[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 96 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3276-S3279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RELATIVE TO THE DEATH OF DR. LLOYD JOHN OGILVIE, FORMER CHAPLAIN OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res.
240, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 240) relative to the death of Dr.
Lloyd John Ogilvie, Former Chaplain of the United States
Senate.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 240) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Lieutenant General Steve Basham
Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Lt. Gen. Steve
Basham, who recently departed his position as Director of Air Force
Legislative Liaison and assumes his new duties as Deputy Commander of
the U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces in Africa.
As the Director of Legislative Affairs of the Air Force, Lieutenant
General Basham worked directly with the Senate and the House of
Representatives on all aspects of organizing, training, and equipping
our airmen to project global combat power abroad. Throughout this time,
then-Major General Basham prepared the Secretary and the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force, as well as other senior Air Force leaders, for
engagements on Capitol Hill, to include extensive testimony before
congressional committees.
[[Page S3277]]
A product of some of these strategic engagements was the decision to
select Ellsworth Air Force Base as the first unit to host the B-21
Raider bomber, a strategic decision that I personally thank the
Secretary of the Air Force for making. I also thank Lieutenant General
Basham for his steadfast efforts in the deliberate decision-making
process.
In 1989, following his graduation from Western Kentucky University,
Lieutenant General Basham was commissioned through Air Force Officer
Training School and achieved his flying wings. Over the course of his
distinguished career, he has attained a command pilot rating with more
than 3,400 flying hours in the T-37, T-38, B-1, B-2, and B-52 aircraft.
He holds the honor of being one of the first four pilots to fly the B-2
stealth bomber in combat.
Throughout his career, Lieutenant General Basham has held numerous
other positions of strategic importance, including Deputy Director of
Requirements for the Joint Staff at the Pentagon and as the Director of
Strategy, Plans, and Programs for Headquarters Pacific Air Forces at
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii.
Of course, none of this could be done without the support of his wife
Angie and their two daughters, Lauren and Sarah.
On behalf of the U.S. Congress and a grateful Nation, I extend our
deepest appreciation to Lt. Gen. Steven L. Basham and his family for
their dedicated service to the Air Force and to our Nation. We wish
them all the best as they move on to his next assignment and continue
working to keep our Nation and our allies safe from potential Russian
aggression in Europe, as well as violent extremists in Africa.
There is no question that the Air Force, the Department of Defense,
and the United States will continue to benefit greatly from Lieutenant
General Basham's outstanding leadership.
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. SCHUMER. Madam 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 Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Helicopter Crash
Mr. SCHUMER. First, Madam President, on my way coming down to
Washington, I heard that a helicopter crashed onto the roof of a
building on Seventh Avenue in my hometown of New York City. We are
still learning the circumstances of the crash and the extent of the
damage, the injuries and casualty it may have caused. But, as all of
America saw after 9/11, the Fire Department of New York and the Police
Department of New York are truly some of the very, very best we have.
They are strong, they are brave, they are smart, and I have every faith
they will do their duty to protect New Yorkers and make sure everyone
is safe.
Border Security
Madam President, on another subject--the border--the President
ultimately, of course, backed off his threat of tariffs against Mexico,
but really, anyone who has observed the President's foreign policy
efforts could have predicted how this would play out. It is a pretty
simple pattern. The President stakes out a maximalist position but
never clearly defines his objectives. That way, after he backs himself
into a corner, he can use a deal of any kind, even if it is merely a
fig leaf, to justify retreating from whatever misguided policy he has
threatened. Then he declares victory, having done little or nothing to
solve the underlying problem.
Well, that is exactly what happened right here. According to public
reports, the agreement President Trump reached with Mexico contains
policies negotiated months ago--nothing more than warmed-up leftovers--
and then today, after the President tweeted that we have ``a fully
signed and documented . . . Immigration and Security deal with
Mexico,'' the Mexican Foreign Minister said that no secret deal exists.
He clarified that the only agreement reached was to revisit the issue
in the future. This is the headline of the New York Times: ``No Secret
Immigration Deal Exists With U.S., Mexico's Foreign Minister Says.'' It
is amazing how this President will just make stuff up--there is an
``L'' word here--he just makes it up, and then it is refuted.
So, to recap, in February, the President declared a bogus emergency
to build a wall he said would solve the problem. Then he made a bogus
threat to shut down the border completely, which, of course, never
materialized. Then he made a bogus threat to impose tariffs, which the
business community and Republicans in Congress rejected. And now the
President claims a bogus agreement with Mexico, which contains policies
Mexico volunteered to do months ago. Bogus, bogus, bogus.
