January 13, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 7 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S151-S159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the 
following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Peter Gaynor, of Rhode 
Island, to be Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Department of Homeland Security.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

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


                                  Iran

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been 10 days since the United 
States removed Iran's chief terrorist, Qasem Soleimani, from the 
battlefield. It has been 5 days since the brutal violence, 
recklessness, and failed governance that defines the Iranian's regime 
was put on full display with their shoot-down of a Ukrainian civilian 
airline and the death of all 167 souls on board.
  After a brief stab at a failed coverup, the Iranian Government had to 
come clean and explain that its own recklessness had killed more than 
80 Iranians, 63 Canadians, and the other victims. Despite the claims of 
supposed experts on Iran that Iranians would rally behind their 
oppressive regime, the truth is quite different. Instead, thousands of 
Iranians have taken to the streets to celebrate Soleimani's death, 
condemn the regime's domestic repression, call for regime change in 
Tehran, and denounce their government's feeble efforts to lay its own 
violence at the feet of the United States.
  According to journalists, here is one chant that has been ringing out 
on the streets of Iran: ``Soleimani is a murderer, his leader a 
traitor.'' Here is another: ``They are lying that our enemy is America, 
our enemy is right here.'' The irony is rich.
  As Iran's master terrorist, Soleimani himself led efforts to 
brutalize Iranian protesters who dared to challenge the regime. Just a 
few months ago, he boasted to Iraqi leaders: ``We in Iran know how to 
deal with protests.'' That violent approach is exactly why Iraqis and 
Iranians alike are now celebrating his death and denouncing the regime 
he helped lead. I am sure the mullahs regret that Soleimani himself is 
no longer around to help intimidate and murder their own citizens into 
silence.
  These protests aren't limited to Iran either. Protestors are back in 
Iraq as well--not phony, Iran-staged demonstrations but real citizen-
led protests across Iraq. Iraqis are demanding a government whose top 
priority is Iraqi's own interests rather than facilitating Iranian 
interference.
  Given the death and terror that Iran has wrought in the Middle East 
for decades, this kind of reaction shouldn't be a surprise, but 
strangely--strangely--it seems it has surprised many of our fellow 
Americans.
  Here at home, many on the left and in the media had rushed to 
reflexively blame President Trump, and not the Iranian regime, for the 
recent violence.
  After only the earliest initial reports, the Speaker of the House 
rushed

[[Page S152]]

to blame our administration for ``needless provocations,'' she said, 
and following Iran's shoot-down of the airliner, one prominent House 
Democrat characterized the regime's violence as ``collateral damage,'' 
resulting from America's actions--exactly how the Iranians themselves 
were trying to spin it.
  One Democrat running for President tried a similar, embarrassing 
equivocation. He said the civilians Iran had blown up were ``caught in 
the middle of an unnecessary and unwarranted military tit-for-tat.''
  For several days, you could not open a newspaper or turn on the 
television without prominent Democrats and so-called foreign policy 
experts setting aside decades of Iranian aggression to imply--or even 
say outright--that America, not Iran, was responsible for the cycle of 
violence and that President Donald Trump was the real villain.
  So we are faced with a remarkable spectacle. Even under threat of 
tear gas or even gunfire, the brave people of Iran are themselves 
displaying more willingness to criticize their own brutal rulers than 
we saw in the initial responses from some Democrats and so-called 
experts right here at home. It is a remarkable spectacle but a pretty 
sad one. I hope this can be a lesson to anyone who has let their 
domestic political grievances pollute their judgment of world affairs.
  It shouldn't take the brave Iranian people themselves to remind 
American leaders that Tehran has long been the force for bad in this 
situation, and the United States is a force for good.
  As I have said, the President's bold action has attracted significant 
criticism for Democrats here in Congress. It is the Senate's 
prerogative to weigh in on foreign policy, and I fully expect we will 
debate a War Powers Resolution from some of our colleagues very soon.
  I look forward to discussing the last administration's failed 
strategy that got us here. The Obama administration responded to Iran's 
violence and aggression with appeasement and retrenchment rather than 
pushback.
  I look forward to discussing the fact that senior military commanders 
did not just recommend the President take immediate action to disrupt 
Iranian plots against our personnel, they believed the United States 
would be ``culpably negligent'' if it didn't act to stop the plotting.
  I expect that some of the Democrats who have rhetorically embraced 
the intelligence community when it suited their political interests may 
now rush to criticize the career professionals. I look forward to 
hearing our colleagues who want to quibble over the word ``imminent'' 
explain just how close we should let the terrorists come to killing 
more Americans before we defend ourselves--just how close should we let 
terrorists come to killing more Americans before we defend ourselves.
  I assure you, if the President had not acted to disrupt a deadly 
attack, I am confident these same critics would have blasted him for 
failing--failing--to protect American lives.
  Just a few days before the strike, the junior Senator from 
Connecticut was blasting--blasting--the administration for 
``render[ing] America impotent in the Middle East.'' He complained that 
``no one fears us, no one listens to us.'' Naturally, after President 
Trump did take bold action, the same colleague has become a fierce 
critic of President Trump for supposedly being too harsh--too harsh. 
That is not exactly a model of consistency.
  Our Democratic colleagues were very happy to give President Obama 
wide latitude to engage in strikes where American lives and American 
interests were far less directly at stake than with Mr. Soleimani.
  Now the same Democrats who embraced the Obama intervention in Libya, 
for example, say it is a bridge too far for President Trump to respond 
with limited force to Iranian-directed strikes against American 
interests and personnel that have been escalating for months. OK in 
Libya, not OK here--the double standards are literally head-spinning.
  So I expect the Senate will soon debate Senator Kaine's War Powers 
Resolution. For a year now, I have wanted the Senate to go on record 
about our military presence and strategy in Syria and Iraq. I am glad 
my Democratic colleagues may finally be interested in having that 
discussion rather than ducking it.
  I don't believe the blunt instrument of the War Powers Resolution is 
an acceptable substitute for the studied oversight the Senate can 
exercise through hearings, resolutions, and more tailored legislation. 
So I will strongly oppose the resolution, and I would urge all our 
colleagues to consider what message the Senate should send to Iran and 
the world at the very moment that America's actions are challenging the 
calculus in Tehran for the better. We appear to have restored a measure 
of deterrence in the Middle East, so let's not screw it up.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. President, on Friday Speaker Pelosi signaled that she may finally 
wind down her one-woman blockade of a fair and timely impeachment 
trial. It has certainly been revealing to see House Democrats first 
claim that impeachment was so urgent--so urgent--that they could not 
even wait to fill out the factual record and then, subsequently, delay 
it for weeks. I am glad the Speaker finally realized she never had any 
leverage in the first place to dictate Senate procedure to Senators and 
is giving in to bipartisan pressure to move forward.
  In terms of influencing Senate proceedings, this strange gambit has 
achieved absolutely nothing, but it has produced one unintended side 
effect: The Speaker's efforts to precommit the Senate to carry on an 
investigation with which her own House lost patience concedes that the 
House case is rushed, weak, and incomplete.
  Let me say that again. By trying and failing to get the Senate to 
precommit to redoing the House's investigation, House Democrats 
admitted that even they did not believe their own case is persuasive.
  Think about the message it sends when the prosecutors are this 
desperate to get the judge and jury to redo their homework for them, 
and think about the separation of powers. The House, knowingly--
knowingly--declined to spend time on legal battles and due process that 
it would have needed to pursue the certain avenues. Now, after 
declining to fight their own fight, they want the Senate to precommit 
ourselves to wage these potentially protracted legal battles on their 
behalf. They wanted Senators to precommit ourselves to not only judge 
the case that House Democrats are actually going to send over but, 
also, to reopen the investigatory stage and maybe supplement Chairman 
Schiff's slapdash work. In other words, the President's opponents are 
afraid of having the Senate judge the case they actually are going to 
send us. They are afraid of having the Senate judge the case they 
themselves voted on. That alone speaks volumes.
  A few weeks ago, in real time, many Senators and legal experts tried 
to warn House Democrats that they were nowhere near a finished 
product--nowhere near--and that the Articles of Impeachment they had 
drafted were more like a censure resolution based on partisan anger 
than an actual impeachment based on careful investigation.
  The House ignored us at the time. They rushed ahead to meet a 
political timetable. Now they have spent almost a month conceding that 
their own case does not stand on its own and searching for ways to 
supplement it from the outside. This is exactly the kind of toxic new 
precedent that many of us warned about back in December--that Speaker 
Pelosi's House was not sending the Senate a thorough investigation. 
They were just tossing up a jump ball and hoping that the political 
winds might blow things their way.
  So here we are. The Senate was never going to precommit ourselves to 
redoing the prosecutors' homework for them, and we were never going to 
allow the Speaker of the House to dictate Senate proceedings to 
Senators.
  House Democrats have already done enough damage to the precedent, to 
national unity, and to our institutions of government. The Senate will 
not be sucked into this precedent-breaking path. We will fulfill our 
constitutional duty. We will honor the reason for which the Founders 
created this body: to ensure our institutions and our Republic can rise 
above short-term, factional fever.
  The House has done enough damage. The Senate is ready to fulfill our 
duty.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S153]]

