worshipping God according to the dictates of one's 
conscience.
  Last month alone, in a high-profile case, a mother was jailed for the 
crime of being a political activist in Russia. She was kept from caring 
for her critically ill daughter until just hours before her daughter 
died. Jehovah's Witnesses have been sentenced to years behind bars for 
practicing their faith. Also, a leader of a small anti-corruption 
organization was beaten to death with metal rods on the outskirts of 
Moscow. This was all just in February, and it is not even a 
comprehensive account of the Russian state's using its powers not 
against real enemies but against its own people--peaceful citizens 
doing what peaceful citizens do.
  As for the Nemtsov assassination, 4 years later, justice has yet to 
be served. It appears that President Putin and his cronies have little 
interest in uncovering and punishing the masterminds behind Russia's 
highest profile killing in recent memory. While a few perpetrators who 
had been linked to the Kremlin-appointed leader of Chechnya, Ramzan 
Kadyrov, were convicted and sent to prison, Mr. Nemtsov's family, 
friends, and legal team believe the organizers of his murder remain 
unidentified and at large.
  I understand that Russia's top investigative official has prevented 
his subordinates from indicting a close Kadyrov associate, Major Ruslan 
Geremeyev, as an organizer in the assassination, and the information 
linking Geremeyev to Mr. Nemtsov's murder was credible enough for a 
NATO ally to place Geremeyev on its sanctions list. Yet there has still 
been no indictment. Russian security services continue to forbid the 
release of footage from cameras at the site of the assassination. 
Russian legal authorities refuse to classify the assassination of a 
prominent opposition leader and former First Deputy Prime Minister as a 
political crime. Despite all of this, they have declared the case 
solved.
  Given this pattern of deliberate inaction on the part of Russian 
authorities, the need for some accountability outside of Russia has 
grown more urgent. Russia and the United States are participating 
states in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or 
the OSCE, and have agreed

[[Page S1615]]

that matters of justice and human rights are of enough importance to be 
of legitimate interest to other member states. Respect for these 
principles inside a country is often a predictor of the country's 
external behavior. So countries such as ours have a reason to be 
involved.
  At the recent meeting of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly, we began 
a formal inquiry into Mr. Nemtsov's unsolved murder and have appointed 
a rapporteur to review and report on the circumstances of the Nemtsov 
assassination as well as on the progress of the Russian investigation. 
As the chair of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 
I supported this process from its conception at an event I cohosted 
last July in Berlin.
  Yet, as the United States of America, there is more we can do. To 
that end, I am glad to cosponsor a resolution with my Senate colleagues 
that calls on our own government to report back to Congress on what we 
know of the circumstances around Boris Nemtsov's murder. This 
resolution also calls on the Treasury Department to use tools like the 
Magnitsky Act to sanction individuals who have been linked to this 
brutal murder, such as Ruslan Geremeyev.
  We hear constantly from Russian opposition figures and civic 
activists that personal sanctions, such as those imposed by the 
Magnitsky Act, have a deterrent effect. Vladimir Putin has made it 
abundantly clear that these sanctions, based on personal 
accountability, are more of a threat to his regime than blunter tools, 
such as sectoral sanctions, that often feed his propaganda and end up 
harming the same people we are trying to help in Russia--innocent 
citizens. To its credit, the Trump administration has done a better job 
than had the previous administration in its implementing of the new 
mandates and powers Congress authorized in both the Russia and Global 
Magnitsky Acts. We are in a much different place than we were when 
these tools were originally envisaged nearly 10 years ago.
  The administration is mandated to update the Magnitsky Act's list 
annually, with there being a deadline in December that sometimes slips 
into January. Now it is already March, and we have yet to see any new 
designations under the law that the late Mr. Nemtsov himself called the 
most pro-Russian law ever adopted in a foreign legislature. While the 
law has been lauded by Russian democrats, it is rightly despised by 
those like Vladimir Putin who abuse and steal from the American people.
  Recall that it was at the Helsinki summit late last summer between 
the leaders of Russia and the United States of America--perhaps the 
grandest stage in U.S.-Russian relations in a decade--where Mr. Putin 
himself requested that his investigators be able to depose U.S. 
officials most closely associated with passing and implementing the 
Magnitsky law, as if they were criminals.
  We need to show the Russian dictator that this sort of bullying will 
not stand and that we will continue to implement the Magnitsky Act 
thoroughly and fairly.
  A year ago, I participated--along with many of my colleagues in the 
House and Senate--in the unveiling of Boris Nemtsov Plaza in front of 
the Russian Embassy here in Washington, DC--the first official memorial 
to Boris Nemtsov anywhere in the world.
  One day, I hope there will be memorials to Boris Nemtsov all across 
Russia, but the best tribute to his memory will be a Russia he wanted 
to see, a just and prosperous Russia, at peace with its neighbors and a 
partner with the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Iowa.