It is no wonder our problems don't go away in this country because of
the way the President does things both on the domestic front and the
foreign policy front. What he did here is typical of the President's
game-show foreign policy: a big production without very much progress.
He generates a lot of coverage and attention around big summits, photo-
ops, scare tactics, and belligerent threats, but because the President
doesn't set clear goals, because the President doesn't have a defined
strategy about how to achieve them, and because he is impatient to
always declare victory prematurely even when it doesn't occur, his
negotiations with foreign countries are ineffective.
We saw this play out in North Korea last June. The President returned
from his meeting with Chairman Kim and tweeted: ``There is no longer a
nuclear threat from North Korea.'' One year later, North Korea
continues to conduct weapons tests. We are seeing it play out now with
Mexico, which has not agreed to anything new. And I am deeply concerned
the same pattern may play out with China--perhaps the most serious of
them all.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform China's economic
relations with the world. But despite the President's success in
getting China to the table--and he has with the tariffs--the President
has never clearly defined what an effective agreement with China looks
like. So I am afraid that, in the end, just like he did with Mexico,
the President could retreat from his position on China in exchange for
a face-saving deal that doesn't accomplish much of anything. I hope and
pray that is not the case. I hope and pray he stands strong because the
state of the future of jobs in America, of businesses in America, and
of wealth in America is at stake.
For the sake of all of those things, I hope that, unlike this charade
with Mexico, President Trump is willing to stay the course on China and
not come up with another bogus solution that doesn't solve any problem.
One final point on this matter, and a very important point, and I
hope everyone will listen because we have talked about this in the last
week or two, but so far, the media hasn't written much about it. I hope
they will today.
President Trump tweeted this morning that Democrats have no plan to
deal with the surge of migrants at the border. That is another bogus
claim. Democrats do have a plan. We proposed it, actually, last year. I
have talked about it here on the floor of the Senate two or three times
in the last 2 weeks, and it would be far more effective at dealing with
the actual problem than what President Trump announced on Friday. Let
me outline the three things in our plan.
First, we would allow asylum seekers to apply for asylum within their
own countries.
If you are a Guatemalan, a Honduran, or an El Salvadoran, your child
is threatened with being beat up, brutalized, or killed by gangs, and
your daughter is threatened with rape, you want to leave the country.
But it is a long, dangerous trek to go across Mexico. You have to pay
the coyotes a lot of money.
Let them apply for asylum in their home countries, not at the border
with the United States.
Second, we would provide security assistance to Central American
countries to crack down on the violent gangs and the drug cartels and
the human trafficking. That is what most of these people are fleeing.
If you look at their pictures, most all of them are not criminals. They
are not gang members. They are average people seeking desperate relief.
[[Page S3278]]
What we could do to stem the tide--and it wouldn't cost that much--is
crack down on violent gangs, drug cartels, and trafficking. President
Obama began to do this, and President Trump has rescinded it. It is
logical, and it could work. These countries don't have our knowledge,
our ability, or our resources to go after these horrible gangs and
these horrible drug dealers, but we can help them. We should.
Third, here at our border, we could increase the number of
immigration judges to process the cases faster so people wouldn't have
to wait so long. Their case could be adjudicated. If they meet the
asylum requirements, fine, and if they don't, they don't get in.
Those are three commonsense solutions to the problem that President
Trump has talked about. As the President's illusory deal with Mexico
continues to unravel, as the situation doesn't get better, please--
there are Republicans on the other side of the aisle who agree with
this solution. Please, Mr. President, look at this solution. It can
work. It can be bipartisan. No, you don't get to pound the table and
make a lot of demands that won't ever affect anything, but it might get
the job done. Let's give it a shot in a bipartisan way.
Election Security
Madam President, finally, on election security and my friend the
Republican leader's graveyard, which continues to grow, ever since the
Democrats won the majority in the House of Representatives, Leader
McConnell has hardly considered legislation on the floor of the Senate.
Instead of bringing up bills passed by the House, Leader McConnell has
turned the Senate, as now widely quoted and known, into a legislative
graveyard where pretty much the only thing we debate around here is
nominations. It is frustrating not just to Democrats but to Americans.
They say: Can't we get something done for the country? And it is
frustrating, I am sure, for my Republican friends who didn't come here
just to rubberstamp nominees.
One of my biggest frustrations about Leader McConnell's legislative
graveyard is that even on the nonpartisan issues, there is virtually no
movement. Take election security. We all know--on a good day, even
President Trump agrees--the Russians interfered in our elections in
2016. That is uncontroverted. Senior intelligence officials and
Director Wray, the head of the FBI--well-regarded and appointed by the
President--issued multiple warnings that foreign powers will try to
interfere in our elections again in 2020.