  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.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has now been 26 days since House 
Democrats voted to impeach the President of the United States. This is 
a predictable ending to an increasingly embarrassing impeachment 
inquiry. Apparently, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Nadler, 
and others were in such a big hurry to get this done before the end of 
the year, they have obviously gotten cold feet because they have 
refused to present the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate so that we 
can have the trial.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, ordinarily, if you are presented with 
a situation in which the prosecution refuses to proceed to put on the 
evidence in the case, they are dismissed as a routine matter--dismissal 
for want of prosecution--or if, in fact, they do intend to present the 
Articles of Impeachment, there is a fundamental notion of basic 
fairness included in the guarantee of a speedy trial that is obviously 
being neglected, avoided, and abused by the Speaker and her leaders in 
the House.
  Our Democratic colleagues in the House rushed through their 
investigation in only 12 weeks, and it ended up passing Articles of 
Impeachment on a partisan basis. After repeatedly saying that this is a 
grave and urgent matter, it seems that Speaker Pelosi has experienced 
some buyer's remorse and has questioned just how grave and urgent it 
really is.
  Here we are, as I said, 26 days later, and she still has not sent the 
Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. As we know, even though some 
have suggested the Senate could somehow proceed to trial absent the 
delivery of those articles here, we can't try the case until the 
charges are delivered.
  Finally, last Friday, the Speaker indicated that she will transmit 
the articles this week. They will also have to name impeachment 
managers, Representatives from the House who will come over and 
actually present the charges to the Senate and attempt to produce 
evidence in support of those charges.
  It remains to be seen whether the Speaker will deliver the articles 
this week. She has been withholding them, as I said, for nearly 4 weeks 
now, claiming that it is part of her strategy to get leverage over the 
Senate, a strategy that has yielded no positive results.
  In fact, what we have seen is, the Speaker has zero leverage in the 
Senate. She runs the House; there is no doubt about that. But the 
Senate is a separate body. We don't take our instructions from the 
House, just as the House does not take their direction from the Senate.
  Before the House even voted on the articles, Leader McConnell said 
that the Senate should follow the same bipartisan framework used to 
guide the Clinton impeachment trial. I say ``bipartisan'' because, at 
that time, 100 Senators agreed to this path forward.
  The logic goes this way: If it was good enough for President Clinton, 
then it should be good enough for President Trump. Suffice it to say, 
the Speaker disagrees. Instead of sending the Articles of Impeachment 
over and letting 100 Members of the Senate decide how best to proceed, 
she chose to take matters into her own hands.
  Apparently, ``the sole Power of Impeachment,'' as the Constitution 
describes the House's role, isn't good enough for Speaker Pelosi. She 
is now trying to assume what the Constitution says is the Senate's 
``sole Power to try all Impeachments.''
  We shouldn't be fooled. Despite her claims, this is not an effort to 
create a fair process. A fair process would be like the Bill Clinton 
impeachment trial, which was agreed to by 100 Senators on a bipartisan 
basis. Our Democratic colleagues in the House threw fairness out the 
window months ago. This is Speaker Pelosi singlehandedly ignoring the 
express commands of the Constitution for her own perceived political 
benefit.
  Republicans aren't the only ones who think the Speaker has gone too 
far. There is bipartisan agreement that Speaker Pelosi should send the 
Articles of Impeachment over here forthwith.
  A number of our Senate Democrats have expressed their desire to get 
started with the impeachment trial. I think the senior Senator from 
California--our friend Mrs. Feinstein, same State as the Speaker of the 
House--summed it up best when she said:

       The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. . . . So 
     if it's serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn't, 
     don't send it over.