                                Ukraine

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise to speak on Russia's ongoing and 
illegal occupation of Ukraine.
  Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Ukraine where I saw 
firsthand the effects of nearly 5 years of Russian occupation, 
aggression, and hostilities suffered by the Ukrainian people.
  Since Russia's illegal seizure of Crimea in March of 2014 and their 
subsequent invasion of eastern Ukraine's Donbas region the following 
month, over 10,000--10,000--people have been killed and many more have 
been wounded or displaced in the fighting. Hiding behind so-called pro-
Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, the regime of Vladimir Putin 
has indiscriminately targeted both civilian and military targets, 
across the line of contact, in flagrant violation of the Minsk 
ceasefire and the law of war. In fact, shelling was occurring just 1 
day prior to my visit to the Eastern Front.
  The Eastern Front, even saying it now, before my colleagues in the 
Senate, the phrase seems almost surreal and harkens back to a bygone 
era in which the Cold War dominated our political landscape.
  The first time I visited Ukraine was in 1989--1989--as part of an 
agricultural exchange program. The Soviet Union was on the verge of 
collapse, and the spirit of independence, freedom, and self-
determination was gaining steam. My gracious Ukrainian hosts didn't 
want to discuss farming. It was an agricultural exchange, but they 
didn't want to discuss farming. They wanted to know what it was like to 
be an American. They wanted to know what it was like to have freedom 
and be independent.
  Just like the oppressive yoke of authoritarianism dominated Ukraine 
in 1989, it once again threatens a people who have fought hard to 
create a nation of laws accountable to its people and as champions of 
human dignity, free markets, and democratic values. With our help, 
Ukraine has managed to hold the line against the Russian aggressors. 
Our security assistance, in the form of intelligence-sharing, special 
operations capacity-building, and, most recently, the delivery of 
Javelin anti-tank weapons, has enabled the Ukrainian Armed Forces to 
deter further Russian advances into free Ukraine and has caused the 
Russian military forces in occupied Donbas to pull their tanks farther 
away from the frontline.
  Unfortunately, Russia has found other ways to attack Ukrainian 
interests. In November of 2018, just a few months ago, Russian naval 
vessels opened fire and captured three Ukrainian ships along with 24 
sailors in international waters just south of the Kerch Strait. 
Demonstrating his contempt for the international rules-based order, 
Vladimir Putin is using his naval supremacy in the region to slowly 
strangle the Ukrainian economy, which relies, in part, on steel and 
grain shipping from ports in the Sea of Azov. While our military aid 
has been successful in assisting Ukrainian efforts along the line of 
contact in Donbas, future military aid must take into account Ukraine's 
need for defensive weapons and asymmetric capabilities to counter 
Russian aggression both on land and at sea. Only then can Ukraine 
adequately defend its people and sovereignty.
  In addition to hostile military action, Russian intelligence has been 
working to undermine the upcoming Ukrainian Presidential and 
parliamentary elections. Much like the interference in our own 
elections in 2016, Putin is seeking to sow discord, spread confusion, 
and undermine the democratic system that has taken root in Ukraine. 
This is indicative of Russia's global strategy, which seeks to drive a 
wedge between the United States and our allies, undermine democratic 
governments, and return to an era of power politics in which brute 
strength rather than the rule of law governs global interactions.
  China has adopted a similar, albeit more subtle and increasingly 
aggressive, strategy in Asia, with an overarching goal of displacing 
American global leadership. Thus, it is more important than ever for 
the United States to work by, with, and through our allies around the 
world to ensure a future in which our values of freedom, the rule of 
law, human rights, and free markets prevail for generations to come.
  Today freedom's frontier runs through the line of contact in eastern 
Ukraine. We must never turn our backs on a people yearning for the same 
freedoms we enjoy in the United States. Doing so not only legitimizes 
the actions of thugs--yes, thugs--around the world but will inevitably 
threaten our own rights and freedoms tomorrow, which many of us take 
for granted today.