We have to make sure our election systems are resilient and our cyber
defenses are up to date. There is nothing partisan about that. When a
foreign country can twist an American election one way or the other,
that eats at the wellspring of our democracy. We shouldn't allow it. So
why, when there is bipartisan legislation, is Leader McConnell just
sitting on his hands and refusing to bring it up? He is not moving any
legislation having to do with election security--Democrat, Republican,
or, best of all, bipartisan. We have multiple bipartisan bills that
would harden our election infrastructure and punish any adversary that
tries to interfere in our elections. Why will Leader McConnell not
bring them to the floor?
Now, I am certainly glad that he has agreed to my request to at least
hold a secure briefing on the risks we face in the next election. I am
looking forward to a date soon. I hope the leader will update us all on
when it might be scheduled. It should be ASAP. This is serious stuff.
The Founding Fathers were worried about foreign interference in our
elections, and in our modern digital world it has taken a new, new
dangerous turn.
But a briefing alone isn't enough. We have to take legislative
action. Democrats and Republicans, we all know, disagree on a whole lot
of issues, but surely we can all agree that nothing matters more in our
democracy than defending the integrity of our elections, and I hope
that we as a body can take bipartisan action soon.
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. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
247th Anniversary of the ``Gaspee'' Raid
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I come to the floor of the Senate
today, as I do every year at this time, to remember what Rhode Island
abolitionist Frances Whipple McDougall called ``the first blood [drawn]
in the Revolution.'' This past Sunday marked the 247th anniversary of
the Gaspee raid.
This is an image of what happened to the Gaspee. We ought to
remember. Most Americans do not know about the Gaspee Affair. They have
learned about a far tamer incident in Boston Harbor a year later, when
some tipsy Bostonians toppled bales of tea into the water.
I get why Bostonians are proud of their tea party. It is a decent
story that tea was ruined, the British East India Company was out some
money, the Crown got angry, and the American patriots gained notoriety
and momentum for our cause.
But the Gaspee raid offers so much more--a true villain, a daring
escape, a vigorous call to action, the storming of a ship, the
vanquishing of an enemy, a blast in the night, and an earlier stirring
of revolutionary spirit.
The story begins in the 1760s, with King George and the English
Parliament trying to raise money. The Crown needed to recoup losses
from expensive recent wars, and the Colonies seemed like a convenient
place to turn. Their solution was to allow the powerful British Navy to
enforce customs laws, transforming naval officers into well-armed tax
collectors.
The Admiralty commissioned sloops and schooners to troll the
Colonies' most profitable waters for tax revenue. In Narragansett Bay
the Crown sent Lieutenant William Dudingston in an eight-gun schooner,
the Gaspee. The boat and its captain quickly earned a nasty reputation.
Dudingston stopped virtually every vessel in sight, from the biggest
schooners to the smallest packet boats. He harassed sailors, seized
cargo, and annexed Rhode Island vessels, merchants, and watermen, often
on shaky or nonexistent charges.
Historian George Washington Greene, a Rhode Islander and grandson of
Rhode Island's legendary Revolutionary War hero, Major General
Nathaniel Greene, described Dudingston's conduct this way:
Not contented with performing the duties of his office,
still vexatious even when considerately executed, he
multiplied its annoyances by a thousand acts of petty
tyranny. He stopped vessels of every kind without
discrimination--ships just from sea and market boats on their
way to Providence and Newport with their perishable freights,
and to increase the indignity refused to show his commission
or the authority by which he acted.
A further insult, Dudingston sent prisoners and cargo to Boston to
face justice before a British tribunal, not the Rhode Island court
established in Newport. This violated the Colony's agreement with the
Crown to adjudicate such disputes on Rhode Island's soil, an offense to
our Colony's sovereignty.
From winter to spring of 1772, tensions in Narragansett Bay rose.
Among the incidents involving the loathed Gaspee, Dudingston
commandeered Fortune, the ship belonging to the influential merchant
and later Revolutionary War hero, Nathaniel Greene. Rhode Islander
Daniel Harrington notes in a 2017 Providence Journal article that ``the
patriotic fervor'' that had swept ``the colonies [had] seemed to elude
[Greene]--until Dudingston snagged his Fortune and ignited the
righteous spirit of resentment.''
When Greene later led the Continental Army's successful Southern
Campaign, British General Cornwallis would lament: ``That damned Greene
is more dangerous than Washington.'' The ignited spirit was a forceful
one.