  Irrefutable logic.
  We are hearing from a growing number of House Democrats who have 
split from Speaker Pelosi and say that it is time to send the articles. 
For example, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said 
that ``we control it in the House, Mitch McConnell controls it in the 
Senate.'' Senator McConnell might disagree with that, but that is what 
the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee said. He conceded: ``I 
think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate.''

  With Speaker Pelosi facing increasing backlash from Members of her 
own party, including her rank-and-file Democrats, you can't help but 
wonder who is winning this game that she is playing. It is clearly a 
game. It is laughable to say that she is doing this for the sake of the 
American people or the Constitution.
  A new poll released by The Hill and Harris last week showed that 58 
percent of voters nationwide think it is high time for the House to 
send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate--58 percent.
  This delay isn't putting President Trump in a bad position. In fact, 
it is further proving the partisan motivations that have been driving 
the House impeachment inquiry from the very beginning.
  Speaker Pelosi obviously isn't doing this for the good of House 
Democrats. Their role in the impeachment inquiry is finished. As I 
mentioned, a number of her own Members think she is making a big 
mistake by holding up the articles.
  This clearly isn't giving our Senate Democratic colleagues a leg up. 
Several of our colleagues in the Senate have voiced their desire to get 
this thing going, as one has said. In fact, I think it is actually 
harming our Senate Democratic colleagues who are on the Presidential 
campaign trail.
  Can you think what Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, Senator 
Klobuchar, Senator Bennet, and Senator Booker--who, until this morning, 
were all vying for the chance to be President--are thinking about the 
desirability of sitting here in the Senate Chamber 6 days a week while 
the Iowa caucuses are coming up on February 3, the New Hampshire 
primary, South Carolina, Nevada, among others? The Iowa caucuses are 
happening just 3 weeks from today. New Hampshire's primary is the week 
after that. These Senators on the Democratic side who are running for 
the Democratic nominations have campaigns that are in high gear. I 
imagine the last place they want to be is in Washington, DC, sitting in 
this Chamber during an impeachment trial.
  During the trial, every Member of the Senate will be sitting at our 
desks, 6 days a week, until we are finished. And no, we will not have 
our electronic devices. I just saw a piece of cabinetry in the 
cloakroom where we will be required to turn over our iPads and our 
iPhones. This will just be us, not speaking--we don't have a speaking 
role; we have a listening role--sitting for hours each afternoon, 6 
days a week, until we finish this process. That doesn't leave a lot of 
time for our Senate colleagues who are running for the Democratic 
nomination to talk to voters in Iowa or New Hampshire.
  The longer Speaker Pelosi holds on to the Articles of Impeachment, 
the closer a trial gets to overlapping with those key dates. You have 
to imagine that our friends on the other side who are running for 
President are getting a little nervous. Cory Booker, who left the 
campaign trail this morning, recently said this trial could be a ``big, 
big blow'' to his campaign. Even a short, 2-week trial could mean 
``literally dozens of events we won't be able do.'' While that is no 
longer true for Senator Booker, it is for the remaining candidates.
  Senator Warren shared this same sentiment, and she thinks being in 
Washington would prevent her from

[[Page S154]]

being able to build critical, personal connections on the campaign 
trail. Had Speaker Pelosi immediately transmitted the Articles of 
Impeachment at the end of last year, it would have been the first item 
on the Senate's agenda when we reconvened in January. We could have 
used the Clinton model to guide the process, the same process the 
leader has promised since before the articles even passed.
  I can't help but imagine that the Senate and the American people 
would be close to putting this entire saga behind us, but, instead, the 
Speaker sat on the articles. She stood in the way of the Senate's duty 
to try the impeachment trial, and she stood in the way of President 
Trump's due process rights.
  The only people who seem to gain anything from this are the Democrats 
who are running for President but who are not U.S. Senators and, thus, 
aren't going to be tied up during the impeachment trial. Oddly enough, 
one of these candidates and his son are looming figures in the 
impeachment inquiry. If you are Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, or any other 
candidate who isn't a Member of the Senate, you have to be glad that 
the Speaker sat on these articles for nearly 4 weeks. Having your 
competitors stuck in Washington, literally in their seats, while you 
are hitting the campaign trail there--well, that seems like a pretty 
good advantage to me.
  The timeline the Speaker created is all but sure to interfere with 
the Iowa caucuses. It is remarkable that Democrats' effort to impeach a 
President of the opposing party could end up having a negative impact 
on the Presidential candidates of their own. All of this is to say, it 
is time to bring this embarrassing chapter to an end.
  Republicans and Democrats and the American people all agree that it 
is time to get the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate so that we can 
try the case according to our duties under the Constitution and the 
American people and the Congress can move on.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the President of the United States is 
charged with committing a grave injury to our democracy: trying to 
shake down a foreign leader to get him to interfere in our elections, 
using the powers of his public office to benefit himself and jaundice 
our elections. These are the kinds of actions the Framers of our 
Constitution most feared when they forged the impeachment powers of the 
Congress.
  The House of Representatives decided the President's conduct 
warranted his impeachment. The Senate's constitutional duty now is to 
try that case to the best of our ability with honesty, with integrity, 
with impartially, and with fairness.
  A fair trial is one that considers all the facts and gives the 
Senators all the information they need to make an informed decision. 
That means relevant witnesses. That means relevant documents. That 
means the truth. Without these things, a Senate trial would become a 
farce, a nationally televised meeting of the mock trial club.
  There is a reason that, with one exception, every impeachment trial 
of any official in the history of the United States has featured 
witnesses. That one exception was the trial of a fellow Senator in the 
18th century, and the question of his impeachment was dismissed on 
jurisdictional grounds before the issue of witnesses could ever come 
up. Every other trial has had witnesses. So when Leader McConnell talks 
precedent, he is talking about witnesses, plain and simple.
  The Democratic request for four fact witnesses and three specific 
sets of relevant documents is very much in line with our history. We 
don't know what those witnesses will say. We don't know what those 
documents will reveal. They could help the President's case, or they 
could hurt it. Regardless of the consequences for the President, 
Democrats are on a quest for the truth.
  At the moment, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans are opposing 
witnesses and documents, but they can't seem to muster a real reason 
why. Instead, Leader McConnell and the Republican leadership have 
labeled a Democratic request for witnesses and documents as 
``political.'' If seeking the truth is political, if doing our 
constitutional duty is political in the minds of our Republican 
colleagues, then the Republican Party is in trouble. History is not 
kind to political parties that fight to hide the truth. History is not 
kind to parties that participate in coverups.
  If anything, these absurd accusations by Republicans demonstrate just 
how unable Republicans have been to make an affirmative case about why 
the Senate shouldn't ask for evidence. The Republican argument against 
calling witnesses is basically nonexistent. The most commonly repeated 
talking point from the other side is that we should follow the example 
of the 1999 Clinton trial by deciding on witnesses after both sides 
complete their presentations.
  Republicans are so unwilling to argue against witnesses, they can 
only support delaying the decision, like a broken Magic 8 Ball that 
keeps saying ``Ask again later.'' Leader McConnell has represented his 
position as being fair and open-minded. He has said he is not 
foreclosing the possibility of witnesses--the Senate should just 
discuss them later. As I have made clear, this makes no sense from a 
trial perspective. Why should both sides make their entire 
presentations before even considering requesting evidence? Leader 
McConnell's proposal is completely backward and through the looking 
glass.
  Let's consider what, practically speaking, Leader McConnell is 
suggesting when he claims to be open to witnesses at a later date. What 
does he really mean when he says that?
  In the 1999 Clinton trial, the Senate waited 3 weeks into the trial 
to confront the issue of witnesses. Once they decided on three 
witnesses, with the support of several Senate Republicans here today, 
including Leader McConnell, it took time for the witnesses to be 
deposed and for the Senate to consider what they had submitted. 
Ultimately, the Clinton trial ran for 2 more weeks.
  I want my fellow Republican Senators to ask themselves: After the 
Senate concludes the part of the trial that Leader McConnell wants to 
get through, do you think he really wants to extend the trial by 
several weeks? Leader McConnell has gone on record and said that he 
wants the trial to span 2 weeks total. Leader McConnell has gone on 
record and said: ``After we've heard the arguments, we ought to vote 
and move on.''
  Are we to believe that Leader McConnell, after 2 weeks is up, will 
really have an open mind about extending the trial several more weeks, 
or does he want to delay the question of witnesses and documents until 
later and then, when the time comes, exert enormous pressure on 
Republicans to reject them to avoid prolonging the trial? He will say: 
We can't go on any further; let's just end it. Every Republican--every 
Republican--should ask themselves that question.
  Democrats are not advocating a lengthy and drawn-out trial. That is 
why we proposed handling this issue up front, so evidence can be part 
of the presentations and so we don't have to extend the trial 
unnecessarily. We have proposed a schedule that would save the Senate a 
whole lot of time.
  Before voting on a resolution that would punt the question of 
witnesses until after all the presentations are complete, Senate 
Republicans must ask themselves: What are Leader McConnell's true 
intentions?