[[Page S1616]]

  We are Americans, and we will always answer the call to preserve 
freedom while reaching out a hand to those who are fighting to achieve 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                          Tornadoes in Alabama

  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, people across the country and around the 
world today have seen the images of the terrible devastation left by 
tornadoes that touched down in Lee County, AL.
  Lee County is home to Auburn University, and so many of the wonderful 
constituents there have suffered mightily over the last 24 hours. As of 
right now, we know 23 people have lost their lives--23--and as we 
speak, rescue teams and first responders are still out searching for 
others who may have been hurt. We pray that we have seen the last of 
the loss of life, but that is to be determined.
  Already, this is one of the deadliest storms in our State's history, 
and Louise and I want to offer our most sincere condolences to all of 
those who have been affected by this horrible event. The youngest 
victim we know of was only 6 years old. My heart goes out to all the 
folks who have lost loved ones, who suffered damage to their homes and 
their businesses, and I ask that everyone pray for their comfort and 
healing.
  I also thank the courageous first responders who put their lives on 
the line time and again to help folks in need. Our rescue crews are 
working around the clock, and we are so grateful to them for the work 
they do every day but especially on days like today and yesterday after 
tragedies like these strike. These are our friends and neighbors who 
step up in the wake of disaster to help their community, sometimes--
sometimes--while struggling with the tragedy on a very personal level 
themselves.
  Unfortunately, this is an all-too-familiar sight in Alabama. We have 
seen our fair share of natural disasters. On a single day in 2011, an 
estimated 60 tornadoes devastated so many towns and cities, including 
Cullman, Hackleburg, Pratt City, and Tuscaloosa, killing over 200 
people. All of these have a way of being personal.
  That day was especially personal for my wife, Louise, who is from 
Cullman. I was out of town that day attending a judicial conference and 
called her as she was watching on television how her town was being 
destroyed, debris flying everywhere, and she could barely speak. She 
can still barely speak about it today. As U.S. attorney, in April of 
1998, I saw firsthand the devastating damage to the Oak Grove and 
Edgewater communities, where 32 people lost their lives. That 
destruction in Edgewater was especially personal to me because that is 
where my grandparents lived for so many years and where my parents 
lived when I was first born. I can remember walking that day across the 
slab that was left of the little church my parents attended when I was 
born, walking across with President Clinton. It is unbelievable to 
witness that kind of damage.
  Jacksonville, AL, is still rebuilding after a tornado severely 
damaged their city last year, including the campus of Jacksonville 
State University. Last fall, Hurricane Michael ravaged our farmlands in 
the Wiregrass in South Alabama, destroying cotton crops that were ready 
for harvest and 30-year-old timber. Yesterday's tornadoes touched down 
at a time when North Alabama is already dealing with historic flooding 
in Cherokee County.
  I mentioned, it just seems all too often these have a personal note. 
As I checked in with my staff last night, I realized that two of my 
staffers who are with me on the floor today, Garrett and Michael, also 
are from that area. They also are concerned. It is a horrible situation 
to be this far away, knowing what is going on in your hometown and not 
knowing whether your loved ones are in the path of that destruction.
  Alabama, however, is a resilient place, and we have an incredibly 
capable disaster preparedness and response agency, one that works 
around the clock when needed, but given all we have faced over the past 
year, we will still need help. While there is much yet to be done in 
the immediate aftermath of this storm, we know a full recovery will 
take a great deal of time and resources.
  So I am here tonight to ask my colleagues in the Senate to stand 
ready to help Lee County rebuild and heal. Disasters will strike all of 
our communities at some point or another, and that makes it all the 
more important that we work together when they do.
  To the folks in Lee County, AL, who have lost everything and who have 
lost loved ones in this disaster, I am in this with you for the long 
haul. I promise you that. I know things will never be the same for many 
folks, but I do promise that I will do everything I can to help.
  I have already been working with Senators Perdue, Isakson, and others 
to secure disaster funding for the 2018 storms that hit the Southeast 
last year. We are hoping that we can get an agreement on that bill very 
soon and get it onto the President's desk so those farmers can be ready 
for the next planting season that they are about to go into.
  In the days ahead, I am going to be working closely with colleagues 
here in the Senate to secure Federal disaster funding that includes Lee 
County, AL, because, despite the fact that we are in the early stages, 
it is easy to see from the photographs and the videos of the 
devastation that they will need it.
  We have been in touch with Governor Ivey and other local officials 
about how we in the Senate can best help. As the dust settles, we will 
be down there to try to make sure that our offices do what is necessary 
to help those fine people.
  In the face of all of these terrible tragedies, the thing that gives 
me hope is the strength of my fellow Alabamians. They are an amazing--
amazing--citizenry. From one end of the State to the other, they are 
amazing people who see tragedy, but they build on that tragedy. Yet 
they never lose hope. Even though an event like this can be incredibly 
difficult, I have seen the resolve of the people of Alabama, and I know 
that we will be able to rise and rebuild.
  Thank you.