On June 9, 1772, the coastal trader Hannah caught Lieutenant
Dudingston's eye as she sailed up Narragansett Bay en route to
Providence. The Gaspee pursued the Hannah and ordered her to stop for
inspection. The Hannah refused. The Gaspee fired a warning shot. The
Hannah sailed on.
Off Warwick's shore, near Pawtuxet Village, things came to a head.
According to the account of Rhode Islander Ephraim Bowen, the Hannah's
skipper, Benjamin Lindsey, sailed his lighter boat over shallows around
Namquid
[[Page S3279]]
Point. Dudingston followed in chase taking his Gaspee, a heavier boat,
into waters too shallow for it. The Gaspee ran aground in a falling
tide.
The Hannah sped on to Providence. Captain Lindsey alerted respected
local merchant John Brown, later a founder of Brown University. Brown
``immediately concluded that [the Gaspee] would remain immovable until
after midnight,'' Ephraim Bowen recalls, and saw what he calls the
``opportunity offered of putting an end to the trouble and vexation she
daily caused.''
A Providence man named Daniel Pearce ``passed along the main street,
beating a drum and informing the inhabitants of the fact that the
Gaspee was aground on Namquid Point and would not float until 3 o'clock
the next morning,'' Bowen recalled. Pearce invited ``those persons who
felt a disposition to go and destroy that troublesome vessel to repair
in the evening to Mr. James Sabin's house,'' presumably for some strong
spirits and discussion of an attack.
Once assembled and refreshed, the Rhode Islanders set off into a
moonless night in eight longboats with muffled oars. The group's
``powder was prepared and bullets run'' as it ``set forth on its
mission of vengeance,'' George Washington Green recorded.
Aboard the Gaspee, the seaman standing watch, Bartholomew Cheever,
first thought he saw light dancing off rocks in the near-blackness.
Suddenly, however, Cheever realized the glints he saw were more than
rocks. The Rhode Islanders and their long boats encircled the Gaspee.
Cheever alerted Dudingston, and Dudingston ordered his men to fire on
the assault party. The Rhode Islanders, however, outnumbered the
British crew by more than 4 to 1 and quickly overwhelmed the Gaspee. A
brief and decisive melee ensued. Soon, Dudingston lay on the
quarterdeck with musket wounds to his arm and groin. The Gaspee would
never again be under British command.
The Rhode Islanders ferried the British crew to shore, where they
were awaited by the Pawtuxet Rangers, a group that exists still today.
The raiders then returned once more to set fire to the Gaspee. The fire
burned until it reached the powder magazines below the Gaspee's decks,
and when the fire reached the magazines, the Gaspee was blown to bits
and was no more.
King George soon learned of the Gaspee raid and was not pleased. The
raiders would face charges of treason, he said, and the gallows, were
they to be found guilty and convicted. The Crown put up the colossal
reward of 500 pounds sterling for the capture of the rebels--50 times
what a colonial farmer would earn in a year.
No Rhode Islander would give up the raiders. Try as they might,
British authorities never found and never convicted the brave raiders
who burned the Gaspee. Word of the Gaspee raid spread swiftly through
the Colonies and stirred revolutionary spirit. George Washington was
actually hosting a British officer when he heard the story. The officer
exclaimed that the Rhode Islanders ought to be ``phlebotomized'' and
that he would personally march 5,000 British regulars ``from Boston to
Charleston, South Carolina, and put down all opposition to the revenue
acts.'' To that assertion, Washington shot back:
I question not, Sir, that you could march from Boston into
Charleston, South Carolina, at the head of 5,000 British
regulars; but do you mean to say, Sir, that you could do so,
as a friend, or as an enemy? If as the latter, and you will
allow me a few weeks' notice of your intention, I will engage
to give you a handsome check with the Virginia riflemen
alone.
Washington punctuated his retort, as an onlooker reported, by
``[striking] the table so violently with his clenched hand that some
wine glasses and a decanter near him with difficulty maintained their
upright positions.''
Every year, Rhode Islanders gather for a celebration and parade
through Warwick, the neighborhood off of which this event took place.
We gather to remember the daring assault on the Gaspee. We recall our
forebears' resolve for independence, freedom of religion, and the rule
of law. We are also glad to remember that Rhode Islanders are not to be
trifled with. This is a story worth remembering.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Maine.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1766
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Holte
nomination?
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris),
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
(Ms. McSALLY assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 145 Ex.]
YEAS--60
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Carper
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--35
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Alexander
Capito
Harris
Klobuchar
Warren
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining
votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________