                                  Iran

  Over the past 3 years, the President's impulsive and erratic approach 
to foreign policy has made America less safe and less respected. 
Whether it is Syria or North Korea or Russia, the President's actions 
have failed to advance our national security--in some cases, failed 
miserably.
  Now, after the aftermath of the U.S. strike on General Soleimani, the 
President and his foreign policy team have insisted that ``the world is 
a much safer place today.'' That is what Secretary Pompeo said. In 
recent weeks,

[[Page S155]]

however, the President's actions have increased the risk of Iran 
rushing to develop a nuclear weapon, weakened our ability to fight 
ISIS, and strengthened the hands of Russia and China in the Middle 
East, at America's expense. How in the world is the world ``a much 
safer place today'' than when President Trump took office? It is not.
  Every American should ask themselves this question: Are we safer 
today after these actions, with Russia and China on the ascent, with 
our ability to fight ISIS weakened, and with Iran rushing to make a 
nuclear weapon? Every American should ask this question.
  As we continue to grapple with the fallout from the President's 
actions, there are several points for my colleagues to consider. The 
Trump administration has not been transparent with Congress or the 
American people. The Trump administration did not consult with Congress 
prior to the strike on Soleimani and had classified the War Powers Act 
notification sent to Congress without any justification. There is no 
reason much of it should be classified.
  It took over a week for the administration to conduct a briefing for 
the Senate about the strike and then the briefers, top members of the 
administration, practically ran out of the room after only a few 
questions, putting the ``brief'' in briefing.
  Today Secretary Pompeo refused to testify in the House about the 
administration's decisions. On something as serious as the current 
situation in Iran, the administration's lack of transparency has been 
completely unacceptable. While the President has promised to keep us 
out of endless wars in the Middle East, his actions have moved us 
closer to exactly such a war, making the American people and American 
forces less safe.
  While I am thankful that nobody was hurt by Iran's retaliatory 
missile strikes last week, there are several reasons to be concerned. 
Iran can strike us in other ways in the months ahead with cyber 
warfare, proxies, or established terror networks that have destabilized 
the Middle East for decades. The Supreme Leader himself has said the 
recent strikes on U.S. installations in Iraq were just ``one slap'' and 
``not enough.'' Iran has also announced it will no longer abide by any 
restraints on its nuclear program.
  The President has tweeted ``all is well'' with Iran now. You would 
have to be delusional to believe that. It is sort of like saying North 
Korea is no longer a nuclear threat.
  In many ways, the President has made Americans less safe. 
Unfortunately, what is happening with Iran is typical of how the 
President has conducted foreign policy over the last 3 years--erratic, 
impulsive, and without regard for long-term consequences. As a result, 
the President's foreign policy is dangerously incompetent.
  We cannot say that any major problem area around the globe was better 
off than it was 3 years ago. Because of all this--because of this 
erratic, impulsive foreign policy--the Senate must not allow the 
President to proceed unchecked. Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution 
is needed now more than ever, and I am glad the Senate will consider 
the resolution this week.
  Senator Sanders also has a bill that would deny funding for a war 
with Iran. We should consider that legislation, which I cosponsored as 
well. As the situation with Iran continues to evolve, the 
administration must come back and finish what they barely started last 
week, keeping Congress briefed and up to speed with all major 
developments, troop deployments, and strategy.
  On matters of war and peace, for the safety of our troops, the 
security of our Nation is at stake. Congressional oversight and 
congressional prerogatives are not optional; they are mandatory.