                      Tribute to Richard C. Shelby

  Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks on that, but I would like 
to take one other moment.
  At this point, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my 
friend and my Senate colleague Richard Shelby.
  Yesterday, Sunday, March 2, he became the longest serving Alabama 
Senator in history, beating the record of the late-Senator John 
Sparkman, who was a Vice Presidential nominee.
  Senator Shelby's legacy in Alabama is unparalleled, beginning over in 
the House of Representatives, when he was first elected to this body in 
the election of 1986, taking office in January of 1986. He is leaving a 
remarkable mark on Alabama every day that he is in the U.S. Senate.
  There are so many things that the people of Alabama are thankful for. 
I can assure you, I am both thankful and honored to be in the Senate 
with him and to serve alongside him.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Tornadoes in Alabama and Georgia

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am from Georgia. Last night in Georgia, 
Alabama, and throughout the Southeast, one of the worst tornadoes went 
through that has ever gone through in history.
  Twenty-three Alabamians were killed last night; a number of homes in 
Georgia were wiped out and ruined. I don't think we had a death, but 
they had 23 in Alabama. The tragedies we are having in the Southeast 
continue to rise.
  In a few weeks, we are going to ask the Senate to pass a disaster 
bill to reinstate some of the agricultural money for the last 2 years 
for our pecan crop, our blueberry crop, and others.
  On behalf of the people of Georgia, I just want to say that we are 
having a tough time. Our agricultural community is in the most 
difficult time it could possibly be. We are going to ask the Senate to 
work with us to find appropriations that would make sense to bring back 
those pecan and blueberry farmers in Georgia, Alabama, and

[[Page S1617]]

South Carolina and to deal with the agricultural emergency we have had.
  We also say a prayer of thanksgiving for the great opportunity we 
have to live in the Southeast but also recognize that we are now ground 
zero for tornadoes and those types of death-defying acts that are 
taking place. We want all of the people in Georgia and Alabama to know 
that our prayers go out to them. We will do everything we can to make 
them right.
  Thank you.
  I yield back my time.
  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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time 
and call the previous question.
  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 Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to be United 
     States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit.
         Mitch McConnell, David Perdue, Mike Crapo, Johnny 
           Isakson, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, James M. Inhofe, 
           Thom Tillis, Roger F. Wicker, Lindsey Graham, Roy 
           Blunt, John Thune, John Boozman, John Barrasso, James 
           E. Risch, Richard Burr, John Hoeven.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on the 
nomination of Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to be United 
States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown
     Heinrich
     Murkowski
     Sanders
     Sinema
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
43.
  The motion is agreed to.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, all postclosure time on 
the Rushing nomination be considered expired at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 
March 5; further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
                                 ______
                                 

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                          ____________________