                         China Trade Agreement

  Madam President, finally, on China.
  Later this week, China and the United States will participate in a 
signing ceremony for a so-called phase one of the trade agreement, in 
which President Trump has agreed to cut some tariffs on Chinese goods 
in return for temporary assurances with China to buy more agricultural 
products from the United States.
  After 18 months, the President's phase one deal with China is 
stunning in how little substance it achieves at such a high cost. It 
fails to address deep structural disparities in our trade relationship 
with China--disparities that will harm American workers and businesses 
for years. It also seems like this deal could send a signal to Chinese 
negotiators that the United States can be steamrolled and that 
President Trump can be played every time.
  Now, I have publicly praised President Trump when he has taken a 
tough stance with trade negotiations with China at some political risk. 
I have said his instincts on China were even better than President 
Bush's and Obama's. So I come to this as someone who is truly rooting 
for the President to succeed. For these reasons, I am even more 
disappointed in what President Trump has managed to achieve--or, 
rather, failed to achieve.
  According to public reports and by the administration's own 
admission, this deal does little to end China's greatest trade abuses. 
It does not secure commitments on state-sponsored cyber theft, China's 
massive subsidies to domestic industries, preferential treatment to 
state-owned enterprises or dumping Chinese goods into the U.S. market.
  In signing this agreement, President Trump removes our most effective 
source of leverage in exchange for mediocre, temporary agriculture 
concessions, which may not even come to pass, given China's past 
history. Essentially, President Trump is selling China the farm in 
exchange for a few magic beans--in this case, soybeans.
  The American people need to understand exactly what is in this phase 
one deal before the United States agrees to continue negotiations with 
China. So today I am sending the President a letter with a series of 
crucial questions: What commitments, if any, has China made with regard 
to its harmful government subsidy programs? What commitments, if any, 
has China made concerning their state-owned enterprises? What about its 
practice of dumping products into our markets or their state-sanctioned 
cyber theft? What help will be afforded to our farmers who have lost 
billions in the last 2 years, when China has already signed many long-
term contracts with other soybean producers in places like Argentina 
and Brazil?
  These issues must be resolved before we move forward, but I fear that 
after months of costly negotiations, President Trump--facing the 
election--has sold out American farmers, businesses, and workers in 
exchange for a photo op.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                              Impeachment

  Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, just across the street from where I 
stand today is the U.S. Supreme Court. That building has four words 
etched in marble above its entrance: ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
  The promise of those four words is that in our country, our system of 
justice must treat everyone equally regardless of their race, gender, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or 
socioeconomic status, but too many people in our country grow up 
knowing and experiencing that in America we have two systems of 
justice--one in which certain people are held accountable and another 
in which powerful people like Donald Trump escape accountability 
altogether.
  This has been true from the first days of our Nation's history, when 
a group of men gathered in Philadelphia to debate lofty notions of 
justice and equality, yet produced a document that literally counted 
Black Americans as fractions of a person.
  In the Declaration of Independence, we were told that ``all men are 
created equal,'' but we know that in our Nation's founding at that 
time, the policy of our Nation was to rob indigenous people of their 
land and their livelihood and to exclude women from the right to vote.
  So to make true the promise of America and move us toward a more 
perfect Union, people have organized and fought and marched for 
justice. From the suffragettes to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., those 
fights have won us progress toward a more just and inclusive nation, 
but, clearly, there is still more work to be done to achieve equal 
justice under law.
  When the determination of whether you sit in jail before trial is too 
often based on the size of your bank account

[[Page S156]]

rather than the size of your crime, we have not yet achieved equal 
justice under law. There is more work to be done when young people 
selling drugs on the corner too often become felons for life, while 
white-collar criminals face no accountability.
  There is more work to be done when regarding the sexual assault of 
women, the current President has said:

       When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do 
     anything.

  There is work to be done when the American people know that the rules 
aren't equally enforced against powerful people. Unless we acknowledge 
these truths, too many Americans will remain distrustful of our 
institutions and cynical about our government and our leaders.
  This is the point, my colleagues: We now face a choice. Will we 
insist that we have one system of justice that applies equally to all 
or will we continue to have two systems of justice in which some are 
above the law?
  Later this week, the Senate will likely begin the impeachment trial 
of President Donald Trump. This moment in our history will have 
consequences. The Senate is charged with deciding whether the President 
of the United States, with all his power and supposed wealth, will be 
held accountable for his actions and whether we will finally live up to 
the principle of ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
  This is why I speak to you today, fully aware that I stand on the 
shoulders of those who come before me in our Nation's ongoing fight for 
equality. I speak because I was raised by people who spent most of 
their lives demanding justice in the face of racism, misogyny, bigotry, 
and inequality. I speak because I have dedicated my entire career to 
upholding the rule of law and bringing integrity to our system of 
justice. I speak to ensure that everyone in California and throughout 
our country can enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed to them by the 
U.S. Constitution.
  As a U.S. Senator, I speak fully prepared to uphold my solemn oath to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to do 
impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, and to affirm 
that my first obligation is to serve the people of the United States--
all the people.
  I hope my colleagues can agree that our Nation's Founders had the 
foresight to create a system of checks and balances and anticipate the 
need to remove a President who might yield to foreign influence or use 
the Presidency for personal power and benefit.
  Our Founders feared that a day like this might come, and so they 
empowered the U.S. Congress with the tool of impeachment to hold a 
lawless President accountable.
  This week, after months of investigation, sworn testimony, public 
hearings and debate, the House of Representatives will likely send to 
the U.S. Senate two Articles of Impeachment. These articles charge 
President Trump with abusing his power for his personal and political 
gain and with obstructing Congress's effort to investigate his 
misconduct.
  In this trial, the U.S. Senate must not only consider the charges 
against the President but also conduct itself in a way that 
demonstrates to the American people that in our system of justice no 
one is above the law. Each Senator here must exhibit the kind of moral 
and ethical leadership that this President abandoned when he pressured 
a foreign nation to interfere in our elections.
  There is no question that President Trump's misconduct has left a 
vacuum of leadership in our country, and the American people are 
therefore rightly looking to the U.S. Senate to demonstrate that their 
leaders are worthy of the public's trust.
  The American people should expect their Senators to seek the truth, 
not cover up the facts. So let's honor our oath to defend the 
Constitution by doing the job the American people have entrusted to us.
  Let us ensure that this trial is a search for truth and that we 
follow the facts where they lead and come to a verdict based on all of 
the available evidence.
  Let us do our jobs and insist that we hear from Mick Mulvaney, John 
Bolton, and anyone with a firsthand knowledge of the President's 
misconduct. Let us demand that the White House turn over additional 
emails and documents that shed light on the President's motives for 
withholding military aid from Ukraine. And let us be clear that an 
order from this President to block evidence or witness testimony will 
itself be further evidence of his efforts to obstruct the U.S. 
Congress.
  The importance of this moment in our history cannot be overstated. 
What we do in this trial will show the world who we are as a country. 
Our actions will also send a message to further Presidents and future 
Presidents of the United States about the kind of conduct that is 
acceptable from the leader of our Nation.
  As the U.S. Senate, we must say that it is unacceptable for a 
President to shake down a vulnerable foreign nation for personal or 
political benefit. We must say with one voice that no President can 
disregard the legitimate oversight authority of the U.S. Congress, and 
we must say, as leaders of the United States of America, that in our 
system of justice, everyone--everyone--will be held accountable for 
their actions, including the President of the United States.
  My final point is that, years from now, people are going to judge. 
They are going to judge whether we rose to the solemn occasion that is 
the impeachment trial of the President of the United States, and we 
cannot be passive in this moment. I am mindful of Coretta Scott King's 
words:

       Freedom is never really won. You earn it and win it with 
     each generation.

  It is incumbent on this generation to fight for a system of justice 
in which all are treated equally.
  In that ongoing fight, we, as the U.S. Senate, must agree that we 
cannot speak about the ideals of equality and justice and then act in 
ways that violate those very principles. It is our duty, both as 
Senators and as proud Americans, to protect the Constitution, to earn 
the people's trust, and to prove to the American people that it is 
still within the power of the U.S. Congress to hold the President 
accountable. History is watching. Our actions here will shape this 
body's legacy.
  I urge my colleagues to have the courage, the foresight, and the 
patriotism to act in the interest of our Nation and its people. I urge 
my colleagues to fight for one system of justice in the United States 
of America and to ensure that no one is above the law. I urge my 
colleagues to reaffirm the most basic of American principles--that ours 
is not the government of one man but a government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people.
  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. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Nomination of Peter Gaynor

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today asking the Senate to confirm 
the nomination of Mr. Peter Gaynor to be the Administrator of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. The FEMA Administrator serves as 
the principal adviser to the President, the Homeland Security Council, 
and the Secretary of Homeland Security for all matters related to 
emergency management.


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

  
  On page S156, January 13, 2020, third column, the following 
appears: Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER 
(Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so ordered. NOMINATION OF 
PETER GAYNOR Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today asking the 
Senate to confirm the . . .
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without 
objection, it is so ordered. NOMINATION OF PETER GAYNOR Mr. 
JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today asking the Senate to confirm 
the . . .


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


  The Administrator's principal duties include the operation of the 
National Response Coordination Center and the effective support of all 
emergency support functions. More broadly, the Administrator 
coordinates the implementation of a risk-based, all-hazards strategy to 
prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from natural 
disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters.
  The Agency has over 20,000 employees and a surge capacity force of 
over 9,000 volunteers to respond during local and national emergencies, 
working around the clock when necessary.
  The President's nominee to head FEMA, Mr. Peter Gaynor, has extensive 
experience at the local, State, and Federal emergency management 
levels. In 2018, the Senate confirmed Mr. Gaynor as the Deputy 
Administrator of FEMA, and for most of last year he served as the 
Acting Administrator.

[[Page S157]]

Prior to Federal service, he was the director of Rhode Island's 
Emergency Management Agency. For 26 years prior to his service in 
emergency management positions, Mr. Gaynor served as an enlisted marine 
and infantry officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.
  Mr. Gaynor's experience will be valuable as FEMA works to implement 
the Disaster Recovery Reform Act. A primary goal of that legislation is 
to help ensure that the model for response to and recovery from natural 
and manmade disasters is one that is locally executed, State managed, 
and federally supported.
  I am pleased to say that Mr. Gaynor's nomination has broad bipartisan 
support. Our committee approved his nomination by voice vote in 
November. Among others, he has received endorsements from Rhode Island 
Governor Gina Raimondo, Senator Jack Reed, Big City Emergency Managers, 
and the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
  I am grateful to Mr. Gaynor for his willingness to continue serving 
his country in this role and to his family for their continued 
sacrifice. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote yes on his 
nomination.
  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 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 Peter Gaynor, of Rhode Island, to be Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
     Security.
         Mitch McConnell, John Thune, Ron Johnson, Mike Rounds, 
           Richard Burr, Kevin Cramer, Pat Roberts, Roger F. 
           Wicker, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Thom Tillis, John Cornyn, Tim 
           Scott, Mike Crapo, Steve Daines, John Boozman, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, James E. Risch.

  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 Peter Gaynor, of Rhode Island, to be Administrator of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Cramer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Scott), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 76, nays 8, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Ex.]

                                YEAS--76

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--8

     Brown
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Menendez
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bennet
     Booker
     Cassidy
     Cramer
     Durbin
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Risch
     Sanders
     Scott (SC)
     Toomey
     Warner
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are 8.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with my colleagues from Rhode Island and New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Save Our Seas 2.0

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am sure all of my colleagues are going 
to want to listen to this speech. I am on the floor with my colleagues 
Senator Whitehouse and Senator Menendez to talk about some very 
important legislation for our country, legislation that passed the 
Senate last week. It is the Save Our Seas 2.0 legislation.
  I begin by thanking Senator Whitehouse and Senator Menendez for their 
leadership on this bill.
  We are going to talk a little bit about the importance of it, why it 
matters to Alaska, to New Jersey, to Rhode Island, and to the whole 
country. This is a significant piece of legislation. It is, really, the 
most comprehensive piece of legislation to pass the Congress--to pass 
the Senate--that has dealt with ocean debris and ocean pollution--ever. 
That sounds like a pretty hyperbolic phrase, but it is true. We checked 
with the CRS. There has been nothing more comprehensive than this piece 
of legislation that tackles an issue we all care about--clean oceans.
  As a matter of fact, on Thursday night, 100 Senators passed this 
after there having been a lot of work on the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, on the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, and on the Committee on Foreign Relations. After about a year of 
work on this, we finally got it passed. A number of Senators--Democrats 
and Republicans--were cosponsors. I really want to thank the two 
Senators who are on the floor right now. In particular, Senator 
Whitehouse has been a real leader on these issues that deal with 
oceans. This is an environmental issue that we can solve. Republicans 
and Democrats in the Congress, the Trump administration in the White 
House, and environmental and industry groups are all pulling on the 
same oar, and we had a good start last Thursday on what this does.
  I want to turn it over to my colleague from Rhode Island because, in 
many ways, he has been the real leader, the driver, and is the founder 
of the Oceans Caucus. Bit by bit, legislation by legislation, he and I 
cosponsored the first Save Our Seas Act in the last Congress. To much 
fanfare in the Oval Office, the President signed it, and now you are 
starting to see people work on this. There is a whole section in the 
USMCA on cleaning up our oceans. We have gone from Save Our Seas 1.0, 
which has already passed into law, to Save Our Seas 2.0. I think it is 
exciting, and I think the American people don't always hear about the 
bipartisan work that is actually getting done on big issues that matter 
to our Nation. There is a lot.
  Cleaning up our oceans is one that matters to everybody and, 
certainly, to my State, with its having more coastline than the rest of 
the lower 48 combined. You don't even have to live in a coastal State 
to care about this issue. Some of our cosponsors on this bill--on both 
sides of the aisle--are from States that don't even have any coastline. 
That is how important it is.
  I want to turn it over to Senator Whitehouse. I thank him for his and 
Senator Menendez' leadership. We will talk a little bit about what is 
in it and what we are going to do next. This is a good day for the 
environment in America. It is a good day for the oceans not just in our 
country, not just in Alaska, not just in Rhode Island but in the world. 
As a nation, if we are leading on this, which this legislation does, 
then we are going to be able to help clean up our oceans all over the 
world. We had a

[[Page S158]]

good start here on Thursday night in the U.S. Senate when we passed 
this bill legislatively unanimously.
  Again, to my colleague from Rhode Island, the floor is his.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a bunch of 
thank-yous after Thursday evening's happy news that Save Our Seas 2.0 
passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent.
  I thank all of the Senate Members of our bipartisan Oceans Caucus. 
The Oceans Caucus has been a really good forum for getting these bills 
moving to a point at which they can pass by unanimous consent. I and 
Senator Murkowski, who is Senator Sullivan's colleague from Alaska, set 
it up years ago. It now has over 40 Members. It is very bipartisan, and 
it has had a really important role in moving bipartisan oceans 
legislation.
  So, Oceans Caucus, thank you.
  This bill, Save Our Seas 2.0, had to go through three committees. It 
had to go through Commerce, Foreign Relations, and Environment and 
Public Works. Let me start in reverse order because Senator Barrasso, 
the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, is here 
on the Senate floor. I express my appreciation to him and my 
appreciation to our ranking member, Senator Carper, for having 
shepherded this through the committee with unanimous committee support, 
and that gave it a lot of momentum to go on to Foreign Relations and to 
Commerce.
  So, my friend Senator Barrasso, thank you, sir. I do appreciate it 
very much. I think this is a score, a good win. A good deed was done 
here.
  Foreign Relations was also very important, and Senator Menendez, our 
ranking member, is about to speak, so I will not steal his thunder. He 
has been an incredibly valuable part of this triumvirate, and I am 
extremely grateful to Senator Menendez.
  Also, on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
Senators Wicker and Cantwell were very helpful about making sure this 
got through Commerce and were helpful once it was on the floor.
  Most of all, though, my thanks go to Senator Sullivan, of Alaska. We 
started down this road quite some time ago. We tentatively got into the 
space of ocean plastic waste with a simple hearing in the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works. He had an essential role in making that 
happen because there was a turf conflict between our subcommittee and 
the EPW and the Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather 
within the Commerce Committee.
  Now, if you are not from the Senate, you think that this is all crazy 
talk, but if you are in the Senate, it is a really serious problem to 
have to resolve. We had the very good fortune of having the chairman of 
the Fisheries Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee and the chairman 
of our subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee being 
the same individual, none other than Senator Dan Sullivan. So he went 
out and had a nice debate with himself and was able to negotiate a 
happy resolution of that turf dispute, and the hearing went forward. 
Without that, it never would have happened. So that was the opening 
bid.
  Then we got to 1.0, which, admittedly, was not a very big bill, but 
it was going to test the proposition: Was the Senate willing to 
legislate on marine plastic waste? Yes. We got a big, booming, 100-vote 
support for that in the Senate. Senator Sullivan was so happy with that 
outcome that we immediately went to work on crafting 2.0, which, as 
Senator Sullivan has pointed out, is not just a beachhead but is 
significant marine plastic waste legislation. It will push the 
administration to do a lot more, for more than half of the waste in the 
oceans comes from 5 Asian countries, and more than 80 percent of the 
waste in the oceans comes from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa. This is a 
solvable problem if we direct attention and resources and solutions to 
that problem, and I am really looking forward to following up on that.
  I am really looking forward to getting right to work on Save Our Seas 
3.0 because we are not done here. There is a lot of plastic mess out 
there to clean up, and there is a lot of energy around getting even 
more done.
  So, Senator Sullivan, you have my great appreciation.
  I will close, if I may, with one unlikely thank-you. As Senator 
Sullivan mentioned, this reminded me that there are Senators who 
supported this who don't even have coasts. They are from those square 
end States in the middle of the country that don't have coasts. One of 
them who has been very important to this has been Senator Inhofe, of 
Oklahoma.
  Now, on climate change, Senator Inhofe and I are at each other's 
throats pretty much all of the time. We are always having fights about 
climate change. I call him a climate denier, and he calls me a climate 
alarmist. We go back and forth, fighting about climate change. Yet, on 
this, he has been an essential ally, and having his support has sent, I 
think, a terrific signal to the Senate that, hey, if Senator Whitehouse 
and Senator Inhofe can agree on this, there is room for me in there 
somewhere.
  And so a final thank you to Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, but the 
biggest thank you, of course, is to Senator Sullivan, who really made 
this happen.
  With that, I yield to my colleague and friend Senator Menendez, who 
has been so important to this, so he can add his thoughts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to join Senators 
Whitehouse and Sullivan on the floor today to thank our colleagues for 
passing the legislation that we have all coauthored to combat the 
environmental crisis of plastic waste in our oceans.
  Our partnership represents both the geographic and political urgency 
behind this growing crisis. Save Our Seas 2.0 is a multifaceted effort 
that will help the United States to better prevent plastic pollution, 
respond to marine debris emergencies, and leverage U.S. foreign policy 
and international engagement to prevent and clean up foreign sources of 
plastic pollution.
  We have a responsibility to protect the health of the world's oceans, 
which regulate our climate, produce half of the Earth's oxygen supply, 
and provide food to 2.6 billion people worldwide.
  The environmental health of our world depends on healthy oceans, and 
plastic pollution and marine debris are like cholesterol clogging 
global ecosystems in countless ways. The reality is that plastic waste 
in our ocean knows no borders. What may be a plastic wrapper floating 
down a river in China today could be microplastic in your tuna salad 
tomorrow.
  Let me thank Senator Whitehouse, who has been so much engaged in our 
oceans since his coming to the Senate--well, even before that, but, 
certainly, as a leader in the Senate--and Senator Sullivan for their 
longstanding bipartisan leadership on this issue and cooperation on the 
bill.
  I was happy to have supported the original Save Our Seas Act in the 
115th Congress. Last year, when several international news stories 
exposed the tragic environmental impact of plastic on our marine 
environment, I began working on legislation to enhance U.S. 
international engagement on this truly global crisis, which served as 
the basis for title II of our bill. At the time, I was not immediately 
aware that Senators Sullivan and Whitehouse were planning a second act, 
so to speak, and I dearly appreciate being a part of the Save Our Seas 
team.
  I also want to thank Chairman Risch for supporting and advancing the 
international components of this bill through the Foreign Relations 
Committee, as well as all of the chairs and rankings who have already 
been mentioned.
  I think that advancing three component parts of the bill through all 
of these respective committees, which is no small feat, and the 20 
bipartisan cosponsors shows the Senate's broad support for action on 
plastic waste.
  New Jerseyans know all too well the threat of plastic pollution. Our 
pristine beaches attract millions of people to the Jersey Shore each 
year, and our coastal waters support everything from fishing and 
recreation to the flow of trade, to our ports and harbors. No one wants 
to swim in plastic or eat fish that fed on microplastic. That is why 25 
New Jersey townships have passed local ordinances banning or phasing 
down disposable plastic products, and

[[Page S159]]

another 26 may soon join them. There is also legislation pending in the 
New Jersey State Legislature to limit the proliferation of disposal 
plastics in New Jersey's economy.
  With 40 percent of Americans living in coastal communities, my 
constituents back home are far from the only ones grappling with the 
hazards of plastic pollution in our oceans.
  There is no question we still have work to do. As our bill heads to 
the House, I look forward to continuing these efforts with Senators 
Whitehouse and Sullivan and our cosponsors as we engage House leaders 
to act on the bill this year.
  Again, thank you to my colleagues. It is good. I know it doesn't 
always get the headlines. The essence of a good story seems to be 
conflict not cooperation, but I am thrilled to be a part of cooperation 
that could make a difference in the lives not just of our oceans but of 
our families.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Menendez and 
Senator Whitehouse again for their leadership on this.
  We have all seen the pictures and the news stories. The issue, 
though, is a severe one. The World Economic Forum has estimated that if 
we don't do anything about this big crisis of ocean debris, but 
particularly the issue of plastics in the ocean, there are estimates 
that by 2050 there will be more plastics by weight in the world's ocean 
than there are fish. We can't let that happen.
  So what we have done is we have put together this bill. As already 
mentioned, there were three different committees. There is an element 
on the domestic innovation side that creates a Marine Debris 
Foundation. That is a congressionally chartered private organization.
  Think of groups that matter to Americans. There are dozens of these 
kinds of foundations, but they are important. They send a signal that 
the Congress of the United States cares about these things. Think about 
the Red Cross, the American Legion, and the National Parks Foundation. 
These are all congressionally chartered organizations. The new Marine 
Debris Foundation will be one of them.
  The American Government is focused on this. It is an opportunity for 
the private sector, and we have seen some industries step up. There is 
a group called the Alliance to End Plastic Waste that has pledged $1.5 
billion to start addressing this problem. That is not small change. It 
is going to need that kind of money. Perhaps some of that can go into 
this foundation.
  There is an innovation prize. A lot of focus in our bill is on 
innovation so that we can solve some of the big challenges in 
chemistry--a plastic bottle that could fully biodegrade. We don't have 
that yet, but these are some of the things that the bill looks at 
doing.
  Of course, Senator Menendez talked about the very substantial foreign 
relations component because so much of the plastic waste in the oceans 
comes from countries in Asia and Africa and 10 rivers, estimating 
almost 80 to 90 percent of all of the plastic waste in all of the 
oceans. So, again, it is solvable because it is definable.
  Then, the third component is improving domestic infrastructure to 
prevent marine debris through new grants and foreign studies for waste 
management mitigation. So this covers a lot of different areas--
innovation, our domestic side, the international side.
  We have momentum. We had a great group of bipartisan Senators--
Democrats and Republicans from all over the country and from all 
political persuasions--showing that momentum. We have the Trump 
administration fully behind this. In many ways, some of their Federal 
agencies weighed in significantly to help us design this legislation, 
and now we need to get it over to the House and move it in the House 
soon and get it to the President's desk.
  So this is a good day for the oceans and a good day for bipartisan 
success in the U.S. Senate on an issue that people care about. People 
really care about making sure that we have clean oceans and we are 
making progress.
  So I just want to leave it at that, and I will ask my colleague from 
Rhode Island, who has been the real leader on this issue, to wrap it 
up.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am delighted to close this out. 
Again, I thank Senator Sullivan. I think there is reason to hope for a 
really good appropriations subcommittee hearing on this subject in the 
coming year. I think there is reason to hope for another Environmental 
and Public Works Committee full committee hearing on marine plastics. I 
expect those things will happen, and that will help us with our 
progress.
  One of the things I have come to admire about Senator Sullivan is 
that, as a colonel in the U.S. Marines, he sets himself a mission and 
then he goes about it with real vigor. One of the missions that he set 
himself was to make sure that the Trump administration followed up on 
what Save Our Seas 1.0 did.
  There were a lot of doors that were knocked on that had their hinges 
rattled by Senator Sullivan. There are a lot of administration 
officials who probably had to hold the phone an inch or so away from 
their ears because Senator Sullivan was trying to get their attention 
on this subject.
  Having seen him in action on Save Our Seas 1.0, I very much look 
forward to watching him in action on Save Our Seas 2.0 and to make sure 
that its legislative promise is fully realized in executive 
implementation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I look forward to another White House 
signing of this with all of our colleagues. I am sure that the 
administration is interested in it. You and I had a very eventful one 
over at the White House a couple years ago.
  So, again, the momentum is there. We are just going to keep building 
on it.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, on to Save Our Seas 3.0.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________